'Western culture is perverse, corrupt.', ISLAMISTS constantly tell the West.


Muslim Cleric: "Face of a woman like her vagina"
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/12/popular-muslim-cleric-face-of-a-woman-like-her-vagina.html


Well, now we know why moslems insist "on the necessity for women to wear the niqab [veil]."

Yes ?

Because Jihadwatch is a reputable news organisation?

Only an embicile would waste time trudging through the crap produced by Jihadwatch.

I've been wondering - what possesses a western man to make him convert to islam? 

It can't be becasue it answers all your questions about the world - it's a religion like any other, full of contradictions and pointless dogma.

It can't be out of solidarity for your people - in fact, it's quite the opposite.

It's one thing being born into it, but actively choosing it?  It defies belief. 

i find it weird that conservatives find it difficult to locate common ground with the muslims. though i certainly believe that the musselmen go too far, i'm not particularly a fan of the pornocracy that they deride and despise as well.

i had a discussion about this in north carolina this feburary with a british lawyer who is the head of the the british freedom party and the son of a traditionalist british catholic author called michael davies. i felt very privileged to meet him and we discussed our views on islam. while on the whole quite critical, there were many positive features about it that we agreed on.

i also find it absolutely bizarre (though not really) that western liberals and progressives so fervently defend islam. it many ways it represents (though whether the quran specifically prescribes many of its practices is beyond my actual knowledge, and probably nearly everybody else who mouths a vociferous, cocksure opinion on this subject) everything that they should loathe, and do, when it is coming out of the mouths of white, christian males. fortunately i am not a liberal at all so have little trouble commisserating with some of its more reactionary elements (though i'm not really a fan of it, especially within a western, ethnically european context).

i'm sure if islam was a primarily european religion distinctly associated with europe its progressive defenders would treat it with the same contempt they reserve for christianity, however.

barnaby joe wrote on Dec 15^th, 2011 at 5:07pm:

i find it weird that conservatives find it difficult to locate common ground with the muslims. though i certainly believe that the musselmen go too far, i'm not particularly a fan of the pornocracy that they deride and despise as well. i had a discussion about this in north carolina this feburary with a british lawyer who is the head of the the british constitution party and the son of a traditionalist british catholic author called michael davies. i felt very privileged to meet him and we discussed our views on islam. while on the whole quite critical, there were many positive features about it that we agreed on. i also find it absolutely bizarre (though not really) that western liberals and progressives so fervently defend islam. it many ways it represents (though whether the quran specifically prescribes many of its practices is beyond my actual knowledge, and probably nearly everybody else who mouths a vociferous, cocksure opinion on this subject) everything that they should loathe, and do, when it is coming out of the mouths of white, christian males. fortunately i am not a liberal at all so have little trouble commisserating with some of its more reactionary elements (though i'm not really a fan of it, especially within a western, ethnically european context). i'm sure if islam was a primarily european religion distinctly associated with europe its progressive defenders would treat it with the same contempt they reserve for christianity, however.

Oh there are things that I admire about them, the same as with any group.  Nobody is wholly repulsive, there is always some redeeming quality. 

... wrote on Dec 15^th, 2011 at 3:50pm:

I've been wondering - what possesses a western man to make him convert to islam?

Perhaps we're looking for a better way of life than the downward spiral that is Western secular democracy? Not everyone wants to run themselves into the ground becoming a slave to their own desires. 


... wrote on Dec 15^th, 2011 at 3:50pm:

It can't be becasue it answers all your questions about the world - it's a religion like any other, full of contradictions and pointless dogma.

Yes I think it does answer questions about the universe and about life. I think you are assuming too much about Islamic teachings, as they are certainly not pointless dogma, and do not contain contradictions. Islam is a very logical and complete structure for managing the affairs of human society, and for providing spiritual guidance on the nature of the universe.


... wrote on Dec 15^th, 2011 at 3:50pm:

It can't be out of solidarity for your people - in fact, it's quite the opposite.

It is out of solidarity with our people, humanity. No it is not part of a nationalist ethno-centric cult.


... wrote on Dec 15^th, 2011 at 3:50pm:

It's one thing being born into it, but actively choosing it?  It defies belief.

Being born into something does not excuse it, if it were wrong.

You are probably born into the misguided system of secular democracy, but that does not excuse you adhering to it. You have the choice to look for and find the truth.

barnaby joe wrote on Dec 15^th, 2011 at 5:07pm:

i find it weird that conservatives find it difficult to locate common ground with the muslims. though i certainly believe that the musselmen go too far, i'm not particularly a fan of the pornocracy that they deride and despise as well. i had a discussion about this in north carolina this feburary with a british lawyer who is the head of the the british freedom party and the son of a traditionalist british catholic author called michael davies. i felt very privileged to meet him and we discussed our views on islam. while on the whole quite critical, there were many positive features about it that we agreed on. i also find it absolutely bizarre (though not really) that western liberals and progressives so fervently defend islam. it many ways it represents (though whether the quran specifically prescribes many of its practices is beyond my actual knowledge, and probably nearly everybody else who mouths a vociferous, cocksure opinion on this subject) everything that they should loathe, and do, when it is coming out of the mouths of white, christian males. fortunately i am not a liberal at all so have little trouble commisserating with some of its more reactionary elements (though i'm not really a fan of it, especially within a western, ethnically european context). i'm sure if islam was a primarily european religion distinctly associated with europe its progressive defenders would treat it with the same contempt they reserve for christianity, however.

I've often wondered this myself. Quite clearly the objection to Islam is based on the perception it is foreign. It's just not logical for "family-oriented" parties and movements for example to oppose Islam, when quite clearly Islam is the most potent force calling for such principles.

Ironically Islam and Christianity were forged only a few hundred km's apart by people of the exact same race.

Quote:

Perhaps we're looking for a better way of life than the downward spiral that is Western secular democracy? Not everyone wants to run themselves into the ground becoming a slave to their own desires.

Oh I more than understand rejecting the western mainstream, but isn't it just a touch 'convenient' that the 'true path' is already nicely laid out for you, and is already practised by a billion or more people?  Sounds like the easy way out to me.


Quote:

Yes I think it does answer questions about the universe and about life. I think you are assuming too much about Islamic teachings, as they are certainly not pointless dogma, and do not contain contradictions. Islam is a very logical and complete structure for managing the affairs of human society, and for providing spiritual guidance on the nature of the universe.

It still doesn't allow much in the way of personal, free thought.  Finding your own answers isn't going to happen when you've alreday got them handily proscribed in a 1000+ year old book.


Quote:

It is out of solidarity with our people, humanity. No it is not part of a nationalist ethno-centric cult.

LOL.  If you're ready to have another crack at that one, with more than empty platitudes, then I will listen.  You already touched on it in you first answer - it's not out of solidarity with humnaity, it's a tanty against western life. 


Quote:

Being born into something does not excuse it, if it were wrong. You are probably born into the misguided system of secular democracy, but that does not excuse you adhering to it. You have the choice to look for and find the truth.

You really think I adhere to the system of secular democracy?  I'd change most things if I could, but accepting a pre-made alternative doesn't seem rigorous enough.  Just becasue it's different, doesn't mean it's right.

abu_rashid wrote on Dec 18^th, 2011 at 5:21pm:

... wrote on Dec 15th, 2011 at 3:50pm: I've been wondering - what possesses a western man to make him convert to islam? Perhaps we're looking for a better way of life than the downward spiral that is Western secular democracy? Not everyone wants to run themselves into the ground becoming a slave to their own desires.

LOL, LOL, LOL, LOL.




Abu,

When we examine the conduct of moslems today [and 'yesterday'], when we examine the doctrines of ISLAM, then your protestations [in isolation] about Western society being "slaves to their own desires" is an absurdity,
......when it is clear that you are ignoring the behaviour of moslem men, who are tainted by the exact same vices as Western men.


e.g.

Quote:

"....Islamic leaders routinely castigate the West for its immorality, but their alternative is this veneer of morality covering barbarity, brutality, and the use of women as commodities. ........"We want our youth to be protected from adultery," said Al-Mutairi, suggesting that these maids could be brought as prisoners of war in war-stricken nations like Chechnya to be sold on later to devout [i.e. moslem] merchants. This is not religiously forbidden," she added,"

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/06/kuwait-female-political-activist-calls-for-legalizing-sex-slavery-to-protect-men-from-adultery-or-co.html

i.e.
In the article above, ISLAMISTS are saying, that the keeping of captive [non-moslem] women [within Sharia jurisdictions] as sex slaves, is completely 'lawful' within ISLAM.
And that raping those sex slaves [female captives] is halal [i.e. kosher].
see also...
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/06/egyptian-imam-when-i-want-a-sex-slave-i-just-go-to-the-market-and-choose-the-woman-i-like-and-purcha.html



FURTHER....

If we examine the sunna of Mohammed, it is clear that Mohammed himself, and his companions too, WERE "slaves to their own desires".

Dictionary;
Sunna = = the traditional portion of Muslim law based on Muhammad’s words or acts, accepted (together with the Koran) as authoritative by Muslims.



And it is the testimony of ISLAMIC texts which attest to the fact, that Mohammed and his companions WERE "slaves to their own desires".

Moslems today, ARE "slaves to their own desires".



THE FACT IS THAT...
Allah allows moslem men to rape female [non-moslem] captives.

Moslem logic exposed;

Q.
WHY SO?
Why does Allah permit moslem men to rape female [non-moslem] captives ???

A.
Allah makes it 'LAWFUL' for moslem men to rape female [non-moslem] captives, so as to protect those moslem men from committing adultery and being guilty of moral corruption.

LOL, LOL, LOL, LOL.

Adultery AND moral corruption, is bad, and punishable by death within ISLAMIC law.

But it is halal [kosher] for a moslem man, to rape female [non-moslem] captives.

And Allah says that that, is moral behaviour.

Go figure.....



+++


Mohammed's example, in the Hadith provides the proof to moslems that moslem men can 'lawfully' have non-consensual sex with their female captives....


n.b. THESE WORDS [below] ARE DIRECTLY QUOTED FROM THE HADITH [i.e. the sunnah of Mohammed]


Quote:

"on the expedition to the Bi'l-Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women" "for we were suffering from the absence of our wives" "and we desired them" "So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them"

"Rape your 'war booty', its OK, say ISLAMIC texts"
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1251760605/0#0


Dictionary;
Sunna = = the traditional portion of Muslim law based on Muhammad’s words or acts, accepted (together with the Koran) as authoritative by Muslims.




+++



Moslem logic exposed;

Hey Abu,

Q.
When we can see that moslems today [and 'yesterday'], clearly ARE and WERE "slaves to their own desires", what makes you, or any moslem man, unlike Western men ???

Oh right, YOU ARE MOSLEMS, AND YOU FOLLOW ISLAM.
.....so you moslems think that you are are meritorious [irrespective of the conduct], BECAUSE YOU ARE MOSLEMS.

Right?

LOL, LOL, LOL, LOL.



+++

Abu,

You, and all moslems, are mentally sick [i.e. insane].

see....

Quote:

"HERE, IS A MEASURE [a very simple definition] OF 'SANITY'....."

'Normal' criminal behaviour - in mankind
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1293669294



And it is ISLAM which is making you mentally sick, and evil.

You, and all moslems, are blind to the moral absurdity of ISLAM.

You are blind to your own sickness, and you actually choose to embrace the unfettered evil which ISLAM encourages and unleashes within you.


Dictionary;
unfetter = = release from restraint or inhibition.

2 Thessalonians 2:7



According to Allah [as per ISLAM's foundation texts, the Koran, and the Hadith], the whole world belongs to moslems [as war booty]....

"Or have they gods that can guard them from Us? They have no power to aid themselves, nor can they be defended from Us.
...See they not that We gradually reduce the land (in their control) from its outlying borders? Is it then they who will win?"
Koran 21:43-44

"And He made you [moslems] heirs to their [non-moslem] land and their dwellings and their property, and (to) a land which you have not yet trodden, and Allah has power over all things."
Koran 33:27



The violent supremacism which is being expressed in the actions of moslems around the world today, is sourced from within, is encouraged within, and is motivated by, ISLAM's own foundation texts, the Koran, and the Hadith.

And this attitude of domineering moslem supremacy, coupled with a sense of automatic unearned entitlement and merit ["BECAUSE WE ARE MOSLEMS."] is taught to every moslem [from childhood], by ISLAM.


see also...

Google,
"rape jihad"

Google,
beslan children raped then murdered, jihad


Google;
muslim rape of captive women, lawful


Google;
mohammed demanded 1/5 of all muslim plunder
i.e.
The piety of Mohammed, he demanded only 20% of all war booty.
/sarc off
i.e.
Mohammed took to himself, and raped, many a female captive [Hadith].



see also...

"Rape your 'war booty', its OK, say ISLAMIC texts"
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1251760605/0#0


Bikeway rapist gets 25 years in jail
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1251431040/8#8



Re Mohammed see also....

Part 161 - Muhammad and Allah
http://the-koran.blogspot.com/2008/08/muhammad-allah-part-161.html

Part 163 - Muhammad the Humble
http://the-koran.blogspot.com/2008/08/muhammad-humble-part-163.html

source...
http://www.al-rassooli.com/ahmadsquran3/

Yadda wrote on Dec 19^th, 2011 at 10:23am:

Mohammed's example, in the Hadith provides the proof to moslems that moslem men can 'lawfully' have non-consensual sex with their female captives....

So does your own Bible. why do you keep ignoring this fact? The Bible clearly states that YHWH commanded Moses (pbuh) to obliterate entire peoples and to take their virgin women only (all non-virgin women must be slaughtered too, along with male children) for themselves. In your belief is not Jesus (pbuh) the YHWH of the Bible? Do you not worship this figure that you believe is YHWH and is Jesus (pbuh)? And that commanded the capturing of hundreds of thousands of virgin girls for concubinage?

Until you're willing to actually provide an actual answer to this point, then anything you state is just nonsense. Anything you state is not even taken notice of, since you refuse outright to reconcile your own book's not just acceptance of this practice, but COMMAND of it!

You can have credibility in any discussion on this topic, until you can address this issue. You cannot be taken seriously at all, until you can address this issue in light of the Bible.

Either you too accept this practice, or you need to call your own god a liar and a criminal.

Abu,

I posted a reply yesterday, to your post [#9 - Dec 19th, 2011 at 7:57pm - see the attached image].

But my post [made yesterday] seems to have 'disappeared' off the ISLAM board.

So, i will re-post, MY REPLY, IN ANSWER TO YOUR POST.

---

abu_rashid wrote on Dec 19^th, 2011 at 7:57pm:

Yadda wrote on Dec 19th, 2011 at 10:23am: Mohammed's example, in the Hadith provides the proof to moslems that moslem men can 'lawfully' have non-consensual sex with their female captives.... So does your own Bible. why do you keep ignoring this fact? The Bible clearly states that YHWH commanded Moses (pbuh) to obliterate entire peoples and to take their virgin women only (all non-virgin women must be slaughtered too, along with male children) for themselves. In your belief is not Jesus (pbuh) the YHWH of the Bible? Do you not worship this figure that you believe is YHWH and is Jesus (pbuh)? And that commanded the capturing of hundreds of thousands of virgin girls for concubinage?

Abu,

So, do you think that Allah will give you and 'the brothers' your own private harems, when the brothers rule Oz ?

I assume this will occur after your ISLAMISTS brothers have 'lawfully' murdered the menfolk of those women - as per in the OT bible no doubt ?

LOL

Dictionary
harem = the separate part of a Muslim household reserved for wives, concubines, and female servants.

Good luck to you Abu [...not really].

LOL

+++


By the way, i couldn't find that bible verse which you alluded to, ....regarding YHWH commanding the Hebrews to capture 'hundreds of thousands of virgin girls for concubinage'.






Deuteronomy 20:10
When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it.
11  And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee.
12  And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it:
13  And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword:
14  But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee.


Whereas according to Abu;

Quote:

....The Bible clearly states that YHWH commanded Moses (pbuh) to obliterate entire peoples and to take their virgin women only (all non-virgin women must be slaughtered too, along with male children) for themselves.......YHWH of the Bible....commanded the capturing of hundreds of thousands of virgin girls for concubinage?

Abu,

As per usual, you [and all moslems] seem TO WANT TO BELIEVE that the law of Moses, in the OT Bible, broadly condones, a behaviour in man, which ISLAM itself seeks to 'legitimise' [i.e. 'religiously' sanctified brigandry].

But a close examination of what Moses law REALLY endorses, show that that ISLAMIC assumption, is clearly WRONG.

What Moses law [recorded 3,400 years ago] really endorses and promotes, is ethical behaviour, in a community of men [yes, including sometimes SEVERE punishment of wrongdoers].

e.g.
Compare what is 'lawful' regards captive women within ISLAM, with what was lawful within Moses law, regards captive women....

Deuteronomy 21:10
When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive,
11  And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife;
12  Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails;
13  And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.
14  And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her.

n.b. the words.....

"....but thou shalt not sell her at all for money,"

and...

"....then thou shalt let her go whither she will;....thou shalt not make merchandise of her,"

n.b.
The Hebrew man, if he no longer has a desire for his beautiful wife [a captive of war],
....he must release her.

He must, give her her freedom.

Because in those OT Biblical times, the concept of a free woman was not unusual.


But there is no parallel to this provision, within ISLAMIC law.

Why not ???

Because, within a devout moslem community the concept of a 'free' woman is absurd.

Within a devout moslem community a woman, all women, are the property of some man, ALWAYS.



+++

Abu,

Regards your charge, that God in the OT bible commanded the Hebrews to.....
'....to obliterate entire peoples'....

That is true, relating to certain peoples - 'namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites'.

But God [YHWH] commanded the Hebrew people [his covenant people] to kill and destroy those particular people, because of the wickedness of those people, and because of how those people behaved [e.g. murder, rape, incest, infanticide, etc.].

Leviticus 18:24
Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you:
25  And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants.
26  Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations; neither any of your own nation, nor any stranger that sojourneth among you:
27  (For all these abominations have the men of the land done, which were before you, and the land is defiled;)
28  That the land spue not you out also, when ye defile it, as it spued out the nations that were before you.


Deuteronomy 20:16
But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth:
17  But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee:
18  That they teach you not to do after all their abominations, which they have done unto their gods; so should ye sin against the LORD your God.

n.b.
God DID NOT command the Hebrew people [his covenant people] to kill those peoples, BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT HEBREWS.



And all those things were recorded as happening around 3,400 years ago, in another age.

And the destruction of those peoples were commanded for one purpose....

To cleanse a holy land, of the wickedness of its inhabitants.

Those actions were NOT commanded so that the Hebrew people may murder and enslave a people, and make a 'war booty' of a people, who were 'different' from themselves, nor was it because those peoples were not Hebrews [as moslems suppose, and promote].

e.g.
Exodus 22:21
Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him...

Exodus 23:9
Also thou shalt not oppress a stranger...

Leviticus 19:33
And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex him.
34  But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself...

Deuteronomy 10:17-19
For the LORD your God... loveth the stranger, ...Love ye therefore the stranger: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.



+++

But moslems today 'know' that they have a 'sanction' from their God, Allah, to enslave, and to make a 'war booty', of the peoples of the whole earth.
....especially, 'unbelieving' women.


Google,
"rape jihad"

Google;
muslim rape of captive women, lawful




"....those who reject Allah have no protector."
Koran 47.008
v. 8-11

"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. "
Koran 9.29

Yadda wrote on Dec 21^st, 2011 at 10:27am:

Abu, So, do you think that Allah will give you and 'the brothers' your own private harems, when the brothers rule Oz ? I assume this will occur after your ISLAMISTS brothers have 'lawfully' murdered the menfolk of those women - as per in the OT bible no doubt?

You jackass! Muslims don't even believe in the Bible.


The Quran tells us that it is a fabricated text:

"woe to those [priests & rabbis] who write the Bible with their own hands, and then say:"This is from God," to traffic with it for miserable price!- Woe to them for what their hands do write, and for the profit they make thereby."
[the Quran, al-Baqarah, v.79.


...and why do keep calling Abu Rashid "Abu"? "Abu" means "father" in Arabic. It is weird to see you keep referring to him as "father".

Perhaps you need some discipline from a father-figure.

Western culture is perverse and corrupt, to about the same extent that Eastern culture is perverse and corrupt. The methods vary but interestingly women provide the battleground for much of it.

what about southern culture

http://cdn.warebuzz.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/a8cfd_3D_Penguins_ScreenSaver.jpg

is it corrupt

Those female penguins don't look to happy to me.

barnaby joe wrote on Dec 21^st, 2011 at 7:19pm:

what about southern culture http://cdn.warebuzz.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/a8cfd_3D_Penguins_ScreenSaver.jpg is it corrupt

Those female penguins don't look to happy to me.

falah wrote on Dec 21^st, 2011 at 6:43pm:

Yadda wrote on Dec 21st, 2011 at 10:27am: Abu, So, do you think that Allah will give you and 'the brothers' your own private harems, when the brothers rule Oz ? I assume this will occur after your ISLAMISTS brothers have 'lawfully' murdered the menfolk of those women - as per in the OT bible no doubt? You jackass! Muslims don't even believe in the Bible. The Quran tells us that it [the Bible] is a fabricated text:

falah,

That is interesting, BUT....

The Koran and Hadith [ISLAMIC foundation texts] ALSO tell us, clearly, that the ['the Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus)'], were protected by Allah, and were venerated by Mohammed.

[The particular ISLAMIC texts, are cited at the OzPol link below.]



And i ask every moslem if they can explain this conundrum ???....

"The inerrant Koran???"
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1295396564/0#0

Quote:

"A PROPOSITION OF LOGIC; To believe the moslem assertion, made today, that the Jewish O.T. Bible, and the New Testament scriptures have been corrupted, by Jews, and Christians, you have to believe that not one uncorrupted copy of either text survived [i.e. within a single moslem jurisdiction]. How likely is that, when ISLAMIC texts themselves, clearly state that these scriptures ['the Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus)'], were protected by Allah, and venerated by Mohammed?"

i
falah wrote on Dec 21^st, 2011 at 6:43pm:

...and why do keep calling Abu Rashid "Abu"? "Abu" means "father" in Arabic. It is weird to see you keep referring to him as "father". Perhaps you need some discipline from a father-figure.

falah,

I may just as well ask you;
Why does Abu refer to himself as Abu [Rashid] in this forum, if he does not want to be referred to as Abu ???

Quote:

When we examine the conduct of moslems today [and 'yesterday'], when we examine the doctrines of ISLAM, then your protestations [in isolation] about Western society being "slaves to their own desires" is an absurdity,

Abu merely replaced being a slave to consumerism, or whatever other empty pursuits characterised his early life, with being a slave to a different set of desires (control for example). After all, Islam quite literally means submission. Rejecting consumerism goes nowhere in explaining the alternative he chose. It is just empty headed propaganda for the cause he took up. It was only after Abu ceased to actually desire these things that he rejected being a slave to them. Most people simply grow up, get a real job and a decent house and try to raise a good family. To say "I want to stone people to death because I don't like Gucci any more" kind of lacks substance.

Yadda wrote on Dec 21^st, 2011 at 11:59pm:

I may just as well ask you; Why does Abu refer to himself as Abu [Rashid] in this forum, if he does not want to be referred to as Abu ???

It's a name, just as Abraham or Abimelek for instance are names. Those names also contain the Semitic prefix meaning "father of", and likewise if you shortened their names to Abe or Abi, then you'd also be effectively calling them "dad".

So calling an Irishman Macca is effectively calling him son?

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

No, but calling him Mc/Mac would.