True Islam - Page 10

Ray · 04-02-2006, 14:36 PM

Quote:

What motivates these black Muslims to stick with Islam in a Christian dominated country?

Freedom to practice including no subtle pressures as in Islamic countries.

Yusuf Yohanna, a leading cricketer, converted and there was another conversion that hit the Pakistani media only two or three days back whrein the police still harrasssed this Masih (Christian convertee to Islam) inspite of conversion.

Yohanna converted as some believe just to keep his place in the team. Cricket is BIG money in sponsorship etc. So money is more important not only to Yohanna but to all cricketers and so they cling on.

There was apparently a subtle hint in the article that this bloke thought by converting the cases would be dropped! The police is made of sterner stuff. Religion is not an important issue to them, bribes are!

Insomniac · 04-02-2006, 23:36 PM

Quote:

Propaganda 101: You would like me to ascribe the violence of individuals to the culture itself so I stop thinking of Muslims as human beings. If I bought into it, I would more readily absolve both myself and you of any responsibility when you start reapetedly using the phrase "by any means necessary".

That is an old trick; save it for an audience that can be swayed by it.

Don’t put words in my mouth. I never said any of those things. I think of Islam as a religion that leads people to violence. I only used that phrase twice and as far as I’m concerned I have the proof to back it.

Quote:

Sanctions in the House version of the bill target oil revenues that Khartoum is using to fuel its war effort. Bennett, with 20 years experience in international risk management and banking, said he was the first to probe the link between oil and jihad that is now documented and publicized by human rights groups. His research began in 1996 when he asked: If you're the government of Sudan and you're broke, how are you paying for your war?

In his letter urging action by the U.S., he points out that Sudan's military continues to decorate and promote known war criminals such as Commander Taib Musba, who in the mid-1980s killed an estimated 15,000 unarmed, civilian, ethnic Uduk Christians.

If the Sudanese government is so desperate to kill Christians with their poor military that they will hire and promote a known war criminal to do their work, that shows how far they are willing to go.

If you hate a group of people enough that you’d kill yourself just to kill as many of them as possible then that shows how far you would be willing to go: by any means necessary. I am not using that as a propaganda trick. That is really how far terrorists and Islam are willing to go.

Quote:

What did you find significant about "Fi Zalal al-Koran?"

Did you catch the shift of emphasis in Zawahari's "Fursan Taht Rayah Al-Nabi"

The words of the terrorists are telling indeed.

The difference between those terrorists and ones like Dr. Ahmad Abu Halabiya are that Ahmad can back up his actions with the words of the Quran and Hadiths.
Fi Zalal al-Koran wrote things contradictory to the Quran and Hadiths. Again the Muslims would rather follow the Quran and Hadiths.

Quote:

Evidently the few Muslims who espouse views inspired by al Wahab and al Afghani are enough to let terrorism dictate your agenda which is why you need to know this stuff because of what is going to happen next.

When you start studying the evolution of Islamisist thought, think of al Wahab and al Afghani's ideological views as two strands in a double helix just like a DNA molecule.

These two strands of thought of themselves have a couple of distinct properties but they seperate from time to time and place to place and brush back up against each other from time to time and place to place spinning off recombined bits and pieces.

Pay careful attention to the period right after the First World War, the 1960s and the 1980s.

You might want to take into account a little detour on the Bitter Lake that FDR took on the way back from Yalta as it is essentially the first step on the road to 9/11 and beyond but Google will spit a bunch of conspiracy stuff back at you so delve into it a bit.

That’s it. I’m going to say this one more time. Anything contradictory to the Quran or Hadiths in your debate is absolutely useless. Don’t take actions done in the name of Islam for true Islam. You must look at the Quran, Hadiths, and the way Muhammad lived to get a true definition of what Islam is.

Do not be deceived by those who do actions of piece in the name of Islam, but go against the Quran, Hadiths, and Muhammad’s words.

Quote:

What kind of behavoir would you expect from the king makers of the men of al Dariyah...and to some extent Ronald Reagan?

Also, what do you make of the refromist movements among the muwahiddun?

Please post up a link. I did a search and all I’m getting is information on the name of a city in Saudi Arabia.

Quote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_ibn_Abd_al_Wahhab

The Egyptian Islamic scholar Abd al-Wahhab Ibn Ahamd Barakat al-Shafi'i al-Azhari al-Tandatawi wrote an early criticism of Muhammed's reforms in the book, Kitab Rad' al-Dalala wa Qam al-Djahala ("The Book of the Prevention of Error and the Suppression of Ignorance.") Oddly, Tandatawi did not specifically name Ibn 'Abd Al-Wahhab in the text, but referred to him as Sheik al-Nas (Scholar of the people). This may be seen as either an effort to not humiliate Ibn 'Abd Al-Wahhab or to simply not draw unwanted attention to the Wahhabi movement. Tandatawi wrote that he received word of Muhammed's teachings through word-of-mouth and letters from local "authorities." The content of Tandatawi's arguments also suggest this, as they do not appear to be based on any writings of Muhammed's, instead disputing his general ideas, quoting a considerable number of Qu'ranic verses.

If a Muslim scholar, who has more knowledge than both you and me, goes against his teaching it is not relevant.

Quote:

IIRC, Bhudda, Christ and a whole host of other "enlightened" characters had to have encounters to various degrees with the Devil. It is an important stage along the "path" in many, if not most cultures. The work of Jung and Campbell come to mind.

But the Devil/Evil has one hallmark that is common to all mythos so I guess the question is "did Mohammed demonstrate it"?

Muhammad raped women and children, murdered hundreds, and authorized the assassination of people who merely insulted him. You tell me if Muhammad demonstrated it.

Quote:

Where in the World is that whacky Abu Sayaff?

I do not think that it is possible to get more specific than Abu Sayaff when speaking of Political Islam and terrorism.

Well, I did find an Islamic terrorist group that has been kidnapping Christians and raping victims.

Quote:

http://www.angelfire.com/extreme4/ki...-hash/Abu.html

This Abu Sayaff ("sword bearer") people are Muslim extremists who resort to kidnappings as a form of terroristic acts to announce their cause of Islam extremism and in the long run, to get a hefty ransom- like getting "two birds in one stone".

Seems to me just like more consistency.

Quote:

Insomniac,

Your story could fit nicely if ALL African American Muslims followed the Nation of Islam and if ALL black Africans lived in Muslim dominated and Christian (or pick whatever religion) persecuted countries. However, neither of the two necessary conditions to make your argument work hold.

I will not proclaim to be well read on Africa; however, less than 30 minutes of research turned up several counterexamples. Try looking up Uganda, where the Bible provides a front for an insurgency that commits numerous terrorist acts against the population. The story is more complicated than that, but it serves to show that segments of the Muslim population have an excuse to renounce their religion to save their lives, the exact same argument you are trying to propagate in reverse. What motivates these black Muslims to stick with Islam in a Christian dominated country?

I will not be proclaimed to be well read on Africa either. I have to say, once again, that it is incorrect to take actions done in the name of Christianity for true Christianity. There are actually people out in the world who commit acts of violence in the name of Christianity and go completely against the Bible. You must look at Jesus and Muhammad for an example of the true Christian and true Muslim.

Did Jesus use the sword as a means to spread his religion? No.

Quote:

Revelation 3:20
Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come into him and eat with him, and he with me.

Basically Jesus wants people to accept him as the son of God by their own free will. He knocks at your door and if you choose to you can open it and let him in, meaning become a Christian.

Did Muhammad use the sword to spread his religion? Yes.

Quote:

Surah 8:39
And fight them until persecution is no more and religion is all for Allah. But if they cease, then lo! Allah is Seer of what they do.

Surah 8:59-60
And let not those who disbelieve suppose that they can outstrip (Allah’s purpose) Lo! They cannot escape. Make ready for them all thou canst of (armed) force and of horses tethered, that thereby ye may dismay the enemy of Allah and your enemy, and others beside them whom ye know not. Allah knoweth. Whatsoever ye spend in the way of Allah it will be repaid to you in full, and ye will not be wronged.

The words of the Quran are clear.

The motivation of the Blacks in a Christian dominated country is actually unclear. Some of them have said that they join for the brotherhood of the religion, but there are more people in Africa that are illiterate than there are in the Middle East. I doubt any of them have read the Quran or Hadiths for themselves. I did see a documentary of the city of Mecca where three black Muslims said they became Muslims for the brotherhood of the religion and when they came to Mecca they still received some racism. Many were only allowed to sit in the most low quality seats for the public demonstrations even though there were many free seats out in the front.

Other than that, Ray does bring up a point. Some people’s religions can be changed by money or some other profitable substance.

**Shek** · 04-03-2006, 08:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Insomniac

I will not be proclaimed to be well read on Africa either. I have to say, once again, that it is incorrect to take actions done in the name of Christianity for true Christianity. There are actually people out in the world who commit acts of violence in the name of Christianity and go completely against the Bible. You must look at Jesus and Muhammad for an example of the true Christian and true Muslim.

Did Jesus use the sword as a means to spread his religion? No.

Basically Jesus wants people to accept him as the son of God by their own free will. He knocks at your door and if you choose to you can open it and let him in, meaning become a Christian.

Did Muhammad use the sword to spread his religion? Yes.

The words of the Quran are clear.

The motivation of the Blacks in a Christian dominated country is actually unclear. Some of them have said that they join for the brotherhood of the religion, but there are more people in Africa that are illiterate than there are in the Middle East. I doubt any of them have read the Quran or Hadiths for themselves. I did see a documentary of the city of Mecca where three black Muslims said they became Muslims for the brotherhood of the religion and when they came to Mecca they still received some racism. Many were only allowed to sit in the most low quality seats for the public demonstrations even though there were many free seats out in the front.

Other than that, Ray does bring up a point. Some people’s religions can be changed by money or some other profitable substance.

Insomniac,

Your argument is that Islam is inherently racist. If this were the case, then there shouldn't be any blacks who join of their own free will. Yet, the world has plenty of examples that prove you wrong. Thus, this must be the reason that you try smoke and mirrors by building first talking about Christian terrorists who commit terror in the name of Christ go against the Bible, while Muslim terrorists are only following the Quran (which I guess makes over a billion heretics since they all should be trying to slash us into pieces with swords, right? - BTW, this is the Salafist argument). You then transition to a strawman about how Islam was spread versus Christianity (although the Sura 2:256 does present an interesting dilemma), which doesn't have ANYTHING to do with those blacks who have chosen Islam of their own free will.

Then, you grasp at an argument that all these black African Muslims must be illiterate, otherwise, they would have experienced a shared epiphany with you. Of course, what do you think are the odds that all black African Muslims are illiterate, especially those crazy Muslim imams that lead prayers?

Lastly, since you are so big about talking about how the Quran says this and the Hadiths say that, can you please cite me a verse about how blacks have to be denied access to luxury box seats during the hajj? After, it has to be impossible that the enlightened Saudis treat non-Saudis and/or non-Arabs with absolute respect, meaning that the only possible explanation has to be Islam.

**Shek** · 04-03-2006, 08:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Insomniac

Don’t put words in my mouth. I never said any of those things. I think of Islam as a religion that leads people to violence. I only used that phrase twice and as far as I’m concerned I have the proof to back it.

"Don't put words in my mouth . . . I only used that phrase twice"

**Shek** · 04-03-2006, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Insomniac

The most accurate [translations] are made by Mohammed Marmaduke Pickthall or N.J. Dawood.

An Abridged Version of Pickthall's Lecture, 1927

Quote:

In the eyes of history, religious toleration is the highest evidence of culture in a people. It was not until the Western nations broke away from their religious law that they became more tolerant, and it was only when the Muslims fell away from their religious law that they declined in tolerance and other evidences of the highest culture. Before the coming of Islam, tolerance had never been preached as an essential part of religion.

If Europe had known as much of Islam, as Muslims knew of Christendom, in those days, those mad, adventurous, occasionally chivalrous and heroic, but utterly fanatical outbreak known as the Crusades could not have taken place, for they were based on a complete misapprehension.

Innumerable monasteries, with a wealth of treasure of which the worth has been calculated at not less than a hundred millions sterling, enjoyed the benefit of the Holy Prophet's (Muhammad’s) Charter to the monks of Sinai and were religiously respected by the Muslims. The various sects of Christians were represented in the Council of the Empire by their patriarchs, on the provincial and district council by their bishops, in the village council by their priests, whose word was always taken without question on things which were the sole concern of their community.

The tolerance within the body of Islam was, and is, something without parallel in history; class and race and color ceasing altogether to be barriers.

Swift Sword · 04-03-2006, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Insomniac

Don’t put words in my mouth.

I have heard it said that it is "not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man."

Quote:

If the Sudanese government is so desperate to kill Christians with their poor military that they will hire and promote a known war criminal to do their work, that shows how far they are willing to go.

I have already supplied ample facts to prove that the Sudanese situation is politically and economically driven and not of a purely religious nature, facts which you are, after your habitual fashion, deliberately choosing to ignore.

Quote:

That is really how far terrorists and Islam are willing to go.

That is a Goebbelism if I ever saw one.

Why is it so important to you that we hate and fear Islam?

Quote:

Fi Zalal al-Koran wrote things contradictory to the Quran and Hadiths.

Insomniac, your credibility is slipping even more: "In the Shade of the Koran" is the book, not the author.

The author was one Sayyed al Quttb whom you would be very familiar with if you had even a basic knowledge of political Isalm and Middle Eastern terrorism.

Quote:

That’s it. I’m going to say this one more time. Anything contradictory to the Quran or Hadiths in your debate is absolutely useless.

Translation: "Any fact that runs contrary to Insomniac's attempt propagandize people to be ignorant of Islamisism will be ignored."

Though you are very good at ignoring facts, some of us are comfortable with them.

The people perpetrating violence in the name of Islam are not exactly operating under the injunctions of the Koran and Hadith by and large so we have to examine the sources of their extremely well developed philosophical movement to find the answers and attempt to block their next move.

Quote:

Don’t take actions done in the name of Islam for true Islam. You must look at the Quran, Hadiths, and the way Muhammad lived to get a true definition of what Islam is.

The vast majority of the Muslims out there following the Koran and Hadith and the example of the Prophet are a pretty tame and non violent bunch so what is your point exactly?

Quote:

Do not be deceived by those who do actions of piece in the name of Islam, but go against the Quran, Hadiths, and Muhammad’s words.

Another Goebbelism...suprise, suprise.

"When Muslims act peacful they are really trying to deceive us...those perfidous, brown, heathen savages, they are just as bad as the Jews!"

Heil Hitler right back at'ch ya!

Quote:

Please post up a link. I did a search and all I’m getting is information on the name of a city in Saudi Arabia.

Thats the place alright.

Its importance is readlily ascertainable so I suggest you take a closer look.

Quote:

If a Muslim scholar, who has more knowledge than both you and me, goes against his teaching it is not relevant.

That is a really intellectually unsound dodge: "I quoted a source that knows more about it than you do so he must be right".

You want to talk about Islamic violence but you want to dismiss al Wahab as "not relevant"?

NOTWAB: 1509z: CAUTION: FALLING CREDIBILITY IN YOUR A.O.: NOTWAB

Quote:

Muhammad raped women and children, murdered hundreds, and authorized the assassination of people who merely insulted him. You tell me if Muhammad demonstrated it.

The Christian Knights and their vassals who raped, murdered, sodomized and tortured men, women and children as well as rustled cattle, looted stores, burned boats [INSERT STANDARD LITTANY OF ATROCITIES HERE] when they put the Christian city of Contantinople to the sword...you tell me if they were evil.

If body count and atrocities are your metric of Evil, than why the Hell are you even studying Islam in the first place?

Quote:

Well, I did find an Islamic terrorist group that has been kidnapping Christians and raping victims.

You might try adding "...and they eat children"; nothing whips up fear in the herd like a threat to the calves.

Quote:

Seems to me just like more consistency.

I have heard it said that "consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds".

Quote:

Did Jesus use the sword as a means to spread his religion? No.

But without centuries of systematic violence and terror perpetrated by Christians, the words of Jesus would have nowhere near the influence or circualtion that they enjoy today.

Incidentally, when Jesus was arrested, he was travelling in the company of a pretty well heeled crowd. Intereseting state of affairs for the Prince of Peace, is it not?

Quote:

Did Muhammad use the sword to spread his religion? Yes.

Apparently, you are not particularly well informed about the spread of Islam. I suggest you study it.

Yes there was a good deal of political violence and a lesser amount of religious violence in the spread of Islam but you really ought to look into the facts of the matter. Religions do not spread that fast and far on a steady diet of violence.

Swift Sword · 04-03-2006, 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by parihaka

Nor do I believe you can categorise terrorism as criminality, terrorists operate from idealogical motivations, not profit. To call them criminals is to demean their victims and misrepresent their crime. The victims weren't killed for their wallet, they were killed because they were convenient, they were available to be used as a statement, they were killed to propagate an ideology: Islam.

Hi Parihaka,

Like it or not, in the United States (of which I am a Citizen and current resident) ideology is not illegal.

It is not a crime to follow Islam, even the more radical interpretations.

However, air piracy is a crime.

Murder is a crime.

Arson, money laundering, gun running, forgery, narcotics trafficking and a whole host of other activities which terrorists are involved in are nothing more than simple criminal activities.

When someone engages in any of the above activities, it is not big deal: you either shoot them on the spot if the activity warrants it or you arrest, try, convict and dispose of them through legal channels.

The U.S., and many other governments are perfectly well equipped to handle common criminals which is all the terrorists really are as I have pointed out.

When we look at terrorism as a set of criminal activities it is a very easy problem to solve. We have international agreements, legal codes, courts, prisons, State, Federal, local law enforcement acting in concert, military counter terror teams, intelligence agencies operating overseas in the areas where terrorists recruit and train, etc., etc. As can be seen, the United States had built up a very credible and capable counter terror capability.

After 9/11/01, the Bush Administration decided to let the terrorists dictate it's agenda and bought the "Islam vs. Christendom", "Good vs. Evil" line of the Islamisists hook, line and sinker.

By ignoring terrorism for what it really is and elevating the GWOT to a religious dimension and selling it as a Manichaen struggle, the current problem has been rendered unsolvable for all intents and purposes.

The United States government has tools to fight terrorist criminals but it does not have tools to settle the struggle between Good and Evil or fight a religious war.

It was a very foolish move to reinvent the enemy in our own minds: we have taken a simple problem for which we had a simple, off the shelf solution and convinced ourselves it was a problem for which there is no remedy under Heaven.

Hope you have a nice afternoon,

William

Swift Sword · 04-03-2006, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ray

But what rankle is that a large majority are being silent spectators, which indicates sympathy for the "cause" and that is sad; sad not only for non Moslems but as for Islam, the religion.

Hello, Sir,

Let me put a spin on this for purposes of argument:

I see no silent spectators.

The vast majority of Muslims have chosen to let there actions speak louder than words which is why the silence is defeaning.

By overwhelmingly rejecting participation in the ideology and violence of the Islamisist elements, I would say that these people have quite loudly spoken by voting with their feet.

A devout Muslim would be expected to keep their mouth shut in issues regarding unity and apostasy but that does not mean that they are not communicating their interest and/or displeasure another way.

Besides, under the repressive regimes in many countries where Muslims, it is not exactly healthy to speak out as the governments have been proven to be in league with the same Islamisist crumb bumbs that you want these people to speak against.

Quote:

What gets most of the people's goat is the soft justification of the criminal acts or informing the others that these acts are not the way of Islam when the Verses are quite explicit about the acts.

Then when the Verses are quoted to prove that the act is within the tenets, most raise the issue that the Verses quoted are not been read "A" with "B" or "B" with "C" to get the true meaning!

It has already been shown that verses from old books can be cherry picked out of context and spun to prove or disprove a particular point.

Par example:

I pointed out to Insomniac that al Baraqah 2.190-2.191 which he selected to prove the Koran exhorts violence is, when taken in context (al Baraqah 2.190-2.193) considered by many Muslims to advocate moderation in violence, and defensive violence at that, and disticntly speaks against what we consider terrorism.

Besides, words are but oaths and oaths are but wind: it does not matter what the verses say if nobody acts upon them.

Through what is the idividual application of itjihad (and I apologize for not having the term off the top of my head) a devout Muslim might disregard a verse that is counterproductive.

Quote:

If indeed these acts are not the way of Islam, then why give sanctuary or teach these acts is madrassas? I will also go so far as to say that not all madrassas are criminal in act.

The Madrassa phenomenon is not monolithic. IIRC, there are 15,000 Madrassas in Pakistan alone and they run the gamut from places where girls are tought to use computers all the way to those which are essentially outright terrorist training camps.

Madrassas are generally very local affairs and conditions, mores and beleifs in the communities which they serve will no doubt the curriculum color.

Quote:

Are the Islamic govt so impotent that they cannot enforce that terrorism is not taught in the madrassas?

Again, using the much ballyhooed Madrassas of Pakistan as an example (assuming I got the story correctly):

The mushroom like proliferation of the the Madrassas was a grass roots response to the government of Pakistan curtailling basic education services and closing many state run schools.

In this respect, the government is certainly impotent as it has no venue in which to purvey its competing product. The Pakistani government shot themselves in the foot and the results were very predictable.

Too, many a Madrassa is located in neighborhoods or regions where the government has little sway or credibility to begin with and attempts to close them down would probably be met with hostility and cause an even greater decrease in their perception of legitimacy and credibility overall.

[quote]Or is it that the Islamic govts are afraid that the majority support the acts of these deviant madrassas and can do nothing about it?

Sticking with Pakistan, for purposes of argument, it appears safe to say that the government is not in a very good position to crack down on whether they wanted to or not so it is hard to speculate about motive.

I suspect this may be the case in some other countries as well.

Quote:

If so, then it does prove that the majority of Moslems (less those of the type in this Forum) are for terrorist acts, doesn't it?

Again, consider the local character of the Madrassa concept.

If your community is one which is not in government favor and suffers various repressive treatment as a result, you might turn a blind eye to some of the local Imam's machinations if you perceive that he is going to treat you and your neighboors better and mete out a little payback to boot.

We should not be too quick to ascribe a religious motive to all of the violence without taking local political conditions into account.

Hope this finds you and yours well,

Regards,

William

Swift Sword · 04-03-2006, 13:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by parihaka

For whatever reasons, Islam has come to mean 'terror'.

That is no suprise as there is a concerted effort underway to propagate that view.

Quote:

Even Tony Blair is coming to hint at it, moving from his original "Islam has nothing to do with it" stand to a "Progressive Islam must reform extremist Islam" stance in his speech at the Foreign Policy Institute.

The statement "Progressive Islam must reform extremist Islam" does not strike one as the product of a particularly well informed opinion.

It is very possible that Primeminister Blair and his team do not really know anything more about the subject than any of the rest of us here

.

Seriously, though, I have been thinking about Islam since the end of the 1980s and am really not much more than an amateur.

What scares the crap out of me is some of the people who brief the policy makers, and I have had interaction with some of them, are even more clueless than I am

.

**Lunatock** · 04-03-2006, 14:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Insomniac

Islamic violence never evolved. They just use modern technology now. Muhammad was violent, his followers were violent, and the Middle east today that is ruled by Islamic governments is a war zone, even before the United States declared War on Iraq.

You are ignoring the words of the Quran and Hadiths, along with the voices of the Muslim terrorists and events today. I have not ignored any history of the centuries. Islam has always been violent.

Al Wahah and Al Afghani had ideologies that went against the Quran and Hadiths. Which one do you think Muslims are going to follow?

In case you didn’t already know this the Salafis were founded in the 18th century. Militant Salafis place great emphasis on jihad, or holy war, which they interpret as armed struggle and regard as a religious duty. They believe in the establishment of a Muslim state governed by Sharia, or religious law. That is the same law that sentences anyone who rejects Islam to death. The Salafis have caused much violence from the late 18th century and onward to the present.

So did the militant problem start from the very beginning, or just when Dem Salafi savages began to appear in the eighteenth century?

Quote:

Sudan has an Islamic government. They are following Islamic law, but apparently you didn’t read that whole article. Here let me post it much clearier.

More like their following Iranian Mullah Law. That's what the Sudanese Islamic Government that came about in 1998 is based on.

Quote:

That is political Islam for you. I hope you studied that.

The cutting off of women's breasts? That's not an action condoned by the Quran or even the Hadith. It's an exclusively African attrocity..not an Islamic practice, and certainly not political Islamic at work.

Quote:

I have looked into it and I don’t see what point you are trying to make. Allah was originally a Arabian mythological god of the moon, until Muhammad said the he was the one true God of the world. Thusly, the crescent moon is the symbol of Islam.

Then it's just a lucky coincidence that Allah translates into English from Arabic?, much like Yahwen is Hebrew for God. (my master, the Bloodthirsty fake moon God will be pleased by that deception

)

Quote:

I would like you to also take into account the satanic verses. Muhammad told his followers to worship the mythological daughters of Allah, but that goes against his teaching that Allah is the one true God. Later he blamed them on satanic influences and said that a demon had temporarily possessed him. There is no telling how long the demon had actually possessed him, nor when it left. For all we know, Muhammad could have been demon possessed all the time he was teaching Islam. His actions were certainly that of the Biblical description of a demon possessed man.

The Satanic Verses was a work of fiction, a work of fiction. The mythological daughters of Allah are to be taken as seriously as Salman Rushdi's portrayal of the devil. The devil in Satanic verses basically just wakes up with morning wood, stumbles around in a stupor, then goes back to sleep.

Quote:

I said you need to be more specific. Adu Sayaff is a common name. When I did an internet search for him I find things like cooking recipes and a bunch of other useless information. Other than that article on how to make delicious French toast I found nothing usable or related to Islam.

No recipe on cooking an Infidel's severed head? Pity there was nothing incriminating against Islam for you to use.

Quote:

Blacks in Muslim countries have very few choices. Non-Muslims have had their businesses and houses burned down and have faced much personal attacks on them and their families. They are not accepted by society. They see raped and beaten non-Muslims put out in their streets as an example. On the other hand, the worst they could receive from an Islamic society if they become Muslims is an insult. They are only offered two options from society: be wounded or insulted. Blacks who value their lives choose to be insulted.

Depends on who & where. The Practically defenseless villagers in Darfur have been getting picked on by Janjaweed thugs & cowards and their Sudanese Govt. backers. But on the other hand, nearby Mogadishu and the slightly further away cities of Freetown and Monrovia have been passed over by the review comittee of the Janjaweed for some reason.

Quote:

The Black Muslim Movement in America tells lies about Islam and makes it appeal to the African Americans who feel they have been oppressed by white people. The Black Muslim Movement only feeds off racial hatred.

The Nation Of Islam might fit that description, but there are plenty of Black Muslim's not associated with NOI. Eve and Dave Chapel are two examples, tell me in all honesty...how oppressed would either on them be in your opinion?

Ray · 04-03-2006, 15:38 PM

Quote:

The vast majority of Muslims have chosen to let there actions speak louder than words which is why the silence is defeaning.

By overwhelmingly rejecting participation in the ideology and violence of the Islamisist elements, I would say that these people have quite loudly spoken by voting with their feet.

A devout Muslim would be expected to keep their mouth shut in issues regarding unity and apostasy but that does not mean that they are not communicating their interest and/or displeasure another way.

Besides, under the repressive regimes in many countries where Muslims, it is not exactly healthy to speak out as the governments have been proven to be in league with the same Islamisist crumb bumbs that you want these people to speak against.

And Snowhite and the Seven Dwarf were real!!

Ray · 04-03-2006, 15:45 PM

Quote:

More like their following Iranian Mullah Law. That's what the Sudanese Islamic Government that came about in 1998 is based on.

Luna,

So the Shia are bums and so they must take the stick for Islam?

Wake up.

At least they accept Ijtihad (religious belief can change as per the time. Sunnis don't; Sunnis are the bums that are causing all the problems.).

**Lunatock** · 04-03-2006, 15:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ray

Luna,

So the Shia are bums and so they must take the stick for Islam?

Wake up.

At least they accept Ijtihad (religious belief can change as per the time. Sunnis don't; Sunnis are the bums that are causing all the problems.).

You obviously can't hear all of Mahmoud Ahmedinejad's ranting while your hiding under that rock.

Or have you read any part of Ayatollah Khomeini's manifesto on Sharia in Iran? The most memorable part is his fatwa, or religous decree that it is permissable for men to have sex with a chicken if they feel the urge to have sex with women.
Khomieni then goes on to say that the people living immediately next door are forbidden to eat said chicken aftwerwards, but anyone two houses down or more are allowed.

As for Sunni's, none that I know of openly call for beastiality to fight of the temptation of women.

Sunni's shouldn't take all the credit when the Shia have done a bit for Islam, both good and bad. And vice versa.