What a brilliant term, Its about time the sickness was named correctly.

http://islamversuseurope.blogspot.ca/2013/04/every-second-westerner-islam-does-not.html

Yesterday a colleague of mine was showing people footage of a woman being beheaded in the middle east for stealing.

I thought you only lost an arm and a leg for that FD?  ::)

Six more of the devil worshipers are going to jail in the UK after trying to spread islam in the normal way. Ifidelophobia at its very best!

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-05-01/six-men-admit-plot-to-bomb-right-wing-rally/4662776

Adamant wrote on May 2^nd, 2013 at 10:56am:

I thought you only lost an arm and a leg for that FD?  ::) Six more of the devil worshipers are going to jail in the UK after trying to spread islam in the normal way. Ifidelophobia at its very best! http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-05-01/six-men-admit-plot-to-bomb-right-wing-rally/4662776

"Six men admit plot to bomb right-wing rally"


But adamant,

This is clearly just another case of infidels inciting moslems, to want to kill them.

Can't you see this ???                :P

The violent intent of some moslems, has absolutely nothing to do with mainstream ISLAM.                :P

The fault is with the infidels, for inciting moslems, to want to kill them.                :P



After the 2012, Sydney CBD, moslem street protests
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1367379581/7#7i


Please watch this YT...
ISLAM - THREE THINGS YOU SHOULD KNOW!!!
http://youtube.com/watch?v=OzxiHfWvBGw

AND;

Please watch this YT...
Muslims being deceptive Islam EX-Muslims
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZx8cNSC9O0

such a privilege to contribute to such a quality thread.

polite_gandalf wrote on May 2^nd, 2013 at 12:20pm:

such a privilege to contribute to such a quality thread.

I am so glad you think so gandalf. It is a most important topic. What would you say about this Christian woman in Egypt, do you think she would have Islamonausea, Infidelophobia or is just another filthy kuffa and deserves it?

http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/3797.htm

Adamant wrote on May 3^rd, 2013 at 11:17am:

What would you say about this Christian woman in Egypt

Why its irrefutable proof of islam's inherent evilness. Obviously.

polite_gandalf wrote on May 3^rd, 2013 at 12:46pm:

Adamant wrote on May 3rd, 2013 at 11:17am: What would you say about this Christian woman in Egypt Why its irrefutable proof of islam's inherent evilness. Obviously.

Then why do you practise it?

Because im a lying, violent and cruel evil bastard. Keep up adamant haven't you been paying attention to anything yadda has said?? Sheesh

polite_gandalf wrote on May 3^rd, 2013 at 4:04pm:

Because im a lying, violent and cruel evil bastard.

I see, and did you hate your mother?

That's a loaded question.

According to the old thief, liar, pedophile, rapist, torturer and mass murderer, holy prophet muhammad, all women are stupid, women make up the majority of hell's inhabitants, should be starved to death for lewdness, should be stoned to death for adultery and should never be trusted.

Having a low opinion of women, is simply emulating muhammed.

moses wrote on May 3^rd, 2013 at 5:20pm:

That's a loaded question. According to the old thief, liar, pedophile, rapist, torturer and mass murderer, holy prophet muhammad, all women are stupid, women make up the majority of hell's inhabitants, should be starved to death for lewdness, should be stoned to death for adultery and should never be trusted. Having a low opinion of women, is simply emulating muhammed.

...the same ethics and morals that underpin the Old Testament or Torah

Why do Jews reject little baby Jesus?

Well you got me, why do they?

What I do know is that in the 21st century, most people are displaying some semblance of civilised norms.

However muslims have not progressed beyond the 7th century, they still run around shouting their islamic death chant "allahua akbar", as they slaughter innocent people in the most horrific manner possible, simply because these people behold the said *baby Jesus* as their saviour.

Of course I must add that the muslims committing these atrocities, are following islam / allah / muhammad / qur'an to the very letter. They are practicing islam in it's purest form.

Good to see Moses has found a new home to spew his bigotry and hatred.

I wonder why you hate Muslims so much, Moses?  I wonder, how many Muslims do you know?   I've asked those questions before and you've never answered them.

You seem to believe some monolithic creation of your imagination not the Muslims that I'm familiar with.   ::)

It's a shame you didn't turn up before Abu and Falah ran off.

While the elephant in the room of terror, with muslim on his head, islam / qur'an on his left side and allah / muhammad on his right side, is deliberately ignored by muslims and their apologists.

Moses, as always the flaw in your argument is that you assume that the Takfiri Islamists represent the mainstream of Islam and the majority of Muslims.  You also seem to have this caricature viewpoint of what Islam is.  For you, it is some sort of monolithic hierarchical structure when in reality it is a difuse, non-hierarchical religion.

You seem to believe in collective guilt that all Muslims are guilty for what all other Muslims do.  This is akin to the anti-Semitic belief that the Jews of today are responsible for what supposedly happened to the founder of your religion.  This sort of belief allowed Christians to quite merrily create industrial death factories and feed innocent people into ovens without a qualm.   ::)

From your language, it is obvious that you are a subscriber to the prophecies of the Book of Revelations and obviously a sufferer of millenarianism.

All you've done is transfer your hatred of Jews to Muslims, Moses.   You are a disgrace to your own avowed religious beliefs.  You're not a real Christian.  You have forgotten Christ's central message of love and acceptance.  You are a mirror image of what you claim to oppose.  Your attitudes would find a happy home amongst those of the Takfiri Islamists.  You'd fit quite well in their ranks.  Just swap the name of your god and you'd have a life membership card.   ::)

Ah yes the old takfiri argument followed by the usual ad hominem fantasy:

Well what is a takfiri? 

Quote:

Takfiris believe in islam strictly according to the understanding of muhammad and his companions, and do not accept any deviation from their path; they reject any form of reform or change from the religion as it was revealed in the time of the prophet.

Going on the above criteria:

If there was such a thing as a *takfiri Buddhist* he would try and align himself as close as possible to the teachings of Buddha, Buddhists would claim him to be a good person.

If there was such a thing as a *takfiri Confucian* he would try to follow the teachings as closely as possible as to what Confucius taught, to Confucians he would be a good person.

If there was such a thing as a *takfiri Shintoist* he would try and follow the teachings of Shinto to the very letter, Shintoists would accept him as a good person.

If there was such a thing as a *takfiri Hindu* he would closely follow the teachings of Hinduism, to Hindus he would be a good person.

If there was such a thing as a *takfiri Christian* he would follow the teachings of Christ to the letter, all Christians would recognize him as a good person.

Now to the blessed believers (muslims), they will kill people for apostasy, perceived blasphemy against the qur'an, allah and muhammad, plus a host of other reasons, without batting an eyelid (in fact they go into a euphoric stupor, while committing atrocities against their fellow man).

Yet when confronted with the fact that muslim killers are following what is purported to be the *last clear message from allah, in the qur'an*, muslims and their apologists go into a tail spin, it's become not so clear after all, it's misunderstood, their not monolithic, etc.etc. the literal commands to kill, all of a sudden, take on some other mystical meaning.

If you follow, to the letter, the last clear message in the qur'an you're takfiri.

Only in islam does the meaning of takfiri (one who believes in islam strictly according to the understanding of muhammad and his companions) stand for an evil person, why is that?

moses wrote on May 4^th, 2013 at 1:32pm:

Ah yes the old takfiri argument followed by the usual ad hominem fantasy: Well what is a takfiri?  Quote: Takfiris believe in islam strictly according to the understanding of muhammad and his companions, and do not accept any deviation from their path; they reject any form of reform or change from the religion as it was revealed in the time of the prophet.

Tsk, tsk, Moses, not crediting your source?  Rather dishonest of you, particularly once we see how you've rather selectively quoted the Wikipedia article you took that from.

Why didn't you quote:

Quote:

Takfiris have been classified by some commentators as violent offshoots of the Salafi movement, yet while Salafism is seen as a form of 'fundamentalist Islam', it is not an inherently violent movement that condones terrorism.[4] Takfiris, on the other hand, condone acts of violence as legitimate methods of achieving religious or political goals. Middle East expert Robert Baer has written that     "takfiri generally refers to a Sunni Muslim who looks at the world in black-and-white; there are true believers and then there are nonbelievers, with no shades in between. A takfiri's mission is to re-create the Caliphate according to a literal interpretation of the Koran." [5]

[Source - Wikipedia Article on Takfiri - I am unable to link to it because of this board's stupid rules about linking  ::)]

So, instead of actually quoting the definition, you chose to quote an interpretation of the definition.   Not surprising when we find the definition actually suggests something different, about rigid interpretation of religious belief, rather than just observation of it.

This is typical of you Moses and you keep being caught out at it.  It is part of your Takfiri interpretation of your own religious beliefs.  You cannot accept alternative interpretation of ANYTHING.  Your way MUST BE CORRECT.  Yeah, sure...   ::)


Quote:

If there was such a thing as a *takfiri Buddhist* he would try and align himself as close as possible to the teachings of Buddha, Buddhists would claim him to be a good person.

But in doing so he would miss the central tenant of Buddhism, that each person's journey to enlightenment is individual.   Which is course echoed in Islam and Christianity, with there is nothing between the believer and God.   Yet, to some extent in Islam and in a much greater extent in Christianity, an entire hierarchy has grown up call "the church" where the teachings of the religion are interpreted for the lay believer, by a professional class of interpreters.

The Takfiri has taken upon themselves to become one of those interpreters and only their interpretation is valid.  Who appointed them, Moses?   Why themselves of course.  Which fits you to the "t".  You're self-appointed and your views are based upon literal interpretations created in your own head, no one else's.   You look upon the world in black-and-white. ::)

An important difference between Christianity and Islam is about what is important, thought or action.

Christianity establishes  orthodoxy - what thinking and opinion is right. This is central to a religion where a relationship with god is central (grace, redemption, judgement, seeing into the heart, etc).

Islam doesn't really care about what you think as long as you follow orthopraxy - you act correctly. Islam copies Judaism in this respect and established endless orthodoxies of ritual behaviour and action. There is no relationship imagined with Allah so what is in your heart doesn't come into it. Islam is performative above all and this is why it often comes across as being over the top with the theatricals and demonstrative emotional display.

polite_gandalf wrote on May 3^rd, 2013 at 12:46pm:

Adamant wrote on May 3rd, 2013 at 11:17am: What would you say about this Christian woman in Egypt Why its irrefutable proof of islam's inherent evilness. Obviously.

Amongst Muslims, the rule is: EVERYTHING is okay to do just as long as you chant the mantra ALLAHU AKBAR! ALLAHU AKBAR! before, during and after the abomination.

Whatever the horrors they perform, it's all sanctified by the purification ritual of shouting  ALLAHU AKBAR! ALLAHU AKBAR!

The broader public in the West is WAY more clued-up and awake to the real nature of Immigrant Islam than it was 20 years ago.

A lot of the earlier warm-and-fuzzy feeling has evaporated in direct proportion to losing the initial naivety in believing Islam was 'just another religion' with no social and political agendas.

And then our soldiers had to stop wearing their uniforms in public due to this attracting a hostile and 'negative reaction' from Muslims in the streets and on public transport.

Slowly, gradually, incrementally, the broader and more laid-back sector of the Australian public has been waking up to the fact that the Enemy has been let in through the gates of the city to take up residence alongside us as Sleepers awaiting the Call.   

 

Brian Ross

Quote:

moses wrote:[quote]Takfiris believe in islam strictly according to the understanding of muhammad and his companions, and do not accept any deviation from their path; they reject any form of reform or change from the religion as it was revealed in the time of the prophet.

If you follow, to the letter, the last clear message in the qur'an you're takfiri.[/quote]


Brian Ross wrote:
Quote:

Takfiris have been classified by some commentators as violent offshoots of the Salafi movement, yet while Salafism is seen as a form of 'fundamentalist Islam', it is not an inherently violent movement that condones terrorism.[4] Takfiris, on the other hand, condone acts of violence as legitimate methods of achieving religious or political goals. Middle East expert Robert Baer has written that     "takfiri generally refers to a Sunni Muslim who looks at the world in black-and-white; there are true believers and then there are nonbelievers, with no shades in between. A takfiri's mission is to re-create the Caliphate according to a literal interpretation of the Koran." [5]

Thanks for the wiki quote which reinforces my position.

Indeed takfiri muslims practice islam exactly according to the literal interpretation of islam.

They follow the *last clear message* from muhammad to the very letter.

This is what makes them the evil people they are.

Because, in case you haven't noticed, the literal commands from allah, the literal teachings of muhammad, the literal verses in the qur'an, all urge, condone and support the committing of atrocities of the most heinous kind, against both non muslims and apostate muslims.

muhammad himself practiced the most degenerate of atrocities against his fellow man.

So we have takfiri muslims, emulating muhammad and practicing islam in it's purest form, this in turn makes them malevolent wicked people.

We know that if a Buddhist, Confucian, Shintoist, Hindu, or a Christian, strives to live according to the tenets of their founders, they all are considered good people.

So I ask again: Only in islam does the meaning of takfiri (one who believes in islam strictly according to the understanding of muhammad and his companions) stand for an evil person, why is that?

p.s. thanks again for supporting my position, on the evils of islam.

moses wrote on May 5^th, 2013 at 1:43pm:

Brian Ross Quote: moses wrote:[quote]Takfiris believe in islam strictly according to the understanding of muhammad and his companions, and do not accept any deviation from their path; they reject any form of reform or change from the religion as it was revealed in the time of the prophet. If you follow, to the letter, the last clear message in the qur'an you're takfiri.

Brian Ross wrote:
Quote:

Takfiris have been classified by some commentators as violent offshoots of the Salafi movement, yet while Salafism is seen as a form of 'fundamentalist Islam', it is not an inherently violent movement that condones terrorism.[4] Takfiris, on the other hand, condone acts of violence as legitimate methods of achieving religious or political goals. Middle East expert Robert Baer has written that     "takfiri generally refers to a Sunni Muslim who looks at the world in black-and-white; there are true believers and then there are nonbelievers, with no shades in between. A takfiri's mission is to re-create the Caliphate according to a literal interpretation of the Koran." [5]

Thanks for the wiki quote which reinforces my position.

Indeed takfiri muslims practice islam exactly according to the literal interpretation of islam.
[/quote]

You put the wrong word between the words "to" and "literal", Moses, as you always do.  It should be "their", not "the".  There is no such thing as a definitive interpretation of Islam, there is only individual interpretations.  Something you would understand if you really understood Islam, which you can't because you won't.  You have instead created a caricature of Islam in your head because you were told it by the Islamists.    ::)


Quote:

They follow the *last clear message* from muhammad to the very letter.

No, they follow their interpretation of it, Moses.  You won't understand that.    ::)


Quote:

This is what makes them the evil people they are.

Takfiri?  No not evil.  Just badly misguided, like yourself in your zealotry.

Have you booked your place on Ma'sada?


Quote:

Because, in case you haven't noticed, the literal commands from allah, the literal teachings of muhammad, the literal verses in the qur'an, all urge, condone and support the committing of atrocities of the most heinous kind, against both non muslims and apostate muslims.

Like all holy books, people will find what they want in it, Moses.  If they seek justification for evil, they will find it.  If people seek justification for good, they will find it.  Islam as a religion in that regard is no different to Christianity.   Touchy-Feely Christianity is a relatively new invention, Moses.   Until the turn of the 20th century it was all hell-fire, damnation and conquest, now wasn't it?   ::)


Quote:

muhammad himself practiced the most degenerate of atrocities against his fellow man.

Did he?


Quote:

So we have takfiri muslims, emulating muhammad and practicing islam in it's purest form, this in turn makes them malevolent wicked people.

Actually, the point is the Takfiri don't emulate Muhammed, they do what they believe and interpret Muhammed had done, Moses.  You miss that entirely.  Islam is what the mainstream makes it and the Takfiri by their very beliefs are outside the mainstream.  Something you appear unable to grasp.    ::)


Quote:

We know that if a Buddhist, Confucian, Shintoist, Hindu, or a Christian, strives to live according to the tenets of their founders, they all are considered good people.

Tell it to the victims of European imperialism and conquest, Moses.  Which was of course justified through Christianity.  The Conquistadores believed they were good Christians.  The fighters in the 30 Years War all believe they were good Christians.  The Europeans who set out and conquered most of the world in the 19th century believed they were all being good Christians.  Many of the Nazis who shovelled Jews and others into the crematoria believed they were being good Christians.  You deny the dark history of your own religion, Moses.  You seem to have forgotten Matthew 7:3 .   ::)


Quote:

So I ask again: Only in islam does the meaning of takfiri (one who believes in islam strictly according to the understanding of muhammad and his companions) stand for an evil person, why is that? p.s. thanks again for supporting my position, on the evils of islam.

Look up the word "Zealot", Moses.   It means the same thing and both Takfiri and Zealot describe your viewpoint very well.

Quote:

There is no such thing as a definitive interpretation of Islam, there is only individual interpretations.

That is the sort of blasphemy that would get your head chopped off in some parts of the world.

Brian Ross

Now let's see if I've got this right. You're telling me:

holy prophet muhammad wasn't a thief, liar, pedophile, rapist, torturer and mass-murderer?

allah never once literally demanded muslims commit atrocities?

muhammad never once literally taught that muslims were to  commit atrocities?

The qur'an does not contain literal instructions to commit atrocities?

Well muslims and their apologists should have all the qur'ans recalled and burnt.

Because the simple truth is, every qur'an on this earth, is the literal proof of muhammad and allah exhorting muslims to commit perverted atrocities against their fellow man.

freediver wrote on May 5^th, 2013 at 3:07pm:

Quote: There is no such thing as a definitive interpretation of Islam, there is only individual interpretations. That is the sort of blasphemy that would get your head chopped off in some parts of the world.

And they, like you would be wrong, FD.

moses wrote on May 5^th, 2013 at 3:40pm:

Brian Ross Now let's see if I've got this right. You're telling me: holy prophet muhammad wasn't a thief, liar, pedophile, rapist, torturer and mass-murderer?

E.P. Hartley summed it up very well, Moses - "The past is another country, they do things differently there."

You are judging Muhammad by a modern moral viewpoint.  He doesn't live now, he lived 1400 years ago, in a completely different culture, with a very different set of mores, Moses.   He wasn't a saint, he was a man.


Quote:

allah never once literally demanded muslims commit atrocities? muhammad never once literally taught that muslims were to  commit atrocities? The qur'an does not contain literal instructions to commit atrocities? Well muslims and their apologists should have all the qur'ans recalled and burnt. Because the simple truth is, every qur'an on this earth, is the literal proof of muhammad and allah exhorting muslims to commit perverted atrocities against their fellow man.

So did the Christian God, Moses, in The Bible.  Oops, you never knew that?  How unsurprising!   ::)

Brian Ross wrote on May 5^th, 2013 at 10:59pm:

[quote author=moses link=1367418236/24#24 date=1367732404]Brian Ross So did the Christian God, Moses, in The Bible.  Oops, you never knew that?  How unsurprising!   ::)

Moses did not exist so could not have committed any crime or sin. No proof of him leaving Egypt or going walkabout in the desert has ever been found. The Mo man did however and his violent and appalling behavior lives on in his adherents today.

Brian Ross wrote on May 5^th, 2013 at 10:46pm:

freediver wrote on May 5th, 2013 at 3:07pm: Quote: There is no such thing as a definitive interpretation of Islam, there is only individual interpretations. That is the sort of blasphemy that would get your head chopped off in some parts of the world. And they, like you would be wrong, FD.

Is that going to make you feel any better about getting your head chopped off?

What do you think is the proper Islamic punishment for blasphemy?


Quote:

You are judging Muhammad by a modern moral viewpoint.  He doesn't live now, he lived 1400 years ago, in a completely different culture, with a very different set of mores, Moses.   He wasn't a saint, he was a man.

The term you are looking for is Prophet. You are right though, he certainly was no saint.

muhammad / allah and their degenerate teachings are considered the epitome of perfection, according to all muslims.

Now all of a sudden (when confronted with the evilness of these teachings) it is from a past era / misunderstood / not all muslims do it etc. etc.

The inescapable truth is: the conglomeration of islam / allah / muhammad / qur'an is responsible for human rights atrocities, being committed by muslims around the globe.

It's well past the time that muslims and their apologists, spoke the truth.

islam is most certainly not compatible with a modern civilised 21st century society.

Adamant wrote on May 6^th, 2013 at 8:46am:

Brian Ross wrote on May 5th, 2013 at 10:59pm: [quote author=moses link=1367418236/24#24 date=1367732404]Brian Ross So did the Christian God, Moses, in The Bible.  Oops, you never knew that?  How unsurprising!   ::) Moses did not exist so could not have committed any crime or sin. No proof of him leaving Egypt or going walkabout in the desert has ever been found. The Mo man did however and his violent and appalling behavior lives on in his adherents today.

You condemn too readily.  All adherents?  Or just some?  Are they mainstream or extremists?

The Conquistadores believed they were good Christians, bringing the word of the lord to the Aztec and the Inca.  Didn't stop them killing, torturing and raping though, did it?

Joseph Koney today does exactly the same, while proclaiming the words of Christ.   He believes he is a good Christian by doing so.

Many other "good Christians" have committed atrocities in peace and war in the name of their god.

Odd how it's only Muslims who get criticised though...   ::)

freediver wrote on May 6^th, 2013 at 12:58pm:

Brian Ross wrote on May 5th, 2013 at 10:46pm: freediver wrote on May 5th, 2013 at 3:07pm: Quote: There is no such thing as a definitive interpretation of Islam, there is only individual interpretations. That is the sort of blasphemy that would get your head chopped off in some parts of the world. And they, like you would be wrong, FD. Is that going to make you feel any better about getting your head chopped off?

Yes.

Tell me, does your bigotry make you feel you're a better person than the Muslims you continually attack?


Quote:

What do you think is the proper Islamic punishment for blasphemy?

Shunning.


Quote:

[quote]You are judging Muhammad by a modern moral viewpoint.  He doesn't live now, he lived 1400 years ago, in a completely different culture, with a very different set of mores, Moses.   He wasn't a saint, he was a man.

The term you are looking for is Prophet. You are right though, he certainly was no saint.[/quote]

Saint, prophet, messiah, all man-made terms.   If people want to elevate those people to those levels, they are entitled to, don't you think?

moses wrote on May 6^th, 2013 at 6:27pm:

muhammad / allah and their degenerate teachings are considered the epitome of perfection, according to all muslims. Now all of a sudden (when confronted with the evilness of these teachings) it is from a past era / misunderstood / not all muslims do it etc. etc. The inescapable truth is: the conglomeration of islam / allah / muhammad / qur'an is responsible for human rights atrocities, being committed by muslims around the globe. It's well past the time that muslims and their apologists, spoke the truth. islam is most certainly not compatible with a modern civilised 21st century society.

You are attempting to compress 1400 years of history into your guilt trip over Islam, Moses while deliberately ignoring the equivalent 1400 years of your own religion's bloody, barbaric history.

Your simply are incapable of looking at the issue of Islam and Muslims in a civilised, mature way.   I've argued with you for years, shown you for the hate filled, bigoted, ignorant, small minded man you are upon numerous occasions and you still refuse to learn.   You are a Zealot, Moses.  Your mind is closed, so closed that no chink of rational light can ever be seen in that little kernel you call a brain. 

For you, hating Muslims is the new anti-Semitism.  In WWII you'd have been happily hating Jews, now you hate Muslims.   Such bigotry is built upon ignorance and hatred.   ::)

Brian Ross wrote on May 6^th, 2013 at 8:35pm:

... Tell me, does your bigotry make you feel you're a better person than the Muslims you continually attack? ...

Is that what you 'label' a growing awareness of the threat currently posed by Islam, given the headlines of the last 40 years?

Or has the term 'bigot' gained more traction than 'Islamaphobia' recently?

T'will be an interesting world, will it not, when the dust settles on the Last Crusade.

You know, that one made up of the Slavs, the Mongols and the Yankees.

Lionel Edriess wrote on May 6^th, 2013 at 8:52pm:

Brian Ross wrote on May 6th, 2013 at 8:35pm: ... Tell me, does your bigotry make you feel you're a better person than the Muslims you continually attack? ... Is that what you 'label' a growing awareness of the threat currently posed by Islam, given the headlines of the last 40 years? Or has the term 'bigot' gained more traction than 'Islamaphobia' recently? T'will be an interesting world, will it not, when the dust settles on the Last Crusade. You know, that one made up of the Slavs, the Mongols and the Yankees.

Lionel, I'm sorry that you've chosen to no longer post at debate and relate.  There, I could debate this issue with you properly.  I have, as you know considerable research on it, with the sources and the stats to prove it but I can't post it here because of the limitations this board places on the use of proper referencing.

Were you aware that there have been more acts of Terrorism on US soil by Jewish inspired terrorists than Muslims ones?   Were you aware of the number of acts of Christian inspired Terrorism around the world?   No, I suspect not, nor do I suspect you really care.

All we hear is over-whelming emphasis on Muslim inspired terrorism.   I wonder why?   ::)

Quote:

The Conquistadores believed they were good Christians, bringing the word of the lord to the Aztec and the Inca.  Didn't stop them killing, torturing and raping though, did it?

Brian can you explain how this helps Islam's case? Or are you saying that Muhammed was like these people?


Quote:

Odd how it's only Muslims who get criticised though...

Abu and his mates want to dismantle freedom and democracy. They don't have to be Muslims for me to criticise that. This is much closer to home than you appear to realise. You don;t have to go all the way to Africa.


Quote:

Shunning.

Do you have any evidence for this, or is this just what you hope it is?


Quote:

Saint, prophet, messiah, all man-made terms.   If people want to elevate those people to those levels, they are entitled to, don't you think?

Of course. It is the raping and pillaging that goes along with it that I have a problem with.


Quote:

You are attempting to compress 1400 years of history into your guilt trip over Islam, Moses while deliberately ignoring the equivalent 1400 years of your own religion's bloody, barbaric history.

We do not just criticise Muslims because of 1400 years of history. We criticise them because of the ideology they espouse right here, right now.


Quote:

Your simply are incapable of looking at the issue of Islam and Muslims in a civilised, mature way.

Can you explain how the conquistadors and Joseph Koney was a mature contribution?

freediver wrote on May 6^th, 2013 at 9:20pm:

Quote: The Conquistadores believed they were good Christians, bringing the word of the lord to the Aztec and the Inca.  Didn't stop them killing, torturing and raping though, did it? Brian can you explain how this helps Islam's case? Or are you saying that Muhammed was like these people?

The point is, you and others continually forget Matthew 7:3.

I'd recommend you read it.   ::)


Quote:

[quote]Odd how it's only Muslims who get criticised though...

Abu and his mates want to dismantle freedom and democracy. They don't have to be Muslims for me to criticise that. This is much closer to home than you appear to realise. You don;t have to go all the way to Africa.
[/quote]

Then criticise them not over religion but over their proposals and actions, FD.   Continual criticism of other's religion merely plays into their hands and allows them to portray themselves as the persecuted.   Surely you're intelligent enough to able to argue against them, rather than trying to link every Muslim to the beliefs of a small minority in their ranks?

Malaysia, one of the more populous Muslim nations has just held a democratic election.   It may have been flawed but that had absolutely nothing to do with the religion of most of the citizens.  The fact that it occurred at all, rather demolishes the believe that democracy and Islam are incompatible?


Quote:

[quote]Shunning.

Do you have any evidence for this, or is this just what you hope it is?
[/quote]

You asked me for what I believed, FD.   I supplied the answer.  Now you're taking umbrage because you asked the wrong question?   ::)


Quote:

[quote]Saint, prophet, messiah, all man-made terms.   If people want to elevate those people to those levels, they are entitled to, don't you think?

Of course. It is the raping and pillaging that goes along with it that I have a problem with.
[/quote]

Yet you don't seem to be criticising Christians for doing exactly the same thing.  I wonder why?   ::)


Quote:

[quote]You are attempting to compress 1400 years of history into your guilt trip over Islam, Moses while deliberately ignoring the equivalent 1400 years of your own religion's bloody, barbaric history.

We do not just criticise Muslims because of 1400 years of history. We criticise them because of the ideology they espouse right here, right now.
[/quote]

Moses doesn't and my criticism was directed to Moses, FD, not you.   ::)


Quote:

[quote]Your simply are incapable of looking at the issue of Islam and Muslims in a civilised, mature way.

Can you explain how the conquistadors and Joseph Koney was a mature contribution?[/quote]

They point out the inherent bigotry in continual criticism of Muslims and Islam without corresponding criticism of Christians and Christianity, FD.  If you need that explained, then I suspect you're not interested in balance, now are you?   ::)

Brian Ross wrote on May 6^th, 2013 at 9:07pm:

... Were you aware that there have been more acts of Terrorism on US soil by Jewish inspired terrorists than Muslims ones?   Were you aware of the number of acts of Christian inspired Terrorism around the world?   No, I suspect not, nor do I suspect you really care. ...

I have no doubt you have reams of reference, but that is not really the point.

The point is I do care - and I don't consider myself ether naive or unaware.


Brian Ross wrote on May 6^th, 2013 at 9:07pm:

... All we hear is over-whelming emphasis on Muslim inspired terrorism.   I wonder why? ...

Because we continually come to the same sticking-point. I have always been very careful to distinguish between Muslims and Islam. Correct?

Then it all becomes about Islam, correct?

And we all know the ultimate aim of Islam, correct?

That is why I care.

Lionel Edriess wrote on May 6^th, 2013 at 9:33pm:

Brian Ross wrote on May 6th, 2013 at 9:07pm: ... Were you aware that there have been more acts of Terrorism on US soil by Jewish inspired terrorists than Muslims ones?   Were you aware of the number of acts of Christian inspired Terrorism around the world?   No, I suspect not, nor do I suspect you really care. ... I have no doubt you have reams of reference, but that is not really the point. The point is I do care - and I don't consider myself ether naive or unaware.

So, you admit that your real purpose is to engage in bigotry, Lionel?


Quote:

Brian Ross wrote on May 6th, 2013 at 9:07pm: ... All we hear is over-whelming emphasis on Muslim inspired terrorism.   I wonder why? ... Because we continually come to the same sticking-point. I have always been very careful to distinguish between Muslims and Islam. Correct?

Only after I'd beaten you around the head several hundred times pointing out the fallacies inherent in your language.


Quote:

Then it all becomes about Islam, correct?

The interpretation of Islam, Lionel.  There is a difference.  There is no one, single, unified religion called "Islam" and I'm sure you're well aware of that.   It is not centrally directed or controlled.  It is riven with Schism and sectarian differences, great and small.


Quote:

And we all know the ultimate aim of Islam, correct? That is why I care.

We know the ultimate aim of Islam is no different to the ultimate aim of any other proselytising religion, like, say, Christianity, Lionel.  Yet you single out Islam for special attention.  Why?    ::)

Quote:

The point is, you and others continually forget Matthew 7:3.

You think we should stop the conquistadors before we criticise Muslims for wanting to dismantle freedom and democracy?


Quote:

Then criticise them not over religion but over their proposals and actions, FD.

You are creating a false dichotomy Brian. For Muslims, they are the same thing.


Quote:

Continual criticism of other's religion merely plays into their hands and allows them to portray themselves as the persecuted.

Have you checked out my wiki?


Quote:

Malaysia, one of the more populous Muslim nations has just held a democratic election.   It may have been flawed but that had absolutely nothing to do with the religion of most of the citizens.  The fact that it occurred at all, rather demolishes the believe that democracy and Islam are incompatible?

Islam has been filtered as it moved east. They do seem far more tolerant down this end.  Not tolerant enough to not blow up nightclubs, but still a lot better than Islam's homeland. More tolerant versions of Islam thrived, and were allowed to thrive, precisely because it was the only way Islam could co-exist with other religions to the east. However this does not mean it was not followed by intolerant Islam.


Quote:

You asked me for what I believed, FD.   I supplied the answer.  Now you're taking umbrage because you asked the wrong question?

No. I asked the next question. I think it is kind of absurd for you to even offer an answer about Islam when you apparently have no clue. You are putting political correctness before the truth and before common sense.


Quote:

Yet you don't seem to be criticising Christians for doing exactly the same thing.  I wonder why?

If I ever come across a Christian raping and pillaging, or promoting rape and pillage, I will be sure to criticise him, just to make sure I don't appear biased. Are you seriously suggesting I only adopted an anti-rape and pillage stance so I could attack Islam?


Quote:

They point out the inherent bigotry in continual criticism of Muslims and Islam without corresponding criticism of Christians and Christianity, FD.  If you need that explained, then I suspect you're not interested in balance, now are you?

Can you explain how this works? If I want to not be a bigot, do I have to google some Christian doing nasty things in Africa and do a little dance around it every time I criticise a Muslim over whatever he just said? Is it one comment each way, or is there an equation for balancing criticisms with Islam with criticisms of Christianity?


Quote:

The interpretation of Islam, Lionel.  There is a difference.  There is no one, single, unified religion called "Islam" and I'm sure you're well aware of that.

According to Abu there is. And anyone who disagrees risks getting their head chopped off.


Quote:

It is not centrally directed or controlled.  It is riven with Schism and sectarian differences, great and small.

You mean like Muslims blowing up each other's mosques? How delightful. BTW, it is "supposed" to be centrally controlled.


Quote:

We know the ultimate aim of Islam is no different to the ultimate aim of any other proselytising religion, like, say, Christianity, Lionel.

Actually it is very different and Muslims are happy to explain the difference. But you have to ask. If you merely parrot politically correct falsehood about Islam, they will stand back and let you do the hard work for them.

freediver wrote on May 6^th, 2013 at 10:17pm:

Quote: The point is, you and others continually forget Matthew 7:3. You think we should stop the conquistadors before we criticise Muslims for wanting to dismantle freedom and democracy?

Nope.  Just realise that while you're criticising Muslims, you're turning a blind eye to all the non-Muslims who have done and do the same things.   Fairness, FD.  A concept you appear to not understand.

Oh, and it's not all Muslims who seek to dismantle freedom and democracy.  Its not even just Muslims who seek that.  Yet you insistently attack and criticise all Muslims for wanting that, completely without evidence.  That is bigotry.


Quote:

[quote]Then criticise them not over religion but over their proposals and actions, FD.

You are creating a false dichotomy Brian. For Muslims, they are the same thing.
[/quote]

No they aren't.  For some Muslims, perhaps but what evidence do you have it is for all Muslims?

I served in the Australian Army with a Muslim.  He was my best mate.  He swore to defend Australian freedom and democracy.  On a Q'ran.     According to your views that would be impossible.   ::)


Quote:

[quote]Continual criticism of other's religion merely plays into their hands and allows them to portray themselves as the persecuted.

Have you checked out my wiki?
[/quote]

Yes.  I've applied for an account.  I wish to correct the obvious mistakes and provide some balance in it's entries.  Will you give it to me or is your wiki, your wiki and no other viewpoint is allowed?  Mmmm?


Quote:

[quote]Malaysia, one of the more populous Muslim nations has just held a democratic election.   It may have been flawed but that had absolutely nothing to do with the religion of most of the citizens.  The fact that it occurred at all, rather demolishes the believe that democracy and Islam are incompatible?

Islam has been filtered as it moved east. They do seem far more tolerant down this end.  Not tolerant enough to not blow up nightclubs, but still a lot better than Islam's homeland. More tolerant versions of Islam thrived, and were allowed to thrive, precisely because it was the only way Islam could co-exist with other religions to the east. However this does not mean it was not followed by intolerant Islam.
[/quote]

So there are differing interpretations of Islam?

Yet, according to your Wiki, that is impossible.  Ah, contradictions, don't you just love 'em?   ::)


Quote:

[quote]You asked me for what I believed, FD.   I supplied the answer.  Now you're taking umbrage because you asked the wrong question?

No. I asked the next question. I think it is kind of absurd for you to even offer an answer about Islam when you apparently have no clue. You are putting political correctness before the truth and before common sense.
[/quote]

You didn't ask that and you know it.  You asked me what I believed the punishment should be.  I answered that question, FD.  You don't like the answer.

You've been caught out, tripped up with your own absurdities.   ;D



Quote:

[quote]Yet you don't seem to be criticising Christians for doing exactly the same thing.  I wonder why?

If I ever come across a Christian raping and pillaging, or promoting rape and pillage, I will be sure to criticise him, just to make sure I don't appear biased. Are you seriously suggesting I only adopted an anti-rape and pillage stance so I could attack Islam?
[/quote]

There are many examples of that occurring everyday around the world, FD yet you remain studiously silent.  Your silence proves my case for me.

Did a Muslim scare you as a baby or something or did you learn your bigotry at your father's knee or did it come from your mother's breast milk?  That's the level of it, it appears.


Quote:

[quote]They point out the inherent bigotry in continual criticism of Muslims and Islam without corresponding criticism of Christians and Christianity, FD.  If you need that explained, then I suspect you're not interested in balance, now are you?

Can you explain how this works? If I want to not be a bigot, do I have to google some Christian doing nasty things in Africa and do a little dance around it every time I criticise a Muslim over whatever he just said? Is it one comment each way, or is there an equation for balancing criticisms with Islam with criticisms of Christianity?
[/quote]

No, you have to give Muslims a fair go, a chance to explain themselves and to also accept those explanations.

You excuse away and belittle the excesses of Christians it seems.  I find that interesting.  It again proves my point.  If you were interested in principle, it wouldn't matter the religion of the people committing the excesses.  It appears only Islamic extremism matters to you.    ::)

freediver wrote on May 6^th, 2013 at 10:17pm:

If you merely parrot politically correct falsehood about Islam, they will stand back and let you do the hard work for them.

Brian has always been proud of his proven status as a Useful Idiot for Islam.

freediver wrote on May 6^th, 2013 at 10:17pm:

Islam has been filtered as it moved east. They do seem far more tolerant down this end.  Not tolerant enough to not blow up nightclubs, but still a lot better than Islam's homeland.

Simplistic as always FD. Islam does not become "dilluted" in a nice linear fashion the further east you go. Lets look at islam's "homeland": Saudi Arabia - sure its pretty extreme because its controlled by wahabists. yet directly north of their you have very strong secular traditions in Iraq and Syria. East of that is Iran, which is extreme now, but until 1979 was secular - almost militantly so - and was of course a fledgling democracy until US and British intelligence overthrew it in 1953. Then further west you have a very benign islamic regime in Jordan (led by a remarkably progressive monarchy), and Palestine which despite the stresses of occupation and direct efforts by the Israelis to destroy them - remains a predominantly secular society. North of that of course is the strictly secular nation of Turkey, right next to the secular nation of Azerbaijan. Not to mention the entire North African arab world which is either secular autocratic (Algeria, Morocco) or newly democratic (Tunisia, Egypt).

Of course your portrayal of a "filtering" islam as you move east is destroyed when looking at the terrorist hotbeds in Afghanistan and Pakistan (well east of islam's "heartland") - a more extremist islam you are unlikely to find anywhere else.


freediver wrote on May 6^th, 2013 at 10:17pm:

No. I asked the next question. I think it is kind of absurd for you to even offer an answer about Islam when you apparently have no clue.

Brian seems like he is spot on with his assessment on blasphemy. There is no reference to any punishment in the quran, and in fact the most relevant verse on the subject describes how muslims should simply ignore them - hence Brian's answer of "shunning" is spot on.

relevant article

polite_gandalf wrote on May 7^th, 2013 at 12:18pm:

Iran, which is extreme now, but until 1979 was secular - Brian seems like he is spot on with his assessment on blasphemy. There is no reference to any punishment in the quran,

Why is Iran extreme now, is that a result of the Islamic revolution?

There is no reference to stoning to death for adultery in the Quran either, according to Aisha a goat ate that verse yet muslims still insist that is the punishment based on the hadith.

Where does it say in the Quran how many times a day you have to tap your head on the ground with your ass in the air while facing Mecca?

The Quran is incomplete so you have to refer to the hadith, if you are a sunni-sufi-salafi then Sahih al Bukhari, if you are a deviant twelver heretic shia then al Kafi is the book.

Pakistan is 99% muslim, it was created in a similar fashion to Israel yet this one was on stolen land previously known as Hindustan.
I wonder how many conflicts there have been between Pakistan and India?
Pakistan has blasphemy laws, Salman Taseer was killed by his own bodyguard for opposing the blasphemy laws.
www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salmaan_Taseer

The Islamic republic of Iran executes people for blasphemy-
www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law_in_Iran

The Saudis execute people for blasphemy,apostasy,homosexuality,adultery,witchcraft,etc
www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law_in_Saudi_Arabia

Islam is the only belief that executes people for blasphemy in 2013.

Quote:

Nope.  Just realise that while you're criticising Muslims, you're turning a blind eye to all the non-Muslims who have done and do the same things.   Fairness, FD.  A concept you appear to not understand.

How can you tell that I am turning a blind eye to them? Is the fact alone that I criticise Muslims evidence that I turn a blind eye to what non-Muslims do? This sounds like a well practiced line that you use like a hammer, and every debate is a nail.


Quote:

Oh, and it's not all Muslims who seek to dismantle freedom and democracy.  Its not even just Muslims who seek that.  Yet you insistently attack and criticise all Muslims for wanting that, completely without evidence.  That is bigotry.

It doesn't take all Muslims to be a threat to freedom and democracy. It's as if you think it is more important to defend the minority of Muslims who oppose Shariah law from being indirectly criticised than it is to stand up for freedom and democracy. Would you defend Nazis in the same way if not all of them wanted to slaughter Jews?


Quote:

No they aren't.  For some Muslims, perhaps but what evidence do you have it is for all Muslims?

That's what Islam is. Abu even builds his definition of Islam around it.


Quote:

Yet you don't seem to be criticising Christians for doing exactly the same thing.  I wonder why?

Because there aren't any Christians on my forum promoting raping and pillaging. And I don't think Joseph Koney gives a stuff what I say here (or the conquistadors for that matter). In fact, before I started talking to Muslims about islam I sounded pretty much identical to you.


Quote:

Yet, according to your Wiki, that is impossible.

Would you mind quoting the relevant part of the wiki? Or is this just another case of your imagination taking over?


Quote:

You didn't ask that and you know it.

Are you seriously disagreeing with me over whether it counts as the "next" question?


Quote:

There are many examples of that occurring everyday around the world, FD yet you remain studiously silent.

What makes you think that? You still haven't explained how I am supposed to balance out any criticism of Muslims with criticisms of Christians so as not to be labelled a bigot by you. What is the appropriate number of Christian criticisms per Muslim criticism? And how to I avoid being labelled a bigot on behalf of some other ideology? Or is it only Christianity that I need to balance?


Quote:

Did a Muslim scare you as a baby or something or did you learn your bigotry at your father's knee or did it come from your mother's breast milk?  That's the level of it, it appears.

I have told you where my views come from several times already. You really should try responding to what I actually say rather than inventing an imaginary freediver to debate with. Do you turn every critic of Islam into the same imaginary person?


Quote:

No, you have to give Muslims a fair go, a chance to explain themselves and to also accept those explanations.

I gave them a fair go. I gave them a chance to explain themselves. I accepted their explanations. The one thing I do not have to do is remain silent about their desire to dismantle freedom and democracy.


Quote:

You excuse away and belittle the excesses of Christians it seems.

Brian, this will be a lot easier if you refrain from making things up as you go along. There are plenty of things I have actually said that you could respond to.

Brian Ross wrote on May 6^th, 2013 at 9:38pm:

The interpretation of Islam, Lionel.  There is a difference.  There is no one, single, unified religion called "Islam" and I'm sure you're well aware of that.   It is not centrally directed or controlled.  It is riven with Schism and sectarian differences, great and small.

You are exaggerating a commonplace observation. Islam - anything - is its interpretation. No law, custom, religion, etc exist without being interpreted. They are all their interpretations. Yawn. No great insight there.

WHat matters is the prevailing interpretation. Here's an example: Youtube clip laffing at Mohammed - rampaging muslims across the globe. Dominant interpretaion of Islam? Probably. Why?
There was no muslim demonstration of great crowds protesting against the rampaging, beheading-demanding muslims ruining the 'true' meaning and noble reputation of Islam. Some mutterings by spokesthingies but no great outpouring of feeling by Muslims again other Muslims damaging Islam by misinterpreting it. Shtum. Fear of catching the Islamists' eyes who threaten other Muslims with all sorts of unpleasantness. If the crazies are such a 'tiny minority' how can they intimidate all that 'vast majority of law abiding, decent' Muslims? Why do the decent muslims allow the crazies to set the tone?
Because they are afraid of them. They, the 'decent' Muslims interpret the rampaging and the beheading-demanding as something that is not just some negligible interpretation in the happy rainbow colours that is Islamic diversity. The crazies are setting the agenda, not the 'decent' Muslim. And their letting the crazies set the agenda for all Islam makes them 'decent' only in inverted commas.







Quote:

We know the ultimate aim of Islam is no different to the ultimate aim of any other proselytising religion, like, say, Christianity, Lionel.  Yet you single out Islam for special attention.  Why?    ::)

Because in Islam the state belongs to Islam. In Christianity, it doesn't. Neither Catholics nor Protestants nor the Greek/Eastern Orthodox want to establish a Christian theocracy.
Not so with Islam. Sharia-ruled, Islam-governed society is the aim.

And this is in no way disputing the honourableness and honesty of you Muslim army mate. You have first hand experience of that and I wouldn't ream of second-guessing that. Nevertheless, you must allow that your mate may not be representative (perhaps not yet) of Islam and Muslims.

freediver wrote on May 7^th, 2013 at 7:37pm:

I have told you where my views come from several times already. You really should try responding to what I actually say rather than inventing an imaginary freediver to debate with. Do you turn every critic of Islam into the same imaginary person?

Yes we know - you learned it from reading the opinions of two random guys who used to post on this forum - and refusing to listen to anything else. But I think the point Brian is trying to make is that because that is so utterly ridiculous and irrational, something deeper must be at play to explain your deep seated prejudice.


freediver wrote on May 7^th, 2013 at 7:37pm:

Would you mind quoting the relevant part of the wiki

Incorrect interpretations of Islam are not tolerated

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

Quote:

But I think the point Brian is trying to make is that because that is so utterly ridiculous and irrational, something deeper must be at play to explain your deep seated prejudice.

So asking Muslims about Islam is ridiculous and irrational? Would you prefer I tried Yadda's approach of googling it? Are you trying to exclude every possible way of finding out about Islam except for reading press releases from approved western representative bodies?


Quote:

Incorrect interpretations of Islam are not tolerated

It's called Blasphemy, and yes it is part of Shariah law. Why do you think Sunnis and Shites are still blowing up each others' mosques on a regular basis? Muslims are supposed to impose the correct version from above through centralised government, and did so for most of Islam's history, starting with Muhammed.

freediver wrote on May 7^th, 2013 at 10:35pm:

So asking Muslims about Islam is ridiculous and irrational?

;D ;D no its not - thats precisely my point.

Lord Herbert wrote on May 7^th, 2013 at 10:24am:

freediver wrote on May 6th, 2013 at 10:17pm: If you merely parrot politically correct falsehood about Islam, they will stand back and let you do the hard work for them. Brian has always been proud of his proven status as a Useful Idiot for Islam.

Tsk, tsk, merely seeking fairness makes me a "useful idiot", Herbie?

Balance, Herbie, balance, a concept which is sadly lacking in your posts.   ::)

Don't worry Brian, Herb's just jealous that he sees you as actually useful.

No one could ever accuse Herb as being a *useful* idiot for the far right.

freediver wrote on May 7^th, 2013 at 7:37pm:

Quote: Nope.  Just realise that while you're criticising Muslims, you're turning a blind eye to all the non-Muslims who have done and do the same things.   Fairness, FD.  A concept you appear to not understand. How can you tell that I am turning a blind eye to them?

I see a complete lack of posts from you criticising them.  The proof is in the pudding, FD.   ::)


Quote:

Is the fact alone that I criticise Muslims evidence that I turn a blind eye to what non-Muslims do? This sounds like a well practiced line that you use like a hammer, and every debate is a nail.

The fact that you don't criticise others and that you incessantly and continuously criticise Muslims indicates that you are a bigot.  Not only do we detect a complete lack of balance in your posts, we see it in your "wiki".  You are damned by your own works, FD.   ::)


Quote:

[quote]Oh, and it's not all Muslims who seek to dismantle freedom and democracy.  Its not even just Muslims who seek that.  Yet you insistently attack and criticise all Muslims for wanting that, completely without evidence.  That is bigotry.

It doesn't take all Muslims to be a threat to freedom and democracy.
[/quote]

You're right, it doesn't but we never see you qualify the quantity it is merely the complete following of Islam - "Muslims".  Never "some Muslims" or "a few Muslims".  Everything about Muslims for you is mentioned in absolute terms.  Therefore as you use the definitive article, I think it is rather safe to say that you attack ALL Muslims, FD.   ::)

Your language is the language of bigotry - religious hatred.

Tell me, in your opinion, are there any good Muslims?  One wouldn't know it from the way you continually attack them and their religion...


Quote:

It's as if you think it is more important to defend the minority of Muslims who oppose Shariah law from being indirectly criticised than it is to stand up for freedom and democracy. Would you defend Nazis in the same way if not all of them wanted to slaughter Jews?

What I believe is that people should be treated fairly and without prejudice.

If I was to substitute the word "black person" for "Muslim" in your posts, your hatred would be rather self-evident, don't you think?   I suppose we could substitute "Jew" and call it anti-Semitism?  The end result would be the same.


Quote:

[quote]No they aren't.  For some Muslims, perhaps but what evidence do you have it is for all Muslims?

That's what Islam is. Abu even builds his definition of Islam around it.
[/quote]

And Abu speaks for ALL Muslims?

Oh, that's right, his authority comes from you, not his fellow Muslims...    ::)


Quote:

[quote]Yet you don't seem to be criticising Christians for doing exactly the same thing.  I wonder why?

Because there aren't any Christians on my forum promoting raping and pillaging. And I don't think Joseph Koney gives a stuff what I say here (or the conquistadors for that matter). In fact, before I started talking to Muslims about islam I sounded pretty much identical to you.
[/quote]

Oh, so, you need to attack people personally then?  Yet you don't.  You attack all Muslims whenever you don't qualify the term.  Why not attack "those Muslims which promote raping and pillaging" instead?

Funny thing is, I'm yet to read someone in this forum who is both Muslims and promoting "raping and pillaging".  Perhaps you could point out a recent post where that has occurred?

Or are you merely jousting against your stereotypes to justify your bigotry?   ::)

Oh, dear, I appear to have run out of characters because of the ridiculous limits that are placed on posts here.   ::)

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

Brian Ross wrote on May 6th, 2013 at 9:38pm: The interpretation of Islam, Lionel.  There is a difference.  There is no one, single, unified religion called "Islam" and I'm sure you're well aware of that.   It is not centrally directed or controlled.  It is riven with Schism and sectarian differences, great and small. You are exaggerating a commonplace observation. Islam - anything - is its interpretation. No law, custom, religion, etc exist without being interpreted. They are all their interpretations. Yawn. No great insight there.

Funny, it appears to have passed people such as Freediver and dare I suggest you, by?

The critics here of Islam seem to have erected a caricature of the religion, a strawman which they enjoy beating around the place, rather than addressing the reality.  I wonder why?  Could it be because it's easier to do that?   ::)

freediver wrote on May 7^th, 2013 at 10:35pm:

Quote: But I think the point Brian is trying to make is that because that is so utterly ridiculous and irrational, something deeper must be at play to explain your deep seated prejudice. So asking Muslims about Islam is ridiculous and irrational?

Nope, it isn't.  Being completely unwilling and it appears incapable of accepting their answers is though.   Makes me wonder why you bother asking 'cause I've yet to see you accept any of Gandalf's (and he appears to be only genuine Muslim here at the moment, as far as I can tell) answers.

You also appear completely unwilling to accept other alternative answers when offered by non-Muslims, as far as I can tell.

You seem to have an extremely blinkered views on the matter.   I wonder, Freediver, which Madrassi did you study at?  'cause your attitudes towards Islam appear to have the same mindset as the Islamist Takfiris.   You believe you KNOW the answers about Islam even before you ask the questions.   ::)


Quote:

Would you prefer I tried Yadda's approach of googling it? Are you trying to exclude every possible way of finding out about Islam except for reading press releases from approved western representative bodies?

Yadda's approach is flawed because he can't quite seem to work out to:

1) Post without using crayons
2) Actually understand what he's reading from Google.

For the first, I'd recommend limiting his privileges to plain text.

For the second, I believe a good course in comparative religion might help.

Actually the second one might help you too FD.   :)

Brian Ross wrote on May 7^th, 2013 at 11:41pm:

The critics here of Islam seem to have erected a caricature of the religion, a strawman which they enjoy beating around the place, rather than addressing the reality.  I wonder why?

There are 7 countries where muslim bigots execute people for the crime of atheism, all 7 have Islam as the state religion, is this the Islam you are keen to defend?
www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/10/the-seven-countries-where-the-state-can-execute-you-for-being-atheist/

That is the reality of Islam, since you are so keen to defend Islam please give us your thoughts on this reality.

Article 18 of the Universal declaration of human rights guarantees freedom of belief,Islam is not compatible with the Universal declaration of human rights.

Baronvonrort wrote on May 8^th, 2013 at 12:04am:

Brian Ross wrote on May 7th, 2013 at 11:41pm: The critics here of Islam seem to have erected a caricature of the religion, a strawman which they enjoy beating around the place, rather than addressing the reality.  I wonder why?  There are 7 countries where muslim bigots execute people for the crime of atheism, all 7 have Islam as the state religion, is this the Islam you are keen to defend? [ interesting link removed because of the limits the board places on my even quoting links placed in posts by others  ::) ] That is the reality of Islam, since you are so keen to defend Islam please give us your thoughts on this reality. Article 18 of the Universal declaration of human rights guarantees freedom of belief,Islam is not compatible with the Universal declaration of human rights.

You appear to have never read the Koranic Verse (ayah) 256 of Al-Baqara.

Once you have, you will see where your mistake is...   8-)

Brian Ross wrote on May 8^th, 2013 at 12:16am:

Baronvonrort wrote on May 8th, 2013 at 12:04am: Brian Ross wrote on May 7th, 2013 at 11:41pm: The critics here of Islam seem to have erected a caricature of the religion, a strawman which they enjoy beating around the place, rather than addressing the reality.  I wonder why?  There are 7 countries where muslim bigots execute people for the crime of atheism, all 7 have Islam as the state religion, is this the Islam you are keen to defend? [ interesting link removed because of the limits the board places on my even quoting links placed in posts by others  ::) ] That is the reality of Islam, since you are so keen to defend Islam please give us your thoughts on this reality. Article 18 of the Universal declaration of human rights guarantees freedom of belief,Islam is not compatible with the Universal declaration of human rights. You appear to have never read the Koranic Verse (ayah) 256 of Al-Baqara. Once you have, you will see where your mistake is...   8-)

I prefer this website for Quran verses and are you saying the Saudis and 6 other countries are doing Islam all wrong?


Quote:

Then do they not reflect upon the Quran? If it had been from any other than allah,they would have found within much contradiction. www.quran.com/4/82

Quote:

I prefer this website for Quran verses and are you saying the Saudis and 6 other countries are doing Islam all wrong?

It's all about interpretation and according to my copy of the Q'ran it says,


Quote:

There is no compulsion in religion...

I wouldn't say those nations are doing "it" wrong.  Rather they have a different interpretation.  Is it the right one?  I'm sure they believe it is.  I'm not an Islamic Scholar though, merely an interested observer.  It's their country, they get to make the laws.


Quote:

Then do they not reflect upon the Quran? If it had been from any other than allah,they would have found within much contradiction.

All Holy books contradict themselves.  It is often said you can find what ever you want in [insert Holy book of your choice] if you look hard enough.

Brian Ross wrote on May 7^th, 2013 at 11:25pm:

Balance, Herbie, balance, a concept which is sadly lacking in your posts.   ::)

No Brian ~ your mission has always been to find spurious arguments for exonerating the guilt of any person, creed, culture, or ideology that isn't White, Christian, and of Western heritage.

That's been your mission statement and the principle by which you live.

You've been an ardent disciple of Political Correctness before the term was even coined, and the last thing you self-deluding moralists want to achieve is 'balance' in your adjudication of the various protagonists.

You want equality of outcome wherein no ethnic is ever found more wanting or guilty than a Westerner ~ despite what the facts may be.

At the very core, your motivation is driven by an insecure need to appease and ingratiate with the very people you fear most ~ Negroes, Muslims, aborigines, Asians, Pacific Islanders, and the rest.

Lord Herbert wrote on May 8^th, 2013 at 8:01am:

Brian Ross wrote on May 7th, 2013 at 11:25pm: Balance, Herbie, balance, a concept which is sadly lacking in your posts.   ::) No Brian ~ your mission has always been to find spurious arguments for exonerating the guilt of any person, creed, culture, or ideology that isn't White, Christian, and of Western heritage.

*YAWN*.  No, Herbie, my mission has been to prevent people such as yourself from having free reign to post their ignorant racism or bigotry without challenge.

Let's face it, what you really hate is that I continually demolish your unfounded claims and show them to be based ignorant prejudice.   ;D

I don't care what the colour of your victim's skin, what their religion is, what "heritage" they come from.   You do.  If it isn't all those things, for you, it is automatically bad.

Judge people on their individual actions, Herbie, not through guilt by association.

I know it's a hard concept for you to grasp.   ::)

You and I have been going around in circles for 8 years now. It's time you admitted defeat and withdrew with what dignity still remains to you.

You should be logged into your new D&R instead of pursuing me across the internet for more punishment.

Be off with you! Get thee behind me, Satan!  :P

Brian Ross wrote on May 7^th, 2013 at 11:48pm:

Nope, it isn't.  Being completely unwilling and it appears incapable of accepting their answers is though.   Makes me wonder why you bother asking 'cause I've yet to see you accept any of Gandalf's (and he appears to be only genuine Muslim here at the moment, as far as I can tell) answers.

FD only accepts answers from muslims that are dogmatic and that pretend to be the ultimate authority. Thats not how islamic law works - at least not on the sorts of issues we discuss here (blasphemy, apostasy etc). The correct way to answer what islam's position is on these sorts of issues is to demonstrate that there are a range of views and interpretations. Yet FD somehow thinks that is a sign that the responder is confused or ignorant. But the truth is, giving dogmatic definite answers like Abu (apparently) did on matters which clearly are not "resolved" by the relevant islamic jurists, is the height of ignorance. Of course its understandable that someone with FDs preconceived prejudices would want to select only the "muslims" who appear irrational and chant "gar! Blasphemy - instant death - with PAIN!" - it obviously puts islam in the "right" light for him.

And yet, FD doesn't even correctly cite the only two muslims he "learns" from. Just look at his wiki - in the section on "rape", he states "Rape is permitted in Islam in the same situations that sex is permitted" - and uses as the source a thread in which he makes the claim, and in which the muslims emphatically denies the charge. FD doesn't just take the extreme views of these muslims and use them as islam's unalterable doctrine, he also twists their words around and make them say something they didn't - even if in reality they were directly denying it.

Quote:

FD only accepts answers from muslims that are dogmatic and that pretend to be the ultimate authority.

Abu never pretended to be the ultimate authority. In fact lack of such an authority was one of his favourite cards to play. If I had one cent for every time he said clerics don't exist, I'd have a few dollars. In fact Abu is probably the only one who lived up to the absurd standards you attempted to impose on me when you first turned up. As I recall, you were pretty dogmatic about it.


Quote:

But the truth is, giving dogmatic definite answers like Abu (apparently) did on matters which clearly are not "resolved" by the relevant islamic jurists

Abu was happy to state that some issues weren't resolved. Others were. He was also happy to point out where his mainstream views differed from minorities such as Shites.


Quote:

Of course its understandable that someone with FDs preconceived prejudices would want to select only the "muslims" who appear irrational and chant "gar! Blasphemy - instant death - with PAIN!" - it obviously puts islam in the "right" light for him.

Again, Abu went to great lengths to argue that this is not what Islam is about.


Quote:

And yet, FD doesn't even correctly cite the only two muslims he "learns" from. Just look at his wiki - in the section on "rape", he states "Rape is permitted in Islam in the same situations that sex is permitted" - and uses as the source a thread in which he makes the claim, and in which the muslims emphatically denies the charge.

I think you'll find that they actually conceded this point in the context of Shariah law, but still insisted it was 'bad' in the sense that Islam commands men to respect their wives and sex slaves. This is the whole point of linking to the discussion, because it shows how different the reality is from the 30 second sound bite.


Quote:

I see a complete lack of posts from you criticising them.  The proof is in the pudding, FD.

This is a logical fallacy Brian. It would be one of the most fundamental logical errors you can make in a debate. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, especially when it comes to your strange crusade to defend Muslims by insisting we break up the debate with criticism of Christians.


Quote:

You're right, it doesn't but we never see you qualify the quantity it is merely the complete following of Islam - "Muslims".  Never "some Muslims" or "a few Muslims".

If you know how many muslims believe this poo, I would be happy to add details to the wiki.


Quote:

Your language is the language of bigotry - religious hatred.

Brian, "Black Person" is not a religion. It is not a political ideology. You miss the point completely.


Quote:

Funny thing is, I'm yet to read someone in this forum who is both Muslims and promoting "raping and pillaging".

Like I said, it is a shame you got here just after Abu and Falah left. Hang around, you'll see.


Quote:

Or are you merely jousting against your stereotypes to justify your bigotry?

The wiki is full of links to things they actually said.


Quote:

You also appear completely unwilling to accept other alternative answers when offered by non-Muslims, as far as I can tell.

I tend to take them with a grain of salt, yes, especially when it comes from unapologetic apologists who make no effort to inform themselves and insist there is something wrong if I don't criticise other religions at the same time (actually I think it is one in particular you want me to criticise - why is that - bigotry?).

freediver wrote on May 8^th, 2013 at 12:51pm:

Quote: You also appear completely unwilling to accept other alternative answers when offered by non-Muslims, as far as I can tell. I tend to take them with a grain of salt, yes, especially when it comes from unapologetic apologists who make no effort to inform themselves and insist there is something wrong if I don't criticise other religions at the same time (actually I think it is one in particular you want me to criticise - why is that - bigotry?).

I think the point he is making is that there is total silence from you about any other religion.  Islam is the only one you criticise.  Muslims are the only believers you criticise.  There maybe some things that they and their religion should be criticised for but you are completely silent about other religions.  Completely.

That silence is telling.  Very.

You're being disingenuous, HB.

When other religions start making the news as consistently as Islam does ~ for all the wrong reasons ~ then we'll start talking about them.

And when Muslims stop making the news ~ for all the wrong reasons ~ we'll stop talking about them.

Meanwhile ... Some people wonder why the Islamic faithful keep getting talked about on forum sites.

Oh, go on... spoil yourself. Here's some more proof of the psychotic effect of Islam upon a sizable section of Britain's Muslim community.

Does any other religion come anywhere close to inspiring this degree of toxic insanity in its followers?

And Western politicians are still importing these diseased carriers into their own homeland societies.

freediver wrote on May 8^th, 2013 at 12:51pm:

If you know how many muslims believe this poo, I would be happy to add details to the wiki.

Have you ever visited a muslim forum? muslim blog? Opinion pieces written by muslims? Have you actually ever ventured outside this forum to guage the "mood" amongst muslims, and what they actually believe? If not, then on what authority do you have to say "Muslims [collectively] believe this this and this" - purely on the say so of two individuals who claim to be muslims?

Is islam / allah / muhammad  / qur'an in any way responsible for the despicable behaviour of the islamic killer in 2013, or is it all the fault of those evil white Christians in the west?

moses wrote on May 8^th, 2013 at 6:19pm:

Is islam / allah / muhammad  / qur'an in any way responsible for the despicable behaviour of the islamic killer in 2013, or is it all the fault of those evil white Christians in the west?

How about neither, Moses?

If you want to claim that Tamerlan Tsarnaev and his brother,  Dzhokhar were inspired by their religion then it must be perfectly correct to say that Christianity inspires Joseph Koney, inspired Anders Brievik and Eric Robert Rudolph.  OK?   ::)

Why are you afraid to answer the question Brian: Is islam / allah / muhammad  / qur'an in any way responsible for the despicable behaviour of the islamic killer in 2013, or is it all the fault of those evil white Christians in the west?

If someone can find some sort of encouragement for killers / terrorists, in the teachings of Christ , I am happy to castigate in the strongest possible terms, such teachings if they exist. (go ahead and quote the teachings of hate Christ preached) let people debate them.

Why haven't you got the intestinal fortitude to tackle the teachings of hate and bigotry in islam?   

freediver wrote on May 8^th, 2013 at 12:51pm:

Quote: I see a complete lack of posts from you criticising them.  The proof is in the pudding, FD. This is a logical fallacy Brian. It would be one of the most fundamental logical errors you can make in a debate. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, especially when it comes to your strange crusade to defend Muslims by insisting we break up the debate with criticism of Christians.

Absence of comment tends to prove that you have no interest in condemning these other extremists, FD.  If you really were interested, we would see at least ONE post.  I see NONE.  QED.


Quote:

[quote]You're right, it doesn't but we never see you qualify the quantity it is merely the complete following of Islam - "Muslims".  Never "some Muslims" or "a few Muslims".

If you know how many muslims believe this poo, I would be happy to add details to the wiki.
[/quote]

"Muslims" denotes all Muslims, unless qualified, FD.  If you don't believe all Muslims believe this "poo" then qualify your comments.  Otherwise I will continue to believe you believe all Muslims are guilty.


Quote:

[quote]Your language is the language of bigotry - religious hatred.

Brian, "Black Person" is not a religion. It is not a political ideology. You miss the point completely.
[/quote]

Never treating the subject of your comments fairly means it's bigoted, FD.  That is what you do.   No Muslim does anything good, it seems from how you write about Muslims.   ::)


Quote:

[quote]Funny thing is, I'm yet to read someone in this forum who is both Muslims and promoting "raping and pillaging".

Like I said, it is a shame you got here just after Abu and Falah left. Hang around, you'll see.
[/quote]

I'll hang around.  You're talking against shadows of the past it seems, FD 'cause there isn't anybody, by your own admission, doing it NOW.


Quote:

[quote]Or are you merely jousting against your stereotypes to justify your bigotry?

The wiki is full of links to things they actually said.
[/quote]

It maybe, does that make what they said, true though?

It seems to me that your basing your entire hatred of Muslims on the word of two internet personalities.  Seems a rather slim justification, don't you think?


Quote:

[quote]You also appear completely unwilling to accept other alternative answers when offered by non-Muslims, as far as I can tell.

I tend to take them with a grain of salt, yes, especially when it comes from unapologetic apologists who make no effort to inform themselves and insist there is something wrong if I don't criticise other religions at the same time (actually I think it is one in particular you want me to criticise - why is that - bigotry?).[/quote]

I suspect you label anybody who suggests balance and fairness an "apologist".

Lets get it straight.  I am an apologist for no one.  If I feel the need to criticise someone, I shall do so but I won't do it on the basis of guilt by association which is what you're doing.  It will be because they've done something I disagree with.   If you throw the word "apologist" at me, you'd better be able to prove it.  Comprehende?

moses wrote on May 8^th, 2013 at 7:02pm:

Why are you afraid to answer the question Brian: Is islam / allah / muhammad  / qur'an in any way responsible for the despicable behaviour of the islamic killer in 2013, or is it all the fault of those evil white Christians in the west?

I have answered your question, Moses.  That you don't like the answer is not my problem.

BTW, which Muslim killer we talking about?   ::)


Quote:

If someone can find some sort of encouragement for killers / terrorists, in the teachings of Christ , I am happy to castigate in the strongest possible terms, such teachings if they exist. (go ahead and quote the teachings of hate Christ preached) let people debate them.

I suggest you speak to the people I've named.  They claimed to draw inspiration for their acts of violence from the teachings of Christ.  I don't claim to be able to fathom the minds of zealots such as yourself, Moses.   ::)


Quote:

Why haven't you got the intestinal fortitude to tackle the teachings of hate and bigotry in islam?

Why do you feel the need to disobey the teachings of your own Messiah, Moses?  Forgotten Luke 6:27-36 and Matthew 5:43-48 ?   ::)

Quote:

I think the point he is making is that there is total silence from you about any other religion.  Islam is the only one you criticise.

Perhaps that is because there is total silence from other religions. I haven't seen any other group - either political, religious or any mixture thereof, marching through Sydney and Melbourne with banners calling for the death penalty over something that is clearly covered by freedom of speech. If you know of any please let me know, so I can criticise them and get Brian all confused.

You may not have noticed, but this is a politics forum. I discuss many political issues. I do not discuss the spiritual aspects of Islam, because I have no real interest. I discuss the political aspects.

There is nothing at all about that that makes me a bigot. This is just a poor substitute for a rational argument.


Quote:

That silence is telling.  Very.

What are the voices telling you?


Quote:

Have you ever visited a muslim forum? muslim blog? Opinion pieces written by muslims? Have you actually ever ventured outside this forum to guage the "mood" amongst muslims, and what they actually believe?

Yes. I am a member of that AussieMuslims site where Abu hangs out. It all seems pretty toxic.


Quote:

I'll hang around.  You're talking against shadows of the past it seems, FD 'cause there isn't anybody, by your own admission, doing it NOW.

You may not have noticed, but I am only talking about it because you and others are. I was happy enough discussing the influence of Islam on science with Gandalf until very recently. His political views are benign enough.


Quote:

It maybe, does that make what they said, true though?

It makes it what they believe. That is the point.


Quote:

It seems to me that your basing your entire hatred of Muslims on the word of two internet personalities.

Please quote me saying I hate muslims.


Quote:

Seems a rather slim justification, don't you think?

If the "offence" is imaginary, it is more than sufficient.


Quote:

I suspect you label anybody who suggests balance and fairness an "apologist".

If they do as absurdly and irrationally as you do, then yes. What kind of response is that anyway? Have you ever seen it used anywhere else? Would you accept it as some kind of defence against criticism of Nazism? It is irrational. You cannot even explain how frequently I would have to interject with criticisms of Christians. It is nothing but empty headed rhetoric, lacking in any substance.

Even after I point out the clear logical flaws in your arguments, you carry on with them and attempt to justify them by repeating the same fundamental logical error.


Quote:

Lets get it straight.  I am an apologist for no one.  If I feel the need to criticise someone, I shall do so but I won't do it on the basis of guilt by association which is what you're doing.

Right, you do it on the basis of guilt by absence of evidence of non-guilt.


Quote:

It will be because they've done something I disagree with.

Would you criticse the Muslims who marched through Sydney behing the death threat placards, without carfully couching it with "balanced" criticism of Christians who did something completely irrelevant to the topic at hand? By the way, you still have not explained why I need to balance criticism of Islam with criticism of Christianity alone and not other ideologies. Is it that you are genuinely bigoted against Christianity and project this bigotry whenever you see people discusisng other religions?


Quote:

If you throw the word "apologist" at me, you'd better be able to prove it.  Comprehende?

;D

Why do you stick so stubbornly to the empty, meaningless rhetoric? There is nothing stopping you from discussing the topic at hand.

Who let the trolls out, FFS!

Both of you should be familiar with 'wolves in sheep's clothing', no?

Where lies the West's Martel?

And when, and where, is our next Tours?

The threat remains the same.

What say Islam?

Is Europe already gone?

What next?

Apologies to FD, I've jumped.

Brian Ross wrote;

Quote:

I have answered your question, Moses.  That you don't like the answer is not my problem. BTW, which Muslim killer we talking about? & I suggest you speak to the people I've named.  They claimed to draw inspiration for their acts of violence from the teachings of Christ.  I don't claim to be able to fathom the minds of zealots such as yourself, Moses.

 



So there we have it:

muslims and their apologists afraid to tackle the issue of violence in the conglomeration of islam / allah / muhammad / qur'an.

While they love to try and equate Christianity with islam, they find it impossible to find or quote, any teachings of Christ which encourage killing and terrorism.

Lionel Edriess wrote on May 8^th, 2013 at 7:38pm:

Who let the trolls out, FFS! Both of you should be familiar with 'wolves in sheep's clothing', no? Where lies the West's Martel? And when, and where, is our next Tours? The threat remains the same. What say Islam? Is Europe already gone? What next?

Who let the panic merchant out?

Europe "gone"? Where?  I wasn't aware that the continent had gotten up and walked away, Lionel..   ::)

Look, the sky is falling!   ;D

moses wrote on May 8^th, 2013 at 7:48pm:

Brian Ross wrote; Quote: I have answered your question, Moses.  That you don't like the answer is not my problem. BTW, which Muslim killer we talking about? & I suggest you speak to the people I've named.  They claimed to draw inspiration for their acts of violence from the teachings of Christ.  I don't claim to be able to fathom the minds of zealots such as yourself, Moses.   So there we have it: muslims and their apologists afraid to tackle the issue of violence in the conglomeration of islam / allah / muhammad / qur'an. While they love to try and equate Christianity with islam, they find it impossible to find or quote, any teachings of Christ which encourage killing and terrorism.

Moses, I am afraid to tackle nothing.  Islam has problems, I'm only too willing to agree but that does not give you the right to persecute it's followers in the manner you continually do.   You're no better than the Nazis in that respect.

Your version of Islam is not the Islam of the majority of Muslims, you've created a caricature, Moses.   ::)

Quote:

Islam has problems, I'm only too willing to agree but that does not give you the right to persecute it's followers in the manner you continually do.

Brian would you mind demonstrating the correct manner of persecution? Perhaps the confusion arises from you never demonstrating how to couch any criticism of Islam in sufficient apologies to avoid the label of bigotry.

freediver wrote on May 8^th, 2013 at 8:13pm:

Quote: Islam has problems, I'm only too willing to agree but that does not give you the right to persecute it's followers in the manner you continually do. Brian would you mind demonstrating the correct manner of persecution? Perhaps the confusion arises from you never demonstrating how to couch any criticism of Islam in sufficient apologies to avoid the label of bigotry.

There is no correct manner, FD.   ::)

Tell me, am I correct in assuming one of your contentions about Muslims is that they persecute non-believers?

Is that wrong?

How is what you're doing any better?   ::)

Criticise Islam, leave Muslims alone.   When criticising Islam, have something more authoritative to back your view than a couple of internet posters.   If you claim it is what the mainstream believe, prove it, don't just claim it.   ::)

Respect the views of Muslims when they tell you that you have the wrong end of the stick.

That you're undertaking some critical self-examination of your viewpoint is a good step.  That is if you're serious?

Quote:

Tell me, am I correct in assuming one of your contentions about Muslims is that they persecute non-believers?

Fortunately, most are too impotent to achieve this, due to foreign interference. However, persecution of non-Muslims is a big part of Islam. Abu for example supports this persecution, even though he is in no position to achieve it. He will even argue that his impotence to achieve his goals makes them benign, like a Nazi trying to say that the unpopularity of Nazism makes it benign.

freediver wrote on May 8^th, 2013 at 8:22pm:

Quote: Tell me, am I correct in assuming one of your contentions about Muslims is that they persecute non-believers? Fortunately, most are too impotent to achieve this, due to foreign interference. However, persecution of non-Muslims is a big part of Islam. Abu for example supports this persecution, even though he is in no position to achieve it. He will even argue that his impotence to achieve his goals makes them benign, like a Nazi trying to say that the unpopularity of Nazism makes it benign.

Yet you're doing exactly the same thing FD.  Does that make you better than the ignorant Muslims who do these things?

FD, like many who oppose something as strongly as you do, you have become a mirror-image of it.   Your attitudes would fit in quite well with the more extreme Islamists.   Same with Moses.  His hatred of Muslims is visceral.  ::)

Quote:

Yet you're doing exactly the same thing FD.

What exactly am I doing?

freediver wrote on May 8^th, 2013 at 8:34pm:

Quote: Yet you're doing exactly the same thing FD. What exactly am I doing?

Persecuting and abusing Muslims?

You are confused Brian. I am not persecuting anyone. I am not calling for anyone to be beheaded. I am not calling for anyone human rights to be denied. I do not criticise Muslims because Muhammed and his followers made generalisations about non-Muslims. It is because they chopped their heads off and raped them. Can you tell the difference?

freediver wrote on May 8^th, 2013 at 9:46pm:

You are confused Brian. I am not persecuting anyone. I am not calling for anyone to be beheaded. I am not calling for anyone human rights to be denied. I do not criticise Muslims because Muhammed and his followers made generalisations about non-Muslims. It is because they chopped their heads off and raped them. Can you tell the difference?

Persecution comes in many forms, FD.   Mental persecution is one form, as is physical.

You are persecuting them online.  For you, all Muslims are guilty through association with the few Muslims who threaten or even do these things. 

It appears your brief attempt at self-reflection has passed.  ::)

http://profile.ak.fbcdn.net/hprofile-ak-prn1/41779_106408792736329_4866_n.jpg

For the record, I don't feel persecuted by FDs prejudice against me.
Though I must say the level of bigotry (and I'm not really including FD in this category) against islam on this forum is rather confronting. However my experience in the real world is that this is not representative. For some reason this forum particularly seems to be a magnet for such types.

freediver wrote on May 8^th, 2013 at 9:52pm:

http://profile.ak.fbcdn.net/hprofile-ak-prn1/41779_106408792736329_4866_n.jpg

Is this your answer, FD?   ::)

polite_gandalf wrote on May 8^th, 2013 at 10:35pm:

For the record, I don't feel persecuted by FDs prejudice against me. Though I must say the level of bigotry (and I'm not really including FD in this category) against islam on this forum is rather confronting. However my experience in the real world is that this is not representative. For some reason this forum particularly seems to be a magnet for such types.

Not just this forum, Gandalf.   Many forums.   However, I agree their views are not IMHO representative of that of the majority of people.

I suspect the bigots wouldn't say "Booh!" about these issues in normal conversation but harbour deep down insecurities and Xenophobia and only let them out online anonymously.

They aren't prepared to put their name on their opinions.  I am.   However, I'm old school.  I was debating online before there was an internet.   :)

polite_gandalf wrote on May 8^th, 2013 at 10:35pm:

For the record, I don't feel persecuted by FDs prejudice against me. Though I must say the level of bigotry (and I'm not really including FD in this category) against islam on this forum is rather confronting. However my experience in the real world is that this is not representative. For some reason this forum particularly seems to be a magnet for such types.

these are the views of most of aust society.
people are more honest online as there is no retaliation

Sprintcyclist wrote on May 9^th, 2013 at 12:03am:

polite_gandalf wrote on May 8th, 2013 at 10:35pm: For the record, I don't feel persecuted by FDs prejudice against me. Though I must say the level of bigotry (and I'm not really including FD in this category) against islam on this forum is rather confronting. However my experience in the real world is that this is not representative. For some reason this forum particularly seems to be a magnet for such types. these are the views of most of aust society.

And you know this, how, exactly?


Quote:

people are more honest online as there is no retaliation

They are less constrained, thats for sure.  That they feel they are anonymous is of course foolish.

Brian Ross wrote on May 8^th, 2013 at 12:56am:

Quote: I prefer this website for Quran verses and are you saying the Saudis and 6 other countries are doing Islam all wrong? It's all about interpretation and according to my copy of the Q'ran it says, [quote] There is no compulsion in religion...

I wouldn't say those nations are doing "it" wrong.  Rather they have a different interpretation.  Is it the right one?  I'm sure they believe it is.  I'm not an Islamic Scholar though, merely an interested observer.  It's their country, they get to make the laws.


Quote:

Then do they not reflect upon the Quran? If it had been from any other than allah,they would have found within much contradiction.

All Holy books contradict themselves.  It is often said you can find what ever you want in [insert Holy book of your choice] if you look hard enough.

[/quote]

You did not answer my question, 7 countries with Islam as the state religion have the death penalty for the crime of atheism,is this the Islam you are so keen to defend?

You should ask muslims if there are contradictions in the Quran, only ex muslims will admit the Quran is full of contradictions, those who claim to be muslim like Gandalf are in denial about all the contradictions in that dusty old book from the dark ages.
Gandald even conceded Muhammad al Razi was not a muslims after seeing what he wrote about the contradictions in the Quran.

The Quran says Islam has been perfected in sura 5:3, ask a muslim if Islam is perfect.

Quote:

This day i have perfected for you your religion. quran.com/5/3

What do Islamic websites say about this verse-

Quote:

The divine statement is "This day i have perfected your religion for you" Hence the work which was not a part of the religion in the prophets time which he neither did himself nor persuaded others to do,cannot be included in religion today. www.inter-islam.org/Prohibitions/prohibitdex.htm- click on innovation and religion

The no compulsion in religion verse has been abrogated by the verse of the sword.

Quote:

And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush,but if they should repent,establish prayer and give zakah,let them go on their way quran.com/9/5

That verse says convert or die which contradicts you no compulsion bullshit.

It was god's right hand man called Muhammad who calls for the death of apostates.

Quote:

The messenger of allah said:Whoever changes his religion,kill him (sahih). Do you know what a sahih hadith is? Many verses saying apostates are to be killed- www.sunnah.com/search/change-religion

So are all those countries with Islam as the state religion doing Islam wrong by having the death penalty for leaving Islam and you are the only idiot who knows Islam?

Brian Ross wrote on May 8^th, 2013 at 11:48pm:

freediver wrote on May 8th, 2013 at 9:52pm: http://profile.ak.fbcdn.net/hprofile-ak-prn1/41779_106408792736329_4866_n.jpg Is this your answer, FD?   ::)

I think Gandalf's response will do for me. You are drawing an absurdly long bow to call my actions persecution.

Do you think what I do is exactly the same as marching through Sydney and Melbourne with placards calling for some guy's head to be chopped off because of a dodgy internet comedy video he posted? BTW, I don't even consider that to be persecution, but it is part of a wider campaign by Muslims to destroy freedom of speech.

Baronvonrort wrote on May 9^th, 2013 at 12:39pm:

The no compulsion in religion verse has been abrogated by the verse of the sword

No its not. Read the entire chapter.

The chapter is all about God offering the polytheists - who had all along tried to stamp out the small muslim nation - immunity and a chance to establish a treaty with the muslims:

9/1 (Shakir)

Quote:

(This is a declaration of) immunity by Allah and His Messenger towards those of the idolaters with whom you made an agreement.

9/1 (Ghali)

Quote:

An acquittal from Allah and His Messenger to the ones of the associators (Those who associate others with Allah) (with) whom you have covenanted.

Muslims are commanded to defend themselves if the polytheists break the treaty and resume hostilities. However the need to show mercy and protection to those polytheists who desist attacks and seek protection from the muslims - is spelled out very clearly:

9/6:

Quote:

And if any one of the polytheists seeks your protection, then grant him protection so that he may hear the words of Allah . Then deliver him to his place of safety. That is because they are a people who do not know.

9/7:

Quote:

How can there be for the polytheists a treaty in the sight of Allah and with His Messenger, except for those with whom you made a treaty at al-Masjid al-Haram? So as long as they are upright toward you, be upright toward them. Indeed, Allah loves the righteous [who fear Him].

The Dr Ghali translation of 9/5 uses the word "stripped away" in place of "passed" in the sentence "and when the sacred months have passed" - indicating that the treaty was not a set period of time after which hostilities must resume - rather it will only end if the polytheists break it ("stripped away").

The muslim's obligation to adhere to the peace is clear in both 9/6 and 9/7

Subsequent verses give the rationale for waging war on those who break the treaty and do not show goodwill:

9/8:

Quote:

How [can there be a treaty] while, if they gain dominance over you, they do not observe concerning you any pact of kinship or covenant of protection? They satisfy you with their mouths, but their hearts refuse [compliance], and most of them are defiantly disobedient.

9/10:

Quote:

They do not observe toward a believer any pact of kinship or covenant of protection. And it is they who are the transgressors.

I'm not sure how more clearly the message "show goodwill to those who show goodwill to you, but defend yourselves against aggression and oppression" - can be.

polite_gandalf wrote on May 9^th, 2013 at 1:21pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on May 9th, 2013 at 12:39pm: The no compulsion in religion verse has been abrogated by the verse of the sword No its not. Read the entire chapter. The chapter is all about God offering the polytheists - who had all along tried to stamp out the small muslim nation - immunity and a chance to establish a treaty with the muslims: 9/1 (Shakir) Quote: (This is a declaration of) immunity by Allah and His Messenger towards those of the idolaters with whom you made an agreement. 9/1 (Ghali) [quote]An acquittal from Allah and His Messenger to the ones of the associators (Those who associate others with Allah) (with) whom you have covenanted.

Muslims are commanded to defend themselves if the polytheists break the treaty and resume hostilities. However the need to show mercy and protection to those polytheists who desist attacks and seek protection from the muslims - is spelled out very clearly:

9/6:

Quote:

And if any one of the polytheists seeks your protection, then grant him protection so that he may hear the words of Allah . Then deliver him to his place of safety. That is because they are a people who do not know.

9/7:

Quote:

How can there be for the polytheists a treaty in the sight of Allah and with His Messenger, except for those with whom you made a treaty at al-Masjid al-Haram? So as long as they are upright toward you, be upright toward them. Indeed, Allah loves the righteous [who fear Him].

The Dr Ghali translation of 9/5 uses the word "stripped away" in place of "passed" in the sentence "and when the sacred months have passed" - indicating that the treaty was not a set period of time after which hostilities must resume - rather it will only end if the polytheists break it ("stripped away").

The muslim's obligation to adhere to the peace is clear in both 9/6 and 9/7

Subsequent verses give the rationale for waging war on those who break the treaty and do not show goodwill:

9/8:

Quote:

How [can there be a treaty] while, if they gain dominance over you, they do not observe concerning you any pact of kinship or covenant of protection? They satisfy you with their mouths, but their hearts refuse [compliance], and most of them are defiantly disobedient.

9/10:

Quote:

They do not observe toward a believer any pact of kinship or covenant of protection. And it is they who are the transgressors.

I'm not sure how more clearly the message "show goodwill to those who show goodwill to you, but defend yourselves against aggression and oppression" - can be.[/quote]

The verse of the sword has abrogated the no compulsion in religion bullshit.

Islamic source,scroll to the bottom-

Quote:

This verse is known as Ayat al Sayf (The verse of the sword) These and similar verses abrogate the verses which say there is no compulsion to become a muslim. www.islamqa.com/en/ref/34770/nocompulsion

Do you think anyone believes your lies gandalf?

My jaw literally dropped when reading that nonsense from islamqa.

I was not previously familiar with this website, then I did a bit of research. It is run by a salafist (extremist, minority sect) based in Saudi Arabia, and advocates views that are, quite frankly, rejected by mainstream islam. Amongst these is the claim that female genital mutilation is prescribed by islam. Saudi Arabia itself has banned the website because it was issuing its own independent fatwas. The most ridiculous claim in that article is that this so called "verse of the sword" abbrogates the no compulsion verse.

Fact is, there is no such thing as "abbrogated verses" in the quran. There is nothing inconsistent in the quran - if you read it properly.

How anyone can interpret Surat At-Tawbah as anything to do with forcing people to adopt islam is beyond me. The message is very clear - as I pointed out in the last post - when muslims make a treaty with non-muslims, they have an obligation to honour it. But if the non-muslims break the treaty, then they are obligated to fight them in self defence. Yet as soon as the non-muslims cease hostilities, the muslims do to. Its all there in black and white in the verses I quoted.

Brian Ross

moses wrote:
Quote:

So there we have it: muslims and their apologists afraid to tackle the issue of violence in the conglomeration of islam / allah / muhammad / qur'an. While they love to try and equate Christianity with islam, they find it impossible to find or quote, any teachings of Christ which encourage killing and terrorism.

Brian Ross wrote:
Quote:

Moses, I am afraid to tackle nothing.  Islam has problems, I'm only too willing to agree but that does not give you the right to persecute it's followers in the manner you continually do.   You're no better than the Nazis in that respect. Your version of Islam is not the Islam of the majority of Muslims, you've created a caricature, Moses

I have every right to criticise (and form an opinion of) islam and it's entrenched violence, bigotry and hatred, directed at non muslims.

This hatred, bigotry and violence is enshrined in islam, through the literal commands of allah, taught in the teachings of muhammad and recorded in the qur'an.

Of course the, year in year out, innumerable killings of innocent men, women and children by muslims around the globe, goes a long way to helping form said opinion as well. 

Now the question still remains, when are muslims and their apologists going to tell the truth ( and tackle the issue of ) the level of violence contained and preached in / by islam, allah, muhammed and the qur'an, causes islamic atrocities?

polite_gandalf wrote on May 9^th, 2013 at 3:10pm:

My jaw literally dropped when reading that nonsense from islamqa. I was not previously familiar with this website, then I did a bit of research. It is run by a salafist (extremist, minority sect) based in Saudi Arabia, and advocates views that are, quite frankly, rejected by mainstream islam. Amongst these is the claim that female genital mutilation is prescribed by islam. Saudi Arabia itself has banned the website because it was issuing its own independent fatwas. The most ridiculous claim in that article is that this so called "verse of the sword" abbrogates the no compulsion verse. There is nothing inconsistent in the quran How anyone can interpret Surat At-Tawbah as anything to do with forcing people to adopt islam is beyond me. The message is very clear - as I pointed out in the last post -

Sheikh Munajid studied Islamic law under the scholar Abd al-Azziz ibn Baaz who was the grand mufti of Saudi Arabia, so do you think the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia knows Islam?
He was the first person to launch a website in Saudi Arabia representing Islam back in 1997.
He has several radio and television programs on channels in Saudi Arabia and throughout the Persian gulf, he has over 4000 hours worth of media broadcasts on the internet.
Al Munajid is the imam and lecturer at the Umar ibn Abd al-Azziz mosque.
We could always use sheik Hilaly who was the Grand Mufti of Australia if you prefer that.
www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Al-Munajjid
His website is not banned in Saudi Arabia, you can ask Debunker or Salim Munquith who are Saudis who post at the Council of ex muslims,
www.councilofexmuslims.com

Muslims face Mecca in Saudi Arabia when they pray, one of the 5 pillars of Islam is Hajj and dont tell me you go to Mecca in Saudi Arabia for that.
Yes the munafiqs (hypocrites) try and distance themselves from the Saudis while they face Mecca when praying and forgetting about Hajj.

As for the Salafi are you suggesting they are doing Islam the wrong way?

Quote:

According to the 2010 German domestic intelligence annual report,Salafism is the fastest growing Islamic movement in the world. The first generations of muslims are collectively referred to as the pious predecessors as-salaf as-saleh. Salafis view the salaf as an eternal model for all succeeding  muslim generations in their beliefs,exegesis,method of worship,mannerisms,morality and piety. The Islam they practised is seen as pure,unadulterated and therefore the ultimate authority for the interpretation of the sunnah. www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salafi_movement

Muhammad al Razi said the Quran was full of contradictions, he was a great scientist and you are a nobody.

9:5 is pretty clear, sounds like convert or die-
www.quran.com/9/5

polite_gandalf wrote on May 9^th, 2013 at 3:10pm:

The message is very clear - as I pointed out in the last post - when muslims make a treaty with non-muslims, they have an obligation to honour it.

In 1066 in islamic Spain muslims killed between 3500 and 7000 Jews! It was the muslim that broke the treaty. Going back further your original Mo man killer gave his word to a rival tribe, he promised safe passage to 20 men if they had a meeting. All were killed by his henchmen, when told of this your mo man laughed.

Grow up gandalf and get a life! Or stop telling LIES

Quote:

So as long as they are upright toward you, be upright toward them.

This sounds like what Brian is accusing me of. Except it involves chopping off heads rather than criticism. I am sure he would describe it as being exactly the same.


Quote:

I was not previously familiar with this website, then I did a bit of research. It is run by a salafist (extremist, minority sect) based in Saudi Arabia, and advocates views that are, quite frankly, rejected by mainstream islam. Amongst these is the claim that female genital mutilation is prescribed by islam.

I think according to Abu (a Sunni) it is permitted or recommended, though he calls it female circumcision to distinguish it from FGM, which is cutting a bit more off and attracts the death penalty. You have to get it just right, apparently.


Quote:

Saudi Arabia itself has banned the website because it was issuing its own independent fatwas.

Who has religious authority in Islam to issue 'non-independent' fatwas? Do you support this ban? Is the ban an expression of Islamic standards?

Brian Ross wrote on May 7^th, 2013 at 11:41pm:

Soren wrote on May 7th, 2013 at 9:03pm: Brian Ross wrote on May 6th, 2013 at 9:38pm: The interpretation of Islam, Lionel.  There is a difference.  There is no one, single, unified religion called "Islam" and I'm sure you're well aware of that.   It is not centrally directed or controlled.  It is riven with Schism and sectarian differences, great and small. You are exaggerating a commonplace observation. Islam - anything - is its interpretation. No law, custom, religion, etc exist without being interpreted. They are all their interpretations. Yawn. No great insight there. Funny, it appears to have passed people such as Freediver and dare I suggest you, by? The critics here of Islam seem to have erected a caricature of the religion, a strawman which they enjoy beating around the place, rather than addressing the reality.  I wonder why?  Could it be because it's easier to do that?   ::)

You know why?

Because it's the head-hacking, crazy bearded jihadi boys' interpretation of Islam that dominates. Their interpretation cowers all the other -all together now, 'vast majority of law abiding etc  - Muslims into silence or cautious muttering and foot shuffling at best.

Islam itself has been hijacked by the grizzly crazies -and the 'vast majority' crowd has let it be kidnapped by them!!!

That's the thing they will not face. They are either cowards (if they disagree with the 'tiny minority', always, always a  'tiny minority' of jihadis) or they are in agreement with them and are just allowing the crazies to do all the running for them.

polite_gandalf wrote on May 9^th, 2013 at 3:10pm:

quite frankly, rejected by mainstream islam.

Who knew???


(and there's your problem, pal. quite frankly.)

Brian Ross wrote on May 8^th, 2013 at 11:51pm:

I was debating online before there was an internet.   :)

:-?

Musta been something only you could log on to....  Like Martini in One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest - he passed the ball to people only he could see.
And having the ball was optional.

Adamant wrote on May 9^th, 2013 at 6:37pm:

Grow up gandalf and get a life! Or stop telling LIES

What part of "as long as they are upright toward you, be upright toward them." is unclear?

polite_gandalf wrote on May 9^th, 2013 at 3:10pm:

The message is very clear - as I pointed out in the last post - when muslims make a treaty with non-muslims, they have an obligation to honour it.

No they don't.

Words, and oaths, and treaties, mean absolutely nothing to the moslem.

They are a 'convenience' to be exploited - nothing more.




Love is not love Which alters when it alteration

Yadda wrote on Jan 20^th, 2011 at 9:13am:

......... e.g. ....when a good moslem makes a verbal agreement [an oath] with an 'unbeliever', that agreement isn't worth the paper it is written on. i.e. A moslem MAY honour his agreement with an 'unbeliever' [if honouring his agreement is in the interests of the moslem]. But a good moslem is not obligated to honour any agreement he makes with an 'unbeliever'. And THAT, is the 'get out' for all good moslems, in all dealings and agreements with 'unbelievers'. And why ??? Because moslems, dealings and agreements and truces with 'unbelievers', are following the example of ISLAM's perfect man, Mohammed. 'HUDNA' IS THE ARABIC WORD FOR TRUCE... Google; arafat hudna explained Google; Treaty of Hudaybiya Google; when it is in their interests to do so muslims will seek a truce hudna with a stronger enemy Google; muslims are free to break a truce with an enemy as soon as they feel strong enough to resume hostilities MOSLEM 'LOGIC' CONCERNING THE NEVER-ENDING WARS AND CONFLICTS WITH UNBELIEVERS... Google; resisting islam causes war, so infidels are responsible for war with muslims

freediver wrote on May 9^th, 2013 at 7:06pm:

Quote: So as long as they are upright toward you, be upright toward them. This sounds like what Brian is accusing me of. Except it involves chopping off heads rather than criticism. I am sure he would describe it as being exactly the same.

Actually what it obviously means is that if other groups are honourable to Muslims, then Muslims should be honourable to them, FD.  Anybody with half a brain and any understanding of Arabic honour values would realise that was it's meaning.

Please don't put words into my mouth, nor associate me with your Strawman Arguments.    ::)

Muhammed was a big fan of collective punishment. He used it to justify slaughtering Jews on many occasions. What it means is that if any one of them pisses you off, you can make the entire community suffer for it. Note that he did not instruct the Muslims to always be upright, to be tolerant, to turn the other cheek, to forgive. He gave them licence to be underhanded and to blame the inevitable escalations of violence on the other party.

freediver wrote on May 10^th, 2013 at 12:36pm:

Muhammed was a big fan of collective punishment. He used it to justify slaughtering Jews on many occasions. What it means is that if any one of them pisses you off, you can make the entire community suffer for it. Note that he did not instruct the Muslims to always be upright, to be tolerant, to turn the other cheek, to forgive. He gave them licence to be underhanded and to blame the inevitable escalations of violence on the other party.

Really?  Does that make it right?   Muhammed was also against collective punishments being handed out to Muslims, FD.  Does that make him contradictory?  Yes but you don't seem to see those contradictions.  I wonder why?   ::)

Has this thread really deteriorated to the school-yard level of 'he said, she said?

Despite all the differences contained within the Muslim sphere, there remains the common denominator of an antipathy and aggression against any belief or societal norm that stands against Islam. No opposition allowed nor tolerated.

To deny the recent aggressive expansion, all over the globe, by whatever means, of the Islamic ideal, by whatever sect or division, is equivalent to denying your own ageing.

For those of us who are accused of scaremongering, perhaps it's a case of not seeing the trees because of the forest.  8-)

Brian Ross wrote on May 10^th, 2013 at 7:23pm:

freediver wrote on May 10th, 2013 at 12:36pm: Muhammed was a big fan of collective punishment. He used it to justify slaughtering Jews on many occasions. What it means is that if any one of them pisses you off, you can make the entire community suffer for it. Note that he did not instruct the Muslims to always be upright, to be tolerant, to turn the other cheek, to forgive. He gave them licence to be underhanded and to blame the inevitable escalations of violence on the other party. Really?  Does that make it right?   Muhammed was also against collective punishments being handed out to Muslims, FD.  Does that make him contradictory?  Yes but you don't seem to see those contradictions.  I wonder why?   ::)

Wherever moslems go in the world [to live] [and where their 'moslem community' become established], their presence creates 'a border of conflict' and/or discord, with all other non-moslem peoples which they 'interface' with.

Always.

Why is that ?


Duh !








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


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


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

Yadda wrote on May 10^th, 2013 at 8:09pm:

Brian Ross wrote on May 10th, 2013 at 7:23pm: freediver wrote on May 10th, 2013 at 12:36pm: Muhammed was a big fan of collective punishment. He used it to justify slaughtering Jews on many occasions. What it means is that if any one of them pisses you off, you can make the entire community suffer for it. Note that he did not instruct the Muslims to always be upright, to be tolerant, to turn the other cheek, to forgive. He gave them licence to be underhanded and to blame the inevitable escalations of violence on the other party. Really?  Does that make it right?   Muhammed was also against collective punishments being handed out to Muslims, FD.  Does that make him contradictory?  Yes but you don't seem to see those contradictions.  I wonder why?   ::) Wherever moslems go in the world [to live] [and where their 'moslem community' become established], their presence creates 'a border of conflict' and/or discord, with all other non-moslem peoples which they 'interface' with. Always. Why is that ?

Perhaps it is because of non-acceptance by bigots such as yourself?

It takes two to tango, Yadda.  Most Muslims are like any other group of people, they just want to be left alone to get on with their lives but persecution by people such as yourself makes that a bit difficult don't you think?

I have known personally and professionally quite a few Muslims.  Never had a problem with them.  They just wanted to be left alone and I likewise.  My next door neighbour at the moment is a Muslim.  He doesn't rape, beat, pillage or propose such things.  Obviously, according to you that makes him a bad Muslim but in reality he's an ordinary person who just wants to get along with everybody around him.

I'll ask you the standard question I ask every bigot.

How many Muslims do you know personally?  Well?   ::)

Brian, are you saying that if one doesn't know a Nazi personally, one should not form a view about Nazism? Or a Communist -Communism? Or the KKK without knowing a klansman personally? Do you actually have to put your hand in the fire to be able to say that it's hot?

Brian Ross wrote on May 10^th, 2013 at 8:27pm:

Yadda wrote on May 10th, 2013 at 8:09pm: Brian Ross wrote on May 10th, 2013 at 7:23pm: freediver wrote on May 10th, 2013 at 12:36pm: Muhammed was a big fan of collective punishment. He used it to justify slaughtering Jews on many occasions. What it means is that if any one of them pisses you off, you can make the entire community suffer for it. Note that he did not instruct the Muslims to always be upright, to be tolerant, to turn the other cheek, to forgive. He gave them licence to be underhanded and to blame the inevitable escalations of violence on the other party. Really?  Does that make it right?   Muhammed was also against collective punishments being handed out to Muslims, FD.  Does that make him contradictory?  Yes but you don't seem to see those contradictions.  I wonder why?   ::) Wherever moslems go in the world [to live] [and where their 'moslem community' become established], their presence creates 'a border of conflict' and/or discord, with all other non-moslem peoples which they 'interface' with. Always. Why is that ? Perhaps it is because of non-acceptance by bigots such as yourself? It takes two to tango, Yadda.  Most Muslims are like any other group of people, they just want to be left alone to get on with their lives but persecution by people such as yourself makes that a bit difficult don't you think? I have known personally and professionally quite a few Muslims.  Never had a problem with them.  They just wanted to be left alone and I likewise.  My next door neighbour at the moment is a Muslim.  He doesn't rape, beat, pillage or propose such things.  Obviously, according to you that makes him a bad Muslim but in reality he's an ordinary person who just wants to get along with everybody around him. I'll ask you the standard question I ask every bigot. How many Muslims do you know personally?  Well?   ::)

I am not a bigot.





"Fighting [against unbelievers] is prescribed for you, and [if] ye dislike it.....Allah knoweth, and ye know not."
Koran 2.216

"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

"....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

"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

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




Are all of those Koran quotes irrelevant, to the 'relationship' which every moslem is obligated [by their 'religion'] to foster towards 'disbelievers' ?


Quote:

I have known personally and professionally quite a few Muslims.  Never had a problem with them.  They just wanted to be left alone and I likewise.  My next door neighbour at the moment is a Muslim.  He doesn't rape, beat, pillage or propose such things.  Obviously, according to you that makes him a bad Muslim but in reality he's an ordinary person who just wants to get along with everybody around him.

Good luck with that.






re That other question.

I have, in my past, known moslems, eaten in their home.
[....but it is not possible to maintain a cordial relationship with a moslem, if you are so 'impudent' as to begin to ask pointed and informed questions about his religion]

But today, i do not know any moslems, personally.

Soren wrote on May 10^th, 2013 at 8:51pm:

Brian, are you saying that if one doesn't know a Nazi personally, one should not form a view about Nazism? Or a Communist -Communism? Or the KKK without knowing a klansman personally? Do you actually have to put your hand in the fire to be able to say that it's hot?

You ARE a newby to Brian's arguments, aren't you?

Now he'll ask how hot the fire was and how calloused your hands were - because IT MAKES A DIFFERENCE.

Global Islamic aggression should be ignored because it doesn't involve ALL Muslims and it is not supported by ALL the various adherents of an interpretive faith.

Sorta makes you wonder what the Swiss Guards might have in the back of their minds, eh?

Yadda wrote on May 10^th, 2013 at 9:32pm:

I am not a bigot. "Fighting [against unbelievers] is prescribed for you, and [if] ye dislike it.....Allah knoweth, and ye know not." Koran 2.216 "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 "....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 "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 "....Lo! Allah is an enemy to those who reject Faith." Koran 2.98

Brian_Ross,


Bigot.

Look up the meaning of the word in a dictionary.



Crayons, i hope that you enjoyed.

Lionel Edriess wrote on May 10^th, 2013 at 9:37pm:

Soren wrote on May 10th, 2013 at 8:51pm: Brian, are you saying that if one doesn't know a Nazi personally, one should not form a view about Nazism? Or a Communist -Communism? Or the KKK without knowing a klansman personally? Do you actually have to put your hand in the fire to be able to say that it's hot? You ARE a newby to Brian's arguments, aren't you?

Au contraire - I have heard his sort of ernest nonsense before. Brian is the kind of person who think that his experience is the limit of all experience and is mighty offended by anyone suggesting that his life doesn't encompass all lived experiences.

Soren wrote on May 10^th, 2013 at 8:51pm:

Brian, are you saying that if one doesn't know a Nazi personally, one should not form a view about Nazism? Or a Communist -Communism? Or the KKK without knowing a klansman personally? Do you actually have to put your hand in the fire to be able to say that it's hot?

Do you think you've gotten the whole story without doing so, Soren?

Religion, unlike political ideology relies a great deal more about understanding and belief, than the written word.  Religious belief is based far more upon interpretation than anything else.  Be it Christianity or Islam or Hinduism or any other religious belief, you have a clerical class which has arisen to facilitate that.  However, if you want to know what the mainstream believes, you talk to the laity.

So, Soren, how many Muslims do you know personally?

BTW, I have known both old-time and neo-Nazis, Communists, fascists, racists and loads of different people who have followed many and varied political ideologies.  Some I've even liked, even if I disagreed with them.   I don't think the encounters have hurt me but they have definitely been educational.   :)

Brian Ross wrote on May 10^th, 2013 at 10:25pm:

Soren wrote on May 10th, 2013 at 8:51pm: Brian, are you saying that if one doesn't know a Nazi personally, one should not form a view about Nazism? Or a Communist -Communism? Or the KKK without knowing a klansman personally? Do you actually have to put your hand in the fire to be able to say that it's hot? Do you think you've gotten the whole story without doing so, Soren? Religion, unlike political ideology relies a great deal more about understanding and belief, than the written word.  Religious belief is based far more upon interpretation than anything else.  Be it Christianity or Islam or Hinduism or any other religious belief, you have a clerical class which has arisen to facilitate that.  However, if you want to know what the mainstream believes, you talk to the laity. So, Soren, how many Muslims do you know personally? BTW, I have known both old-time and neo-Nazis, Communists, fascists, racists and loads of different people who have followed many and varied political ideologies.  Some I've even liked, even if I disagreed with them.   I don't think the encounters have hurt me but they have definitely been educational.   :)

I know 142 Muslim personally.

Lionel Edriess wrote on May 10^th, 2013 at 9:37pm:

Soren wrote on May 10th, 2013 at 8:51pm: Brian, are you saying that if one doesn't know a Nazi personally, one should not form a view about Nazism? Or a Communist -Communism? Or the KKK without knowing a klansman personally? Do you actually have to put your hand in the fire to be able to say that it's hot? You ARE a newby to Brian's arguments, aren't you? Now he'll ask how hot the fire was and how calloused your hands were - because IT MAKES A DIFFERENCE. Global Islamic aggression should be ignored because it doesn't involve ALL Muslims and it is not supported by ALL the various adherents of an interpretive faith. Sorta makes you wonder what the Swiss Guards might have in the back of their minds, eh?

As usual, Lionel you read what you want into my views.

I don't believe there is such a thing as "Global Islamic aggression" because there is no central directing or controlling person or people within Islam to create it.   I believe there is "Islamic aggression", which can be attributed to individual or groups of Muslims.  However, that does not mean you can blame all Muslims for what other Muslims do.  That is guilt by association and is exactly what the Takfiri Islamists resort to when they attack (verbally/physically/in writing) "the West".

Like them, Lionel, you're boxing at a strawman representation of Islam as a homogeneous, monolithic entity. with all Muslims working together to bring about this sort of "aggression" you perceive.

This is exactly what anti-Semites do with Jews and Judaism.  You are basically persecuting people.  You're doing it not because of what they have done individually but because of your prejudices.

That is bigotry.

You see Islam as a challenge to your complacent existence because its followers are different and act differently to what you believe is the norm.   A norm which I have repeatedly challenged you to define but which you have steadfastly refused to do so because you realise to do so would mean that your prejudice would be exposed.   ::)

Soren wrote on May 10^th, 2013 at 10:33pm:

[quote author=Brian_Ross link=1367418236/116#116 date=1368188728] I know 142 Muslim personally.

Such a precise number and you return it so quickly.  I call bullshit.   ::)

Brian Ross wrote on May 10^th, 2013 at 10:34pm:

Soren wrote on May 10th, 2013 at 10:33pm: [quote author=Brian_Ross link=1367418236/116#116 date=1368188728] I know 142 Muslim personally. Such a precise number and you return it so quickly.  I call bullshit.   ::)

Ok, it's actually 140 or thereabouts.
I am not sure about 2 of them. They could be Mossad.

Brian Ross wrote on May 10^th, 2013 at 10:25pm:

Soren wrote on May 10th, 2013 at 8:51pm: Brian, are you saying that if one doesn't know a Nazi personally, one should not form a view about Nazism? Or a Communist -Communism? Or the KKK without knowing a klansman personally? Do you actually have to put your hand in the fire to be able to say that it's hot? Do you think you've gotten the whole story without doing so, Soren? Religion, unlike political ideology relies a great deal more about understanding and belief, than the written word.  Religious belief is based far more upon interpretation than anything else.  Be it Christianity or Islam or Hinduism or any other religious belief, you have a clerical class which has arisen to facilitate that.  However, if you want to know what the mainstream believes, you talk to the laity. So, Soren, how many Muslims do you know personally? BTW, I have known both old-time and neo-Nazis, Communists, fascists, racists and loads of different people who have followed many and varied political ideologies.  Some I've even liked, even if I disagreed with them.   I don't think the encounters have hurt me but they have definitely been educational.   :)

total rubbish from the islamic

Yadda wrote on May 10^th, 2013 at 9:44pm:

Yadda wrote on May 10th, 2013 at 9:32pm: I am not a bigot. [...] Brian_Ross, Bigot. Look up the meaning of the word in a dictionary. Crayons, i hope that you enjoyed. Crayons?   ::) Quote: bigot Pronunciation: /ˈbɪgət/ Definition of bigot noun     a person who is bigoted: religious bigots he was a fanatical bigot Origin: late 16th century (denoting a superstitious religious hypocrite): from French, of unknown origin [url=http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/bigot]Source[/url] [quote] bigotry Pronunciation: /ˈbɪgətri/ Definition of bigotry noun [mass noun]     intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself:the report reveals racism and right-wing bigotry

[url=http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/bigotry]Source[/url]


Quote:

bigotry Pronunciation: /ˈbɪgətri/ Definition of bigotry noun [mass noun]     intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself:the report reveals racism and right-wing bigotry

[url=http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/bigoted]Source[/url]

Looks like a pretty good word to describe your attitudes, Yadda...   ::)

BTW, here is a present for you.  Please enjoy them:

http://www.maulanaimtiyaz.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/15.jpg

Soren wrote on May 10^th, 2013 at 10:38pm:

Brian Ross wrote on May 10th, 2013 at 10:34pm: Soren wrote on May 10th, 2013 at 10:33pm: [quote author=Brian_Ross link=1367418236/116#116 date=1368188728] I know 142 Muslim personally. Such a precise number and you return it so quickly.  I call bullshit.   ::) Ok, it's actually 140 or thereabouts. I am not sure about 2 of them. They could be Mossad.

Yeah, sure, sure.   ::)

How about we put you down for the real number?  Zero?

OK, how many do you know? 139? 21? 587456? 5? 159? 14? 6? 21? 7?

How many?

Sprintcyclist wrote on May 10^th, 2013 at 10:49pm:

total rubbish from the islamic

I'm not a Muslim, Sprintcyclist.   Do you always subscribe to the idea that anybody who questions hatred and bigotry has to be a member of the oppressed group?   ::)

Brian Ross wrote on May 10^th, 2013 at 10:59pm:

Sprintcyclist wrote on May 10th, 2013 at 10:49pm: total rubbish from the islamic I'm not a Muslim, Sprintcyclist.   Do you always subscribe to the idea that anybody who questions hatred and bigotry has to be a member of the oppressed group?   ::)

So how many Muslims do you know, then?
What's the 'credibility' limit?
How do you know you have reached it

Soren wrote on May 10^th, 2013 at 11:16pm:

Brian Ross wrote on May 10th, 2013 at 10:59pm: Sprintcyclist wrote on May 10th, 2013 at 10:49pm: total rubbish from the islamic I'm not a Muslim, Sprintcyclist.   Do you always subscribe to the idea that anybody who questions hatred and bigotry has to be a member of the oppressed group?   ::) So how many Muslims do you know, then?

Appreciably more than zero, Soren.   ;D

Sufficient to know that the caricatures created here by many are just that, caricatures, not the reality of what Muslims think, say, do or it would appear, believe.


Quote:

What's the 'credibility' limit? How do you know you have reached it

When you stop seeing them in a universally negative light...

So, were you frightened by a Muslim when you were a baby or did you learn your prejudice at your father's knee or was it from your mother's milk?   ::)

how many sex slaves did moh have ?

Sprintcyclist wrote on May 10^th, 2013 at 11:40pm:

how many sex slaves did moh have ?

How many slaves did most people have at the time?  Was Slavery illegal then?    ::)

Sprintcyclist wrote on May 10^th, 2013 at 11:40pm:

how many sex slaves did moh have ?

bump

Sprintcyclist wrote on May 10^th, 2013 at 11:42pm:

Sprintcyclist wrote on May 10th, 2013 at 11:40pm: how many sex slaves did moh have ? bump

Endless repeating a question doesn't make it any more valid, Sprintcyclist.  As I pointed out, slavery was commonplace in that period in history, even Christians had slaves, many who were, without a doubt also used for the purposes of sex...   ::)

Brian Ross wrote on May 10^th, 2013 at 10:33pm:

As usual, Lionel you read what you want into my views. I don't believe there is such a thing as "Global Islamic aggression" ...

Of course you don't. You don't believe what you read in the papers. You have other sources of information.

All those explosions, the body count, the demonstrations, the threats, the blood on the streets, the videos, the rockets, the history, ......

None of these events are the fault of Muslims because not all Muslims are terrorists, Islam is the religion of Peace (if you can decipher it that way), Islam is divided, the media is owned by Jews, the West is populated by bigots, ........

And, of course, Islam's ultimate aims are misunderstood by everyone else except yourself and Muhammad.

If it wasn't for the fact that almost every time I check the media I find a different story, I could believe your proselytizing.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe that the adherents of any other religion have managed to post so many sanctioned, successful hits on non-combatants as Islam. They've got some thrillers on You Tube, as well as instructional video.

Islamonausea is probably the correct terminology - I'm sick of the subject!

If any explanation is required, it might be likened to that fellow who repeatedly banged his head against a wall. When questioned about his motive, he replied that, 'It felt so good when I stopped'.

And, FFS, what's so wrong with a bacon and egg sandwich.

Brian Ross wrote on May 10^th, 2013 at 11:26pm:

Soren wrote on May 10th, 2013 at 11:16pm: Brian Ross wrote on May 10th, 2013 at 10:59pm: Sprintcyclist wrote on May 10th, 2013 at 10:49pm: total rubbish from the islamic I'm not a Muslim, Sprintcyclist.   Do you always subscribe to the idea that anybody who questions hatred and bigotry has to be a member of the oppressed group?   ::) So how many Muslims do you know, then? Appreciably more than zero, Soren.   ;D Sufficient to know that the caricatures created here by many are just that, caricatures, not the reality of what Muslims think, say, do or it would appear, believe. Quote: What's the 'credibility' limit? How do you know you have reached it When you stop seeing them in a universally negative light... So, were you frightened by a Muslim when you were a baby or did you learn your prejudice at your father's knee or was it from your mother's milk?   ::)

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

Brian Ross wrote on May 10^th, 2013 at 7:23pm:

freediver wrote on May 10th, 2013 at 12:36pm: Muhammed was a big fan of collective punishment. He used it to justify slaughtering Jews on many occasions. What it means is that if any one of them pisses you off, you can make the entire community suffer for it. Note that he did not instruct the Muslims to always be upright, to be tolerant, to turn the other cheek, to forgive. He gave them licence to be underhanded and to blame the inevitable escalations of violence on the other party. Really?  Does that make it right?   Muhammed was also against collective punishments being handed out to Muslims, FD.  Does that make him contradictory?  Yes but you don't seem to see those contradictions.  I wonder why?   ::)

Can you elaborate please Brian? Of course Muhammed was opposed to his followers being treated the way they treated non-Muslims. I'm not sure what you are accusing me of failing to see. Are you back to arguing that me criticising Muslims is exactly the same as Muslims chopping people's heads off?


Quote:

I have known personally and professionally quite a few Muslims.  Never had a problem with them.  They just wanted to be left alone and I likewise.  My next door neighbour at the moment is a Muslim.  He doesn't rape, beat, pillage or propose such things.

Have you asked him?


Quote:

Religion, unlike political ideology relies a great deal more about understanding and belief, than the written word.

Brian, Islam is a political ideology. Even Muslims will acknowledge this. Shariah law can be written down. No-one really gives a crap about the spiritual aspects of Islam.


Quote:

However, if you want to know what the mainstream believes, you talk to the laity.

So what did your neighbour say about Shariah law? Or were you too afraid to ask?


Quote:

BTW, I have known both old-time and neo-Nazis, Communists, fascists, racists and loads of different people who have followed many and varied political ideologies.  Some I've even liked, even if I disagreed with them.   I don't think the encounters have hurt me but they have definitely been educational.

Apparently not. Why don't you bang on about persecution whenever people criticise Nazis or fascists?


Quote:

I don't believe there is such a thing as "Global Islamic aggression" because there is no central directing or controlling person or people within Islam to create it.

That does not make sense Brian. There is no centralised authority guiding the environmental movement either. Does that mean the global environmental movement does not exist? It's like everything you say fails the common sense test. Does Muhammed count as a cetrnal controlling person? Does the Koran count as a central authority? For most of Islams history that central authority existed in every sense of the word, and many Muslims want to return to that.


Quote:

This is exactly what anti-Semites do with Jews and Judaism.  You are basically persecuting people.  You're doing it not because of what they have done individually but because of your prejudices.

Brian, would you be able to tell the difference between someone standaing up for freedom and democracy and someone persecuting Muslims?


Quote:

How many slaves did most people have at the time?  Was Slavery illegal then?

Of course it was not illegal. Muhammed legalised it. Many Muslims today want to bring back that standard.

Brian Ross wrote on May 10^th, 2013 at 11:45pm:

Sprintcyclist wrote on May 10th, 2013 at 11:42pm: Sprintcyclist wrote on May 10th, 2013 at 11:40pm: how many sex slaves did moh have ? bump Endless repeating a question doesn't make it any more valid, Sprintcyclist.  As I pointed out, slavery was commonplace in that period in history, even Christians had slaves, many who were, without a doubt also used for the purposes of sex...   ::)

Cyrus the great abolished slavery around 530BC, it returned after the muslim conquest of Persia.

Maria was Mohammads coptic christian sex slave, she gave Mohammad his only son Ibrahim who dies before he reached 2 years of age.

How many sex slaves did Mohammad have before he invented Islam? none zip zilch.

Baronvonrort wrote on May 11^th, 2013 at 9:20am:

Brian Ross wrote on May 10th, 2013 at 11:45pm: Sprintcyclist wrote on May 10th, 2013 at 11:42pm: Sprintcyclist wrote on May 10th, 2013 at 11:40pm: how many sex slaves did moh have ? bump Endless repeating a question doesn't make it any more valid, Sprintcyclist.  As I pointed out, slavery was commonplace in that period in history, even Christians had slaves, many who were, without a doubt also used for the purposes of sex...   ::) Cyrus the great abolished slavery around 530BC, it returned after the muslim conquest of Persia.

Errr, Cyrus the Great didn't rule Arabia in ~600CE.   Remember, we are talking about Arabia, not Persia.  Slaves where common in Greek, Roman, Dark Ages and Medieval periods, even up through the Renaissance and into the early modern period.

So, keeping slaves was unique to Arabia 1400 years ago?   ::)


Quote:

Maria was Mohammads coptic christian sex slave, she gave Mohammad his only son Ibrahim who dies before he reached 2 years of age. How many sex slaves did Mohammad have before he invented Islam? none zip zilch.

How do you know?  The records are incomplete and such that he could have owned slaves and you'd be none the wiser.   It is a fallacy of the naive that you assume that the historical record is complete and accurate.  ::)

Brian Ross wrote on May 10^th, 2013 at 10:33pm:

Lionel Edriess wrote on May 10th, 2013 at 9:37pm: Soren wrote on May 10th, 2013 at 8:51pm: Brian, are you saying that if one doesn't know a Nazi personally, one should not form a view about Nazism? Or a Communist -Communism? Or the KKK without knowing a klansman personally? Do you actually have to put your hand in the fire to be able to say that it's hot? You ARE a newby to Brian's arguments, aren't you? Now he'll ask how hot the fire was and how calloused your hands were - because IT MAKES A DIFFERENCE. Global Islamic aggression should be ignored because it doesn't involve ALL Muslims and it is not supported by ALL the various adherents of an interpretive faith. Sorta makes you wonder what the Swiss Guards might have in the back of their minds, eh? As usual, Lionel you read what you want into my views. I don't believe there is such a thing as "Global Islamic aggression" because there is no central directing or controlling person or people within Islam to create it.   I believe there is "Islamic aggression", which can be attributed to individual or groups of Muslims.  However, that does not mean you can blame all Muslims for what other Muslims do.  That is guilt by association and is exactly what the Takfiri Islamists resort to when they attack (verbally/physically/in writing) "the West". Like them, Lionel, you're boxing at a strawman representation of Islam as a homogeneous, monolithic entity. with all Muslims working together to bring about this sort of "aggression" you perceive. This is exactly what anti-Semites do with Jews and Judaism.  You are basically persecuting people.  You're doing it not because of what they have done individually but because of your prejudices. That is bigotry. You see Islam as a challenge to your complacent existence because its followers are different and act differently to what you believe is the norm.   A norm which I have repeatedly challenged you to define but which you have steadfastly refused to do so because you realise to do so would mean that your prejudice would be exposed.   ::)

Brian_Ross,

It is not prejudice or bigotry, to recognise, to be cognisant of, the 'inspiration' and influence which ISLAM has upon the behaviour and the attitude of every moslem, towards non-moslems.




You are a wilfully ignorant man Brian_Ross, imo.


By declaring;

"I am a moslem.";

.....a moslem, every moslem, is directly associating themselves with the 'religious' violence which ISLAM justifies, legitimises, promotes and encourages [as a philosophy].

And every moslem is thereby associating >> themselves << with those violent acts which are purposefully being done, 'in the name of Allah'.i


Koran 2.98
Koran 47:8-11
Koran 4.74-76

The content of those three Koran verse groups, together, form a 'virtuous circle'.

Each verse group firstly confirms and then reinforces the ISLAMIC 'religious' paradigm, that;
1/    unbelief [in man] is a serious 'religious' crime, and that,
2/    the 'criminals' [i.e. the 'unbelievers'] deserve every punishment they get, and the 'criminals' are outside of the protection of law, and that,
3/    good moslems have an obligation to,    ....'fight in the cause of Allah' , and all good moslems are 'rightly guided' and are justified in their 'crime fighting'.




Those arguments [above] are 'logically' demonstrated...

1/    "...Allah is an enemy to those who reject Faith." [i.e. 'Unbelief' [in man] is a crime.].
Koran 2.98
[ - - The enemy of moslems is identified. All of 'unbelieving' mankind, are the declared enemy of moslems.]

2/    "...those who reject Allah have no protector."
Koran 47:8-11
[ - - Here, it is clearly stated to every good moslem, that moslem enmity, violence, and warfare, against 'those who reject Faith', is morally justified, and 'lawful'. /sarc off]

3/    "...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
[ - - Those who reject 'Faith' are ipso facto, 'rightly' deemed as being innately evil by ISLAM, and by Allah. Therefore those who reject 'Faith', are the rightful targets of moslem enmity, violence, and warfare.
...'those who reject Faith' are also described [Koran 4.74-76], as 'oppressors' and as, 'the friends of Satan'.]



Once again, the ideology which ISLAM inculcates within all moslems, is this;...
1/    'Unbelief' [in man] is a crime.
2/    The 'criminals' have no 'lawful' protection whatsoever.
3/    The crime of 'unbelief' >> must << be punished, and punishment of 'unbelief' is morally justified, because, the 'unbelievers' are in league with evil forces who are the oppressors of the people [stated in Koran 4.74-76].

You are missing the point Brian. This is not about how nice people were 1400 years ago. The point is that Muhammed reintroduced slavery to places where it had already been abolished. Muslims think his standards are eternal and want to reintroduce them to the modern world. It would make no difference if he also had 6 year old wives or sex slaves prior to inventing Islam.

Brian Ross wrote on May 10^th, 2013 at 10:50pm:

Crayons?   ::)

You have forgotten, so soon ?





http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1367633212/58#58

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1367633212/61#61

Brian Ross wrote on May 10^th, 2013 at 8:27pm:

Yadda wrote on May 10th, 2013 at 8:09pm: Brian Ross wrote on May 10th, 2013 at 7:23pm: freediver wrote on May 10th, 2013 at 12:36pm: Muhammed was a big fan of collective punishment. He used it to justify slaughtering Jews on many occasions. What it means is that if any one of them pisses you off, you can make the entire community suffer for it. Note that he did not instruct the Muslims to always be upright, to be tolerant, to turn the other cheek, to forgive. He gave them licence to be underhanded and to blame the inevitable escalations of violence on the other party. Really?  Does that make it right?   Muhammed was also against collective punishments being handed out to Muslims, FD.  Does that make him contradictory?  Yes but you don't seem to see those contradictions.  I wonder why?   ::) Wherever moslems go in the world [to live] [and where their 'moslem community' become established], their presence creates 'a border of conflict' and/or discord, with all other non-moslem peoples which they 'interface' with. Always. Why is that ? Perhaps it is because of non-acceptance by bigots such as yourself?

:D               Brian, where did you go to school ?

In a madrasa ?



Brian_Ross's logic;

Moslems/ISLAM has a 1400 year history of violence and conflict and discord with non-moslems,
.......because Yadda, and all other peoples that come into conflict with moslems, are bigots.

;D           ;D           ;D





No.





Yadda's logic;

It is more likely Brian [that ISLAM/moslems are always in conflict with non-moslems], because of the religious determination, which is declared by ISLAM, declared by Allah, and declared in the Koran,
....which encourages moslems to, and 'lawfully' allows moslems to, enslave other men.

e.g.
"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





And it [that ISLAM/moslems are always in conflict with non-moslems] is ALSO, because of this common-sense fact;

John Locke 1632-170
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1242692863/0#0

Quote:

"......Chapter III Of the State of War .....he who attempts to get another man into his absolute power does thereby put himself into a state of war with him; it being to be understood as a declaration of a design upon his life.  For I have reason to conclude that he who would get me into his power without my consent would use me as he pleased when he had got me there, and destroy me too when he had a fancy to it; for nobody can desire to have me in his absolute power unless it be to compel me by force to that which is against the right of my freedom- i.e.  make me a slave."

Brian_Ross,

What knowledge do you have, of the art of war ?

Maybe sir, you imagine that you have learnt, and know how to conduct yourself during a war ?

But clearly, you have learnt nothing about the primary cause of conflict between men.




Quote:

"......he who attempts to get another man into his absolute power does thereby put himself into a state of war with him;"

i+++


Brian_Ross,

Here is another word, for you to look up the meaning of, in a dictionary;


ignorant

Yadda wrote on May 11^th, 2013 at 4:41pm:

Brian Ross wrote on May 10th, 2013 at 10:33pm: Lionel Edriess wrote on May 10th, 2013 at 9:37pm: Soren wrote on May 10th, 2013 at 8:51pm: Brian, are you saying that if one doesn't know a Nazi personally, one should not form a view about Nazism? Or a Communist -Communism? Or the KKK without knowing a klansman personally? Do you actually have to put your hand in the fire to be able to say that it's hot? You ARE a newby to Brian's arguments, aren't you? Now he'll ask how hot the fire was and how calloused your hands were - because IT MAKES A DIFFERENCE. Global Islamic aggression should be ignored because it doesn't involve ALL Muslims and it is not supported by ALL the various adherents of an interpretive faith. Sorta makes you wonder what the Swiss Guards might have in the back of their minds, eh? As usual, Lionel you read what you want into my views. I don't believe there is such a thing as "Global Islamic aggression" because there is no central directing or controlling person or people within Islam to create it.   I believe there is "Islamic aggression", which can be attributed to individual or groups of Muslims.  However, that does not mean you can blame all Muslims for what other Muslims do.  That is guilt by association and is exactly what the Takfiri Islamists resort to when they attack (verbally/physically/in writing) "the West". Like them, Lionel, you're boxing at a strawman representation of Islam as a homogeneous, monolithic entity. with all Muslims working together to bring about this sort of "aggression" you perceive. This is exactly what anti-Semites do with Jews and Judaism.  You are basically persecuting people.  You're doing it not because of what they have done individually but because of your prejudices. That is bigotry. You see Islam as a challenge to your complacent existence because its followers are different and act differently to what you believe is the norm.   A norm which I have repeatedly challenged you to define but which you have steadfastly refused to do so because you realise to do so would mean that your prejudice would be exposed.   ::) Brian_Ross, It is not prejudice or bigotry, to recognise, to be cognisant of, the 'inspiration' and influence which ISLAM has upon the behaviour and the attitude of every moslem, towards non-moslems. You are a wilfully ignorant man Brian_Ross, imo. By declaring; "I am a moslem."; .....a moslem, every moslem, is directly associating themselves with the 'religious' violence which ISLAM justifies, legitimises, promotes and encourages [as a philosophy]. And every moslem is thereby associating >> themselves << with those violent acts which are purposefully being done, 'in the name of Allah'.

Ah, so, Yadda.  So, every Christian is declaring they are equally guilty of what this man does, when they are declaring themselves a Christian?

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/58952000/jpg/_58952403_014196958-1.jpg

You have seen what Kony's Lord's Resistance Army does to it's victims?   :o

All in the name of Christ.

That's the level of your logic.

So, please go back to playing with your crayons and let the adults discuss matters seriously...   ::)

freediver wrote on May 11^th, 2013 at 4:43pm:

You are missing the point Brian. This is not about how nice people were 1400 years ago. The point is that Muhammed reintroduced slavery to places where it had already been abolished. Muslims think his standards are eternal and want to reintroduce them to the modern world. It would make no difference if he also had 6 year old wives or sex slaves prior to inventing Islam.

Muhammed introduced slavery.  Mmm, might that because his culture allowed slavery?

So, suddenly he's responsible for every aspect of Arabic culture which existed before he was born?

FD, you really are quite strange but then I've never understood bigotry.  It seems such a silly way to see people and the world.   So, what are you going to blame him for now?  Syphilis?  ::)

Brian Ross wrote on May 10^th, 2013 at 10:59pm:

Sprintcyclist wrote on May 10th, 2013 at 10:49pm: total rubbish from the islamic I'm not a Muslim, Sprintcyclist. Do you always subscribe to the idea that anybody who questions hatred and bigotry has to be a member of the oppressed group?    ::)

Yes, moslems.

'.....the oppressed group'.




Where'd you buy your rose coloured glasses from, Brian ???         :P

And, why don't you give some of those glasses, to some of your 'oppressed' moslem friends ?

....you know, those glasses maybe, could change their worldview.         :P








IMAGE...
http://www.zionism-israel.com/ezine/Isllam2.jpg
London, moslem street protests.
Moslems demanding their right to exercise their 'freedom of religion', to kill people who 'insult' their religion,
.....BECAUSE THEY DO NOT BELIEVE WHAT MOSLEMS BELIEVE.


THOSE PLACARDS, AT A MOSLEM STREET PROTEST IN LONDON READ.....

"Slay those who insult Islam"
"Behead those who insult Islam"
"Massacre those who insult Islam"
"Butcher those who mock Islam"
"Europe you will pay, demolition is on its way"
"Europe you will pay, extermination is on its way"
"Exterminate those who slander Islam"
"Europe is the cancer, Islam is the answer"
"Islam will dominate the world"
"Freedom go to hell"
"Europe take some lessons from 9/11"
"Be prepared for the real Holocaust"
"BBC = British Blasphemic Crusaders"i



IMAGE...
http://images.smh.com.au/2012/09/15/3637564/art-protest3-620x349.jpg
Sydney, 2012, moslem street protests.
Moslems, 'demonstrating', just how 'peaceful' ISLAM and moslems really are.








IMAGE...
http://imageshack.us/a/img526/8945/kidfi.jpg
Sydney, 2012, moslem street protests.
The image above gives us undeniable >> PROOF << that even here in Australia, moslems living in Australia, are teaching their children the basics about ISLAM. Teaching their children intolerance, and the hatred of those, who dare to reject what moslems believe.








IMAGE...
http://www.faithfreedom.org/Gallery/cartoon-protest12.jpg
In London, and all over the world, moslem parents, are instilling a criminally hateful mindset, into their children.
Moslems teach their children, to hate those who reject their [ISLAMIC] will.
And moslems, and moslem parents, are doing this on purpose!
And we [their hosts] seemingly have no care, what that moslem 'will' may eventually be revealed to be.
i

Anjem Choudary is a moslem community leader in the UK....

KILLING OF NON-MUSLIMS IS LEGITIMATE

"...when we say innocent people, we mean moslems."
"....[not accepting ISLAM] is a crime against God."
"...If you are a non-moslem, then you are guilty of not believing in God."
"...as a moslem....i must have hatred towards everything which is non-ISLAM."
"...[moslems] allegiance is always with the moslems, so i will never condemn a moslem for what he does."
"...Britain has always been Dar al Harb [the Land of War]"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maHSOB2RFm4

Yadda wrote on May 11^th, 2013 at 5:19pm:

:D               Brian, where did you go to school ? In a madrasa ?

Nope, but I think you'd fit slot into one quite easily, Yadda as a teacher...  ::)

Yadda wrote on May 11^th, 2013 at 5:31pm:

Brian Ross wrote on May 10th, 2013 at 10:59pm: Sprintcyclist wrote on May 10th, 2013 at 10:49pm: total rubbish from the islamic I'm not a Muslim, Sprintcyclist. Do you always subscribe to the idea that anybody who questions hatred and bigotry has to be a member of the oppressed group?    ::) Yes, moslems. '.....the oppressed group'. Where'd you buy your rose coloured glasses from, Brian ???         :P

They look pretty oppressed to me in most Western countries where bigots such as yourself work your hardest to try and expel them, Yadda.

So, how soon before we see you ushering Muslims into some of these?

http://www.dugup.co.uk/adventures/birkenau/birkenau.010.jpg

::)

So Brian Ross will not let us use Muhammed as reflective of Islam because he lived so long ago, but will use Joseph Kony to represent Christianity? And we are the ones who are biased?