http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1296126090432829344#

Lisa Jones wrote on Apr 27^th, 2011 at 12:01am:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1296126090432829344#

Its morality is not where it's wrong, it is its metaphysics. It pins its belief system on untenable and unprovable metaphysics.

To criticize it from a moral angle will often fail. For every crime a Muslim commits, a similar Western example can be brought forth. Abu is very good at doing this; this is his point of departure every time someone criticizes Islam.

Where it needs to be attacked is its epistemological and ontological base. If you cut out its roots the tree dies. This is why Christianity is mostly now a laughing stock in the West; its metaphysics have repetitively been critiqued over the last 200 years, often by some of the most intelligent minds that have been produced, and been replaced with a secular outlook, however flawed that may be.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values

freediver wrote on Apr 27^th, 2011 at 5:58pm:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values

I might bookmark that link actually.

Its content is very well structured.

Thanks. If you see any errors please let me know. Or get yourself an account and edit it yourself.

freediver wrote on Apr 27^th, 2011 at 7:41pm:

Thanks. If you see any errors please let me know. Or get yourself an account and edit it yourself.

Ok .. will do.

If there are any gaps in the explanations, just ask Abu to clarify. He is keen for people to know about the real Islam.

freediver wrote on Apr 27^th, 2011 at 8:53pm:

If there are any gaps in the explanations, just ask Abu to clarify. He is keen for people to know about the real Islam.

Indeed he is.

lol. Dumb and dumber....

Indeed  ;D

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Apr 27^th, 2011 at 9:10am:

Lisa Jones wrote on Apr 27th, 2011 at 12:01am: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1296126090432829344# Its morality is not where it's wrong, it is its metaphysics. It pins its belief system on untenable and unprovable metaphysics. To criticize it from a moral angle will often fail. For every crime a Muslim commits, a similar Western example can be brought forth. Abu is very good at doing this; this is his point of departure every time someone criticizes Islam. Where it needs to be attacked is its epistemological and ontological base. If you cut out its roots the tree dies. This is why Christianity is mostly now a laughing stock in the West; its metaphysics have repetitively been critiqued over the last 200 years, often by some of the most intelligent minds that have been produced, and been replaced with a secular outlook, however flawed that may be.

I find myself almost agreeing with you Time. at least as far as the metaphysics goes. The Islamic moral issue is something else though.

Time's post seems to admit, by default, that Christianity is susceptible to such attacks, Islam however is a completely different story.

Hence the reason the centuries long ideological attack hasn't worked in the Muslim world, in fact it's driven the Muslims stronger into their beliefs, hence it being followed up by severe military attacks.

abu_rashid wrote on Apr 30^th, 2011 at 7:50am:

Time's post seems to admit, by default, that Christianity is susceptible to such attacks, Islam however is a completely different story. Hence the reason the centuries long ideological attack hasn't worked in the Muslim world, in fact it's driven the Muslims stronger into their beliefs, hence it being followed up by severe military attacks.

Christianity was susceptible because it allowed its foundations to be questioned. This was its biggest mistake. As soon as Luther nailed his theses to the church door and the clergy gave him concessions, it was all over for Christianity. Protestantism took the power away from the clergy and gave it over to 'the people'.
It is also a pertinent point that Christianity's cultivation of truthfulness lead to its own decline. The search for 'truth' lead to the church's 'truths' to be questioned for their validity. Once the texts of antiquity were reintroduced, Christianity's 'truths' could no longer stand up to scrutiny. Rarely can 'truths' be maintained in the face of honest skepticism.
When Islam allows rigorous, honest, investigation of its own 'truths', then it will fall. But, if it maintains a closed system of belief that keeps referring back to its presuppositions to justify itself (they call this circular reasoning) then it will continue to stand.

The moral is if you want to 'keep your faith', don't think.

abu_rashid wrote on Apr 30^th, 2011 at 7:50am:

Time's post seems to admit, by default, that Christianity is susceptible to such attacks, Islam however is a completely different story.

Indeed it is Abu!


Again .. exactly why and where Islam is wrong .. and why it is a completely different story!

WARNING: THIS IS SHOCKING AND WILL CAUSE DISTRESS.

http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2011/04/muslims-burn-homosexuals-alive.html

Time,


Quote:

Protestantism took the power away from the clergy and gave it over to 'the people'. It is also a pertinent point that Christianity's cultivation of truthfulness lead to its own decline.

This just highlights the vast differences between Islam & Christianity then doesn't it. Islam from day one shunned the idea of clergy, and instead insisted the people themselves be knowledgeable about their religion.

abu_rashid wrote on Apr 30^th, 2011 at 3:44pm:

Time, Quote: Protestantism took the power away from the clergy and gave it over to 'the people'. It is also a pertinent point that Christianity's cultivation of truthfulness lead to its own decline. This just highlights the vast differences between Islam & Christianity then doesn't it. Islam from day one shunned the idea of clergy, and instead insisted the people themselves be knowledgeable about their religion.

Those two sentences do nothing to justify the validity of the epistemological and ontological base of Islam.

Don't recall saying it did.

Islam need not justify anything.

abu_rashid wrote on Apr 30^th, 2011 at 7:58pm:

Islam need not justify anything.

That's not consistent with the vast majority of your posts.

Perhaps you're confusing countering propaganda with justification?

What is its justification? Meaning, how is its metaphysics grounded?

I don't believe in Gods anymore than I believe in:

witches, goblins, leprechauns, elfs, father Xmas, the tooth fairy,
or the doctrine of the infallibility of the Pope, miracles, or Holy water,
virgin births, ressurection, parting of the seas, the devil, heaven or hell.

It's all nonsense.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 2^nd, 2011 at 10:54pm:

What is its justification? Meaning, how is its metaphysics grounded?

Bump.

abu_rashid wrote on Apr 30^th, 2011 at 3:44pm:

Time, Quote: Protestantism took the power away from the clergy and gave it over to 'the people'. It is also a pertinent point that Christianity's cultivation of truthfulness lead to its own decline. This just highlights the vast differences between Islam & Christianity then doesn't it. Islam from day one shunned the idea of clergy, and instead insisted the people themselves be knowledgeable about their religion.

That defensive statement could be more readily accepted were it not for the fact that every time I see an act of barbarity carried out in the name of Islam, I also see muslims either declare the barbarity as justifiable, or as misguided because the perpetrator did not have the word of god they based their action upon, validated by an Imam. Indeed we have seen examples of many Imams who have chosen to interpret words from the Koran to justify horrendous acts, and as men who are supposed to be very learned in the way allah wants muslims to behave, what muslims can then claim the right to denounce these men?
Do people like the preacher Bashir, who appeared to be a prime mover in the terror attacks in Bali, receive greater authority, and deference, because they have longer, and greater learning of muslim scriptures?

Does the ordinary muslim who just wants to lead a good and peaceful life, have the right to ignore the teachings of such men?

If only many of the Xtians amongst us weren't such avid warmongers - and pro-death penalty - only then would wholesale criticism of Islamic people be remotely valid...

abu_rashid wrote on Apr 30^th, 2011 at 3:44pm:

Time, Quote: Protestantism took the power away from the clergy and gave it over to 'the people'. It is also a pertinent point that Christianity's cultivation of truthfulness lead to its own decline. This just highlights the vast differences between Islam & Christianity then doesn't it. Islam from day one shunned the idea of clergy,...

Abu,
What a blatant misrepresentation of what Allah says, in the Koran.



The Koran has very specific things to say about the authority of moslem clerics.

The Koran very explicitly, instructs believers to follow the instruction and guidance of their clerics, without question.

For a moslem, his faith, his very 'goodness', is entirely dependent upon, absolute obedience to Allah, and to the clerics - as a slave of Allah.

"We sent not a messenger, but to be obeyed..........they ['believers'] can have no (real) Faith, until they make thee judge in all disputes between them, and find in their souls no resistance against Thy decisions, but accept them with the fullest conviction."
Koran 4.64, 65








abu_rashid wrote on Apr 30^th, 2011 at 3:44pm:

......[ISLAM] insisted the people themselves be knowledgeable about their religion.

Abu,
What a blatant misrepresentation of what Allah says, in the Koran.



ISLAM promotes itself [to non-moslems], through its adherents, by claiming that ISLAM is a honourable and beneficial philosophy for mankind.

But ISLAM's adherents insist that no one, either inside ISLAM [moslems], or outside ISLAM [non-moslems], must be allowed to critically examine ISLAM, and its tenets and precepts.

Indeed, within ISLAMIC jurisdictions, critics of ISLAM are often summarily killed, for their 'crime' of 'insulting' [the 'peace' of] ISLAM.

If ISLAM truly is a honourable and beneficial philosophy to mankind, why is critical examination of ISLAM always met with violence by its adherents???

One of the essential differences between 'Western' culture, and ISLAM, is that we have embraced self criticism.

But, ISLAM never has.

And ISLAM never, ever, will, embrace self criticism.

The Koran, ISLAM's primary foundation texts actually forbids 'self examination' of ISLAM, by moslems...

"O ye who believe! Ask not questions about things which, if made plain to you, may cause you trouble.....
Some people before you did ask such questions, and on that account lost their faith."
Koran 5.101, 102

Equitist wrote on May 9^th, 2011 at 11:45am:

If only many of the Xtians amongst us weren't such avid warmongers - and pro-death penalty - only then would wholesale criticism of Islamic people be remotely valid...

Really...I thought Xtians were supposed to 'turn the other cheek'.

lol @ Yadda!

abu_rashid wrote on Apr 30^th, 2011 at 3:44pm:

Time, Quote: Protestantism took the power away from the clergy and gave it over to 'the people'. It is also a pertinent point that Christianity's cultivation of truthfulness lead to its own decline. This just highlights the vast differences between Islam & Christianity then doesn't it. Islam from day one shunned the idea of clergy, and instead insisted the people themselves be knowledgeable about their religion.

...and we've all seen how much of a 'success' that has been haven't we abu! 9/11, London, Bali, Mumbai, beheading innocent civilians..Yep, religion of tolerance and peace.....until you challenge it and then out come the threats.

HC wrote on May 10^th, 2011 at 10:26am:

abu_rashid wrote on Apr 30th, 2011 at 3:44pm: Time, Quote: Protestantism took the power away from the clergy and gave it over to 'the people'. It is also a pertinent point that Christianity's cultivation of truthfulness lead to its own decline. This just highlights the vast differences between Islam & Christianity then doesn't it. Islam from day one shunned the idea of clergy, and instead insisted the people themselves be knowledgeable about their religion. ...and we've all seen how much of a 'success' that has been haven't we abu! 9/11, London, Bali, Mumbai, beheading innocent civilians..Yep, religion of tolerance and peace.....until you challenge it and then out come the threats.

Bit rich, given that the 'success' of western society is on the back of colonialism, and sending its armies into foriegn lands, killing hundreds of thousands, if not millions, over the past century or so.

Muslim attacks in those cities have resulted in thousands of deaths. Western attacks and invasions in muslims lands have resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands.

I don't see any muslim armies in western lands...do you?

Quote:

Muslim attacks in those cities have resulted in thousands of deaths. Western attacks and invasions in muslims lands have resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands.

Aren't most such deaths attributable to local wars - eg Iraq vs it's neighbours? Or do you attribute all of those to the west as well?

Even if it were referring solely to Iraq (which is but one of the many Muslim countries the U.S has caused massive deaths in), Saddam was a Western-installed dictator who was given chemical weapons by the West with which to wreak havoc on his neighbours and minorities, how is that not the fault of the West???

Further how can you claim the West is not responsible for the million or so deaths of children under the Western imposed sanctions, when Albright herself already admitted culpability for it?

abu_rashid wrote on May 11^th, 2011 at 6:28am:

Even if it were referring solely to Iraq (which is but one of the many Muslim countries the U.S has caused massive deaths in), Saddam was a Western-installed dictator who was given chemical weapons by the West with which to wreak havoc on his neighbours and minorities, how is that not the fault of the West???

IMO, this just one more misrepresentation, 'twisting' of the facts.

Was Sadam given chemical weapons, by the West ???

I think not.

My own understanding was that Iraq bought the [largely harmless] precursor chemicals [chemicals that could be legitimately acquired for legitimate industrial purposes].

And then, Iraq / Sadam, developed those chemical weapons within Iraq ?







abu_rashid wrote on May 11^th, 2011 at 6:28am:

Further how can you claim the West is not responsible for the million or so deaths of children under the Western imposed sanctions, when Albright herself already admitted culpability for it?

According to moslems, those who bring children into conflict areas/scenarios, are responsible for their deaths.

That is a cynical response.

But hey, it is the excuse moslems use, when non-moslem children [e.g. Beslan] are intentionally murdered by moslems during Jihad 'operations'.


Quote:

There Can Be No End to Jihad' Islamist Sheikh Omar Bakri Muhammad, in an exclusive interview, discusses the rationale for 9/11 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




i.e.
#1,
When non-moslem children die during Jihad 'operations', it is the fault of non-moslems.

#2,
And when moslem children die in actions by non-moslems, directed against Jihad 'operations', it is the fault of non-moslems.

...according to moslems.



With moslems it is always the same 'logic', when justifying their barbarity in pursuit of Allah's paradise...

'Heads we win, tails you lose.'

freediver wrote on May 10^th, 2011 at 7:00pm:

Quote: Muslim attacks in those cities have resulted in thousands of deaths. Western attacks and invasions in muslims lands have resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands. Aren't most such deaths attributable to local wars - eg Iraq vs it's neighbours? Or do you attribute all of those to the west as well?

The US invasion of Iraq was a 'local war' was it?

Lestat wrote on May 10^th, 2011 at 10:14am:

lol @ Yadda!

Stop it Lestat,      .....or, you will go blind go to hell!




I hope that you are not deriving any pleasure from mocking me.

Because that would be un-ISLAMIC.

And Allah would not be pleased.


Quote:

Ayatollah Khomeini is reported to have said: “Allah did not create man so that he could have fun. The aim of creation was for mankind to be put to the test through hardship and prayer. An Islamic regime must be serious in every field. There are no jokes in Islam. There is no humor in Islam. There is no fun in Islam. There can be no fun and joy in whatever is serious. ...” (Political thought and legacy of Khomeini, Wikipedia, 20 November 2010)

http://www.answering-islam.org/authors/roark/khomeini.html


So, be warned.

Quote:

Even if it were referring solely to Iraq (which is but one of the many Muslim countries the U.S has caused massive deaths in), Saddam was a Western-installed dictator who was given chemical weapons by the West with which to wreak havoc on his neighbours and minorities, how is that not the fault of the West??? Further how can you claim the West is not responsible for the million or so deaths of children under the Western imposed sanctions, when Albright herself already admitted culpability for it?

So I was right, you do blame all the deaths on the western 'puppet masters', even when it was Muslims actually doing the slaughtering?


Quote:

The US invasion of Iraq was a 'local war' was it?

Read the question again Lestat.

freediver wrote on May 11^th, 2011 at 7:18pm:

Read the question again Lestat.

I did...and my question still stands.

Or the US invasion of Afghanistan. Is this to a 'local war'?

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 9^th, 2011 at 11:10am:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 2nd, 2011 at 10:54pm: What is its justification? Meaning, how is its metaphysics grounded? Bump.

So you don't know how Islam grounds its metaphysics?

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 15^th, 2011 at 9:12pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 9th, 2011 at 11:10am: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 2nd, 2011 at 10:54pm: What is its justification? Meaning, how is its metaphysics grounded? Bump. So you don't know how Islam grounds its metaphysics?

Seems so. Why do you follow something you know nothing about?

Lestat wrote on May 12^th, 2011 at 9:39am:

freediver wrote on May 11th, 2011 at 7:18pm: Read the question again Lestat. I did...and my question still stands. Or the US invasion of Afghanistan. Is this to a 'local war'?

No Les. I was referring for example to the first Persian gulf war between Iraq and Iran. It was the longest running conventional war of last century.

Of course, I'm sure you can find a way to blame every war that ever happened in the middle east on western interference, or failing that declare that the victims welcomed the invading hordes with open arms.

Yadda,


Quote:

According to moslems, those who bring children into conflict areas/scenarios, are responsible for their deaths.

That might be a valid response, if the kids were killed in the U.S during an Islamic invasion/occupation of the U.S. We both know they were not. Hence the response is as invalid as your responses always are. They are based on falsehood, wrongful acts and complete and utter disregard for what is moral and just.


Quote:

But hey, it is the excuse moslems use, when non-moslem children [e.g. Beslan] are intentionally murdered by moslems during Jihad 'operations'.

Funny how I've never heard you utter a single word for the hundreds of thousands of Chechen children raped, tortured, murdered, in front of their parents eyes, that led these desperate people to carry out the act they did. Not that it makes it right, but let's keep it in perspective.

abu_rashid wrote on May 29^th, 2011 at 4:35pm:

Quote: But hey, it is the excuse moslems use, when non-moslem children [e.g. Beslan] are intentionally murdered by moslems during Jihad 'operations'. Funny how I've never heard you utter a single word for the hundreds of thousands of Chechen children raped, tortured, murdered, in front of their parents eyes, that led these desperate people to carry out the act they did. Not that it makes it right, but let's keep it in perspective.

Abu,

It is ISLAM, which has dedicated itself to warfare against all non-moslem peoples and powers.

And moslems themselves, who choose to engage in a hot war against all non-moslem peoples, wherever moslems have the means.


Abu,

As you yourself well know;

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

THE DIVISIONS OF THE WORLD, ACCORDING TO ISLAM ARE;

Dar al-Islam = = the house of Islam, house of Peace [i.e. 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




Abu,

In the light of those facts above, doesn't ISLAM bear any responsibility, whatsoever, for how non-moslems react, to the violent moslem Jihad 'operations', against them, to spread the authority of ISLAM/Sharia ???

Clearly, your logic, would suppose not so.

Because;

Google;
those who resist islam cause wars, conflict with muslims

Google;
those who resist islam cause wars and are responsible for them



Right Abu ???
/sarc off



So, once again Abu, those moslems [acting violently] in Jihad 'operations' [against non-moslems], who by their own violent actions, provoke violent retaliation against moslems,
....ARE THE VICTIMS OF NON-MOSLEM VIOLENCE, AGAINST MOSLEMS ???

And that is your 'moral' contention in this forum ???



Well i must allow Abu, that i am not in the least surprised by your stance.



+++


"O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty (unto Him)."
Koran 9.123


"Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain:..."
Koran 9.111


"....Lo! Allah is an enemy to those who reject Faith."
Koran 2.98


"...And why should ye not fight in the cause of Allah...Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah, and those who reject Faith Fight in the cause of Evil: So fight ye against the friends of Satan:.."
Koran 4.74-76


"Fighting [against unbelievers] is prescribed for you, and [if] ye dislike it.....Allah knoweth, and ye know not."
Koran 002.216


Noble Quran 2:190 Footnote:
Jihad is holy fighting in Allahs Cause.......Jihad is an obligatory duty in Islam on every Muslim. He who tries to escape from this duty, or does not fulfill this duty, dies as a hypocrite.
....on page 39 of the Noble Qur’an , translation by Muhammad Khan



The Hadith....

"Allah's Apostle was asked, "What is the best deed?" He replied, "To believe in Allah and His Apostle (Muhammad). The questioner then asked, "What is the next (in goodness)? He replied, "To participate in Jihad (religious fighting) in Allah's Cause." "
http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/bukhari/002.sbt.html#001.002.026




+++



From 'different' scripture....


Psalms 7:15
He made a pit, and digged it, and is fallen into the ditch which he made.


Psalms 9:16
The LORD is known by the judgment which he executeth: the wicked is snared in the work of his own hands. Higgaion. Selah.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1309756792/4#4


Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 4^th, 2011 at 3:19pm:

The Quran tells you 91 times to follow the example that Mohammad set. Mohammad had sex with his wife fatima when she was dead to ensure she went to paradise. If Mohammad did it that makes it OK for muslims to do it! Here is Fatwa reminding muslims that necrophilia is an acceptable practice in Islam. http://my.telegraph.co.uk/markulyseas/markulyseas/1311/fatwa-necrophilia-is-an-acceptable-practice-in-islam I found a video of this imam necrophilia is halal- www.youtube.com/watch?v=taZngkAhCNM

http://my.telegraph.co.uk/markulyseas/markulyseas/1311/fatwa-necrophilia-is-an-acceptable-practice-in-islam

Fatwa: Necrophilia Is An Acceptable Practice In Islam

Report

Washington / Morocco Board News--An Imam in Morocco issued a fatwa stating that necrophilia is “Halal” or religiously acceptable practice in Islam. He said that a husband has the right to have sex with his dead wife.

The Imam, whose name is Zamzami Abdelbari, said that marriage remains valid even after death, which does not cancel the marriage link. He took as evidence a Koranic verse which says that Muslims believers will go to Paradise with their wives…

Sheikh Zamzami said that the husband has the right to have sex with his dead wife. He added that the husband may wash the body of his dead wife and have sex with her.

Lisa Jones wrote on Jul 7^th, 2011 at 1:07am:

http://my.telegraph.co.uk/markulyseas/markulyseas/1311/fatwa-necrophilia-is-an-acceptable-practice-in-islam Fatwa: Necrophilia Is An Acceptable Practice In Islam Report Washington / Morocco Board News--An Imam in Morocco issued a fatwa stating that necrophilia is “Halal” or religiously acceptable practice in Islam. He said that a husband has the right to have sex with his dead wife. The Imam, whose name is Zamzami Abdelbari, said that marriage remains valid even after death, which does not cancel the marriage link. He took as evidence a Koranic verse which says that Muslims believers will go to Paradise with their wives… Sheikh Zamzami said that the husband has the right to have sex with his dead wife. He added that the husband may wash the body of his dead wife and have sex with her.

lol...what an absolute load of rubbish. Really Lisa....why do you post such propaganda crap. Another crap story that will be found to be bullsh(t...just like the model killed in Ukraine by Islamic extremists, or the Lesbian Syrian blogger, or the Iraqi's taking babies out of incubators, or the other hundreds of lies reported in trash media, only to be found out as lies at a later date.

Don't you get sick of being exposed as a liar and fool time and time again. Why do you come back for more? DO you love it?

Did you cum in your pants when you read this article? Be honest?

:D

Lestat wrote on Jul 7^th, 2011 at 9:26am:

Don't you get sick of being exposed as a liar and fool time and time again. Why do you come back for more? DO you love it? Did you cum in your pants when you read this article? Be honest? :D

Apart from being predictably disgusting, pathetic and vile .. have you anything else to offer Oz Politics?

Lisa Jones wrote on Jul 7^th, 2011 at 1:07am:

http://my.telegraph.co.uk/markulyseas/markulyseas/1311/fatwa-necrophilia-is-an-acceptable-practice-in-islam Fatwa: Necrophilia Is An Acceptable Practice In Islam Report Washington / Morocco Board News--An Imam in Morocco issued a fatwa stating that necrophilia is “Halal” or religiously acceptable practice in Islam. He said that a husband has the right to have sex with his dead wife. The Imam, whose name is Zamzami Abdelbari, said that marriage remains valid even after death, which does not cancel the marriage link. He took as evidence a Koranic verse which says that Muslims believers will go to Paradise with their wives… Sheikh Zamzami said that the husband has the right to have sex with his dead wife. He added that the husband may wash the body of his dead wife and have sex with her.

For those who may have missed this impt article.

Lisa Jones wrote on Jul 7^th, 2011 at 9:57am:

Lisa Jones wrote on Jul 7th, 2011 at 1:07am: http://my.telegraph.co.uk/markulyseas/markulyseas/1311/fatwa-necrophilia-is-an-acceptable-practice-in-islam Fatwa: Necrophilia Is An Acceptable Practice In Islam Report Washington / Morocco Board News--An Imam in Morocco issued a fatwa stating that necrophilia is “Halal” or religiously acceptable practice in Islam. He said that a husband has the right to have sex with his dead wife. The Imam, whose name is Zamzami Abdelbari, said that marriage remains valid even after death, which does not cancel the marriage link. He took as evidence a Koranic verse which says that Muslims believers will go to Paradise with their wives… Sheikh Zamzami said that the husband has the right to have sex with his dead wife. He added that the husband may wash the body of his dead wife and have sex with her. For those who may have missed this impt article.

Lisa,

Whether we are informed, or un-informed about what ISLAM promotes in the world, is totally unimportant.

What is important is that ISLAM, is an entity, an entity which has innate rights.

And as a consequence, we worms must be tolerant of ISLAM.

Because not to be tolerant of ISLAM, is a serious crime against humanity.

And we must not scrutinise ISLAM or its teachings, or the conduct of moslems.

Because to scrutinise ISLAM or its teachings, or the conduct of moslems, is a serious crime against humanity.

p.s.
If you do not believe that i am being serious, i would challenge you [or any other person], to try and get an Australian politician to contradict any of those statements, in any Parliament in Australia.

We [Australians] are worms, before Allah.

And every moslem in Australia knows it.




Google;
islamophobia is a crime

Lestat wrote on Jul 7^th, 2011 at 9:26am:

Did you cum in your pants when you read this article? Be honest? :D

This disgusting post sums up Lestat quite well.

We ought to keep it in mind whenever we see him post.

I think it is unIslamic to disrespect women like that. Maybe it only applies to your mother, or Muslim women.

freediver wrote on Jul 7^th, 2011 at 7:14pm:

I think it is unIslamic to disrespect women like that. Maybe it only applies to your mother, or Muslim women.

When you see a woman...let me know.

Lisa Jones wrote on Jul 7^th, 2011 at 6:55pm:

Lestat wrote on Jul 7th, 2011 at 9:26am: Did you cum in your pants when you read this article? Be honest? :D This disgusting post sums up Lestat quite well. We ought to keep it in mind whenever we see him post.

Actually..what is disgusting Lisa, is your continued attempts at disrespecting a whole religon, and all the people that follow it.

I disrespected you...yes, one person?

You on the other hand continuously attempt to disrespect evey muslim, tar them with the same brush, with lies, and propaganda?

Tell me...which is worst?

You should take a long hard look at yourself. I am treating you with the respect you deserve, no more, no less.

When you start respecting yourself and others, maybe others will respect you! Until then..suck it up, your getting no less then you deserve!

Lestat wrote on Jul 8^th, 2011 at 9:43am:

Lisa Jones wrote on Jul 7th, 2011 at 6:55pm: Lestat wrote on Jul 7th, 2011 at 9:26am: Did you cum in your pants when you read this article? Be honest? :D This disgusting post sums up Lestat quite well. We ought to keep it in mind whenever we see him post. Actually..what is disgusting Lisa, is your continued attempts at disrespecting a whole religon, and all the people that follow it. I disrespected you...yes, one person? You on the other hand continuously attempt to disrespect evey muslim, tar them with the same brush, with lies, and propaganda? Tell me...which is worst? You should take a long hard look at yourself. I am treating you with the respect you deserve, no more, no less. When you start respecting yourself and others, maybe others will respect you! Until then..suck it up, your getting no less then you deserve!

IMO, ISLAM itself, is an insult, upon the word 'religion'.

Dictionary;
religion = =
1 the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.    a particular system of faith and worship.
2 a pursuit or interest followed with devotion.


How is murdering persons, who do not believe as you believe, 'the belief in and worship' of God ???



e.g.
"....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, and one of ISLAM's most influential thinkers.

IMO, ISLAM is human depravity, posing as a religion.

That is my opinion of the philosophy known as 'ISLAM'.


Three references in the Hadith, show that ISLAM eulogizes the 'martyrdom' [i.e. the murder, of the enemies...] of moslems, to spread ISLAM...

#1,
"The Prophet said, "Nobody who dies and finds good from Allah (in the Hereafter) would wish to come back to this world even if he were given the whole world and whatever is in it, except the martyr who, on seeing the superiority of martyrdom, would like to come back to the world and get killed again (in Allah's Cause)." "
hadithsunnah/bukhari/ #004.052.053


#2,
"The Prophet said, "By Him in Whose Hands my life is! Were it not for some men amongst the believers who dislike to be left behind me and whom I cannot provide with means of conveyance, I would certainly never remain behind any Sariya' (army-unit) setting out in Allah's Cause. By Him in Whose Hands my life is! I would love to be martyred in Allah's Cause and then get resurrected and then get martyred, and then get resurrected again and then get martyred and then get resurrected again and then get martyred."
hadithsunnah/bukhari/ #004.052.054


#3,
"The Prophet said, "Nobody who enters Paradise likes to go back to the world even if he got everything on the earth, except a Mujahid who wishes to return to the world so that he may be martyred ten times because of the dignity he receives (from Allah)." "
hadithsunnah/bukhari/ #004.052.072






+++

"They are an army unlike any other...crusading across the stars toward a place called UnderVerse, their promised land...a constellation of dark new worlds.
Necromongers, they're called.
And if they cannot convert you, they will kill you."
Aereon - The Chronicles of Riddick

Lestat wrote on Jul 8^th, 2011 at 9:40am:

freediver wrote on Jul 7th, 2011 at 7:14pm: I think it is unIslamic to disrespect women like that. Maybe it only applies to your mother, or Muslim women. When you see a woman...let me know.

Yes I have noticed how conveniently Muslims simply change the meaning of words when it suits them.

freediver wrote on Jul 9^th, 2011 at 9:05am:

Lestat wrote on Jul 8th, 2011 at 9:40am: freediver wrote on Jul 7th, 2011 at 7:14pm: I think it is unIslamic to disrespect women like that. Maybe it only applies to your mother, or Muslim women. When you see a woman...let me know. Yes I have noticed how conveniently Muslims simply change the meaning of words when it suits them.

Like 'anti-semetic'. What does 'semetic' mean again Freediver?

What was that about changing the meaning of words when it suits them?