abu_rashid wrote on Aug 24^th, 2009 at 12:56pm:

Grendel said, Quote: Under Islam becoming a martyr by killing innocents is acceptable under Christianity killing innocents is not. This simply isn't true. Islam specifically forbids killing of non-combatants. Muhammad (pbuh) clearly forbade it in his sayings.

IS THAT STATEMENT [above] TRUE?

Grendel,

What abu declares above is true [AND, also false!].

Those words, are yet another deception, from another moslem.

How so?

Because, surprise, surprise, abu [as per usual], is telling a half truth,
...to un-informed, naive, non-moslems, in this forum.



The important questions we all should ask here are,

Q1.
For what reason, if it does, does ISLAM specifically forbid the killing of non-combatants?

Q2.
And, is this 'prohibition' [genuinely] because ISLAM is concerned about the 'welfare' of non-combatants?  [...as is being portrayed]

Reading ISLAMIC texts selectively, i.e. reading [only] verses presented to us by good moslems, the texts may suggest such a commendable attitude by moslem combatants, towards non-combatants.

E.G.....

The Hadith declare,

"During some of the Ghazawat of the Prophet a woman was found killed. Allah's Apostle disapproved the killing of women and children."
http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/bukhari/052.sbt.html#004.052.257

AND,

"During some of the Ghazawat of Allah's Apostle a woman was found killed, so Allah's Apostle forbade the killing of women and children."
http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/bukhari/052.sbt.html#004.052.258

On the face of it, "...Allah's Apostle forbade the killing of women and children."

But those verses do not infer, or reveal, the motive/reason, for that 'prohibition'.

I suggest that we should seek out those motives!







For some deeper understanding of this whole issue [the 'welfare' of non-combatants], let us read some further Hadith verses, related to this issue,

"The Prophet passed by me at a place called Al-Abwa or Waddan, and was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, "They (i.e. women and children) are from them (i.e. pagans)." "
http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/bukhari/052.sbt.html#004.052.256

Here, clearly, Mohammed expressed no care, whatsoever, for the 'welfare', or safety, of those non-combatants [women and children, who were non-moslems].

So, how can we resolve these seemingly inconsistent positions, from different Hadith verses?







I will suggest that the 'care' Mohammed expressed for the 'welfare' of non-combatants [who were non-moslems], was a 'care' extended for the purpose of, and related specifically to, their material worth [ALIVE] as booty.

i.e.
Dead non-moslem, non-combatants [women and children] are, war booty, ....LOST.

A further verse in the Hadith, makes clear the fate of [women and children] 'non-combatants', after the wholesale surrender of a particular community, which Mohammed and his henchmen besieged,

"......Sa'd said, "So I give my judgment that their warriors should be killed and their women and children should be taken as captives." [i.e. war booty] The Prophet said, "You have judged according to the King's (Allah's) judgment." "
http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/bukhari/074.sbt.html#008.074.278

N.B. And this was no community [full] of 'warriors', as is suggested above.

This was a [wealthy] Jewish community of, mostly, metal workers, artisans, and goldsmiths.







MORE.....

CONTINUED FROM LAST POST.....






IN EXPLORING THIS ISSUE, RELATING TO THE 'PRESCRIBED' TREATMENT OF NON-COMBATANTS, AS SANCTIONED BY ISLAM,
...WE REVEAL, YET AGAIN, THE CONSISTENT LACK OF CANDOUR, ON THE PART OF MOSLEMS, AND THEIR COMMUNITY,

Q.
Why would a good moslem, in this forum, who is much more conversant than i am, with ISLAMIC texts, not reveal these full facts to non-moslems in this forum?

A.
Because that is the response which is [again] prescribed by ISLAM.
Because all good moslems in their interactions with non-moslems, whom they live among, are charged [by their 'religion', and by their community leaders] to gain the confidence of the non-moslems, and the confidence of the whole non-moslem community,
.....BY DECEITFULLY, PORTRAYING ISLAM AS A TOLERANT AND BENIGN PHILOSOPHY [when it is not!].

Why?

Because the TRUTH of what ISLAM is, is too awful to reveal, to openly admit, to its intended victims.


Quote:

......in those areas where ISLAM is still politically weak, and where moslems are numerically weak, ISLAM seeks to deceive, and to culturally, and materially, weaken those non-moslem societies. These doctrines [of ISLAMIC violence, and ISLAM's declared, and sought after hegemony over non-moslems] are clearly set out, within ISLAM's own 'scriptures', which are ISLAM's own foundation documents. And it is undeniable that the Koran, and the Hadith [ISLAM's own foundation 'scriptures'], themselves, ARE THE SOURCE, and inspiration, of all ISLAMIC violence against all non-moslems in this world. And i ask, why do scholars and politicians in the West deny this fact? I WILL SAY IT AGAIN..... The Koran, and the Hadith [ISLAM's foundation 'scriptures'], themselves, ARE THE SOURCE, and inspiration, of 'justified' moslem violence against all non-moslems.

An open letter to Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1247892235/0#0



The fact is that all devout, all good moslems, consider themselves, to be engaged in an unending [holy] war against all non-moslems, on behalf of their God, Allah.

And this war, is a war not only of violence, but a war of lies, and deception, and denial [in those places where moslems are still politically and numerically weak].

The 'holy' texts of ISLAM, the Koran and Hadith, contain a 'war plan', and an ISLAMIC 'manifesto', which outlines of how moslems should conduct the 'just' unending 'struggle' [Jihad, or holy war] against all non-moslems.

All non-moslems should take the time to inform themselves, and study the contents of these ISLAMIC texts, just a little.

But if studying these mind-numbing, pathologically inspired, hate filled texts, is too time consuming, or too mentally taxing for you...

SEE,

http://www.jihadwatch.org/islam101/
http://www.jihadwatch.org/

AND,

THE RELIGION OF PEACE
http://thereligionofpeace.com/





DECEPTION AND ENMITY EXAMPLE #1

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42972000/jpg/_42972269_faisal_pa203b.jpg
25 May 2007
"......Al-Faisal spent years travelling the UK preaching racial hatred urging his audience to kill Jews, Hindus and Westerners.
......But throughout the trial he denied he had intended to incite people to violence.
......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


DECEPTION AND ENMITY EXAMPLE #2

An ISLAMIC scholar gives advice to moslems, who are living among non-moslems,

Live in peace till strong enough to wage jihad, says UK Deoband scholar to Muslims
London, Sept.8 [2007]
A Deobandi scholar believes Muslims should **preach** peace till they are strong enough to undertake a jihad, or a holy war.
Justice Muhammad Taqi Usmani was quoted by the BBC as saying that Muslims should live peacefully in countries such as Britain, where they have the freedom to practise Islam, **only until** they gain enough power to engage in battle.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article2409833.ece






ISLAM is not a religion, in the sense that we in the West, understand the word 'religion'.

ISLAM would more truly be described, as a death cult, and a vicious political tyranny, masquerading as a religion.

ISLAM is a deceptive and violent philosophy, a cult, which creates a mental pathology, in those human beings who embrace its doctrines.



....."the death of those who are killed for the cause of God gives more impetus to the cause, which continues to thrive on their blood."
ISLAMIC 'scholar', Sayyid Qutb
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,8802-2243871,00.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayyid_Qutb


ISLAM is pure wickedness.

You're a nutter.

The Islamic ruling is quite clear (you've quoted the clear statements yourself), women and children (non-combatants) must not be targetted.

As for the specific case of the nighttime skirmishes, the reason he said "They are from them" was because they were brought with them into battle, and therefore their safety is the responsibility of those who brought them into a battlefield. At nighttime, like with an aerial bombing, it's impossible to distinguish combatants from non-combatants... you should know all this, since the Western nations constantly use it to justify killing Muslim civilians.

Again, the Islamic ruling is clear, the only deception here is on your part.

And as you say yourself, when you quote texts that support your ideas.. ".....ARE ALL DERIVED FROM ISLAMIC TEXTS, AND SOURCES."

Funny how the texts you think support your view are clear Islamic texts and sources, whilst those which don't support your view are just lies and half truths. It seems the Islamic texts only tell the truth when they say what you want them to say... otherwise we have to rely on your interpretation of people's intentions... Rather than what the text says..

oh dear...  how do you explain all the innocents killed by Islamic terrorists then Aboo?

How do you explain terrorism and Islam then?

No use saying these people aren't Muslims because they very definitely are.
No use saying they don't base their acts in Islam either because they very definitely do.

abu_rashid wrote on Aug 25^th, 2009 at 11:22am:

You're a nutter.

abu,

That is your opinion.

My opinion, is that you are an out-and-out deceiver, and a good moslem.iQuote:

The Islamic ruling is quite clear (you've quoted the clear statements yourself), women and children (non-combatants) must not be targetted. As for the specific case of the nighttime skirmishes, the reason he said "They are from them" was because they were brought with them into battle, and therefore their safety is the responsibility of those who brought them into a battlefield. At nighttime, like with an aerial bombing, it's impossible to distinguish combatants from non-combatants... you should know all this, since the Western nations constantly use it to justify killing Muslim civilians. Again, the Islamic ruling is clear, the only deception here is on your part.

There Can Be No End to Jihad'
Islamist Sheikh Omar Bakri Muhammad, in an exclusive interview, discusses the rationale for 9/11, the Christians he most respects, and the Jesus he defends.
posted 11/05/2007
....Any weapons are legitimate in jihad. Even animals may be used as "suicide bombers"! It is not restricted by target—even Muslims or children, if used by the enemy as human shields, can be killed.
....Killing women and children never was and never will be part of the jihad in Islam, whether that be the women or children of the Muslims or non-Muslims. So if Chechen mujahedeen killed women and children in Beslan, I would condemn it. The children of non-Muslims, such as those at Beslan, who die in such circumstances go to Paradise.
....Women and children [i.e. boys under 15] or Muslims are not legitimate targets—nor are any noncombatants [clergy, disabled, insane, elderly, etc.]. Not even Israeli children or women, unless they serve in the military, which most do, or live in properties taken from dispossessed Palestinians (Muslim or Christian), which virtually all do.
However, if children are killed, the fault lies with the adult occupiers who brought them into a battlefield situation.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/februaryweb-only/22.0.html

"However, if children are killed, the fault lies with...",
....somebody else of course, with non-moslems.
....never, never, ever, with ISLAM.







Islamic Dictionary for Infidels
"......[resorting] to force to disseminate Islam is not war (harb), a word that is used only to describe the use of force by non-Muslims. Islamic wars are not hurub (the plural of harb) but rather futuhat, acts of "opening" the world to Islam and expressing Islamic jihad. Relations between dar al-Islam, the home of peace, and dar al-harb, the world of unbelievers, nevertheless take place in a state of war, according to the Qur'an and to the authoritative commentaries of Islamic jurists. Unbelievers who stand in the way, CREATING OBSTACLES FOR THE DA'WA, ARE BLAMED FOR THIS STATE OF WAR, for the da'wa can be pursued peacefully if others submit to it. IN OTHER WORDS, THOSE WHO RESIST ISLAM CAUSE WARS and are responsible for them.
.....Aggression is something only infidels do.
.....it is not seen as aggression or war when Muslims attack non-Muslims. On the contrary, it is seen as aggression when non-Muslims resist the Islamization of their lands and thus "place obstacles in the way" of the spread of Islam. They are defying the will of Allah.......subjugation to Islam alone can bring peace.....
......[To the ISLAMIST mind, 'aggression' is...] When non-Muslims do anything to preserve their culture and resist the Islamization of their country."
http://wolfgangbruno.blogspot.com/2006/07/islamic-dictionary-for-infidels.html





Just a little more, of exposing the duplicity of moslems,

ISLAMIC 'religious' doctrine, divides the world into two camps.

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-moslem, WHO DOES NOT LIVE UNDER MUSLIM RULE.

".........A harbi has no rights, not even the right to live." [a direct quote]

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

Google,
"A harbi has no rights, not even the right to live."
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=%22A+harbi+has+no+rights%2C+not+even+the+right+to+live.%22&btnG=Google+Search&meta=i
Quote:

And as you say yourself, when you quote texts that support your ideas.. ".....ARE ALL DERIVED FROM ISLAMIC TEXTS, AND SOURCES." Funny how the texts you think support your view are clear Islamic texts and sources, whilst those which don't support your view are just lies and half truths. It seems the Islamic texts only tell the truth when they say what you want them to say... otherwise we have to rely on your interpretation of people's intentions... Rather than what the text says..

True.

Grendel wrote on Aug 25^th, 2009 at 11:47am:

oh dear...  how do you explain all the innocents killed by Islamic terrorists then Aboo? How do you explain terrorism and Islam then? No use saying these people aren't Muslims because they very definitely are. No use saying they don't base their acts in Islam either because they very definitely do.

But, but, but, Grendel,  .......those terrorists, are not REAL moslems.
/sarc off

.....and what you said further, too Grendel.                  ;)

More on Harbis, succinctly and, eloquently put here,



Dhimmis and Harbis
http://kwelos.tripod.com/harbis.htm

Grendel,


Quote:

oh dear...  how do you explain all the innocents killed by Islamic terrorists then Aboo?

Same way Yadda explains the multitude more that are killed by Christians "Men are weak and can stray".

The Islamic doctrine, like the Christian dotrine, does not condone these acts, it prohibits them. Now people on both sides are committing these acts (by a much larger magnitude on your side I might add), and that is because of human failing to live up to the ideal.


Quote:

How do you explain terrorism and Islam then?

How do you explain terrorism and Christianity?


Quote:

No use saying these people aren't Muslims because they very definitely are.

Nowhere have I said that.


Quote:

No use saying they don't base their acts in Islam either because they very definitely do.

Well, as we've seen from the quotes above, such actions obviously contradict what Islam teaches.

ROTFLMAO
What a load of cobblers Aboo.

No no and NO....

Christians who kill people know what they are doing is wrong.
It is condemned by their fellow Christians...

In your case re Islam this is far from the case.

Today even as we speak... Muslims use the Koran and verses from Islamic teachings to justify their actions.

There is no such justification going on in Christianity.

abu_rashid wrote on Aug 25^th, 2009 at 12:31pm:

Grendel, Quote: oh dear...  how do you explain all the innocents killed by Islamic terrorists then Aboo? Same way Yadda explains the multitude more that are killed by Christians "Men are weak and can stray". The Islamic doctrine, like the Christian dotrine, does not condone these acts, it prohibits them. Now people on both sides are committing these acts (by a much larger magnitude on your side I might add), and that is because of human failing to live up to the ideal.

The difference is that you will never condemn another Musulman if he did anything against a non-Musulman. And even more so, if that were possible, if that Musulman justified his acts, no matter how hideous and forbidden, by citing Musulman authoritties.

This is the tribal, fascist part of Mohamedanism and you can twist and turn as much as you like, we all know that you are doing it precisely to avoid condemning a Muslim against a non-muslim. You would rather lie and dissemble and expose yourself to ridicule by non-muslims because none of the non-muslim standards or ethics apply to you.

And so this is why Musulmans are always a sore, wherever you go among non-Muslims. .

Your fellow moors in Melbourne refuse to recognise the court of the country whose bread you eat and whose currency and social security system you are more than happy to recognise. ANd you admire their courage even if you would not do it yourself.
You can say what you like about the requirement to live in peace and obey the law in non-muslim lands while you are a minority - the hoof does stick out once in a while and we all realise that once again, you are all just lying and pretending.

ANd as the years go on, even those who were duped earlier are going quiter and quiter each day because there is always the same news when it comes to Muslims - small outreach ceremony at the municipal library or school by the locals one day, but then terrorist atrrocity, religious speacial bleating or cultural disrespect by Muslumans the next.

soren,


Quote:

The difference is that you will never condemn another Musulman if he did anything against a non-Musulman

You're confusing issues. If a Muslim double parked in front of your car, I'd most definitely rebuke him for doing something against you.

But people fighting to expel invading armies from their land are beyond my condemnations, whether they be Muslims or non-Muslims, who am I to tell them they are wrong for expelling invaders from their homes? If you were the one being invaded, do you think it'd be right that people half way round the world condemn you for just protecting yourself?


Quote:

Your fellow moors in Melbourne refuse to recognise the court of the country whose bread you eat and whose currency and social security system you are more than happy to recognise. ANd you admire their courage even if you would not do it yourself.

I don't know that any of them said they don't recognise the court of the country.. Did you actually hear this? Or are you just making it up as you go along?

As far as I'm aware they did not stand up because Islam forbids it, even to stand for Muhammad (pbuh): "Abu Umamah narrated: The Messenger of God (peace_be_upon_him) came out to us leaning on a stick. We stood up to show respect to him. He said: Do not stand up as foreigners do for showing respect to one another."


Quote:

small outreach ceremony at the municipal library or school by the locals one day, but then terrorist atrrocity, religious speacial bleating or cultural disrespect by Muslumans the next.

This just highlights the extent of your bigotry. The people who conduct the outreach ceremony, are in your mind guilty of a terrorist act, simply because they happen to share the same religion as those who conduct the terrorist attack. This is just ridiculous and is nothing but an indication of a very small minded person.

abu_rashid wrote on Aug 26^th, 2009 at 10:29am:

soren, Quote: The difference is that you will never condemn another Musulman if he did anything against a non-Musulman You're confusing issues. If a Muslim double parked in front of your car, I'd most definitely rebuke him for doing something against you.

How commendable of you.
/sarc off





Quote:

But people fighting to expel invading armies from their land are beyond my condemnations, whether they be Muslims or non-Muslims, who am I to tell them they are wrong for expelling invaders from their homes? If you were the one being invaded, do you think it'd be right that people half way round the world condemn you for just protecting yourself?

Really?

So you cheer and celebrate the expulsion of Mohammedan's from Spain then???

And if Mohammedan's were also expelled from other lands [which they conquered using force of arms], excepting the Arabian peninsula, you would welcome it???

Of course much of the culture of those countries subjugated by ISLAM, was subsequently destroyed by the Mohammedan's - so any future expulsion of Mohammedan's is unlikely.

But it is good to know that you condemn those invading armies.
/sarc off




http://www.jihadwatch.org/Arab%20Wave.jpg
The First Major Wave of Jihad: the Arabs, 622-750 AD




http://www.jihadwatch.org/Turkish%20Wave.jpg
The Second Major Wave of Jihad: the Turks, 1071-1683 AD


Source of images.....
http://www.jihadwatch.org/islam101/

Quote:

So you cheer and celebrate the expulsion of Mohammedan's from Spain then???

I never said I'd cheer any expulsion/rebellion/resistance. I merely said I wouldn't condemn it. Please stick to my words, leave your imagination at the door. No I would not have condemned Christians in the Iberian peninsula resisting the invading Muslims. They were just trying to prevent an invasion, and had a right to do so.


Quote:

And if Mohammedan's were also expelled from other lands [which they conquered using force of arms], excepting the Arabian peninsula, you would welcome it???

No. Again, nowhere did I mention "welcome". Besides those countries are all majority Muslim now anyway. Much like Europe is now Christian majority. Do you think Christians should be expelled from Europe and sent back to Bethlehem?


Quote:

Of course much of the culture of those countries subjugated by ISLAM, was subsequently destroyed by the Mohammedan's - so any future expulsion of Mohammedan's is unlikely.

As I've pointed out to you before, there's a helluva lot more pre-Islamic culture still extant in Muslim lands than there is pre-Christian culture in Europe.

As for your maps... since when did the Turks expand into Western Africa? This is just garbage. Like with most material from jihadwatch, part truth and a lot of concoction.

abu_rashid wrote on Aug 26^th, 2009 at 11:26am:

Quote: Of course much of the culture of those countries subjugated by ISLAM, was subsequently destroyed by the Mohammedan's - so any future expulsion of Mohammedan's is unlikely. As I've pointed out to you before, there's a helluva lot more pre-Islamic culture still extant in Muslim lands than there is pre-Christian culture in Europe.

Sure there is.


http://www.suziemanley.com/december/images/sphinx-buried-color_pg.jpg
Sphinx


AN ETHICAL BASIS FOR WAR
by Bill Warner (Jan 2007)
.....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=5208i http://www.islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/Dome_Of_The_Rock/Dome-of-the-Rock.jpg
The Dome of the Rock - Jerusalem.
A moslem holy site - inside Israel.

Such a beautiful structure, reflecting the 'peace' of ISLAM, and the magnanimous nature of good moslems, ...surely!




http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j200/ixolite2/josephs_tomb_before.jpg
The Tomb of Joseph [the son of Biblical Jacob] - Nablus
.....a Jewish holy site.iQuote:

As I've pointed out to you before,.... As I've pointed out to you before,.... As I've pointed out to you before,.... As I've pointed out to you before,.... As I've pointed out to you before,.... there's a helluva lot more pre-Islamic culture still extant in Muslim lands than there is pre-Christian culture in Europe.

As I've pointed out to you before,.... you are a deceiver.




http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j200/ixolite2/josephs_tomb_after.jpg
The Tomb of Joseph [the son of Biblical Jacob] - Nablus





http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j200/ixolite2/josephs_tomb_oct00.jpg
The Tomb of Joseph [the son of Biblical Jacob] - Nablus


http://www.wikiislam.com/wiki/The_Tomb_of_Joseph




What happened at Joseph's Tomb in October 2000?
".....The Palestinian police stood by, failing to prevent any of these violent activities, despite their committment to guard the Tomb.
Within hours, Joseph's Tomb was reduced to a smoldering heap of rubble.
Within two days, as an Associated Press dispatch reported,
"the dome of the tomb was painted green and bulldozers were seen clearing the surrounding area,"
as the Palestinian Arabs sought to transform the biblical Joseph's resting place into a Moslem holy site."
http://web.archive.org/web/20030227185147/http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1991to_now_alaqsa_josephstomb.php
http://web.archive.org/web/20030618214344/http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31203




December 20, 2007
Arabs Desecrate Graves of Biblical Joshua and Caleb
Jahiliyya Alert. By Ezra HaLevi in Israel National News (thanks to Neil):
(IsraelNN.com) Jewish worshippers Tuesday were stunned to find Arabs had desecrated the graves of the Biblical Joshua, Caleb and Nun (Joshua’s father).
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/019244.php




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://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/015886.php




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, a religious official said on Tuesday.
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=126&art_id=nw20070619141302153C420344

Quote:

The 5,000-year-old culture of the Pharaohs had been annihilated

If that's the case then what's that big head you posted above? Wouldn't be Abu Hol (ie. the Sphinx), that pre-Islamic structure still standing Egypt after 1350 years of Islamic rule? Or how about the pyramids? or the millions of other artefacts still there. Not to mention the thousands of Christian churches... no of course not, all figments of our imagination. Btw, can you point me to a Druid temple in France??  ;D


Quote:

There are no Buddhists in Afghanistan

There's plenty of Buddhist artefacts still in Afghanistan, and in other Muslim countries there's still Buddhists, indicating we didn't wipe them out. Can you show me any Christian country that has a living Druid? Not one.


Quote:

Baghdad was once home to the oldest community of Jews in the world, brought there as Babylonian captives

Actually most of Baghdad's Jews flocked there when it was the capital of the Abbasid Caliphate (the Babylonian captivity tale is touching though, didn't you know Baghdad was a city built by the Abbasids??). And they remained there until the 1960's when the CIA-installed dictator, Saddam Hussein, in retaliation for the expulsion of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from their homes (to rally Arab nationalist fervour)... so for 1300 years of rule under the shade of the Islamic Caliphate, the Jews were not expelled from Baghdad. Surely you're not presenting Mr. Warner's claims as a valid argument?? ;D


Quote:

The Dome of the Rock - Jerusalem. A moslem holy site - inside Israel.

Israel is Christian Europe?


Quote:

What happened at Joseph's Tomb in October 2000?

The "Tomb of Joseph" was a mosque, with a tomb for an Islamic scholar named Sheikh Yussef Dwaik, Yussef is the Arabic/Hebrew word from which the English Joseph is derived. When the Zionists invaded Palestine, they found the Palestinians calling this mosque the "Tomb of Yussef" and thought it referred to the Biblical Yussef, and so they comandeered it and forbade Muslims from entering it (a mosque mind you). So the fact is it's a mosque, not a Jewish tomb. Does the building look to you like it's 4000 years old?  ;D

Also something you failed to mention is that those Palestinian rioters were responding to the Zionists building tunnels under the Masjid al-Aqsa to de-stabilise and eventually demolish it.

This is a case of the Jews stealing an Islamic building of worship.

Quite interesting, that you've got pretty much no example of any Islamic destruction of holy sites, for the 1300 years that Islam actually ruled. All of your examples come from the post-Islamic period, when mostly secular governments/states rule over the Islamic lands, and as we saw, some of them are actually cases of others stealing and renaming Islamic sites.

There's 1300 years of history there for you... show me an example. Even if you can show 10 examples, that doesn't show Islam wipes out other cultures, it just shows there were incidents. Unlike Europe where they DID wipe out all cultural/religious predecessors. You are struggling to find examples of Islam even erasing culture, let alone completely wiping out, and you know it's impossible to show any example extant in Europe. Your position is just futile... admit it.

Christian pots are doing a lot of 'black calling' against the much much whiter Muslim kettles.

The culture which ISLAM wishes to share, with everyone on this little planet.....


A YOUTUBE presentation [its a beauty!   ;)  ].....

Holy Koran Numa Numa
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vipcEgB8DtM

Do you spend your whole day or just most of it looking up anti Muslim sites ,yadda?

Mate, I'll give you a tip, you look just as crazy as the people you are trying to undermine with your constant non stop Islam bashing.

Have you ever heard of the word "moderation'? it could pay you to practice it sometime, because as a "christian" you don't seem to have much empathy for your fellow human beings, I wonder what Christ would think of that? ( if he existed).

Quote:

The culture which ISLAM wishes to share, with everyone on this little planet.....

By your inability to respond, I take it you now concede from the discussion, and instead will content yourself with just posting more links and supposed refutations of Islam?

Thank you.

wrote on Aug 26^th, 2009 at 1:44pm:

Do you spend your whole day or just most of it looking up anti Muslim sites ,yadda? Mate, I'll give you a tip, you look just as crazy as the people you are trying to undermine with your constant non stop Islam bashing.

Yes of course, moslems  .......are victims of Christian persecution.
/sarc off







Quote:

Have you ever heard of the word "moderation'? it could pay you to practice it sometime, because as a "christian" you don't seem to have much empathy for your fellow human beings, I wonder what Christ would think of that? ( if he existed).

skip,

If you saw someone running towards the edge of a cliff, would you cry out, and try to warn them, of their danger?

Exposing what ISLAM is, is an expression of my empathy for my fellow human beings.



And as a Christian, you suggest that i should practice 'tolerance',  and 'moderation'?

Taking the middle way?

Being tolerant of others?
....and even wickedness?

And of course, Jesus was never controversial, or outspoken, was he?
/sarc off


skip,

What do you know of Christ's principles and values?i

Revelation 3:15
I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.
16  So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.


Matthew 5:13
Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.


Isaiah 1:21
How is the faithful city become an harlot! it was full of judgment; righteousness lodged in it; but now murderers.
22  Thy silver is become dross, thy wine mixed with water:
23  Thy princes are rebellious, and companions of thieves: every one loveth gifts, and followeth after rewards: they judge not the fatherless, neither doth the cause of the widow come unto them.


Isaiah 1:27
Zion shall be redeemed with judgment, and her converts with righteousness.
28  And the destruction of the transgressors and of the sinners shall be together, and they that forsake the LORD shall be consumed.


Jeremiah 9:23
Thus saith the LORD, Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, neither let the mighty man glory in his might, let not the rich man glory in his riches:
24  But let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me, that I am the LORD which exercise lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness, in the earth: for in these things I delight, saith the LORD.

Quote:

And as a Christian, you suggest that i should practice 'tolerance',  and 'moderation'

Yep, sure do, that's what the respected Christians do, think of people like Tim Costello and those great men and women from the Salvos who go into pubs mix with all kinds but tolerate others beliefs because they have respect for other human beings, its supposed to be the christian way, well it was when I went to Sunday school.

abu_rashid wrote on Aug 26^th, 2009 at 1:04pm:

Quote: The 5,000-year-old culture of the Pharaohs had been annihilated If that's the case then what's that big head you posted above? Wouldn't be Abu Hol (ie. the Sphinx), that pre-Islamic structure still standing Egypt after 1350 years of Islamic rule?

No thanks to one of your previous Abu Somethingorothers who DID try to destroy it but gave up.

You guys live in a self imposed intellectual straight jacket.
And you want to impose it on everyone else. That IS your mission, your jihad. Personally and collectively.

abu_rashid wrote on Aug 26^th, 2009 at 10:29am:

soren, Quote: The difference is that you will never condemn another Musulman if he did anything against a non-Musulman You're confusing issues. If a Muslim double parked in front of your car, I'd most definitely rebuke him for doing something against you.

You are bvllsh!tting as usual. There is nothing Islamic about parking cars. But there is everything islamic about harming non-muslims IN THE NAME OF ISLAM (the capitals are used just to make sure you do not miss the pertinent point). That you will never condemn. you'd rather come up with p!ss weak nonsense like parking cars.


Quote:

But people fighting to expel invading armies from their land are beyond my condemnations, whether they be Muslims or non-Muslims, who am I to tell them they are wrong for expelling invaders from their homes? If you were the one being invaded, do you think it'd be right that people half way round the world condemn you for just protecting yourself?

There have been many, many people who were displaced during and after the war. They have all settled down except the "Palestinians" who, of course, did not exist until AFTER 1967, when the arab attempt to push the jews into the sea failed. Then it was a change of tack and now we have "Palestinians".

And as a by the way, the Palestinians are much, much better off then their peasant equivalents in any other Arab country. The UN and European aid ensures that they perperuate themselves as the poor persecuted victims. They are playing the victim now because it pays better than anything else.

If they are victims of anyone, it is their army Arafats. And you are one of their Arafats.


Quote:

[quote]Your fellow moors in Melbourne refuse to recognise the court of the country whose bread you eat and whose currency and social security system you are more than happy to recognise. ANd you admire their courage even if you would not do it yourself.

I don't know that any of them said they don't recognise the court of the country.. Did you actually hear this? Or are you just making it up as you go along?

As far as I'm aware they did not stand up because Islam forbids it, even to stand for Muhammad (pbuh): "Abu Umamah narrated: The Messenger of God (peace_be_upon_him) came out to us leaning on a stick. We stood up to show respect to him. He said: Do not stand up as foreigners do for showing respect to one another."[/quote]

You are bvllsh!tting again. They would stand before a sharia court, as we all know. Otherwise their d!cks would be cut off in front of their wives and fed to their dogs. Or somethisg similar from the annals of the Mohammedan human rights.


Quote:

This just highlights the extent of your bigotry. The people who conduct the outreach ceremony, are in your mind guilty of a terrorist act, simply because they happen to share the same religion as those who conduct the terrorist attack. This is just ridiculous and is nothing but an indication of a very small minded person.

You are an enabler, and yes, so are the ladies who do fatoush at the library. They are not as conscious of their role and mission as you but they, too, are there to decieve.  But you are worse. You do not do any good, like feed fatoush to the outreach dupes. You are a jihadi propagandist. You give nothing, not even fatoush.

Judging from you animus evident in these threads, your motivation for embracing Islam was the expansive scope of resentment it affords you. You are unhappy and Islam gives shape to your lost and shapeless resentment.

Let me know if you decide to post something half worth responding to.

abu_rashid wrote on Aug 27^th, 2009 at 9:44pm:

Let me know if you decide to post something half worth responding to.

You mean you have no answer.

You have signed up to an intellectually barren creed. Like a Bolshevik, you cannot, may not,  think for yourself and when you find that the party line is useless, you say the argument is not worth engaging with. Islam's only intellectual dimension is agression. When it can't attack it has nothing to say.

No, you simply haven't posted anything that warrants a response. Just garbage.

When you're willing to put in a little more effort, and post something that actually deserves attention, then I'll respond.

You have nowhere to hide, Mr Car Park attendant. You have no answer. Your ruse didn't work and now you are hiding behind pretence hautiness. You are a dissembler and you are not used to being cut off at the knees in an argument.

I have no answer, since no questions were posed. Just a bunch of useless rambling.