PDA

View Full Version : Dems. dangerous on security...... ...... ......



brokensickle
03 Apr 07,, 09:10
LIBS: LAWSUITS 1ST, SAFETY 2ND
DEBRA BURLINGAME
By DEBRA BURLINGAME
King: Shielding public from pro-terror suits.April 2, 2007 -- WHY must Democrats constantly defend against charges that they can't be trusted on issues of national security? Well, consider what went on in the House of Representatives last Wednesday night.

Various members of the House majority had just spent 30 minutes in self-praise over the $7.3 billion transportation-security bill, calling it long-overdue relief for millions of Americans. Then Rep. Peter King (R-L.I.) rose to propose an amendment directed at a dangerous new threat to national security.

His motion was a response to the "John Doe" lawsuit filed by six "Flying Imams." Last November, the six were ejected from a US Airways flight after their fellow passengers reported what they saw as strange and disturbing behavior. The imams claim that they were victims of "intentional" and "malicious" discrimination and are seeking compensation, including punitive damages - from the airlines, and also from the passengers and crew, who are identified in the suit as "John Does" to be served with legal papers once a court order reveals their actual identities.

That lawsuit is a dangerous threat aimed at a vital component of public-transit security - the public itself.

King explained as much, speaking on behalf of his amendment, which would protect anyone who makes a reasonable, good-faith report of suspicious activity from being the target of a lawsuit. "We have an enemy which is constantly adapting," King said Wednesday. "We have to think outside the box."

That enemy, of course is al Qaeda - which is obsessed with slaughtering innocents using public transportation. There was Madrid's "3/11" - 10 bombs detonated on four trains at the height of the morning rush hour, killing 191 and injuring 2,050. And London's "7/7" - four suicide bombers in the Underground and on a double-decker bus, resulting in 52 dead and 700 injured.

In New York City alone, 7 million people use mass transit every day. With 400 subway stations with 1,500 entrances, the trains are a "soft" target - one the NYPD can't adequately protect without help from the public.

Every New York City rail and transit rider has seen the signs: "If you see something, say something." The principle is obvious - in an age of terror, we should all have our eyes open. If the imams' lawsuit prospers, how many people won't say something - for fear of being sued?

Rep. Steve Pearce (R-N.M.), who'd offered an earlier bill to protect good Samaritans who alert officials, rose to speak after King. "If we allow these suits to go forward," he warned the House, "it will have a chilling effect on the future of American security . . . If we are serious about fighting terrorism, if we are serious about protecting Americans and asking them to help protect each other, then we must pass this motion."

This is the kind of no-brainer legislation that every member of Congress should vigorously support. Yet House Democrats reacted to King's proposal as if he'd thrown a bomb into the House chamber itself.

According to witnesses in the gallery and on the floor, Speaker Nancy Pelosi displayed a classic deer-in-the headlights look as the Democratic leadership went into a huddle - plainly eager, not to embrace this common-sense measure, but to sidetrack it.

Meanwhile, Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, took the floor to oppose King's motion - and to defend the lawsuit against John Does. "We should be tolerant," he argued; people shouldn't be singled out because they "look different."

In fact, the flying imams triggered concerns by a variety of unusual actions, as well as words that roused the concern of another Arabic-speaking passenger. Witnesses say that House members started booing Thompson.

Finally, a member of the leadership realized how this would look to Americans watching on C-SPAN: Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.) was seen staring at Thompson and repeatedly drawing his hand across his throat - an urgent signal to get off the floor.

With Democrats realizing they couldn't argue against King's measure, it went to a vote, and passed, 304 to 121

Every one of those 121 votes aimed at defeating protection for "John Does" was a Democrat - indeed, more than half of all Democrats present voted "nay."

And, with the exception of Rep. Anthony Weiner (Brooklyn), Democrats from the New York-New Jersey metro area led the way in voting against it.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler, whose district includes Ground Zero, voted no. So did Rep. Carolyn Maloney, whose district includes Midtown, and Rep. Nita Lowey, who lost dozens of Westchester neighbors on 9/11.

Rep. Bill Pascrelle hails from New Jersey, the home of 700 9/11 victims. Earlier that night, he had praised the bill's provision protecting government whistleblowers from retaliation. But he voted against such protection for John Does who don't have government jobs.

The story isn't over yet. To become law, this measure must also pass the Senate - and survive House-Senate conference, where the leadership might try to quietly excise King's reform.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) will certainly push for that. After all, the radical "civil rights" group - which supports the terrorists of Hamas and has received millions in funding from Saudi Arabia - is paying the lawyers in the "Flying Imams" lawsuit.

Nihad Awad, CAIR's executive director, defends the suit's targeting of ordinary citizens. The clerics, he explains, will only sue passengers who made false reports or acted in bad faith. But the suit cites an "elderly couple" who watched the imams in the gate area and then made a cellphone call. How will CAIR determine who the couple called and whether anything they did was intended to discriminate against the imams, without first finding out their names and forcing them to defend against the charge? What about their civil rights?

In the future, who will be willing to risk their savings in the face a potential lawsuit underwritten by wealthy Middle Eastern donors?

If King's measure becomes law, that worry will vanish. But the bill will have to survive the instinct of Congress' Democratic leadership to pander to political correctness and CAIR's special-interest pressure.

Democrats who don't want to be branded as soft on national security should remember the image of Rahm Emanuel on the House floor, drawing his hand across his neck.

Debra Burlingame is sister of Charles F. "Chic" Burlingame, pilot of American Airlines flight 77, which was hijacked and crashed at the Pentagon on 9/11.



Six lovable little fuzz balls i'm sure.:rolleyes:

The Dems. tolerance is killing us.:eek: And just so they can garner votes for the next election.:mad: What depths will the sink to to bring socialism to the USA?:frown:



Ivan

Ray
03 Apr 07,, 10:15
A Catch 22!

If you were to wear a beard and worked your worry beads because you were flying to be at your Mother's death bed and I got you chucked out of the aircraft as a could be terrorist, what would be your reaction?

I would have been furious if I am not allowed to go by bus, train or aircraft, just because I have a beard and worry beads.

In other words, I am a a prisoner of other peoples' insecurity.

If in Saudi Arabia, you faced the same situation as a white and they took you to be a CIA agent and not let you go your way, how would that be?

One has to be reasonably cautious, but not infringe on one's individual liberty. Tough, but then that is the difference of a democracy and a dictatorship.

Saddam disliked Shias and so why did the US hold it against him? He just killed those guys and not keep them as living deads which people are when their individual freedom is denied!

Frivolous complaints must be addressed and those who are frivolous must be taken to task.

Well, that is how I look at it. Maybe it is my cultural difference and my penchant for true democracy and not, however, licence! It could be also the British influence in India of going easy towards ambiguity and let democratic process take the issue in hand.

Not that I love Imams!

Julie
03 Apr 07,, 16:17
In other words, I am a a prisoner of other peoples' insecurity.Excellent choice of words.....that's the way I feel.

mtnbiker
03 Apr 07,, 19:07
Excellent choice of words.....that's the way I feel.


The case in Minnesota with the 6 Imam's was hardly "people's insecurity". Read up on what actually happened before you jump to conclusions.

Julie
03 Apr 07,, 19:29
The case in Minnesota with the 6 Imam's was hardly "people's insecurity". Read up on what actually happened before you jump to conclusions.I did read it, and I still say the same thing because I DO NOT FLY. Never have, never will.

Now, having said that, there is still a fine line to be drawn as to security and prejudism concerning the color of one's skin, and lawmakers need to work together to find it, because if they don't, it will only put everyone at greater risk.

gunnut
03 Apr 07,, 19:37
A Catch 22!

If you were to wear a beard and worked your worry beads because you were flying to be at your Mother's death bed and I got you chucked out of the aircraft as a could be terrorist, what would be your reaction?

Sir, those flying imams did not behave like normal passengers. They sat in the configuration of the 9-11 hijackers; praying before the take-off; asked for seatbelt extentions, which can be used as weapons when none of them required one.

These unusual behaviors aroused suspicions.

Some passengers expressed concern and the airline removed them from the plane. I thought it was a very responsible and prudent move on the airline's part.

People who were denied services because they behaved suspiciously should not have the right to sue.

Ray
03 Apr 07,, 19:38
The case in Minnesota with the 6 Imam's was hardly "people's insecurity". Read up on what actually happened before you jump to conclusions.

What I read up was:


His motion was a response to the "John Doe" lawsuit filed by six "Flying Imams." Last November, the six were ejected from a US Airways flight after their fellow passengers reported what they saw as strange and disturbing behavior. The imams claim that they were victims of "intentional" and "malicious" discrimination and are seeking compensation, including punitive damages - from the airlines, and also from the passengers and crew, who are identified in the suit as "John Does" to be served with legal papers once a court order reveals their actual identities.


Now, what is so sinister?

Maybe you have some inside information. It would sure help if you did mention it here so that a better perspective could be arrived at.

Or else, your statement is a glib one without any backing of your claim. Please understand that one would like to know the truth of any issue and not just bland one liners prompted by pique without any substantiation.

If these Imams are terrorists, then sure they require to be taken to task and the jailed and the key thrown away. But just because they are Imam, it does not make them terrorists and the article does not give any clue towards the same and instead is a mere outpouring of bile against Democrats.

If it is evil to be Democrats as being Imam, please lock them up and throw away the key. At least, it will stop the whine of Republican and the act of being bad losers.

To be clear, I have no love lost for either Republican or Democrat. They are all the same to me, but I sure find it most amusing to see how non issues are made into national crisis to do down either side. Juvenile, to say the least!

Bluesman
03 Apr 07,, 20:50
You got it wrong, Ray. Or rather, you got it incomplete.

It was just as gunnut said:
1. Loud praying, chanting 'Allah, Allah, Allah' over and over, (which, by the way, is NOT a standard Muslim prayer or religious practice, but one that could not escape the attention of the passenger gate area, even if they should be the most ignorant American lout that only knew a single Muslim word).
2. They engaged in a loud and spritied political discussion, mentioning Saddam Hussein and other subjects, being noticably angry and made caustic comments about the current administration. This conversation was in English, although each man spoke Arabic. Once again, the passenger gate are was treated to the entire discussion.
2. Sitting not in their assigned seats, but in the configuration of the hijack teams on 9/11. If they had wanted the seats they attempted to sit in, they could have been requested when the flights were booked, but that may not have come to the attention of crew or other passengers. They were seen together in a group by the other passengers who would perceive they were traveling together, then, upon boarding, they split into a front pair, a middle pair, and a rear pair, NOT in their assigned seats. Again, it was made noticeable by doing this when boarding, and NOT when booking.
3. They asked for seatbelt extensions - EACH ONE of the six, even though NONE of the men were heavy enough to require them.

This was no hijacking attempt. This wasn't even a trial run, or a probe of defenses.

This was a SET-UP. They knew they were going to be challenged; they knew they were going to be scrutinized, possibly even taken off the flight, maybe even arrested.

THAT was the PLAN; THAT was the OBJECTIVE.

And in the continuing use of strategic judo, one of our best countermeasures to terrorist activity (the watchfulness of our citizens) was going to be neutralized by using one of our greatest freedoms: access to the courts. By suing anyone that would 'display their prejudice' by instantly notifying the authorities of their suspicions (actively being pushed in the other passengers' faces as hard as the imams could manage), the resulting intimidation would provide a measure of security to future terrorist activity.

THAT is what is so sinister.

jame$thegreat
03 Apr 07,, 23:32
By the desciption of the events that gunnut and bluesman brought forward I think that bluesman was right in saying that it was a set-up. They specifically were atempting to be noticed, they didnt act as they normally would and get harrassed, rather they acted suspicious and were treated accordingly.

FibrillatorD
04 Apr 07,, 01:18
They are all the same to me, but I sure find it most amusing to see how non issues are made into national crisis to do down either side. Juvenile, to say the least!

That's exactly it. There are too paranoias on display with the debate over this legislation: that without this legislation people will somehow be scared into keeping quiet over legitimately suspicious behavior (which the Imam's behavior, in this case, was), and the fear that minorities are chomping at the bit to find a reason to sue white people.

Ray
04 Apr 07,, 03:21
Bluesman,

Gunnut's comments are not authenticated. Therefore, it would be wrong of me to base my comments on that post, even if it is true. More so, since this is a sensitive issue, authentication is required. Or else, it remains an opinion, as far as I am concerned, notwithstanding that I like Gunnut.

I have seen many flyers who take out their worry beads and say Hail Mary a couple of time or Moslems or Hindus chanting from their scriptures and even one chap who repeatedly wanted to go to the toilet just as the aircraft was taxiing. They did not turn out to be Islamist fundamentalists and my country is a real soft state with people going overboard to prove 'more secular than Thou'!

As I have said, I dislike these over religious types, but then that does not mean I go bonkers!

You are from the Intelligence. Now, tell me, who will draw attention to themselves if they are aiming to do something nasty?

Did Oswald go to town and say that he was going to assassinate JFK? And if he did, would the police etc stay moribund?

Now, if these Imams were trying to be aggravating, let the court decide.

It is still odd that one cannot express support for Saddam in the land of Democracy!

The cabin staff should have asked these Imams to sit in their proper seating, unless it was a free seating aircraft. Even so, some excuse could have been given to seat these Imam as desired by the cabin staff and anyway, there are Air Marshalls on US flights!

So, why get paranoid?

Bluesman
04 Apr 07,, 04:29
You are from the Intelligence. Now, tell me, who will draw attention to themselves if they are aiming to do something nasty?

You need to re-read my post. You COMPLETELY missed the point.

The nasty thing they're attempting was NOT a hijacking, and specifically required that they be noticed. The nasty thing they're attempting is happening NOW, and was NEVER anything that threatened the airplane, the passengers and the crew.

The nasty thing they're attempting came LATER, long after the incident at the airport. Do you follow that?

Ray
04 Apr 07,, 04:31
Real nasty, what?

The court will find out how nasty they are! They will be booked for aggravating (I am sure there is some legal stuff to make it appear horrid). In India, disrupting flight safety is taken very seriously in a legal sense. One girl sent an SMS that the aircraft could be hijacked (she overheard some weird conversion) and she was put in jail fordisrupting the flight!

I got you the first time. Maybe you did not follow my line of stating so! ;) :)

Bluesman
04 Apr 07,, 05:02
Real nasty, what?

The court will find out how nasty they are! They will be booked for aggravating (I am sure there is some legal stuff to make it appear horrid). In India, disrupting flight safety is taken very seriously in a legal sense. One girl sent an SMS that the aircraft could be hijacked (she overheard some weird conversion) and she was put in jail fordisrupting the flight!

I got you the first time. Maybe you did not follow my line of stating so! ;) :)

No, you did not.

Sure, the courts WILL determine one way or another. But nothing the imams did was illegal, and their suit may get them nowhere. BUT they're allowed to bring suit, and there can be no meaningful restrictions on that right without the proposed 'John Doe Protection Act' (which is EXACTLY why it's being fought by the usual suspects: Arab 'civil rights' groups and Democrats). And these citizens that reported the outrageously-provocative behavior will be obliged to defend themselves from a deep-pockets organization's continuous, on-going, drawn-out and expensive legal fight. In other words, they'll be financially ruined for attempting to do a common-sense civic duty.

The example you gave of the Indian girl attempting to do the Right Thing by reporting in good faith what she thought may have been threats to the aircraft? Well, I bet she'll never do THAT again, will she? And anybody that knows about her case will dam' well never report anything, either: it can land one in JAIL!:eek:

So. You tell me this: how interested will John Q. Public be in getting involved in a matter that may cost them everything they have, over what can be justified away as probably nothing, and besides: maybe some other fool will risk his family's well-being by notifying the authorities.

IT WAS A SET-UP.

1010011010
04 Apr 07,, 05:16
I'd have voted against that rider simply because I do not agree that it's necessary (wait and see how the suit plays out), and if one buys the idea that the whole Imam fiasco is a conspired scenario by an organized and intelligent adversary... I'd expect them to find a way to exploit a newly granted protection to "anyone making a reasonable good-faith report".

What do we do with a campaign of middle-eastern-type passengers making "reasonable good-faith reports of suspicious activity" against white-bread-american-type passengers?

And, honestly, I really would be fine with people having to come to grips with the idea that protecting themselves carries with it some amount of risk. We don't gain anything by perpetuating the myth that absolute safety or security is a realistic (or even theoretically possible) goal.

Shipwreck
04 Apr 07,, 09:11
1. Loud praying, chanting 'Allah, Allah, Allah' over and over, (which, by the way, is NOT a standard Muslim prayer or religious practice, but one that could not escape the attention of the passenger gate area, even if they should be the most ignorant American lout that only knew a single Muslim word).

The word Allah is found at the very beginning of the Sura Al-Fatiha.

The first verse of this Sura, especially the opening fragment Bism' Allah, is one of the most ubiquitious in the Muslim world.

The verse itself appears at the very start of every Sura (except for Sura at-Tawbah) and is systematically said before reciting a sura or part of a sura during the daily prayer.

The fragment Bism' Allah is commonly used to invoke God's blessing before an undertaking like a plane trip just to use this example.

Not to mention many other expressions containing the word Allah that are frequently used in everyday speech : Alhamdul' Allah, Insh' Allah, Subhan' Allah,...

That Muslims, especially clerics, may repeat the word Allah several times in the same sentence is hardly an unusual thing... :rolleyes:

Parihaka
04 Apr 07,, 11:56
The word Allah is found at the very beginning of the Sura Al-Fatiha.

The first verse of this Sura, especially the opening fragment Bism' Allah, is one of the most ubiquitious in the Muslim world.

The verse itself appears at the very start of every Sura (except for Sura at-Tawbah) and is systematically said before reciting a sura or part of a sura during the daily prayer.

The fragment Bism' Allah is commonly used to invoke God's blessing before an undertaking like a plane trip just to use this example.

Not to mention many other expressions containing the word Allah that are frequently used in everyday speech : Alhamdul' Allah, Insh' Allah, Subhan' Allah,...

That Muslims, especially clerics, may repeat the word Allah several times in the same sentence is hardly an unusual thing... :rolleyes:

Really? So the two muslims at work that I know, as well as the young lady we're hosting at home at the moment should be wandering around saying Allah all the time?
And those guys on aeroplanes (you know how you tend to notice the muslims nowadays) who don't spend all their time chanting Allah, Allah, Allah: well they just must not be very devout then I guess?

Shipwreck
04 Apr 07,, 12:16
Really? So the two muslims at work that I know, as well as the young lady we're hosting at home at the moment should be wandering around saying Allah all the time?

Those 3 Muslims you know must be fervent adepts of Taqiyya. :biggrin:

Canmoore
04 Apr 07,, 13:31
I have seen many flyers who take out their worry beads and say Hail Mary a couple of time or Moslems or Hindus chanting from their scriptures and even one chap who repeatedly wanted to go to the toilet just as the aircraft was taxiing. They did not turn out to be Islamist fundamentalists and my country is a real soft state with people going overboard to prove 'more secular than Thou'!

Ray, this reminds me of a cartoon where Wile coyote dresses up as a Sheep to try and get into the flock, and steal a Sheep. However, the guard dog is always on watch to make sure that the coyote never suceeds.

What will happen if you take away that guard dog, or at the very least tell the guard dog not to throw out those suspicious looking sheep?

glyn
04 Apr 07,, 15:50
Those 3 Muslims you know must be fervent adepts of Taqiyya. :biggrin:

Shipwreck, you must try to remember that we are not all polymaths:) What on earth is Taqiyya?:confused: Not a Mexican drink, I suppose?:biggrin:

Ray
04 Apr 07,, 16:16
Parihaka,

It might sound ridiculous to you, but Moslems use Inshallah like a verbal crutch.

Since you watch cricket, just listen to the Pak cricket captain, Inzzy, when he speaks in Urdu. You would be left wondering whether he is talking of cricket or Allah!

Takkiya or Taqiyya, if I have understood Shipwreck correctly, is the the permission in Islam to carry out Religious Deception. It is not a Mexican drink. it is powerful religious opiate! ;) :)

Before anything a Moslem does he has to say Bismillah ar Rehaman ar Rahim.



The significance of Bismillah
by Dr. Basharat Ahmad



(This article occurs at the commencement of Anwar-ul-Quran, and was originally translated by Yahya Adnan Ahmad.)

Bismillah ar-rahman ar-rahim: "In (or with) the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful."

Not only does the Holy Quran begin with this verse, but it also heads every chapter of the Quran, except for Chapter 9. This verse is a part of the Quranic revelation and through which the Holy Prophet distinguished the separation of the various chapters. In short, this verse keeps on recurring and possesses such depth that it has been said that just as the Fatihah (the first chapter of the Quran) summarizes the entire Holy Quran so does this verse summarize the Fatihah. In other words this verse is the summary of the summary of the Quran. Therefore, I will make a general commentary on this verse, so that it will not be necessary to comment on this verse at the beginning of every chapter. It may be noted, however, that like the daily sun, this verse too shines with a new splendour and power at the beginning of each chapter of the Quran.
Meaning
This verse is translated as "In (or with) the name of Allah, who is Beneficent and Merciful". Here, the particle "Bi" (meaning in or with) in the word "Bism" represents a call for help. So the verse means:

"With the help of the name of Allah..."

Now it is apparent that a verb or action is implied in this sentence and by studying the Quran one realizes that this verb is iqra which means 'read' or 'recite'. This is in line with the hadith where it is written that an angel appeared to the Holy Prophet, while he was engaged in his usual worship of God at the cave of Hira. The angel said: iqra, i.e. read. The Holy Prophet replied: "I do not know how to read". The angel repeated the same words and the Holy Prophet repeated his answer. And so it happened three times. The fourth time the angel said: Iqra bismi rabbi-ka alladhi khalaq, i.e. read in the name of your Lord who created (the Holy Quran, 95:1). Then the Holy Prophet started reciting. So it is clear that the verb implied before "In the Name of Allah" is iqra, i.e. to read or recite with the name of Allah. This verb is not explicitly stated because when a person recites the Quran, the use of the word iqra, which is a command, would not be eloquent. The worshipper at that time is fulfilling the order. Therefore at the time of recitation the implied verb is aqrau, i.e. "I read". The subtlety in this is that when the revelation descended from God, then because the sentence reflects a command of God, so the implied verb is iqra, i.e. "Read" (imperative), and when the worshipper recites the Quran then because he is at that time fulfilling the commandment of God, the implied verb would be understood to be aqrau i.e. "I read or recite with the help of the name of God..."

Another advantage of keeping the verb implicit is that when a person recites bismillah ar-rahman ar-rahim at the beginning of any work then whatever he is going to do would be considered implied in the sentence. That is, this call for God's help is not restricted to the recitation of the Holy Quran but is asked for at the beginning of each and every work so that God's help is asked for in that work. Thus in the hadith "kul amr la yabd fihi bismillah ar-rahman ar-rahim fa huwa ajzam," that is "any work started without reciting bismillah ar-rahman ar-rahim is without blessing", and certainly if any person starts his works by asking for the help of God then his work will be blessed.
The word Allah
To understand the meaning of the two attributes of God ar-rahman and ar-rahim specially mentioned here, it is necessary to study the meaning of these words. Allah is the personal name of God the most high, and this is the greatest name and incorporates within it all the other names of God. It is certainly not derived from ilah (God) for ilah is used for that which is worshipped besides God, whereas the word Allah has never, either before or after the advent of Islam, been used for any other object of worship. Nor is "Allah" a shortened form of al-ilah (the God), for if it were so then when the particle of invocation ya (O!) preceded it, then al would be dropped. For instance, al-Rahman (The Beneficent, pronounced ar-Rahman) is a name of God. When the particle ya precedes it, the al is dropped. We call on God by saying: ya Rahman (O Beneficent!) and not as ya al-rahman (O the Beneficent!). In the same way if Al in Allah was an addition to the word ilah then on using the invocative ya, the prefix Al would be dropped and instead of saying ya Allah (O Allah) we would say ya ilah. But this is not what happens, so it is apparent that Al is not a prefix to ilah but is an integral part of the word Allah.

To sum up, Allah is an independent word which is the personal name of God, and this is unique to the Arabic language as no other language has a personal name for God. The Quran itself explains the meaning of the name Allah where it states:

La-hu al-asma al-husna
"To him belong (all) the beautiful names." (20:8)

That is, Allah means a being who possesses the complete perfect attributes. Now no attribute is perfect unless it possesses within itself both Husn (beauty) and Ihsan (beneficence).That is, on the one hand the attribute has no fault, flaw or dependency and is thus perfect in its Husn and on the other hand its Ihsan, that is the benefits of the attribute, should also be reaching creation. For instance generosity is a husn but no matter to what extent it is present in any being, until its Ihsan, that is its beneficence, reaches some other being, then until that time it is of no import whether that attribute exists or does not exist. That is why God's attributes are not only perfect in their Husn (Goodness/beauty) but are also perfect in their Ihsan (Beneficence) and it is the blessing of these attributes which is responsible for the emergence and sustenance of the entire creation.
Rahman and Rahim
Ar-rahman (the beneficent) is he whose generosity is so great that before the birth of man and without any effort or labour on man's part, the entire resources required for his sustenance were provided while Ar-rahim refers to the mercy which is granted repeatedly, and these attributes manifest themselves time and again and have an excellent and improving effect on each person's actions. That is why it is stated in the Hadith that God most high, is the rahman (beneficent) of this world and the rahim (merciful) of the hereafter. This is because Rahman before the birth of man, merely out of his beneficence, provided the entire resources for the sustenance and progress of man. So this entire world is a manifestation of the attribute Rahman. The attribute Rahim rewards man for good works and this is fully manifested in the hereafter. That is, the initial resources are provided to man through Rahman and when man through effort takes advantage of these resources, the results achieved are decided through Rahim. Land, water, fire, the sun, the moon, rain etc. exist due to the stipulation of the attribute Rahman. Man's labour of ploughing and watering the land, is rewarded manifold through the necessary stipulation of the attribute Rahim,so that each seed sown can be returned seven hundred fold. In the same way eyes, ears, hands, feet, intelligence and knowledge are all a manifestation of God's Rahman (beneficence). When man utilizes these resources and gets excellent results this is necessary stipulation of the attribute Rahim.

So when a person starts a work by reciting Bismillah ar-rahman ar-rahim he acknowledges and thanks God the most high for the blessings which God provided merely out of the demands of his attribute of Rahman. On the one hand man is asking God's help for knowledge, provided due to the attribute Rahman, of the right path to achieve his objective and on the other hand he is asking God's help, provided through the attribute Rahim, that the works he carries out produce excellent results. For example when a surgeon recites Bismillah ar-rahman ar-rahim before an operation then at that time his recitation is a prayer of help from God. He acknowledges God's attribute of Rahman has provided him eyes, ears, hands, feet, instruments and medicine and he uses them. But furthermore he seeks that God through the attribute Rahman to provide him with the correct knowledge and lead him on the correct path so that he would achieve his purpose. From God's attribute Rahim he seeks help that the results of the application of his surgical knowledge are successful.

Similarly at a time of reading the Quran when a person recites Bismillah ar-rahman ar-rahim he acknowledges this blessing of God, that merely due to God's attribute of Rahman (beneficence) a blessing such as the Quran was granted. As the Quran itself states:

Al-Rahman `alam al-Quran
"the Beneficent, He taught the Quran". (55:1-2)

Now at this time of taking advantage of the Quran he seeks from the attribute al-Rahman that true knowledge of the Quran, which when acted upon would lead to achieving his purpose in life and from the attribute al-Rahim he seeks help that his good actions would produce excellent results. In other words from the attribute Rahman he seeks excellence in knowledge and from the attribute Rahim he seeks excellence in works. It is apparent in this call for help both this world and the hereafter are included. To be successful in the world it is essential to possess correct knowledge for without correct and complete knowledge no action, whether for the world or the hereafter, produces effective or correct results. And unless the results of works are correct and complete there can be no success in the hereafter. The Quran contains all the principles and guidance, by acting upon which, man can achieve the goodness of this world and the hereafter. So at the time of the recitation of the Quran, the prayer and call for help to God that man utters in the form of Bismillah ar-rahman ar-rahim means that from God's attribute Rahman he seeks such a complete knowledge of this perfect Book of God, that acting in accordance with this knowledge would lead him to inherit the goodness of this world and the hereafter. From the attribute Rahim he seeks that his works be of such perfection that from them would be produced excellent and better results.
Summary of Fatiha
This is also the summary of the first Chapter of the Quran Al-Fatihah: The call for help in Bismillah (In the name of God) in truth stands together with iya-ka na`badu wa iya-ka nasta`in which means "thee do we worship and thee do we ask for help". The attribute Rahman contains the prayer ihdina sirat al-mustaqim which means guide us on the correct path. And it is apparent that this correct path is found through correct and complete knowledge which is necessary stipulation of the attribute Rahman. The attribute Rahim contains the blessing of the prayer sirat alladhina an`amta `alaihim, that is, make our works and action so perfect that we become part of those people who are blessed by God. So when any person at the time of recitation of the Quran, or at the time of any work, requests from God a perfect knowledge of the correct path and for the ability to achieve excellence in works and requests that these actions would provide successful results, it is apparent that such a person has found the purpose of the Quran. He is happy in this world and he is assured of success in the hereafter. This is because the Quran was revealed so that mankind could achieve excellence in both knowledge and works and it is on this excellence of knowledge and works that success in this world and hereafter is based.

So in this way Bismillah ar-rahman ar-rahim is not only a summary of the Chapter Fatiha but is a summary of the whole Quran. Whoever recites Bismillah ar-rahman ar-rahim asks for complete and correct knowledge as well as perfection in works which produce excellent results. In other words he asked for knowledge of the Quran and good works and further requested perfection in these. One who receives the correct and complete knowledge of the Quran and furthermore is blessed with excellence in works is successful and achieves goodness in this world and the hereafter.
Names 'Ahmad' and 'Muhammmad' correspond to Rahman and Rahim
The late Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, the Mujaddid of this age, has in his book Ijaz-ul-Masih given a subtle exposition, in a sufi manner, about these successes. To summarize in a few sentences: Allah, the most high, is perfect in Husn (Goodness/beauty) and Ihsan (benevolence). When man, without any effort on his own part, is granted through Allah's attribute of Rahman limitless mercy and blessings and thus observes the Husn and Ihsan of God, then in the heart of the worshipper a love for God is born. As these blessings and the grace of Allah's Husn and Ihsan descend upon the believer, his love for God keeps on increasing. It is true that the more one loves something the more one praises it. So, a person who reaches a position of excellence in the love of and praise of Allah, the most high, is called Ahmad, that is one who praises profusely and frequently. It is apparent the person who so praises God and spreads this praise in the world, would become the beloved of God, as required by the attribute of Rahim. Finally, the more a person becomes a beloved of God, the more praiseworthy he becomes. So, a person who, through his constant praise, attains the highest stages of the position of beloved of God, would correspondingly be highly worthy of praise and would be called Muhummad which means one praised exceedingly. So the two names Ahmad and Muhummad of our Holy Prophet (may peace and the blessings of God be upon him) are in fact the manifestation of the two attributes Rahman and Rahim of Allah the most high. These names reflect the best results man can achieve through the help of these attributes of God and there are no better meaningful names for this position than Ahmad and Muhummad.

Ray
04 Apr 07,, 16:24
Parihaka,

Hopefully the above would educate not only you about Islam and they way they talk, but also others too!

In Islam, you have to be totally 'sold' to Allah. In word and deed. No halfway home as in other religions!

That is the power and beauty of Islam!

Therefore, one has to know exactly what the Imams were saying. Because the Americans have become paranoid after 9/11, the word 'Allah' seems to put a cold hand on their hearts!

And 'Allah' has become a bogeyman!

Let us not be afraid or paranoid of anyone who wears a flowing beard and in Islam, the beard cannot be flowing. It has to be merely one fistful!

Ray
04 Apr 07,, 16:42
Bluesman,

It was a setup.

I buy that.

But note how the Moslems are taking the mickey out of you guys.

Had brains been used by the cabin crew, then you could have made an idiot of those Imams! Now, it is the other way around.

Let your Head rule and not your Heart.

I totally agree with your contention about the Indian girl. The Indian authorities have acted as stupid dunderheads! It was a case of typical Indian muddleheaded officiousness!

dalem
04 Apr 07,, 19:21
Ray-

The details of the case are not important - if the Flying Imams hadn't gotten the reaction they wanted on that flight they or another similar group would have just pushed somewhere else until they did.

They are trying to cow us, true, and using our most pernicious weapons against us - our litigious society and our overpowered courts.

So Muslims can run over people, shoot people, try to blow up people, and all the rest, in the name of Islam, but if I look twice at the guy washing his f*cking feet in the sink at work, I'm the dipsh!t?

-dale



Bluesman,

It was a setup.

I buy that.

But note how the Moslems are taking the mickey out of you guys.

Had brains been used by the cabin crew, then you could have made an idiot of those Imams! Now, it is the other way around.

Let your Head rule and not your Heart.

I totally agree with your contention about the Indian girl. The Indian authorities have acted as stupid dunderheads! It was a case of typical Indian muddleheaded officiousness!

Ray
04 Apr 07,, 19:32
Dalem,

You are entitled to your view.

GO ahead and arrest every single bearded goat!

Even better would be if the Patriotic Act is amended to read that the use of "Allah" and other incantations from the Koran is banned.

Would save a whole lot of hassles!

Ray
04 Apr 07,, 19:38
Also note, I am no lover of terrorist Islamic or Islamic double talk.

But I sure support freedom and democracy and combat paranoia!

I refuse to be cowed down by a besieged mentality.

I will face fear with all the courage at my command and not let fear overcome me!

Only the chicken hearted allow fear to overcome them!

Ray
04 Apr 07,, 19:43
As far as the Flying Imams, I, if I were the cabin crew, would have changed their seats and told them to shut up for creating public nuisance as it was affecting flight safety!

I am sure there are laws in the US about creating public nuisance as also endangering flight safety.

dalem
04 Apr 07,, 20:08
Ray, it is unfair of you to mischaracterize my position in the manner you have.

And the flight crew did act properly - removing passnegers is 100% within their pervue.

Personally I hope this DOES go to court somehow - I don't think they have a leg to stand on. The "John Doe"s' rights to privacy are real, but the Imam's right to act like a dickweed on an airliner is not. If they were merely 6 drunken louts instead of 6 religious zealots no one would have batted an eyelash at their forced deplaning and no one would be crediting their efforts to sue the passengers who complained.

In a perfect world I'd like to see an "I am Spartacus!" moment - get some wealthy Conservative to foot the bill and every single passenger and crewmember files a claim in the courts that they all made the complaints, every single one. Stick it right up CAIR's precious porkless bunghole and break it off. That would make me smile, it would.

-dale

Ray
04 Apr 07,, 20:15
I sure hope they go to court and they are booked for the mischief they have caused.

Legally sort the lousy chaps.

Let Democracy prevail and not personal pique!

If I were on the flight, maybe I would have been booked since I would have trashed them.

I rather get booked if only to hasten justice! ;)


Notwithstanding, I sure stand for fair play and justice, no matter how great a scoundrel a person is!

Parihaka
04 Apr 07,, 22:26
Those 3 Muslims you know must be fervent adepts of Taqiyya. :biggrin:
Yeah right, I'm persecuting Abir (the young lady staying with us) by letting her babysit for us;)
Actually now I think about it, leaving her alone with my little terrors could be classified as cruel and unusual punishment...

as for the guys at work it goes the other way: I ask them a simple question about my editing workstations and I get a three hour dissertation:rolleyes:

jame$thegreat
04 Apr 07,, 22:43
Ray, this reminds me of a cartoon where Wile coyote dresses up as a Sheep to try and get into the flock, and steal a Sheep. However, the guard dog is always on watch to make sure that the coyote never suceeds.

What will happen if you take away that guard dog, or at the very least tell the guard dog not to throw out those suspicious looking sheep?

Thats sort of how I look at it, well put Canmoore.:)

brokensickle
05 Apr 07,, 07:55
No, you did not.

Sure, the courts WILL determine one way or another. But nothing the imams did was illegal, and their suit may get them nowhere. BUT they're allowed to bring suit, and there can be no meaningful restrictions on that right without the proposed 'John Doe Protection Act' (which is EXACTLY why it's being fought by the usual suspects: Arab 'civil rights' groups and Democrats). And these citizens that reported the outrageously-provocative behavior will be obliged to defend themselves from a deep-pockets organization's continuous, on-going, drawn-out and expensive legal fight. In other words, they'll be financially ruined for attempting to do a common-sense civic duty.

The example you gave of the Indian girl attempting to do the Right Thing by reporting in good faith what she thought may have been threats to the aircraft? Well, I bet she'll never do THAT again, will she? And anybody that knows about her case will dam' well never report anything, either: it can land one in JAIL!:eek:

So. You tell me this: how interested will John Q. Public be in getting involved in a matter that may cost them everything they have, over what can be justified away as probably nothing, and besides: maybe some other fool will risk his family's well-being by notifying the authorities.

IT WAS A SET-UP.

While I respect Ray, Many times his logic would be dangerous to follow. Commonsense is needed when the enemies only rules are to win, plain and simple. All the hyper-analyzing is useless in the real world. The Muslim's want Sharia not American jurisprudence. But they will bend our laws to favor them and fund and further their cause.

Some just observe but know not how to respond. Hyper Observation is a hobby for some.:rolleyes:


Ivan

bandwagon
05 Apr 07,, 12:09
This is the war on terror.

There's surely nothing wrong with apprehending anyone who displays suspicious signals. Their physical appearance may well be part of the suspicion, that is unavoidable and to ignore that or even overcompensate for that is irrational and dangerous.

If I insist that I keep my padded coat on going through a security checkpoint I expect to be arrested. Unfortunately Middle Easterners cannot take off their physical characteristics, therefore it is incumbant on them to compensate with compliant unsuspicious behaviour.

The imams were taking the piss.

Ray
05 Apr 07,, 17:23
Yeah right, I'm persecuting Abir (the young lady staying with us) by letting her babysit for us;)
Actually now I think about it, leaving her alone with my little terrors could be classified as cruel and unusual punishment...

as for the guys at work it goes the other way: I ask them a simple question about my editing workstations and I get a three hour dissertation:rolleyes:


You cruel man! :biggrin:

Send your kids to us since we are babysitting these days our grandchildren! More the merrier. Maybe my grandchildren will pick up some NZ accent so that when they speak, we will not understand them! ;)

Ray
05 Apr 07,, 17:32
This is the war on terror.

There's surely nothing wrong with apprehending anyone who displays suspicious signals. Their physical appearance may well be part of the suspicion, that is unavoidable and to ignore that or even overcompensate for that is irrational and dangerous.

If I insist that I keep my padded coat on going through a security checkpoint I expect to be arrested. Unfortunately Middle Easterners cannot take off their physical characteristics, therefore it is incumbant on them to compensate with compliant unsuspicious behaviour.

The imams were taking the piss.

Correct.

They should use whitewash on themselves before boarding any aircraft or even living in an European country!

Quit being bigoted!

Why be so paranoid? What are you scared of? Lost your confidence as a Nation and a race?

Heavens, if Indians had this type of mentality, we would have gone nuts!

One 9/11 and one 11/7 and you guys go into your shells - the once Imperial powerhouse where the Sun never set and the other a most powerful and richest nation and all that!

Think of others who weather these Islamist tyrants daily! We still go about our business as normal!

Time to gather your wits and your courage!

Bluesman
05 Apr 07,, 21:43
Obviously, you are utterly missing the point.

THEY WERE THERE TO GET ARRESTED, if they could manage it. As it is, they were only detained a short while after being taken off their flight. From their point-of-view, not a GREAT result, but it would have to do. Because they intended to sue before they ever got to the dam' airport; it was the reason they did what they did the way they did it.

They were exhibiting suspect behavior FOR A REASON. Had they been actually attempting a hijacking or doing a trial test-run, they wouldn't have been doing ANY of the activities that got them noticed, and they likely wouldn't have even been ID'ed as Middle Eastern nor as Muslims. They would've looked like me, and they would've travelled like I do, and nobody would've even noticed them, in all probability.

So, Ray, NObody was being bigoted, and that has no place in this discussion.

As for paranoia, you really have no idea what was going on here, do you? You're so cool with the idea of these citizens that reported on these guys being sued into ruin that you think THEY are the problem, right?

What do we have to be afraid of? The fact that if I do a civic duty, like being watchful for terrorist activity, and I get sued for my trouble, my family loses our home and I'm branded as a bigot by retired foreign flag-rank officers.

We have plenty of wit and courage, thanks very much. But I still don't think you understand what has occurred in this case.

bandwagon
06 Apr 07,, 00:00
Correct.

They should use whitewash on themselves before boarding any aircraft or even living in an European country!

Quit being bigoted!

Why be so paranoid? What are you scared of? Lost your confidence as a Nation and a race?

Heavens, if Indians had this type of mentality, we would have gone nuts!

One 9/11 and one 11/7 and you guys go into your shells - the once Imperial powerhouse where the Sun never set and the other a most powerful and richest nation and all that!

Think of others who weather these Islamist tyrants daily! We still go about our business as normal!

Time to gather your wits and your courage!Ray, you're immediately checking it for racial bigotry, which this is not. Racial bigotry is an intolerance of race per se, -for its own sake. But in this case race happens to be a marker of risk: the vast majority of Jihadist terrorists are of ME origin. Can you deny that? Should it be ignored?

The risk posed by a random M.Easterner is not so great that their civil liberties need be compromised. However, it being a risk factor, it takes fewer other risk factors in the way of suspicious behaviour etc. to trigger special attention. That's all.

If all Muslims living in the West were equally vigilant perhaps there would be less reason for suspicions. Currently, the security services in the UK are watching 200 suspicious "cells".

Incidentally, whilst the intention of the 6 imams was to undermine the ability of the public and the security service to practice vigilance, they were also actually terrorising the public with their deliberate suspicious behaviour.

brokensickle
06 Apr 07,, 08:42
Ray, you're immediately checking it for racial bigotry, which this is not. Racial bigotry is an intolerance of race per se, -for its own sake. But in this case race happens to be a marker of risk: the vast majority of Jihadist terrorists are of ME origin. Can you deny that? Should it be ignored?

The risk posed by a random M.Easterner is not so great that their civil liberties need be compromised. However, it being a risk factor, it takes fewer other risk factors in the way of suspicious behaviour etc. to trigger special attention. That's all.

If all Muslims living in the West were equally vigilant perhaps there would be less reason for suspicions. Currently, the security services in the UK are watching 200 suspicious "cells".

Incidentally, whilst the intention of the 6 imams was to undermine the ability of the public and the security service to practice vigilance, they were also actually terrorising the public with their deliberate suspicious behaviour.


For the sake of the many on that plane the six harmless sue happy fuzzballs were scutinized. Well let's do the math assuming there were 200 people on the plane, and the 6 Imam's rights over power the 194 other passengers right to judge their surroundings and the possibility of having throats cut and flying into a building at 400 miles per hour. I think the 97% should have presedent over the 3% when the 97% have a legitimate concern based on facts of recent history. Ya Think?

Early after 911 a airplane was waiting grounded after five suspicious acting Arab men were escorted off the plane. The passengers were interviewed about the incident, and there was an older Arab couple who said that the profiling of the five was a smart thing and they were also happy that the five were removed from the plane as they were also nervous about how the five were carrying on.

So why on Gods Warming Earth should the 6 trump the 194? Ray I am so sorry that I complimented you so many times in the past about your post.;) :biggrin: Just joshing ya, my favorite poster from India buckaroo.

Good post Band!



Ivan

Ray
06 Apr 07,, 08:51
Sickle,

I think you are not getting the gist.

I am not against taking deviates into 'protective custody', be the unruly or drunken passenger or those who behave in a manner that is not acceptable to flight safety.

Book them.

But let the courts decide.

Let there not be a trial by the media!

Imam or Priest or whatever, let law take its own course and while on board an aircraft, they should be disrupted by above board behaviour which they should not be able to use as being prejudicial to their religion or individual rights!

Let beards not come in the way of justice.

Also since Islam is something new to you all, remember that Moslems use 'Allah' and 'Bismillah' at the drop of a hat, and possibly to the uninitiated, it is as common as you guys drop the word, 'liberal' to label anything that does not appear suitable to you! ;)

The Moslem use the word 'Bismillah' for the start of anything they do!

If I were a Moslem, I would start each post with "Bismillah ar Rehman ar Rahim". You would think I am an AQ terrorist, when actually I would not be so. You would precipitate a crisis because of this and I would then get cornered and then do things that I would not do otherwise!

So, be aware of others' ways as they are aware of yours.

Give and take.

That is the only way the twain shall meet!

brokensickle
06 Apr 07,, 09:15
Sickle,

I think you are not getting the gist.

I am not against taking deviates into 'protective custody', be the unruly or drunken passenger or those who behave in a manner that is not acceptable to flight safety.

Book them.

But let the courts decide.

Let there not be a trial by the media!

Imam or Priest or whatever, let law take its own course and while on board an aircraft, they should be disrupted by above board behaviour which they should not be able to use as being prejudicial to their religion or individual rights!

Let beards not come in the way of justice.

Also since Islam is something new to you all, remember that Moslems use 'Allah' and 'Bismillah' at the drop of a hat, and possibly to the uninitiated, it is as common as you guys drop the word, 'liberal' to label anything that does not appear suitable to you! ;)

The Moslem use the word 'Bismillah' for the start of anything they do!

If I were a Moslem, I would start each post with "Bismillah ar Rehman ar Rahim". You would think I am an AQ terrorist, when actually I would not be so. You would precipitate a crisis because of this and I would then get cornered and then do things that I would not do otherwise!

So, be aware of others' ways as they are aware of yours.

Give and take.

That is the only way the twain shall meet!


We have been giving and taking. If people in America are just paranoid, as I believe you may think then why haven't there been thousands of expulsions
like that of the six Imam's? This is one in only a handfull of cases like this happening in America since 911. Not to mention some of the expulsions have turned up people who truly ment to do harm. My goodness I could throw the "I think your not getting the gist" comment back to you with more of a chance that it would stick on this one.

By the way, one of the safest airlines to fly terror free right now is out of Israel. It has the tightest security on terror right in the hotbed of terror chanced areas of the world. Why do you think?


Ivan

Parihaka
06 Apr 07,, 09:42
You cruel man! :biggrin:

Send your kids to us since we are babysitting these days our grandchildren! More the merrier. Maybe my grandchildren will pick up some NZ accent so that when they speak, we will not understand them! ;)

Ray we'd be delighted to use you as babysitters, although over here it's more common to bring the sitters to the children rather than the children to the sitters. I think you'd find you had a permanent booking with OoE as well now that word is out, although I must ask have you been keeping up your martial arts practice. My daughter is currently practicing 'sneaking up', and my son is working on 'hitting anything that moves with a club'.;)
As for an accent, whadeva ken ewe meen?

Parihaka
06 Apr 07,, 09:52
Thrice the brinded cat hath mew'd.
Thrice and once, the hedge-pig whin'd.
Bandwagon cries:—'tis time! 'tis time!
Round about the caldron go;
In the poison'd entrails throw.—
Toad, that under cold stone,
Days and nights has thirty-one;
Brokensickles venom sleeping got,
Boil thou first i' the charmed pot!
Double, double toil and trouble;
Fire burn, and caldron bubble.


Tis not natural I tells thee, Brokensickle and Bandwagon in accord, not once but twice, thrice be the gild that binds. Beware!


:parihakamuttersdarklyexitingstageleft:

brokensickle
06 Apr 07,, 10:02
Thrice the brinded cat hath mew'd.
Thrice and once, the hedge-pig whin'd.
Bandwagon cries:—'tis time! 'tis time!
Round about the caldron go;
In the poison'd entrails throw.—
Toad, that under cold stone,
Days and nights has thirty-one;
Brokensickles venom sleeping got,
Boil thou first i' the charmed pot!
Double, double toil and trouble;
Fire burn, and caldron bubble.


Tis not natural I tells thee, Brokensickle and Bandwagon in accord, not once but twice, thrice be the gild that binds. Beware!


:parihakamuttersdarklyexitingstageleft:


Pari,


You really should quit the day job.:biggrin: You have put me in serious stitches.:biggrin: :biggrin:

Please stop! I'm dying...:biggrin: :biggrin: ;)



Ivenom:)

Shipwreck
06 Apr 07,, 14:33
Shipwreck, you must try to remember that we are not all polymaths:) What on earth is Taqiyya?:confused:

In short, Taqqiya is the dissimulation of faith when faced with danger.

Sorry for the jargon.



Not a Mexican drink, I suppose?:biggrin:

:biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin:

JMH
06 Apr 07,, 14:55
The liberal Democrats see defeat in the War on Terror as necessary to reform and remake the USA into an Enlightened, Socialist New Age Nation, the primary enemy to which is: Fundamentalist Christians, Jews and Capitalists. The Al Queda Terrorists and Muslim Fascists, Liberal Democrats and Socialists all have one thing in common, there’re hatred of Religious Freedom, Christians, Jews and Capitalism. Consequently, it would be helpful for the Liberal Democrats to have Al Queda do the dirty work for them in their campaign to remake the USA into an Enlightened Socialist New Age Nation where no Christian or Jewish religion will be tolerated.

brokensickle
06 Apr 07,, 18:24
The liberal Democrats see defeat in the War on Terror as necessary to reform and remake the USA into an Enlightened, Socialist New Age Nation, the primary enemy to which is: Fundamentalist Christians, Jews and Capitalists. The Al Queda Terrorists and Muslim Fascists, Liberal Democrats and Socialists all have one thing in common, there’re hatred of Religious Freedom, Christians, Jews and Capitalism. Consequently, it would be helpful for the Liberal Democrats to have Al Queda do the dirty work for them in their campaign to remake the USA into an Enlightened Socialist New Age Nation where no Christian or Jewish religion will be tolerated.



May I Have Your Autograph? Please write it on this picture you have rightly drawn of the situation.

The Liberals are the useful idiots of the Muslim Extremist and the Muslim Extremist are the 300#, unpredictable, Doberman Pincer, Lap Dogs of the Liberals.



Ivenom the Rational

gunnut
06 Apr 07,, 20:03
What I don't understand is why the liberals are so enamoured with muslims. Muslims regard everything the liberals stand for as decadance. Woman's rights, homosexuality, massive consumerism, alcohol,...basically hedonism.

It was hilarious when Rosie O'Donnel said fundamental christians are as dangerous as fundamental islamist. Who's less tolerant of homosexuals?

I remember when Hillary said how Bush will "turn the clock back on women's rights" a few years ago. What does she think Sharia will do to women? Personally I think women should be home and pregnant...well, maybe not always pregnant...:biggrin: She should have some time devoted to cleaning and cooking a good meal for her man.

The only people who should welcome Sharia are child molesters, and only those older men who molest young girls. The legal age for a girl to marry in Saudi Arabia is 9. NINE!!! Why 9? Because that's the age of the youngest bride of Mohammed. I like young girls but damn, even I think 9 is too young. You should wait until at least 15 or 16...:eek:

Shipwreck
06 Apr 07,, 20:17
The legal age for a girl to marry in Saudi Arabia is 9. NINE!!!

There is NO defined minimum age for marriage under Saudi law.

gunnut
06 Apr 07,, 20:22
There is NO defined minimum age for marriage under Saudi law.

The "accepted" age, maybe?

Nevertheless, was Mohammed's youngest wife 9 when he married her?

Ray
06 Apr 07,, 21:21
Ray we'd be delighted to use you as babysitters, although over here it's more common to bring the sitters to the children rather than the children to the sitters. I think you'd find you had a permanent booking with OoE as well now that word is out, although I must ask have you been keeping up your martial arts practice. My daughter is currently practicing 'sneaking up', and my son is working on 'hitting anything that moves with a club'.;)
As for an accent, whadeva ken ewe meen?

:biggrin:

Your daughter has the makings of a Commando.

And your son is growing up to being a Bluesman! ;) :tongue:

FibrillatorD
06 Apr 07,, 21:32
What I don't understand is why the liberals are so enamoured with muslims. Muslims regard everything the liberals stand for as decadance. Woman's rights, homosexuality, massive consumerism, alcohol,...basically hedonism.
Massive consumerism? Alcohol? These are big conclusions to draw from opposition to legislation based on fear-mongering and paranoia.


It was hilarious when Rosie O'Donnel said fundamental christians are as dangerous as fundamental islamist. Who's less tolerant of homosexuals?

Please, by all means, answer. Who is it?


I remember when Hillary said how Bush will "turn the clock back on women's rights" a few years ago. What does she think Sharia will do to women? Personally I think women should be home and pregnant...well, maybe not always pregnant... She should have some time devoted to cleaning and cooking a good meal for her man.
Good job of aligning yourself to the hard-line Muslim decadants.

Who is so enamored?


The only people who should welcome Sharia are child molesters, and only those older men who molest young girls. The legal age for a girl to marry in Saudi Arabia is 9. NINE!!! Why 9? Because that's the age of the youngest bride of Mohammed. I like young girls but damn, even I think 9 is too young. You should wait until at least 15 or 16...

Shipwreck
06 Apr 07,, 21:55
Nevertheless, was Mohammed's youngest wife 9 when he married her?

The hadiths collected by Bukhari, - among others -, quote Aisha as saying that she was 6 years old when Muhammad married her and 9 years old when she was admitted in his house.

While the large majority of Muslims accept the authenticity of the hadiths, they also believe that Aisha was pubescent when the marriage was consummated.

This is one of many reasons that lead some Muslim scholars to question the interpretation and/or authenticity of hadiths regarding Aisha's age and re-estimate her age at marriage on the basis of other Islamic sources.

Shipwreck
06 Apr 07,, 22:04
The "accepted" age, maybe?

The average age of marriage for women in Saudi Arabia was 21.7 y.o. in 1987 (source : UN Population Division, "World Marriage Patterns 2000").

gunnut
06 Apr 07,, 22:15
Massive consumerism? Alcohol? These are big conclusions to draw from opposition to legislation based on fear-mongering and paranoia.

What? :confused:



Please, by all means, answer. Who is it?


I don't know. That's why I asked. Are there any open homosexuals in Saudi Arabia or Pakistan?



Good job of aligning yourself to the hard-line Muslim decadants.


2 problems with this line:

1. You can't seem to find a sarcasm if it jumps out the computer screen and bit your nose.
2. Hard-line muslims are not decadant. Decadent means morally corrupt, usually characterized by straying from tradition. Hard-line muslims are very traditional.



Who is so enamored?

Anti-American liberal leftist loons

gunnut
06 Apr 07,, 22:26
The average age of marriage for women in Saudi Arabia was 21.7 y.o. in 1987 (source : UN Population Division, "World Marriage Patterns 2000").

Average age doesn't mean accepted age. To lower the average age of marriage for women to 21.7 when the average life span of women is 77.78 https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/sa.html , means a lot of girls have to either marry before 21.7 but after 18, or a good number of them have to marry before 18 to drag that number down faster.

Shipwreck
06 Apr 07,, 22:36
Average age doesn't mean accepted age. To lower the average age of marriage for women to 21.7 when the average life span of women is 77.78 https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/sa.html , means a lot of girls have to either marry before 21.7 but after 18, or a good number of them have to marry before 18 to drag that number down faster.

In Muslim societies, especially the most traditional ones, women seldom get married once they are menopaused (i.e. somewhere between 45 y.o. and 55 y.o.).

Also note that 21.7 is the average age at first marriage.

gunnut
06 Apr 07,, 22:40
In Muslim societies, especially the most traditional ones, women seldom get married once they are menopaused (i.e. somewhere between 45 y.o. and 55 y.o.).

That still leaves a good 20 years between 20 and 40, or 21.7 and 41.7.

Shipwreck
06 Apr 07,, 22:52
That still leaves a good 20 years between 20 and 40, or 21.7 and 41.7.

The percentage of women between 15 and 19 y.o. ever married in Saudi Arabia was 16.1 in 1987.

Source : UN Population Division, "World Marriage Patterns 2000", Link (http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/worldmarriage/WorldMarriagePatterns2000Table.xls)

gunnut
06 Apr 07,, 23:12
The percentage of women between 15 and 19 y.o. ever married in Saudi Arabia was 16.1 in 1987.

Source : UN Population Division, "World Marriage Patterns 2000", Link (http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/worldmarriage/WorldMarriagePatterns2000Table.xls)

I think that number means 16.1% of girls between the age of 15 and 19 are married. As you can see, 98.1% of women between the age of 45 and 49 are married.

This is not close to the greatest percentage observed in Congo, where more than 1/2 of girls between 15 and 19 are married. But it is a lot higher than the numbers in western Europe or north America.

Hmmm...there are 2 Congos...Democratic Republic of Congo shows 76.2% of girls between the age of 15 and 19 are married. DRC also has a life expectancy of 51... Saudi Arabia has a life expectancy of 75 on the average, around US standards.

What the hell were we talking about? I lost my train of thought...

Shipwreck
06 Apr 07,, 23:15
I think that number means 16.1% of girls between the age of 15 and 19 are married.

*Ever married* in the UN Population Division jargon means *married at least once*.

gunnut
06 Apr 07,, 23:19
*Ever married* in the UN Population Division jargon means *married at least once*.

Ah, very good. That's how I read it as.

It's stunning to look at some of those numbers, especially in Africa.