[quote]Deus vult wrote:
…
[/quote]
Maybe you’ll be taken seriously if you learned how to formulate a decent post.
And deus vult? Really?
[quote]lixy wrote:
Deus vult wrote:
…
Maybe you’ll be taken seriously if you learned how to formulate a decent post.
And deus vult? Really?[/quote]
So what is your OPINION really ? Do you have any or do you prefer to hide behind a secret view that never weighs upon you…
And Lixy ? Really? Sounds like bowel movement medication
[quote]Phate89 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
I don’t believe in God but I take no joy in destroying other peoples faith. Everyone needs something.
While we could point out the problems in any religion, such as Christians ignoring Christ’s own actions and going all Old Testament the topic here is Islam.
Any thinking person understand that Islam is just another flawed interpretation of the concept of a higher power. As human beings we are not capable of a complete understanding. I have no problems here.
What I dislike is people coming here and telling bald faced lies.
Islam is not compatible with slavery? Bullshit. The big guy himself owned slaves. The Islamic world has been the cornerstone of the slave trade. Looking at my countries own history I see that many/most of the slaves were sold by Muslims. (I find it ironic one of the most famous men in the world went from an abolitionists name to a slavers name.)
Hate is not being preached in mosques?. Another load of bullshit. It is not all mosques that are the problem, just a small portion. Muslims should be working to destroy these hate factories that are bringing down their religion, not denying their existence.
Coming here and telling lies does not help your cause.
I have yet to have entered any mosque that condones terrorism and extremism. The mosques you are talking about might be 1 in a thousand.
[/quote]
They are 47 in 1000 according to French statistics.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Deus vult wrote:
…
Maybe you’ll be taken seriously if you learned how to formulate a decent post.
And deus vult? Really?[/quote]
Lixy, is this another fatwa from you on how to post on these threads? Perhaps you are just pissed off since you’re heard that Hezbollah leader Imad Moughniyah was killed in a car bomb. It’s tough to lose your heros I’m sure.
Relax, doesn’t he get 72 virgins?
[quote]Tokoya wrote:
lixy wrote:
Deus vult wrote:
…
Maybe you’ll be taken seriously if you learned how to formulate a decent post.
And deus vult? Really?
Lixy, is this another fatwa from you on how to post on these threads? Perhaps you are just pissed off since you’re heard that Hezbollah leader Imad Moughniyah was killed in a car bomb. It’s tough to lose your heros I’m sure.
Relax, doesn’t he get 72 virgins? [/quote]
Actually i`ve seen a translation xpert who says that the muslims got i all wrong with the 72 virgins it was originally 72 RAISINS.
BOy what a downer !
And exactly my point with askin Lixy to explain to me exactly what his OPINIONS and views are: TO BLOW THAT TERRORIST SYMPATHIZER SCUMS COVER
[quote]lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Are you denying it takes place? It happens. Denying it makes people think you must be in on it.
It’s a cunning plot!
In France, where they actually monitor such things it is just under 5% of mosques that spread hatred and terror.
http://www.jamestown.org/terrorism/news/article.php?articleid=2373621
How can you twist that 4.7% “were of concern to” the Renseignements Généraux, into “spread hatred and terror”?
If anyone is spreading hatred here, it is the crowd that keeps insisting Muslims should be put in internment camps. And if anyone is spreading terror, it is you and your cronies. Not in their wildest dreams could Al-Qaeda have imagined that they would turn the “home of the brave” into a terrorized people.[/quote]
In your dreams pal. We are not afraid of your ilk. We recognze you for the scum you are and we are dealing with you.
Why don’t you tell us how heroic al-Qaeda’s suicide bombers are again?
Five times a day muslims are to get on their knees and bow to this place. Yet some people just can’t seem to figure out why we are having all these problems with the muslims.
International fury over Saudi Arabia’s plans to behead woman accused of being a witch
[quote]lixy wrote:
Deus vult wrote:
…
Maybe you’ll be taken seriously if you learned how to formulate a decent post.
And deus vult? Really?[/quote]
And its MR Deus vult to you, asshole
[quote]Shoebolt wrote:
I think you should consider the facts of the religion before you consider the behaviour of it’s followers.
ElbowStrike wrote:
Major points of note:
- Islam was a religion of peace when it was in the minority. Then, as Muhammad gained power over the city (Medina?), the “new” rules came out, which over-wrote the old rules, and called for violent war against non-believers (Christians, Jews, Pagans, etc).
Read some Islamic History from the Madinite period. There is too much for me to post here. The three battles of Badr, Uhud and the Trench were conducted due to initial instigation by the non-Muslim Quraish of Makkah.
The Muslims of Madinah did conduct raids at times on Caravans traveling to Makkah. But this was only due to the fact that the Quraish had established a trade embargo on Madinah (they were the authority of trade in the area at that time - like the US today), so the Muslims had to raid caravans to survive and obtain sustainment for the citizens of Madinah, and they raided the caravans specifically belonging to the Quraish so that they would reconsider placing the trade embargo, plus the fact that it would be fundamentally forbidden to raid the caravan of a tribe that was not their enemy.
-
The world is divided into two “houses” in Islam: The House of Islam (the Islamic World) and The House of War (the non-believers, who must be conquered. Violently, if necessary).
-
Muslims are allowed to lie if it serves their Faith.
“Truly Allah guides not one who transgresses and lies.” Surah 40:28.
The guidance of Allah is more valuable to a practicing Muslim than all the gold of the world, what do you know of Islam?
Here’s more:
Sahih MuslimBook 032, Number 6303:
Humaid b. 'Abd al-Rahman b. 'Auf reported that his mother Umm Kulthum daughter of 'Uqba b. Abu Mu’ait, and she was one amongst the first emigrants who pledged allegiance to Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him), as saying that she heard Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: A liar is not one who tries to bring reconciliation amongst people and speaks good (in order to avert dispute), or he conveys good.
Ibn Shihab said he did not hear that exemption was granted in anything what the people speak as lie but in three cases: in battle, for bringing reconciliation amongst persons and the narration of the words of the husband to his wife (to , and the narration of the words of a wife to her husband (in a form so that order is developed to bring reconciliation between them).
This means that lying is SPECIFICALLY only allowed in battle i.e. on the battlefield. How many times have the CIA and FBI lied to THEIR OWN PEOPLE? This is something not even allowed in Islam.
-
Muslims put on a friendly face for Westerners when they are in the minority, and the violent, radical side of Islam comes out only when they have a chance to take power. They are required by their faith to do this.
-
Western Democracy is seen as a pre-Islamic state of ignorance which must be corrected by Islam.
-
Muslim forces can only make peace when they are weaker than their enemies. As soon as they are stronger, peace is forbidden. They must make war.
Let me remind you that in Islam, the disbeliever (i.e. the kuffar word you hate so much) is one who has HEARD the message of Islam, then rejected it completely and turned away from it. Not just anyone who randomly is non-muslims. If you go to any public place in North America and ask everyone what they know Islam, they will say ‘terrorists’ or ‘jihad’ (what they learn from the media) and no one will know a single fact about what are the basics of what Muslims believe in the first place. Try it and see.
As for making war with non-muslim states, please tell me when this has happened in the Early days of Islam, when the populace and government of the muslims was actually following the guidance of the Prophet Muhammad?? The two empires who fought the muslims (i.e. the Romans and the Persians), were INVITED to islam, but upon hearing the message of Islam were the FIRST ones to send troops to fight the muslims.
- A ‘peace treaty’ in Islam can only last for up to 10 years. It is a ceasefire agreement, if anything. It is only allowed so that the Muslims have time to rebuild their forces to launch aggressive war once again.
Where is your proof? Just saying something and spreading dissent and hate? How are you different from a Nazi yourself?
Specific treaties like Hudaybiyyah were specifically time-limited due to the length of peace treaties tribally ordained in Arabia at the time. Breaking a peace treaty in Islam is forbidden unless the other side attacks, in which case Muslims are obligated to defend themselves to their fullest capability.
Proof:
The Quraish were the first to break the peace treaties with the Muslims.
- But if they violate their oaths after their covenant, and attack your religion with disapproval and criticism then fight (you) the leaders of disbelief (chiefs of Quraish - pagans of Makkah) - for surely their oaths are nothing to them - so that they may stop (evil actions). - Surah At-Taubah.
-
The Muslim Expansion was only ever stopped by violent retribution by the West, which caused a small “blip” of peace with the West. They are back again to expansion, now by immigration and reproduction.
-
Violent global Jihad has been ongoing, non-stop, since the 7th century.
Do you have historical proof to back this up? Muslim ‘expansion’ was spread through trade as people in markets around AFrica and Spain noticed the character and morals of tradesmen coming into the markets and realized that it was the result of Islam. These areas pledged allegiance to the Caliphate as they became Muslim. Wars only started as Muslim lands came into contact with Christian lands, who by the way were the FIRST to call muslims ‘infidels’ and attack them. Study History from books and scholars, not from movies.
- Quote of note: “[when the entire world is ruled by Islam] then even the smallest rock will call out ‘there is a Jew hiding behind me! Come and cut off his head!’”
Once again, proofs, texts, quotes? Where is it all? I hate to sound rude, but me just replying to your claims is tedious.
This event is in hadith the pertain to the time when a large collection of Jews will join the armies of the Antichrist. The Jews in question here will not be just any Jews being killed due to ‘anti-semitic’ beliefs or anything of the sort, these will be Jews who will be fought because they joined the army of the Anti-Christ (called Dajjal in Islam). And btw, this doesn’t mean that Jews are evil either, a lot of Muslims weak in faith and other peoples will be part of Dajjal’s army as well.
- Islam is not a religion. It is a violent, expansionist political system with a religious aspect.
I have already addressed this.
Now, if anyone wants to say something about Islam, please next time, study islamic history carefully from the original sources, if you are going to quote the Quran, quote the verses before and after the verse, the circumstances in which they were revealed, and the sayings (hadith) of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) pertaining to those verses - as he would explain the verses to his companions and muslims of that time.
If you want to say something about Islam, make sure you are talking about the religion, not hte followers, because every religion has good and bad people. And make sure, always, you come with proof, and not just with empty words, because Islam is not built on blind faith, but proofs, evidences, and texts dating back 1400 years, and a book that has yet to be imitated or duplicated in its original language, simplicity and beauty of recitation.
As for Islam not being a religion, here is the basics of Islamic monotheism (Tawheed)-(taken from IslamToday.com:
- Islam emphasizes that Allah (arabic word for God) is the Creator of all things. He is unique in every way and none has the right to be worshipped except for Him.
-A Muslim must believe in all of the scriptures sent by Allah to His different Messengers. A Muslim must believe in every scripture mentioned by Allah in the Qurân. Allah sent them and they are the actual Word of Allah.
The scriptures that Allah mentions in the Qurân are as follows:
- The scrolls that were revealed to Abraham (peace be upon him).
- The Torah that was revealed to Moses (peace be upon him).
- The Psalms that were revealed to David (peace be upon him).
- The Gospel that was revealed to Jesus (peace be upon him).
- The Qurân that was revealed to Muhammad (peace be upon him).
At the same time, the Muslims do not consider the Bible that is presently in circulation in various editions and versions to be an accurate representation of the older scriptures that were revealed before the Qurân. According to the Qurân, people have changed these scriptures for their own worldly ends. What remains of them is a mixture of truth and falsehood.
-The Prophets and Messengers (peace be upon them) were people who received revelation from Allah. They were sent to humanity to teach people the truth and to guide them to the path of salvation. None of the Prophets and Messengers share in any part of Allah’s divinity. They were merely human beings. It is forbidden for a Muslim to worship them in any way. A Muslim should never invoke them, make supplications to them, or seek Allah’s mercy and forgiveness through them. All such things are acts of polytheism, and anyone who practices such things is outside of the fold of Islam.
Allah had sent Prophets throughout the ages to different nations of people all over the world. A Muslim must believe in all of the Prophets and Messengers. Allah in the Qurân has mentioned some of them. Among those who have been mentioned by name are Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad (peace be upon them all.)
All of the Prophets and Messengers came with the religion of Islam. They were all Muslims. The people who truly followed these Prophets when they came were also Muslims. For example, when Moses came, anyone who truly followed him was Muslim until the time of the next Prophet. Likewise, when Jesus came, it was obligatory for everyone to accept him if they were to be considered Muslims. All the Prophets and Messengers called humanity to worship Allah alone without ascribing to Him any partner, and they all submitted completely to the will of Allah, which is Islam.
The Prophets, from Adam to Muhammad (peace be upon them) were all brothers in faith. They all called to the same truth. Different Messengers came with different sets of laws that Allah sent with them to govern the people, but the essence of their teachings was the same. They all called people away from the worship of created things to the worship of the Creator.
Muslims love and respect all of the Prophets and Messengers of Allah. If a person rejects or dislikes any one of them, that person is not a Muslim.
Muhammad (peace be upon him) has the distinction of being Allah’s final Messenger to humanity. No Prophet or Messenger will come after him. For this reason, he is known as the Seal of the Prophets. This means that the manifestation of the Divine Law that is embodied in the teachings of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is for all of humanity until the Day of Judgment. It is obligatory on all people to believe in him and all the Prophets and Messengers who came before him.
-It is obligatory on all Muslims to believe in the Day of Judgment. This is the day when each and every individual will stand before Allah and be questioned about his or her deeds. The reward for success on this day is Paradise. The penalty for failure is Hell. Allah will not be unjust to any of His Creation.
- Allah knows everything that goes on in His Creation and the time that it occurs. From the perspective of beings like us, this means that Allah knows everything that happened in the past, everything that is happening in the present, and everything that will happen in the future. Allah’s Divine Knowledge is perfect, so whatever He knows is going to happen in the future must come to pass. Furthermore, Allah has Absolute Sovereignty over His Creation. Everything that exists within it and every event that occurs is a direct result of His creating it. Nothing happens in Creation except by His Power and as He wills.
And all this belief is based on two things: the Quran, and the Sunnah (sayings of Prophet Muhammad pbuh), we are not permitted to make up things in the religion based on what we think or prefer.[/quote]
Spare me the lecture. Jesus will kick muhammads bony ass any day any where. Proud to be christian.
How about we just change the topic and talk about a religion where we all know everyone is a pacifist, like Buddhism? Wait a minute, aren’t these the same Buddhists who were samurai, gave rise to the Tamil Tigers, Thai, Chinese and Burmese imperialism? Oh yeah, those pacifists.
Point people is that every religion seems to have a large amount of itself dedicated to peace which is cheerily ignored when inconvenient. There is a long Islamic history of conquering your neighbors and trying to give yourself legitimacy by claiming it was all done in the name of Islam – Wahabism is just one of the more recent examples. In the West we don’t have this since the Church was seen as being above the political fray, so I think we are apt to read too much into such claims. It is a lot better to look at what the immediate politics are than the religion since – dare I say it – as countries improve, so do their Gods.
Let me pull this thread in another direction. A recent reading of Islamic history made me think of the following thesis: The issue in the Islamic world is tribalism. When Mohamed came onto the scene, the Arabs united behind him and for a while tribalism was extinguished in the name of Islam. This corresponds pretty well to the golden era of the Caliphs which is held with such nostalgia in the Arab world. Tribalism re-asserted itself slowly, then with the Mongol invasions much more rapidly and has been a strong force ever since.
What do I posit? That tribalism is not merely the problem today it is what Mohamed was trying to eradicate. If the modern Muslims want to follow in his footpaths, they would do well the ponder this. The supposed return to values that Al Qaeda et al admonish probably run more contrary to the historical record for the period than they would care to admit.
Thoughts?
– jj
[quote]jj-dude wrote:
How about we just change the topic and talk about a religion where we all know everyone is a pacifist, like Buddhism? Wait a minute, aren’t these the same Buddhists who were samurai, gave rise to the Tamil Tigers, Thai, Chinese and Burmese imperialism? Oh yeah, those pacifists.
Point people is that every religion seems to have a large amount of itself dedicated to peace which is cheerily ignored when inconvenient. There is a long Islamic history of conquering your neighbors and trying to give yourself legitimacy by claiming it was all done in the name of Islam – Wahabism is just one of the more recent examples. In the West we don’t have this since the Church was seen as being above the political fray, so I think we are apt to read too much into such claims. It is a lot better to look at what the immediate politics are than the religion since – dare I say it – as countries improve, so do their Gods.
Let me pull this thread in another direction. A recent reading of Islamic history made me think of the following thesis: The issue in the Islamic world is tribalism. When Mohamed came onto the scene, the Arabs united behind him and for a while tribalism was extinguished in the name of Islam. This corresponds pretty well to the golden era of the Caliphs which is held with such nostalgia in the Arab world. Tribalism re-asserted itself slowly, then with the Mongol invasions much more rapidly and has been a strong force ever since.
What do I posit? That tribalism is not merely the problem today it is what Mohamed was trying to eradicate. If the modern Muslims want to follow in his footpaths, they would do well the ponder this. The supposed return to values that Al Qaeda et al admonish probably run more contrary to the historical record for the period than they would care to admit.
Thoughts?
– jj[/quote]
Best post of the thread. Quoting for truth.
tl;dr - Tribalism is bad. Mohamed tried to end tribalism. Tribalism is now the problem. As countries improve, so do their Gods.
Mohammad did not end tribalism. He made Islam a tribe. if you were in it, you were with him, if you were not you were to be converted to his faith or pay a tribute to the tribe or be killed as a non-believer.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Mohammad did not end tribalism. He made Islam a tribe. if you were in it, you were with him, if you were not you were to be converted to his faith or pay a tribute to the tribe or be killed as a non-believer.
[/quote]
Because no other religion has ever done this ever…
On tribalism -
I don’t think that word means what you think it does.
No. No other religion has done so in the past. Nor, has any secular idea inspired such in the pas…YES!!!
Yes, ok?! The crusades, bloody communist Russia, blah, blah, yadda, yadda, etc., etc. We’re all aware of these things!
Can we stop trying to redirect this conversation away from a real problem that exists today? Look, if you guys perfect a time machine, we’ll all travel back to the inquisition and bitch about the treatment of jews and pagans, or somesuch thing. Cripes.
It’s like discussing the evils of modern day slavery only to hear “Oh yeah, well you Americans used to practice slavery!” And? That means we should shut up?
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Mohammad did not end tribalism. He made Islam a tribe. if you were in it, you were with him, if you were not you were to be converted to his faith or pay a tribute to the tribe or be killed as a non-believer.
[/quote]
A tribe is a smallish social unit consisting of mostly a major clan and minor supporting clans with little or no political structure. By your (re)definition the US revolution made us into a tribe. Nope.
Tribalism is a great way to run a small mostly agrarian society. Look at the Scottish Highlands. There is an undeniable attraction there. When the stakes are a few camels or haggis it can be fine. This is why the Arab have such strong romanticized feelings about it. It does not scale to a national level and the downsides e.g. racism is a common corollary, warfare is automatically genocidal and warlordism is the way to get ahead mean that in the modern era, it is pernicious to those who try to follow it.
Just to put this in high relief, if the Supreme Court makes a ruling, everybody has to do it. In one of these countries (this is what I’ve read and I admit I’ve never been to one), a judge’s ruling, even if he is on their version of the Supreme Court might be completely ignored outside of those regions where his family has influence. Look at Iraq (or most of the other armies in the Middle East). The heads of the Air Force, Navy etc. were all Saddam cronies because it was far more important to have someone watching rather than competence. Indeed, a smart up and coming colonel could stage a coup (e.g. Qadaffi) so they tend to get shot. I read an interview with most recent head of the Saudi Royal Air Force a while back. He was a prince who had taken some flying lessons and I swear the man was a moron. Gee, I wonder why the Saudis want to have the US military parked nearby to bail them out…
I any case, competence in many cases is secondary to loyalty. Any sort of national law will get trumped at the local level by tribal law. Think of how well the US would work if we stuck the Hatfields and McCoys in charge of everything and you start to get the picture.
Since this is relevant to the thread, other Muslims (such as Indonesians, Indians) do not have these same political issues (the Wahabis are working hard to export it though and treat Islam as a personal possession, which confuses the faithful to no end). I would argue that Islamic radicals are an Arab phenomenon and should be dealt with as an issue of the astonishingly ineptness of their regimes. The complete and massive failures of these governments (often referred to as kleptocracies) has created a backlash in these countries for the good old days, which are interpreted as a return to yet more tribalism.
And I could be wrong…
– jj
[quote]Sloth wrote:
No. No other religion has done so in the past. Nor, has any secular idea inspired such in the pas…YES!!!
Yes, ok?! The crusades, bloody communist Russia, blah, blah, yadda, yadda, etc., etc. We’re all aware of these things!
Can we stop trying to redirect this conversation away from a real problem that exists today? Look, if you guys perfect a time machine, we’ll all travel back to the inquisition and bitch about the treatment of jews and pagans, or somesuch thing. Cripes.
It’s like discussing the evils of modern day slavery only to hear “Oh yeah, well you Americans used to practice slavery!” And? That means we should shut up?[/quote]
Question:
Are we discussing the INNATE morality of Islam? Because that’s what it sounds like. We’re not discussing MODERN Islam, we’re discussing the innate ethics and spirituality of the religion of Islam.
People are trying to argue that because Islam started thusly, and because people in its history did such and such, Islam will always be innately evil. I am arguing that this implies ALL major religions are evil.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
It’s like discussing the evils of modern day slavery only to hear “Oh yeah, well you Americans used to practice slavery!” And? That means we should shut up?[/quote]
Completely different.
If you were trying to argue that Islam itself is evil innately BECAUSE some Muslims today owned slaves, than YES, “Oh yeah, well you Americans used to practice slavery!” is a valid argument.
We’re not talking about Islam as it is interpreted today by an insane few. We’re talking about Islams ROOTS, which are just as perverted and disgusting as any other religion.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Sloth wrote:
No. No other religion has done so in the past. Nor, has any secular idea inspired such in the pas…YES!!!
Yes, ok?! The crusades, bloody communist Russia, blah, blah, yadda, yadda, etc., etc. We’re all aware of these things!
Can we stop trying to redirect this conversation away from a real problem that exists today? Look, if you guys perfect a time machine, we’ll all travel back to the inquisition and bitch about the treatment of jews and pagans, or somesuch thing. Cripes.
It’s like discussing the evils of modern day slavery only to hear “Oh yeah, well you Americans used to practice slavery!” And? That means we should shut up?
Question:
Are we discussing the INNATE morality of Islam? Because that’s what it sounds like. We’re not discussing MODERN Islam, we’re discussing the innate ethics and spirituality of the religion of Islam.
People are trying to argue that because Islam started thusly, and because people in its history did such and such, Islam will always be innately evil. I am arguing that this implies ALL major religions are evil.[/quote]
Yes, I’m saying Islam is hurting for some pretty widespread reforms. Yes, it’s great prophet is unfortunately a bad guy to emulate. Yes, you can keep bringing up the Inquisition. No, the inquisition is not taking place today. Yes, Islamic Jihad, terrorism, and seperatism is taking place in multiple nations, at uneven rates, today.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Sloth wrote:
It’s like discussing the evils of modern day slavery only to hear “Oh yeah, well you Americans used to practice slavery!” And? That means we should shut up?
Completely different.
If you were trying to argue that Islam itself is evil innately BECAUSE some Muslims today owned slaves, than YES, “Oh yeah, well you Americans used to practice slavery!” is a valid argument.
We’re not talking about Islam as it is interpreted today by an insane few. We’re talking about Islams ROOTS, which are just as perverted and disgusting as any other religion.[/quote]
Sigh.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Question:
Are we discussing the INNATE morality of Islam? Because that’s what it sounds like. We’re not discussing MODERN Islam, we’re discussing the innate ethics and spirituality of the religion of Islam.
People are trying to argue that because Islam started thusly, and because people in its history did such and such, Islam will always be innately evil. I am arguing that this implies ALL major religions are evil.
Yes, I’m saying Islam is hurting for some pretty widespread reforms. [/quote]
That’s fair. The OP’s claim is entirely different.