There seems to be constant conjecture over the beliefs inherent to Islam in this forum.

It seems to follow a pattern of

"Muslims believe this"

"No we don't"

"Yes you do"

....I suppose my question is. Even if you believe that Muslims are somehow deluded about the beliefs of their religion, if you have a Muslim person saying to you that for them "Islam is about peace. Muslims should not commit acts of terror. Muslims should not beat their wives." etc etc- then what really is your problem with that particular individual?

surely if the perception that the individual has of their religion is one of peace, love and generally good things- then why continue to argue that Islam means something different to that person?

Some people seem to display signs that they think there is a massive conspiracy amongst muslims to act one way in public, and then in private to be completely opposite and plot the destruction/domination of the world.

And these inevitably seem to be the same people who mock and deride at any kind of 'conspiracy theory', yet this one is fully embraced.

And if you are logical enough to say- ok well if that person sees their religion in that light and behaves according to that perception, then I have no problem with them- then why not judge each muslim in the same way? As individuals whom you judge according to their beliefs and actions?

and even if there were beliefs of an individual that you disagreed with- is this really any different from people you know in your family or friends? I debate with my family all the time about beliefs (political, economic etc) but I don't think that their beliefs make them worthy of hatred or derision. So why is it that people find it so easy to write off other people because they are muslim?

When I came onto the forum many people seemed to think I was muslim and react according to that belief- each of my statements was judge via this model of 'muslim'. Doesn't making that the overriding framework for how one understands another, entirely antithetical to the process of getting to know another person and understanding their views? Because essentially your perceptions will always be constrained and imprisoned within this framework.

And if you're not genuinely interested in learning from another person- then why engage in such discussion at all? Do you merely like to hear yourself 'speak'?

There seems to be no openness to learning anyway because the belief is there's no way you could learn anything from a muslim. And again, all this does is stop you from learning anything at all and instead everything you know (or think you know- or both) is just reconfirmed.

What is the point in that?

If you see someone in a hat and you mention they are wearing a hat and they say no I'm not...  what do you believe gaybriel?

have you ever been on the Ummah?
now there is a site to open your eyes.

The muslims on this site behave the same way, even as far as censorship and deleting posts.

You may after a few years and more experience change your apologetic attitude.  

You may call a spade a spade.

Oh and gaybriel...  if you see one Muslim acting one way its an individual act...  if you see a hundred?  a thousand?  ten thousand?

You either are naive, forgetful or ignorant about these things.

you forget what the Muslim Etiquette topic was about.

You ignore the facts...  

Do you understand the terms taqqiya (taqiya)or kitman (ketman).

There seems to be constant conjecture over the beliefs inherent to Islam in this forum.

It seems to follow a pattern of

"Muslims believe this"

"No we don't"

"Yes you do"

Can you give an example Gaybriel?

Grendel wrote on Oct 24^th, 2008 at 9:47am:

If you see someone in a hat and you mention they are wearing a hat and they say no I'm not...  what do you believe gaybriel?

but this is what I'm saying- with your hat analogy- the person in question is not wearing a hat. I'm saying you judge someone from their actions. if their actions contradict what they as an individual say- then sure, have a go, no worries.


Quote:

You may after a few years and more experience change your apologetic attitude.   You may call a spade a spade.

I can call a spade a spade- I just don't think ithat in doing that, you can reasonably assume that everyone of the same ilk is the same way...did that make sense?


Quote:

Oh and gaybriel...  if you see one Muslim acting one way its an individual act...  if you see a hundred?  a thousand?  ten thousand? You either are naive, forgetful or ignorant about these things.

exactly. then those hundred and thousand you say- I don't agree with them and I think what they're doing it completely messed up. because you are judging them on their actions.


Quote:

you forget what the Muslim Etiquette topic was about. You ignore the facts...   Do you understand the terms taqqiya (taqiya)or kitman (ketman).

you're ignoring or misunderstanding what my post is about

and yes I understand those terms

freediver wrote on Oct 24^th, 2008 at 10:01am:

There seems to be constant conjecture over the beliefs inherent to Islam in this forum. It seems to follow a pattern of "Muslims believe this" "No we don't" "Yes you do" Can you give an example Gaybriel?

I'll have a look for one later- but they are throughout this section, although obviously not stated as boldly as this

gaybriel - good thread.

imho it seems there are many areas about islam that are uncompatible with the west.

islamics run the show, they are unwilling to compromise at all.
muslims in the main seem to be extremely biased

Grendel,


Quote:

Do you understand the terms taqqiya (taqiya)or kitman (ketman).

Taqiyyah means publically denouncing Islam to save your life, I don't see what's wrong with that. Do you have a problem with people lying to save their lives?

Or did you actually think Taqiyyah means something else?

Kitman, I've never heard of. Do enlighten me..

freediver,


Quote:

Can you give an example Gaybriel?

You can't be that forgetful can you freediver?

freediver, 22/10/2008:

Quote:

It's because I feel like something was hidden from me through deception

This was in response to my questioning why you keep asking the same sorts of questions over and over again. I've given you answers, you just seem to think I'm practising deception.

freediver, same day as above:

Quote:

Do you think it is reasonable for me to conclude that you have been deliberately misleading me?

This was in response to my answering your open questions about concubinage.

You routinely disregard what I answer you about Islam, and insist that Muslims have some deeper secret belief that  no manner of questioning can manage to fully uncover. And it's for this reason I ceased answering you, as you never accept it anyway, you always consider something's being withheld or there's deception at play.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Oct 24^th, 2008 at 10:51am:

gaybriel - good thread. imho it seems there are many areas about islam that are uncompatible with the west. islamics run the show, they are unwilling to compromise at all. muslims in the main seem to be extremely biased

do you feel that there are unbiased groups of people in the world?

Abu that is not an example of what Gaybriel described.

This was in response to my answering your open questions about concubinage.

No, it was in response to you 'omitting' it - apparently deliberatly, then trying to avoid it when I started asking about it more directly. But feel free to respond where my comments are in context.

I might be wrong, and Gaybriel is free to correct me if I am, but that's the kind of 'sentiment' she was referring to. Not so much people engaging in the exact dialogue she used as an example. But a dialogue which in the end has the same sentiment and meaning as the simplified example she used.

So me trying to find out about Islam despite your attempts to conceal it from me through misdirection is equivalent to me insisting that you believe something despite you claiming to believe something else?

gaybriel - oh, might be some unbiased groups around.
I doubt it though - is a human think to prefer those who are similar to oneself.

most 9groups of) people accept responsibility for their errors and dont think they are perfect

Quote:

No, it was in response to you omitting it - apparently deliberatly

More of the same... I have not told you every single thing about Islam, because it's a very broad topic, and unless you asked specifically, then there'd be no reason to bring something up out of the blue.

Concubinage is not practised today so it's not relevant to the life of an ordinary Muslim. Therefore there'd be no need to mention it, when you ask about for instance who it's legal to have sex with.

Concubinage is not practised today so it's not relevant to the life of an ordinary Muslim.

Haven't we gone over this a number of times already Abu? I have pointed out to you many times that my interest is Islamic law, not the current laws of the middle east. You yourself go to some length to remind people that the west denies Muslims the chance to live under Islamic law, so what happens there now is not a reflection of Islam, so I'm not sure why there is still confusion.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Oct 24^th, 2008 at 11:03am:

gaybriel - oh, might be some unbiased groups around. I doubt it though - is a human think to prefer those who are similar to oneself. most 9groups of) people accept responsibility for their errors and dont think they are perfect

I think there is the possibility to confuse muslims perceptions of Islam (and therefore God) as perfect, with thinking muslims see themselves as perfect.

I don't believe the latter is the case (overall- obviously in any group of people you'll find someone who thinks they're perfect)- but I do see the potential for confusion in this regard.

come on guys- let's not make this another thread about old grievances.

I will try to find an example of what I referred to.

the sentiment of what abu described is correct but I do not know enough about the specific discussion to say whether this sentiment was actually what was playing out

Gaybriel wrote on Oct 24^th, 2008 at 9:26am:

There seems to be constant conjecture over the beliefs inherent to Islam in this forum.

Straight or complete answers have not always been forth coming. I have learnt a lot about Muslim beliefs since visiting this forum. I am honest in saying that in some cases the benefit of the doubt that I had previously extended was misplaced.

For example, reading posts over the past few months led me to a suspicion that something like Muslim Etiquette existed just in the sort of verbal manouverings that were taking place, and in the complete lack of Muslim self criticism. Then about a week ago we have an admission that it not only exists as a matter of fellowship but that it is a matter of doctrine. This is the sort of corruptive honor system that exists in secret societies.


Gaybriel wrote on Oct 24^th, 2008 at 9:26am:

....I suppose my question is. Even if you believe that Muslims are somehow deluded about the beliefs of their religion, if you have a Muslim person saying to you that for them "Islam is about peace. Muslims should not commit acts of terror. Muslims should not beat their wives." etc etc- then what really is your problem with that particular individual?

I have no problem with them believing that personally. I will show them respect as human beings, as I give all strangers benefit of the doubt. (Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me) They should not insist that I need to, as a matter of tolerence, respect what I consider a delusion. Especially when I as a nonbeliever fall into the lowest category of humanity, that are prejudged to be lesser in their society and their legal system. That my lack of ethics and honesty are automatically prejudged. That I will not be treated as an equal, and in fact my life and safety are at greater threat and that some acts of violence against me are excusable and sanctioned against me a nonbeliever, where restraint or pardon may be accorded to the faithful.

I have no time for the request or insistence for extra respect being accorded to someone because they are of a faith. The admission that Muslims accord a different set of standards as to respect, for each other than to outsiders, shows that intolerance is part of their core values. And as such Islam needs to be viewed as an opponent to certain ideals that a secular athiest may hold as critical to their freedom and happiness.


Gaybriel wrote on Oct 24^th, 2008 at 9:26am:

surely if the perception that the individual has of their religion is one of peace, love and generally good things- then why continue to argue that Islam means something different to that person?

I don't.


Gaybriel wrote on Oct 24^th, 2008 at 9:26am:

Some people seem to display signs that they think there is a massive conspiracy amongst muslims to act one way in public, and then in private to be completely opposite and plot the destruction/domination of the world.

See reply above as to conspiracy/muslim etiquette.

As to world domination. My understanding of world history suggests that it has been attempted in the past and that the Military Missionary is an accepted part of spreading the faith. Read about the absorbed tribes and cultures of Islam. Islam is not unique in that regard. They took their turn like many world powers/forces. Just don't try to sell me a different story. In many ways I see it as a draconian belief system that free thinkers and those that believe in democracy etc need to be wary of. And guard against a growing influence into systems (democracy) that will not benefit from the lifestyle they (Muslims) have chosen for themselves.


Gaybriel wrote on Oct 24^th, 2008 at 9:26am:

And these inevitably seem to be the same people who mock and deride at any kind of 'conspiracy theory', yet this one is fully embraced.

I believe in consiracies of greed and power. That the rich and powerful will ally themselves with whoever can help increase those two forces, regardless of ideology. I don't believe that Muslims are immune to the attraction to those things. That claiming that ones that are attracted are not really Muslim is just a cope out, when that same defence is not allowed for other groups.

The constant and stupid attacks against atheists as a group are bewildering as there IS NO identifiable atheist group to speak of. The accusations that atheists are less ethical or less moral are absurd. And reflect the self affirming world denying doctrinal dribble that the religious preach to themselves. In many way the atheist is the most ethical. His/her good behaviour in this world, in this life to others around them and to future generations IS NOT BASED ON A TRANSACTION of salvation.

lol
You were doin ok till that last sentence loc.

Free will negates having to do good.

Ah gaybriel...  the point is...  the hat exists.  
dont fall for all those lies.

aboo... kitman (arabic) look it up...  not much of a Muslim if you don't know it.

Oh and Islam I dont hate at all and as I've mentioned neither does the West.  I'm happy for their to be such a religion even though it is confusing and contradictory and the masses that adhere to it are mostly ignorant of it except what they are fed.  I have no problem with it being one of MANY religions.  Unfortunatley given the choice to join or perish or become a second-class citizen does irk me quite a bit.

Grendel wrote on Oct 24^th, 2008 at 12:35pm:

lol You were doin ok till that last sentence loc. Free will negates having to do good.

Free will negates having to anything, good or evil. It exactly allows discrimination of behaviour. I personally think Plato was on the right track when he said that if you behave badly you are showing your ignorance. To know is to do the right thing.

Interesting that you see it as a licence to do wrong. I assume that is what you are saying?  

Well said Locutius, reasoned and fair, as usual.

Unfortunately my dotage has seen a dimunition of my abilities to personally arrange arguments as cohesively as I may wish, but I can still recognise when others can, so thanks for saying what I would have liked to.


If you like Robert Heinlein, there is an E-Book site(free) that has an unedited version of stranger in a strange land.
Apparently the publishers said his version was too long, so got him to
edit a hundred or more pages out.

I have just started to re-read it, it was one of my favourite books from the '60's

Quote:

Interesting that you see it as a licence to do wrong. I assume that is what you are saying?

 

nope...  why would you assume that.  that'd be like assuming or stating people only do right to get into heaven...  rotflmao

Quote:

aboo... kitman (arabic) look it up...  not much of a Muslim if you don't know it.

Never heard of it sorry.

According to wikipedia: "The term originates in Persia".

Could be though, I'm not a native Arabic speaker, so there's a lot of terms I'm not familiar with. If it was a commonly used Islamic word, most likely I'd know it though, which indicates it is not.

Likewise with Taqiyyah, never heard of it until I came across the Shi'a. Although I'm sure you think it's a widespread belief/practise amongst Muslims, it simply is not.

But it (Taqiyyah) is definitely permissible to conceal your being a Muslim if you are under threat of death, in any other case it's not permissible.

Gaybriel wrote on Oct 24^th, 2008 at 9:26am:

And if you are logical enough to say- ok well if that person sees their religion in that light and behaves according to that perception, then I have no problem with them- then why not judge each muslim in the same way? As individuals whom you judge according to their beliefs and actions?

I do judge people individually, as I meet them individually. I also make assessments and judgements of people collectively when they recognise themselves as a collective group. Muslim, Christian, Socialist etc. With in those broad collectives are often sub groups so we do need to identify the right element of the groupm we are talking about.


Gaybriel wrote on Oct 24^th, 2008 at 9:26am:

and even if there were beliefs of an individual that you disagreed with- is this really any different from people you know in your family or friends? I debate with my family all the time about beliefs (political, economic etc) but I don't think that their beliefs make them worthy of hatred or derision. So why is it that people find it so easy to write off other people because they are muslim?

Exactly. I am the same with my family and friends. In fact, I regularly, when debating, get handed my ass to me by my best mate. I would love to get him on this forum, but he is a software engineer and just too busy. I don't dislike people because they are Muslim. There is an arrogance and exclusivity that seems normal within their own circle, and an expectation to be treated in a certain way (ie equally) and enjoy the benefits of a secular society that strives for equality of its citizens. By admission Muslim's own scripture excuses the non-reciprocation of that equality. For instance, a Muslim's word is worth more in an Islamic court by default of faith.


Gaybriel wrote on Oct 24^th, 2008 at 9:26am:

When I came onto the forum many people seemed to think I was muslim and react according to that belief- each of my statements was judge via this model of 'muslim'. Doesn't making that the overriding framework for how one understands another, entirely antithetical to the process of getting to know another person and understanding their views? Because essentially your perceptions will always be constrained and imprisoned within this framework.

I've generally responded to what was said by people. When I have made a judgement from ignorance I have been swift to apologies. I did not ever assume that you were a Muslim. I suspected that you have friends that were Muslim. I had Muslim friends at uni that I have lost touch with but I know I would have no trouble cronfronting them on issues such as Muslim etiquitte etc. They were dissapointed at my non-belief but accepted my honesty, reliability and straight forwardness.


Gaybriel wrote on Oct 24^th, 2008 at 9:26am:

And if you're not genuinely interested in learning from another person- then why engage in such discussion at all? Do you merely like to hear yourself 'speak'?

That's why I'm here. And I have learnt things. Many of the replies to questions are padded and sidetracked with anti-Western vitriol, which by confession is never balanced out. A person may be trying to make a religious practice look bad and be seen to be asking a loaded question, like slaves in Isalm. But answer the question. If they think their faith's position is acceptable, say so. Explain it. If it is all part of a 'perfect message' what do they care if I don't like it. We need only be combatants if they try to force it onto me.


Gaybriel wrote on Oct 24^th, 2008 at 9:26am:

There seems to be no openness to learning anyway because the belief is there's no way you could learn anything from a muslim. And again, all this does is stop you from learning anything at all and instead everything you know (or think you know- or both) is just reconfirmed.

Not true. There are somethings that I admire about Islam, but not many. The concept of universial brotherhood for example has much to be admired. But this idea is not unique to Islam, they just probably practice it better than most. Of course it helps if criticism of your brother is nonexistant. Free loans to fellow followers of the faith as a way of helping others and therefore the community to better itself.

Here is a conclusion I came to over 20 years ago during the course of my reading and youthful search to try to find something to believe in. That people the world over at grass roots level are basically decent. They pair off, they have children, they love their families and hope the best for their future. When someone tries to defend something that I see as wrong, like the a court system that can order the execution of someone who finds they don't happen to share the faith of their family, but in all respects is a decent thinking person, then yes I will rail against it. To me that is wrong, I will not retreat or flinch from that because someone plays the discrimination card.

Grendel wrote on Oct 24^th, 2008 at 1:10pm:

Quote: Interesting that you see it as a licence to do wrong. I assume that is what you are saying?   nope...  why would you assume that.  that'd be like assuming or stating people only do right to get into heaven...  rotflmao

Sorry for the wrong assumption. BTW your floor must absolutely sparkle.

Thanks Mozza,

I love Heinlein and have not read Stranger in a Strange Land, Could you send me the link, I would appreciate it.

Well the old morality question is a biggie for religions, and Islam reckons it has the direct scoop, and the last word, all rolled up in one book.
Unfortunately, relying on the koran for moral guidance, is akin to taking to sea in a sieve, sure it has a couple of good handles to hang onto, and a pretty firm base, but it is full of bleeding holes.

(Abu, in case you are not aware, the second last word is descriptive, not profane, before you get the old delete button out)

Gaybriel wrote on Oct 24^th, 2008 at 9:26am:

There seems to be constant conjecture over the beliefs inherent to Islam in this forum. It seems to follow a pattern of "Muslims believe this" "No we don't" "Yes you do" ....I suppose my question is. Even if you believe that Muslims are somehow deluded about the beliefs of their religion, if you have a Muslim person saying to you that for them "Islam is about peace. Muslims should not commit acts of terror. Muslims should not beat their wives." etc etc- then what really is your problem with that particular individual? surely if the perception that the individual has of their religion is one of peace, love and generally good things- then why continue to argue that Islam means something different to that person? Some people seem to display signs that they think there is a massive conspiracy amongst muslims to act one way in public, and then in private to be completely opposite and plot the destruction/domination of the world......

Gaybriel,

I hear what you are saying.

The short answer, i would suggest, is that because of the actions of [at least some] devout muslims, many non-muslims, see ALL devout muslims as duplicitous, dualistic, and untrustworthy persons.

Shock horror.





e.g.
Take how many devout muslims address abrogation in the 'holy' Koran....

AN ETHICAL BASIS FOR WAR
by Bill Warner (Jan 2007)
.......[When] Koranic verses contradict each other. How do you tell which one to follow? Simple. According to the Koran, the later verse replaces the earlier verse. And wherever there is contradiction, the later Koran of Medina abrogates (annuls or cancels) the earlier Koran of Mecca. [This rule of abrogation is given in the Koran]
But knowing which verses to follow is much more complicated than that. The “nice” Koran of Mecca is still to be used if Islam is weak in political power. When Islam has the strength—force is the answer; use the Koran of Medina. All verses can be used as needed. The Koran is dualistic.
The Koran also establishes a different form of logic. Since the Koran is both true and contradictory it violates the normal rules of logic. In unitary logic if something is contradictory it is false. But the Koran is contradictory and true. This is dualistic logic. So Islam operates under a different form of reasoning than the rest of the world.
http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm?frm=5208&sec_id=5208



Gaybriel,

Why doesn't ISLAM clean its own house???

And become the virtuous faith, which it claims to be?

Then all of we critical 'unbelievers', would have a so much smaller target to hit.

I find the questions naive. The answers point to some of the naivite by the way of engaing with the questions.
To my mind, there is no real discussion on this or any other forum about thee effficacy of Islam for the salvation of souls. Locatious captures this by indicating respect for the individual of any faith as the opening gambit of any personal encounter.
But none of the discussions here are about that so the questions are naive. All arguments, antagonism, dislikes and the rest are about political islam and its impact on the polity and politics.

In this arena I agree with Yadda's summation - political Islam is lying. It is mendacious, duplicitious, underhanded, cruel and haughty like a pagan war creed that it is.
But when caught out, it wants to be respected like a religion.

http://islam-watch.org/Others/Taqiyya-Deception-Islam.htm

http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=178

http://www.honestthinking.org/en/pub/HT.2005.07.JTA.EN.Kitman.htm

Kitman comes from the Arabic word katama and means “to hide” or “to conceal”.

Oh and abooo...  only the naive or deliberately deceptive would try to say it is used these days in only life and death situations without a smile.  Terrorism and world conquest both come under this, as do many other things.  And some are so deluded that just about any situation would seem life and death.  Fatwah...  etc, etc, etc.

Quote:

Oh and abooo...  only the naive or deliberately deceptive would try to say it is used these days in only life and death situations without a smile

Not in these days. In ANY time. That's the only form of Taqiyyah I've ever heard of, is a license to feign apostasy in life or death situations. I challenge you to bring one single Islamic source that states otherwise.

I really can't see why you would raise the issue of Taqiyyah, as it's actually a blemish on the name of Christianity. As the only time Muslims really had to feign apostasy was during the inquisition.

If you have some evidence Islam actually teaches deception (other than a dispensation in life/death) then please bring it forth, otherwise admit you're just blindly quoting nonsense about which you have no actual first hand knowledge.

As A Muslim, I think I'd be quite aware if Taqiyyah (deception and 'tradecraft' as you seem to think it is) were an Islamic concept. And it is not. So either someone forgot to teach it to me, and it just happens to be omitted from all the major books of Islam... or I'm just practising it right now with you and you therefore can't trust a word I say. In which case I don't know why you even bother, as no argument I bring is sufficient for you, as I may just be 'deceiving the kafirs'. I guess it's the unloseable argument isn't it... And since it's about the only way you know you'll win, I guess you got not other choice.

rotflmao

you area deluded soul aboo...  is it self deception you suffer from.

Grendel wrote on Oct 25^th, 2008 at 1:43am:

rotflmao you area deluded soul aboo...  is it self deception you suffer from.

Grendel,

Muslims keep telling us non-muslims, that ISLAM is peaceful, and that muslims are always upfront, and honest in the portrayal of their faith.

Please, why can't you just accept these assertions as true?
/sarc off

++++


http://www.jihadwatch.org/London_Bus_2.jpg
ISLAM IS PEACE - in London
source...
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/018326.php




Yep,

ISLAM IS PEACE-FUL, except when it is not,

Australia,

Mosque violence Tensions boil over after move to replace imam
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 [after he received threats from muslims]......
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/outspoken-muslim-seeks-police-protection/2007/03/21/1174153164032.html




ISLAM IS TOLERANT OF OTHER FAITHS, except when it is not,

Islamic boys told of 'evil' Aussies
December 07, 2006
STUDENTS at the Islamic school from which two boys were expelled for desecrating the Bible were shown videos of a banned cleric calling Australian Christians "evil" and non-Muslim schools "sewers".
......a Bible was urinated on, spat on and burnt - during a school camp for boys from years 7 to 10 boys last week.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20885234-2702,00.html


Here a UK muslim **cleric** tells his Christian daughter "...she deserved to die."

Muslim apostates threatened over Christianity
11 Dec 2007
Sofia Allam simply could not believe it. Her kind, loving father.....said she had [in converting to Christianity] brought shame and humiliation on him, that she was now "worse than the muck on their shoes" and she deserved to die.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/12/09/nmuslim109.xml


February 05, 2005
While Christians who turn to Islam are feted, the 200,000 Muslims who turn away are faced with abuse, violence and even murder
....she said,......it was the double standards of her attackers that made her most angry. "[muslims] are such hypocrites, they want us to be tolerant of everything they want, but they are intolerant of everything about us."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article510589.ece




SHARIA JURISDICTIONS ARE ALWAYS TOLERANT AND ACCOMODATING OF NON-MUSLIMS, except when they are not,

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


+++++

And these muslims above are all misunderstanding ISLAM,
because we all know that Allah said....

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


When will the true muslims tell them, that these incorrect muslims are not 'properly guided'???

Gaybriel? Have you abandoned your own topic?

no hon- sorry. I haven't had time to reply properly to people so I thought I'd hold off until I could give a thought out response.

sorry I should have posted before and said that

locutius wrote on Oct 24^th, 2008 at 11:47am:

Straight or complete answers have not always been forth coming. I have learnt a lot about Muslim beliefs since visiting this forum. I am honest in saying that in some cases the benefit of the doubt that I had previously extended was misplaced. For example, reading posts over the past few months led me to a suspicion that something like Muslim Etiquette existed just in the sort of verbal manouverings that were taking place, and in the complete lack of Muslim self criticism. Then about a week ago we have an admission that it not only exists as a matter of fellowship but that it is a matter of doctrine. This is the sort of corruptive honor system that exists in secret societies.

I think it's unwise to develop an impression of Islam from an internet forum with only 3 resident muslims - a forum within which there are many grievances. it's not the most productive atmosphere to learn about islam


Quote:

I have no problem with them believing that personally. I will show them respect as human beings, as I give all strangers benefit of the doubt.

good stuff


Quote:

They should not insist that I need to, as a matter of tolerence, respect what I consider a delusion.

I think there are various kinds of respect- it doesn't mean you have to agree or be completely un-critical. I think you can be critical and still respect people.


Quote:

Especially when I as a nonbeliever fall into the lowest category of humanity, that are prejudged to be lesser in their society and their legal system. That my lack of ethics and honesty are automatically prejudged. That I will not be treated as an equal, and in fact my life and safety are at greater threat and that some acts of violence against me are excusable and sanctioned against me a nonbeliever, where restraint or pardon may be accorded to the faithful.

I do agree that this is a massive downfall of many religious people- to look down on others. but then again, I think most people who subscribe to a belief (even if it's having no particular beliefs) do this also. for example your belief that religious people are delusional- that reads as you believing you are superior in some way to them.

do you believe that acts of violence against you are permitted by Islam because you're not muslim?


Quote:

As to world domination. My understanding of world history suggests that it has been attempted in the past and that the Military Missionary is an accepted part of spreading the faith. Read about the absorbed tribes and cultures of Islam. Islam is not unique in that regard. They took their turn like many world powers/forces. Just don't try to sell me a different story.

yes they did


Quote:

In many ways I see it as a draconian belief system that free thinkers and those that believe in democracy etc need to be wary of. And guard against a growing influence into systems (democracy) that will not benefit from the lifestyle they (Muslims) have chosen for themselves.

I must say I'm not a huge fan of religion and state mixing


Quote:

I believe in consiracies of greed and power. That the rich and powerful will ally themselves with whoever can help increase those two forces, regardless of ideology. I don't believe that Muslims are immune to the attraction to those things. That claiming that ones that are attracted are not really Muslim is just a cope out, when that same defence is not allowed for other groups.

as long as you're consistent :P


Quote:

The constant and stupid attacks against atheists as a group are bewildering as there IS NO identifiable atheist group to speak of. The accusations that atheists are less ethical or less moral are absurd. And reflect the self affirming world denying doctrinal dribble that the religious preach to themselves. In many way the atheist is the most ethical. His/her good behaviour in this world, in this life to others around them and to future generations IS NOT BASED ON A TRANSACTION of salvation.

not sure what this was in response to. but I agree aetheists should not be attacked. I think people should be more concerned with their own lives and actions- rather than those of others.

if someone is truly religious they will leave it to god to judge others- and in the meantime should treat everyone with equal respect as human beings

I do agree that this is a massive downfall of many religious people- to look down on others.

In the case of Islam, it's not a downfall of some of the people, it's part of doctrine. That makes it an entriely different beast.

do you believe that acts of violence against you are permitted by Islam because you're not muslim?

Islam does permit a lot of violence against non-muslims. Terrorism seems to be ruled out, but there is enough ambiguity to prevent Muslims from stopping the terrorists.

Gaybriel wrote on Oct 27^th, 2008 at 11:26pm:

Quote: Especially when I as a nonbeliever fall into the lowest category of humanity, that are prejudged to be lesser in their society and their legal system. That my lack of ethics and honesty are automatically prejudged. That I will not be treated as an equal, and in fact my life and safety are at greater threat and that some acts of violence against me are excusable and sanctioned against me a nonbeliever, where restraint or pardon may be accorded to the faithful. I do agree that this is a massive downfall of many religious people- to look down on others. but then again, I think most people who subscribe to a belief (even if it's having no particular beliefs) do this also. for example your belief that religious people are delusional- that reads as you believing you are superior in some way to them. do you believe that acts of violence against you are permitted by Islam because you're not muslim?

Yes definitely, in a society or State that they were in control of.

http://islam-watch.org/Others/bill-warner-know-thy-enemy.htm

Quote:

Let’s examine the ethical basis of our civilization. All of our politics and ethics are based upon a unitary ethic that is best formulated in the Golden Rule: Treat others as you would be treated. The basis of this rule is the recognition that at one level, we are all the same. We are not all equal. Any game of sports will show that we do not have equal abilities. But everyone wants to be treated as a human being. In particular, we all want to be equal under the law and be treated as social equals. On the basis of the Golden Rule—the equality of human beings—we have created democracy, ended slavery and treat women and men as political equals. So the Golden Rule is a unitary ethic. All people are to be treated the same. All religions have some version of the Golden Rule except Islam. FP: So how is Islam different in this context? Warner: The term “human being” has no meaning inside of Islam. There is no such thing as humanity, only the duality of the believer and unbeliever. Look at the ethical statements found in the Hadith. A Muslim should not lie, cheat, kill or steal from other Muslims. But a Muslim may lie, deceive or kill an unbeliever if it advances Islam. There is no such thing as a universal statement of ethics in Islam. Muslims are to be treated one way and unbelievers another way. The closest Islam comes to a universal statement of ethics is that the entire world must submit to Islam. After Mohammed became a prophet, he never treated an unbeliever the same as a Muslim. Islam denies the truth of the Golden Rule.................................................................... The dualism of Islam is more deceitful and offers two choices on how to treat the unbeliever. The unbeliever can be treated nicely, in the same way a farmer treats his cattle well. So Islam can be “nice”, but in no case is the unbeliever a “brother” or a friend. In fact, there are some 14 verses of the Koran that are emphatic—a Muslim is never a friend to the unbeliever. A Muslim may be “friendly,” but he is never an actual friend. And the degree to which a Muslim is actually a true friend is the degree to which he is not a Muslim, but a hypocrite.

Locuitus...do you think you could have found a more biased site. Really, using a site like this really does not do your credibility any favours.

I am muslim..I have many friends who are non-muslim. In fact most of my friends are non-muslims. My in-laws are non-muslims and we are on friendly terms. I am living proof that this website is nothing but anti-Islamic lies, spreading hate, and you it seems have been far to willing to fall for it. I am muslim, I practise my religon, and I have non-muslim friends.

The Quran does not forbid me to have non-muslim friends, and that site not surprisingly is deliberately misleading in order to create the perception that muslims are the enemy and are a threat....and you've swallowed it hook line and sinker.

Here's a novel idea, how bout when researching Islam you actually go to a muslim site. Is that to much to ask.

I'm surprised...it appears that by posting this you have accepted it to be truth without a second consideration....

To be honest...I expected a bit better from you.

Actually, come to think of it, disregard what I have said, believe what you will, nothing I say will change your mind, and obviously if you so willing to trust what is said on such a site...then you've already made up your mind.

Just don't pretend to be what you are not...deal?

Lestat wrote on Oct 28^th, 2008 at 9:16pm:

Locuitus...do you think you could have found a more biased site. Really, using a site like this really does not do your credibility any favours. I am muslim..I have many friends who are non-muslim. In fact most of my friends are non-muslims. My in-laws are non-muslims and we are on friendly terms. I am living proof that this website is nothing but anti-Islamic lies, spreading hate, and you it seems have been far to willing to fall for it. I am muslim, I practise my religon, and I have non-muslim friends. The Quran does not forbid me to have non-muslim friends, and that site not surprisingly is deliberately misleading in order to create the perception that muslims are the enemy and are a threat....and you've swallowed it hook line and sinker. Here's a novel idea, how bout when researching Islam you actually go to a muslim site. Is that to much to ask. I'm surprised...it appears that by posting this you have accepted it to be truth without a second consideration.... To be honest...I expected a bit better from you. Actually, come to think of it, disregard what I have said, believe what you will, nothing I say will change your mind, and obviously if you so willing to trust what is said on such a site...then you've already made up your mind. Just don't pretend to be what you are not...deal?

You really are incredibly arrogant Lestat. You just jump into a rant, wind yourself up and make assertions as to someone's ability and desire to pursue what really is the case.

The reference above says that you can be friendly but not a true friend. Maybe you are a hypocrite? I will actually believe that is not the case if what is said IS just a bunch of lies.


I have heard what was being commented on before and did a search for information about where the atheist stands with Islam. The reference does not suit you. Fine.

Correct the misinformation.

Offer to link me to a site that you consider does provide better or fairer information.

Your reply was condescending and rude when the more appropriate action would have been to put me on the right track. If having shown to be mistaken I would gladly recant what I have said. I've done it before on this site.  

What exactly am I Lestat? Besides being someone with imperfect knowledge. And someone who takes no offence at being challanged. And someone who seems to get up your nose when they challange you?
I know people that never apologise and never admit that they are wrong. I feel no embarressment that I might be wrong! My only embarressment, that having been shown a better answer or better truth that I would be too stupidly proud to admit it and adopt it.

lestat - despite you givig another belligerant dismissive reply, you have yet again NOT answered the questions.

You have asked questions back, sent  someone off to do more research and deflected.
Hey, he DID do research. And found islam to be deceptive and violent.

Lestat wrote on Oct 28^th, 2008 at 9:16pm:

Locuitus...do you think you could have found a more biased site. Really, using a site like this really does not do your credibility any favours.

Lestat,

Instead of denigrating a source of information.

Why don't you exclusively address the points being made?

If you can demonstrate that the logic or truth of the points made, are erroneous, you will have made your case.







Quote:

I am muslim..I have many friends who are non-muslim. In fact most of my friends are non-muslims. My in-laws are non-muslims and we are on friendly terms. I am living proof that this website is nothing but anti-Islamic lies, spreading hate, and you it seems have been far to willing to fall for it. I am muslim, I practise my religon, and I have non-muslim friends.

These assertions mean nothing.

They speak nothing of motive.



Please Lestat,

Speaking as a dear friend of many non-muslims [as you claim you are], please explain why ISLAM divides the world into two camps.

And what is the purpose of such a definition / division??

DIVISIONS OF THE WORLD, ACCORDING TO ISLAM

Dar al-Islam = = the house of Islam, house of Peace [those places where Sharia has authority].
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dar_al-Islam#Dar_al-Islam

Dar al-Harb = = "house of war", those countries where Sharia does not rule.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dar_al-Islam#Dar_al-Harb

Harbi = = "one under a declaration of war", a non-muslim, WHO DOES NOT LIVE UNDER MUSLIM RULE.
".........A harbi has no rights, not even the right to live."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harbi








Quote:

The Quran does not forbid me to have non-muslim friends, and that site not surprisingly is deliberately misleading in order to create the perception that muslims are the enemy and are a threat....and you've swallowed it hook line and sinker.

Lestat,

It seems that you are a very, very, un-learned muslim.

Shame on you, you apostate, you Jahiliyya liver you.

You'll never get to Allah's paradise like this!!!
/sarc off


ISLAMIC doctrine teaches that devout muslims should be unmerciful towards the unbelievers, but be compassionate and kind, to each other.


BE STRONG AGAINST UNBELIEVERS

From the Koran....

"Muhammad is the messenger of Allah; and those who are with him are strong against Unbelievers, (but) compassionate amongst each other......"
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/048.qmt.html#048.029

"O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the Hypocrites, and be firm against them. Their abode is Hell,- an evil refuge indeed."
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/009.qmt.html#009.073
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/066.qmt.html#066.009

++++

JAHILIYYA

ISLAM demands intolerance of the Jahiliyya [un-ISLAMIC] lifestyle.



N.B. ....FROM AN ISLAMIC SITE,

"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


"....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


8888888888888

p.s

Locuitus,

I thought your post above was excellent!

The post, addressing the starkly apparent lack of ethics within ISLAM, and ISLAM's doctrine towards 'unbelievers'.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224804390/35#35

yada - wow, that was a very good posting.

Get ready for a threatening PM and another deletion.

Yes, very informative post Yadda, thanks.

As for Gaybriel's valiant attempts to defend the indefensible, I suppose it shows someone who just tries to see the best in people, against all odds.
(and evidence ;) )

mozzaok wrote on Oct 30^th, 2008 at 6:55pm:

Yes, very informative post Yadda, thanks. As for Gaybriel's valiant attempts to defend the indefensible, I suppose it shows someone who just tries to see the best in people, against all odds. (and evidence ;) )

I try to take people as they come. I try not to make mass judgements about people or groups of whom I have little to no knowledge.

This does not make me blind to facts. In fact people seem to be blind to my posts when I am critical of muslims- when that happens I get no response from anyone, but as soon as I say anything that tries to encourage a little less generalisation or a little more complexity of thought- apparently I'm an apologist who can't see straight, defends the indefensible, is unable to the critical of muslims etc etc

it's completely ridiculous. just because I don't make massive blanket statements damning muslims and islam doesn't mean that I lack a critical capacity, nor does it mean that I am unable to apply that critical capacity to muslims and islam.

People seem to be unable to distinguish between trying to understand something and completely agreeing with it. Even just recently in the 'australia's first terrorist' thread, I suggested that seeing as there was a WAR going on in the country of the murderers, that perhaps their actions were more politically and patriotically motivated than religiously motivated. Did I say religion played no part? no I did not. Did I excuse the actions of these men? no I did not. I merely had a look at why it was that these people would commit such a heinous crime. Do I think that any of these reasons why would justify such an act? no I do not.

and yet again I was told I was defending killers.

perhaps I'm not the blind one here. Perhaps it may just be that there is such contempt for islam here, that anyone who comes in and refuses to spit upon it and mock it is immediately classified as the enemy. well I refuse to subscribe to the behaviour of so many others on this forum just to satisfy their bizarre kind of intellectual blood lust.

it appears to me that my posts are read with the assumption that anything I'm saying must be excuse making or 'defending the indefensible'. well you can feel free to make that assumption cause all it means is that you will never comprehend even the simplest of my posts due to your own relentless bias.

Gaybriel wrote on Oct 30^th, 2008 at 7:16pm:

I try to take people as they come. I try not to make mass judgements about people or groups of whom I have little to no knowledge.

Gaybriel, while mass judgements are often inappropraitely used, they need not be avoided completely, nor do they need to have the same emotional baggage applied to them like terms such as racist or bigot. Of course generalisations can be used as tools by bigots and racists, but like any tool it can be used by the genuinely curious and generous. For instance, if a piece of dogma (political, religious, cultural) is accepted unconditionally by a group, then it is not inappropriate to address or challenge the group. A generalisation about the West that might address the commonality of support for secular democratic principles would be fair. Also, quite correctly, you have chastised certain members for their Western-generalisation. I have not missed that. I try to avoid inappropriate mass judgements.


Gaybriel wrote on Oct 30^th, 2008 at 7:16pm:

This does not make me blind to facts. In fact people seem to be blind to my posts when I am critical of muslims- when that happens I get no response from anyone, but as soon as I say anything that tries to encourage a little less generalisation or a little more complexity of thought- apparently I'm an apologist who can't see straight, defends the indefensible, is unable to the critical of muslims etc etc

There are times when I have thought you have been overly generous and some may have thought you an apologist. You have also been chastised by both identifiable camps here. I believe you have a desire to be fair. So do I. I am just too old to stuff about and will challenge ideas politely and directly. I expect replies to my question and challanges to be the same. I also believe that no subject is taboo. I has kept me in good stead with quality bookshops and made them a fortune.


Gaybriel wrote on Oct 30^th, 2008 at 7:16pm:

it's completely ridiculous. just because I don't make massive blanket statements damning muslims and islam doesn't mean that I lack a critical capacity, nor does it mean that I am unable to apply that critical capacity to muslims and islam.

Is there nothing in their dogma that makes you want to make a mass statement? To make a stand? Pick a side? I have previously said that the find the Muslim concept of international brotherhood, and interest free loans admirable, but I have also said that I find the idea abhorrant, that a young inquirering intelligent person who renounces his/her faith can be legally put to death. Both mass statements about Islam. I also make a mass statement about Islam utimate earthly goal of global domination. I am agast at the thought and would oppose it with a dying breath. I do not believe in peace at any price.

I do believe Islam for instance can inspire a culture/psychology of extremeism because of the inflexibility of the foundation tenets of the perfection of the message, the Koran. The application of this undilutable position while allowing meaningful dialogue does NOT lend itself to meaningful relationships between Muslim and Atheist based on equality.


Gaybriel wrote on Oct 30^th, 2008 at 7:16pm:

People seem to be unable to distinguish between trying to understand something and completely agreeing with it. Even just recently in the 'australia's first terrorist' thread, I suggested that seeing as there was a WAR going on in the country of the murderers, that perhaps their actions were more politically and patriotically motivated than religiously motivated. Did I say religion played no part? no I did not. Did I excuse the actions of these men? no I did not. I merely had a look at why it was that these people would commit such a heinous crime. Do I think that any of these reasons why would justify such an act? no I do not.

Sometimes they do, and sometimes they don't. Sometimes things get heated. Then the pages of tit-for-tat stuff just gets boring.


Gaybriel wrote on Oct 30^th, 2008 at 7:16pm:

perhaps I'm not the blind one here. Perhaps it may just be that there is such contempt for islam here, that anyone who comes in and refuses to spit upon it and mock it is immediately classified as the enemy. well I refuse to subscribe to the behaviour of so many others on this forum just to satisfy their bizarre kind of intellectual blood lust.

No intellectual bloodlust on my behalf. Truthlust yes. Will occasionally go for the throat of stupidity.


Gaybriel wrote on Oct 30^th, 2008 at 7:16pm:

it appears to me that my posts are read with the assumption that anything I'm saying must be excuse making or 'defending the indefensible'. well you can feel free to make that assumption cause all it means is that you will never comprehend even the simplest of my posts due to your own relentless bias.

Not by me. I take each post by you individually. I do think you are a bit of a hippy.  ;) But that's cool. I like hippy chics and hugs from them. Of please tell me you are not on of the boring fire-twerlers. If I ever see another it will be 30 billion years too soon.

peace love and chocolate chip cookies dude

:P

nooo I'm not a fire twirler. I can barely deal with taking things out of the oven. Not down with the high risk burning behaviour.

I will answer the rest another time :P

Gaybriel wrote on Oct 30^th, 2008 at 7:16pm:

mozzaok wrote on Oct 30th, 2008 at 6:55pm: Yes, very informative post Yadda, thanks. As for Gaybriel's valiant attempts to defend the indefensible, I suppose it shows someone who just tries to see the best in people, against all odds. (and evidence ;) ) I try to take people as they come. I try not to make mass judgements about people or groups of whom I have little to no knowledge. This does not make me blind to facts. In fact people seem to be blind to my posts when I am critical of muslims- when that happens I get no response from anyone, but as soon as I say anything that tries to encourage a little less generalisation or a little more complexity of thought- apparently I'm an apologist who can't see straight, defends the indefensible, is unable to the critical of muslims etc etc...... .......and yet again I was told I was defending killers. perhaps I'm not the blind one here. Perhaps it may just be that there is such contempt for islam here, that anyone who comes in and refuses to spit upon it and mock it is immediately classified as the enemy. well I refuse to subscribe to the behaviour of so many others on this forum just to satisfy their bizarre kind of intellectual blood lust......

Gaybriel,

I can feel from your posts, and i wish to believe, that you are a sincere person.

But perhaps you are the blind one here?

I will suggest that,
Although you may know many ppl who represent themselves to you, as typical and devout muslims, perhaps these ppl are,
1/ not what they appear to be [i.e. they are lying to you?],
OR,
2/ are not what they represent themselves to be [i.e. they are not muslims]?

Q.
Who is a true muslim?

Q.
What doctrines do true muslims follow, and endorse?

To answer these Q's, isn't it reasonable to seek answers from studying ISLAMIC texts themselves [to learn what those texts espouse], and by also observing the behaviour of ppl who claim to be muslims?

And shouldn't the behaviour of true, and real muslims be a true reflection, be closely aligned, with what those ISLAMIC texts contain and say?

i.e.
Shouldn't 'a muslim', be defined by what ISLAMIC texts say, a true muslim is, and isn't a muslim defined by what ISLAM says his 'religious' obligations are, as a muslim?

And if ISLAMIC texts define ALL [true] muslims as being at war with non-muslims, isn't it reasonable to say that the actions of muslims, who ARE in conflict with non-muslims, is a reflection, a confirmation, of what a true muslim is?


From the Koran....

"Muhammad is the messenger of Allah; and those who are with him are strong against Unbelievers, (but) compassionate amongst each other......"
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/048.qmt.html#048.029

"O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the Hypocrites, and be firm against them. Their abode is Hell,- an evil refuge indeed."
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/009.qmt.html#009.073
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/066.qmt.html#066.009


So, aren't true muslims, those muslims who are true to, and are obedient to the ISLAMIC doctrine of intolerance of 'unbelief' in the world?

And all the 'muslims' who claim to be tolerant of unbelief, aren't those ppl in fact, re-defining themselves, as non-muslims???

And if these are true muslims [those who are violent and intolerant of unbelief],
.....then where do your 'muslim' friends fit?
.....those, who claim to be muslims?




And if the study ISLAMIC texts presents a very clear world view, for muslims to follow, and clearly present the doctrines which muslims must adopt TO BE MUSLIMS [i.e. violence against and intolerance of non-muslims, and 'unbelief'], then shouldn't we accept [logically] that those ppl, who make a claim of being muslims, and yet, disavow ISLAMIC doctrines which are clearly espoused within ISLAMIC texts,
1/ may not in fact be real muslims?
OR,
2/ are misrepresenting themselves, and ISLAM, to you and others, for whatever purpose?


Gaybriel,

What i cannot understand is the apparent chasm of credibility.......
.....between the claims of ppl WHO CLAIM TO BE, AND CALL THEMSELVES MUSLIMS [and who make the claim, to non-muslims, that ISLAM is tolerant and peaceful],
.....and yet call themselves muslims AND will distance themselves from what are clearly the violent and intolerant doctrines of ISLAM.


Gaybriel,

Q.
Who are the true muslims?

Are the true muslims those who speak platitudes, to non-muslims?

Or are the true muslims, those who full fill their 'religious' obligations, those obligations which are set out within ISLAMIC 'religious' texts?



+++++



Psalms 5:5
The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity.
6  Thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing [deceit]: the LORD will abhor the bloody and deceitful man.

Given what you say is true yadda,


You HAVE to say, Abu is a true muslim.   :-)


Quote:

"Muhammad is the messenger of Allah; and those who are with him are strong against Unbelievers, (but) compassionate amongst each other......" http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/048.qmt.html#048.029 "O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the Hypocrites, and be firm against them. Their abode is Hell,- an evil refuge indeed." http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/009.qmt.html#009.073 http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/066.qmt.html#066.009

An answer:



From Times Online
December 1, 2008

Political party founded to defend Christian Europe
A newly converted Christian has set up a political party to defend Christianity against secularism and moral relativismRichard Owen in Rome
An Egyptian-born writer who was baptised by Pope Benedict XVI last Easter after converting to Christianity from Islam has announced that he has founded a political party to "defend Christian Europe" which would field candidates in next June's European elections.

Magdi Cristiano Allam, 56, said the party, "Protagonists for a Christian Europe", would work to defend Europe's Christian values, which were threatened by secularism and moral relativism to the point where Europe risked "committing suicide". The party would be open to people of all faiths.

Mr Allam, an associate editor of the newspaper Corriere della Sera, was speaking at the Foreign Press Club in Rome, accompanied by a police escort. An outspoken critic of Muslim extremism and a supporter of Israel, Mr Allam is under armed guard because of death threats.

He took the name Cristiano on his conversion. Born in Cairo 1952, he has lived most of his adult life in Italy, becoming an Italian citizen in 1986. He once said that the "root of evil is inherent in an Islam that is physiologically violent and historically conflictual."

The party symbol bears the twelve stars of the EU round an Italian flag, with the words "Truth and Liberty", "Faith and Reason", and "Values and Rules". However the party was not a religious party and was not intended to appeal only to Christians, Mr Allam said.


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article5269250.ece

Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti in his book, "al-Ashbah Wa al-Naza'ir," affirms
that:

    "it is acceptable (for a Muslim) to eat the meat of a dead animal at  a   time of great hunger (starvation to the extent that the stomach is
    devoid of all food); and to loosen a bite of food (for fear of choking
    to death) by alcohol; and to utter words of unbelief; and if one is
    living in an environment where evil and corruption are the pervasive      norm, and permissible things (Halal) are the exception and a rarity,
    then one can utilize whatever is available to fulfill his needs."

Sounds like somewhere nearby.

DOes the alcohol comment imply pickling food in alcohol?

How respected is this bloke as an Islamic scholar?

freediver wrote on Dec 4^th, 2008 at 8:15pm:

DOes the alcohol comment imply pickling food in alcohol? How respected is this bloke as an Islamic scholar?

Very. He is one of the Assessors or Ashaban-Nazzar for the Shafi school. He has the highest rating or ijtihad.

Not sure about pickling food in alcohol. I took it to mean, that you can do whatever you have to live under non-Islamic rule to draw less attention to yourself. Remember though at the same time, there is a central duty to overthrow such a bad place. But to stick your head up early will mean for it to be cut off. So, in the mean time will you prepare - al taqiyya habibi.

Off-Topic replies have been moved to this Topic.