I'm not surprised islamics are militant and so dislike us infidels.

Look at it through their eyes.

There the islamics are :- praying 5* plus a day, starving for a month (daylight hours only) every year, not wanking, no music, cover their womens whole bodies, memorising the koran word for word, they can't leave by threat of death.

What do us infidels do ??
Some of us go to church when we want, we party, eat bacon, our women walk around 1/2 naked (or better).
And to rub salt into the wound, we on average have a higher standard of living and they are losing numbers !!!!!!!!!

It's VERY unfair

We also blame them when the topic of Islam takes over our forums.

Unfair.

Gotta agree with you on this one sprint. In fact Muhammad (pbuh) confirmed this.

Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) said: "This world is like a prison for the believer and like paradise for the unbeliever".


Quote:

And to rub salt into the wound, we on average have a higher standard of living

During the peak of Islamic civilisation, when Muslims ruled most of the known world, and our living standards and wealth far outstripped those of most other people in the world, a scholar was asked how this hadith can possibly be true,to which he replied:

"Compared to the afterlife that awaits the believers, even this prosperity and lifestyle we have is like a prison for us, and compared to the afterlife that awaits the unbelievers, this world is like a paradise for them"


Quote:

and they are losing numbers !!!!!!!!!

All world statistics disagree with this. Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world. Besides, it's about quality, not quantity. Much better to have 100 people who actually believe in and practise their religion, than 1000 who treat it like a joke, and mock it just to please the atheists. :)

Quote:

Besides, it's about quality, not quantity.

Why do you muslims want everyone to become muslim? Why do you infiltrate our lives with your belief system? Why can't you just let us be? We are quite happy for you to live your deluded little lifestyle. Why are you not happy for us to live our lifestyle?

jordan484 wrote on Oct 9^th, 2008 at 5:08pm:

Quote: Besides, it's about quality, not quantity. Why do you muslims want everyone to become muslim? Why do you infiltrate our lives with your belief system? Why can't you just let us be? We are quite happy for you to live your deluded little lifestyle. Why are you not happy for us to live our lifestyle?

look at it like this, if you have had a head ache every day of your life you wouldnt know you had one, u wouldnt think your life was any worse than anyone elses.

If  a person who knew how to cure head aches came along they would naturally ttry their hardest to help you out of simple human love.

same for christians and muslims, they believe they have a cure for your head ache you dont relaise you even have.

Abu - Islam relies on brainwashing, pure and simple.

Pray, however many times a day to make yourself a "good Muslim" , and then you are supposedly happy.

The evil protagonist wants you to disregard all that you are as a human being in order to serve the order of the faith (ie: himself).

Well, go ahead...see what it brings them.

abu_rashid wrote on Oct 9^th, 2008 at 1:39pm:

Quote: During the peak of Islamic civilisation, when Muslims ruled most of the known world, Known world? They ruled what is now the Muslim middle east. Not exactly the 'known world'. Or even an important part of it. This is not the bazaar, you do not need to make boasting and exageration an permanent feature of exchange with others. [quote] Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world. Besides, it's about quality, not quantity. Much better to have 100 people who actually believe in and practise their religion, than 1000 who treat it like a joke, and mock it just to please the atheists. :)

Islam is dying. All the mindless killing in its name is a sign of its death throes. It knows it has no basis for beeing confident. It thrashes and slashes and lashes out. It cannot reason, it cannot put its case because reason is alien to it, an enemy like sunlight.
It attracts all the cut-throats, desperados, rabble-rousers and death-loving devinats, and that is its only source of growth. With the communist ideology gone, it is the next great hope fior all the lunatics.

I bet that a great dose of your attraction to it was political rather than spiritual, Mr Hizb ul tahrir.  Intellectually, it is negligable. Spiritually, it is a laughable catalogue of mish-mash and misundertsandings and persoanal pique by Muhammed.

Its only attraction is to marauders, conquerors, those who dream of world domination.
I pity those who were born into it. You do not have that excuse.

how's about people just try respecting the beliefs of others instead of bitching about them at every opportunity?

muslims are the same as anyone else- some are good, some are bad, some are in between

try taking people as individuals instead as part of a category and see how you go with that

Gaybriel wrote on Oct 9^th, 2008 at 10:32pm:

how's about people just try respecting the beliefs of others instead of bitching about them at every opportunity? muslims are the same as anyone else- some are good, some are bad, some are in between try taking people as individuals instead as part of a category and see how you go with that

Welcome to the forum, Gaybriel.

yes, good to have you here gaybriel

cheers guys- I didn't actually know if I was sposed to introduce myself somewhere?

I felt rude just randomly posting - but my head is too full of germs and tiredness to figure out if I should intro  :P

gaybriel - nah, I liked the way you jumped right in !!!!!!!!!!

good luck with your germs. Sleep well

soren,

Quote:

Known world? They ruled what is now the Muslim middle east. Not exactly the 'known world'. Or even an important part of it.

From Spain to the borders of China (east-west)
From Kazakhstan to Mozambique (north-south)

The Islamic world encompassed most of the known world, Just accept it, it was many centuries ago, so it really shouldn't be all that frightful for you now, in the comfort of the 21st. century.


Quote:

you do not need to make boasting and exageration an permanent feature of exchange with others

It wasn't out of context, it was quite relevant to the conversation, and it is a simple historical fact, are you still jealous all these centuries later?


Quote:

Islam is dying. All the mindless killing in its name is a sign of its death throes.

On the contrary, Islam is in a clear state of revival, and that's what's gotten people like you revved up. You're afraid of it's imminent return. If it was as you claim, you'd be treating it as you treat all other extinct civilisations, with reverence and respect. But you don't, quite clearly inidicating you know full well it is a rising challenge. And even if you're in a state of denial, it's quite clear from the actions of the Western leaders that they recognise this.

I find it extreme that Muslims do all that you said sprint and also that when they say the word Muhammed they have to follow it with "pbuh", Christians don't follow every Jesus with "pbuh", its stupid in my opinion.

Islam is a religion of the extreme, it suppresses womens human rights to the level that Muslim women think that they want to be covered head to toe and classed as secondary citizens after their "men."

Quote:

it suppresses womens human rights to the level that Muslim women think that they want to be covered head to toe

And you insult their dignity by such statements. Do you think Christian women are also oppressed for thinking they have to cover their breasts?

abu - if you want to start an anti-christian thread, go right ahead.
it is better to keep topics well defined.
Else every thread ends up the same and eveything is lost.

abu_rashid wrote on Oct 10^th, 2008 at 8:37am:

Quote: it suppresses womens human rights to the level that Muslim women think that they want to be covered head to toe And you insult their dignity by such statements. Do you think Christian women are also oppressed for thinking they have to cover their breasts?

If it wasn't for people like me standing up for human rights no Muslim women would have an ally outside the Muslim world.
This isn't about Christian women, who BTW can dress however they see fit, its about Islam.
I know all about Muslim oppression as I used to see an ex-Muslim girl from Iran, she came here seeking refuge from Islamic oppression and told me all about the so called "rights" Islam gives women.

sprint,

You need to learn what's relevant to the discussion, and exposing someone's hypocritical treatment of one religion compared to another was indeed relevant. Just because it happens to be your religion that I mentioned, don't take it personally, just see it as part of the debate.

queer,

Muslim women simply don't want your alliance. Try going to an Islamic forum (with your name queer) and announce you want to be an ally for Muslim women, and that you're going to help them unlearn their 'mindless desire' to cover their hair... should be fun to watch.

Yeh you might get the odd dissident from countries like Iran, since I'm not a Shi'a though the Iranian example doesn't mean a lot to me.

abu_rashid wrote on Oct 10^th, 2008 at 9:25am:

Muslim women simply don't want your alliance..

So you're saying they like being oppressed then?

I'm saying they're not oppressed, not by the clothing of their nakedness according to Islamic requirements anyway. No more than Papuans should look at Australian women and claim them to be oppressed because they can't walk into their streets with their breasts hanging out. Both men and women are oppressed in most Middle Eastern countries, it's got little to do with Islam, but a lot to do with Western-backed dictatorships who keep the political/economic situation there cozy for the West.

Anyway, as I suggested, try going to a Muslim forum and announcing yourself as an 'ally' to Muslim women, whose going to help them be 'liberated' from the tyranny of wearing clothes....  ;D

If you goto an Australian one, then most of them would already be educated here in Australia, and should already share half your views, no? Should make it quite easy to convince them you're going to liberate them from their oppression  ;D

queer- you're talking about the right iran gave women, not islam

I believe many people in power have also twisted the quran and its laws in order to suit them (suprise suprise many of these people in power are men)

if you actually talk to muslim women or wear the hijab or niqab they actually feel it is liberating rather than oppressing. and yes these are women who study at uni, hold jobs and are generally very opinionated and intelligent.

personally as a non-muslim woman in the west sometimes I feel oppressed by the constant sexualising of women that goes around- by the fact that I get harrassed in public by random men- the fact that I see so much random pornography and 'sex sells' advertisements that it makes my skin crawl.

there are different ideas as to what freedom and oppression are- covering oneself doesn't equal oppression unless you don't want to cover yourself

Some very good points gaybriel,


Quote:

personally as a non-muslim woman in the west sometimes I feel oppressed by the constant sexualising of women that goes around

It's quite ironic really isn't it that men are proclaiming their disdain for the oppression of women who are covered, and want to liberate them to walk around half naked... quite obvious who's interests that would serve, and it's certainly not the women. Yet they still try to 'clothe' it under the banner of protecting women's rights.

abu_rashid wrote on Oct 10^th, 2008 at 11:07am:

Some very good points gaybriel, Quote: personally as a non-muslim woman in the west sometimes I feel oppressed by the constant sexualising of women that goes around It's quite ironic really isn't it that men are proclaiming their disdain for the oppression of women who are covered, and want to liberate them to walk around half naked... quite obvious who's interests that would serve, and it's certainly not the women. Yet they still try to 'clothe' it under the banner of protecting women's rights.

yes I think if men let women speak as to the rights they wish to invoke they'd get a different idea. I don't think there are many women who don't have a problem with the over-sexualising of our gender in modern day society.

So I'd like to invoke my right not to be hollered at, not to be molested, not to have someone try and pull up my dress in the street etc etc- wait? what's that? noone cares? funny that...

ohhhh but if I put a hijab on- everyone would care- cause all of the sudden I'm oppressed.

I understand that the hijab/niqab is confronting for a lot of people- but really it comes down to respecting the choice of the individual. if they don't have a problem with wearing it- why does anyone else??

notice that people don't go around talking about how nuns are oppressed btw. nor is such attention given to orthodox jews, the amish etc

covering oneself doesn't equal oppression unless you don't want to cover yourself

Likewise slavery isn't oppression unless you want to be free. Opression isn't opression if you want to be oppressed right?

Both 'western' and Islamic societies allow you to wear a hijab. But only one gives you the choice.

freediver wrote on Oct 10^th, 2008 at 11:20am:

covering oneself doesn't equal oppression unless you don't want to cover yourself Likewise slavery isn't oppression unless you want to be free. Opression isn't opression if you want to be oppressed right? Both 'western' and Islamic societies allow you to wear a hijab. But only one gives you the choice.

I think slavery is an entirely different issue- plus who wants to be a slave?  :P

but seriously- you're coming from a different perspective whereby you view oppression and freedom as signified by certain things (ie not covering oneself up). whereas others have a different opinion.

note I didn't say you believe freedom is dressing however you want- because if you believed that, you wouldn't have a problem with the hijab.

I do agree that people should have a choice in how they dress- that's my personal opinion. and if anyone is being forced to do something that contravenes their rights as a human being then obviously it is completely wrong.

but again- we have our own laws regarding dress in australia - so it that oppressive? some places have banned the hijab - I see that as oppression.

again-I think it comes down to respecting other people and their choices/beliefs

oh and actually there are islamic societies that give you the choice of the hijab :P

but notice that increasingly more western societies are looking to ban it!

abu_rashid wrote on Oct 10^th, 2008 at 8:37am:

....Do you think Christian women are also oppressed for thinking they have to cover their breasts?

I don't get your point rashid ?

Is your logic, that muslim women do not feel any need to cover their breasts, in contrast to Christian women?

Because that is what your logic seems to suggest to me.



Perhaps you could try to give another example, of how ISLAM enhances muslim women's human rights?

....but really, that is NOT ISLAM's intention is it???

ISLAM = = submission

Muslim men submit to ISLAM's rules / Allah / Sharia.
Muslim women submit to muslim men.
Unbelievers submit to believers [muslims].

There, have i got ISLAM described correctly?

Gaybriel wrote on Oct 10^th, 2008 at 11:16am:

... I understand that the hijab/niqab is confronting for a lot of people- but really it comes down to respecting the choice of the individual. if they don't have a problem with wearing it- why does anyone else?? ...

So why then Moslem governments don't respect the right of girls to wear bikini where they like?

whereby you view oppression and freedom as signified by certain things (ie not covering oneself up)

No, freedom is having a choice.

whereas others have a different opinion

Such as?

note I didn't say you believe freedom is dressing however you want- because if you believed that, you wouldn't have a problem with the hijab.

Who said I have a problem with the hijab?

but again- we have our own laws regarding dress in australia - so it that oppressive?

Many nudists seem to think so. Luckily for them Australia is fairly tolerant of them.

tallowood wrote on Oct 10^th, 2008 at 11:35am:

Gaybriel wrote on Oct 10th, 2008 at 11:16am: ... I understand that the hijab/niqab is confronting for a lot of people- but really it comes down to respecting the choice of the individual. if they don't have a problem with wearing it- why does anyone else?? ... So why then Moslem governments don't respect the right of girls to wear bikini where they like?

I couldn't say- I don't speak for Muslim governments. I'm speaking about my personal beliefs. you'd have to ask the government of whichever country you are referring to.

but I always find it amusing when people say things like "well if we were in a muslim country we couldn't wear what we liked, so why should they be able to wear what they want here"

such crazy anti-logic

1) 'we' don't like muslim countries
2) they act in a way we don't like
3) so we should replicate the same behaviour of a country whose behaviour we say is bad

wth!

Yadda wrote on Oct 10^th, 2008 at 11:35am:

abu_rashid wrote on Oct 10th, 2008 at 8:37am: ....Do you think Christian women are also oppressed for thinking they have to cover their breasts? I don't get your point rashid ? Is your logic, that muslim women do not feel any need to cover their breasts, in contrast to Christian women? Because that is what your logic seems to suggest to me. Perhaps you could try to give another example, of how ISLAM enhances muslim women's human rights?

see link below:

http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=...497&CATE=89

Gaybriel wrote on Oct 10^th, 2008 at 11:40am:

tallowood wrote on Oct 10th, 2008 at 11:35am: Gaybriel wrote on Oct 10th, 2008 at 11:16am: ... I understand that the hijab/niqab is confronting for a lot of people- but really it comes down to respecting the choice of the individual. if they don't have a problem with wearing it- why does anyone else?? ... So why then Moslem governments don't respect the right of girls to wear bikini where they like? I couldn't say- I don't speak for Muslim governments. I'm speaking about my personal beliefs. you'd have to ask the government of whichever country you are referring to. but I always find it amusing when people say things like "well if we were in a muslim country we couldn't wear what we liked, so why should they be able to wear what they want here" such crazy anti-logic 1) 'we' don't like muslim countries 2) they act in a way we don't like 3) so we should replicate the same behaviour of a country whose behaviour we say is bad wth!

1), 2), 3) is your logic Nobody else put it here like that
As for right to dress the way they like should it not apply to all irrespectively of religion?

No, freedom is having a choice.

I know freedom is having a choice (I agree) but I said you see it as signified by certain things


Such as?

muslims?

Who said I have a problem with the hijab?

I assumed from your association of oppression and slavery with the hijab- but I see how I may have misconstrued that as you were maybe just arguing the idea of oppression itself?

Many nudists seem to think so. Luckily for them Australia is fairly tolerant of them.

indeed!

tallowood wrote on Oct 10^th, 2008 at 11:45am:

Gaybriel wrote on Oct 10th, 2008 at 11:40am: tallowood wrote on Oct 10th, 2008 at 11:35am: Gaybriel wrote on Oct 10th, 2008 at 11:16am: ... I understand that the hijab/niqab is confronting for a lot of people- but really it comes down to respecting the choice of the individual. if they don't have a problem with wearing it- why does anyone else?? ... So why then Moslem governments don't respect the right of girls to wear bikini where they like? I couldn't say- I don't speak for Muslim governments. I'm speaking about my personal beliefs. you'd have to ask the government of whichever country you are referring to. but I always find it amusing when people say things like "well if we were in a muslim country we couldn't wear what we liked, so why should they be able to wear what they want here" such crazy anti-logic 1) 'we' don't like muslim countries 2) they act in a way we don't like 3) so we should replicate the same behaviour of a country whose behaviour we say is bad wth! 1), 2), 3) is your logic Nobody else put it here like that As for right to dress the way they like should it not apply to all irrespectively of religion?

sorry mate- I know noone said that here- I was just going off on a tangent in regards to what I've heard "people" say.

I think people should be able to dress the way they like irrespective of religion yes. but if a religion says that there are certain ways of dress that are recommended then it's up to the individual as to whether they adhere to it.

I know quite a few muslim women who don't wear the hijab- but they're still muslim and are considered by others as such.

I'm not really sure if that answers your question?

Hi gaybriel. Did malik and abu recruit you from muslimvillage?

Gaybriel wrote on Oct 10^th, 2008 at 11:50am:

I think people should be able to dress the way they like irrespective of religion yes. but if a religion says that there are certain ways of dress that are recommended then it's up to the individual as to whether they adhere to it. I know quite a few muslim women who don't wear the hijab- but they're still muslim and are considered by others as such. I'm not really sure if that answers your question?

Yes, the question was answered and looks like both of us condemned governments who force a dress code on freedom loving girls and boys. :)

jordan484 wrote on Oct 10^th, 2008 at 11:53am:

Hi gaybriel. Did malik and abu recruit you from muslimvillage?

lol- no they didn't I actually came across this forum myself!

it was only once I joined that I realised I knew malik from muslim village!

abu- I don't know who he is!

tallowood wrote on Oct 10^th, 2008 at 12:00pm:

Gaybriel wrote on Oct 10th, 2008 at 11:50am: I think people should be able to dress the way they like irrespective of religion yes. but if a religion says that there are certain ways of dress that are recommended then it's up to the individual as to whether they adhere to it. I know quite a few muslim women who don't wear the hijab- but they're still muslim and are considered by others as such. I'm not really sure if that answers your question? Yes, the question was answered and looks like both of us condemned governments who force a dress code on freedom loving girls and boys. :)

yeah I'm not really into governments who force anything on people

it's not my bag baby

He's malik's lap dog.

Gaybriel wrote on Oct 10^th, 2008 at 10:53am:

....if you actually talk to muslim women or wear the hijab or niqab they actually feel it is liberating rather than oppressing. and yes these are women who study at uni, hold jobs and are generally very opinionated and intelligent.

I have seen muslim clerics in the mosque teaching that young girls who resist wearing the Hijib [at 10 yrs old] must be hit.
[YOUTUBE - Dispatches - Undercover Mosque]

Sounds like Pavlov-ian type conditioning to me.

Certainly not freedom of choice.



And if you leave ISLAM?

ISLAM mandates killing apostates.

How does that square with,

"Let there be no compulsion in religion......."
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/002.qmt.html#002.256



++++

Gaybriel you suggested...

see link below:
http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=...497&CATE=89

An invalid link?

Link will not load for me.

Yadda wrote on Oct 10^th, 2008 at 12:13pm:

Gaybriel wrote on Oct 10th, 2008 at 10:53am: ....if you actually talk to muslim women or wear the hijab or niqab they actually feel it is liberating rather than oppressing. and yes these are women who study at uni, hold jobs and are generally very opinionated and intelligent. I have seen muslim clerics in the mosque teaching that young girls who resist wearing the Hijib [at 10 yrs old] must be hit. [YOUTUBE - Dispatches - Undercover Mosque] Sounds like Pavlov-ian type conditioning to me. Certainly not freedom of choice. And if you leave ISLAM? ISLAM mandates killing apostates. How does that square with, "Let there be no compulsion in religion......." http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/002.qmt.html#002.256 ++++ Gaybriel you suggested... see link below: http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=...497&CATE=89 An invalid link? Link will not load for me.

no that most certainly isn't freedom of choice and should be condemned! I think you'd find many many muslims who would agree with that!

http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=1&ID=1497&CATE=89

sorry- it pasted wrong before- this should work!

Gaybriel wrote on Oct 10^th, 2008 at 12:31pm:

Yadda wrote on Oct 10th, 2008 at 12:13pm: Gaybriel wrote on Oct 10th, 2008 at 10:53am: ....if you actually talk to muslim women or wear the hijab or niqab they actually feel it is liberating rather than oppressing. and yes these are women who study at uni, hold jobs and are generally very opinionated and intelligent. I have seen muslim clerics in the mosque teaching that young girls who resist wearing the Hijib [at 10 yrs old] must be hit. [YOUTUBE - Dispatches - Undercover Mosque] Sounds like Pavlov-ian type conditioning to me. Certainly not freedom of choice. And if you leave ISLAM? ISLAM mandates killing apostates. How does that square with, "Let there be no compulsion in religion......." http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/002.qmt.html#002.256 no that most certainly isn't freedom of choice and should be condemned! I think you'd find many many muslims who would agree with that!

Could you then, name three Australian muslim clerics, 'who would agree with that' too?

And there lays the problem.
....all muslim clerics know ISLAMIC doctrine very well.

i.e. ISLAMIC doctrine mandates intolerance of the Jahiliyya [un-ISLAMIC] lifestyle [even within non-muslim countries].

"....Jahiliyya is a result of the lack of Sharia law, without which Islam cannot exist;"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jahiliyya#Jahiliyya_in_contemporary_society


"THE RIGHT TO JUDGE"
"It is not the function of Islam to compromise with the concepts of Jahiliyya which are current in the world **or to co-exist** in the same land together with a jahili system........"
by SAYYID QUTB
http://www.islamworld.net/justice.html

Sayyid Qutb, was a renowned ISLAMIC 'philosopher', who was executed in Egypt [1966] for encouraging an ISLAMIC revolt against the Egyptian govt.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayyid_Qutb
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qutbism

Yadda,


Quote:

I don't get your point rashid ?

Read it again.. and again, and again, until you get it. I'll give you a tip, resist your obviously overhwelming urge to quote it out of context, especially look at the word "Papuans", it might shed a little light on the meaning.


Quote:

Is your logic, that muslim women do not feel any need to cover their breasts, in contrast to Christian women?

Muslim women cover more than just breasts, so that's obviously not a logical conclusion is it... So don't just read my statement in context, read it with a hint of logic too.

tallowood,


Quote:

So why then Moslem governments don't respect the right of girls to wear bikini where they like?

Firstly, which Muslim governments? If you have a particular country in mind, then mention it, cos the majority of 'Muslim governments' [sadly] do permit wearing of bikinis, there's very few that don't.

Secondly, why do Western governments not respect the right of girls to wear absolutely nothing wherever they like?

Yadda wrote on Oct 10^th, 2008 at 12:59pm:

Gaybriel wrote on Oct 10th, 2008 at 12:31pm: Yadda wrote on Oct 10th, 2008 at 12:13pm: Gaybriel wrote on Oct 10th, 2008 at 10:53am: ....if you actually talk to muslim women or wear the hijab or niqab they actually feel it is liberating rather than oppressing. and yes these are women who study at uni, hold jobs and are generally very opinionated and intelligent. I have seen muslim clerics in the mosque teaching that young girls who resist wearing the Hijib [at 10 yrs old] must be hit. [YOUTUBE - Dispatches - Undercover Mosque] Sounds like Pavlov-ian type conditioning to me. Certainly not freedom of choice. And if you leave ISLAM? ISLAM mandates killing apostates. How does that square with, "Let there be no compulsion in religion......." http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/002.qmt.html#002.256 no that most certainly isn't freedom of choice and should be condemned! I think you'd find many many muslims who would agree with that! Could you then, name three Australian muslim clerics, 'who would agree with that' too? And there lays the problem. ....all muslim clerics know ISLAMIC doctrine very well. i.e. ISLAMIC doctrine mandates intolerance of the Jahiliyya [un-ISLAMIC] lifestyle [even within non-muslim countries]. "....Jahiliyya is a result of the lack of Sharia law, without which Islam cannot exist;" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jahiliyya#Jahiliyya_in_contemporary_society "THE RIGHT TO JUDGE" "It is not the function of Islam to compromise with the concepts of Jahiliyya which are current in the world **or to co-exist** in the same land together with a jahili system........" by SAYYID QUTB http://www.islamworld.net/justice.html Sayyid Qutb, was a renowned ISLAMIC 'philosopher', who was executed in Egypt [1966] for encouraging an ISLAMIC revolt against the Egyptian govt. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayyid_Qutb http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qutbism

I don't have enough knowledge of muslim clerics for that. I could tell of you many muslim people who would have a major problem with 10 year olds getting hit for not wanting to wear hijab.

If i happen to talkto a muslim cleric about this particular issue then I'll let you know

Welcome to OzPolitic Yadda.

abu_rashid wrote on Oct 10^th, 2008 at 1:17pm:

tallowood, Quote: So why then Moslem governments don't respect the right of girls to wear bikini where they like? Firstly, which Muslim governments? If you have a particular country in mind, then mention it, cos the majority of 'Muslim governments' [sadly] do permit wearing of bikinis, there's very few that don't.

Malaysia, where it is an offence for unmarried ppl to hold hands in public places.

Google,
malaysia protests bikini islam
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=malaysia+protests+bikini+islam&btnG=Search&meta=

If you say Malaysia is not a muslim state,
....then when was the last bikini pageant held in Saudi Arabia or Iran?

Or when was the last time a woman was allowed to walk in a public place without a burka, or hijib [in Iran]?

If you say Saudi Arabia or Iran are not a muslim states, where is the ISLAMIC paradise on earth, precisely?






Quote:

Secondly, why do Western governments not respect the right of girls to wear absolutely nothing wherever they like?

That is like asking....
....Why does the Iraqi government not respect the right of ppl to walk around in public wearing 'suicide vests'?





In dress codes, non-muslim communities have decide to make laws which say you shall not offend your immediate neighbour.
.....But how do we, as a society, decide what is offensive, and what is not?
.....We elect ppl to make those laws / determinations on our behalf.
.....And we ['the people'] elect ppl who hopefully closely reflect our own tolerance / intolerance / views [otherwise we would elect a different person, next election time].
.....Then as a society, for the sake of peace, and social stability, we all agree to observe the 'common law', which has been commonly agreed upon.
.....[and 'transgressors' are prosecuted.]



Whereas,
Muslim communities are today, bounded by laws drawn up in the 7th century, when seeking tribute and war booty from declared 'enemies', and killing ppl who offended your god, and marrying pre-pubescent girls, and kissing black rocks as an reverence to your god, were all common practices.
ISLAMIC doctrine insists that where non-muslim law does not coincide with ISLAMIC law, the 'struggle' must continue, until non-muslim laws are replaced by Sharia law.

ISLAM is intolerant of all un-ISLAMIC influences / all un-ISLAMIC authority / all un-ISLAMIC laws.

freediver wrote on Oct 10^th, 2008 at 2:04pm:

Welcome to OzPolitic Yadda.

Cheers, freediver.

May you, 'Live long and prosper.'

:)

Yadda wrote on Oct 10^th, 2008 at 2:40pm:

abu_rashid wrote on Oct 10th, 2008 at 1:17pm: tallowood, Quote: So why then Moslem governments don't respect the right of girls to wear bikini where they like? Firstly, which Muslim governments? If you have a particular country in mind, then mention it, cos the majority of 'Muslim governments' [sadly] do permit wearing of bikinis, there's very few that don't. Malaysia, where it is an offence for unmarried ppl to hold hands in public places. Google, malaysia protests bikini islam http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=malaysia+protests+bikini+islam&btnG=Search&meta= If you say Malaysia is not a muslim state, ....then when was the last bikini pageant held in Saudi Arabia or Iran?

so bikini pageants are the benchmark of freedom now?


Quote:

If you say Saudi Arabia or Iran are not a muslim states, where is the ISLAMIC paradise on earth, precisely?

who said there was one?






Quote:

That is like asking.... ....Why does the Iraqi government not respect the right of ppl to walk around in public wearing 'suicide vests'?

worst comparison ever. epic fail.

To find a state accepted by Muslims as a 'true' Islamic state, you would have to go back many centuries, or recreate something like that again.

abu_rashid wrote on Oct 10^th, 2008 at 1:17pm:

tallowood, Quote: So why then Moslem governments don't respect the right of girls to wear bikini where they like? Firstly, which Muslim governments? If you have a particular country in mind, then mention it, cos the majority of 'Muslim governments' [sadly] do permit wearing of bikinis, there's very few that don't. Secondly, why do Western governments not respect the right of girls to wear absolutely nothing wherever they like?

Any Moslem governments AFAIK. If I'm wrong I would like to know which MG allows bikini.

Western laws aren't perfect either and have a hangover from Dark Ages when Religion was the Despot, however in that respects secular countries (not only western) are way ahead of countries (not only Moslem) where Religion substitutes Reason.

Quote:

Secondly, why do Western governments not respect the right of girls to wear absolutely nothing wherever they like?

er, socially unacceptable, and illegal #1.


Quote:

That is like asking.... ....Why does the Iraqi government not respect the right of ppl to walk around in public wearing 'suicide vests'?

er, socially unacceptable, and illegal #2.



Gaybriel

Quote:

worst comparison ever. epic fail.

Well, that is your opinion Gaybriel.

I say that there is a similarity of 'offence'.



+++++

Gaybriel

Quote:

so bikini pageants are the benchmark of freedom now?

No.

But police beating women on public streets because they show some hair, can hardly be demonstrated as ISLAMIC virtue, and the example of ISLAMIC tolerance?

Or can it?
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/797.jpg
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6596933.stm





Quote:

[quote] If you say Saudi Arabia or Iran are not a muslim states, where is the ISLAMIC paradise on earth, precisely?

who said there was one?
[/quote]

Ah, so there is no ISLAMIC paradise/utopia?

What is the consequence, where ever ISLAM ventures?



Q.
What is it which ISLAM 'brings' with it, wherever it goes?

A.
....'fitna'.

Strife and war.

No?



Question.....

If ISLAM is so virtuous, why don't muslims use ISLAM to correct their own house [i.e. their own homelands]?
....instead of trying to spread their corrupted contagion of 'perfection' [strife and war] upon others.

i.e. If ISLAM is so virtuous, why can't muslims 'clean their own stalls', instead of seeking to mess, the stalls of others?






I mean, if ISLAM truly is a perfect system of living, exemplified in muslim behaviour [which it is, according to the Koran].....

"Ye [muslims] are the best of peoples, evolved for mankind, enjoining what is right, forbidding what is wrong, and believing in Allah. If only the People of the Book had faith, it were best for them: among them are some who have faith, but most of them are perverted transgressors."
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/003.qmt.html#003.110

.....then all we non-muslims wish to see the example of this virtue.



Surely, ISLAM can point to an example of ISLAMIC virtue [a society], and demonstrate its virtue to us Kuffar?

And if i am convinced, then i will be the first to convert.

Fair offer?




But ISLAMIC culture has been demonstrated to be a failure.

How?

Clearly, muslims flock to countries like Australia, SEEKING SANCTUARY, to escape the strife [the 'religious' dictatorships] which their own 'religious' culture has created!

Gaybriel wrote on Oct 10^th, 2008 at 11:50am:

... I understand that the hijab/niqab is confronting for a lot of people- but really it comes down to respecting the choice of the individual. if they don't have a problem with wearing it- why does anyone else?? ...

This is the crux of the issue here though, isn't it. You say " if they don't have a problem with it " to which I can say neither do I except in situations where identity needs to be verified or ALL people are subject to facial recognition software etc.

But not all Muslim communities or schools of belief are liberal enough to give the woman the CHOICE, I am convinced that there are woman of the Muslim faith who see a value in doing so. The same as bashing yourself in the forhead until you are covered in blood is seen by some as valuable. But what of the ones that don't want to, the ones that do it out of fear of violence or imprisionment. The ones that do it because if they are raped while being seen to be LOOSE, are the ones that suffer most. These are the ones whose existence seems to be denied is spite of documented and antidotal evidence otherwise.

So many are less inclined to concern themselves with the lack of tolerance shown to a MALE dominated misogynal religion when they don't extend tolerance of choice to their own. And the lack of criticism from the ones that do accept that choice directed at the ones that deny that choice reflects their own lack of ethical integrity and courage.

Yadda,


Quote:

Malaysia, where it is an offence for unmarried ppl to hold hands in public places.

We're talking about bikinis, not holding hands, don't jump from subject to subject.


Quote:

If you say Malaysia is not a muslim state, ....then when was the last bikini pageant held in Saudi Arabia or Iran?

I agree Islamically nakedness for a woman is considered all but her hands and face, you don't need to prove it to me. But when you said "Muslim countries" it just wasn't correct, because Egypt for instance, permits women to wear bikinis as do many other Muslim countries.


Quote:

That is like asking.... ....Why does the Iraqi government not respect the right of ppl to walk around in public wearing 'suicide vests'?

No it's not like asking that at all. We're talking about states implementing public decency / nakedness laws, again please stay on topic. Australia, like most Western countries, have public decency laws, just as most Muslim countries do, just that in some Muslim countries they happen to be more stringent. You still restrict the 'rights' of people to expose their bodies, so stop being a hypocrite and saying you don't, and trying to sidestep the issue by spekaing about suicide bombers.


Quote:

er, socially unacceptable, and illegal #1.

Yes, exactly the same reason it's not permitted in some Muslim countries. Thank you.


Quote:

If ISLAM is so virtuous, why don't muslims use ISLAM to correct their own house [i.e. their own homelands]? ....instead of trying to spread their corrupted contagion of 'perfection' [strife and war] upon others.

Funny, the West are the ones who have a military presence in our countries, trying to enforce their ideology upon us. Look in the mirror. When was the last time a Muslim military entered a Western country to enforce their ideology? Was it in the 1500's maybe?


Quote:

Clearly, muslims flock to countries like Australia, SEEKING SANCTUARY, to escape the strife [the 'religious' dictatorships] which their own 'religious' culture has created!

Didn't you just present Iran and Saudi Arabia as possible candidtaes for religious dictatorships? funnily enough few of the Muslims in Australia are from those countries. In fact most are from Lebanon and Turkey, both secular countries, one  of them fanatically secular, the other ruled by Christians... Perhaps you'd better do a little more research?

Yadda, you do not seem to appreciate that there has been a massive Zionist western conpiracy againts muslims for centuries. The conspirators have prevented the realisation of properly constituted Islamic societies (which would be the best of all possible societies), they wage war against innocent muslims either for their oil or simply because they are muslims, they install their puppets in muslim countries with the express purpose to brutally and violently oppressing muslims.
Many muslims have been lured by the decadence of the zionist western conspirators. If only theey coul live like true muslism, there would be no need to leave their homes.

So in a small way, it is partly your fault and mine and everybody else's except the true muslims'. And anyway, many muslims were born here, why shouldn't they be here,you western oppressor, you?



Or something like that. (Unfortunmately I can't do the Pizza accent.)

Funny, the West are the ones who have a military presence in our countries, trying to enforce their ideology upon us.

We are in Afghanistan because their leaders harboured terrorists who killed a few thousand innocent Americans in an unprovoked terrorist attack. When was the last time the west did that to the middle east? If imposing democracy on them is the only way to get them to take the terrorist problem seriously, what's wrong with that?

Quote:

the West are the ones who have a military presence in our countries

I thought you were Australian. The only country that would be "yours" should be Australia.

Yep, you're no Aussie, never have and never will be.

abu_rashid wrote on Oct 10^th, 2008 at 4:22pm:

Quote: Funny, the West are the ones who have a military presence in our countries, trying to enforce their ideology upon us. Where exactly is you 'our countries'? I thought they were all ruled by zionist western puppets. And the country you were born in is obviously not one of your 'our countries'. [quote]When was the last time a Muslim military entered a Western country to enforce their ideology? Was it in the 1500's maybe?

Thanks for the reminder. When will 'your countries' apologise for all the invasion and  conquest and imposition of islam on previously non-muslim, non-arab countries - pretty much the whole of 'your countries' except Araby.

The pope apologised for the crusades. When will your 'our countries' apologise for forcefully Arabising and islamising a vast area and population? Or are they suddenly mere Western puppets for this purpose (taking responsibility)but otherwise 'our countries for purposes of loyalty and adherence?

abu_rashid wrote on Oct 10^th, 2008 at 4:22pm:

Didn't you just present Iran and Saudi Arabia as possible candidtaes for religious dictatorships? funnily enough few of the Muslims in Australia are from those countries. In fact most are from Lebanon and Turkey, both secular countries, one  of them fanatically secular, the other ruled by Christians... Perhaps you'd better do a little more research?

I took you advice abu.

And it seems you are trying to lead me up the garden path.

'Lebanon and Turkey, both secular countries....'
.....indeed!

ROFLOL


LETS TAKE TURKEY....

Yes, Turkey has been semi-secular for many decades.

But Turkey has recently acquired a new PM,
......who is an avowed ISLAMIST.

Will Turkey remain secular for much longer???

Who knows.

And why is it abu, that devout muslims hate democracy, and favour 'mafia' like dictatorships instead?

'mafia' like dictatorships = = devout muslims call them theocratic dictatorships.
[.....well they would, if they were honest.]


Turkish PM Erdogan in 1990s said,
TURKEY'S CONSTITUTION "A HUGE LIE";
"ONE CANNOT BE A MUSLIM AND SECULAR"
....i think that last quote says it all really.


MEMRI = Middle East news service [translated to English]

May 23, 2007
Turkish PM Erdogan in Speech During Term As Istanbul Mayor Attacks Turkey's Constitution, Describing it As ‘A Huge Lie': ‘Sovereignty Belongs Unconditionally and Always To Allah'; ‘One Cannot Be a Muslim, and Secular'
http://memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD159607




And learn about how Christians are persecuting muslims in Turkey.

Google,
Christians persecute muslims Turkey
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=Christians+persecute+muslims+Turkey&btnG=Search&meta=

oooops!



p.s.
And I'm still waiting to hear abu, why so many muslims 'misunderstand' 'peaceful', 'virtuous', ISLAM???
i.e. Please tell us all, why does strife and war, and poverty, follow those who are devotees of Allah????

And please, can you point to an ISLAMIC society which is an example of virtue, to us unclean Kuffar???
.....and why are muslims rushing to the countries of the 'dirty', 'filthy', Kuffar?

Aren't muslims being very 'hypocritical', in their actions, and pronouncements?
....by cosying up to unbelievers???

e.g. the Koran commands muslims....

"....take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends....
......he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them." [i.e. is an unbeliever]
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/005.qmt.html#005.051




Further appropriate comment, lifted from another blog.....

"......I don't understand why Muslims disapprove of democracy yet want to enjoy the benefits like free housing, education, healthcare, state handouts and free speech. Instead of complaining and trying to change us, they should move and live in an Islamic state then if our way of life is so wrong. I bet the numbers of Muslims migration to countries like Egypt or Saudi Arabia is zero."
-brixtonbabe-

Yadda both Abu and Malik will readily admit that the ultimate goal of Islam is to destroy democracy and any other non-Muslim forms of government. Islamic law and democracy are mutally exclusive.

Why isn't this in the Islam board?

For what it's worth, bikinis are worn in Turkey and I'm pretty sure that they are still worn in Dubai. It's becoming quite a popular holiday destination.

Yadda,


Quote:

Yes, Turkey has been semi-secular for many decades.

Semi-secular? They've been the most militantly secular country in the world since the dismantling of the Ottoman Caliphate. The call to prayer was banned in Arabic, the Fez (Islamic hat) was banned, the hijab is not permitted in any government office or university, the Arabic alphabet was forcibly replaced with Latin alphabet (quite obviously to seperate the people from the Islamic texts), the Arabic holidays were replaced with Western ones. You call this semi-Secular??? This is fanatically secular and outright anti-Islamic, only a loon would contend otherwise.


Quote:

But Turkey has recently acquired a new PM, ......who is an avowed ISLAMIST.

Although he was  Islamist leaning in his earlier days, he's an avowed secularist now. Go and read any document released by the AK party, and you'll find they all refer to their unflinching commitment to secularism and the principles of the kemalist republic. Erdogan sold out a long time ago, and that's the only reason he's so far survived a military coup.


Quote:

And why is it abu, that devout muslims hate democracy, and favour 'mafia' like dictatorships instead?

This is a false dichotomy, either Democracy or dictatorship.


Quote:

MEMRI = Middle East news service [translated to English]

No, MEMRI = Two Jews (one of them a former Mossad agent) who decided to make an Arabic translation service, that scours Arabic news services looking for anti-Islamic/Arabic stories, and even mistranslating stories when they can't find any, sometimes even inserting their own words and sentences into the dialogue, in order to make propaganda against Islam/Arabs.

Brian Whitaker, the Middle East editor for the Guardian newspaper in the United Kingdom, commented of MEMRI:

Quote:

"My problem with Memri is that it poses as a research institute when it's basically a propaganda operation... the stories selected by Memri for translation follow a familiar pattern: either they reflect badly on the character of Arabs or they in some way further the political agenda of Israel."

Besides, most of the Turks who came here, came to Australia long before Erdogan took office, so which religious dictatorship were they fleeing? Also you completely avoided answering about Lebanon, why? These two people alone make up the vast bulk of Australia's Muslim community... Why not just admit you don't know what you're on about, instead of trying to sling more mud?


Quote:

i.e. Please tell us all, why does strife and war, and poverty, follow those who are devotees of Allah????

why not ask your government and the US government, who are invading and creating wars in the Muslim countries. As I said, show me any Muslim country that's invaded a Western country since 1600?


Quote:

And please, can you point to an ISLAMIC society which is an example of virtue, to us unclean Kuffar???

If I'd made the claim that an Islamic society exists, then you'd be justified in asking this question. However I have not, so you are not.


Quote:

....and why are muslims rushing to the countries of the 'dirty', 'filthy', Kuffar?

Prior to the West invading them, how many Muslims were rushing to Western countries? Pretty much none. The past 100 years of colonialism is what's led to the complete destruction of the economies of the Muslim countries. Muslims come to Australia as economic refugees generally, not because they like Big Macs and meat pies. And Australia actually is witnessing record levels of immigrants returning to their former homes. This year 77,000 Australians moved overseas permanently, the bulk of them immigrants returning to their home countries.


Quote:

Aren't muslims being very 'hypocritical', in their actions, and pronouncements?

Nope, it's permissible for Muslims to seek refuge in Christian lands, the first Hijrah (migration) of Muslims to a Christian land was to Abyssinia (Ethiopia, formerly a centre of civilisation, before the West took control of Africa and turned it into a famine stricken mess), during the time of Prophet (pbuh), it was deemed permissible.


Quote:

of democracy yet want to enjoy the benefits like free housing, education, healthcare, state handouts and free speech.

Most of those things are not peculiar to democracy, in fact they're more commonly associated with socialism. Islam also believes in such concepts, and enacted most of those systems long before the West even wore clothes or built houses.

what is the deal with people saying islamists instead of muslims?

is it actually a valid term??

yadda- gees man, your posts are so confusing to read. and why do you always capitalise Islam? are you afraid people will miss the word?

Islamists pursue political goals under the guise of religion.

abu_rashid wrote on Oct 10^th, 2008 at 10:32pm:

Also you completely avoided answering about Lebanon, why?

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

Not so very long ago Lebanon was a mostly stable, and predominantly Christian country.

Not so today.

Why???

May i suggest the recent influence of muslims / ISLAM there.



And learn about how Christians are persecuting muslims in Lebanon.

Google,
Christians persecute muslims Lebanon
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=Christians+persecute+muslims+Turkey&btnG=Search&meta=

oooops, again!





Wherever you go in the Middle East, Africa, Asia, why are there so many instances of muslim violence and intolerance, against non-muslims, when the proponents of ISLAM loudly proclaim to non-muslims, that ISLAM is a peaceful faith?

And doesn't that [the reality, the facts] give the lie, to such claims by the proponents of ISLAM?

And why is such violence, and intolerance, and strife, always portrayed by muslims, as the fault of others?


A few news items....


Rise in radical Islam last straw for Lebanon's Christians
07/04/2007
Christians are fleeing Lebanon to escape political and economic crises and signs that radical Islam is on the rise in the country.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1547313/Rise-in-radical-Islam-last-straw-for-Lebanon%27s-Christians.html


January 18, 2006
Christians are Leaving the Middle East
Some observers say Christians in the Middle East have fared better under secular governments. Jonathan Adelman, professor of political science at the University of Denver, Colorado, says the rise of fundamentalist Islam is a concern.
"When they hear that Sharia law needs to be introduced, which basically means that Christians cannot testify in court as equals, that they are inferior - this is something that is very hard for any minority in the world, does not matter if they are Christians or not - very hard to understand or to accept in the 21st century, which is about tolerance and is about modernity."
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/009833.php


22 May 2007
The Lebanese crisis explained
By Roger Hardy
BBC Middle East analyst
Lebanon is the most politically complex and religiously divided country in the Middle East, which is what makes it such a potentially explosive factor in an unstable region.
Tiny Lebanon baffles outsiders. Even people in the Middle East find its politics confusing.
Set up by France after World War I as a predominantly Christian state, Lebanon is now about 60% Muslim, 40% Christian.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6173322.stm





Clearly, Lebanon is just another 'outpost' in the 'struggle' against the 'unbelievers'.
....at least ISLAM is consistent.

Wherever it goes, ISLAMIC communities impose upon other ppl, injustice, violence, strife, and poverty.
....this is colloquially referred to, by muslims as,
....'The Peace of ISLAM'.

abu_rashid wrote on Oct 10^th, 2008 at 10:32pm:

These two people alone [Turkey, Lebanon] make up the vast bulk of Australia's Muslim community... Why not just admit you don't know what you're on about, instead of trying to sling more mud?

Abu, it is not my intent [as you have suggested] to sling mud - as such.

But i do want to expose the lies, and falsehoods, of the apologists for ISLAM.

And while i do concede, there are many faults with what we term the 'West', their government processes, and with so-called Democracy itself,
the form of Democracy we 'suffer' today in the West, is much to be preferred, to the injustice, the violence, and strife, and poverty, which ISLAM fosters upon ppl, wherever it goes.

Yet muslims will not confront this responsibility [for the strife they bring with them, in their 'just' 'faith' ].

And will always insist that the fault lays with others, with non-muslims, who are always supposedly fostering strife with muslims, and their communities.


+++++

'ISLAM is peace', is the pronouncement by muslims.

Are these muslims reading the same Koran that i am????



In my opinion, ISLAM is a cancer, and a curse upon mankind.

And the world today bears this out.

Everywhere ISLAM is, where muslim communities are, a heightened level of strife.
....even in Australia, brawling and strife among muslims.

EXAMPLES from Australia,

News items,

Mosque violence Tensions boil over after move to replace imam
PAUL MALEY
6/05/2007
A BITTER factional feud within Canberra's Islamic community has erupted into violence with a leading member being punched repeatedly in the grounds of the mosque at Yarralumla.
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local/news/general/mosque-violence-tensions-boil-over-after-move-to-replace-imam/460671.aspx


Outspoken Muslim seeks police protection
March 22, 2007
One of Australia's most important Muslim leaders has sought police protection......
Tom Zreika, president of the Lebanese Muslim Association - and Sheikh Hilali's employer - said he received non-stop phone threats yesterday after he released a document urging greater integration and for Muslims to "mend their ways".
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/outspoken-muslim-seeks-police-protection/2007/03/21/1174153164032.html


And the source of this strife?

ISLAMIC texts.

Just study the Koran and Hadith verses, to confirm this for yourself.






SOME GUIDANCE FROM ALLAH, FOR MUSLIMS [AND THE DUMB UNBELIEVERS]...

Jews & Christians are peoples who are cursed by Allah.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/009.qmt.html#009.030


"Unbelievers are unto you open enemies."
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/004.qmt.html#004.101


"Fighting [against unbelievers] is prescribed for you, and [if] ye dislike it.....Allah knoweth, and ye know not."
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/002.qmt.html#002.216


"And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter.....slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith."
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/002.qmt.html#002.191

".....Such is the reward of those who suppress faith."


Hadith....

"Allah 's Apostle said, " I have been ordered to fight with the people till they say, 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,' ...."
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/052.sbt.html#004.052.196

Soren wrote on Oct 10^th, 2008 at 4:28pm:

Yadda, you do not seem to appreciate that there has been a massive Zionist western conpiracy againts muslims ......it is partly your fault and mine and everybody else's except the true muslims'. And anyway, many muslims were born here, why shouldn't they be here,you western oppressor, you? Or something like that. (Unfortunmately I can't do the Pizza accent.)

Yes Soren, those poor victimised muslims, suffering again [according to themselves].

They are always victims, and always being persecuted [by 'hateful' unbelievers], just for being muslims.


Example #1 - UK

25 May 2007
Muslim cleric Sheikh Abdullah al-Faisal, who has been deported from the UK....
"......Al-Faisal spent years travelling the UK preaching racial hatred urging his audience to kill Jews, Hindus and Westerners.
......he argued his talks came from the Koran and if he was on trial so was the holy text."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6692243.stm

What an indignity! This devout muslim suffered, being expelled from the UK just for exercising his religious freedom [.......i.e. for urging muslims to kill the 'enemies' of Allah].


Example #2 - Turkey

20 Dec 2005
Jihad is 'Muslim obligation'
A lawyer defending al Qaida-linked suspects standing trial for the 2003 suicide bombings in Istanbul told a court that jihad, or holy war, was an obligation for Muslims and his clients should not be prosecuted.
"If you punish them for this, tomorrow, will you punish them for fasting or for praying?"
.....The November 2003 blasts targeted two synagogues, the British Consulate and the local headquarters of the London-based HSBC bank, killing 58 people.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/009487.php

What indignities devout muslims suffer, and just for exercising their religious freedoms [.......i.e. in killing those 'enemies' of Allah, for 'invading' in a muslim land].

Quote:

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

Looks like we have another wiki-scholar on our hands. Are you sure you're not related to soren?


Quote:

Not so very long ago Lebanon was a mostly stable, and predominantly Christian country.

There's never even been a country called Lebanon until very recently. It's just a little piece of Bilad ash-Sham the French during the Sykes-Picot agreement decided they'd try and form into a Christian majority area. It was for the past 1200 years an Islamic country, as the Sanjack of Beirut, under Shari'ah law and predominantly Muslim. Although they tried to draw the borders so it was majority Christian, it didn't last for long and even prior to France declaring it an independant country it was already majority Muslim. The simple fact is that the capital, Beirut and the 2nd. largest city Tripoli have always been Muslim majority cities, the Christians were only ever a majority in the mountain regions (Mount Lebanon, for which the country was named by the French), the French knew they couldn't make a country without a decent sized city, so they extended the autonomous Christian region to encompass the Muslim cities.

Either way, all this is irrelevant to your original, and false, claim that Muslims come here fleeing religious dictatorships. Lebanon is not a religious dictatorship, and it's head of state is not even a Muslim, he's a Christian. Just admit you have no idea what you're talking about, and move along.


Quote:

May i suggest the recent influence of muslims / ISLAM there.

As pointed out above, Islamic influence is not new there, in fact if anything, recent times have only seen the complete waning of Islamic influence there. The Islamic Caliphate ruled over what is now Lebanon for the past 1200 years, by Shari'ah law, it's only in the past 80-100 years that situation ceased, and Islamic influence was replaced by French and Maronite influence. Please get your facts straight. If anything the situation is completely upside down to what you suggest. With the decline in Islamic influence, the country has become unstable and people have fled.


Quote:

And learn about how Christians are persecuting muslims in Lebanon.

Yeh like how the Falanj used to tie Muslims behind their cars and drag them through the streets in predominantly Christian areas... Didn't find that one in your search?


Quote:

Wherever you go in the Middle East, Africa, Asia, why are there so many instances of muslim violence and intolerance, against non-muslims

Since this has only really happened since the colonial period, why don't you ask the colonialists who've setup the political landscape there? And who till this very second in time fund most of the dictators there to the tune of billions a year. I can answer you regarding atrocities committed when Islam ruled (ie. pre-1924) but since Islam no longer rules, and it's Western-backed dictators who are doing this kind of stuff, I'm sorry but I'm not in a position to answer for them, as I consider them illegitimate. So ask those who consider them legitimate rulers, and who buy them their weapons and who send them civilians to be tortured...


Quote:

Christians are fleeing Lebanon to escape political and economic crises and signs that radical Islam is on the rise in the country.

During 1200 years of Islamic Shari'ah rule they didn't flee. After only 80-100 years of Western-colonial and neo-colonial rule, they're fleeing.. And you wanna blame it on Islam? Get real.


Quote:

"When they hear that Sharia law needs to be introduced

What a load of garbage, did they not 'hear' it was introduced 1200 years ago? And was actually abolished 80 years ago?


Quote:

Clearly, Lebanon is just another 'outpost' in the 'struggle' against the 'unbelievers'.

Last time I checked, outpost means something which is 'outside' not inside your own countries.

It's good to see that you remain unable to engage with the substance of critical posts.

The land that is now Lebanon was not muslim for a very long time. Like the rest of muslim territory outside Araby, it was overrun and forcibly islamised and Arabised by Mohammedan marauders.

Wikipedia is not an in-depth reference source, we all know it. But it is not islamcandonowwrong.org or thewestisbest.net either. It is open which means that if it has errors, people can correct theem. It is not biased, it is not partisan. So it is not a bad pointer for arguments on forums like this. It is not an organ (ahem) of Hizb ul tahrir like you are.
(Repeat after me with a Yorkshire accent - Ummah, Ummah, stick it up your jumpahr)

abu_rashid wrote on Oct 11^th, 2008 at 4:09pm:

Quote: Clearly, Lebanon is just another 'outpost' in the 'struggle' against the 'unbelievers'. Last time I checked, outpost means something which is 'outside' not inside your own countries.

Lebanon is merely war booty.

So rightfully, Lebanon should be 'outside' of ISLAMIC influence.


Admit it abu, all lands outside the Saudi peninsula, were all captured war 'booty' lands, converted to ISLAM under the sword of ISLAM, not by persuasion, not by any willingness of their natives, or because of any merit in that faith, called ISLAM.

If ISLAM was a meritorious faith, ISLAM would not need to threaten violence, and death, upon those who, being repulsed by it, flee ISLAM.

But ISLAM does do this.

From ISLAMIC law texts....

Ibn 'Abbas reported that the Prophet said: "The bare essence of Islam and the basics of the religion are three [acts], upon which Islam has been established. Whoever leaves one of them BECOMES AN UNBELIEVER and HIS BLOOD MAY LEGALLY BE SPILLED. [The acts are:] Testifying that there is no God except Allah, the obligatory prayers, and the fast of Ramadan."....
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/law/fiqhussunnah/fus3_50.html#3.110

From Hadith.....

"...If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him."
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/052.sbt.html#004.052.260






ISLAM IS NOT 'PEACE' [....or peaceful]

abu, why is it that muslims never mention, completely passover, that centuries before the Christian Crusades, that ISLAMIC 'missionaries' overran the Christian Holy lands in the 700's, with the sword, and their own crusade for Allah?

And i say it again, *with the sword*.

And then, those ISLAMIC 'missionaries' continued their ISLAMIC 'Crusade' into North Africa, then Spain, and some of southern Europe.

All at the point of a sword.

Google....  "Charles Martel"

Charles Martel halted ISLAM's advance into Europe, in 732.


And this ISLAMIC aggression, all happened CENTURIES before the 'evil' Christians attacked ISLAM in 1100's, in their own 'Crusade'
.....aggression against muslims which was provoked by muslims, because Christian pilgrims travelling to the 'holy lands' were being mistreated, and killed by muslims.

And lets not fail to mention the later, glorious expansion of ISLAM eastward, into the Indian subcontinent, where tens of millions of 'polytheists' were 'justly' put to the sword by ISLAM.

There is no peaceful ISLAM.

But only bloodthirsty, booty lusting ISLAM.


abu, instead of rejecting these facts, why don't you acknowledge these occurrences as fact?
....and admit that ISLAM, is not at all peaceful.
....but that ISLAM is an expansionist, violent, political, supremacist philosophy.




Accusing others of oppression today, muslims should take a look in the mirror.

But its too difficult for muslims to face their own shame, isn't it abu?

Much easier to blame-shift onto the 'enemies' of Allah, the Kuffar...

"Those 'guilty' Kuffar are persecuting, us 'peace-loving' muslims!"

Q.
Why is it abu, that muslims are never willing to face their shame?
The excuse is always,
.....'Some one else is at fault, true muslims don't do such things'.

A.
Because muslims can't admit their mistakes [to, and against Kuffar].
ISLAM tells all muslims that they are better than Kuffar.
And muslim actions are always 'just', in their actions against the 'guilty' Kuffar [supposedly].


ISLAM / muslims hate TRUTH.
....that is why they hate freedom of speech.


The image [below] of a muslim going against his own ISLAMIC morality,
and is perpetrating an oxymoron upon the sign in the background....

"Freedom of expression GO TO HELL!" [London]
http://openparachute.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/freedom-of-expression-go-to-hell.jpg

Somewhat inexplicably you identify in Islam many of the markers of fascism, Yadda, as identified by Umbeerto Eco and as presented on this forum under thee extremism exposed section.


Shurely shome mishtake.

Soren wrote on Oct 11^th, 2008 at 5:59pm:

Somewhat inexplicably you identify in Islam many of the markers of fascism, Yadda, as identified by Umbeerto Eco and as presented on this forum under thee extremism exposed section. Shurely shome mishtake.

".....In an article in the 1932 Encyclopedia Italiana, written by Giovanni Gentile and attributed to Benito Mussolini, Fascism is described as a system, founded by Benito Mussolini on March 23, 1919, in which "The State not only is the authority which governs and molds individual wills with laws and values of spiritual life, but it is also the power which makes its will prevail abroad.... For the Fascist, everything is within the State and . . . neither individuals nor groups are outside the State.... For Fascism, the State is an absolute, before which individuals or groups are only relative...."....."


Google,
"For the Fascist, everything is within the State"
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=%22For+the+Fascist%2C+everything+is+within+the+State%22&btnG=Google+Search&meta=



Soren,

re ISLAM,

If it walks like a duck, and if it quacks like a duck......

You may call it fascism, and some may call it ISLAM [....'with fascist characteristics'].


Are either wrong?
:)

It would seem not.

The problem is Soren, how to lift the veil?
....Jane & Joe citizen Australians [and Westerners generally], seem very naive and trusting, for the most part.

political islam does display many characteristics of fascism, whether by Eco's reckoning or otherwise.

Political islam is avowedly anti-democratic. It has some elements of socialist ideology and many more elements of fascism. The few socialist elements are (mostly) expression of concern for the wellbeing of the people, the many more elements that resemble fascism are expressions of the stance against the rest of the world. Political islam abound in resentment and consequent antagonism towards the rest of the world.
This, the fascist elemeent, is one of the reasons why Abu Rashid's Hizb ul tahrir is banned in many European countries, most notably in Germany, a country more sensitive to fascist ideology than most.

Yada....what you fail to mention is that under Islam, Christianity/Judism prospered, even flourished.

Jews describe there 'Golden age' as that which was under Al-Andalus, where Christians/jews excelled under Islamic rule.

Egypt remained a predominantly Christian country 3 centuries after it was conquered by Amr Ibn Al-Aas. This shows that no one was forced to convert....people were allowed to live in peace, practising their own religon...and they did.

Now I don't expect you to believe me...but unfortunately for you, the evidence is there for all to see. Jews lived in peace under arab rule for hundreds of year, there are thousands of churches which remain in arab lands, after hundreds of years of Islamic rule.

If muslims were as bad as you say, then there would be no Christian churches, no Synagogues, no minority religons surving today in lands ruled by Islam. Alas...the evidence suggests otherwise.

On the other hand, if we take a look at Christianity...not one religon has survived the purge of Catholicism...that is, in every place where Christianity spread, it completely destroyed the indigenous beliefs which existed in these lands. Even Judism...from which Christianity was derived, was almost destroyed to the point where jews welcomed the muslim liberators in Al-Andalus. Even rivals sects (arians) were almost wiped out and made a plea to the muslims to come and help (the visigoths).

The saxons, the lombards, the goths, the picts, the celts, the Cathars and the Albigensian, every single pre-Catholic religon was complete obliterated by the catholic purge.

Ever heard of Clovis? Ever heard of Charlemagne? Considered great 'Christian' leaders...yet there lasting legacy was the complete genocide of the saxons (the saxon wars) and the Goths/Lombards. The catholics church's rule over Europe began when these 'Saints' wiped out anyone who was not Catholic, this included pagans/arians and anyone else who slightly deviated from the Nicea doctrine.

When muslims conquered Spain, it marked the beginning of centuries of tolerance, co-operation and peace between muslims, Christians and jews. When the Christians conquered Spain, it marked the beginning of the inquisition, where hundreds of thousands of muslims/jews were given two choices, convert or die. So successful was this genocide that no muslims survived in Spain.

When Jerusalem was conquered by Omar Ibn Khattab, the city was captured with little bloodshed, and even the Patriarch of Jerusalem opened the gates of the city, under the condition that the Caliph himself came to the gates...such was the Caliph's standing in even the Christian world.

Alternatively, when the crusaders captured Jerusalem in 1099, muslims, jews, and amazingly even fellow Christians were slaughtered in their thousands by the crusaders.

Then when Salah Al-Din re-captured Jerusalem from the crusaders...all the Christians were allowed to leave with their lives.

Even in South America, when the Conquisitors spread Christianity by the sword...they wiped out whole civilisations. Aztecs, Omnecs, Maya's...all great civilisations which today no longer exist except in the history books.

Are you noticing a pattern here. Whenever muslims conquered lands...there was peace, tolerance, and co-existance. Whenever Christianity conquered lands, there was suffering, death, and persecution.

Christianity, Judism, Hindus, Buddhists...all religons that survived the Islamic revolution...and without fail, all these religons and their cultures actually benefited from Islamic rule.

I challenge you to name one...just one religon that survived the catholic purge.

And the biggest victims of catholicism...was ironically Europe and Catholics themselves, who lived more then a millenia under the tyranny of the pope and his bishops, and only when Europe managed to wrestle itself from this tyranical rule (ironically with help from the muslims via Al-Andalus)...did the reformation begin.

When Islam was at its strongest, muslim countries were at the peak of there civilisation, and minority religons flourished and allowed to practise there religons.

When catholicism was at its strongest, Christian countries were living in huts by rivers bathing in their own poo, and all existing religons were literally wiped out.

When Islam declined, muslim nations declined.

When catholicsm declined...Christian nations rose. Really says it all doesn't it.

Lestat wrote on Oct 11^th, 2008 at 8:21pm:

... When Islam declined, muslim nations declined. When catholicsm declined...Christian nations rose. Really says it all doesn't it.

Some nations declined while others rose and that goes for both Muslim and Christian nations. However it is interesting to notice that decline of political influence of Catholicism coincided with decline of political influence of Islam. I think it was just a coincidence but it tells how coincidental the world is.

soren,

Quote:

The land that is now Lebanon was not muslim for a very long time.

I guess in the grand scale of things, 1200 years is not that long, but compared to how long it was Christian, it's more than double. Yet you have no problem claiming it's a Christian land. Just another example of your hypocritical double standards.


Quote:

Like the rest of muslim territory outside Araby, it was overrun and forcibly islamised and Arabised by Mohammedan marauders.

Right... not like the Christian lands, where the pagans and barbarians just ran stupidly under the swords of the Christian conquerors.. ahem I mean proselytisers, and therefore their genocide was their own fault. And of course the Christians tried everything in their power to stop those stupid pagans running into their swords didn't they? Or were their warriors all hiding behind them? Early occurence of 'collateral damage' and 'human shields' was it?


Quote:

Wikipedia is not an in-depth reference source, we all know it

No doubt it's a valuable supplementary source, but if it's your primary/sole source, then arguing with you gets a little boring, to say the least.

Yadda,


Quote:

So rightfully, Lebanon should be 'outside' of ISLAMIC influence.

It has been a Muslim land for more than twice as long as it was ever a Christian land. Perhaps it's a Phoenician land? Perhaps we can bring the Punic descendants of the Phoenicians from Tunisia, and they can take it back?


Quote:

Admit it abu, all lands outside the Saudi peninsula, were all captured war 'booty' lands

If you'd like to admit all Christian lands outside of Palestine are 'captured war booty' also, as that's where Christianity originated from. and it's well known historical fact that the Christian conquests of Europe and the New World were the bloodiest religious conquests in the history of mankind. Lestat already detailed some of them, and I've already written entire posts before detailing them for the benefit of soren (not that it actually did benefit him).


Quote:

If ISLAM was a meritorious faith, ISLAM would not need to threaten violence, and death

Indonesia, the country with the largest Muslim population in the world, became Muslim quite peacefully, through the influence of trade.


Quote:

abu, why is it that muslims never mention, completely passover, that centuries before the Christian Crusades, that ISLAMIC 'missionaries' overran the Christian Holy lands in the 700's, with the sword, and their own crusade for Allah?

Actually the Byzantine armies marched towards Arabia, the Islamic move into the Levant was purely defensive. The tiny little defenseless desert state had no choice but to try and defend itself, and miraculously it conquered two superpowers of the world within a very short period.


Quote:

Charles Martel halted ISLAM's advance into Europe, in 732.

You'd like to believe that. The Islamic liberation of Europe was halted by the misjudgement and suspicions of the Caliph who called the two leading commanders of the Muslim liberation force (Tariq Bin Ziyad, and Musa Bin Nusayr (May God be well pleased with them)) back to the capital in Damascus. If not for this error in judgement, you'd be Muslim today :) so thank Suleyman Bin Abdul Malik, not Charles Bartel.


Quote:

because Christian pilgrims travelling to the 'holy lands' were being mistreated, and killed by muslims.

At least Christians were actually permitted to be there in the first place to be able to be mistreated. Any 'Saracen' caught inside the Christian lands of Europe was instantly murdered. That's why Europeans never mistreated Muslims, they couldn't keep them alive long enough within their borders to get time to mistreat them!!

abu_rashid wrote on Oct 11^th, 2008 at 10:44pm:

Quote: Charles Martel halted ISLAM's advance into Europe, in 732. You'd like to believe that. The Islamic liberation of Europe was halted by the misjudgement and suspicions of the Caliph who called the two leading commanders of the Muslim liberation force (Tariq Bin Ziyad, and Musa Bin Nusayr (May God be well pleased with them)) back to the capital in Damascus. If not for this error in judgement, you'd be Muslim today :) so thank Suleyman Bin Abdul Malik, not Charles Bartel.

On October 10th, 732, the Christian forces of Charles Martel defeated the Sunni Umayyad Muslim forces of Abdul Rahman al Ghafiqi in France at the Battle of Tours, ending Muslim attempts to conquer Europe.

Muslim invaders had conquered and destroyed the cities of Narbonne, Toulouse, and Bordeaux in France, in the 700's AD.  This was only decades after the death of Mohammad, and 360 years before the First Crusade.  Muslims fought an offensive war with the religious goal of overrunning the Christian stronghold of Europe.  

Charles got the nickname "Martel" (the hammer) for his victory over the Muslims at the Battle of Tours (also known as the Battle of Poitiers), and for his subsequent victories that expelled the Muslims from France.  The keys to his victory at Tours were:

-Waiting until his forces could be gathered and treaties made, uniting the French and the Germanic tribes against the Muslim invaders.  The delayed response caused the Muslims to become over-confident.
-By staying off the main roads, Martel was able to use stealth to move his forces into place.
-Martel carefully chose the time and place of battle, positioning his troops at the top of an incline, with trees providing cover from Muslim calvary charges.
-The Christian troops were well trained, well disciplined, and well equipped.  They were among the first infantry to be able to withstand a calvary charge.

This is what historians had to say about the Battle of Tours before the advent of PC:

"[The Battle of Tours] must ever remain one of the great events in the history of the world, as upon its issue depended whether Christian Civilization should continue or Islam prevail throughout Europe." - Godefroid Kurth

"[T]he arm of Charles Martel saved and delivered the Christian nations of the West from the deadly grasp of all-destroying Islam." - Friedrich Schlegel

"[I]t was a struggle between East and West, South and North, Asia and Europe, the Gospel and the Koran; and we now say, on a general  consideration of events, peoples, and ages, that the civilization of the world depended on it." - M. Guizot and Mme. Guizot de Witt

"[T]here was no more important battle in the history of the world." - Hans Delbruck

“[The Battle of Tours] decided that Christians, and not Muslims, should be the ruling power in Europe.” - John Henry Haaren

"The victory gained was decisive and final, The torrent of Arab conquest was rolled back and Europe was rescued from the threatened yoke of the Saracens." - Louis Gustave and Charles Strauss

Lestat wrote on Oct 11^th, 2008 at 8:21pm:

Yada....what you fail to mention is that under Islam, Christianity/Judism prospered, even flourished. ...... When muslims conquered Spain, it marked the beginning of centuries of tolerance, co-operation and peace between muslims, Christians and jews. When the Christians conquered Spain, it marked the beginning of the inquisition, where hundreds of thousands of muslims/jews were given two choices, convert or die. So successful was this genocide that no muslims survived in Spain.

Lestat,
These are just more fairy stories, and the re-construction of the history of bloody and ruthless ISLAMIC conquest and oppression.

A history where TRUTH is been 're-engineered', to portray the mildness, and benevolence, of the muslim overlords.

i.e.
ISLAM, good.
Everyone else, bad.

This ISLAMIC propaganda is pure made up fantasy.

And, the ISLAMISTS are still constructing these fantasies today......

"The term 'Pallywood' refers to the staging of scenes by Palestinian journalists in order to present the Palestinians as hapless victims of Israeli aggression."

Google,
pallywood propaganda israel palestinian conflict
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=pallywood+propaganda+israel+palestinian+conflict&btnG=Google+Search&meta=



ISLAM / muslims confronted with an inconvenient, and ugly TRUTH about ISLAM, have always manufactured a more pleasant fable, that paints ISLAM in a favourable light.

In situations where anyone who dares to recount the real TRUTH, is murdered.

The consequence of such lies, and repression is that over time, the TRUTH is lost.
.....and the manufactured muslim fable, becomes the 'truth', because it is perpetuated in ISLAM's own accounts and records of events.

Muslims have been doing this for centuries, always re-manufacturing local histories, to show ISLAM in the most favourable light.


+++++++

Here is the account of an inconvenient, and ugly TRUTH, of ISLAM's past......

Morocco -

Jews under muslim protection' in Morocco, 1800's
"......The nearby cemetery contains the tombs of more Jewish saints than any other cemetery in Morocco. One of the more important saints is Lalla Solica, who was killed for refusing to convert to Islam.  This woman was born in Tangier in 1817. At the age of 16, she was courted by a Muslim man, but refused to marry him.  To force her hand, the man went to the caid, the local government official.  The man told the caid that Solica could not refuse his offer of marriage because she was no longer Jewish, having converted to Islam of her own free will. When called before the caid, she refused to acknowledge having converted. The Sultan called her to Fez, where she again denied her conversion.  As a result, she was condemned to death for apostasy and killed in 1834....."
http://rickgold.home.mindspring.com/page17.html


And this very same behaviour is happening still today......


Pakistan - http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/021839.php
Pakistan - http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/021760.php
Pakistan - http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/021731.php

Egypt - http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/001302.php
Egypt - http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41805
Egypt - http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=5989

There's no doubting the battle of Tours occured, that's not what I said. I said the only reason the Muslims were stopped there, is because Musa Bin Nusayr and Tariq Bin Ziyad had been recalled to Damascus, and therefore the liberation of Europe had all but ceased. Those two were unstoppable, and if it wasn't for their recall, then Charles Martel probably would've been Muslim already by 732 :)

So thank Caliph Suleyman Bin Abdul'Malik, not Carlos the Hammer.

Lestat wrote on Oct 11^th, 2008 at 8:21pm:

Yada....what you fail to mention is that under Islam, Christianity/Judism prospered, even flourished. ...... When muslims conquered Spain, it marked the beginning of centuries of tolerance, co-operation and peace between muslims, Christians and jews. When the Christians conquered Spain, it marked the beginning of the inquisition, where hundreds of thousands of muslims/jews were given two choices, convert or die. So successful was this genocide that no muslims survived in Spain.

Lestat, propagandists and apologists for ISLAM spout this Koran verse....

"Let there be no compulsion in religion......."
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/002.qmt.html#002.256

The darker interpretation on this 'soft' verse, AND AN 'INTERPRETATION' WHICH MANY MILITANT MUSLIMS ACCEPT, IS,
...."You can choose conversion, submission, or death.
.....**NO COMPULSION**! YOU CHOOSE."

EXAMPLE HERE,

Iraq -
4 March 2007
Iraq's Mandaeans 'face extinction'
By Angus Crawford
The Sabian Mandaeans - one of the oldest religious groups in the world - are facing extinction, according to its leaders.
They claim that Islamic extremists in Iraq are trying to wipe them out through forced conversions, rape and murder.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6412453.stm



AND HERE,

Sudan -
An estimated 2 million Christians have been murdered in the last 20 years, in Sudan [by ISLAMISTS]

2002
"....jihad forces Islam on Christians Women refusing to convert gang-raped, mutilated, says relief worker.
....Backed by Muslim clerics, the National Islamic Front regime in the Arab and Muslim north declared a jihad, or holy war, on the south in 1989. Since 1983, an estimated 2 million people have died from war and related famine. About 4.5 million have become refugees."
http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/jihad.htm

Google,
2 million christians killed 20 years sudan
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=2+million+christians+killed+20+years+sudan&btnG=Google+Search&meta=



Yet.....
There is no organisation set-up by devout, virtuous, and 'pure' muslims, to prevent these atrocities occurring,
.....atrocities committed by those claiming to be muslims.

And i have not noticed the condemnation of those [claiming to be] muslims [who are committing these acts of violence], from the worldwide muslim community.

Why not?



Because right now again, is the beginning of the 'reconstructed' history of these events is occurring,
....to portray these events as having non-muslim causes.

The ISLAMIC propaganda machine again, is in full swing, to deflect criticism, and to re-attribute blame for such events, to others, to non-muslims.


The only words from the worldwide muslim community on these occurrences, are words about how,
....."These [ppl committing these acts] are not 'true' muslims."
or muslims attempting to curtail criticism with a gag,
....."Shut up. This [TRUTH] is a slander of ISLAM."

as per.....
"Freedom of expression GO TO HELL!" [London]
http://openparachute.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/freedom-of-expression-go-to-hell.jpg



Why is there no condemnation of this evil, by muslims????

Lestat wrote on Oct 11^th, 2008 at 8:21pm:

Egypt remained a predominantly Christian country 3 centuries after it was conquered by Amr Ibn Al-Aas. This shows that no one was forced to convert....people were allowed to live in peace, practising their own religon...and they did.

AN ETHICAL BASIS FOR WAR
by Bill Warner (Jan 2007)
".....Islam has been waging civilizational war for centuries. Before the Muslims arrived, Egypt and North Africa and the southern coast of the Mediterranean were Christian. There was a Buddhist monastery in Egypt. Turkey was Buddhist and Christian. Persia [now Iran] was Zoroastrian. The Hindu culture covered an area of the world twice as large as it is now. When Napoleon invaded Egypt, he discovered that the Muslim population knew nothing about Egypt before Islam. The 5,000-year-old culture of the Pharaohs had been annihilated. There are no Buddhists in Afghanistan. Baghdad was once home to the oldest community of Jews in the world, brought there as Babylonian captives. Today it is estimated that there are no more than a few dozen Jews left in Iraq. All cultures living within the borders of Islam are annihilated. People either leave, convert or die. Languages disappear to be replaced by Arabic. There are no exceptions over time."
over two pages...
http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm?frm=5208&sec_id=5208
http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm?frm=5209&sec_id=5209






Lestat wrote on Oct 11^th, 2008 at 8:21pm:

Now I don't expect you to believe me...but unfortunately for you, the evidence is there for all to see. Jews lived in peace under arab rule for hundreds of year, there are thousands of churches which remain in arab lands, after hundreds of years of Islamic rule. If muslims were as bad as you say, then there would be no Christian churches, no Synagogues, no minority religons surving today in lands ruled by Islam. Alas...the evidence suggests otherwise.

".....The Italian cathedral in Tripoli (Libya) converted into a mosque, after rebuilding in 2004...."
http://www.middle-east-info.org/gateway/islamvsinfidels/cathedralconvertedintomosqu.jpg
Image located on this page....
http://www.middle-east-info.org/gateway/islamvsinfidels/index.htmiLestat wrote on Oct 11^th, 2008 at 8:21pm:

If muslims were as bad as you say, then there would be no Christian churches, no Synagogues, no minority religons surving today in lands ruled by Islam. Alas...the evidence suggests otherwise.

In my previous post did i say something about muslims 're-constructing' their history.....

Example,

News items,

Chief Muslim claims Jewish Temples never existed
March 15, 2007
"....The Jewish Temples never existed.......descriptions of the Jewish Temples in the Hebrew Tanach, in the Talmud and in Byzantine and Roman writings from the Temple periods were forged, and that the Torah was falsified to claim Biblical patriarchs and matriarchs were Jewish when indeed they were prophets for Islam."
http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=40628

Temple Mount '100% Islamic'
June 01, 2008
"....Taysir Tamimi, chief Palestinian Justice and one of the most influential Muslim leaders in Israel, argued the Jewish Temples never existed,...."
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=65919

Yep.....

ISLAM, good.
Everyone else, bad.

BLACK IS WHITE, AND WHITE IS BLACK.
UP IS DOWN, AND DOWN IS UP.




Lestat, i have to ask, do you have a functioning Bull-shxt meter?

Because according to ISLAM, there never was a Jewish temple in Jerusalem???

And do you believe what Taysir Tamimi [above] *insists* is true???


ISLAM / muslims hate TRUTH.
....because TRUTH exposes the injustice, and lies, and violence, of ISLAM.

abu_rashid wrote on Oct 12^th, 2008 at 4:52pm:

There's no doubting the battle of Tours occured, that's not what I said. I said the only reason the Muslims were stopped there, is because Musa Bin Nusayr and Tariq Bin Ziyad had been recalled to Damascus, and therefore the liberation of Europe had all but ceased. Those two were unstoppable, and if it wasn't for their recall, then Charles Martel probably would've been Muslim already by 732 :) So thank Caliph Suleyman Bin Abdul'Malik, not Carlos the Hammer.

The greed of the Arabs and the thought of the Franks taking their treasure terrorized them. Abd-ar-Rahman in his quest to take land in the name of Islam was killed in action leaving the panicking Muslims, without a leader.

The loss of the leader a power vacuum, consequently starting a miniature civil war over the commanding role, weakening the Muslim army. This in turn led to the defeat of the Muslim army at Tours.

The battle at Tours was the turning point battle of the undeclared war between the Muslims and the Christians.

The fable about the 'recall' is just another example of covering up shame in an honour society, such as tribal Islam. The internal civil wars and feuds in Islam are innumerable. Unity is a dream of every tribal society but it is unachievable while the tribe or the clan trumps all, as in all Arab societies, muslim or not, past and present.

Yadda,

This one was a beauty.


Quote:

Baghdad was once home to the oldest community of Jews in the world, brought there as Babylonian captives. Today it is estimated that there are no more than a few dozen Jews left in Iraq

They lived under Islam in Iraq for 1200 years, and only left about 50 years ago in the POST-Caliphate/Shari'ah/Islamic period, and their leaving Iraq can be directly attributed to British meddling in the region!

This point is quite symbolic of most of the garbage you post. It's deceptive nonsense, like with the claim Lebanon is only just being influence by Islam now... You need some serious history lessons.

Really Yada...your posts are just incoherent crap and cut & paste jobs from anti-Islamic sites that you have googled. Really....much of it is garbage and you have failed to address any of the points I raised...not one.

For example..when I said the following...

"When the Christians conquered Spain, it marked the beginning of the inquisition, where hundreds of thousands of muslims/jews were given two choices, convert or die. So successful was this genocide that no muslims survived in Spain. "

You responded with this garbage...

"These are just more fairy stories, and the re-construction of the history of bloody and ruthless ISLAMIC conquest and oppression.

A history where TRUTH is been 're-engineered', to portray the mildness, and benevolence, of the muslim overlords."

What are you saying...that the inquisition never occurred. That jews/muslims in Spain were not murdered? And you say the history and 'TRUTH' has been re-engineered.

By whom exactly. Most of history today is written by Western/Christian sources....so who has 're-engineered' this history you speak of...and why, would Christian/Western historians paint Christianity in such a bad light. Really...you do yourself no favours by denying what is considered fact, and using dubious sites to do so.

When I state that Jews lived under Islamic rule and the jews actually describe their time under rule in Al-Andalus Cordoba...you respond with an example of Jewish persecution under Morocan rule in the 1800's no less. Really...is this the best you can do. By then central Islamic rule was long gone and Morocco was ruled by local tribal Sufi leaders. Once again....is this really the best you can do.

You even provided a source describing current day issues in Iraq (the Sabiens)....like really, do you even read your posts?

And this one is my favorite...when I posted this...

"Egypt remained a predominantly Christian country 3 centuries after it was conquered by Amr Ibn Al-Aas. This shows that no one was forced to convert....people were allowed to live in peace, practising their own religon...and they did."

You replied with this...

".....Islam has been waging civilizational war for centuries. Before the Muslims arrived, Egypt and North Africa and the southern coast of the Mediterranean were Christian. There was a Buddhist monastery in Egypt. Turkey was Buddhist and Christian. Persia [now Iran] was Zoroastrian. The Hindu culture covered an area of the world twice as large as it is now. When Napoleon invaded Egypt, he discovered that the Muslim population knew nothing about Egypt before Islam. The 5,000-year-old culture of the Pharaohs had been annihilated.

Really...this is ludicrous. If you knew anything about Ancient Egyptian history you would realise how ludicrous it really is. The end of Ancient Egyptian civilation occurred approx. 1500 years before the Prophet Muhummed (PBUH) was even born. By this time, the language of hyrogliphics had been lost, and Pharionic culture had disapeared, after subsequent invasions and occupations by Assyrian, Persian, Greek and Roman empires. To claim that muslims had 'annihilated' the culture of the Pharoahs is ridiculous.

Besides...you didn't even come close to addressing the issue. That being that 3 centuries after muslims had conquered Egypt....much of the Egyptian population was still Christian. This clearly indicates your delusions that muslims forced others to convert...is just that..delusions.

And when I asked...

"Now I don't expect you to believe me...but unfortunately for you, the evidence is there for all to see. Jews lived in peace under arab rule for hundreds of year, there are thousands of churches which remain in arab lands, after hundreds of years of Islamic rule.
If muslims were as bad as you say, then there would be no Christian churches, no Synagogues, no minority religons surving today in lands ruled by Islam. Alas...the evidence suggests otherwise."

You provide one example...of one church converted into a mosque. No mention of the other thousands of Churches and Synagogues which remained in tact during muslim rule...some which even exist today. For example...St Katherine's monastry in Egypt...and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem.

You said something about a bullsh(t metre....yours must be going off its dial...

And please...how bout you actually try addressing my post with your own words...instead of googling any anti-Islamic site you come across, and cut and pasting this rubbish which can quite easily be refuted.

abu_rashid wrote on Oct 10^th, 2008 at 10:32pm:

Quote: of democracy yet want to enjoy the benefits like free housing, education, healthcare, state handouts and free speech. Most of those things are not peculiar to democracy, in fact they're more commonly associated with socialism. Islam also believes in such concepts, and enacted most of those systems long before the West even wore clothes or built houses.

Long before the west wore clothes or built houses? Isn't Islam only 1400 years old? I'm pretty sure the west was wearing clothes and building houses way before then. There is this little place called the Parthenon, started 490BC. Considering the scale and the complexity of the structure, I think it is pretty safe to assume that there may have been some clothes wearing and house building many centuries before then.

Also many of the community minded benifits you claim for Islam were inherited by Islam from older religious and philosophical movements.

Quote:

Long before the west wore clothes or built houses? Isn't Islam only 1400 years old?

Was referring more to Western Europeans (hence the term "The West"), mostly those people of Germanic origin, many of whom were still living in makeshift huts and barely covering themselves with animal skins at the rise of Islam. They most certainly weren't anywhere near the level of civilisation that Islam had reached in this time.


Quote:

There's is this little place called the Parthenon, started 490BC

I consider Ancient Greek civilisation to be more 'Eastern' than 'Western'. For a start they looked at even the Romans with complete disdain, considering them barbaric and primitive, let alone the Western Europeans. They were more interested in (and focused towards) the East. They expanded their civilisation into the east and south into North Africa, as westerwards towards Europe was just too primitive and foreign for them. They had much more in common with the Middle East and the Persians than they did with the Western Europeans.

It was only about 400-500 years ago that "The West" began claiming some kind of intellectual/cultural descent from the Greek civilisation.

abu - so, germans progress while islamics restrained by their own repressive beliefs did not ?

Wind your clock forward 400 years and come into this century ??

That's Germanic, not German, do you know the diference?

And Muslims, not Islamics... Quite obviously you don't even understand the terminology involved let alone the topics being discussed.

To suggest that historical context is irrelevant, just indicates you have little or any value to add to the discussion. Also why did you not rush in and ask Yadda to stick to only events occuring this year, when they mentioned something that happened hundreds of years ago? Is it only the Islamic side of the debate that's confined to such restraints?

Soren wrote on Oct 11^th, 2008 at 2:00pm:

Islamists pursue political goals under the guise of religion.

It's not really a 'guise' is it Soren? They don't pretend to differentiate the two.

A BITTER factional feud within Canberra's Islamic community has erupted into violence with a leading member being punched repeatedly in the grounds of the mosque at Yarralumla.

So they punched a 'preacher' in an argument over who got to preach?

Looks like we have another wiki-scholar on our hands. Are you sure you're not related to soren?

Abu perhaps you'd like to address the evidence itself rather than shooting the messenger.

where hundreds of thousands of muslims/jews were given two choices, convert or die

THat is one choice Les.

If you'd like to admit all Christian lands outside of Palestine are 'captured war booty' also, as that's where Christianity originated from. and it's well known historical fact that the Christian conquests of Europe and the New World were the bloodiest religious conquests in the history of mankind.

So the Christians conquered the Roman empire in order to spread into Europe? I think you are confusing correlation with Causation again.

They lived under Islam in Iraq for 1200 years, and only left about 50 years ago in the POST-Caliphate/Shari'ah/Islamic period, and their leaving Iraq can be directly attributed to British meddling in the region!

So the British forced them out?

freediver wrote on Oct 13^th, 2008 at 3:12pm:

[quote author=soren2 link=1223522110/60#61 date=1223697640]where hundreds of thousands of muslims/jews were given two choices, convert or die THat is one choice Les.

err, really.

1) Convert

2) Die.

Now my maths might be a bit rusty...but I believe 1+1 = 2. Does it not.

Besides FD, during the inquistion...many chose the latter, and were killed, as a result of there 'choice'.

I hope that clears it up for you.

Quote:

Abu perhaps you'd like to address the evidence itself rather than shooting the messenger.

Have done. Nothing wrong with scrutinising the DEBATING STYLE of the messenger. If I were to attack their personal character in issues not related to the debate, then you'd have a valid point.


Quote:

So the Christians conquered the Roman empire in order to spread into Europe? I think you are confusing correlation with Causation again.

I'm sorry, but events like the "Baltic Crusade" can't be construed as just an accidental correlation. You seem to love this statement though, one of your staple retorts I see.
Argument = Historical Events
Stock Reply = That's correlation not causation.

See this post for more details about the 'peaceful' spread of Christianity.


Quote:

So the British forced them out?

The British created Israel and caused the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians, which then led to reprisals against Jews in Arab lands, which led to Israel evacuating them. Either way, they lived for 1200 years under Islamic Shari'ah law... it wasn't until many decades after Shari'ah had been annulled that they left... Let me guess, correlation not causation right?  ;D

abu_rashid wrote on Oct 13^th, 2008 at 8:23pm:

The British created Israel and caused the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians, which then led to reprisals against Jews in Arab lands, which led to Israel evacuating them. Either way, they lived for 1200 years under Islamic Shari'ah law... it wasn't until many decades after Shari'ah had been annulled that they left... Let me guess, correlation not causation right?  ;D

No...No...strawman!  ;D

False dichotomy!   :D

Lestat wrote on Oct 13^th, 2008 at 7:50pm:

freediver wrote on Oct 13th, 2008 at 3:12pm: Soren wrote on Oct 11th, 2008 at 2:00pm: where hundreds of thousands of muslims/jews were given two choices, convert or die THat is one choice Les. err, really. 1) Convert 2) Die. Now my maths might be a bit rusty...but I believe 1+1 = 2. Does it not. Besides FD, during the inquistion...many chose the latter, and were killed, as a result of there 'choice'. I hope that clears it up for you. One choice. Two options. Quote: I'm sorry, but events like the "Baltic Crusade" can't be construed as just an accidental correlation. That's not what your original claim was. [quote]The British created Israel and caused the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians

The Palestinians were not cleaned.

Quote:

That's not what your original claim was.

But it's a fact you can't refute and if I remember correctly, I did advise Yadda to search for that thread to get some more information, thereby including a mention of it in my original post that you addressed.


Quote:

The Palestinians were not cleaned.

Well you may not believe they were, but I do. And so do a lot of others, including Israeli historians such as Ilan Pappe.

Are you a Nakbah denier?

abu_rashid wrote on Oct 13^th, 2008 at 10:38am:

[quote] I consider Ancient Greek civilisation to be more 'Eastern' than 'Western'. For a start they looked at even the Romans with complete disdain, considering them barbaric and primitive, let alone the Western Europeans. They were more interested in (and focused towards) the East. They expanded their civilisation into the east and south into North Africa, as westerwards towards Europe was just too primitive and foreign for them. They had much more in common with the Middle East and the Persians than they did with the Western Europeans. It was only about 400-500 years ago that "The West" began claiming some kind of intellectual/cultural descent from the Greek civilisation.

You can consider your bellybutton if you like, yet Greece has been the 'cradle of western civilisation' to use a very very old cliche, for as long as anyone - but you - cares to look back.

To say that the Greeeks had any affinity with the east, or the 'middle east' as you put it, is to betray a willful,  deep-rooted and unbudging ignorance. The Greeks fought the east for centuries and regarded them as barbarians. Ask them today  - the east starts at the turkish border.

The word barbarian comes from either the hairiness of the Persians (barba, beard - hence barber) or from their babbling, to Greek ears incomprehensible 'blah blah' language. The North of Africa was the Barbary Coast until the 19th century.

The Greeks traded with everyone, colonised much of the mediterreanen, notably Sicily and around Naples, .as well as around modern Marseilles and the Spanish coast. They also founded colonies in what is now western turkey, also around the south coast of the Black Sea, Alexandria in Egypt (founded by one of Alexander's generals) elsewhere. To inssinuate that what we call the middle east corresponds to any Greek understanding of the civiliswed/barbarian divide is ludicrous and anachronistic.

The most celebrated Roman poet, Virgil, wrote his Anead about how the hero of the Trojan war found his way to Italy and founded Rome itself.

The Romans had Greek slaves teacing all their children. Greek was the language of learning throughout Rome - hence the fact that the new testament, written at the height of Augustinian Rome, was written in Greeek. Educated Romas spoke Greek, much like educated Europeans spoke it and latin until about the second world war.
Can't say the same for the educated class of Arabs or Mohammedans at any point in history.

The Romans did not consider the Greeks 'eastern'. They, just like the Greeks, thought of the Jews, the Egyptians, the Persians and all other assorted barbarians east of Athens as 'eastern'.
The Greeks thought the Romas uncouth but the Persains and teh rest of them to thee east were barbarians. Quite a difference.

The Romans adopted all the major Greek philosophies - stoicism foremost among them - not to menion the pantheon of gods.
The Romans were, culturally speaking, Greeks. They copied and cultivated the Greeek inheritance. And they passed it on to Europe.

Medieval Europe was the cultural continuationf Rome, its Greekness  reinvigorated by the renaissance in the 15th century (partly due to the fall of the Eastern Roman Empire centred around Byzantium and the consequent influx of Greek speaking scholars into Italy and Europe, fleeeing the Mohammedans)

Soren wrote on Oct 13^th, 2008 at 9:44pm:

The word barbarian comes from either the hairiness of the Persians (barba, beard - hence barber) or from their babbling, to Greek ears incomprehensible 'blah blah' language.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA. Thanks Soren for the laugh. Barba..beared,

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHA

From their babbling.... ;D

HAHAHAHA.aahh....so funny. Thanks mate...you've just made my night. I haven't read anything so funny in years.

;D ;D

Anyway...for your information...the term barbarian actually comes from Latin...not Greek. But please..don't stop, I haven't laughed like this for ages.

Well you may not believe they were, but I do. And so do a lot of others, including Israeli historians such as Ilan Pappe.

How many does he think were killed?

yet another diversionary insulting tactic by lestat

I ask for lestats post to be deleted by the mod.
Due to it being insulting and diversionary, as is many of his posts.

Lestat wrote on Oct 13^th, 2008 at 10:07pm:

Anyway...for your information...the term barbarian actually comes from Latin...not Greek. But please..don't stop, I haven't laughed like this for ages.

You might want to look a bit further into the etymology of the word barbarian.

... from L. barbaria "foreign country," from Gk. barbaros "foreign, strange, ignorant,"

Quote:

Ask them today  - the east starts at the turkish border.

You really need some good history lessons. Turkey and Turks in Anatolia has/have only existed for about the past 700 years. Prior to that the entirety of Anatolia was Greek and later Roman, then Greek again (Byzantine), as was most of the Levant, that's why half the names of cities there are derived from Greek.

So in the time of ancient Greece, which is what I was talking about, Turkey never existed, nor did any false "East/West" border that was an advent in the period after the Ottoman conquests of Anatolia.


Quote:

The word barbarian comes from either the hairiness of the Persians (barba, beard - hence barber) or from their babbling,

Actually the etymology of the word barbarian goes back to perhaps even proto-indo-european, as it exists also in Sanskrit as barbara, and means stammering. Since Persian is also an indo-european language, I don't think it would've been considered that strange to the Greeks.


Quote:

The North of Africa was the Barbary Coast until the 19th century.

\

That is coming from Arabic, as the Arabs called the North Africans al-Barbar.


Quote:

The Greeks traded with everyone, colonised much of the mediterreanen, notably Sicily and around Naples, .as well as around modern Marseilles and the Spanish coast

Actually most of their settlements were further east... Why are you trying to falsify this to make them so Western? This map shows Greek civilisation around 600 B.C.E

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e6/Location_greek_ancient.png

As you can see, a lot of it is quite clearly outside of tradittionally Western European territory.


Quote:

The Romans had Greek slaves teacing all their children. Greek was the language of learning throughout Rome

There's no doubting the Romans looked up to the Greeks, but the Greeks looked up to the Egyptians, Babylonians and other eastern civilisations. They never mentioned anything about any other great Western civilisation they looked up to.


Quote:

Can't say the same for the educated class of Arabs or Mohammedans at any point in history.

The Arabs were the ones who preserved most of the Greek works and passed them back to Europe. Without us, you probably wouldn't even know who the Greeks were today. Yeh you mentioned something about Irish monks once, but doesn't mean a lot. The fact is the ARABS were the ones who primarily passed knowledge of Greek civilisation to you.


Quote:

Medieval Europe was the cultural continuationf Rome, its Greekness  reinvigorated by the renaissance in the 15th century (partly due to the fall of the Eastern Roman Empire centred around Byzantium and the consequent influx of Greek speaking scholars into Italy and Europe, fleeeing the Mohammedans)

What a load of garbage, Greek history was completely unknown in Western Europe throughout most of the Christian period. Their books and their culture was considered heretical. Probablly why they translated the Bible into Latin and only read it in Latin.

Quote:

How many does he think were killed?

Why is that even relevant? Do you think ethnic cleansing means killing?


Quote:

Ethnic cleansing is a euphemism referring to the persecution through imprisonment, expulsion, or killing of members of an ethnic minority by a majority to achieve ethnic homogeneity in majority-controlled territory

NorthOfNorth wrote on Oct 13^th, 2008 at 10:21pm:

Lestat wrote on Oct 13th, 2008 at 10:07pm: Anyway...for your information...the term barbarian actually comes from Latin...not Greek. But please..don't stop, I haven't laughed like this for ages. You might want to look a bit further into the etymology of the word barbarian. ... from L. barbaria "foreign country," from Gk. barbaros "foreign, strange, ignorant,"

Actually...I suggest you look further back into the 'etymology of the word'...as Abu mentioned..the term also existed in indo languages.

However, it was passed to english via latin, and has nothing to do with facial hair. :D

Quote:

The Arabs were the ones who preserved most of the Greek works and passed them back to Europe

what a snivelling crawling claim to fame !!!
the arabs copied or kept some stuff they stole.
And that's meant to be good ???

Well, probably for them, yes.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Oct 13^th, 2008 at 10:31pm:

what a snivelling crawling claim to fame !!! the arabs copied or kept some stuff they stole. And that's meant to be good ??? Well, probably for them, yes.

yet another diversionary insulting tactic by sprintcyclist

I ask for sprintcyclist post to be deleted by the mod.
Due to it being insulting and diversionary, as is many of his posts.

Here's another one for you soren, the Greek empire in the time of Alexander:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/album/members/abu_rashid/MacedonEmpire.jpg

Quite befittingly it also states in the wiki article from where i found that map: "By the time of his death, he had conquered most of the world known to the ancient Greeks"

Not much of the world known to the Greeks existed to the West... did it? :)

abu - where is your link for reference ??

amazing how the west flourished, while the muslims faded.

Alexander the Great

amazing how the west flourished, while the muslims faded.

Lestat wrote on Oct 13^th, 2008 at 10:07pm:

Soren wrote on Oct 13th, 2008 at 9:44pm: The word barbarian comes from either the hairiness of the Persians (barba, beard - hence barber) or from their babbling, to Greek ears incomprehensible 'blah blah' language. BWAHAHAHAHAHA. Thanks Soren for the laugh. Barba..beared, BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHA From their babbling.... ;D HAHAHAHA.aahh....so funny. Thanks mate...you've just made my night. I haven't read anything so funny in years. ;D ;D Anyway...for your information...the term barbarian actually comes from Latin...not Greek. But please..don't stop, I haven't laughed like this for ages.

Cologne Digital Sanskrit Lexicon: Search Results

1 barbara mfn. (also written %{varvara}) stammering (see %{-tA}) ; curly Ka1t2h. ; m. (pl.) the non-A1ryans , barbarians MBh. R. &c. ; the country of the barbarians W. ; a low fellow , blockhead , fool , loon (used mostly in the voc.) Hit. ; (only L.) curly hair ;
Clerodendrum Siphonantus ; Cleome Pentaphylla ; a partic. fragrant plant ; Unguis Odoratus ; a kind of worm ; two kinds of fish ; the noise of weapons ; a kind of dance ; (%{A}) f. a kind of fly L. ; a species of Ocimum L. ; a kind of vegetable L. ; a partic. flower L. ; N. of a river VP. ; (%{I}) f. see below ; n. vermilion L. ; gum-myrrh L. ; yellow sandal-wood L. ; = %{barbarI} f. and %{-rIka} n.
2 bArbara mfn. born in the country of the barbarians g. %{takSazIlA7di}.  


Lestat, you are such a comfortingly dim barbarian, I do not have the heart to insult you further.  Your are afflicted sufficiently already.

Lestat wrote on Oct 13^th, 2008 at 10:28pm:

Actually...I suggest you look further back into the 'etymology of the word'...as Abu mentioned..the term also existed in indo languages. However, it was passed to english via latin

I didn't suggest it didn't have an earlier etymology. I suggested its Greek origin precedes Latin.

Soren wrote on Oct 13^th, 2008 at 11:18pm:

Lestat, you are such a comfortingly dim barbarian, I do not have the heart to insult you further.  Your are afflicted sufficiently already.

oooh...big words...thats very clever of you Soren. I would of thought that you would be sick of myself and Abu time and time again exposing your innacuracies and outright ludicrous claims. I guess thats what happens when you continuously google and cut and paste the first anti-Islamic material you can find without actually reading or knowing your topic first. Why don't you tell us all once again how Egypt attacked Israel/England/France in the 56 Suez war.:D

Strange...I see no mention of 'beards' in that (yet again) cut and paste that you have provided.

hehe...and now you have nothing but to resort to insults.

Are you paying attention Freediver.

Quote:

Why don't you tell us all once again how Egypt attacked Israel/England/France in the 56 Suez war.Cheesy

You know, there's a right way and a wrong way to go about something like this. I don't know who is right here, but let's just say for a minute that you are, it's rather unbecoming to behave in this manner when someone else is in the wrong. It's kind of like a kid at school who realises they are right and puts their thumb on their nose, wiggles their fingers and bellows "nah, nah, nee, nah, nah!". It makes you look a little bit silly and immature.

Lestat wrote on Oct 14^th, 2008 at 8:02am:

Soren wrote on Oct 13th, 2008 at 11:18pm: Lestat, you are such a comfortingly dim barbarian, I do not have the heart to insult you further.  Your are afflicted sufficiently already. Why don't you tell us all once again how Egypt attacked Israel/England/France in the 56 Suez war.:D

Told you already:


Quote:

soren wrote on Oct 1st, 2008, 2:52pm: Empty bluster, Sancho. Tinpot dictator harasses international shipping, tinpot dictator gets wacked. That's not aggression, that's justice. Egypt started the Suez crisis. What did Nasser expect? There would not have been a Suez Crisis without Egyptian delusions of adequacy.

Soren wrote on Oct 14^th, 2008 at 8:57am:

Lestat wrote on Oct 14th, 2008 at 8:02am: Soren wrote on Oct 13th, 2008 at 11:18pm: Lestat, you are such a comfortingly dim barbarian, I do not have the heart to insult you further.  Your are afflicted sufficiently already. Why don't you tell us all once again how Egypt attacked Israel/England/France in the 56 Suez war.:D Told you already: Quote: soren wrote on Oct 1st, 2008, 2:52pm: Empty bluster, Sancho. Tinpot dictator harasses international shipping, tinpot dictator gets wacked. That's not aggression, that's justice. Egypt started the Suez crisis. What did Nasser expect? There would not have been a Suez Crisis without Egyptian delusions of adequacy.

hehe...once again you have been exposed so you are backtracking...moving the goal posts so to speak.

You never said that 'Egypt' started the Suez crisis (which is debatable but I won't waste my time with you.).

What you did do...was provide a list of 'wars' in which you stated quite clearly was a list of wars in which arabs 'attacked'...you included the Suez crisis in this list. Its unfortunate that you cannot be man enough to admit that you were blatantly wrong...unfortunate, but not really surprising.

Seems that you never get sick of being exposed....keep up the good work..err, sanchez. :D

jordan484 wrote on Oct 14^th, 2008 at 8:37am:

Quote: Why don't you tell us all once again how Egypt attacked Israel/England/France in the 56 Suez war.Cheesy You know, there's a right way and a wrong way to go about something like this. I don't know who is right here, but let's just say for a minute that you are, it's rather unbecoming to behave in this manner when someone else is in the wrong. It's kind of like a kid at school who realises they are right and puts their thumb on their nose, wiggles their fingers and bellows "nah, nah, nee, nah, nah!". It makes you look a little bit silly and immature.

Given the nature of nearly all your posts directed at Abu and your obsession with him....the hypocricy of this post is breathtaking....

What's the nature of my posts? You seem overly concerned with myself and abu. I'm not exactly sure what that means, although I am flattered that you pay me so much attention.

abu_rashid wrote on Oct 13^th, 2008 at 10:22pm:

Quote: Ask them today  - the east starts at the turkish border. So in the time of ancient Greece, which is what I was talking about, Turkey never existed, nor did any false "East/West" border that was an advent in the period after the Ottoman conquests of Anatolia.

And yet you mentioned the West. Whether Turkey existed or not, the area starting with Asia Minor has historically been considered Eastern. The Greeks saw a cultural and racial distinction between themselves and the Persians in particular.


abu_rashid wrote on Oct 13^th, 2008 at 10:22pm:

Quote: The Greeks traded with everyone, colonised much of the mediterreanen, notably Sicily and around Naples, .as well as around modern Marseilles and the Spanish coast Actually most of their settlements were further east... Why are you trying to falsify this to make them so Western? This map shows Greek civilisation around 600 B.C.E

I see. So their settlements/colonies make them something different to what they recognise themselves to be. In that case, maybe you are familiar with that great Asian Hindi power.....Britain. Where a power expands to does not alter the identity of the Mother country.


abu_rashid wrote on Oct 13^th, 2008 at 10:22pm:

As you can see, a lot of it is quite clearly outside of tradittionally Western European territory.

Again. So? Australia has a Western European identity because we were once a Western European colony located as far away as you could possibly be.


abu_rashid wrote on Oct 13^th, 2008 at 10:22pm:

Quote: The Romans had Greek slaves teacing all their children. Greek was the language of learning throughout Rome There's no doubting the Romans looked up to the Greeks, but the Greeks looked up to the Egyptians, Babylonians and other eastern civilisations. They never mentioned anything about any other great Western civilisation they looked up to.

The Greeks looked up to Egypt and Babylon for good reason. There was much to be admired in their civilizations. That does not make the Greeks eastern, merely astute if nothing else. Of course they were much more than just that, they were the first great Western power so it would have been difficult for them to look up to one.


abu_rashid wrote on Oct 13^th, 2008 at 10:22pm:

Quote: Can't say the same for the educated class of Arabs or Mohammedans at any point in history. The Arabs were the ones who preserved most of the Greek works and passed them back to Europe. Without us, you probably wouldn't even know who the Greeks were today. Yeh you mentioned something about Irish monks once, but doesn't mean a lot. The fact is the ARABS were the ones who primarily passed knowledge of Greek civilisation to you.

For which I for one am eternally grateful. It still does not make the Greeks eastern nor for that matter the Arabs western because they saw value in preserving some of the greatest works ever produced.

man, I started this thread as a joke !!!!!!!!!!

maybe should have called it  "No wonder islamics are obsessive "

I thought i was a bit compulsive/obsessive, but you guys put me to shame !!!!!!!!!

Lestat wrote on Oct 12^th, 2008 at 9:04pm:

Really Yada...your posts are just incoherent crap and cut & paste jobs from anti-Islamic sites that you have googled.......... .....You provide one example...of one church converted into a mosque. No mention of the other thousands of Churches and Synagogues which remained in tact during muslim rule...some which even exist today. For example...St Katherine's monastry in Egypt...and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem.

Yadda, googling once again....

"Hagia Sophia.....is a former patriarchal basilica, later a mosque, now a museum in Istanbul, Turkey......It was the largest cathedral ever built in the world for nearly a thousand years....It was the patriarchal church of the Patriarch of Constantinople and the religious focal point of the Eastern Orthodox Church for nearly 1000 years.
In 1453, Constantinople was conquered by the Ottoman Turks and Sultan Mehmed II ordered the building to be converted into the Ayasofya Mosque."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hagia_Sophia


Iran: Seven historic synagogues in Tehran destroyed
Tehran, 15 April [2008] (AKI) - Seven ancient synagogues in the Iranian capital, Tehran, have been destroyed by local authorities.
The synagogues were in the Oudlajan suburb of Tehran, where many Iranian Jews used to live.
"These buildings, which were part of our cultural, artistic and architectural heritage were burnt to the ground," said Ahmad Mohit Tabatabaii, the director of the International Council of Museums’ (ICOM) office in Tehran.
"With the excuse of renovating this ancient quarter, they are erasing a part of our history," said Tabatabaii.
http://www.adnkronos.com/AKI/English/Religion/?id=1.0.2075294012


16 May 2006
Pressure on multi-faith Malaysia
Malaysia is considering its multi-cultural credentials after a crowd of Muslims on Sunday broke up a meeting called to defend the rights of religious minorities.
...."I'm becoming an alien in Malaysia, in my own country," says Dr Jacob George.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4965580.stm


Destruction of Non-Muslim Worship Centers Riles Faith Minorities in Malaysia
By Sean Yoong for AP:
April 01, 2007
PUTRAJAYA, Malaysia - The cavernous pink Putra Mosque with its soaring minaret is one of the most commanding sights and popular tourist photo backdrops in the new city of Putrajaya.
A house of worship for thousands of Muslims in the 8-year-old administrative capital of Malaysia, it is a showcase of the nation's dominant faith  Islam.
But the mosque also highlights the fact that Putrajaya doesn't have a single church or temple  a fact that minority Buddhists, Hindus and Christians see as one example of the second-class treatment other faiths get in this Muslim-majority country.
http://christianpost.com/article/20070330/destruction-of-non-muslim-worship-centers-riles-faith-minorities-in-malaysia.htm


Church demolished in Muslim-run state [Malaysia]
June 19 2007
Kuala Lumpur - Authorities have demolished a church in a Muslim-ruled state in northeast Malaysia, sparking anger among the indigenous people who say they own the property....
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=126&art_id=nw20070619141302153C420344


Google,
destruction of non-muslim places of worship
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=destruction+of+non-muslim+places+of+worship&btnG=Search&meta=

.....25,000 hits

Quote:

And yet you mentioned the West. Whether Turkey existed or not, the area starting with Asia Minor has historically been considered Eastern. The Greeks saw a cultural and racial distinction between themselves and the Persians in particular.

Funnily enough they're probably more closely related to Persians, by language certainly anyway, than they were with any other Middle Easterners.


Quote:

I see. So their settlements/colonies make them something different to what they recognise themselves to be.

What it indicates is that they had very little interest in engaging with the peoples to the North and West, as they considered them completely devoid of civilisation. They obviously considered themselves much more part of the civilisations that grew origiinally out of the fertile crescent, than of the tribalistic cave men who inhabited the North and West of Europe in that time.


Quote:

In that case, maybe you are familiar with that great Asian Hindi power.....Britain. Where a power expands to does not alter the identity of the Mother country.

Much different dynamics at work there and I think you know it. The age  of discovery, with the ability to travel half way 'round the world by ship, and to harvest massive resources from far off lands and ship them home provided much different incentives and abilities than did the land-based conquests of earlier civilisations.


Quote:

The Greeks looked up to Egypt and Babylon for good reason. The was much to be admired in the civilizations.

That's right, and they didn't even look at all to the West, because there was nothing there to even look at. That's all my original point was. The locus of civilisation in that time was centred in the Middle East, as it had been for thousands of years. Today it is undoubtedly centred in the West, nobody doubts that, but that's a different issue.


Quote:

That does not make the Greeks eastern, merely astute if nothing else

I think it is undoubtable that they conisdered themselves the Western-most extremity of the civilisation that was centred around the Middle East, rather than the Eastern most part of Europe. This is all my point was. they were not a part of any European civilisation, because there was no civilisation in Europe at that time. They never even bothered going into Europe as the truly first Western civilisation, the Romans did. And if you look at the map of Greece, even in the time of Alexander the Great, you'll see quite clearly where they considered the 'known world' to be, and in which direction they were facing.

The casting of them as part of a Western civilisation did not occur until probably a millenium or more after their decline. It's all good and well for you to include them as part of Western European civilisation, but in their time, they probably didn't even know Western Europe existed, even though it was fully accessible to them, they had absolutely no drive whatsoever to even interact with it.


Quote:

nor for that matter the Arabs western because they saw value in preserving some of the greatest works ever produced.

Soren had claimed the Arabs had not bothered with Greek at any time in their history, I merely countered this false claim. Please read my statements in the context of what I was replying to.

Lestat wrote on Oct 12^th, 2008 at 9:04pm:

Really Yada...your posts are just incoherent crap and cut & paste jobs from anti-Islamic sites that you have googled. Really....much of it is garbage and you have failed to address any of the points I raised...not one. For example..when I said the following... "When the Christians conquered Spain, it marked the beginning of the inquisition, where hundreds of thousands of muslims/jews were given two choices, convert or die. So successful was this genocide that no muslims survived in Spain."

Lestat, today, i don't deny that the Spanish inquisition happened.

And i think that it was insane, and that this behaviour was terrible and demented.


+++++++

But,
What about the actions and pronouncements today, of ppl claiming to be devout muslims?

Do 'pure', 'true' muslims acknowledge this behaviour is happening [without justifying it], and condemn it???


#1,

London, Sept.8 [2007]
"Muslims should preach peace till they are strong enough to undertake a jihad, or a holy war."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article2409833.ece



#2,

What about the FACT of what the Saudis are teaching their children today.....
......hatred of 'unbelievers'.

July 25, 2008
.....from a recent edition of a Saudi fourth-grade textbook,....

Q. "Is belief true in the following instances:
....(a) A man prays but hates those who are virtuous.
....(b) A man professes that there is no deity other than God but loves the unbelievers.
....(c) A man worships God alone, loves the believers, AND HATES THE UNBELIEVERS."

The correct answer, of course, is (c): According to the Wahhabi imams who wrote this textbook,
IT ISN'T ENOUGH TO SIMPLY WORSHIP GOD or just to love other believers;
IT IS IMPORTANT TO HATE UNBELIEVERS, too.
By the same token, (b) is wrong as well: Even a man who worships God cannot be said to have "true belief" if he also loves unbelievers.

Google,
school textbooks Saudi Arabia teach muslim children to hate unbelievers
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=school+textbooks+Saudi+Arabia+teach+muslim+children+to+hate+unbelievers&btnG=Search&meta=

Google,
obligatory to show enmity to the unbeliever
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=obligatory+to+show+enmity+to+the+unbeliever&btnG=Search&meta=



#3,

UK muslim cleric - speaking publicly, AND THEN PRIVATELY, regarding the London 7/7 bombing victims.
August 7, 2005
Inside the sect that loves terror
"......In public interviews Bakri condemned the killing of all innocent civilians. LATER WHEN HE ADDRESSED HIS OWN FOLLOWERS he explained that he had in fact been referring only to Muslims as only they were innocent: Yes I condemn killing any innocent people, but not any kuffar."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1724541,00.html



UK cleric promotes terror, example #1

Cleric preaches that violence is part of Islam
By Duncan Gardham
01/05/2007
In documents seen by The Daily Telegraph, al-Muhajiroun claimed: "TERRORISM IS A PART OF ISLAM" and "Allah made it obligatory to prepare and to terrify the enemy of Allah".
The article advised: "The kuffar of USA and UK are without doubt our enemy.There is no such thing as an innocent kafir, innocence is only applicable for the Muslims. Not only is it obligatory to fight them, it is haram [forbidden] to feel sorry for them."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/05/01/nplot901.xml


UK cleric promotes terror, example #2

Inside the sect that loves terror
August 07, 2005
......Last week Omar Brooks stirred controversy with televised comments, but they were carefully chosen to avoid appearing to incite violence. On Saturday, July 2 he had been more forthright.
Speaking to a group of teenagers and families, he declared it was IMPERATIVE FOR MUSLIMS TO INSTIL TERROR INTO THE HEARTS OF THE KUFFAR and added: I am a terrorist. As a Muslim of course I am a terrorist.
......In public interviews Bakri condemned the killing of all innocent civilians. Later when he addressed his own followers he explained that he had in fact been referring only to Muslims as only they were innocent: Yes I condemn killing any innocent people, but not any kuffar.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1724541,00.html

++++

Where are the pure & true muslims, who are denouncing these statements, publicly, and in their mosque sermons???



Listen to the words of muslims,
....who say one thing [about ISLAM and its aims], WHEN SPEAKING PUBLICLY,
....and then say [and encourage], **the exact opposite**, WHEN SPEAKING PRIVATELY [TO OTHER MUSLIMS].

Dispatches - Undercover Mosque (1 of 6)
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=peFQWuk4nuo

Persecution of 3000 Ex-Muslim Christians in UK - (Part 1/4)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXF-rJAOHGQ

yadda - its astonishing isn't it !!

the islamics here are totally one eyed. Theuy will STILL claim how fair their belief is, despite the proof you  have posted.

despite their own heavy handed censoring here, threats.

Whadda bunch of drivellers

Sprintcyclist wrote on Oct 14^th, 2008 at 11:49am:

yadda - its astonishing isn't it !! the islamics here are totally one eyed. Theuy will STILL claim how fair their belief is, despite the proof you  have posted.

sprint,
ISLAM, muslim, can never, never, never, ever, admit mistakes to, or against non-muslims.

All of their lives, muslims have it drummed into them.....

ISLAM, good.
Everyone else, bad.


"Ye [muslims] are the best of peoples, evolved for mankind, enjoining what is right, forbidding what is wrong, and believing in Allah. If only the People of the Book had faith, it were best for them: among them are some who have faith, but most of them are perverted transgressors."
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/003.qmt.html#003.110

And as you know, the Koran is inerrant, and incapable of being wrong.
/sarc off



Soren previously, said something of the culture of 'tribal' shame.

And here is a further examination of this characteristic [deep flaw?] of tribal ppl's....

"....Shame vs. Guilt
Islamic cultures are shame based. Shame is a painful experience. To avoid shame you have to hide the source of shame. This means you must protect the image. Your entire self esteem and self worth depends on that image. When you are shamed you become violence. Violence is one way we humans deal with shame.....
.....The Western culture, is guilt based.  The Eastern culture is shame based. For us Easterners, everything is about image and how others see us.
The opposite of guilt is innocence. If your ethos is guilt based, you have an inner police that stops you from doing wrong because doing wrong makes you feel guilty.  
If your ethos is shame based, all you care is to preserve your image. The opposite of shame is honor. You can do wrong but as long as no one sees it, your image is not tarnished and you can still be seen as an honorable person.  In a shame based culture, wrong and right have no meaning.  It is all about shame and honor.  If the stain of shame is removed, even if it means the murder of your own daughter, honor is restored.  These are two very different worldviews. Unless we understand them we will not be able to make sense of Muslims and their minds."
http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/sina70723.htm

Quote:

#3, UK muslim cleric - speaking publicly, AND THEN PRIVATELY, regarding the London 7/7 bombing victims. August 7, 2005 Inside the sect that loves terror "......In public interviews Bakri condemned the killing of all innocent civilians. LATER WHEN HE ADDRESSED HIS OWN FOLLOWERS he explained that he had in fact been referring only to Muslims as only they were innocent: Yes I condemn killing any innocent people, but not any kuffar." http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1724541,00.html

Quote:

UK cleric promotes terror, example #2 Inside the sect that loves terror August 07, 2005 ......Last week Omar Brooks stirred controversy with televised comments, but they were carefully chosen to avoid appearing to incite violence. On Saturday, July 2 he had been more forthright. Speaking to a group of teenagers and families, he declared it was IMPERATIVE FOR MUSLIMS TO INSTIL TERROR INTO THE HEARTS OF THE KUFFAR and added: I am a terrorist. As a Muslim of course I am a terrorist. ......In public interviews Bakri condemned the killing of all innocent civilians. Later when he addressed his own followers he explained that he had in fact been referring only to Muslims as only they were innocent: Yes I condemn killing any innocent people, but not any kuffar. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1724541,00.html

Couldn't find enough articles to cut and paste so you started recycling them?  ;D

Sprintcyclist wrote on Oct 14^th, 2008 at 11:49am:

yadda - its astonishing isn't it !! the islamics here are totally one eyed. Theuy will STILL claim how fair their belief is, despite the proof you  have posted. despite their own heavy handed censoring here, threats. Whadda bunch of drivellers

yeah!!! I hate it when people believe in their beliefs!! how dumb!

especially when you post 'evidence' from wikipedia and anti-islam sites!!

surely that will sway them!

"hey muslims,

I hate you and here's all the reasons you suck! what? you're not going to abandon your religion! that's dumb!

with hatred in my heart,

Bigot"

who wouldn't change their mind?

it's like when you believe that islam is totally crap- and then muslims post up evidence that it isn't, and people post articles from the media about equality and human rights and all that- and you TOTALLY change your beliefs!

amazing how you're able to change your beliefs based on what other people view as evidence...oh wait...you don't? hmmm

Abu what do you think about that UK cleric? Why is he so highly regarded that he has been made a cleric?

Whether you choose to blame extremist Islam, or western media, Islam has been imposed on western society's consciousness.

We would prefer not to even have to think about it, outside of maybe donating to Amnesty International to stick up for the rights of people in Islamic countries.

I like most, could not care less what people want to believe, if they keep their beliefs to themselves, and do not see their mission as being to have their beliefs proliferated throughout society.

It is when that begins to happen that people question just what these beliefs are, and how do they fit into our society.

It is muslims who want to see sharia courts in western countries, it is muslims who want us to change our ways to accommodate  their beliefs.

So stop playing the poor old martyr card, and either live in an Islamic nation, or accept the restrictions to practising your faith, that following the customs and laws of a western democracy requires of you.

It is not your religious right to impose acceptance of your beliefs onto non-muslim countries.

freediver wrote on Oct 14^th, 2008 at 12:45pm:

Abu what do you think about that UK cleric? Why is he so highly regarded that he has been made a cleric?

Freediver,

Could you please show me any quotes in that article where the Sheikh apparently said these things?

Oh...right, there aren't any quotes..nothing but a statement that 'so and so' said 'this and that'...yet no substance, nothing to actually substantiate what the Shiekh said.

This is the classic example of a media reports which has nothing but hot air and sensationist journalism...which often only the ignorant and bigotted will fall for.

Perhaps you could enlighten us then?

mozzaok wrote on Oct 14^th, 2008 at 12:53pm:

It is not your religious right to impose acceptance of your beliefs onto non-muslim countries.

Ironic, escpecially considering that it is in fact western secualar nations which are imposing their beliefs onto muslim countries.

I don't see any muslim armies occupying non-muslim lands..do you. On the contrary, it is western nations that are in muslim lands, imposing 'democracy' and 'secularism' upon muslim people.

What a spanner you are Lestat.

All western media is lies, all islamic sources are true.
Do you feel embarrassed about your bias?

jordan484 wrote on Oct 14^th, 2008 at 12:55pm:

Perhaps you could enlighten us then?

Enlighten you with what exactly?

Quote:

Ironic, escpecially considering that it is in fact western secualar nations which are imposing their beliefs onto muslim countries. I don't see any muslim armies occupying non-muslim lands..do you. On the contrary, it is western nations that are in muslim lands, imposing 'democracy' and 'secularism' upon muslim people.

Which you consider to be wrong.....so you would also consider muslims forcing their belief onto non-muslims wrong also?

mozzaok wrote on Oct 14^th, 2008 at 12:57pm:

What a spanner you are Lestat. All western media is lies, all islamic sources are true. Do you feel embarrassed about your bias?

I see....you have no response so you resort to insults.

I never said all western media is lies...I suggest you go and actually read what was said...again.

Not sure what relevance this has to your post though, fact is, it is westerners, not muslims that are enforcing their beliefs and way of life. Fact.

Like I said, I don't see muslim armies in non-muslim lands imposing their beliefs. On the contrary, it is western amries in muslim lands.

Now you can actually address this point...or perhaps admit defeat and hurl some more insults my way. The choice is yours.

jordan484 wrote on Oct 14^th, 2008 at 12:59pm:

Quote: Ironic, escpecially considering that it is in fact western secualar nations which are imposing their beliefs onto muslim countries. I don't see any muslim armies occupying non-muslim lands..do you. On the contrary, it is western nations that are in muslim lands, imposing 'democracy' and 'secularism' upon muslim people. Which you consider to be wrong.....so you would also consider muslims forcing their belief onto non-muslims wrong also?

Perhaps if you could provide examples, I can comment.

Do you believe its wrong that the west is enforcing its beliefs on ...say Iraq?

Yes, I think that democracy needs to come from within, if it is to come at all.

abu_rashid wrote on Oct 14^th, 2008 at 12:33pm:

Quote: #3, UK muslim cleric - speaking publicly, AND THEN PRIVATELY, regarding the London 7/7 bombing victims. August 7, 2005 Inside the sect that loves terror "......In public interviews Bakri condemned the killing of all innocent civilians. LATER WHEN HE ADDRESSED HIS OWN FOLLOWERS he explained that he had in fact been referring only to Muslims as only they were innocent: Yes I condemn killing any innocent people, but not any kuffar." http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1724541,00.html [quote]UK cleric promotes terror, example #2 Inside the sect that loves terror August 07, 2005 ......Last week Omar Brooks stirred controversy with televised comments, but they were carefully chosen to avoid appearing to incite violence. On Saturday, July 2 he had been more forthright. Speaking to a group of teenagers and families, he declared it was IMPERATIVE FOR MUSLIMS TO INSTIL TERROR INTO THE HEARTS OF THE KUFFAR and added: I am a terrorist. As a Muslim of course I am a terrorist. ......In public interviews Bakri condemned the killing of all innocent civilians. Later when he addressed his own followers he explained that he had in fact been referring only to Muslims as only they were innocent: Yes I condemn killing any innocent people, but not any kuffar. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1724541,00.html

Couldn't find enough articles to cut and paste so you started recycling them?  ;D[/quote]




abu,
As someone said previously, why don't you address the issues, instead of 'shooting the messenger'?

i.e. Why don't you admit that the violence and hatred of devout muslims, against 'unbelievers', is inspired by ISLAMIC texts?
....and encouraged by many muslim clerics.

Or am i reading a different Koran and Hadith, to the one you pure and true muslims study?



++++++

But abu, you can certainly nit-pick, about my 'dubious' sources, and my presentation, if that is what you want to do.

Water off a ducks back, for me.

I'm happy let other ppl who read this forum, judge between the points i make here, and your 'none-responses' to them.

Insults?
Oh Lestat, you are an open invitation, but we do try and restrain ourselves a little.

For the record, I never supported military incursion into Iraq or Afghanistan, at any time.
I have always opposed it, and I have always considered Bush to be the worst president in US history, and a stupid and dangerous man.

So do not assume that resenting Islam's imposition of itself into western society equates to a wish to invade muslim countries, or fight muslims, it does not always follow, but obviously for some it does.


Your most recent efforts are not unique, you always, unthinkingly, and uncritically, support anything you perceive as pro-muslim, and attack anything you deem anti-muslim.
You demand quotes and references for anything you do not find palatable, but accept everything at face value, that you believe will suit your cause.
That is why I called you a spanner, it is an inanimate object, an unthinking tool.

Start to use some objectivity and you may even get promoted to human.

jordan484 wrote on Oct 14^th, 2008 at 1:08pm:

Yes, I think that democracy needs to come from within, if it is to come at all.

And the Quran clealy states "There is no co-ercion in religon'. No one should be forced to practise any religon, or particular beliefs, and according to the teachings of my religon...no one is.

mozzaok wrote on Oct 14^th, 2008 at 1:12pm:

Insults? Oh Lestat, you are an open invitation, but we do try and restrain ourselves a little. For the record, I never supported military incursion into Iraq or Afghanistan, at any time. I have always opposed it, and I have always considered Bush to be the worst president in US history, and a stupid and dangerous man. So do not assume that resenting Islam's imposition of itself into western society equates to a wish to invade muslim countries, or fight muslims, it does not always follow, but obviously for some it does. Your most recent efforts are not unique, you always, unthinkingly, and uncritically, support anything you perceive as pro-muslim, and attack anything you deem anti-muslim. You demand quotes and references for anything you do not find palatable, but accept everything at face value, that you believe will suit your cause. That is why I called you a spanner, it is an inanimate object, an unthinking tool. Start to use some objectivity and you may even get promoted to human.

Of course...how silly of me. 'Spanner' is a term of endearement. My mistake.

Sorry...but unlike you I don't take everything I read at face value. Perhaps your simple mind is incapable of actually questioning...but personally, I like some sort of evidence to back up what I read. Yadda posted an article claiming a sheikh said so and so...yet their is not one quote in that article attributed to the Sheikh...or what he said.

Really...if you are choosing to attack me for 'demanding' quotes, then truly, this says a fair bit about you and your lack of though process.

So I'll ask again...you say that Islam is imposing its beliefs on western society. COuld you provide examples of this?

Really...the rest of your dribble is hardly worthy of a response.

Do you always behave like a childish brat whenever your argument is shot down in flames?

I might even become human huh. hehe, more insults...and if you truly believe that you are objective, then i fear your are more deluded then I first thought.

Gaybriel, Mantra...these are posters which I would describe as 'objective. You....you are just as biased as I am....yet your ignorance and arrogance blind you...and in your delusional mind you actually believe you are objective.

What a joke...

Gaybriel wrote on Oct 14^th, 2008 at 12:36pm:

yeah!!! I hate it when [muslims] believe in their beliefs!! how dumb! especially when you post 'evidence' from wikipedia and anti-islam sites!! surely that will sway them! .....it's like when you believe that islam is totally crap- and then muslims post up evidence that it isn't, and people post articles from the media about equality and human rights and all that- and you TOTALLY change your beliefs! amazing how you're able to change your beliefs based on what other people view as evidence...oh wait...you don't? hmmm

from Koran,

"Let there be no compulsion in religion......."
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/002.qmt.html#002.256

.....er, unless the religion is non-muslim.

Hadith....

"Allah 's Apostle said, " I have been ordered to fight with the people till they say, 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,' ...."
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/052.sbt.html#004.052.196


"Allah's Apostle was asked, "What is the best deed?" He replied, "To believe in Allah and His Apostle (Muhammad). The questioner then asked, "What is the next (in goodness)? He replied, "To participate in Jihad (religious fighting) in Allah's Cause." "
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/002.sbt.html#001.002.025


Koran,

"Fighting [against unbelievers] is prescribed for you, and [if] ye dislike it.....Allah knoweth, and ye know not."
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/002.qmt.html#002.216

"....take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends....
......he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them." [i.e. is an unbeliever]
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/005.qmt.html#005.051

The Koran instructs muslims, that non-muslims only wish to corrupt, and ruin muslims.....
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/003.qmt.html#003.118

The best muslims, in Allah's eyes, are those "....who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons."
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/004.qmt.html#004.095


++++

ISLAM's teaching on those who give up ISLAM.....

Hadith

"...If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him."
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/052.sbt.html#004.052.260

From ISLAMIC law texts....

Ibn 'Abbas reported that the Prophet said: "The bare essence of Islam and the basics of the religion are three [acts], upon which Islam has been established. Whoever leaves one of them BECOMES AN UNBELIEVER and HIS BLOOD MAY LEGALLY BE SPILLED. [The acts are:] Testifying that there is no God except Allah, the obligatory prayers, and the fast of Ramadan."....
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/law/fiqhussunnah/fus3_50.html#3.110

APOSTASY IN ISLAM
"Apostasy in Islam is commonly defined as the rejection of Islam in word or deed by a person who has been a Muslim.
The FOUR MAJOR SUNNI AND THE ONE MAJOR SHIA MADH'HAB (SCHOOLS OF ISLAMIC JURISPRUDENCE) AGREE that a sane adult male apostate must be executed......"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam

Lestat wrote on Oct 14^th, 2008 at 1:13pm:

jordan484 wrote on Oct 14th, 2008 at 1:08pm: Yes, I think that democracy needs to come from within, if it is to come at all. And the Quran clealy states "There is no co-ercion in religon'. No one should be forced to practise any religon, or particular beliefs, and according to the teachings of my religon...no one is.

That may be so, however, your koran also states that non-muslims are treated inferior to muslims, and that this would be the case if Islamic law (which you all want) is accepted in Australia. You also gave an example in another thread where non-muslims were given the choice to convert or die. So they weren't forced to practice Islam....but they had to die to avoid it. Australia and other western nations are giving in to muslim demands, a little at a time......and you know what they say, give them and inch and they'll take a mile.

Lestat wrote on Oct 14^th, 2008 at 12:53pm:

freediver wrote on Oct 14th, 2008 at 12:45pm: Abu what do you think about that UK cleric? Why is he so highly regarded that he has been made a cleric? Freediver, Could you please show me any quotes in that article where the Sheikh apparently said these things? Oh...right, there aren't any quotes..nothing but a statement that 'so and so' said 'this and that'...yet no substance, nothing to actually substantiate what the Shiekh said. This is the classic example of a media reports which has nothing but hot air and sensationist journalism...which often only the ignorant and bigotted will fall for.

Lestat,

A different UK cleric, a similar message.....

Listen to the words from the lips of a UK muslim cleric, Anjem Choudary.

On Youtube - an interview on UK TV,
Anjem Choudary talks of the London 7/7 bombing victims,

"...when we say innocent people, we mean muslims."
"....[not accepting ISLAM] is a crime against God."
"...If you are a non-muslim, then you are guilty of not believing in God."
"...as a muslim....i must have *hatred* towards everything which is non-ISLAM."
"...[muslims] allegence is always with the muslims, so i will never condemn a muslim for what he does."
"...Britain has always been Dar al Harb [the Land of War]"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maHSOB2RFm4

jordan484 wrote on Oct 14^th, 2008 at 1:36pm:

You also gave an example in another thread where non-muslims were given the choice to convert or die. So they weren't forced to practice Islam....but they had to die to avoid it. Australia and other western nations are giving in to muslim demands, a little at a time......and you know what they say, give them and inch and they'll take a mile.

Seriously Jordan...why do you lie in order to make your point.

Show me this supposed post of mine where I gave an example of non-muslims who were given the choice to convert or die.

I can only assume that you have misunderstood...the example I provided was in fact muslims who were given these choices.

And seiously, the rest of your post is just rubbish and not worthy of a response. If you truly believe that, then truy I pity you..

Lestat wrote on Oct 14^th, 2008 at 12:58pm:

jordan484 wrote on Oct 14th, 2008 at 12:55pm: Perhaps you could enlighten us then? Enlighten you with what exactly?

About your trip to Africa, Captain Spolding.


http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=RbyzTI0M8eo

Please don't call people a psanner, or any other insult.


Lestat wrote on Oct 14^th, 2008 at 12:53pm:

freediver wrote on Oct 14th, 2008 at 12:45pm: Abu what do you think about that UK cleric? Why is he so highly regarded that he has been made a cleric? Freediver, Could you please show me any quotes in that article where the Sheikh apparently said these things? Oh...right, there aren't any quotes..nothing but a statement that 'so and so' said 'this and that'...yet no substance, nothing to actually substantiate what the Shiekh said. This is the classic example of a media reports which has nothing but hot air and sensationist journalism...which often only the ignorant and bigotted will fall for.

Actually there does appear to be quotes, just no quote marks.

Lestat wrote on Oct 14^th, 2008 at 1:13pm:

jordan484 wrote on Oct 14th, 2008 at 1:08pm: Yes, I think that democracy needs to come from within, if it is to come at all. And the Quran clealy states "There is no co-ercion in religon'. No one should be forced to practise any religon, or particular beliefs, and according to the teachings of my religon...no one is.

Poppycock!

ISLAM is a political philosophy which engages in lies and deception, against the 'unbelievers'.

i.e. ISLAM is a 'religion' for all 'seasons'.


When muslims are politically weak, they quote this verse.....


from Koran,

"Let there be no compulsion in religion......."
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/002.qmt.html#002.256




But when muslims are politically strong, they do this.....

ISLAM's teaching on those who give up ISLAM.....

Hadith

"...If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him."
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/052.sbt.html#004.052.260

From ISLAMIC law texts....

Ibn 'Abbas reported that the Prophet said: "The bare essence of Islam and the basics of the religion are three [acts], upon which Islam has been established. Whoever leaves one of them BECOMES AN UNBELIEVER and HIS BLOOD MAY LEGALLY BE SPILLED. [The acts are:] Testifying that there is no God except Allah, the obligatory prayers, and the fast of Ramadan."....
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/law/fiqhussunnah/fus3_50.html#3.110

APOSTASY IN ISLAM
"Apostasy in Islam is commonly defined as the rejection of Islam in word or deed by a person who has been a Muslim.
The FOUR MAJOR SUNNI AND THE ONE MAJOR SHIA MADH'HAB (SCHOOLS OF ISLAMIC JURISPRUDENCE) AGREE that a sane adult male apostate must be executed......"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam


++++++


Monday June 09, 2008
JORDAN: COURT ANNULS CHRISTIAN CONVERT’S MARRIAGE
"By leaving Islam, ‘apostate’ loses right because he ‘has no creed.’.....
....The North Amman Sharia Court in April dissolved the marriage of Mohammad Abbad, on trial for apostasy, or leaving Islam.
The 40-year-old convert fled Jordan with his wife and two young children in March after another Christian convert’s relatives attacked Abbad’s family in their home and his father demanded custody of Abbad’s children.
Marriage depends on the creed [religion], and the apostate has no creed, a May 22 court document stated, detailing reasons for the April 22 annulment. According to the document, Judge Faysal Khreisat had proven the veracity of [Abbad’s] apostasy."
http://www.compassdirect.org/en/display.php?page=news&lang=en&length=long&idelement=5420


Egypt Rules Christian Convert Must Remain Legally Muslim
Feb. 03 2008
An Egyptian judge ruled this week in an unprecedented case that a Muslim who converted to Christianity cannot legally change his religious status....
.....Muhammad Hegazy, 25, lost his case on Tuesday when Judge Muhammad Husseini of a court in Cairo said according to sharia, or Islamic law, Islam is the final and most complete religion and therefore Muslims already practice full freedom of religion and cannot convert to an older belief (Christianity or Judaism),
.....The judge didn’t listen to our defense, and we didn’t even have a chance to talk before the court, said Gamel Eid, head of the Arab Network for Human Rights Information (ANHRI) to U.S. Copts Association.
http://www.christianpost.com/article/20080203/egypt-rules-christian-convert-must-remain-legally-muslim.htm

Yep,

SHARIA 'JUSTICE' - for 'unbelievers'....
"......The judge didn’t listen to our defense, and we didn’t even have a chance to talk before the court,"



+++++

Death,
Within ISLAMIC 'paradises'....

Google,
Iranian parliament approves death penalty for apostasy
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=Iranian+parliament+approves+death+penalty+for+apostasy&btnG=Search&meta=

Google,
Saudi christian executed
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=Saudi+christian+executed&btnG=Search&meta=

Quote:

Show me this supposed post of mine where I gave an example of non-muslims who were given the choice to convert or die.

Sorry, you are correct, I did read that wrong.


Quote:

Seriously Jordan...why do you lie in order to make your point.

It wasn't a lie, I made a mistake.


Quote:

I can only assume that you have misunderstood...the example I provided was in fact muslims who were given these choices.

Yes, I did.


Quote:

And seiously, the rest of your post is just rubbish and not worthy of a response. If you truly believe that, then truy I pity you..

I stand by the rest of my post, it isn't rubbish at all. Muslims are making more and more demands in western countries, have a look at the UK, it's a mess. I hope Australia has more stones and does not allow any Islamic law, custom, belief, moral or anything else to infiltrate the lives of non-Muslims in this country. I can't make you respond, that's entirely your prerogative, but please don't pity me, you know I'm not worth it!

jordan - good on you for admitting your error.

seems muslims never do that - their arrogance denies that relief.
prob also tied up with that extreme arrogant idea of never kneeling before any other man.


Wonder if any of them accept/apologise for what the islamics say in your posts?
i doubt it !!!!!!!!!!! they have not so far.

Yadda Yadda Yadda,


Quote:

Water off a ducks back, for me

'Straight over your head' is actually what comes to mind for me.

You've so far made about 347 points in this thread, and for the first few pages, we wasted our time addressing them, and made a few points in response, not one single point was answered by you. You just waffled on with more cut-paste jobs from anti-Islamic sites and dubious wiki articles, whilst completely ignoring every single point made to you.

Now I'm still waiting for you to show me how most of the Muslims in Australia, fled religious dictatorships, when most of them came from Lebanon and Turkey, neither of which was a religious dictatorship. Or how the migration of Jews from Iraq about 40 years after the annulment of Shari'ah law (when they'd lived under it quite fine for about 1200 years) has anything to do with Islam?

If you don't have the courtesy to respond when you've been caught out and questioned, don't expect others to respond to you.

Lestat wrote on Oct 14^th, 2008 at 1:44pm:

And seiously, the rest of your post is just rubbish and not worthy of a response. If you truly believe that, then truy I pity you..

To Jordan saying this
Quote:

That may be so, however, your koran also states that non-muslims are treated inferior to muslims, and that this would be the case if Islamic law (which you all want) is accepted in Australia. You also gave an example in another thread where non-muslims were given the choice to convert or die. So they weren't forced to practice Islam....but they had to die to avoid it. Australia and other western nations are giving in to muslim demands, a little at a time......and you know what they say, give them and inch and they'll take a mile.

Is this true?

Isn't this intolerence or discrimination?

How can the followers of such a position then claim to be victims of their own standard?

Yadda wrote on Oct 14^th, 2008 at 2:30pm:

Lestat wrote on Oct 14th, 2008 at 1:13pm: jordan484 wrote on Oct 14th, 2008 at 1:08pm: Yes, I think that democracy needs to come from within, if it is to come at all. And the Quran clealy states "[b]There is no co-ercion in religon'. No one should be forced to practise any religon, or particular beliefs, and according to the teachings of my religon...no one is.[/b] from Koran, "Let there be no compulsion in religion......." Hadith "...If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him." From ISLAMIC law texts.... . Whoever leaves one of them BECOMES AN UNBELIEVER and HIS BLOOD MAY LEGALLY BE SPILLED. [The acts are:] Testifying that there is no God except Allah, the obligatory prayers, and the fast of Ramadan."....

These certainly seem to be a contradiction to my mind. Gaybriel do you want to have a go at clearing this up?

It means you cannot force someone to become a Muslim, but once they are, you 'own' them. While you cannot force them, you can give them all sorts of incentives, like legal and tax discrimination. Technically there is no coercian, but in practice there is.

Abu, what are your thoughts on that UK cleric misleading the British people?

Do you mean Omar Bakri Muhammad?

There are a lot of propaganda reports about him. A few weeks ago he was in the extremism exposed forum because his daughter is supposedly a pole dancer, according to trashy british tabloids anyway.

Unless I see it from his own mouth, I'd be skeptical about it. The British definitely have an agenda when it comes to him, and want to trash his name.

Would the youtube video suffice?

Quote:

Ironic, escpecially considering that it is in fact western secualar nations which are imposing their beliefs onto muslim countries.

Below is just one example of what I'm talking about. Muslims in western countries starting to force their belief system on non-Muslims. Give 'em an inch......

"Councillors have been ordered not to eat during town hall meetings while Muslim colleagues fast during the holy month of Ramadan.
All elected members at Left-wing Tower Hamlets Council in East London have been sent an email asking them to follow strict Islamic fasting during September no matter what their faith.
As well as restricting food and drink until after sunset, the authority's leaders have decided to reduce the number of meetings throughout the month so they do not clash with the requirements of Ramadan."

http://islaminaction08.blogspot.com/2008/08/uk-ramadan-imposed-on-non-muslim.html

abu - you dont blieve ANYTHING untoward said about ANY muslim EVER.

everythings always the jjjooos fault.

you accept no responsibiity whatsoever.

freediver, suffice for what?

But sure, post the link, I'll review it and share my thoughts.

sprint,


Quote:

abu - you dont blieve ANYTHING untoward said about ANY muslim EVER.

Generally, no, I don't. I try to always think good about Muslims, and make excuses for them. This is an Islamic etiquette, like it or lump it.

I certainly don't run around proclaiming guilt of my fellow Muslims just based on a propaganda media report, which often enough we've found them to be completely or partially fabricated. To suggest I should do as suxch is just ridiculous, but doesn't surprise me coming from the likes of you.


Quote:

everythings always the jjjooos fault.

Is it? Are you basing this on something you've seen me say? Or are you just parroting soren (even in your 'cool' spelling  ;D )

Quote:

I try to always think good about Muslims, and make excuses for them. This is an Islamic etiquette, like it or lump it.

And here's the basic problem in all it's simplicity.

jordan484 wrote on Oct 14^th, 2008 at 5:21pm:

"Councillors have been ordered not to eat during town hall meetings while Muslim colleagues fast during the holy month of Ramadan. All elected members at Left-wing Tower Hamlets Council in East London have been sent an email asking them to follow strict Islamic fasting during September no matter what their faith. As well as restricting food and drink until after sunset, the authority's leaders have decided to reduce the number of meetings throughout the month so they do not clash with the requirements of Ramadan." http://islaminaction08.blogspot.com/2008/08/uk-ramadan-imposed-on-non-muslim.html

Really Jordan...could you have found a more credible site?

Anyway...ordered by whom? Muslims? I didn't think that we exert that sort of power. Well clearly from the article, the order never came from muslims.

From the article...

"But some members of the Labour-run council say the demands favour one religious group over the others."

"In the memo to councillors, John Williams, the council's head of democratic services, said: 'It is requested that members do not partake of any refreshments until after the Iftar refreshments are served.'

Council bosses said the arrangements were in place 'where it is not reasonable to expect members observing Ramadan, and who are required to attend a formal committee or other meeting, to travel home in time for sundown in order to break fast and undertake prayers'."

So the council is Labour run, so unless you know otherwise, and Im sure you agee that John Williams doesn't sound like a muslim name.

And interestingly enough.....also from the article (the parts you didn't post).

"And it has also staged a Bonfire Night party which featured a Bengal tiger instead of Guy Fawkes."

Bengal tiger...bonfire? Doesn't sound Islamic to me. Obviously this council has catered to other cultures and beliefs besides Islam.

There is nothing in that article that indicates that 'muslims are enforcing their beliefs onto others.

I suspect that this was a decision made by a council which wished to show respect for muslim beliefs. This view is supported in the article by the following paragraphs.

Controversy has arisen because all members have been told not to eat until after sunset, out of courtesy to their Muslim colleagues, and so there will be food left for them later in the evening.

In the memo to councillors, John Williams, the council's head of democratic services, said: 'It is requested that members do not partake of any refreshments until after the Iftar refreshments are served.'

Council bosses said the arrangements were in place 'where it is not reasonable to expect members observing Ramadan, and who are required to attend a formal committee or other meeting, to travel home in time for sundown in order to break fast and undertake prayers'.

Quite often decisions of this nature are not made by muslims, but by non-muslims wishing to show respect for other cultures. You should try it sometime.

Really though, you are well and truly scraping at the bottom of the barrel with this site.

jordan484 wrote on Oct 14^th, 2008 at 6:36pm:

Quote: I try to always think good about Muslims, and make excuses for them. This is an Islamic etiquette, like it or lump it. And here's the basic problem in all it's simplicity.

Still haven't got over that obsession I see. tsk tsk tsk.

Quote:

Really Jordan...could you have found a more credible site?

Yeah, apologies on that one, but it just illustrated my point.


Quote:

Anyway...ordered by whom? Muslims?

Doesn't matter, the end result is still the same.


Quote:

I didn't think that we exert that sort of power.

Clearly you do if non-muslims are doing your demanding for you.


Quote:

Well clearly from the article, the order never came from muslims.

So? Your very presence is more than enough.


Quote:

So the council is Labour run, so unless you know otherwise, and Im sure you agee that John Williams doesn't sound like a muslim name.

No, it doesn't.


Quote:

And interestingly enough.....also from the article (the parts you didn't post).

I rarely post whole articles, an intro paragraph and link should be enough to start discussion.


Quote:

Bengal tiger...bonfire? Doesn't sound Islamic to me. Obviously this council has catered to other cultures and beliefs besides Islam.

Catering to a religion and the people in that religion is one thing (which I'm still not too pro on) but forcing people who are not in that religion to observe the same rules is abhorrent.


Quote:

There is nothing in that article that indicates that 'muslims are enforcing their beliefs onto others.

When non-muslims are forced to observe a muslim custom, I'd say there was plenty to indicate muslims are enforcing (by proxy or otherwise) their belief system on others.


Quote:

I suspect that this was a decision made by a council which wished to show respect for muslim beliefs.

The only way to show respect is to do as muslims do is it? Where's the respect from muslims then? You certainly wouldn't change what you do or believe for any other religion or culture why should anyone do the same for you.


Quote:

Quite often decisions of this nature are not made by muslims, but by non-muslims wishing to show respect for other cultures. You should try it sometime.

I most certainly will not. Showing respect by making allowances for people who observe these religious customs is one thing, making others adhere to them is a different thing entirely. I'm certain respect can be shown without having to partake in the same ritual or custom. That's way over the top.

Lestat wrote on Oct 14^th, 2008 at 6:54pm:

jordan484 wrote on Oct 14th, 2008 at 6:36pm: Quote: I try to always think good about Muslims, and make excuses for them. This is an Islamic etiquette, like it or lump it. And here's the basic problem in all it's simplicity. Still haven't got over that obsession I see. tsk tsk tsk.

Likewise.

yet another example of the brits rolling over.
no wonder muslims are stomping all over them.

the shining examples here of muslim intolerance, aggression, abuse and oppression are typical.

jordan484 wrote on Oct 14^th, 2008 at 7:09pm:

Yeah, apologies on that one, but it just illustrated my point.

But thats just it...it didn't illustrate your point at all.


jordan484 wrote on Oct 14^th, 2008 at 7:09pm:

Doesn't matter, the end result is still the same.

Yes it does....your post clearly highlighted the 'apparent' threat of muslims enforcing their beliefs onto others. In this example, those making the decisions were non-muslims, not muslims.


jordan484 wrote on Oct 14^th, 2008 at 7:09pm:

Clearly you do if non-muslims are doing your demanding for you.

Perhaps you ought to direct your angst at the non-muslims making the decisions then.


jordan484 wrote on Oct 14^th, 2008 at 7:09pm:

So? Your very presence is more than enough.

Now your really struggling.


jordan484 wrote on Oct 14^th, 2008 at 7:09pm:

No, it doesn't.

Hence your point is invalid, this is not an example of muslims forcing their beliefs onto others, but non-muslims forcing muslim beliefs onto others. If you have a problem..take it up with those making the decisions.


jordan484 wrote on Oct 14^th, 2008 at 7:09pm:

Catering to a religion and the people in that religion is one thing (which I'm still not too pro on) but forcing people who are not in that religion to observe the same rules is abhorrent.

Forced by non-muslims...not muslims. A decision made by non-muslims...not muslims.


jordan484 wrote on Oct 14^th, 2008 at 7:09pm:

The only way to show respect is to do as muslims do is it? Where's the respect from muslims then? You certainly wouldn't change what you do or believe for any other religion or culture why should anyone do the same for you.

I don't want anyone to change their beliefs for me...so I'm not really sure what you are on about. I just spent a month fasting, plenty of my work friends would apologise for eating in front of me...I told them not to be silly, and that really the have nothing to apologise for.

So you want me to change what I believe do you....is this what its all about. Well done....once again your showing your true colors.


jordan484 wrote on Oct 14^th, 2008 at 7:09pm:

I most certainly will not. Showing respect by making allowances for people who observe these religious customs is one thing, making others adhere to them is a different thing entirely. I'm certain respect can be shown without having to partake in the same ritual or custom. That's way over the top.

I have already highlighted that the fact is the allowences were ordered and made by non-muslims. Of course I don't expect you to show respect, because respect only often comes from those who are respectful...which pretty much rules you out.

Your angst in this instance is quite clearly misdirected. It was non-muslims who made these decisions, and made these orders.....not muslims...therefore, clearly, once again...you have no point.

I'm sure there are plenty of examples out there of muslims enforcing there beliefs onto others...after all, there 1.2 Billion muslims in the world, and if you look hard enough, you could probably find examples of all religons/cultures enforcing their beliefs onto others.

But unfortunately for you...the one example you did find, isnt one of those examples.

Shouldn't this be in the Islam section so I dont have to read it. Im sick of all this Islamic crap, know any better web sites that are actually about politics FD.

[author=Lestat33 link=1223522110/150#163 date=1223976591]
Quote:

I'm sure there are plenty of examples out there of muslims enforcing there beliefs onto others...after all, there 1.2 Billion muslims in the world,

Plenty is the word. A gutful, actually.
No matter where one looks nowadays, it is a daily dose of emboldened Mohammedans demanding respect or accommodation for their peculiar or primitive customs, with the undercurrent of violence never far.
Female medical students can't wash their hands properly, language teacher's aid must wear face mask in class, hairdresser must wear complete haircover, muslim cleric denouncing women with BOTH eyes showing!! There is a new insanity every day, often more than one.  

And that's just what you hear in Western countries.


Quote:

and if you look hard enough, you could probably find examples of all religons/cultures enforcing their beliefs onto others.

Well, that's just it. You have to look really hard with anyone else. The absurdities and attempts to re-primitivise in the namee of Islam, on the other hand, are in your face daily, no matter where you look.