http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Faith_Ratchet#Islam_as_a_ratchet

Islam can be considered an ideological ratchet because it incorporates several mechanisms for preventing dissent and anchoring the ideology in a way that allows people to adopt Islam but prevents people from rejecting it. Note that this explanation should be interpreted in the context in which Islam grew – as a single, expansionist, military empire, rather than as the fragmented movement it is today. In fact, the fragmentation and internal violence we see today is analogous to the catastrophic failure of a ratchet when it is forced to move backwards.

See link for more.

Any comments or suggestions would be appreciated.

If your wiki article were a highs school essay, it would get a big fat F.

There is not one reference to any of your claims you make about islam - other than links back to your own posts and/or other equally baseless sources.

Also please break the longer chapters into paragraphs - its quite unreadable.

So what actual Muslims say is a baseless source for what Muslims say, or for Islam in general?

Oh, and welcome back gandalf.

If there is anything in the article that is actually wrong, rather than merely insufficiently referenced, please let me know.

Dear FD,
All Abrahamic religions are the same -
Jesus was crucified for blasphemy -
what has changed?

Muslims want to kill non-believers of their religion.

I think you will find that they are different bobby. But don't let inconvenient details like that get in the way of whatever point you are trying to make.

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


Quote:

Blasphemy law is law relating to blasphemy, or irreverence toward holy personages, religious artifacts, customs, and beliefs. Some countries, especially countries which have Islam as the state religion, regard blasphemy as a serious offence. Pakistan, for example, has legislation which makes execution a penalty for blasphemy. In place of or in addition to prohibitions against blasphemy, some countries have laws which give redress to those who feel insulted on account of their religion. These laws forbid hate speech, the vilification of religion, or "religious insult".

What has changed?
Abrahamic religions still kill other people over their religion.

Are we still living in the dark ages bobby?

freediver wrote on Jan 6^th, 2013 at 10:33am:

Are we still living in the dark ages bobby?

Not according to master Light.

This is the new age of light.

forgiven

namaste

What do you think bobby?

freediver wrote on Jan 6^th, 2013 at 11:51am:

What do you think bobby?

Hi FD,
I think that little has changed.
Apart from stoning people to death for blasphemy in Muslim countries we
now have new laws which will prevent criticism of religion that will be in place here soon -
& that is in a so called enlightened country like Australia.

Looks like the mussies will get their way here too.  :-?

freediver wrote on Jan 6^th, 2013 at 9:26am:

So what actual Muslims say is a baseless source for what Muslims say, or for Islam in general?

It is baseless for the case of islamic jurisprudence - which is what you are talking about. You either have to reference the relevant islamic text yourself, or quote someone who is an authority on islamic text - who themselves quote relevant passages. But not only this, you then need to present the other side - which in the case of Islamic jurisprudence there always is. There is almost no unanimity amongst islamic scholars on just about any issue of islamic law, and I can guarantee you that even if there is a scholarly opinion supporting some of these claims of yours, there are other equally valid opinions that disagree.

Its just stupid, given the huge divisions amongst muslim scholars regarding the sorts of things you talk about, to say islam permits this or that, rather than say something more sensible like "some muslim scholars claim this this and this based on x passage, however, other scholars disagree based on x passage" - or something like that. Thats the correct approach when you obviously have no idea yourself - its just elementary acadamia - high school stuff. Don't just come out and say "Rape is permitted in Islam in the same situations that sex is permitted." - and then use as the source for this claim a discussion on ozpolitics in which there is not even any evidence presented that backs up your claim.

Also:

Quote:

Necrophilia is permitted in Islam in the same situations that sex is permitted, with the added restriction that the corpse has to be fresh. The Arab spring gave birth to serious efforts to legalise necrophilia (with a 6 hour time limit) and reduce the age of consent in Egypt. The legislation is currently before parliament.

you need to get rid of this, because this is a known hoax

"serious efforts"  - come on, you've reached a new low there  :-[

Quote:

It is baseless for the case of islamic jurisprudence - which is what you are talking about.

The article encompasses far more than that. It also discusses how Muslims promote Islam outside of Islamic jurisprudence. I can hardly quote some 13th centruy Muslim from India. But I can quote you and Abu.


Quote:

You either have to reference the relevant islamic text yourself, or quote someone who is an authority on islamic text - who themselves quote relevant passages.

No I don't. I am not sure what high school you went to, but we were never expected to defer to religious authority.


Quote:

But not only this, you then need to present the other side - which in the case of Islamic jurisprudence there always is.

No, I don't have to do that either.


Quote:

There is no almost no unanimity amongst islamic scholars

But there was a single Caliph throughout much of Islam's history, which is what really matters. If someone gets stoned to death for blasphemy, does it really matter if some Muslim is mumbling in the background about the merits of the death penatly?


Quote:

Its just stupid, given the huge divisions amongst muslim scholars regarding the sorts of things you talk about, to say islam permits this or that

You should tell Abu these things. He has been telling us exactly what Islam permits and forbids for a few years. He did acknowledge a few minor points of disagreement.


Quote:

"some muslim scholars claim this this and this based on x passage, however, other scholars disagree based on x passage" - or something like that. Thats the correct approach when you obviously have no idea yourself. Don't just come out and say "Rape is permitted in Islam in the same situations that sex is permitted."

I didn't just 'come out and say that'. There are about 50 pages of discussion behind that claim. Hence the links.


Quote:

and then use as the source for this claim a discussion on ozpolitics in which there is not even any evidence presented that backs up your claim

Are you sure about that? Plenty of evidence was posted as part of those discussions. However, the main reason for the discussions is to get over the linguistic difficulties, barriers to communication and the all the subtle ways that Muslims use to mislead or conceal.


Quote:

you need to get rid of this, because it has been shown to be a hoax

Thanks for making a specific recommendation. The wikipedia section you linked to has this at the top: "The article's factual accuracy may be compromised due to out-of-date information."

Also, there is nothing about necrophilia in the faith ratchet article. Are your comments here in reference to the Islam and Australian Value article?

Here is a thread where we were discussing the necrophilia thing. I see it never actually got resolved. Falah posted an article criticising the allegations regarding Egypt (on top of his usual barrage of insults), however it also appeared to concede they may be true.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1310028601

freediver wrote on Jan 6^th, 2013 at 12:57pm:

No I don't. I am not sure what high school you went to, but we were never expected to defer to religious authority.

You have no idea what you are talking about. Islam is a text-based religion, and therefore talking about what islam does and doesn't permit has to have a textual basis. If you are talking about what muslims do in practice, then that is not the same thing, and you need to make the distinction.


Quote:

I didn't just 'come out and say that'. There are about 50 pages of discussion behind that claim. Hence the links.

rubbish. The two "references" you give for the rape claims give nothing of relevance - apart from one claim by a muslim that rape is punishable in islam. Mostly its just you and your buddy islamophobes raving.

Gandalf,

Quote:

you and your buddy islamophobes raving.

Wow - we have a new defender of the faith here.

Maybe you could apply to be moderator & get slaughtered every day like Abu was?  ;D

He hasn't turned up for a month.

Quote:

You have no idea what you are talking about. Islam is a text-based religion, and therefore talking about what islam does and doesn't permit has to have a textual basis. If you are talking about what muslims do in practice, then that is not the same thing, and you need to make the distinction.

Well I still haven't figured out which article you are referring to. The faith ratchet one is about the militant expansionism of the Caliphate, which would put it more in the 'in practice' category. However there are plenty of links with textual references along with interpretation by distingusihed gentlemen if you can be bothered chasing them up.


Quote:

rubbish. The two "references" you give for the rape claims give nothing of relevance

You are confused gandalf. We were talking about necrophilia. If you are going to keep changing the topic, please give a link to which part of the wiki you are referring to. For your convenience, each section has a direct link to it.

freediver wrote on Jan 6^th, 2013 at 1:42pm:

You are confused gandalf. We were talking about necrophilia. If you are going to keep changing the topic, please give a link to which part of the wiki you are referring to. For your convenience, each section has a direct link to it.

To clarify, this is what I'm talking about - direct from the faith ratchet article:

Quote:

Islam uses sex as a weapon both for internal control and for militant expansionism (see rape and love). It creates a slavery - rape and pillage complex [5] that further facilitates the spread of Islam.

as "sources" you linked two threads which has nothing whatsoever of worth - apart from the only muslim in the discussion directly rejecting your claim.

I see. The first two links are actually rape and love. Maybe I need to adjust the fonts so it stands out more. Each of these link to the relevant section in the Islam and Australian values page, which go into detail about Islam's take on the two issues, and also provide links with further explanation from good Muslims such as yourself and Abu.

Unfortunately I was not able to find a quote where Muhammed explicitly laid out his plan to use sex as an empire building tool.

freediver wrote on Jan 6^th, 2013 at 2:16pm:

Unfortunately I was not able to find a quote where Muhammed explicitly laid out his plan to use sex as an empire building tool.

So what is it based on? Do you enjoy just throwing out baseless smears on islam? - shame on you.


Quote:

Each of these link to the relevant section in the Islam and Australian values page, which go into detail about Islam's take on the two issues, and also provide links with further explanation from good Muslims such as yourself and Abu.

Thats funny because in both of the threads you linked on rape Falah makes it quite clear that he doesn't believe islam promotes rape or violence against women. Its funny because all this time you've been arguing that your negative claims about islam only come from muslims like Abu and falah - and that they should be the ones being questioned about the claims, not you. Now we have these same muslims uncategorically rejecting these claims, whats your excuse now?

On the issue of domestic violence, if you were honest you would have opened up with something similar to wikipedia, which says:

Quote:

The relationship between Islam and domestic violence is disputed. Even among Muslims, the uses and interpretations of shari’a, the moral code and religious law of Islam, lack consensus.

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

Stating that islam promotes sexual violence as undisputed fact - and not even provide any evidence for it - just makes you look like a bigot.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 6^th, 2013 at 12:35pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 6th, 2013 at 9:26am: So what actual Muslims say is a baseless source for what Muslims say, or for Islam in general? It is baseless for the case of islamic jurisprudence - which is what you are talking about. You either have to reference the relevant islamic text yourself, or quote someone who is an authority on islamic text - who themselves quote relevant passages. But not only this, you then need to present the other side - which in the case of Islamic jurisprudence there always is. There is almost no unanimity amongst islamic scholars on just about any issue of islamic law, and I can guarantee you that even if there is a scholarly opinion supporting some of these claims of yours, there are other equally valid opinions that disagree.

Exactly so !





e.g.

gandalf,

It is >> ISLAM << which is practised in Saudi Arabia.

It is >> ISLAM << which is practised in Iran.



The fact that those two jurisdiction both claim that they are the sole authority for ISLAMIC jurisprudence is the point.

The 'point' is that each an every moslem has his own opinion about ISLAM.

And anyone who disagrees with >> HIM <<, >> HIS FAMILY <<, >> HIS TRIBE <<, >> HIS SECT <<, >> HIS IMAM <<, is an infidel
.....and deserves to die!

i.e.
I am a rightly guided moslem, and the correct path which ISLAM teaches is not open to debate.
And if you do not believe what i believe, i will kill you, YOU %$$#@ INFIDEL!!




WHICH MEANS THIS, [imagine for a moment that i am moslem "A"];
1/  The differing doctrinal point of view, "XYZ" [which is my p.o.v.], is valid.      [  <---- according to me, because i am a rightly guided moslem "A" !!]
2/  BUT at the same time, every doctrinal differing point of view [e.g. "XYZ"] is invalid.      [ according to 'other' these moslems ----->, "B", "D", "E", "F", "G", "H", "I", "J"....all the way to "Z", and beyond!]







Q.
So who is the REAL, correct moslem ????????????

A.
The REAL and 'rightly guided' moslem, is the moslem who has the ability to successfully silence [i.e. murder] all dissenting voices.

AND THAT, IS HOW ISLAM WORKS.

NOT BY REASON.

BUT BY FORCE OF VIOLENCE.



gandalf,

Is that the world that you want to belong to ?

From my archive;


Quote:

06 May 2007 Mosque violence Tensions boil over after move to replace imam Paul Maley A BITTER factional feud within Canberra's Islamic community has erupted into violence with a leading member being punched repeatedly in the grounds of the mosque at Yarralumla. Secretary of the ACT Islamic Society Kurt Kennedy said he was set upon shortly after announcing the appointment of a new imam to replace the controversial Mohammed Swaiti. He was assaulted while waiting on the mosque grounds for a lift home after announcing Mr Swaiti had been dumped and naming the new imam as Yahya Atay. ......"When our secretary Kurt Kennedy announced ... the new imam will deliver the [Friday speech] before prayer, two people jumped up and grabbed Kurt and pushed him around," he told the Canberra Sunday Times. "They pushed him and wanted to throw him out of the mosque. "Then the imam [Mr Swaiti] started screaming in the middle of the mosque, 'I am the imam of this mosque! I am the imam who will service you people! I will never step down! No one can force me to step down! I will be here until the day I die!"'

http://canberra.yourguide.com.au/detail.asp?class=news&subclass=general&story_id=582042&category=Generali

Listen gandalf,

I AM, a moslem!!!   [honest!       :D    ]

And if you do not believe, what i believe, I AM GOING TO RIGHTEOUSLY KILL YOU!!

Got it ?

So, you better listen up sunshine, because i am the rightly guided moslem, and everyone who has a differing p.o.v. is an infidel.

And it is totally lawful for me to kill you.





That criminal intent [against non-moslems], is promoted and encouraged in the Koran, is clear;

"....Lo! Allah is an enemy to those who reject Faith."
Koran 2.98
COMMENT; Promoting to moslems that 'unbelief' in Allah, is a crime.

"....those who reject Allah have no protector."
Koran 47.008
v. 8-11
COMMENT; Justifying moslem violence against non-moslems.

"...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
COMMENT; Promoting to moslems that fighting against 'unbelievers' is sanctified. And that fighting against 'unbelievers' is 'good works'. Because moslems are told that 'unbelievers' [of Allah] are in league with SATAN. So that, is presented as a justification, for moslems to fight against ALL 'unbelievers'.

And the incitement to violence [against non-moslems] goes on, and on....

Quote:

So what is it based on? Do you enjoy just throwing out baseless smears on islam? - shame on you.

Follow the links gandalf.


Quote:

Thats funny because in both of the threads you linked on rape Falah makes it quite clear that he doesn't believe islam promotes rape or violence against women.

He also said that it is not rape if you have sex with your wife or sex slave without her consent - as I explained in the article. These are the smoke and mirrors I am trying to see through with this. Merely trying to spin it some other way does not actually contradict what the article says.


Quote:

Its funny because all this time you've been arguing that your negative claims about islam only come from muslims like Abu and falah - and that they should be the ones being questioned about the claims, not you.

That's right.


Quote:

Now we have these same muslims uncategorically rejecting these claims, whats your excuse now?

You should look again. It is very categorical. He basically only rejects my interpretation of the facts, not the facts themselves. A bit like you really. The article outlines quite clearly what those facts are, unlike Falah and Abu.


Quote:

On the issue of domestic violence, if you were honest you would have opened up with something similar to wikipedia, which says:

Did you read the entry on domestic violence? It acknowledges the disagreement and the range of views. Acknowledging the reality that women will get beaten while clerics argue over how badly they may be beaten does not mislead in any way.

Yadda wrote on Jan 6^th, 2013 at 5:19pm:

gandalf, Is that the world that you want to belong to ? From my archive; Quote: 06 May 2007 Mosque violence Tensions boil over after move to replace imam Paul Maley A BITTER factional feud within Canberra's Islamic community has erupted into violence with a leading member being punched repeatedly in the grounds of the mosque at Yarralumla. Secretary of the ACT Islamic Society Kurt Kennedy said he was set upon shortly after announcing the appointment of a new imam to replace the controversial Mohammed Swaiti. He was assaulted while waiting on the mosque grounds for a lift home after announcing Mr Swaiti had been dumped and naming the new imam as Yahya Atay. ......"When our secretary Kurt Kennedy announced ... the new imam will deliver the [Friday speech] before prayer, two people jumped up and grabbed Kurt and pushed him around," he told the Canberra Sunday Times. "They pushed him and wanted to throw him out of the mosque. "Then the imam [Mr Swaiti] started screaming in the middle of the mosque, 'I am the imam of this mosque! I am the imam who will service you people! I will never step down! No one can force me to step down! I will be here until the day I die!"' http://canberra.yourguide.com.au/detail.asp?class=news&subclass=general&story_id=582042&category=General

p.s.
the link is now dead, but you may still be able to find a valid reference to it with Google.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 6^th, 2013 at 1:30pm:

you and your buddy islamophobes raving.

It's a phobia of Islamo-phonies

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfJ6FpabknY

freediver wrote on Jan 6^th, 2013 at 5:25pm:

You should look again. It is very categorical. He basically only rejects my interpretation of the facts, not the facts themselves. A bit like you really. The article outlines quite clearly what those facts are, unlike Falah and Abu.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1332074116

scroll down to post #8. Remember this is your one and only "source" for your claim that "Rape is permitted in Islam in the same situations that sex is permitted." (which you link to in your ratchet article).

So on post #8 falah thoroughly and meticulously refutes all your rape claims - not just the marriage one, but also the slave claims.
See he actually quotes the relevant texts, and you had nothing to counter this - and yes I went through and read the entire 4 page thread. You basically gave up on that point. And yet you somehow use this as the one and only "source" for the outrageous claim in your first sentence on the rape chapter.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 7^th, 2013 at 7:13am:

freediver wrote on Jan 6th, 2013 at 5:25pm: You should look again. It is very categorical. He basically only rejects my interpretation of the facts, not the facts themselves. A bit like you really. The article outlines quite clearly what those facts are, unlike Falah and Abu. http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1332074116 scroll down to post #8. Remember this is your one and only "source" for your claim that "Rape is permitted in Islam in the same situations that sex is permitted." (which you link to in your ratchet article). So on post #8 falah thoroughly and meticulously refutes all your rape claims - not just the marriage one, but also the slave claims. See he actually quotes the relevant texts, and you had nothing to counter this - and yes I went through and read the entire 4 page thread. You basically gave up on that point. And yet you somehow use this as the one and only "source" for the outrageous claim in your first sentence on the rape chapter.

gandalf,

Your conclusion is wrong.

Your conclusion is based upon falahs' misrepresenting the information on that matter [i.e. of the issue of having forced sex, with captive women].


Quote:

...And force not your female slaves into sexual service, if they desire chastity... [Quran an-Noor, v.33]

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1332074116/8#8



+++


"Let those who find not the wherewithal for marriage keep themselves chaste, until Allah gives them means out of His grace. And if any of your slaves ask for a deed in writing (to enable them to earn their freedom for a certain sum), give them such a deed if ye know any good in them: yea, give them something yourselves out of the means which Allah has given to you. But force not your maids to prostitution when they desire chastity, in order that ye may make a gain in the goods of this life. But if anyone compels them, yet, after such compulsion, is Allah, Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful (to them),"
Koran 24.33


Koran 24.33,      DOES NOT prohibit 'forcing' a captive female slave [i.e. having non-consensual sex with a with captive women slave].

It says; DO NOT FORCE A CAPTIVE FEMALE SLAVE INTO PROSTITUTION, FOR >> YOUR << OWN MONETARY GAIN.



+++

In ISLAM, Mohammed [and all of his righteous deeds], is the 'gold standard', conduct wise, for other moslems.

Allah himself said, that because Mohammed was an extraordinarily righteous man [in Allah's eyes!], that Mohammed was the example, the type of man that other moslem men were to imitate, in their own deeds.

"Ye have indeed in the Messenger of Allah a beautiful pattern (of conduct) for any one whose hope is in Allah and the Final Day, and who engages much in the Praise of Allah."
Koran 33.21

Google;
good muslim, imitating the sunnah of prophet mohammed






Here is an account of the deeds [the sunnah] of ISLAM's 'prophet' engaged in, from the Hadith;

Mohammed and his companions went on a raiding party.
'and took captive some excellent Arab women',
'and we desired them',
'for we were suffering from the absence of our wives',
'So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them'  [i.e. have non-consensual sex with their captive 'excellent Arab women']
'(but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them.' [i.e. Mohammed's companions intended to sell/ransom their captive 'excellent Arab women' back to their menfolk]


THAT ACCOUNT [OF NON CONSENSUAL SEX BY MOHAMMED AND HIS COMPANIONS] IS SOURCED FROM ISLAMIC TEXTS - THE HADITH

These ISLAMIC texts, below [among others], guide moslems in their daily conduct, in following their faith.

hadith/muslim/ #008.3371
hadith/muwatta/ #029.29.32.95
hadith/muwatta/ #036.36.23.24
hadith/bukhari/ #008.077.600
hadith/bukhari/ #003.046.718
hadith/bukhari/ #005.059.459





+++



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


These Hadith [which are 'sanctified' ISLAMIC] texts are a witness against Mohammed, [and they prove, by any normal reasoning] that Mohammed was altogether, a rapist, a fornicator, and an adulterer.
n.b.
All of these crimes [of Mohammed,] are supposedly punishable in ISLAM.
But Mohammed, Allah's prophet, was protected by Allah's law.

Why so ???

Because stealing the property of non-moslems, and the rape of captive non-moslem women is 'sanctified', BY ALLAH HIMSELF...

"..Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess:..."
Koran 4.22-24

"O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee;..."
Koran 33.50

"those whom your right hands possess" = = female captives, of war.

I don’t understand Freediver’s anti-Muslim cause here. He says it started after reading Abu’s replies and evasions, which is understandable, but it seems to have taken over his life. It’s a phenomenon that blocks out all evidence to the contrary and falls for its own spin.

Having seen the emotions, the lack of reasoning, simple common sense, and the all-out hysteria, I now know how cops could finger the wrong guy. The sense of self-righteousness is strong enough to block out a conscience, and the win-at-all-costs mindset blocks out any sense of proportion.

Facts are distorted or disgarded and replaced with cliques. Contrary evidence is ignored because a judgement is already made - any contrary evidence must be a lie. Anyone who speaks against the ridiculous allegations is defending the criminal, and therefore a criminal themselves.

If you apply this thinking to a society, you can see how huge parts of the population can be purged, falsely convicted and sent to the gulags. This sort of world has its origins in the type of "research" that forms this thread. It’s why checks and balances like fact sourcing, referencing and peer-review are so important. It’s why critical thinking and education are so fundamental to a healthy society.

It’s why calling the bullsh!t every time is so important. If Alan and co get away with it, their power grows. Mind you, they don’t see reason when you call them on their crap. They go straight into defensive mode and spew out more crap.

But it has to be called - that’s what makes our society better than the days of purges and witchunts. It’s what makes us fair.

Yadda wrote on Jan 7^th, 2013 at 9:57am:

gandalf, Your conclusion is wrong. Your conclusion is based upon falahs' misrepresenting the information on that matter

Yadda I'm not making a conclusion about the the factual basis of Falah's claim (though of course he is right). I'm pointing out the intellectual dishonesty (or more accurately, intellectual idiocy) of freediver's anti-islam diatribe, and the inappropriateness of using these anti-islam threads (that he always starts) as sources for his outrageous claims.

The source he used for the rape claim would be appropriate for a statement such as "some muslims reject the legitimacy of rape in islam, and cite several hadith and sunna related to the treatment of women as evidence." He could then go on and cite you, for example, as an illustration of the sorts of non-muslim criticism for that sort of position. The point is, its just absurd to make an article that at least has the impression of being factual and objective, stating as unquestioned facts things that have an enormous amount of dispute even (and especially) amongst muslims themselves. Either way, the way he has sourced that article is simply farcical from an academic point of view, and would be laughed out of a high school classroom.

Quote:

scroll down to post #8. Remember this is your one and only "source" for your claim that "Rape is permitted in Islam in the same situations that sex is permitted.

1) It is not my only source. There are lots of them. The wiki entry goes into more detail, and gives more links.

2) In that post Falah explains that Islam permits both wife beating and spousal rape.


Quote:

So on post #8 falah thoroughly and meticulously refutes all your rape claims

No he doesn't. He merely attempts to put a positive spin on spousal rape. That is not the same thing. What do you think this means gandalf?

If a man says "He does not feel like going out to work and providing for his family" do we accept this?

If a woman refuses sex to her husband then she has wronged him. Afterall, it would cost her nothing to do so.

Try thinking for yourself gandalf. If someone says Islam forbids rape, but also says a wife has no right to deny her husband sex, and cannot give any punishment for spousal rape, then Islam permits rape.

If you disagree with me, perhaps you could tell everyone what the appropriate Islamic punishment is for spousal rape and some examples of Muhammed or his successors punishing people for it?


Quote:

It’s why calling the bullsh!t every time is so important.

OK Karnal, what do you think of the claims that Falah denied that Islam permits spousal rape?

Karnal wrote on Jan 7^th, 2013 at 11:09am:

I don’t understand Freediver’s anti-Muslim cause here. He says it started after reading Abu’s replies and evasions, which is understandable, but it seems to have taken over his life. It’s a phenomenon that blocks out all evidence to the contrary and falls for its own spin.

Yadda holds up a mirror to K.





Quote:

Having seen the emotions, the lack of reasoning, simple common sense, and the all-out hysteria, I now know how cops could finger the wrong guy. The sense of self-righteousness is strong enough to block out a conscience, and the win-at-all-costs mindset blocks out any sense of proportion.

Yadda holds up a mirror to K.





Quote:

Facts are distorted or disgarded and replaced with cliques. Contrary evidence is ignored because a judgement is already made - any contrary evidence must be a lie. Anyone who speaks against the ridiculous allegations is defending the criminal, and therefore a criminal themselves.

Yadda holds up a mirror to K.


K,

When have you ever seriously criticised ISLAM and its criminal and vicious 'ideals' ?

Or is you argument, that the case against ISLAM [i.e. the case that ISLAM is in effect a criminal philosophy], is not proven ?

n.b. what K says.....
".....It’s a phenomenon that blocks out all evidence to the contrary and falls for its own spin."








Quote:

If you apply this thinking to a society, you can see how huge parts of the population can be purged, falsely convicted and sent to the gulags. This sort of world has its origins in the type of "research" that forms this thread. It’s why checks and balances like fact sourcing, referencing and peer-review are so important. It’s why critical thinking and education are so fundamental to a healthy society.

I agree.

And critical thinking and education [which you claim are so fundamental to a healthy society], ARE PRECISELY WHAT ISLAM HAS OUTLAWED.

K, you are a well speaking, .........hypocrite!




Critical thinking?,      ....peer review ?

K,

Who should judge ISLAM ?

1 - - Only moslems ?

2 - - Only an 'entitled' academia ???

3 - - Only those who agree with the 'candied' perceptions of an ignorant majority ???

4 - - Only those with a vested [corrupt] interest in coming to a pre-conceived [self-serving] determination ???

5 - - Only those who agree with YOUR world view ?







Quote:

It’s why calling the bullsh!t every time is so important. If Alan and co get away with it, their power grows. Mind you, they don’t see reason when you call them on their crap. They go straight into defensive mode and spew out more crap.

Yadda holds up a mirror to K.i
Quote:

But it has to be called - that’s what makes our society better than the days of purges and witchunts. It’s what makes us fair.

There is no 'fairness', unless the oppressors and criminals are judged and condemned.

There is no 'fairness', unless the the victims of oppressors and criminals, SEE that their the oppressors are judged and condemned.

Where is the 'fairness' when the mainstream media and a justice system turn away from what is true, so as to >> UNFAIRLY << protect a favoured criminal minority, because they claim to belong to a religion ?i+++



K, got any inanities which you now want to post ????




OBSERVATION;
If you defeat K's argument in debate [with logic], K will always revert to responding with absurdities.




Quote:

K is capable of presenting a reasonable argument, and engaging in reasoned debate. But what you must understand about K and his debating style, is that if you defeat K's argument in debate [by presenting a fact supported counter argument], K will never cleanly concede [by acknowledgement, or, with his silence] that you have defeated his argument. Of course, K would try present another counter argument, to try to defeat your argument, if he could. But unable to defeat your argument with sound reason [or with supporting facts] K will then, ALWAYS, resort to responding with absurdities. ....With K, it seems to be an ego 'defence mechanism'. Defeat K's argument, and all he has left is inane reply,  ....which is intended to deflect [and discredit] the thrust of your own reasoned argument.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1356906751/62#62

freediver wrote on Jan 7^th, 2013 at 12:30pm:

Try thinking for yourself gandalf. If someone says Islam forbids rape, but also says a wife has no right to deny her husband sex, and cannot give any punishment for spousal rape, then Islam permits rape.

Firstly, please quote Falah saying the husband cannot be given any punishment for spousal rape. Secondly, you have fallen for one of the most common fallacies about islam: refusing sex by the woman is a sin, therefore a man has the right to rape his wife. Right?

No.

The two do not follow. One sin does not justify another. If the man feels wronged by his wife refusing sex, there is a proper procedure to go through, and it most definitely does not include raping his wife. Actually Falah put it best in the thread you used as "proof" of islam's sanction of rape:


Quote:

The beating is considered a last resort in he case of a rebellious wife, and requires leaving the marital bed beforehand. So obviously, it is not a tool to force women to have sex, because a condition for beaing the wife is to leave the marital bed.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1332074116/8#8

Maybe you could do what I did and actually quote what he says, rather than just make poo up.

But this is of course missing the point. Even if some anonymous dude on the internet called Falah came out and said "I am a muslim, and I say rape is a-ok in islam", is that proof for a claim like "rape is permitted in islam"? Of course not. Even if it did have a textual basis, why would you take some anonymous guy on the internet as the ultimate authority on islam? Its almost as stupid as you making a claim in your wiki article, and then using the same claim made by freediver in a thread on ozpolitics as the definitive proof of that claim  :D

Quote:

Firstly, please quote Falah saying the husband cannot be given any punishment for spousal rape.

No problem gandalf. See I have this handy wiki where I have documented these things. Otherwise people like you and Falah pretend you never said these things (yes it did happen many times, and was the reason I started the wiki articles). As it turns out, despite going to extraordinary lengths to accuse me of lying and pretend that Islam does not permit spousal rape, he did at one stage admit to it:


falah wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 12:16pm:

Forced sex in marriage is not a punishable offence in Islam.

As a gesture of good faith, I have updated the wiki entry on rape so that this is the first link after the reference to spousal rape.

Do you understand now why I don't take his hyperbole seriously, and why i am so skeptical when both you and he 'strongly imply' something without actually saying it?


Quote:

Secondly, you have fallen for one of the most common fallacies about islam: refusing sex by the woman is a sin, therefore a man has the right to rape his wife. Right?

Apparently Falah fell for this also.

If a woman refuses sex to her husband then she has wronged him. Afterall, it would cost her nothing to do so.


Quote:

Actually Falah put it best in the thread you used as "proof" of islam's sanction of rape:

Sure he put it 'nicely', but he did not actually say it, did he? What he actually said was that beating your wife is not the appropriate way to force her into having sex with you, because Islam requires you to leave the bed before beating her. Noice.


Quote:

Maybe you could do what I did and actually quote what he says, rather than just make poo up.

I have already. The italics above is from the post #8 you referred to.


Quote:

But this is of course missing the point. Even if some anonymous dude on the internet called Falah came out and said "I am a muslim, and I say rape is a-ok in islam"

I have not seen Abu contradict him. I think he may have even backed Falah up. Now that you mention it, I do not think you have directly contradicted him either. You have gone to great lengths to insult me and create the impression that you believe me to be wrong and to criticise me on 'procedural' issues, but you are yet to state clearly that Islam does in fact punish spousal rape. Funny that. A skeptical person might be lead to believe you are deliberately trying to deceive me.


Quote:

Even if it did have a textual basis, why would you take some anonymous guy on the internet as the ultimate authority on islam?

His name is Falah. I have discussed the issue at length with several Muslims, hence the wiki entry with links to several discussions. In my opinion this is a far more valuable resource, because of all the subtle ways you can mislead people with brief statements (and in your case, lengthy diatribes - well done for not directly addressing the issue yourself). Your own unwillingness to give a straight answer on the issue reassures me that I am on the right track.

Is any of this sinking in Karnal?

Not here it’s not. He’s saying wife raping isn’t permitted.

You’re saying it is because there’s no defined punishment for it.

Falah was saying, why would you beat your wife under Islamic law? You’d have to divorce her.

You’re saying every Muslim wants to beat his wives, or whatever. I forget.

It’s just he-said-she-said with you placing your own spin on it. I’m with Gandalf. Post proper evidence. You’re intelligent. Use your mind for good.

I’m not pro-Islam, I’m anti-knucklehead. For some reason, a normally bright guy is prepared to gi e up all reason to become an inquisidor.

I don’t get it.

Karnal wrote on Jan 7^th, 2013 at 11:09am:

Facts are distorted or discarded and replaced with cliches. Contrary evidence is ignored because a judgement is already made - any contrary evidence must be a lie. Anyone who speaks against the ridiculous allegations is defending the criminal, and therefore a criminal themselves.

Indeed. Pat Condell is saying the same thing (says it better, but it's the same thing).
It is your racism, Karnal, that holds back the tinted races, Palestinians uppermost among them.
You are a racist, PB, like Foucault and Said and millions of other doctors' wives like them and like you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzCIckbZKUs

Thanks for the Falah quote. It is curious because he directly contradicts himself in the same post and also in the post I quoted earlier, when he said:


Quote:

Not harming one’s wife is one of the basic principles of Islam. Because harming others is forbidden in the case of strangers, it is even more so in the case of harming one’s wife.

I'm not sure how anyone could construe forced sex as "not harming one's wife", but there you go.

Personally I reject out of hand that strange statement - simply because I agree with his other sentiments that directly contradict that assertion. And I am not alone amongst muslims in holding this opinion. Many discussions reiterate the same. But of course you won't be using these alternative (mainstream) opinions for your sources, let alone the opinions of actual islamic scholars. Far more authoritative is some confused kid on the internet  :D


freediver wrote on Jan 7^th, 2013 at 7:34pm:

Apparently Falah fell for this also. If a woman refuses sex to her husband then she has wronged him. Afterall, it would cost her nothing to do so.

what? How is this quote proving this?? Twisting words again I see. Or more likely completely misunderstanding the point.

yes - refusing sex is wrong (interestingly enough for *BOTH* husband and wife) - but that in no way gives the husband a free pass to force his wife - irrespective of the confused and contradictory claims by some random muslim kid. No one, least of all you, has presented any evidence saying otherwise.


freediver wrote on Jan 7^th, 2013 at 7:34pm:

you are yet to state clearly that Islam does in fact punish spousal rape.

Well I'm not really au fait with the domestic violence laws of specific muslim countries, but thats hardly the point. *YOU* were the one that made the claim that islam permits rape with not a shred of evidence (and no, we'll dispense as "evidence" the contradictory say-so of an individual muslim), so its up to you to substantiate it. What I *HAVE* referred you to, is several quotes from hadith and quran that clearly state that abuse of women is off limits.

Quote:

Not here it’s not. He’s saying wife raping isn’t permitted.

Can you 'interpret' this for me?

Forced sex in marriage is not a punishable offence in Islam.


Quote:

You’re saying it is because there’s no defined punishment for it.

He is not merely saying that the punishment is not defined. He is saying it is not punishable. Can you tell the difference? I realise the politically correct interpretation is to assume he means that Shariah law forbids spousal rape and punishes it appropriately, but what do you think he is actually saying?


Quote:

Falah was saying, why would you beat your wife under Islamic law? You’d have to divorce her.

I don't believe he said that either.


Quote:

It’s just he-said-she-said with you placing your own spin on it. I’m with Gandalf. Post proper evidence. You’re intelligent. Use your mind for good.

He said what he believes in plain English. "Forced sex in marriage is not a punishable offence in Islam." Every other time he appeared to contradict this, he did not actually contradict it. I am not sure what higher standard there can be for what Falah believes. Why are you going to such absurd lengths to interpret it to mean something else? It is not like there is any ambiguity to the statement.


Quote:

I’m not pro-Islam, I’m anti-knucklehead.

What about the truth karnal? How do you feel about that? Would you lie in order to wage jihad on 'knuckleheads'?



gandalf:



Quote:

Thanks for the Falah quote. It is curious because he directly contradicts himself in the same post and also in the post I quoted earlier, when he said:

That's what I thought at first too. Perhaps he does not see rape as harmful? In another thread he described sexual slavery as liberating for the victim.


Quote:

I'm not sure how anyone could construe forced sex as "not harming one's wife", but there you go.

It is the wifes duty. There are plenty of threads where he has argued that having sex costs her nothing as well as being her duty, so why would she deny this to her husband?


Quote:

Personally I reject out of hand that strange statement - simply because I agree with his other sentiments that directly contradict that assertion. And I am not alone amongst muslims in holding this opinion.

Of course you reject it out of hand. But I would still be interested to know your views on Islamic law on this matter. After all that is the main issue here - not how you or Falah personally feel about it. Falah obviously feels a fair bit of cognitive dissonance too, hence he tirades of abuse.


Quote:

But of course you won't be using these alternative (mainstream) opinions for your sources

I have asked you a few times already in this thread what your view is. That would be a good place to start.


Quote:

let alone the opinions of actual islamic scholars. Far more authoritative is some confused kid on the internet

I encourage you to use such sources in forming your own opinion regarding Islamic law. My interest is what Muslims believe Islam to be, not a spiritual quest to uncover the secrets of Islamic wife beating.


Quote:

yes - refusing sex is wrong (interestingly enough for *BOTH* husband and wife) - but that in no way gives the husband a free pass to force his wife

I see. I thought you were referring to the bit about it being a sin to refuse sex, rather than to the source of the permissibility of spousal rape. I stand corrected. Just out of interest, is there a punishment for committing such a sin? For example, is this one of the Islamic justifications for wife beating? Having to leave the marital bed first is not actually an argument against this.


Quote:

Well I'm not really au fait with the domestic violence laws of specific muslim countries

Are you familiar with Abu's 'Islam does not exist' retort? I feel a bit silly using it myself, but here you go:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Deception_of_Non-Muslims#Islam_doesn.27t_exist


Quote:

*YOU* were the one that made the claim that islam permits rape with not a shred of evidence

You say this in every single post Falah. I respond in every post and explain why this is not the case. Simply repeating yourself is not a rational counterargument. Instead it gives the impression that your interest here is spin rather than truth.


Quote:

(and no, we'll dispense as "evidence" the contradictory say-so of an individual muslim)

1) Falah does not actually contradict himself. He goes to some length to explain his views.

2) See above


Quote:

What I *HAVE* referred you to, is several quotes from hadith and quran that clearly state that abuse of women is off limits.

And Falah has explained that wife beating is not abuse. Obviously I disagree with him, but they are his views and you are yet to contradict them. I am hardly going to go on a guru hunt when there is no apparent disagreement among Muslims on this forum.

Soren wrote on Jan 7^th, 2013 at 9:03pm:

Karnal wrote on Jan 7th, 2013 at 11:09am: Facts are distorted or discarded and replaced with cliches. Contrary evidence is ignored because a judgement is already made - any contrary evidence must be a lie. Anyone who speaks against the ridiculous allegations is defending the criminal, and therefore a criminal themselves. Indeed. Pat Condell is saying the same thing (says it better, but it's the same thing). It is your racism, Karnal, that holds back the tinted races, Palestinians uppermost among them. You are a racist, PB, like Foucault and Said and millions of other doctors' wives like them and like you. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzCIckbZKUs

I love it. Someone who un-self consciously uses the term "tinted races" points the ugly stick.

Quite right, old chap. Anyway, we doctor’s wives are allowed to be racist. We care, you see.

You cheese-dealers can use the tradesmen’s entrance along with the other common types. By appointment only, thanks. Hawkers and canvassers not allowed.

keeping it short:

1. I didn't enter this discussion with the intention of proving anything about islamic jurisprudence, but rather to point out that *YOUR* claims contained in the wiki articles are baseless and outrageous.

2. I have given my opinion on what islamic law says about spousal rape and rape in general - ie it is strictly forbidden. Why you would sit there and claim I have refused to give it is just bizarre.

3. Of course Falah contradicts himself when he says there is no punishment for spousal rape - then in the same breath says abuse of women is strictly forbidden (and therefore presumably requires punishment). Are you seriously suggesting spousal rape is not a form of abuse?

4. I'd be careful with casually referencing arabic words that you don't fully understand the meaning of. My understanding is that the word that has been translated as "beating" actually has no English equivalent. From what I can gather, the word is roughly equivalent to when you poke someone with your finger as a form of extremely mild admonishment - or in this case poking with something similar to a toothbrush. What is clear is that it is not supposed to bruise or even hurt. It seems quite disingenuous to label this a "beating" as we understand the word.

Quote:

1. I didn't enter this discussion with the intention of proving anything about islamic jurisprudence, but rather to point out that *YOUR* claims contained in the wiki articles are baseless and outrageous.

You left out 'correct'.


Quote:

2. I have given my opinion on what islamic law says about spousal rape and rape in general - ie it is strictly forbidden. Why you would sit there and claim I have refused to give it is just bizarre.

You said you rejected it out of hand. I assumed this meant not out of knowledge of what Islamic law actually is. You certainly haven't met the standard of evidence you are demanding of me.


Quote:

3. Of course Falah contradicts himself when he says there is no punishment for spousal rape - then in the same breath says abuse of women is strictly forbidden (and therefore presumably requires punishment). Are you seriously suggesting spousal rape is not a form of abuse?

No. Rather, I am suggesting that Falah suggests this.


Quote:

4. I'd be careful with casually referencing arabic words that you don't fully understand the meaning of.

Of course. Abu uses this trick as well.


Quote:

My understanding is that the word that has been translated as "beating" actually has no English equivalent. From what I can gather, the word is roughly equivalent to when you poke someone with your finger as a form of extremely mild admonishment - or in this case poking with something similar to a toothbrush. What is clear is that it is not supposed to bruise or even hurt. It seems quite disingenuous to label this a "beating" as we understand the word.

Can you epxlain why Muhammed pardoned a man who beat his wife until her skin was green with bruises? I think it was Abu who described the intent of the beating as a form of motivational humiliation rather than to inflict pain. Makes you feel all warm and fuzzy doesn't it?

Freediver, your wiki smacks of your contempt of Islam and Muslims. I have no problem with that in itself - you have made it repeatedly clear how you feel about it often enough. The thing is, the articles contain false information that you are too lazy to actually check the validity of yourself. There is a wealth of information out there, yet you choose to selectively reference two members of your board who make no claim to Islamic scholarship. If that wasn't bad enough, you twist their words to suit the purposes of your own beliefs. Have you ever thought of just reading the Quran youself?

Why ask questions about something that you're already staunchly opposed to believing anything positive of? You are a close-minded anti- Islam propagandist who perpetuates lies and misinformation on the platform you've built for yourself. It's your right, I guess - this is after all your stage - but it's pretty sad and ugly. The ignorants read the wikis you put so much effort into and believe them. And that sucks for the people who are at the receiving end of their (and your) bigotry.

freediver wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 12:46pm:

You said you rejected it out of hand. I assumed this meant not out of knowledge of what Islamic law actually is. You certainly haven't met the standard of evidence you are demanding of me.

No I specifically referred to the quranic and hadith references in Falah's own posts - this gives more than enough evidence of islam's position on rape and the treatment of women. In fact, I even said I rejected out of hand Falah's claim because of the quranic and hadith references he cites.


freediver wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 12:46pm:

Can you epxlain why Muhammed pardoned a man who beat his wife until her skin was green with bruises? I think it was Abu who described the intent of the beating as a form of motivational humiliation rather than to inflict pain. Makes you feel all warm and fuzzy doesn't it?

I am not familiar with this story. Please provide me with a link and I will do your research on it for you.


Annie Anthrax wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 2:16pm:

Freediver, your wiki smacks of your contempt of Islam and Muslims. I have no problem with that in itself - you have made it repeatedly clear how you feel about it often enough. The thing is, the articles contain false information that you are too lazy to actually check the validity of yourself. There is a wealth of information out there, yet you choose to selectively reference two members of your board who make no claim to Islamic scholarship. If that wasn't bad enough, you twist their words to suit the purposes of your own beliefs. Have you ever thought of just reading the Quran youself? Why ask questions about something that you're already staunchly opposed to believing anything positive of? You are a close-minded anti- Islam propagandist who perpetuates lies and misinformation on the platform you've built for yourself. It's your right, I guess - this is after all your stage - but it's pretty sad and ugly. The ignorants read the wikis you put so much effort into and believe them. And that sucks for the people who are at the receiving end of their (and your) bigotry.

Spot on. Couldn't have put it better myself  [smiley=thumbsup.gif]

Karnal wrote on Jan 7^th, 2013 at 10:37pm:

Anyway, we doctor’s wives are allowed to be racist.

Ah, so you are a muslim lady, after all....

Dr Mohamed, I presume.

Quote:

Freediver, your wiki smacks of your contempt of Islam and Muslims. I have no problem with that in itself - you have made it repeatedly clear how you feel about it often enough. The thing is, the articles contain false information that you are too lazy to actually check the validity of yourself. There is a wealth of information out there, yet you choose to selectively reference two members of your board who make no claim to Islamic scholarship. If that wasn't bad enough, you twist their words to suit the purposes of your own beliefs. Have you ever thought of just reading the Quran youself?

Apparently you have to learn to speak arabic and take classes in the fine art of abrogation and other techniques of 'interpretation' for it to make any sense. In any case, my interest is not what I interpret Islam to be. My interest is in what Muslims interpret Islam to be. In particular, my main reason for starting the wiki entry was to provide links every time Abu, Falah, Malik, gandalf etc claim they did not say something that they previously said. It happened so often that it became easier to put together those wiki entries than to attempt to search for the rare straight answers they gave every time they tried to change their tune. They would basically have a conversation that would end up making Islam look very bad. Then they would repeat the same conversation in a few weeks, this time being a bit more savvy about what they say, and insist that the previous discussion did not even exist. That it is a useful collection of all the ways that Islam conflicts with Australian values is an added bonus.

So far everyone who insists it has false information ends up backpeddaling or conceding that they cannot contradict it. I don't expect any different from you.


Quote:

Why ask questions about something that you're already staunchly opposed to believing anything positive of? You are a close-minded anti- Islam propagandist who perpetuates lies and misinformation on the platform you've built for yourself.

If you read my earlier posts you will see that that is clearly not true. I actually sounded a lot like you when Abu and Malik first turned up. My views on Islam were shaped by talking to Muslims.


Quote:

The ignorants read the wikis you put so much effort into and believe them.

What is wrong with that? After all they are true.


Quote:

No I specifically referred to the quranic and hadith references in Falah's own posts - this gives more than enough evidence of islam's position on rape and the treatment of women.

Yes, and Falah presented them as evidence for his own position and explained how they support his own position. You can hardly expect me to accept your interpretation that they also contradict his position - especially given the fact that they do not contradict his position. Perhaps it would help if you focussed on what is actually said rather than perceived intent.


Quote:

I am not familiar with this story. Please provide me with a link and I will do your research on it for you.

This is probably the best reference I have:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1285753174/105#105

I remember there was a lot of discussion about that particular issue, but that was the only thread I could find where it got a response.

Annie Anthrax wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 2:16pm:

Freediver, your wiki smacks of your contempt of Islam and Muslims. I have no problem with that in itself - you have made it repeatedly clear how you feel about it often enough. The thing is, the articles contain false information that you are too lazy to actually check the validity of yourself. There is a wealth of information out there, yet you choose to selectively reference two members of your board who make no claim to Islamic scholarship. If that wasn't bad enough, you twist their words to suit the purposes of your own beliefs. Have you ever thought of just reading the Quran youself? Why ask questions about something that you're already staunchly opposed to believing anything positive of? You are a close-minded anti- Islam propagandist who perpetuates lies and misinformation on the platform you've built for yourself. It's your right, I guess - this is after all your stage - but it's pretty sad and ugly. The ignorants read the wikis you put so much effort into and believe them.

Do you think? If only.

The ignorants have as much interest as anyone else.

When Freediver writes something useful and positive, I’ll be the first to read and enjoy it.

At the moment though, the only person reading Freediver’s self indulgent rants is Freediver. I gave it a go - alas, I’d rather read an algebra textbook for all the sense it makes to me.

Maybe there are specialist anti-Muslim enthusiasts out there who love this sort of stuff, I don’t know.

I think you need to be Freediver to see the value in this one.

Quote:

Apparently you have to learn to speak arabic and take classes in the fine art of abrogation and other techniques of 'interpretation' for it to make any sense. In any case, my interest is not what I interpret Islam to be. My interest is in what Muslims interpret Islam to be. In particular, my main reason for starting the wiki entry was to provide links every time Abu, Falah, Malik, gandalf etc claim they did not say something that they previously said.

On the surface, that sounds very reasonable. But you're making two important mistakes. The first is the manner in which you try to gather information. Your debate style is to ask a question, then when you receive a reply you take tiny pieces out of context and use them to twist the general answer you've been given. Is your goal to trip people up and 'win' the argument or is it to find out what Muslims think? If it's the latter, you're doing yourself a disservice when you disregard the body of the post to try to find something objectionable. Surely you know how important context is. When you deliberately misinterpret things people say, it makes them frustrated and then you get personal emotional responses that have nothing to do with what the broader Muslim population believe.

And that leads right on to the second problem. The Muslim community is diverse. They believe different things - perhaps because of that interpretation thing you speak of, but more likely down to ahadith, which we've spoken of before. You don't acknowledge this in your wiki that I have seen.



Quote:

So far everyone who insists it has false information ends up backpeddaling or conceding that they cannot contradict it. I don't expect any different from you.

What's the point? Will you change the wiki if provided with evidence that contradicts it? No...you just have that disclaimer saying the information may be out of date. That's a cop out. I approached you about misinformation in your wiki and you ignored it. Why would I bother again if you're not going to correct it?

At the very least, you should clarify that the info in your wiki is the opinion of a few Muslims that you have debated with, may be factually incorrect and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the general Muslim population.

Annie Anthrax wrote on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 10:35am:

[quote] On the surface, that sounds very reasonable. But you're making two important mistakes. The first is the manner in which you try to gather information. Your debate style is to ask a question, then when you receive a reply you take tiny pieces out of context and use them to twist the general answer you've been given. Is your goal to trip people up and 'win' the argument or is it to find out what Muslims think? If it's the latter, you're doing yourself a disservice when you disregard the body of the post to try to find something objectionable. Surely you know how important context is. When you deliberately misinterpret things people say, it makes them frustrated and then you get personal emotional responses that have nothing to do with what the broader Muslim population believe.

There may be something in that - or as you put it, on the surface, that sounds very reasonable.

But there is a central element to the debate between Muslims and non-Muslims and that is the notion of context itself.

For Muslims like Abu and Falah et al, Islam is the context as well as the topic. For FD et al, Islam is the topic but most definitely not the context. So when someone who rejects Islam's credibility or harmlessness responds to a Muslim's point about Islam (made in the context of being Muslim, Islamic), it will always be out of context as far as the Muslim party is concerned. The point was made in the context of Islam but is taken outside that context (in the different context of secularity or Christianity or whatever, also rejected by the Muslim himself. )

Speaking for myself, my central motivation is to undermine and reject the Islamic mindset that is evident in the actions and utterances of Muslims and their apologists who do act and speak in the context of Islam. They speak out of a context that is, to their minds, credible, noble, benevolent, desirable. Not for me, however.   I do not want Islam to become my context because I think it is incredible, malevolent, repulsive.

It's a clash of contexts. The only possible way of coming closer together is if both sides speak out of a different, neutral context. So a Muslim and a non-Muslim can be great team mates or work mates or the like.

When speaking about religion and politics (with Islam it's the same, being a 'whole way of life'), the two sides could come together only if Islam itself was de-contextualised - which is not something devout Muslims will do, so this option is out.

So we have a coupla of universally recognised great Muslim footy players but no universally recognised great Muslim thinkers.

Soren, there is much positive, civil interfaith dialogue happening all over the world involving Muslim thinkers (universally recognised or not). Of course it is possible for Muslims to discuss Islamic principles within the context of secularism or democracy etc. There needn't be a "clash" of contexts if there is a mutual respect and a genuine desire for understanding.

The problem with the majority of Muslims is their inability to answer strong criticism of Islam without having an emotional meltdown as shown by the reaction to the film last year, the cartoons, etc. I was reading about the Rushdie affair today and one of the women that orchestrated the protests was saying that, retrospectively, she is ashamed of the demands they made ..that she found them embarrassing looking back.

I don't have any answers about how to get past those emotional reactions and the problems they cause. I haven't yet thought deeply enough about their cause. I know it's gotten understandably worse since 9/11 -by worse I mean it's become a broader problem within the general Muslim population, but still, by no means universal.



Quote:

I do not want Islam to become my context because I think it is incredible, malevolent, repulsive.

Who has attempted to make Islam your context?

freediver wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 7:06pm:

Quote: Freediver, your wiki smacks of your contempt of Islam and Muslims. I have no problem with that in itself - you have made it repeatedly clear how you feel about it often enough. The thing is, the articles contain false information that you are too lazy to actually check the validity of yourself. There is a wealth of information out there, yet you choose to selectively reference two members of your board who make no claim to Islamic scholarship. If that wasn't bad enough, you twist their words to suit the purposes of your own beliefs. Have you ever thought of just reading the Quran youself? Apparently you have to learn to speak arabic and take classes in the fine art of abrogation and other techniques of 'interpretation' for it to make any sense.

Yes, FD, Believe it or not, there are people doing classes in Bible study too. There are Christians studying Biblical Greek, Jews studying Hebrew, Hindus and Buddhists studying Sanskrit and Pali.

I'd say it's imperative. If you want to understand religious texts, you need to have some knowledge about the language and context in which they were written.

You shouldn't need to to get the main gist - but if you want a deeper understanding, you'd want to. Some texts contain very little of the original meaning in the translation.

Annie Anthrax wrote on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 11:22am:

The problem with the majority of Muslims is their inability to answer strong criticism of Islam without having an emotional meltdown as shown by the reaction to the film last year, the cartoons, etc.

Fair point, and as a muslim I accept we need to grow up and 'take it on the chin' much better. I wouldn't say however  that the 'emotional meltdown' we saw over the film in any way encompassed the majority of muslims. What I saw was a fairly small bunch of Lebanese in Sydney acting like idiots - who we know have their own history with poverty and unemployment. What I also saw was strong condemnation amongst muslim leaders, as well as muslim commentators such as Waleed Ali.

But this is not just about the muslims. Non-muslims need to play their part as well. And that includes not being tunnel visioned about how muslims behave, and attribute the actions of a minority to the majority. Again, the film protests are a good example: everyone thinks of the unfortunate behaviour of some thugs in Sydney, but seem to forget the unambiguous and unanimous condemnation from the country's muslim leadership. This is particularly annoying when one of the most common cries of islam's critics is "the mainstream never condemn the extremists".

Annie Anthrax wrote on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 11:22am:

Of course it is possible for Muslims to discuss Islamic principles within the context of secularism or democracy etc.

I do not think so. This is like saying that it is possible for me to critically discuss democratic, secular principles from a Muslim/Islamic perspective (ie thinking like a Muslim). But I could not look at secular, democratic principles from a Muslim perspective as I think it is an untenable position.

Annie Anthrax wrote on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 11:22am:

The problem with the majority of Muslims is their inability to answer strong criticism of Islam without having an emotional meltdown as shown by the reaction to the film last year, the cartoons, etc.

No wonder - it is against Islam to criticise Islam.

How could they accept strong criticism of it without experiencing cognitive meltdown?

Soren, muslims can and do accept criticism. You just choose not to notice it, preferring instead to focus only on the minority who can't accept it.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 12:19pm:

Annie Anthrax wrote on Jan 9th, 2013 at 11:22am: The problem with the majority of Muslims is their inability to answer strong criticism of Islam without having an emotional meltdown as shown by the reaction to the film last year, the cartoons, etc. Fair point, and as a muslim I accept we need to grow up and 'take it on the chin' much better. I wouldn't say however  that the 'emotional meltdown' we saw over the film in any way encompassed the majority of muslims. What I saw was a fairly small bunch of Lebanese in Sydney acting like idiots - who we know have their own history with poverty and unemployment. What I also saw was strong condemnation amongst muslim leaders, as well as muslim commentators such as Waleed Ali. But this is not just about the muslims. Non-muslims need to play their part as well. And that includes not being tunnel visioned about how muslims behave, and attribute the actions of a minority to the majority. Again, the film protests are a good example: everyone thinks of the unfortunate behaviour of some thugs in Sydney, but seem to forget the unambiguous and unanimous condemnation from the country's muslim leadership. This is particularly annoying when one of the most common cries of islam's critics is "the mainstream never condemn the extremists".

Muslims and Islam are unattractive. Transgressions by unattractive people and doctrines are not easily forgiven. Contrast that with, say, rock and roll. A corrosive, stupid thing, too, yes, but done by atrractive people  - and now it's mainstream, even heard as musak in lifts and at Lowes.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 12:19pm:

Annie Anthrax wrote on Jan 9th, 2013 at 11:22am: The problem with the majority of Muslims is their inability to answer strong criticism of Islam without having an emotional meltdown as shown by the reaction to the film last year, the cartoons, etc. Fair point, and as a muslim I accept we need to grow up and 'take it on the chin' much better. I wouldn't say however  that the 'emotional meltdown' we saw over the film in any way encompassed the majority of muslims. What I saw was a fairly small bunch of Lebanese in Sydney acting like idiots - who we know have their own history with poverty and unemployment. What I also saw was strong condemnation amongst muslim leaders, as well as muslim commentators such as Waleed Ali.

Hi Gandalf :) I was not just talking about the protests. Most Muslims I know seemed personally offended by the film, even if they condemned the protests themselves.

I have read the Aly article before. I didn't like it because I thought it was overly harsh. I usually appreciate his commentary, but this time it felt like he sold out - that his main intention was to distance himself from the furor by insulting the general Muslim population.


Quote:

But this is not just about the muslims. Non-muslims need to play their part as well. And that includes not being tunnel visioned about how muslims behave, and attribute the actions of a minority to the majority. Again, the film protests are a good example: everyone thinks of the unfortunate behaviour of some thugs in Sydney, but seem to forget the unambiguous and unanimous condemnation from the country's muslim leadership. This is particularly annoying when one of the most common cries of islam's critics is "the mainstream never condemn the extremists".

I couldn't agree more. I said the emotional sensitivity has gotten understandably worse - this is a direct result of Western attitudes toward Muslims. This is no more a universal attitude than the violent one attributed to Muslims, but like the voices of the extremist Muslim fringe, it's loud and penetrating.

Only when we tune out the voices of extremists on both sides will we make any significant progress toward harmony - within Australia and throughout the world. While I believe everyone has the right to be heard, the focus needs to shift.

Soren wrote on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 12:22pm:

Annie Anthrax wrote on Jan 9th, 2013 at 11:22am: Of course it is possible for Muslims to discuss Islamic principles within the context of secularism or democracy etc. I do not think so. This is like saying that it is possible for me to critically discuss democratic, secular principles from a Muslim/Islamic perspective (ie thinking like a Muslim). But I could not look at secular, democratic principles from a Muslim perspective as I think it is an untenable position.

You won't (not can't) look at things from a different perspective because your mind is closed to it. Not everyone is so willfully unbendable. I discussed secular principles fom a Muslim perspective when I was a Muslim and I can discuss Islamic principles in what I hope is an objective way from a non-Muslim point of view now.

Soren wrote on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 12:29pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 9th, 2013 at 12:19pm: Annie Anthrax wrote on Jan 9th, 2013 at 11:22am: The problem with the majority of Muslims is their inability to answer strong criticism of Islam without having an emotional meltdown as shown by the reaction to the film last year, the cartoons, etc. Fair point, and as a muslim I accept we need to grow up and 'take it on the chin' much better. I wouldn't say however  that the 'emotional meltdown' we saw over the film in any way encompassed the majority of muslims. What I saw was a fairly small bunch of Lebanese in Sydney acting like idiots - who we know have their own history with poverty and unemployment. What I also saw was strong condemnation amongst muslim leaders, as well as muslim commentators such as Waleed Ali. But this is not just about the muslims. Non-muslims need to play their part as well. And that includes not being tunnel visioned about how muslims behave, and attribute the actions of a minority to the majority. Again, the film protests are a good example: everyone thinks of the unfortunate behaviour of some thugs in Sydney, but seem to forget the unambiguous and unanimous condemnation from the country's muslim leadership. This is particularly annoying when one of the most common cries of islam's critics is "the mainstream never condemn the extremists". Muslims and Islam are unattractive. Transgressions by unattractive people and doctrines are not easily forgiven. Contrast that with, say, rock and roll. A corrosive, stupid thing, too, yes, but done by atrractive people  - and now it's mainstream, even heard as musak in lifts and at Lowes.

Far out, Soren. That is ridiculous.

Annie Anthrax wrote on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 12:47pm:

Soren wrote on Jan 9th, 2013 at 12:29pm: Muslims and Islam are unattractive. Transgressions by unattractive people and doctrines are not easily forgiven. Contrast that with, say, rock and roll. A corrosive, stupid thing, too, yes, but done by atrractive people  - and now it's mainstream, even heard as musak in lifts and at Lowes. Far out, Soren. That is ridiculous.

Look into your heart. Whose company would you prefer.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/09/14/article-2203129-1502BEE8000005DC-81_964x641.jpg

http://www.liverpoolconfidential.co.uk/i/JKM/55JO_H.jpg

Soren wrote on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 10:59am:

[quote author=Natalie link=1357182115/43#43 date=1357691750][quote] But there is a central element to the debate between Muslims and non-Muslims and that is the notion of context itself. For Muslims like Abu and Falah et al, Islam is the context as well as the topic. For FD et al, Islam is the topic but most definitely not the context. So when someone who rejects Islam's credibility or harmlessness responds to a Muslim's point about Islam (made in the context of being Muslim, Islamic), it will always be out of context as far as the Muslim party is concerned.

True, old boy. It's the same in Christianity. I know some Hillsong Pentecostals. They believe you don't properly understand the Bible without receiving the Holy Spirit first. For them, the Bible can't be read as intended (i.e, as the Word of God) without "committing your life to Jesus". 

What they mean by this is committing your life to Jesus and then taking a number of Hillsong classes in how to understand the Bible better. As you do this, you "grow in the Spirit" and your understanding of the Word of God increases. You receive "revelation" directly through the "Spirit". Some even speak in tongues.

Thanks to the Holy Spirit, you come to understand all the Hillsong teachings on subjects as wide-ranging as the correct roles of husbands and wives in marriage, the evils of homosexuality, the lies spread by the global warming crowd, and the correct role of government in providing a defence force, a police force, jails, and no more. You understand these things through "divine revelation". You might have a vision, or receive someone else's tongues. Such is the power of the Word of God.

As demons are banished from your life, God inspires you to dress better, wear the same makeup as the other girls, and use similar language such as "awesome", "cool" and "all good". Before long, the material world gravitates to the power of the Holy Spirit in you and you become successful. You might get a promotion or new job. Your bank account attracts more money. You receive the money (or are able to get a loan) to buy a nice new car to drive to church in.

The power of the Holy Spirit is awesome. It can move mountains. Once you witness it in your life, you realize how lost you were before you received it. You understand your former life - along with those who have not received the Spirit yet - as hopeless, unsuccessful, and driven by demons and afflictions. You realize how addicted to smoking and drinking you were, how trapped in failure and hopelessness. You come to share your story with fellow seekers, telling them how lost you were before you found Jesus. They tell you similar stories. All of you agree that the power of the Holy Spirit to change lives is awesome.

As you can see, none of this happens without taking the first step and giving your life to Jesus. It's the most important thing in life you can do - everything else is secondary to this commitment. You can never understand this without doing it. It's not an intellectual process. You won't understand the Bible, life, God or anything until you make this decision and back it up by seeking out the wise counsel of a pastor and the fellowship of a spiritual community like Hillsong.

Non-Christians don't understand the Word of God - how could they? Sadly, they'll be condemned to hell, along with all the atheists, Muslims, evolutionists and everyone else. If someone living a Satanic life tries to read the Bible, they won't get it. It's a complete waste - as Jesus said, it's like throwing pearls before swine.

The Bible isn't just a book with words. As the Word of God, it can only be understood properly by someone in the Holy Spirit.

Gawd, you're long winded, PB. WHat's your point?

To make the proper comparison, you'd need to look at the fans of rock n roll - or in this case, The Beatles.

http://i.imgur.com/SyTCa.jpg



The answer to your question - I'd give both a wide berth.

Annie Anthrax wrote on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 12:37pm:

Hi Gandalf :) I was not just talking about the protests. Most Muslims I know seemed personally offended by the film, even if they condemned the protests themselves.

Hi Annie :). I don't think its a simple matter of being irrationally offended by a silly film. I believe the film was part of a wider malicious campaign going on in parts the west to deliberately alienate their muslim populations. It is designed - very successfully - as a self-fulfilling prophecy - to "prove" that islam is intolerant and hostile to free speech - and therefore incompatible in western society. It is this very overt campaign that I believe muslims are so incensed by, not the content of the actual film - which as Waleed Ali pointed out, most protesters have not even seen.

Thus you can see why "mainstream" muslims are so hurt by this - not because they are so hostile to any criticism of islam, but because they are offended by the message that they cannot, and should not "fit in" to western society. This is deeply hurtful because these people have successfully integrated and are proud members of western society.

It didnt look that big in google images.

Annie Anthrax wrote on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 12:44pm:

Soren wrote on Jan 9th, 2013 at 12:22pm: Annie Anthrax wrote on Jan 9th, 2013 at 11:22am: Of course it is possible for Muslims to discuss Islamic principles within the context of secularism or democracy etc. I do not think so. This is like saying that it is possible for me to critically discuss democratic, secular principles from a Muslim/Islamic perspective (ie thinking like a Muslim). But I could not look at secular, democratic principles from a Muslim perspective as I think it is an untenable position. You won't (not can't) look at things from a different perspective because your mind is closed to it.

Do you look at kiddie fiddling from the pedophiles' perspective or is your mind too closed and you are too unbending? Necrophiliacs?  Indian gang rapists?  Or are you just too stiff-necked and unbending and intolerant?

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 1:06pm:

Annie Anthrax wrote on Jan 9th, 2013 at 12:37pm: Hi Gandalf :) I was not just talking about the protests. Most Muslims I know seemed personally offended by the film, even if they condemned the protests themselves. Hi Annie :). I don't think its a simple matter of being irrationally offended by a silly film. I believe the film was part of a wider malicious campaign going on in parts the west to deliberately alienate their muslim populations. It is designed - very successfully - as a self-fulfilling prophecy - to "prove" that islam is intolerant and hostile to free speech - and therefore incompatible in western society. It is this very overt campaign that I believe muslims are so incensed by, not the content of the actual film - which as Waleed Ali pointed out, most protesters have not even seen.

;D

And what is the purpose of this deliberate campaign? Who has organised it and what do they get out of it?

(Don't tell me it's the joooos??)

Annie Anthrax wrote on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 1:07pm:

It didnt look that big in google images.

Does my image look big in Google? :-[

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 1:06pm:

Hi Annie . I don't think its a simple matter of being irrationally offended by a silly film. I believe the film was part of a wider malicious campaign going on in parts the west to deliberately alienate their muslim populations. It is designed - very successfully - as a self-fulfilling prophecy - to "prove" that islam is intolerant and hostile to free speech - and therefore incompatible in western society.

Perhaps. I don't deny there's an intentional provocation. But most people have control over the manner in which they react to it. I don't think there was anything rational about the protests all over the word and those vocal, violent protesters drowned out the moderate voices that criticised the film. They did nobody any favours - particularly their Muslim brethren. The prophecy is self-fulfilling, the reaction self-defeating.


Quote:

It is this very overt campaign that I believe muslims are so incensed by, not the content of the actual film - which as Waleed Ali pointed out, most protesters have not even seen.Thus you can see why "mainstream" muslims are so hurt by this - not because they are so hostile to any criticism of islam, but because they are offended by the message that they cannot, and should not "fit in" to western society. This is deeply hurtful because these people have successfully integrated and are proud members of western society.

I used to wear hijab. I know what attitudes towards Muslims are like. Even before 9/11 I was spat on a few times, physically assaulted once. My best friend is scarved and has suffered similar abuse. I agree - it is deeply hurtful and humiliating, but like I said before - calm, respectful dialogue and a focus on common ground rather than difference as a starting point to facilitate that is a good way to bridge the divide.

Soren wrote on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 1:07pm:

Annie Anthrax wrote on Jan 9th, 2013 at 12:44pm: Soren wrote on Jan 9th, 2013 at 12:22pm: Annie Anthrax wrote on Jan 9th, 2013 at 11:22am: Of course it is possible for Muslims to discuss Islamic principles within the context of secularism or democracy etc. I do not think so. This is like saying that it is possible for me to critically discuss democratic, secular principles from a Muslim/Islamic perspective (ie thinking like a Muslim). But I could not look at secular, democratic principles from a Muslim perspective as I think it is an untenable position. You won't (not can't) look at things from a different perspective because your mind is closed to it. Do you look at kiddie fiddling from the pedophiles' perspective or is your mind too closed and you are too unbending? Necrophiliacs?  Indian gang rapists?  Or are you just too stiff-necked and unbending and intolerant?

There's your problem. You compare the entire Muslim population to the lowest form of criminal.

And yes, your bum does look big in that.

Annie Anthrax wrote on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 1:29pm:

There's your problem. You compare the entire Muslim population to the lowest form of criminal. And yes, your bum does look big in that.

You misunderstand because you want to.
The point is about seeing things from another perspective. There are persepctives that are unacceptable. The criminal angle is just to highlight the point (just as a good crime novel is about human psychology, not just crime).

You said you were spat on when you had a hijab on. Did you see that incident from the spitter's perspective and if so, did that make you accept the behaviour and see how upsetting the hijab was?
No.

Soren wrote on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 1:36pm:

Annie Anthrax wrote on Jan 9th, 2013 at 1:29pm: There's your problem. You compare the entire Muslim population to the lowest form of criminal. And yes, your bum does look big in that. You misunderstand because you want to. The point is about seeing things from another perspective. There are persepctives that are unacceptable. The criminal angle is just to highlight the point (just as a good crime novel is about human psychology, not just crime). You said you were spat on when you had a hijab on. Did you see that incident from the spitter's perspective and if so, did that make you accept the behaviour and see how upsetting the hijab was? No.

Then perhaps it all just boils down to how accepting we are of the Islamic perspective. I don't view it as a frightening or alien thing. You do.

I understand what you're saying. Just as I don't care to put myself in the position of the men who spat on me, you don't care to understand the Islamic perspective. The difference is, the spitter, pedophiles, gang rapists etc are commiting criminal acts under Australian law. Muslims in Australia are generally law abiding citizens who are here to stay. This is a fight you can't (and shouldn't) win.

It is not about equating criminals with muslims. It is about putting yourself into every possible perspective, including the perspective of people whose perspective you reject.

Muslims of the vocally and actively repulsive kind want an islamic political and social system in the West. I do not see how it is in any way intolerant of me to reject this aim and all its manifestations. After all, they reject the political and social system they find here. Why do I need to tolerate their desire to subvert and wipe away the society I prefer?

Soren wrote on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 1:04pm:

Gawd, you're long winded, PB. WHat's your point?

My point was to agree wholeheartedly with what you're saying, old chap. One can't possibly understand the Word of God, His plan for us all, His chosen people, the tinted races, the despicable Muselman, physics, metaphysics, politics, etc, etc, etc, without first giving your life to Jesus.

Where will you spend Eternity?

Soren wrote on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 2:02pm:

Muslims of the vocally and actively repulsive kind want an islamic political and social system in the West. I do not see how it is in any way intolerant of me to reject this aim and all its manifestations. After all, they reject the political and social system they find here. Why do I need to tolerate their desire to subvert and wipe away the society I prefer?

mainstream muslims and non-muslims alike reject these fanatics - so why are you even talking about them? The question is why do you refuse to try and understand the perspective of the mainstream - who have far more in common with you than with the "vocally and actively repulsive kind"?

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 3:12pm:

Soren wrote on Jan 9th, 2013 at 2:02pm: Muslims of the vocally and actively repulsive kind want an islamic political and social system in the West. I do not see how it is in any way intolerant of me to reject this aim and all its manifestations. After all, they reject the political and social system they find here. Why do I need to tolerate their desire to subvert and wipe away the society I prefer? mainstream muslims and non-muslims alike reject these fanatics - so why are you even talking about them? The question is why do you refuse to try and understand the perspective of the mainstream - who have far more in common with you than with the "vocally and actively repulsive kind"?

I think it's because they're pluralists.

The old boy hates them.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 3:12pm:

Soren wrote on Jan 9th, 2013 at 2:02pm: Muslims of the vocally and actively repulsive kind want an islamic political and social system in the West. I do not see how it is in any way intolerant of me to reject this aim and all its manifestations. After all, they reject the political and social system they find here. Why do I need to tolerate their desire to subvert and wipe away the society I prefer? mainstream muslims and non-muslims alike reject these fanatics - so why are you even talking about them? The question is why do you refuse to try and understand the perspective of the mainstream - who have far more in common with you than with the "vocally and actively repulsive kind"?

Because mainstream Muslims are not setting the agenda and reputation of Islam. They are not determining the direction of Islam. They are exactly powerless, except for post-hoc protestations saying either that the bad guys have nuffin' do wiv Islam or, if they can't deny the direct connection, that Islam is being misrepresented by a 'tiny minority'.

But if the fanatics are really, really such a tiny minority, why can they determine the shape and direction of Islam? Why doesn't the reputation and appraisal of Islam rest on th supposed majority who are not at all like the 'tiny minority'? And what does it say about the majority if it is so easily hijacked by a 'tiny minority'?

Stereotypes are caricatures - they both work only if they are recognisable.

Look at any Muslim majority country (and there are dozens of them) and they are either crap, really crap or smacking awful. There is not one single Muslim majority place that is an example to the world in anything. Not one. They are all cautionary tales of various frightfulness.

Anyone who wants to live under sharia (ie Islam) has rocks in his head.

PB - Muslims can't be pluralists. Submission is submission. As an arse bandit, you should know better than even Muslims. You either submit to Ramon or you don't. If you don't, you are not an arse bandit; if you do, you are. Same with Mohammed. WHether you think of it ironically, like all good post-structuralist, post-Marxist  queer theorists or not, the submission is what matters to Ramon and Mo. i

I couldn’t agree more, old cheese. Why have the Hillsong Church come to represent your lot?

You fancy a nice bit of tongue, sure. You even use one in your attempt to bring  the tinted races around. Do they pay any attention? Whatsoever?

Not on your life. It doesn’t matter how many 20 cent pieces you put into the collection plate each Sunday, those types will never learn. Still, the evangelicals do their best, and you support their work 100%.

Morally speaking, of course. The sanitation campaign was a complete joke, as was the infant mortality effort. Imagine them trying to save their own babies. Ridiculous!

Still, one does what one can. No one has the right not to be offended, and perhaps that’s the best we can do. Starve the dirty little bastards. Rub their noses in their own filth.

Nothing wrong with a bit of tough love, eh?  Anything else would be racist.

Make them submit. It’s all they understand. It’s the Christian way, innit. Sermon on the Mount and all that.

Superior moral values, what.

Soren wrote on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 8:59pm:

Look at any Muslim majority country (and there are dozens of them) and they are either crap, really crap or smacking awful. There is not one single Muslim majority place that is an example to the world in anything. Not one. They are all cautionary tales of various frightfulness.

overgeneralised, meaningless crap.

Indonesia is the largest muslim country and it is a thriving secular democracy. Extremist sharia advocates have been continually rejected at the polls in favour of secular parties. Malaysia is a thriving pluralist muslim majority nation. Both economies are improving in leaps and bounds, and embracing more and more democratic political reforms. Then we move to Turkey, a majority muslim country whose secular credentials are famous. Women are not even allowed to wear the hijab to work. Then we have Egypt and Tunisia, where people power have just overthrown dictators and elected democratic moderates in free and fair elections.

Perhaps you can start by explaining what you think is "crap, really crap or smacking awful" about these countries.

Karnal wrote on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 9:22pm:

I couldn’t agree more, old cheese. Why have the Hillsong Church come to represent your lot? You fancy a nice bit of tongue, sure. You even use one in your attempt to bring  the tinted races around. Do they pay any attention? Whatsoever? Not on your life. It doesn’t matter how many 20 cent pieces you put into the collection plate each Sunday, those types will never learn. Still, the evangelicals do their best, and you support their work 100%. Morally speaking, of course. The sanitation campaign was a complete joke, as was the infant mortality effort. Imagine them trying to save their own babies. Ridiculous! Still, one does what one can. No one has the right not to be offended, and perhaps that’s the best we can do. Starve the dirty little bastards. Rub their noses in their own filth. Nothing wrong with a bit of tough love, eh?  Anything else would be racist. Make them submit. It’s all they understand. It’s the Christian way, innit. Sermon on the Mount and all that. Superior moral values, what.

bugger knows what you are trying to pass there, PB.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 9:30pm:

Perhaps you can start by explaining what you think is "crap, really crap or smacking awful" about these countries.

If they are so bloody good, why are they not good enough for Muslims? Ask all the people who are leaving them or the Muslims who are passing through them to infidel countries.

gandalf....

Quote:

Thus you can see why "mainstream" muslims are so hurt by this - not because they are so hostile to any criticism of islam, but because they are offended by the message that they cannot, and should not "fit in" to western society. This is deeply hurtful because these people have successfully integrated and are proud members of western society.

gandalf,

In what sense, are you a moslem ?

Because, what you seem to be practising is Jahiliyya, not ISLAM.

Aren't you frightened of Allah ???

And don't your own declared 'beliefs' and your declared attitudes toward 'infidels' and toward the society of the infidel, define you as an apostate ?




Quote:

The 'Jahiliyya' lifestyle is totally incompatible with ISLAM.

iQuote:

Evidence from moslems, which supports my argument.... [quote] "THE RIGHT TO JUDGE" "It is not the function of Islam to compromise with the concepts of Jahiliyya which are current in the world or to co-exist in the same land together with a jahili system........"

SAYYID QUTB - ISLAMIC scholar
http://www.islamworld.net/justice.html


The 'Jahiliyya' lifestyle is totally incompatible with ISLAM.


'Jahiliyya' [above]  = = un-ISLAMIC lifestyle


Jahiliyya is a result of the lack of Sharia law,

"....Jahiliyya is a result of the lack of Sharia law, without which Islam cannot exist;"
"...true Islam is a complete system with no room for any element of Jahiliyya"
"...all aspects of Jahiliyya...are "evil and corrupt" "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jahiliyya#Jahiliyya_in_contemporary_society


The 'Jahiliyya' [un-ISLAMIC] lifestyle is totally incompatible with ISLAM.

[/quote]
Muslim let off for shooting policeman
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1315532699/32#32

gandalf,
Karnal,
Annie Anthrax,


Every single one of you people who are posting in this thread as an advocate for a tolerant version of being a 'moslem', is pretending that it is valid for yourself, or for an individual, or for any individual moslem, to define, what being a valid moslem is.

YOU CANNOT.

ISLAM, MAINSTREAM ISLAM, SAYS THAT YOU CANNOT.

And every single one of you  are are ignoring what obligations >> ISLAM says << that a moslem must fulfil in being a [valid] moslem, and what values a moslem must embrace, TO BE, A VALID AND GENUINE MOSLEM.



"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


Quote:

And who may enter into debate about what Allah's will is, when every moslem is taught from childhood that they must obey their moslem clerics, without question.

Theodore Roosevelt [1858-1919] on the prospects of Muslim liberalization
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1356182206/0#0




In effect, what i am saying is, that the only sense that any of you ['advocates'] understand ISLAM, and understand what obligations a moslem must fulfil in 'presenting' ISLAM to the disbelievers, is that,
1/ you are misrepresenting what ISLAM is, and,
2/ you are misrepresenting what being a valid moslem involves.

SO CONGRATULATIONS!

In that sense, every last one of you qualify, as 'honorary' moslems!




Whether intentionally [i suspect], or unintentionally, you yourselves, are misrepresenting ISLAM.

Which, again, is precisely what every moslem intentionally does, in all of their communications with 'local' non-moslems, within a non-moslem jurisdiction, when describing ISLAM.



+++

THE TRUTH IS;

None of you, nor any moslem, have any authority to define and declare what commitments are required, in being a REAL and devout moslem.

Allah and ISLAM [and Mohammed], do that.

Not you, not any individual, not even any individual moslem - CAN DEFINE THE OBLIGATIONS THAT ARE REQUIRED, IN BEING A 'KOSHER' MOSLEM.





Quote:

[quote]Choudary: "He is a bigot whose goal in life is to provoke division. He [Choudary] engages in these provocations because he is deeply hostile to any coming together of Muslims and non-Muslims.

gandalf,

NONETHELESS [no matter the 'evidences' you state above] the fact is, that Anjem Choudary is accurately portraying what ISLAM instructs, regarding the relationship that moslems must foster towards disbelievers.

Can you deny it ???

[/quote]
The proper Islamic way to change government
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1353933060/3#3





+++

Who is it that defines the type of relationship a moslem has [must have!] with a non-moslem and with a non-moslem jurisdiction ?


"Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah:"
Koran 003.028

"O ye who believe! Take not for friends unbelievers rather than believers: Do ye wish to offer Allah an open proof against yourselves?"
Koran 004.144

"O ye who believe! Take not into your intimacy those outside your ranks: They will not fail to corrupt you. They only desire your ruin: Rank hatred has already appeared from their mouths: What their hearts conceal is far worse....."
Koran 3.118

"....the Unbelievers are unto you open enemies."
Koran 4.101

"......the curse of Allah is on those without Faith."
Koran 2.089

"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

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

"O ye who believe! Take not my enemies and yours as friends.....offering them (your) love,..."
Koran 60.1





+++

THE TRUTH IS;

Allah has cursed Christians and Jews [Koran 9.30], and has declared that Christians and Jews are haters of the truth [i.e. Allah's righteous and perfect religion].

So can a moslem, a real moslem, be a friend of a Christian or a Jew ?

And, remain a moslem ?

"....take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends....
......he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them."
Koran 5.51

i.e.
In Koran 5.51, Allah declares, that a moslem who makes a sincere friendship with an 'unbeliever', or who truly gives their allegiance to an un-ISLAMIC community;
1/ makes himself/herself an 'unbeliever',
2/ becomes an 'apostate'/rebel, and,
3/ is worthy of death, at the hand of good moslems.



+++

Cognitive dissonance
Cognitive dissonance is a psychological term to define the condition that results whenever an individual attempts to hold two incompatible, if not contradictory, thoughts at the same time even in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

gandalf,
Karnal,
Annie Anthrax,


Every single one of you people who are posting in this thread [as an advocate/apologist for ISLAM/moslems], are misrepresenting ISLAM in this thread.

Why are you doing this ?



And, why haven't you acknowledged, that it is ISLAM [alone], which has the authority to define, who is a rightly guided moslem ?

What are you bleating on about? As far as I can tell,

Gandalf,
Karnal,
Annie Anthrax

have just disagreed with Freediver's ontological methods.

Where have I advocated/apologized for Islam or misrepresented it?

Oh Karnal. Don't even think about trying to pull the wool over Yadda's all-seeing penetrating gaze. Or fanatical, wide-eyed stare. Whatever.

Karnal wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 9:06am:

What are you bleating on about? As far as I can tell, Gandalf, Karnal, Annie Anthrax have just disagreed with Freediver's ontological methods. Where have I advocated/apologized for Islam or misrepresented it?

Yes Gandalf tried to claim sura 4.34 says you should hit your wife with a miswak, where does it say miswak in 4.34 and why cant muslims accept allah the most merciful of those who show mercy allows wife beating.
http://quran.com/4/34

Annie, Gandalf and the Paki fudge packer are called hypocrites by their allah in the quran for not following Islam properly.

Who are these hypocrites allah mentions in the Quran Karnal?
http://quran.com/search?q=hypocrite

You munafiqs think you are muslims yet your Allah calls you hypocrites

Karnal wrote on Jan 7^th, 2013 at 10:37pm:

I love it. Someone who un-self consciously uses the term "tinted races" points the ugly stick.

What's the politically and emotionally correct appellation nowadays, P. F. Packer?

Dusky? Swarthy? Brunet/brunette?

Baronvonrort wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 10:23am:

Karnal wrote on Jan 10th, 2013 at 9:06am: What are you bleating on about? As far as I can tell, Gandalf, Karnal, Annie Anthrax have just disagreed with Freediver's ontological methods. Where have I advocated/apologized for Islam or misrepresented it? Yes Gandalf tried to claim sura 4.34 says you should hit your wife with a miswak, where does it say miswak in 4.34 and why cant muslims accept allah the most merciful of those who show mercy allows wife beating. http://quran.com/4/34 Annie, Gandalf and the Paki fudge packer are called hypocrites by their allah in the quran for not following Islam properly. Who are these hypocrites allah mentions in the Quran Karnal? http://quran.com/search?q=hypocrite You munafiqs think you are muslims yet your Allah calls you hypocrites

Thanks for presenting the Koran to me, Baron. Now that we've both read it, should we get back to discussing the thoughts of Abu and Falah? Apparently that's much more important than the Koran.

I've never followed Islam properly in my life, I'm not sure if that makes me more - or less - of a hypocrite. Time will tell, I guess.

Allah Uakbar!

Soren wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 11:23am:

Karnal wrote on Jan 7th, 2013 at 10:37pm: I love it. Someone who un-self consciously uses the term "tinted races" points the ugly stick. What's the politically and emotionally correct appellation nowadays, P. F. Packer? Dusky? Swarthy? Brunet/brunette?

I think you'll find "swarthy" is the correct term in pre-war drugstore novels and comic books - see Tintin and the Land of the Black Gold as a case in point. Tintin also travels to the Congo, but the Africans were called "nig-nogs", with the emphasis on the first syllable.

"Dusky" is more of a pre-war forensic term, as in "the assailant bore a dusky complexion - approach with caution", "the suspect is described as having dusky features - shoot to kill".

Brunette is a hair colour shared by the civilized whites, so it doesn't count.

You'll find the correct Australian term is "chocco".

Try to learn a new word each day, old chap, and before long you'll speak the language like a native. If you find yourself confused, always feel free to ask. We're here to help, you know.

Karnal wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 11:49am:

I've never followed Islam properly in my life

Yeah, because you have followed it, like everything else, improperly.

Soren wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 11:23am:

Karnal wrote on Jan 7th, 2013 at 10:37pm: I love it. Someone who un-self consciously uses the term "tinted races" points the ugly stick. What's the politically and emotionally correct appellation nowadays, P. F. Packer? Dusky? Swarthy? Brunet/brunette?

Nothing wrong with brunettes, buddy.

Quote:

On the surface, that sounds very reasonable. But you're making two important mistakes. The first is the manner in which you try to gather information.

LOL. So asking Muslims is the 'wrong way' to gather information on Islam? Before Abu and Malik turned up here there was a lot of criticism about people doing it the other way, because we couldn't possibly interpret any of it properly without the context that being a Muslim usually provides. Another benefit of my wiki is that it gets past the even more negative depiction of Islam that people are able to create by quoting the Koran, Hadiths and various scholars directly.


Quote:

Your debate style is to ask a question, then when you receive a reply you take tiny pieces out of context and use them to twist the general answer you've been given.

Can you explain how the context might put a different meaning on Falah's statement that spousal rape is not a punishable offence? It counds to me like you object ot me taking the facts and leaving the absurd spin.


Quote:

Is your goal to trip people up and 'win' the argument or is it to find out what Muslims think?

Apparently you have to trick Muslims into telling the truth. Abu for example has been busy telling fellow Muslims how they need to be more selective in what they reveal and more strategic with their propaganda.


Quote:

When you deliberately misinterpret things people say, it makes them frustrated and then you get personal emotional responses that have nothing to do with what the broader Muslim population believe.

So Falah said that spousal rape is not a punishable offence because he got all emotional?


Quote:

And that leads right on to the second problem. The Muslim community is diverse. They believe different things

According to Abu that is a punishable offence. Death I think.


Quote:

You don't acknowledge this in your wiki that I have seen.

Sure I do. Where there are genuine differences, rather than western apologists like yourself being tricked into thinking there are, that is acknowledged in the wiki article.


Quote:

What's the point? Will you change the wiki if provided with evidence that contradicts it? No...

I have before. That is why I use the wiki. I make changes all the time. There are a number of issues I am still waiting on a straight answer on.


Quote:

you just have that disclaimer saying the information may be out of date. That's a cop out.

Not sure what you are talking about there. Islam is unchanging.


Quote:

I approached you about misinformation in your wiki and you ignored it.

If you had as much trouble then as now in getting to the point, this does not surprise me.


Quote:

At the very least, you should clarify that the info in your wiki is the opinion of a few Muslims that you have debated with

I believe it opens with that.


Quote:

Soren, there is much positive, civil interfaith dialogue happening all over the world involving Muslim thinkers (universally recognised or not).

Just like on this forum, though Abu and Falah do frequently resort to insults. But at least they aren't killing people. I think that counts as civil.


Quote:

I don't have any answers about how to get past those emotional reactions and the problems they cause.

Why not just ignore them and repeat the question? It works for me.


Quote:

Who has attempted to make Islam your context?

Abu and Falah try this all the time. That's partly what the deception of non-Muslims article is about.


Quote:

Yes, FD, Believe it or not, there are people doing classes in Bible study too. There are Christians studying Biblical Greek, Jews studying Hebrew, Hindus and Buddhists studying Sanskrit and Pali.

Karnal are you suggesting I need to do that in order to have any validity in criticising Falah for wanting wife beating and rape legalised?


Quote:

But this is not just about the muslims. Non-muslims need to play their part as well. And that includes not being tunnel visioned about how muslims behave, and attribute the actions of a minority to the majority. Again, the film protests are a good example: everyone thinks of the unfortunate behaviour of some thugs in Sydney, but seem to forget the unambiguous and unanimous condemnation from the country's muslim leadership.

You mean the condemnation of the film-makers?


Quote:

I couldn't agree more. I said the emotional sensitivity has gotten understandably worse - this is a direct result of Western attitudes toward Muslims.

Obviously you would never see it as the Muslims fault. I'm sure that Danish cartoonist deserved it for being part of the grand conspiracy.


Quote:

I don't think its a simple matter of being irrationally offended by a silly film. I believe the film was part of a wider malicious campaign going on in parts the west to deliberately alienate their muslim populations. It is designed - very successfully - as a self-fulfilling prophecy - to "prove" that islam is intolerant and hostile to free speech - and therefore incompatible in western society.

No proof needed. Abu and Falah openly admit to the death penalty for apostasy, blasphemy etc.


Quote:

mainstream muslims and non-muslims alike reject these fanatics

At the same time as making excuses for them and blaming it all on the west.

Quote:

Then we move to Turkey, a majority muslim country whose secular credentials are famous. Women are not even allowed to wear the hijab to work.

Is this a good thing or a bad thing?


Quote:

Perhaps you can start by explaining what you think is "crap, really crap or smacking awful" about these countries.

It seems fairly obvious to me.


Quote:

As far as I can tell, Gandalf, Karnal, Annie Anthrax have just disagreed with Freediver's ontological methods.

But not, it seems, my conclusions. At least, not to the extent that they will maintain their position.

freediver wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 1:22pm:

Quote: Then we move to Turkey, a majority muslim country whose secular credentials are famous. Women are not even allowed to wear the hijab to work. Is this a good thing or a bad thing? [quote]Perhaps you can start by explaining what you think is "crap, really crap or smacking awful" about these countries.

It seems fairly obvious to me.


Quote:

As far as I can tell, Gandalf, Karnal, Annie Anthrax have just disagreed with Freediver's ontological methods.

But not, it seems, my conclusions.[/quote]

Aren't your conclusions that Abu and Falah are reactionary Muslims who believe it's legal (within Islam) to rape your wife?

I can't disagree with that. I wouldn't know.

If you're making a wider conclusion about 7th century Islamic jurisprudence, I'd have to say I have no idea. I really don't. Nor do I have any idea about ancient Jewish law, or even Roman law after Constantine.

Yes yes, I know, the Jews and Christians reformed, but Muslims like Abu and Falah want to return to the strict Muslim laws about raping wives, etc. I get it already.

I agree that there are plenty of Muslim knuckleheads around the world. Behead those who insult the Prophet! A jihad on Amerika and Mother England! Yankee go home!

And I believe a number of posters here have agreed with this conclusion, including:

Gandalf,
Karnal,
Annie Anthrax.

Yes, my frien, we have reached a consensus, isn't it. It is richly woven tapestry, you see. Gud is great!

Now, if you'll excuse me, I must get back to the wife.

Annie Anthrax wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 12:13pm:

Soren wrote on Jan 10th, 2013 at 11:23am: Karnal wrote on Jan 7th, 2013 at 10:37pm: I love it. Someone who un-self consciously uses the term "tinted races" points the ugly stick. What's the politically and emotionally correct appellation nowadays, P. F. Packer? Dusky? Swarthy? Brunet/brunette? Nothing wrong with brunettes, buddy.

Yes, but you have to admit - if they're tinted, they're backward apes mired in their own filth and should not be allowed to mix with civilized people. If they get ideas above their station, they should be carpet-bombed.

There isn't a 7th century law about this - it's a modern, progressive reform measure influenced by the teachings of Jesus.

Freediver's thinking of making a wiki out of them.

Karnal wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 2:30pm:

Annie Anthrax wrote on Jan 10th, 2013 at 12:13pm: Soren wrote on Jan 10th, 2013 at 11:23am: Karnal wrote on Jan 7th, 2013 at 10:37pm: I love it. Someone who un-self consciously uses the term "tinted races" points the ugly stick. What's the politically and emotionally correct appellation nowadays, P. F. Packer? Dusky? Swarthy? Brunet/brunette? Nothing wrong with brunettes, buddy. Yes, but you have to admit - if they're tinted, they're backward apes mired in their own filth and should not be allowed to mix with civilized people. If they get ideas above their station, they should be carpet-bombed. There isn't a 7th century law about this - it's a modern, progressive reform measure influenced by the teachings of Jesus. Freediver's thinking of making a wiki out of them.

You always go for this over the top, incontinent, hyperbolic nonsense. Is the fudge too tightly packed in, Mr P.F. Packer? Is this your way of seeking release?  Ironically? Or not.

Soren wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 2:47pm:

Karnal wrote on Jan 10th, 2013 at 2:30pm: Annie Anthrax wrote on Jan 10th, 2013 at 12:13pm: Soren wrote on Jan 10th, 2013 at 11:23am: Karnal wrote on Jan 7th, 2013 at 10:37pm: I love it. Someone who un-self consciously uses the term "tinted races" points the ugly stick. What's the politically and emotionally correct appellation nowadays, P. F. Packer? Dusky? Swarthy? Brunet/brunette? Nothing wrong with brunettes, buddy. Yes, but you have to admit - if they're tinted, they're backward apes mired in their own filth and should not be allowed to mix with civilized people. If they get ideas above their station, they should be carpet-bombed. There isn't a 7th century law about this - it's a modern, progressive reform measure influenced by the teachings of Jesus. Freediver's thinking of making a wiki out of them. You always go for this over the top, incontinent, hyperbolic nonsense.

Oh yes, that's what your Muselman says. "Surely you didn't take us seriously when someone posted on a Muslim Facebook page that wishing people a merry Christmas is a sin. The Daily Telegraph is just posting hyperbole - so unfair."

When good Christian old boys say the tinted Musel races should be carpet-bombed into submission it's meant in all sincerity, but you won't find it in the Daily Telegraph. It's not newsworthy, you see.

Common sense, innit.

Karnal wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 3:46pm:

Soren wrote on Jan 10th, 2013 at 2:47pm: Karnal wrote on Jan 10th, 2013 at 2:30pm: Annie Anthrax wrote on Jan 10th, 2013 at 12:13pm: Soren wrote on Jan 10th, 2013 at 11:23am: Karnal wrote on Jan 7th, 2013 at 10:37pm: I love it. Someone who un-self consciously uses the term "tinted races" points the ugly stick. What's the politically and emotionally correct appellation nowadays, P. F. Packer? Dusky? Swarthy? Brunet/brunette? Nothing wrong with brunettes, buddy. Yes, but you have to admit - if they're tinted, they're backward apes mired in their own filth and should not be allowed to mix with civilized people. If they get ideas above their station, they should be carpet-bombed. There isn't a 7th century law about this - it's a modern, progressive reform measure influenced by the teachings of Jesus. Freediver's thinking of making a wiki out of them. You always go for this over the top, incontinent, hyperbolic nonsense. Oh yes, that's what your Muselman says. "Surely you didn't take us seriously when someone posted on a Muslim Facebook page that wishing people a merry Christmas is a sin. The Daily Telegraph is just posting hyperbole - so unfair." When good Christian old boys say the tinted Musel races should be carpet-bombed into submission it's meant in all sincerity, but you won't find it in the Daily Telegraph. It's not newsworthy, you see. Common sense, innit.

You misusunderstand. I am an equal opportunity carpet bomber. Islam has nuffin' to do wiv nuffin' when it comes to carpet bombing.
Only the recalcitrance counts.

No no, old chap. Don't apologize and sell yourself short. They're the perpetual and persistent enemy. They have always been the enemy - always. There has never been anyone else - ever. Never ever.  Always. Ever.

And I won't hear a thing about hyperbole. I think you're most understated and reasonable - unlike your Muselman, who just wants to blow everything up.

Quote:

Aren't your conclusions that Abu and Falah are reactionary Muslims who believe it's legal (within Islam) to rape your wife?

Sure, that is some of them. Not sure what you mean by reactionary in this context.


Quote:

If you're making a wider conclusion about 7th century Islamic jurisprudence, I'd have to say I have no idea. I really don't.

It is timeless, according to Islam.


Quote:

Yes yes, I know, the Jews and Christians reformed, but Muslims like Abu and Falah want to return to the strict Muslim laws about raping wives, etc. I get it already.

There is a little bit more to it than that. They manage to succeed in convincing people this is not what they want - hence the lengths I had to go to, to convince you, Annie, Gandalf etc that this is what Falah wants. Apparently directly quoting himsaying it was what he wanted was not enough. How many other religious people seek to deliberately deceive people about their beliefs?

Also, Muslims 'like Abu and Falah' have been very succesfull in achieving their goals. You point to the Arab spring as some kind of contradictory evidence. I consider it astonishing that it took until this century to even begin this reform, even in the wealthier countries (who are often the most behind, socially). Without the benefits that the internet has given by freeing up speech, the Arab spring would have been impossible. Even today the outcome is hardly certain and there is a significant risk that it will result in a backwards step. In Iraq and Afghanistan, it lead to the absurd situation of occupying forces attempting to establish effective autonomy and self rule against the wishes of the locals. Millions are dead as a result. You act like it is all one big joke, but expect people to take you seriously as soon as you change hats.


Quote:

And I believe a number of posters here have agreed with this conclusion, including: Gandalf, Karnal, Annie Anthrax.

Who knows what they think? I don't think they have made up their mind yet. They have certainly adopted a fairly backwards stance about the preconditions I must meet before discussing Islam.

freediver wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 7:19pm:

I consider it astonishing that it took until this century to even begin this reform, even in the wealthier countries (who are often the most behind, socially). Without the benefits that the internet has given by freeing up speech, the Arab spring would have been impossible. Even today the outcome is hardly certain and there is a significant risk that it will result in a backwards step. In Iraq and Afghanistan, it lead to the absurd situation of occupying forces attempting to establish effective autonomy and self rule against the wishes of the locals. Millions are dead as a result.

If by succeed you mean shed the fixation to establish sharia, then it is guaranteed to fail. There is zero chance of the Muslims coming to terms with history without Islam and sharia failing them even more utterly than nationalism, tribalism, piracy or anything else they have tried so far.

You see, the Muslims do not accept that it is Islam that has failed them. So Islam has to fail them utterly before they give it up. Now that they have tried all sorts of other things adulterated with Islam, and have failed and blamed the thing they adulterated with Islam rather than Islam, it is time for them to try pure Islam and see it ruin them utterly.

The Arabs will have to see Islam crumble in their own hands (as it is crumbling in Iran) before they can hope to snap out of their millennial stupor.

Remember, for the Arabs Islam is more than a religion. It is their national culture and their very soul. For the Arabs, everything is at stake with Islam. So they will not relinquish it unless thy are beaten down by it like never before.

Karnal wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 4:33pm:

No no, old chap. Don't apologize and sell yourself short. They're the perpetual and persistent enemy. They have always been the enemy - always. There has never been anyone else - ever. Never ever.  Always. Ever. And I won't hear a thing about hyperbole. I think you're most understated and reasonable - unlike your Muselman, who just wants to blow everything up.

Once again a double dose of strong aperient is indicated. And try not to have your fudge packed so tight.

Annie, the old boy is projecting again. Can we do something? The load must be too much to bear, dear. I wonder if the carpet-bombing fantasies are an attempt at relief.

You know, Dresden, Guernica, Hiroshima/Nagasaki. Thinking of flying through the air and obliterating the tinted races must provide some momentary respite from the worst case of anal blockage I’ve ever seen.

And yet, the patient hides these fantasies. Fascinating. Perhaps he does not want to be cured. It’s quite common, you know.

100 mls of Borax thanks, Annie. Let’s provide the old boy with some relief.

Karnal wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 9:06am:

What are you bleating on about? ........ Where have I advocated/apologized for Islam or misrepresented it?

In this thread.....
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1357182115/31#31


In another thread [with your sarcasm].....
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1357724929/1#1

Y, how do you interpret a statement like "I’m not pro-Islam, I’m anti-knucklehead" as promoting the cause of Islam?

freediver wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 7:19pm:

There is a little bit more to it than that. They manage to succeed in convincing people this is not what they want - hence the lengths I had to go to, to convince you, Annie, Gandalf etc that this is what Falah wants. Apparently directly quoting himsaying it was what he wanted was not enough. How many other religious people seek to deliberately deceive people about their beliefs?

Of course it couldn't possibly be that he is confused himself. I mean he did after all make a statement (marital rape is not a punishable offense) - and then went on to quote passages of the quran and hadith that directly contradicted that statement. No, it must be something sinister. Muslims are all about deceiving, everyone knows that. Even the incoherent confused ones.


freediver wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 7:19pm:

They have certainly adopted a fairly backwards stance about the preconditions I must meet before discussing Islam.

Yes, apparently its far too 'backward' to ask for actual evidence for blanket claims on islamic jurisprudence like "rape is permitted in islam" - as opposed to the vague and uninformed conversations between a random muslim and a couple of non-muslims (and often not even that - but a couple of rants between non-muslims).

Look, what you appear to be interested in is not the facts about islamic law - which I think you understand has to be sourced back to the actual texts - but rather the views of muslims and their own understanding on islamic law. Thats fine, but there are two glaring problems related to your wiki pieces, as well as how you conduct yourself on this forum more generally.

Firstly, it makes absolutely no sense when you make statements like "rape is permitted in islam" - because it is not an observation about what certain muslims think, it is a direct claim about islamic jurisprudence. Of course if you made this statement and then linked it back to the texts (hadith or quran) as supportive evidence, its a completely different story. At least Yadda attempts to do that. But instead you link it back to a conversation you had with some random muslim who apparently (usually cryptically) claims that to be the case. What you are pointing out has nothing to do with what islamic law actually says, but what, at most two muslims have said is islamic law. Thus your claim about rape should have been something like "some muslims claim that rape is permitted in islam..." - or something along those lines.

The second problem with your approach is that you are not interested in muslims views at all, but only two muslims - since that is all that you ever quote. I am a muslim and have made it abundantly clear my disagreement over some of the claims made by these two. Yet you won't quote me in your wiki articles. You even started a whole thread dedicated to what my views are, and I gave you detailed answers. At least some of those contradict the claims you make in some of the wiki chapters you have made - why "override" my opinions and claim the exact opposite views as unquestioned fact?

But this isn't about me, even a cursory investigation into mainstream muslim views clearly shows that none of these claims you make trashing islam are held. It is just so mind numbingly stupid that for someone whose stated intentions is the views of muslims regarding the most controversial islamic issues, you restrict your analysis to a grand total of two rather uninformed (and I would say extreme) Australian muslims. Thats bad enough - that you would take these two people's opinions and cite them as unquestioned facts about islamic jurisprudence is frankly beyond laughable.

Karnal wrote on Jan 11^th, 2013 at 10:33am:

Y, how do you interpret a statement like "I’m not pro-Islam, I’m anti-knucklehead" as promoting the cause of Islam?

I do not,      .....err, knucklehead.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 11^th, 2013 at 11:34am:

.......I am a muslim and have made it abundantly clear my disagreement over some of the claims made by these two.

freediver wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 7:19pm:

.....How many other religious people seek to deliberately deceive people about their beliefs?

gandalf,

Oh, you must be one of those 'moderate' moslems then ?

I don't believe you.

Why don't i believe you ?

Because you claim to be a 'moderate' [a 'pluralistic'] moslem.    [....and there ain't no such animal!!!]

IMO, you are either a lying moslem, or, you are a moslem hypocrite, worthy of death.

So, which is it gandalf ?





The Koran instructs moslems, to take no 'moderate' moslems as friends.
And whenever they oppose you [in Allah's way], kill them.
[n.b. ALL ex-moslems, are non-moslems/disbelievers, and they are worthy of death]

"Why should ye be divided into two parties about the Hypocrites? Allah hath upset them for their (evil) deeds. Would ye guide those whom Allah hath thrown out of the Way? For those whom Allah hath thrown out of the Way, never shalt thou find the Way.
They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks;-"
Koran 4.88, 89i


Quote:

But this isn't about me, even a cursory investigation into mainstream muslim views clearly shows that none of these claims you make trashing islam are held. It is just so mind numbingly stupid that for someone whose stated intentions is the views of muslims regarding the most controversial islamic issues, you restrict your analysis to a grand total of two rather uninformed (and I would say extreme) Australian muslims. Thats bad enough - that you would take these two people's opinions and cite them as unquestioned facts about islamic jurisprudence is frankly beyond laughable.

gandalf,

I'm sure that FD's opinion of/about ISLAM and moslems is informed by a much broader spread of 'contacts' than just two people who claim to be moslems and post here on OzPol.

Don't you think that too gandalf ?

Yadda wrote on Jan 11^th, 2013 at 12:26pm:

IMO, you are either a lying moslem, or, you are a moslem hypocrite, worthy of death.

hmmm tough choice there yadda.... can I phone a friend?

Actually, in your terms you left out option number 3 - a naive ignorant muslim. Wouldn't that be me? Not all of us can be devious or hypocrites - surely a good number of us are just stupid? It would be nice if we were all that smart, but I think you give far too much credit to the intellect of the average muslim.

Quote:

Of course it couldn't possibly be that he is confused himself. I mean he did after all make a statement (marital rape is not a punishable offense) - and then went on to quote passages of the quran and hadith that directly contradicted that statement.

He explained all that at the time gandalf.


Quote:

Firstly, it makes absolutely no sense when you make statements like "rape is permitted in islam" - because it is not an observation about what certain muslims think, it is a direct claim about islamic jurisprudence.

Who decides what Islamic jurisprudence is? Muslims. There is no absolute measure.


Quote:

At least Yadda attempts to do that.

And look where it gets him.


Quote:

But instead you link it back to a conversation you had with some random muslim who apparently (usually cryptically) claims that to be the case.

There is nothing cryptic about it. The problem of course was the difficulty in getting a straight answer on most of those issues. But the one straight answer he gave on that one was very clear.


Quote:

What you are pointing out has nothing to do with what islamic law actually says, but what, at most two muslims have said is islamic law.

There were others.


Quote:

The second problem with your approach is that you are not interested in muslims views at all, but only two muslims - since that is all that you ever quote. I am a muslim and have made it abundantly clear my disagreement over some of the claims made by these two.

I am still a bit confused about that. It is hardly clear. For example you insist that Falah's own evidence contradicts his views, when it does not. You also have a far simpler burden of evidence to meet. It would be quite simple to find an example of Muhammed punishing someone for spousal rape, or at least saying what the punishment is.


Quote:

You even started a whole thread dedicated to what my views are, and I gave you detailed answers.

I plan on adding them. As far as I can tell you largely agree with Abu and Falah. BTW, I did eventually respond to that thread, regarding your attempt to portray Islamic law as being compatible with democracy.


Quote:

At least some of those contradict the claims you make in some of the wiki chapters you have made - why "override" my opinions and claim the exact opposite views as unquestioned fact?

Because you make it so obvious that you do not actually know what Islamic is. You had to gently ease yourself into your position. You appear to have based your view on concluding that Falah is mistaken.


Quote:

But this isn't about me, even a cursory investigation into mainstream muslim views clearly shows that none of these claims you make trashing islam are held.

You hold most of them.

freediver wrote on Jan 11^th, 2013 at 1:49pm:

He explained all that at the time gandalf.

Does that matter if he's confused to start with? You seem to miss my point.


freediver wrote on Jan 11^th, 2013 at 1:49pm:

Who decides what Islamic jurisprudence is? Muslims. There is no absolute measure.

Quite right - and so isn't it ironic that you say this now, but you were quite absolute when you stated in no uncertain terms that "islam permits rape". Apparently in that instance, the word of fallah, or whoever you were "quoting", was absolute. Interesting isn't it?

Muslims interpret what islamic law is, and virtually every muslim rejects the idea that rape is allowed in islam, or that rape is a legitimate weapon of war, or most of the other outrageous claims you made in the wiki. And yet you quote exactly zero of them.


freediver wrote on Jan 11^th, 2013 at 1:49pm:

And look where it gets him.

the king of trolling? I've attempted to engage Yadda multiple times, and I get endless abuse and personal attacks. Surely your not accusing me of being unfair on Yadda now.


freediver wrote on Jan 11^th, 2013 at 1:49pm:

I am still a bit confused about that. It is hardly clear. For example you insist that Falah's own evidence contradicts his views, when it does not.

I suggest you read the entire post you keep quoting. Here it is:


Quote:

Forced sex in marriage is not a punishable offence in Islam. But that does not mean it is encouraged. In Australia, forced sex in marriage was not a punishable offence until very recently. Does this mean that our grandparents promoted forced sex in marriage simply because Australian law did not ounish it? How Does Islam Tell Men To Treat Women? The Prophet (peace and blessings of God be upon him) said: “Woman was created from a rib, and if you try to straighten a rib you will break it, so deal with her gently .” (Reported by Ahmad, 5/8; Ibn Hibbaan, 1308; Saheeh al-Jaami’, 2/163). “O you who believe!...you should not treat them with harshness...And live with them honourably. If you dislike them, it may be that you dislike a thing and God brings through it a great deal of good [al-Nisaa’ v.19] It was narrated that Abu Hurayrah said: “The Apostle of God (peace and blessings of God be upon him) said: ‘Be kind to women.’” (Bukhaari, 3153; Muslim, 1468). Abu Hurayrah reported that the Prophet (peace and blessings of God be upon him) said: “The most perfect of the believers in faith are the best in attitude, and the best of you are those who are best to their womenfolk.” (Reported by al-Tirmidhi, 1/217; Ahmad, 2/250; Al-Silsilat al-Saheehah, 284). Not harming one’s wife is one of the basic principles of Islam. Because harming others is forbidden in the case of strangers, it is even more so in the case of harming one’s wife. It was narrated from Ubaadah ibn al-Saamit that the Apostle of God (peace and blessings of God be upon him) ruled, “There should be no harming nor reciprocating harm.” (Ibn Maajah, 2340 - graded as "authentic" by Imam Ahmad, al-Haakim, Ibn al-Salaah and others)

On reflection, I actually agree with you - his evidence doesn't contradict his central view, which is that abuse of women is not condoned. Whether or not there is a specific punishment for spousal rape is really neither here nor there. Abuse of women is certainly strictly forbidden - what is the specific punishment? I couldn't say. But its common sense that there would be a punishment - otherwise why would it be so firmly denounced in the quran and hadith? Same goes with spousal rape: unless you are really sick, or extremely confused, you would never say that spousal rape wasn't a form of abuse. So as far as I'm concerned, put it all under the "don't abuse your women and treat them with dignity" category.

Long story short, Falah is not condoning any form of rape in islam. So what exactly is your point about it?


freediver wrote on Jan 11^th, 2013 at 1:49pm:

I plan on adding them. As far as I can tell you largely agree with Abu and Falah.

Oh goody. I look forward to being misquoted and taken out of context.


freediver wrote on Jan 11^th, 2013 at 1:49pm:

You hold most of them.

ahh so its started already! Nice work. Please enlighten me further - what backward views are you attributing to me more specifically?

Quote:

Does that matter if he's confused to start with? You seem to miss my point.

It is you who is confused.


Quote:

Quite right - and so isn't it ironic that you say this now, but you were quite absolute when you stated in no uncertain terms that "islam permits rape". Apparently in that instance, the word of fallah, or whoever you were "quoting", was absolute. Interesting isn't it?

I feel no need to qualify everything I say about Islam.


Quote:

Muslims interpret what islamic law is, and virtually every muslim rejects the idea that rape is allowed in islam

Of course they do. So do Abu and Falah. That does not mean that rape is not permitted in Islam. It just means Islam has a different definition of rape - one that conveniently has nothing to do with the consent of the woman involved. See the deception article for more info.


Quote:

the king of trolling? I've attempted to engage Yadda multiple times, and I get endless abuse and personal attacks. Surely your not accusing me of being unfair on Yadda now.

What I was getting at, is that every example I have seen where people do their own research to critique Islam end up being far more extreme than mine. See jihadwatch and all those other sites for examples. They all use proper quotes to back themselves up, just like Yadda. It seems to me that short of spending the next decade studying Islamic law in order to satisfy your demands, the best way to figure it out is to ask Muslims.


Quote:

On reflection, I actually agree with you - his evidence doesn't contradict his central view

That is why I am not rushing out to edit my wiki every time you disagree with me.


Quote:

Whether or not there is a specific punishment for spousal rape is really neither here nor there. Abuse of women is certainly strictly forbidden - what is the specific punishment?

You miss the point, which we have been over a few times already. He is not saying the punishment is unspecified. He is saying it is not punishable.


Quote:

But its common sense that there would be a punishment

What an odd thing to say. Are there any references to common sense in the Koran or Hadith?


Quote:

otherwise why would it be so firmly denounced in the quran and hadith?

I am not familiar with any specific references to spousal rape - only to the duty of a wife to satisfy her husband sexual appetite.


Quote:

Same goes with spousal rape: unless you are really sick, or extremely confuse

You left out Muslim.


Quote:

Long story short, Falah is not condoning any form of rape in islam. So what exactly is your point about it?

Here you go:

Forced sex in marriage is not a punishable offence in Islam.


Quote:

ahh so its started already! Nice work. Please enlighten me further - what backward views are you attributing to me more specifically?

Why don't you take this up in the relevant thread? You could start by reading over your first response. I basically got all the topics direct from the wiki on Islam and Australian values, and you agreed with most of them.

freediver wrote on Jan 11^th, 2013 at 7:33pm:

It seems to me that short of spending the next decade studying Islamic law in order to satisfy your demands, the best way to figure it out is to ask Muslims.

By all means, ask muslims, but get *ALL* the different points of view, not just the ones that support the view you want to propagate.

Its pretty obvious that you are really only interested in tripping muslims up by keeping this "dirt file" and strategically pulling it out in key 'gotcha' moments.


freediver wrote on Jan 11^th, 2013 at 7:33pm:

Here you go: Forced sex in marriage is not a punishable offence in Islam.

I repeat, falah is not condoning any form of rape in islam. Read the rest of his post for once. Was spousal rape "condoned" in Australia before it first became criminalised in 1981?

What Islam does say, is that men shouldn't abuse or take women by force. Nowhere does it qualify this and say "...except in the case of your wife".


freediver wrote on Jan 11^th, 2013 at 7:33pm:

You could start by reading over your first response. I basically got all the topics direct from the wiki on Islam and Australian values, and you agreed with most of them.

I have no idea what you are talking about. My first response said your wiki was a piece of sh*t because you have no idea how to reference properly. I'm afraid you're going to have to quote me "agreeing" with your ridiculous claims about islam.

Quote:

By all means, ask muslims, but get *ALL* the different points of view

Even from the Muslims who are obviously confused and only guessing? Must the wiki document every possible minority view? This could get a bit absurd. Imagine if people had to qualify every comment they make about other religions by listing every possible alternative view.

Abu made a very strong case for why his version is the mainstream version. You haven't even figured out what your version is.


Quote:

Its pretty obvious that you are really only interested in tripping muslims up by keeping this "dirt file" and strategically pulling it out in key 'gotcha' moments.

Like I already said, it initially became necessary when Abu and Malik kept lying about what they had said earlier. That it makes a fool of you so easily is an unintended consequence. Perhaps you shouldn't shoot your mouth of all the time. The wiki is there for your benefit too. Feel free to use it. Contrary to what you keep saying, there is a lot of 'real' evidence there.


Quote:

I repeat, falah is not condoning any form of rape in islam. Read the rest of his post for once. Was spousal rape "condoned" in Australia before it first became criminalised in 1981?

Interesting you should bring that up. You talk about common sense, but you are the one insisting that islam outlawed spousal rape a millenia before anyone else, without a shred of evidence to back it up. Abu and falah are obviously a bit embarrassed about that too. Don't you think they would be using it as an example of how great Islam is if there was any truth to your position?


Quote:

I have no idea what you are talking about.

I was talking about the thread you brought up - the one about your views on Islam.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 11^th, 2013 at 8:47pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 11th, 2013 at 7:33pm: It seems to me that short of spending the next decade studying Islamic law in order to satisfy your demands, the best way to figure it out is to ask Muslims. By all means, ask muslims, but get *ALL* the different points of view, not just the ones that support the view you want to propagate.

Interesting.
We need to get ALL the different points of view even though nobody is actually speaking for Islam.

How do we know that we have heard all the possible points of view on any given subject? When is an 'Islamic' way of seeing completely before us? Under this scheme, never.

If we dismiss Islam as represented by this or that arsehole, we are guilty of not taking into consideration ALL the possible permutations and all the imams who have uttered on the subject.

In the meantime, crazy bearded fvckers go on a rampage, in deeds and words, in the name of Islam. Not this or that interpretation of Islam, but of Islam.

The so-called mainstream Muslim is then free to oscillate between picking and choosing what he endorses, what he condemns and what he vacillates over, as well as being able to get all hot and bothered about the unfairness of stereotyping Muslims as lying, opportunistic crazies, who forever sniff the wind, depending on the reception of the outrage perpetrated in the name of Islam.


Strikes me as an opportunistic, dishonest and cunning smacking racket by the so called moderates.

The crazies are at least honest enough to be upfront. They say exactly what they mean.

The 'moderates', the opportunistic, arse-covering, shifty, cameleon-like 'moderates' are the worry. They are the ones who must not be trusted.

Given that it took a few months to get a straight answer from Abu and Falah on the controversial issues, how long is it going to take to ask every Muslim on earth how they feel about stoning little girls to death?

Soren wrote on Jan 11^th, 2013 at 9:09pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 11th, 2013 at 8:47pm: freediver wrote on Jan 11th, 2013 at 7:33pm: It seems to me that short of spending the next decade studying Islamic law in order to satisfy your demands, the best way to figure it out is to ask Muslims. By all means, ask muslims, but get *ALL* the different points of view, not just the ones that support the view you want to propagate. Interesting. We need to get ALL the different points of view even though nobody is actually speaking for Islam.

Point #1,

It goes without question, that all moslems are fallible men.

So, we can be certain that NO moslem, NO moslem, can speak in any informed and correct sense, for ISLAM!       :P

If that is correct, then who does speak for ISLAM ???

It is ISLAM's foundation texts [the Koran and Hadith] which, clearly and unequivocally, speak for ISLAM.

And i suggest, that you read and interpret what those texts say, and interpret what the intent of the words of the Koran and Hadith are, as you wish.

I always do.      :P

After i have read a Koran verse, i rarely have any doubt as to what it is 'speaking'.        :P



If some moslems then [are shocked and 'offended', and] disagree with how >> i << have interpreted, how the Koran and Hadith 'speak for ISLAM', then imo, it is up to those moslems [the ones who are shocked and 'offended' with my conclusion(s)] to provide me with good and convincing evidence of my 'error'.

No ?



+++

Point #2,

DOESN'T THE EVERYDAY BEHAVIOUR OF THE MANY PERSONS WHO CLAIM TO BE 'RIGHTLY GUIDED MOSLEMS', 'SPEAK FOR ISLAM' ?


Any person, can also be guided as to what ISLAM permits, by observing the behaviour of those persons who are making the claim to be, 'rightly guided moslems'.

BECAUSE, AS I HAVE STATED MANY TIMES HERE ON OZPOL;

Quote:

To a moslem, all things are permissible, if they are permitted by Sharia law. And all moslems KNOW what ISLAMIC law permits, and know what is forbidden.

SO, we must correctly assume, that the common-all behaviour of those persons who are making the claim to be, 'rightly guided moslems', is halal [permitted] by ISLAM, and that the behaviour of those persons, 'speak for ISLAM'.

After all, EVERY MOSLEM, EVERY MOSLEM, is an ambassador for ISLAM.

Am i not correct ?



Isn't that conclusion that i have come to, a reasonable and logical conclusion ?








p.s.

What about those moderate moslems who live among us, and who frequently will claim to disassociate their beliefs, with the behaviour of the tiny minority of extremists ?

Well, i am not convinced by their protestations!

If they were truly sincere, then those 'moderate' moslems, those 'REAL' moslems, who live among us, would start an ISLAMIC movement to oppose the tiny minority of extremists.

But they have not, and the never will.



Just think it through;

[SUPPOSEDLY] The mainstream ISLAM, the majority of, pluralistic, moslems, will do absolutely NOTHING, against those infidels, who are - they claim, are misrepresenting ISLAM, and bringing the name of ISLAM into disrepute.

How likely is that, when at every juncture, supposed 'moderate' moslems will claim to be offended, when non-moslems castigate that 'tiny minority of extremists', after they have committed their latest act of vicious violence, IN THE NAME OF ISLAM ???i

Soren....
Quote:

How do we know that we have heard all the possible points of view on any given subject? When is an 'Islamic' way of seeing completely before us? Under this scheme, never. If we dismiss Islam as represented by this or that arsehole, we are guilty of not taking into consideration ALL the possible permutations and all the imams who have uttered on the subject. In the meantime, crazy bearded fvckers go on a rampage, in deeds and words, in the name of Islam. Not this or that interpretation of Islam, but of Islam. The so-called mainstream Muslim is then free to oscillate between picking and choosing what he endorses, what he condemns and what he vacillates over, as well as being able to get all hot and bothered about the unfairness of stereotyping Muslims as lying, opportunistic crazies, who forever sniff the wind, depending on the reception of the outrage perpetrated in the name of Islam. Strikes me as an opportunistic, dishonest and cunning smacking racket by the so called moderates. The crazies are at least honest enough to be upfront. They say exactly what they mean. The 'moderates', the opportunistic, arse-covering, shifty, cameleon-like 'moderates' are the worry. They are the ones who must not be trusted.

No argument, Soren.

I think that you have stated your case very eloquently.      ;)

freediver wrote on Jan 11^th, 2013 at 9:04pm:

Even from the Muslims who are obviously confused and only guessing? Must the wiki document every possible minority view? This could get a bit absurd. Imagine if people had to qualify every comment they make about other religions by listing every possible alternative view.

Its quite difficult to believe that you are actually being serious. If you could only look at how absurd your argument is.

Every minority view? Nah - how about one or two mainstream views? There's a radical thought. Like the mainstream view that rape is strictly forbidden under any circumstance?

It defies belief that you apparently still have trouble understanding what is wrong with your wiki articles. So here it is again: the problem is that you don't even acknowledge the diversity in opinion, but hold a single minority view as the ultimate authority. I'm not even asking that you change such statements as "rape is permitted in islam" to "rape is forbidden in islam". Why not explain that there are different views, and cite a few examples from each side?



freediver wrote on Jan 11^th, 2013 at 9:04pm:

Abu made a very strong case for why his version is the mainstream version. You haven't even figured out what your version is.

Outrageous isn't it? Outrageous that I take a more considered approach and acknowledge there are different points of view, and that the "truth" is not always immediately apparent. No, apparently its far better to arrogantly claim I am the ultimate authority on any given issue, and that all the islamic experts and scholars who disagree with me are wrong. 



freediver wrote on Jan 11^th, 2013 at 9:04pm:

You talk about common sense, but you are the one insisting that islam outlawed spousal rape a millenia before anyone else, without a shred of evidence to back it up. Abu and falah are obviously a bit embarrassed about that too.

FD seriously, what is wrong with you? I explained this exact point in my last post. I see you continue to refuse to read Falah's post in its entirety. In it, he cites specific verses that outlaw rape and abuse of women. From this I made the point, which you apparently missed, that nowhere do these verses make any sort of qualification and say "..except in the case of your wife". From that I conclude that any form of rape is strictly forbidden. Why the hell would this logical and consistent position be embarassing??


freediver wrote on Jan 11^th, 2013 at 9:04pm:

I was talking about the thread you brought up - the one about your views on Islam.

Uh yeah - and there I apparently declare that rape is permitted, and rape is a legitimate weapon of war, and that abusing women is a-ok. Interesting, because thats not what my actual words appear to say. Of course only FD and his superior interpretive skills can explain how a rejection of rape and abuse of women actually means the exact opposite - apparently.  :D


Soren wrote on Jan 11^th, 2013 at 9:09pm:

If we dismiss Islam as represented by this or that arsehole, we are guilty of not taking into consideration ALL the possible permutations and all the imams who have uttered on the subject.

Couldn't agree more soren. Tell that to FD and Abu

Quote:

ts quite difficult to believe that you are actually being serious. If you could only look at how absurd your argument is. Every minority view? Nah - how about one or two mainstream views?

It was your suggestion that I have to get all of them, not mine. I think you will find that with Abu and Falah I have a Sunni and a Shite, who have both done extensive study of their religion. They both claim to be mainstream - just like you.


Quote:

There's a radical thought. Like the mainstream view that rape is strictly forbidden under any circumstance?

When Abu claimed to speak on behalf of mainstream Islam, he actually went to some effort to justify the claim. You on the other hand make these claims without justification, while at the same time insisting on absurd standards from everyone else.


Quote:

So here it is again: the problem is that you don't even acknowledge the diversity in opinio

It does that, where Abu presented evidence that it actually exists.


Quote:

Outrageous isn't it? Outrageous that I take a more considered approach and acknowledge there are different points of view, and that the "truth" is not always immediately apparent.

Well, let me know when you have made up your mind.


Quote:

FD seriously, what is wrong with you? I explained this exact point in my last post. I see you continue to refuse to read Falah's post in its entirety. In it, he cites specific verses that outlaw rape and abuse of women. From this I made the point, which you apparently missed, that nowhere do these verses make any sort of qualification and say "..except in the case of your wife". From that I conclude that any form of rape is strictly forbidden. Why the hell would this logical and consistent position be embarassing??

Gandalf, if we start with common sense, there are a few basic flaws with your argument that Islam outlaws spousal rape (if indeed you are arguing that).

1) It does not make sense that Islam outlawed spousal rape a millenia before anyone else, but all those people (including Abu and Falah) who try to make Islam out to be far more progressive than it is failed to mention it.

2) You have not come up with a single example of someone punished under Shariah law for spousal rape.

3) You have not come up with a single utterance from Muhammed that spousal rape is illegal.

4) You have not come up with a single 'interpretation' from Islamic clerics that spousal rape is a punishable offence.

5) The illegality of spousal rape does not exactly sit well with the Islamic position that it is the wife's duty to satisfy her husband sexually and that it is a sin not to do this.

6) The punishment for rape depends on the marital status of the perpetrator. If the rapist is married, he gets stoned to death. If the rapist is unmarried, he gets 100 lashes. It just so happens that this is the same punishment for consensual sex outside of marriage. That is, the punishments would not actually change if you declared rape legal but maintained that sex outside of marriage is forbidden (except of course for the victim). You would have a hard time reconciling that with punishments for spousal rape.

7) You don't even seem to know where you got your view from.

To top it off, you counter this with 'I am right because I represent most Muslims, but I can't back it up in any way, but you have to study for 10 years before you are allowed to comment.'

freediver, you have inspired me to contribute to the wiki. However I need an account for that apparently. When I tried to sign up it asks for a username - even though the username field is un-editable. Also the terms and conditions link goes to a "no permission" page.

Please advise.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 8:10am:

Soren wrote on Jan 11th, 2013 at 9:09pm: If we dismiss Islam as represented by this or that arsehole, we are guilty of not taking into consideration ALL the possible permutations and all the imams who have uttered on the subject. Couldn't agree more soren. Tell that to FD and Abu

Well, how do you conuct your Muslim life? Do you first consider every possible teaching adn every utterance by every imam on whetever you are about to do?

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 10:50am:

freediver, you have inspired me to contribute to the wiki. However I need an account for that apparently. When I tried to sign up it asks for a username - even though the username field is un-editable. Also the terms and conditions link goes to a "no permission" page. Please advise.

You need to follow the link to request an account. I get the odd request from spammers, so they can get it to work. I also just checked it myself. Just fill in the biography section with garbage if you want.

Soren wrote on Jan 11^th, 2013 at 9:09pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 11th, 2013 at 8:47pm: freediver wrote on Jan 11th, 2013 at 7:33pm: It seems to me that short of spending the next decade studying Islamic law in order to satisfy your demands, the best way to figure it out is to ask Muslims. By all means, ask muslims, but get *ALL* the different points of view, not just the ones that support the view you want to propagate. Interesting. We need to get ALL the different points of view even though nobody is actually speaking for Islam. How do we know that we have heard all the possible points of view on any given subject? When is an 'Islamic' way of seeing completely before us? Under this scheme, never. If we dismiss Islam as represented by this or that arsehole, we are guilty of not taking into consideration ALL the possible permutations and all the imams who have uttered on the subject. In the meantime, crazy bearded fvckers go on a rampage, in deeds and words, in the name of Islam. Not this or that interpretation of Islam, but of Islam. The so-called mainstream Muslim is then free to oscillate between picking and choosing what he endorses, what he condemns and what he vacillates over, as well as being able to get all hot and bothered about the unfairness of stereotyping Muslims as lying, opportunistic crazies, who forever sniff the wind, depending on the reception of the outrage perpetrated in the name of Islam. Strikes me as an opportunistic, dishonest and cunning smacking racket by the so called moderates. The crazies are at least honest enough to be upfront. They say exactly what they mean. The 'moderates', the opportunistic, arse-covering, shifty, cameleon-like 'moderates' are the worry. They are the ones who must not be trusted.

Ah, so you prefer the crazies. Why is that not suprizing?

Old boys share a fondness for each other the world over. Rich tapestry, innit.

It’s the pluralists we have to watch out for. Always. Perpetual. Never ever.

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, eh?

Good show, old chap.

Yeah, well, you prefer people who come from behind, PB.

It is curious though, isn’t it, old chap?

Muslims can’t modernize. They love living under dictators, they refuse to liberalize their countries. They could never undertake something like constitutional reform. They won’t speak out against the fundamentalists, they won’t criticize the extremists among them. They love all the backward Islamic laws and couldn’t possibly live any other way. They can’t live in Western countries - they refuse to assimilate. Absolutely. Always. Never ever. On stilts.

Then, when they do all those things, oh no - the good old fundamentalists are the best.

Yes, old chap, it’s the simple things in life we appreciate the most - those familiar, enduring things we’ve come to know and trust. 

And let’s face it, where would we be without them? We need them, old chap, if only to fill that void inside ourselves we couldn’t possibly fill without a good, old-fashioned enemy.

It’s the Christian way, innit.

freediver wrote on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 9:14am:

Gandalf, if we start with common sense, there are a few basic flaws with your argument that Islam outlaws spousal rape (if indeed you are arguing that). 1) It does not make sense that Islam outlawed spousal rape a millenia before anyone else, but all those people (including Abu and Falah) who try to make Islam out to be far more progressive than it is failed to mention it. 2) You have not come up with a single example of someone punished under Shariah law for spousal rape. 3) You have not come up with a single utterance from Muhammed that spousal rape is illegal. 4) You have not come up with a single 'interpretation' from Islamic clerics that spousal rape is a punishable offence. 5) The illegality of spousal rape does not exactly sit well with the Islamic position that it is the wife's duty to satisfy her husband sexually and that it is a sin not to do this. 6) The punishment for rape depends on the marital status of the perpetrator. If the rapist is married, he gets stoned to death. If the rapist is unmarried, he gets 100 lashes. It just so happens that this is the same punishment for consensual sex outside of marriage. That is, the punishments would not actually change if you declared rape legal but maintained that sex outside of marriage is forbidden (except of course for the victim). You would have a hard time reconciling that with punishments for spousal rape. 7) You don't even seem to know where you got your view from.

Point 6 makes absolutely no sense.

Anyway, I'm not going to waste much more of my time on this silly debate. I have made my point abundantly clear, which I will repeat one more time: both the quran and the hadith instruct muslim men on multiple occasions to treat women with respect and not abuse them (for reference, see falah's post that you yourself reference for rape). Most muslims, including falah and me, believe that it goes without saying that those prescriptions extend to how you treat your wife in bed. If you insist that islam makes an exception to that rule by allowing spousal rape, then you need to provide some supporting evidence. And no, muslims not being able to come up with an islamic-prescribed punishment for spousal rape doesn't count. There are plenty of other things we consider forbidden that don't have a prescribed punishment.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 6:43pm:

Point 6 makes absolutely no sense. Anyway, I'm not going to waste much more of my time on this silly debate. I have made my point abundantly clear, which I will repeat one more time: both the quran and the hadith instruct muslim men on multiple occasions to treat women with respect and not abuse them (for reference, see falah's post that you yourself reference for rape).

ISLAM is a 'shame' culture, ISLAM is not a 'guilt' culture.

What that means is that moslems present a front, a facade of honourable conduct and honesty, to hide their crimes, their lies, and their corruption.

Also, in their 'shame' culture moslems do not EVER reveal their shame [their guilt].

Does that mean that moslems are paragons of virtue ?







"....both the quran and the hadith instruct muslim men on multiple occasions to treat women with respect and not abuse them (for reference, see falah's post that you yourself reference for rape)."




gandalf,
n.b.
These things [below] are occurring within a culture [ISLAM] which ostensibly 'treats women with respect and not abuse them'.

Dictionary;
ostensible = = apparently true, but not necessarily so.





IMAGE...
http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/data/upimages/manizha_tortured_woman_from_ghazni_jan2013.jpg
IMAGE SOURCE...
http://shariaunveiled.wordpress.com/2013/01/07/afghan-wife-describes-the-abuse-within-an-islamic-marriage/







IMAGE...
http://mikesright.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/muslim-abuse-victim.jpg
IMAGE SOURCE...
http://mikesright.wordpress.com/2011/04/19/%E2%80%9Cwear-a-head-scarf-or-we-will-kill-you%E2%80%9D/muslim-abuse-victim/







IMAGE...
http://doctorbulldog.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/bilde.jpg
IMAGE SOURCE...
http://doctorbulldog.wordpress.com/2010/08/20/the-abused-women-of-islam-a-shocking-story-heard-every-day/







IMAGE...
http://bulletinoftheoppressionofwomen.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/black-eye-k.bmp
IMAGE SOURCE...
http://bulletinoftheoppressionofwomen.com/2012/05/26/6-out-of-10-swedish-mosques-told-muslim-women-to-accept-beatings-and-polygamy/igandalf....
Quote:

....Most muslims, including falah and me, believe that it goes without saying that those prescriptions extend to how you treat your wife in bed. If you insist that islam makes an exception to that rule by allowing spousal rape, then you need to provide some supporting evidence. And no, muslims not being able to come up with an islamic-prescribed punishment for spousal rape doesn't count. There are plenty of other things we consider forbidden that don't have a prescribed punishment.

gandalf,

Why doesn't ISLAM have a prescribed punishment for spousal rape ?

Is it because....."....both the quran and the hadith instruct muslim men on multiple occasions to treat women with respect and not abuse them."

....so that it is inconceivable that such abuse of wives may happen ???




+++


not in the main JW article [below],
but a posting as a comment, by,
A_Nonny_Mouse | July 26, 2007 8:07 PM
....

Quote:

Shame vs. Guilt The Western culture, is guilt based. The Eastern culture is shame based. For Easterners, everything is about image and how others see us. The opposite of guilt is innocence. If your ethos is guilt based, you have an inner police that stops you from doing wrong because doing wrong makes you feel guilty. If your ethos is shame based, all you care is to preserve your image. The opposite of shame is honor. You can do wrong but as long as no one sees it, your image is not tarnished and you can still be seen as an honorable person.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2007/07/former-sydney-imam-who-produced-dvds-calling-for-jihad-martyrdom-calling-jews-pigs-phones-home-for-s.html#comment-378269iGoogle;
the difference between shame, and guilt based culture, islam

Karnal wrote on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 5:42pm:

It is curious though, isn’t it, old chap? Muslims can’t modernize. They love living under dictators, they refuse to liberalize their countries. They could never undertake something like constitutional reform. They won’t speak out against the fundamentalists, they won’t criticize the extremists among them. They love all the backward Islamic laws and couldn’t possibly live any other way. They can’t live in Western countries - they refuse to assimilate. Absolutely. Always. Never ever. On stilts. Then, when they do all those things, oh no - the good old fundamentalists are the best. Yes, old chap, it’s the simple things in life we appreciate the most - those familiar, enduring things we’ve come to know and trust.  And let’s face it, where would we be without them? We need them, old chap, if only to fill that void inside ourselves we couldn’t possibly fill without a good, old-fashioned enemy. It’s the Christian way, innit.

PB, I said at least the crazy bearded fvckers say exactly what the mean (behead, kill, sharia etc) while the so-called moderates oscillate, equivocate, are shifty and opportunistic and dishonest and should not be trusted. Like you.

Let's see in what novel way you can pretend to misunderstand. Go on, you have internalised a mountain of turgid Marxist and post colonial BS. Misrepresenting a couple of plain sentences shouldn't be hard for you. Do the moderate Muslim thing.

Moslems pretend that ISLAM is a virtuous philosophy/culture.

But ISLAM is NOT a virtuous philosophy/culture.

ISLAM fosters a human culture, which just pretends to be virtuous, while hiding behind a facde, a veil, of lies and falsehood.




Look at what ISLAM has already done, to all of those persons who have chosen to embrace ISLAM!

Those persons have no honour, and they have no shame, imo.

All societies in the world today, which claim to be ISLAMIC and Sharia guided, are nests of oppression, depravity, corruption, violence, injustice, and human poverty.

Who can deny that truth ?



And yet they, moslems, continue to choose to cling to that hideous philosophy of lies, intimidation, violence, murder, and corruption.

Book 020, Number 4696:

    It has been narrated on the authority of Abu Huraira that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: One who died but did not fight in the way of Allah nor did he express any desire (or determination) for Jihid died the death of a hypocrite.

http://hadithcollection.com/sahihmuslim/148-Sahih%20Muslim%20Book%2020.%20On%20Government/12845-sahih-muslim-book-020-hadith-number-4696.html

Doesn't say anything about mediate, go on a retreat and pray, contemplate, do spiritual exercises in the way of Allah.
It says fight in the name of Allah.

Shurely shome mishtake. Must be a mistranslation, what?

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 12:27pm:

Soren, muslims can and do accept criticism. You just choose not to notice it, preferring instead to focus only on the minority who can't accept it.

They are vocal. The moderates are quiet, probably because they are afraid of the bearded fvckers, like everyone else who doesn't carry a gun.

The weapon of 'moderates' like you is victimhood, cries of discrimination and (dread word) islamophobia. You have learned from the homos and the juvenile delinquents that playing the victim card will get you recognition and sympathy. But you are not victims of anyone other than the crazy bearded fvckers of your own persuasion. But as you are too scared to confront them, you bleat about non-muslims victimising you.

But it's all bvllshit as everyone knows.

This just in:

A detailed analysis of FBI statistics covering ten full calendar years since the 9/11 terrorist attacks reveals that, on a per capita basis, American Muslims, contrary to spin, have been subjected to hate crimes less often than other prominent minorities. From 2002 to 2011, Muslims are estimated to have suffered hate crimes at a frequency of 6.0 incidents per 100,000 per year – 10 percent lower than blacks (6.7), 48 percent lower than homosexuals and bisexuals (11.5), and 59 percent lower than Jews (14.8). Americans should keep these numbers in mind whenever Islamists attempt to silence critics by invoking Muslim victimhood.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/337417/hate-crime-stats-deflate-islamophobia-myth-david-j-rusin#


http://neveryetmelted.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/CharlieHebdoMohammedCover.jpg

Soren wrote on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 10:36pm:

Book 020, Number 4696:     It has been narrated on the authority of Abu Huraira that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: One who died but did not fight in the way of Allah nor did he express any desire (or determination) for Jihid died the death of a hypocrite. http://hadithcollection.com/sahihmuslim/148-Sahih%20Muslim%20Book%2020.%20On%20Government/12845-sahih-muslim-book-020-hadith-number-4696.html Doesn't say anything about mediate, go on a retreat and pray, contemplate, do spiritual exercises in the way of Allah. It says fight in the name of Allah. Shurely shome mishtake. Must be a mistranslation, what?

Quite right, old chap. You’ve cleverly distinguished what Muslims mean by jihad from fighting and dying. Excellent point.

Your quote shows precisely that your unequivocating militant fundamentalists are not practicing jihad, but are hypocrites.

As every schoolboy knows.

Every old boy, however - let’s just say he goes for the hypocritical angle every time.

Present company excluded, of course. Your prophet Yeheshua - he was a devout proponent of blitzkreig, no?

What are you trying to express, PB? I can see you are on the mental lav again, purple faced, trying to pass a turd but bugger knows what you are trying to pass, other than you and whoever packed it for ya.
Aperient? Have two.

Quote:

There are plenty of other things we consider forbidden that don't have a prescribed punishment.

Such as?

Soren wrote on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 11:51pm:

What are you trying to express, PB? I can see you are on the mental lav again, purple faced, trying to pass a turd but bugger knows what you are trying to pass, other than you and whoever packed it for ya. Aperient? Have two.

You really don’t understand it, do you? I’ll give you a clue - jihad does not mean carpet-bombing an enemy.

Fighting in the name of Allah means submission, letting go.

Read your quote again.

Karnal wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 12:41am:

Soren wrote on Jan 12th, 2013 at 11:51pm: What are you trying to express, PB? I can see you are on the mental lav again, purple faced, trying to pass a turd but bugger knows what you are trying to pass, other than you and whoever packed it for ya. Aperient? Have two. You really don’t understand it, do you? I’ll give you a clue - jihad does not mean carpet-bombing an enemy. Fighting in the name of Allah means submission, letting go. Read your quote again.

One who died but did not fight in the way of Allah nor did he express any desire (or determination) for Jihad died the death of a hypocrite.


Do you think it mean fight with weapons OR desire an inner struggle and meditation (jihad)?

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 6:43pm:

Point 6 makes absolutely no sense. Anyway, I'm not going to waste much more of my time on this silly debate. I have made my point abundantly clear, which I will repeat one more time: both the quran and the hadith instruct muslim men on multiple occasions to treat women with respect and not abuse them (for reference, see falah's post that you yourself reference for rape). .....There are plenty of other things we consider forbidden that don't have a prescribed punishment.

gandalf,

What is the punishment in ISLAMIC law, for marrying off your daughter without her consent ???

OR, is is this yet another malfeasance [within ISLAMIC law!] that is NOT prescribed for any punishment within ISLAMIC law ?






Yadda wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 7:27am:

HEY GANDALF, I guess that this 15 year girl did NOT consent to this arranged marriage ??? It appears that she did not. And i guess that the 15 year old's father offended the stricture of Sharia law, relating to the consent of the female in marriage. HEY GANDALF, Should the father be considered to be an infidel ???      [i.e. it is forbidden for a moslem to marry his 15 year old daughter, without her permission] "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 So, what will his punishment be GANDALF, according to ISLAMIC law ? You claim that you are a moslem. Tell us............

Karnal wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 12:41am:

You really don’t understand it [jihad], do you? I’ll give you a clue - jihad does not mean carpet-bombing an enemy. Fighting in the name of Allah means submission, letting go.

Hey K,

You are misrepresenting Jihad, and ISLAM.

You need to pull your head out of it.


IMAGE.....
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Wc_-IxeouPU/ThnoLBTwrCI/AAAAAAAAAC8/cWkULC8reVk/s1600/head-in-sand.jpg

But i'm not sure that that, is where your head is inserted ?







"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


"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


"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


"I heard Allah's Apostle saying, "The example of a Mujahid [religious fighter] in Allah's Cause-- and Allah knows better who really strives in His Cause----is like a person who fasts and prays continuously. Allah guarantees that He will admit the Mujahid in His Cause into Paradise if he is killed, otherwise He will return him to his home safely with rewards and war booty." "
hadithsunnah/bukhari/ #004.052.046

i.e. Muhammad is reported as saying that for a moslem, religious fighting, is the same as a religious devotion.
Jihad [religious fighting], is as if a muslim 'fasts and prays continuously'.
And that Allah guarantees that a Mujahid [religious fighter] will enter Paradise, if he is killed.


"A man came to the Prophet and asked, "A man fights for war booty; another fights for fame and a third fights for showing off; which of them fights in Allah's Cause?" The Prophet said, "He who fights that Allah's Word (i.e. Islam) should be superior, fights in Allah's Cause." "
hadithsunnah/bukhari/ #004.052.065
hadithsunnah/bukhari/ #004.052.080i


"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." "
hadithsunnah/bukhari/ #001.002.026



n.b.
All of the above Hadith quotes, are direct copy and past from the MSA [Muslim Students Association - America] site.

They will get their just rewards eventually.

freediver wrote on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 11:52pm:

Quote: There are plenty of other things we consider forbidden that don't have a prescribed punishment. Such as?

charging usury, neglecting to pay zakat and treason - just three things off the top of my head we know for sure are forbidden in islam but have no prescribed earthly punishment.

Islamic law specifies only a few crimes with a prescribed punishment. The vast majority of punishment would come under the "tazir" category, which is left to the judge's discretion.


Soren wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 12:51am:

One who died but did not fight in the way of Allah nor did he express any desire (or determination) for Jihad died the death of a hypocrite. Do you think it mean fight with weapons OR desire an inner struggle and meditation (jihad)?

What is the original arabic words? Was the word for "fight" a word that could mean a struggle in either the physical or spiritual sense? I suspect that you have no idea.

Yadda wrote on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 9:40pm:

some disturbing photos that everyone has seen a million times already

Gee thats a mature way to debate yadda. Shall I post pictures of the millions of women happily married and not being abused by their muslim husbands?

Or maybe I should post pictures of battered non-muslim wives as "proof" that islam is the only way.

It would be equally as retarded as what you did.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 8:30am:

Yadda wrote on Jan 12th, 2013 at 9:40pm: some disturbing photos that everyone has seen a million times already Gee thats a mature way to debate yadda. Shall I post pictures of the millions of women happily married and not being abused by their muslim husbands?

But gandalf,

THE POINT THAT I AM MAKING......
Is that according to you, such abuse should not be happening within any ISLAMIC community because;


polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 6:43pm:

both the quran and the hadith instruct muslim men on multiple occasions to treat women with respect and not abuse them (for reference, see falah's post that you yourself reference for rape).

gandalf,

Tell us all.......

.......are those 'persons' who are abusing moslem girls and women, really infidels ???

Are those abusers of moslem girls and women, really moslem IMPERSONATORS ?i+++

gandalf,

How do you account for all of this abuse of moslem girls and women, that is going on within the 'virtuous' moslem ummah [community] ?

When Allah himself has declared that all moslems are righteous people'enjoining what is right, forbidding what is wrong'.


"Ye [moslems] are the best of peoples, evolved for mankind, enjoining what is right, forbidding what is wrong, and believing in Allah.......[and it is the 'unbelievers' who] are perverted transgressors."
Koran 3.110

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 8:26am:

Soren wrote on Jan 13th, 2013 at 12:51am: One who died but did not fight in the way of Allah nor did he express any desire (or determination) for Jihad died the death of a hypocrite. Do you think it mean fight with weapons OR desire an inner struggle and meditation (jihad)? What is the original arabic words? Was the word for "fight" a word that could mean a struggle in either the physical or spiritual sense? I suspect that you have no idea.

gandalf,

Are moslems who are 'correctly' fighting the Jihad, going to die for Allah's cause, in a spiritual sense ???


gandalf,

Why, oh why, are you misrepresenting Jihad, and ISLAM, on this forum.

You are a moslem [you claim!!!!].

Yet, you seem woefully ignorant about what ISLAM really is, and about the philosophy which ISLAM really promotes.     [.....i.e. a philosophy promoting lies, deception, intimidation, vicious violence, oppression and 'lawful' murder.]






"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


"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


"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


"I heard Allah's Apostle saying, "The example of a Mujahid [religious fighter] in Allah's Cause-- and Allah knows better who really strives in His Cause----is like a person who fasts and prays continuously. Allah guarantees that He will admit the Mujahid in His Cause into Paradise if he is killed, otherwise He will return him to his home safely with rewards and war booty." "
hadithsunnah/bukhari/ #004.052.046

i.e. Muhammad is reported as saying that for a moslem, religious fighting, is the same as a religious devotion.
Jihad [religious fighting], is as if a muslim 'fasts and prays continuously'.
And that Allah guarantees that a Mujahid [religious fighter] will enter Paradise, if he is killed.


"A man came to the Prophet and asked, "A man fights for war booty; another fights for fame and a third fights for showing off; which of them fights in Allah's Cause?" The Prophet said, "He who fights that Allah's Word (i.e. Islam) should be superior, fights in Allah's Cause." "
hadithsunnah/bukhari/ #004.052.065
hadithsunnah/bukhari/ #004.052.080i


"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." "
hadithsunnah/bukhari/ #001.002.026

gandalf,

There is an 'opening' for you in heaven.

All you have to do, is to repent your error, [not to me, just....] TO GOD.




Just pray to him.

His name is;     The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.




Psalms 146:8
The LORD openeth the eyes of the blind: the LORD raiseth them that are bowed down: the LORD loveth the righteous:

Yadda wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 8:42am:

gandalf, Tell us all....... .......are those 'persons' who are abusing moslem girls and women, really infidels ??? Are those abusers of moslem girls and women, really moslem IMPERSONATORS ?

gandalf,

Are you sure, that it isn't you [and all moslems], who are not the real KUFFAR ???



"Dear muslim, YOU are the kuffar"
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1229682951/0#0

Quote:

Dear muslim, YOU are the kuffar, YOU are the unbeliever. You who embrace ISLAM, your own lies and deception, have become a witness against you, before God. You muslims insist that ONLY muslims are the 'properly guided'. Is he who is on a path of lies and deception, 'properly guided'?? AN EXPLANATION OF THE WORD 'KUFFAR'... "kuffar" = = "...is an Arabic word meaning.....[an unbeliever] a person....who hides, denies, or covers the truth." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuffar