____ wrote on May 1^st, 2013 at 7:29am:

A survey of Muslims worldwide has found most would like sharia law implemented, but are divided on how. A majority of Muslims around the world want sharia law to be implemented in their countries but are split on how it should be applied, according to a study. The comprehensive Pew Research Centre survey conducted between 2008 and 2012 focused on 38,000 people in 39 countries drawn from a global Muslim community of 2.2 billion people. A solid majority, notably in Asia, Africa and the Middle East, were in favour of sharia -- traditional Islamic law -- being adopted as "the law of the land" in their countries, it found. "But I would also note that support for making sharia law does vary," said Jim Bell, Pew's director of international survey research. From 12 per cent in Turkey, support for sharia as official national law stood at 56 per cent in Tunisia, 71 per cent in Nigeria, 72 per cent in Indonesia, 74 per cent in Egypt and 99 per cent in Afghanistan. But Princeton University professor Amaney Jamal, a special adviser to the Washington-based Pew Research Centre, emphasised there is no one common understanding of sharia among all the world's Muslims. "Sharia has different meanings, definitions and understandings, based on the actual experiences of countries with or without sharia," she said in a conference call with reporters analysing the findings. Titled "The World's Muslims: Religion, Politics and Society," the study also revealed many Muslims favour applying sharia in the private sphere to settle family or property disputes. However, in most countries surveyed, there was less support for severe punishments, such as cutting off the hands of thieves or executing people who convert from Islam to another faith. A majority of Muslims are also in favour of freedom of religion, even while backing sharia. In Pakistan, for example, 84 per cent of Muslims want sharia enshrined as official law but 75 per cent believe non-Muslims are free to practice their religion. Around half of Muslims in the survey expressed concerns about religious extremism, particularly in Egypt, Iraq and Tunisia. In most countries, a majority of Muslims said a wife must obey her husband, although a majority also said a woman should decide whether or not to wear a veil. http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1761518/Most-Muslims-want-sharia-law

there's a thread already on this FD. If you want one in the islam forum, suggest you move the existing one.

99% in Afghanistan? I'd like to see the questions they asked.

Karnal wrote on May 2^nd, 2013 at 5:07pm:

99% in Afghanistan? I'd like to see the questions they asked.

Bon appetit Kernel


http://www.pewforum.org/Muslim/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society.aspx

By Abu's definition it would be 100%. Obviousy if you don't want Shariah law then you aren't actually a Muslim.

freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2013 at 6:12pm:

Obviousy if you don't want Shariah law then you aren't actually a Muslim

Perhaps you can enlighten us by clarifying exactly what "want shariah law" actually means?

polite_gandalf wrote on May 8^th, 2013 at 10:45pm:

freediver wrote on May 2nd, 2013 at 6:12pm: Obviousy if you don't want Shariah law then you aren't actually a Muslim Perhaps you can enlighten us by clarifying exactly what "want shariah law" actually means?

They want to shag underage girls cause the Mo man made it allowable, they want to bash the woman they own and they want to Rule the World. Please keep up you part time muslim,\.

yeah I have to say ... tough titties Muslims.

No pre-pubescent girls to torture...?? and shoot in the head??  >>  It is anathema to civilised humanity... 

You can want Sharia Law all you like...  but don't expect it anytime soon here in Oz.  :P

Simply having an islamic court of arbitration for family matters that compliment the state family court system as they do in the UK is a form of implementing shariah law.

polite_gandalf wrote on May 9^th, 2013 at 7:27am:

Simply having an islamic court of arbitration for family matters that compliment the state family court system as they do in the UK is a form of implementing shariah law.

It does not compliment sod all though gandalf.

http://www.secularism.org.uk/blog/2013/05/sharia-councils--unjust-unequal-and-consequence-of-failed-integration-policies

The only part of that article that had any relevance at all to the situation in the UK was:


Quote:

In the Panorama programme, Nazir Afzal, the chief crown prosecutor for the Northwest, emphasised that "most of the [courts] are absolutely fine but there are some clearly, like this one, who are putting women at risk"

The rest of the article is just a non-specific generalised rant about how evil islam is.

polite_gandalf wrote on May 9^th, 2013 at 10:17am:

The only part of that article that had any relevance at all to the situation in the UK was: Quote: In the Panorama programme, Nazir Afzal, the chief crown prosecutor for the Northwest, emphasised that "most of the [courts] are absolutely fine but there are some clearly, like this one, who are putting women at risk" The rest of the article is just a non-specific generalised rant about how evil islam is.

The article is based on a recent BBC Panorama programme you should try to watch it.

Adamant wrote on May 9^th, 2013 at 10:35am:

The article is based on a recent BBC Panorama programme you should try to watch it.

No its not. It refers to it in the opening sentence, but the entire article is a sweeping rant about islam that is based on not a single fact from the program. There is literally only one reference to the program - which I quoted. And that quote (unintentionally) gives the rant some much needed context (ie, overall sharia courts are working just fine).

So, they may want Sharia law.  Do they necessarily understand what it is and how it works?   Do they also recognise that Sharia law has real difficulties coping with modern civil cases about issues relating to contract law and so on?   I suspect not.

It's a motherhood and apple-pie question which does not actually tell us very much about what Muslims actually want as against what they desire.   It is akin to asking an Australian if they want faster broadband speeds.  Obviously the answer will be "yes," but few will understand what that actually entails.   

Exactly Hot Breath. There are over a billion muslims worldwide, and about the same number of different understandings of what sharia actually is, and whats required to implement it.

Adamant wrote on May 9^th, 2013 at 10:35am:

polite_gandalf wrote on May 9th, 2013 at 10:17am: The only part of that article that had any relevance at all to the situation in the UK was: Quote: In the Panorama programme, Nazir Afzal, the chief crown prosecutor for the Northwest, emphasised that "most of the [courts] are absolutely fine but there are some clearly, like this one, who are putting women at risk" The rest of the article is just a non-specific generalised rant about how evil islam is. The article is based on a recent BBC Panorama programme you should try to watch it.

EDL - BBC Panorama - Secrets of Britain's Sharia Councils                              29m
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UfgPcAhijac


i have not watched it yet.

polite_gandalf wrote on May 8^th, 2013 at 10:45pm:

freediver wrote on May 2nd, 2013 at 6:12pm: Obviousy if you don't want Shariah law then you aren't actually a Muslim Perhaps you can enlighten us by clarifying exactly what "want shariah law" actually means?

I don't think there is room here. There are many books full of it. I think they call them Koran and Hadiths. Check the wiki for some of the more interesting elements.

Thats not the question FD.

The question was what does "want shariah law" actually mean? Or are you going to keep pretending every single muslim's understanding of sharia is exactly the same?

polite_gandalf wrote on May 9^th, 2013 at 10:17am:

The only part of that article that had any relevance at all to the situation in the UK was: Quote: In the Panorama programme, Nazir Afzal, the chief crown prosecutor for the Northwest, emphasised that "most of the [courts] are absolutely fine but there are some clearly, like this one, who are putting women at risk" The rest of the article is just a non-specific generalised rant about how evil islam is.

Any comments on the One law for all campaign to get rid of these discriminatory sharia courts in the UK gandalf?

www.onelawforall.org.uk

freediver wrote on May 9^th, 2013 at 12:58pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on May 8th, 2013 at 10:45pm: freediver wrote on May 2nd, 2013 at 6:12pm: Obviousy if you don't want Shariah law then you aren't actually a Muslim Perhaps you can enlighten us by clarifying exactly what "want shariah law" actually means? I don't think there is room here. There are many books full of it. I think they call them Koran and Hadiths. Check the wiki for some of the more interesting elements.

Perhaps you'd care to explain how Sharia law handles:

Contract Law
Regulation of the Electronic Spectrum
Anti-Discrimination Law
Insurance Law
Copyright Law
Building regulations
etc., etc.

If it is based purely on Koranic references?

The reality is, it doesn't.  In the nations that have implemented Sharia they haven't abandoned those aspects of the law, they've modified them to implement Islamic principles but the legislation is often more advanced than what we have in Australia.  Sharia is about a lot more than 14th century jurisprudence and advice.

how many people did mohammad murder ?
or those he encouraged to murder n his behalf ?

The UK already has one law for all.

The sharia courts are merely an arbitration tribunal that operates under English law. Their primary function is to provide an avenue for out-of-court settlements - so as not to clog up the system. A sensible idea in my book.


Quote:

The MAT operates under Section 1 of the Arbitration Act which states that: “the parties should be free to agree how their disputes are resolved, subject only to such safeguards as are necessary in the public interest”.[3] As such it operates within the framework of English law and does not constitute a separate Islamic legal system. Under the Act they are deemed to be "arbitration tribunals".[2]

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

Sprintcyclist wrote on May 9^th, 2013 at 2:48pm:

how many people did mohammad murder ? or those he encouraged to murder n his behalf ?

how many ?

polite_gandalf wrote on May 9^th, 2013 at 1:36pm:

Thats not the question FD. The question was what does "want shariah law" actually mean? Or are you going to keep pretending every single muslim's understanding of sharia is exactly the same?

Are you arguing over the definition of want, or the definition of shariah?


Quote:

Perhaps you'd care to explain how Sharia law handles: Contract Law

Always assume the best on behalf of the Muslims involved.


Quote:

Anti-Discrimination Law

Women cannot be trusted and should be covered up so they do not entice men to rape them. Jews and Christians are second class citizens. Other religions are tolerated only for as long as they cannot be wiped out. Atheism doesn't even exist, so let's keep it that way.


Quote:

Building regulations

Non-Muslims are not allowed to build as high as Muslims.

freediver wrote on May 9^th, 2013 at 7:13pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on May 9th, 2013 at 1:36pm: Thats not the question FD. The question was what does "want shariah law" actually mean? Or are you going to keep pretending every single muslim's understanding of sharia is exactly the same? Are you arguing over the definition of want, or the definition of shariah?

The truth about ISLAM [and Sharia] is so simple.             [to learn it, read the Koran, read the hadith]


But in those places where moslems do not have authority, sowing and nurturing confusion, and avoiding being pinned down to making direct definitions, and prolonging delays in 'coming to knowledge'......seem to be the main order of business.




Dictionary;
obfuscate = =
1 make unclear or unintelligible.
2 bewilder.



p.s.
ISLAM [and Sharia] seeks to establish the superiority of moslems, through the methodology of intimidation, violence and oppression.

What else do we need to know about ISLAM ?

freediver wrote on May 9^th, 2013 at 7:13pm:

Are you arguing over the definition of want, or the definition of shariah?

What you don't seem to appreciate is when muslims say "yeah, we want sharia law", that could mean about a thousand different things. Sharia includes simply performing the 5 prayers and all the other personal duties of a muslim. There are a range of views about whether or not it includes community laws - such as punishing adultery, robbery, etc. Some muslims might believe that sharia should rule over every aspect in the society - but I don't imagine many would. And even amongst those, there are an infinite number of views on how this should be implemented. But as someone pointed out, wherever sharia has been implemented, sharia has only ever been a compliment to the existing law of the land. So how much should sharia cover? What specific laws should be sharia and which not? These are all questions that are not being adequately addressed by blanket statements about the muslim bogeyman threatening society with sharia. And they certainly weren't addressed in the PEW survey that has been referenced.

Quote:

What you don't seem to appreciate is when muslims say "yeah, we want sharia law", that could mean about a thousand different things. Sharia includes simply performing the 5 prayers and all the other personal duties of a muslim.

I really don't think that is what any of the survey respondents meant. The question would not even make sense in that context.


Quote:

But as someone pointed out, wherever sharia has been implemented, sharia has only ever been a compliment to the existing law of the land.

Does that go all the way back to Muhammed? Who is this 'someone'?


Quote:

Some muslims might believe that sharia should rule over every aspect in the society - but I don't imagine many would. And even amongst those, there are an infinite number of views on how this should be implemented. But as someone pointed out, wherever sharia has been implemented, sharia has only ever been a compliment to the existing law of the land. So how much should sharia cover? What specific laws should be sharia and which not? These are all questions that are not being adequately addressed by blanket statements about the muslim bogeyman threatening society with sharia. And they certainly weren't addressed in the PEW survey that has been referenced.

You could say the exact same thing about Nazism. That would not make Nazism any more benign. You cannot deny people freedom and human rights "just a little bit". That is not how it works.

Sprintcyclist wrote on May 9^th, 2013 at 2:48pm:

how many people did mohammad murder ? or those he encouraged to murder n his behalf ?

Happened 1400 years ago.  Time you got over it, methinks.   ::)

Brian, everyone else will get over it after Muslims get over it, not before. Would you stand at the gates of auschwitz and tell the Jews to get over it while they were being lead to the chambers? Why do you always fall back on these empty-headed platitudes that make no sense?

Brian Ross wrote on May 9^th, 2013 at 9:36pm:

Sprintcyclist wrote on May 9th, 2013 at 2:48pm: how many people did mohammad murder ? or those he encouraged to murder n his behalf ? Happened 1400 years ago. Time you got over it, methinks.   ::)

Brian_Ross,

How many people did Mohammedans [worldwide] murder last week, and even today ?

How many people were murdered today, by those Mohammedans who were encouraged to murder, on behalf of ISLAM ?


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

freediver wrote on May 9^th, 2013 at 9:30pm:

You could say the exact same thing about Nazism. That would not make Nazism any more benign. You cannot deny people freedom and human rights "just a little bit". That is not how it works.

Resorting to Godwin's law are we?

I like the assumption that sharia is automatically deemed as denying freedom and human rights. An assumption which becomes a little bit tricky when its revealed that in the same survey majorities of muslims supported both democracy and freedom of religion.

polite_gandalf wrote on May 9^th, 2013 at 9:55pm:

freediver wrote on May 9th, 2013 at 9:30pm: You could say the exact same thing about Nazism. That would not make Nazism any more benign. You cannot deny people freedom and human rights "just a little bit". That is not how it works. Resorting to Godwin's law are we? I like the assumption that sharia is automatically deemed as denying freedom and human rights. An assumption which becomes a little bit tricky when its revealed that in the same survey majorities of muslims supported both democracy and freedom of religion.

gandalf,

Can you prove that Sharia does protect the freedom and human rights, of persons who are deemed to be 'disbelievers' ?

Because as i understand it, ISLAMIC law makes it unlawful for me to choose my religion - if the religion i choose, is not ISLAM.

???




"If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah), never will it be accepted of him;...."
Koran 3.85


"And fight with them until.....religion should be only for Allah,..."
Koran 2.193

polite_gandalf wrote on May 9^th, 2013 at 9:55pm:

freediver wrote on May 9th, 2013 at 9:30pm: You could say the exact same thing about Nazism. That would not make Nazism any more benign. You cannot deny people freedom and human rights "just a little bit". That is not how it works. Resorting to Godwin's law are we?

Actually no. I am trying to demonstrate a point. However I did start a thread comparing Islam and Nazism if you are interested.


Quote:

I like the assumption that sharia is automatically deemed as denying freedom and human rights.

It is not an assumption. Nor is it automatic. It comes from asking many Muslims about it.


Quote:

An assumption which becomes a little bit tricky when its revealed that in the same survey majorities of muslims supported both democracy and freedom of religion.

So does Abu. He seemed oblivious to the hypocrisy. I suspect he didn't actually know what freedom and democracy mean. Either that or it was just another case of the truth being the first victim of his century old war with the west. But he did know a lot about shariah law.

freediver wrote on May 9^th, 2013 at 10:30pm:

from asking many Muslims about it.

;D ;D ;D

'As such it operates within the framework of English law and does not constitute a separate Islamic legal system.' 

That sounds like a rather blatant attempt at painting this practice .. (What are the UK Law officers THINKING..?? ::) )  as harmless... even  helpful... 

;D ;D ;D ;D

Truly...  when you say  ' Most Muslims Want Sharia Law'...
you are talking about the MEN.

Male Muslims want it...

Women in Islam have no opinion worth hearing.

For that reason alone,.. it is shameful for any non- Muslim country to allow ANY aspect of SHARIA LAW in to the COMMON LAW.

How bizarre how bizarre

Hey keep it in the Casbah.! 8-)
>:(

Emma wrote on May 10^th, 2013 at 1:17am:

Truly...  when you say  ' Most Muslims Want Sharia Law'... you are talking about the MEN. Male Muslims want it... Women in Islam have no opinion worth hearing.

i
We moslems must obey local laws - NOT
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1352165717/0#0

Quote:

ISLAMIC law is almost always in conflict with Western secular states, in the areas of family law, in inheritance law, in the societal position of women, and the position in law of those who are not moslem. e.g. ISLAMIC law states that; Point of difference #1, A non-moslem man may not lawfully marry a moslem woman. A moslem woman may not lawfully marry a non-moslem man.            Koran 2.221 Point of difference #2, And moslem parents may lawfully kill their [disobedient] children.                  "not subject to retaliation" is "a father or mother (or their fathers or mothers) for killing their offspring, or offspring's offspring." ('Umdat al-Salik o1.1-2). Point of difference #3, A married woman must always make herself sexually available to her husband. "Your wives are as a tilth unto you; so approach your tilth when or how ye will; but do some good act for your souls beforehand; and fear Allah. And know that ye are to meet Him (in the Hereafter), and give (these) good tidings to those who believe." Koran 2.223 Dictionary; tilth = = cultivation of land; tillage. Point of difference #4, A husband may take up to 4 wives.            Koran 4.3 Point of difference #5, A moslem man may beat his disobedient wife.          Koran 4.034     "beat them (lightly)" is often quoted.    n.b. The 'clarifying' insertion, "(lightly)", DOES NOT APPEAR IN THE ARABIC, IN THE KORAN.     And one can only assume that this 'insertion' has been added in some English translations of the Koran - so as to mislead those readers of the English translation of the Koran.          Google; Taqiyya Point of difference #6, A non-moslem man may not give evidence in a court of law, against a moslem.   [....because such a circumstance, if permitted would upset the natural order of things; Being, that the 'guided' moslem, is [always] an innocent person before the law. Kufar, are the guilty people. Always.] Point of difference #7, A married moslem woman who claims [makes the accusation in a court] that she has been raped [by a 'stranger(s)'], must provide 4 male witnesses to the rape [to substaniate her accusation], or she herself may face the punishment of stoning, for her acknowledged/admitted adultery [i.e. her sex out of marraige]. Point of difference #8, If a non-moslem kills a moslem, ISLAMIC law states that the non-moslem must be executed. But a moslem must not be punished in law equally, whenever a moslem kills a non-moslem.    Bukhari Hadith Volume 4, Book 52, Number 283:    Bukhari Hadith Volume 9, Book 83, Number 50: Point of difference #9, Under ISLAMIC inheritance law any daughter receives 1/2 the entitlement of any male heir.            Koran 4.11 e.g. Where there is a son, and a daughter, to inherit an estate. The estate is divided into 3 parts. The son receives 2 parts. The daughter receives 1 part. I am sure that there are even more examples, of where secular laws [in host nations], would be in conflict with ISLAMIC law, but those above are enough to demonstrate the chasm in equity, that exists between ISLAMIC laws, and the tolerance and equality in law, that is found in the laws of most Western jurisdictions.

polite_gandalf wrote on May 9^th, 2013 at 10:41pm:

freediver wrote on May 9th, 2013 at 10:30pm: from asking many Muslims about it. ;D ;D ;D

Yes, it is rather amusing, isn't it?

I wonder if he's asked them face to face or merely through internet forums?

I also wonder why, if he's spoke to so many, he continually only cites a few?

It's interesting that FD just doesn't detect the irony of his own comments.   ::)

Yadda wrote on May 10^th, 2013 at 11:11am:

Emma wrote on May 10th, 2013 at 1:17am: Truly...  when you say  ' Most Muslims Want Sharia Law'... you are talking about the MEN. Male Muslims want it... Women in Islam have no opinion worth hearing. We moslems must obey local laws - NOT

Amongst Yada's crayon scrawlings I spotted this.

Perhaps he'd care to explain Surat An-Nisā' 4:59 ?

freediver wrote on May 9^th, 2013 at 10:30pm:

Quote: I like the assumption that sharia is automatically deemed as denying freedom and human rights. It is not an assumption. Nor is it automatic. It comes from asking many Muslims about it.

FD,

Those persons who you were communicating with, prolly were not real moslems.

They were prolly just, moslem impersonators.

You know, people with 'extreme views', who referred to themselves as moslems.

But clearly, were not real moslems.       :P

Yadda wrote on May 10^th, 2013 at 8:23pm:

freediver wrote on May 9th, 2013 at 10:30pm: Quote: I like the assumption that sharia is automatically deemed as denying freedom and human rights. It is not an assumption. Nor is it automatic. It comes from asking many Muslims about it. FD, Those persons who you were communicating with, prolly were not real moslems. They were prolly just, moslem impersonators. You know, people with 'extreme views', who referred to themselves as moslems. But clearly, were not real moslems.       :P

Yes, Yadda, I'm sure people run around impersonating Muslims every day...    ::)

Whom are you to judge who is a real Muslim or not?   ::)

Brian Ross wrote on May 10^th, 2013 at 8:21pm:

Yadda wrote on May 10th, 2013 at 11:11am: Emma wrote on May 10th, 2013 at 1:17am: Truly...  when you say  ' Most Muslims Want Sharia Law'... you are talking about the MEN. Male Muslims want it... Women in Islam have no opinion worth hearing. We moslems must obey local laws - NOT Amongst Yada's crayon scrawlings I spotted this. Perhaps he'd care to explain Surat An-Nisā' 4:59 ?

"O ye who believe! Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger, and those charged with authority among you. If ye differ in anything among yourselves, refer it to Allah and His Messenger, if ye do believe in Allah and the Last Day: That is best, and most suitable for final determination."
Koran 4:59



That means, obey the moslem clerics.    ".....those charged with authority among you"



Like this too....

"Believers, obey Allah, and obey the Messenger! Those who disbelieve and hinder men from the Cause of Allah, He will not pardon. Do not falter; become faint-hearted, or weak-kneed, crying for peace. You have the upper hand.
Koran 47.33-35


The moslem clerics, today, stand in the place of Mohammed.

Yadda wrote on May 10^th, 2013 at 8:34pm:

Brian Ross wrote on May 10th, 2013 at 8:21pm: Yadda wrote on May 10th, 2013 at 11:11am: Emma wrote on May 10th, 2013 at 1:17am: Truly...  when you say  ' Most Muslims Want Sharia Law'... you are talking about the MEN. Male Muslims want it... Women in Islam have no opinion worth hearing. We moslems must obey local laws - NOT Amongst Yada's crayon scrawlings I spotted this. Perhaps he'd care to explain Surat An-Nisā' 4:59 ? "O ye who believe! Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger, and those charged with authority among you. If ye differ in anything among yourselves, refer it to Allah and His Messenger, if ye do believe in Allah and the Last Day: That is best, and most suitable for final determination." Koran 4:59 That ref, is not on this page. Link ?

Like to what?  You quoted it.  Now, explain the contradiction between that verse and what you claimed about Muslims.  Are you able even to detect the contradiction?   ::)

Brian Ross wrote on May 10^th, 2013 at 8:34pm:

Yadda wrote on May 10th, 2013 at 8:23pm: freediver wrote on May 9th, 2013 at 10:30pm: Quote: I like the assumption that sharia is automatically deemed as denying freedom and human rights. It is not an assumption. Nor is it automatic. It comes from asking many Muslims about it. FD, Those persons who you were communicating with, prolly were not real moslems. They were prolly just, moslem impersonators. You know, people with 'extreme views', who referred to themselves as moslems. But clearly, were not real moslems.       :P Yes, Yadda, I'm sure people run around impersonating Muslims every day...    ::) Whom are you to judge who is a real Muslim or not?   ::)

Brian_Ross,

If someone declares that he is a moslem, i take him at his word [....on at least that!].




It is from among moslems themselves, that the claim often arises, that 'moslem extremists' are not real moslems.

It is not me, who is saying that someone who declares that he is a moslem, is not!

Yadda wrote on May 10^th, 2013 at 8:34pm:

Brian Ross wrote on May 10th, 2013 at 8:21pm: Yadda wrote on May 10th, 2013 at 11:11am: Emma wrote on May 10th, 2013 at 1:17am: Truly...  when you say  ' Most Muslims Want Sharia Law'... you are talking about the MEN. Male Muslims want it... Women in Islam have no opinion worth hearing. We moslems must obey local laws - NOT Amongst Yada's crayon scrawlings I spotted this. Perhaps he'd care to explain Surat An-Nisā' 4:59 ? "O ye who believe! Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger, and those charged with authority among you. If ye differ in anything among yourselves, refer it to Allah and His Messenger, if ye do believe in Allah and the Last Day: That is best, and most suitable for final determination." Koran 4:59 That means, obey the moslem clerics.    ".....those charged with authority among you"

The problem for non-moslem communities comes, when moslem clerics declare one thing [relating to ISLAM's relationship to non-moslems], to the broader non-moslem community,
.....but then will say something completely different, to a moslem audience, within the mosque [where moslems speak among themselves].

Deceit on the part of the moslem community, plain and simple.




Proof ???

Google YouTube;
undercover mosque

Do you see it??

Men praise Allah 'cos???  they love the power over others...
Women praise Allah...else they be whipped imprisoned and killed. .
IS THIS REALLY A 'law'..??  OR A FOUL CORRUPTION.?

iS THIS WHAT ALLAH REQUIRES OF WOMEN?? 


I noticed, tho some chose to use my words...  NO ONE addressed WHAT i SAID. 

No surprise..??  Nope 

It is so accepted by you faithful of Allah , that women are merely wombs to deliver sons.. not actual thinking human beings...  at all... and so their words are worthless, except where they speak to family children and Allah. Except where it relates to food and bodily comforts.

You are not MEN.

what are you???

not men...

you are the male child that beats and rapes its own mother.   The brother or Uncle who kills the young woman ..because you didn't approve of her.
You are the male child that stones women to death for infidelity... because they were raped,  by one of YOU.

YOU ARE THE MALE CHILD that needs women (mothers) ... until you are old enough to spit on her.
You are the never to-be-adult male who always needs to be led, your fear of ?? requires inate cruelty, because you lack the capacity for genuine human relations.

The male who demands respect, and gives none.
No MAtter HOW PIOUS YOU BELIEVE YOURSELVES...

you are swine.

Emma wrote on May 10^th, 2013 at 10:43pm:

Do you see it?? Men praise Allah 'cos???  they love the power over others... Women praise Allah...else they be whipped imprisoned and killed. . IS THIS REALLY A 'law'..??  OR A FOUL CORRUPTION.? iS THIS WHAT ALLAH REQUIRES OF WOMEN??  I noticed, tho some chose to use my words...  NO ONE addressed WHAT i SAID.  No surprise..??  Nope  It is so accepted by you faithful of Allah , that women are merely wombs to deliver sons.. not actual thinking human beings...  at all... and so their words are worthless, except where they speak to family children and Allah. Except where it relates to food and bodily comforts. You are not MEN.

bump

Bump

OK Yadda started quoting text...  I choose not to read it,,, because I reject all religious dogma  ... it has ABSOLUTELY NO APPLICATION I CARE TO GIVE THOUGHT TO.

Yadda wrote on May 10^th, 2013 at 8:43pm:

Brian Ross wrote on May 10th, 2013 at 8:34pm: Yadda wrote on May 10th, 2013 at 8:23pm: freediver wrote on May 9th, 2013 at 10:30pm: Quote: I like the assumption that sharia is automatically deemed as denying freedom and human rights. It is not an assumption. Nor is it automatic. It comes from asking many Muslims about it. FD, Those persons who you were communicating with, prolly were not real moslems. They were prolly just, moslem impersonators. You know, people with 'extreme views', who referred to themselves as moslems. But clearly, were not real moslems.       :P Yes, Yadda, I'm sure people run around impersonating Muslims every day...    ::) Whom are you to judge who is a real Muslim or not?   ::) Brian_Ross, If someone declares that he is a moslem, i take him at his word [....on at least that!]. It is from among moslems themselves that the claim often arises, that 'moslem extremists' are not real moslems. It is not me, who is saying that someone who declares that he is a moslem, is not!

Errr, didn't you just claim that people run around impersonating Muslims, Yadda?  In answer to my question, "who are you to judge who is a real Muslim?"

You appear to be wandering off at tangents.  I think it's time we took your crayons away until you learnt to use them properly.   ;D

They can have Shariah law back in Shariahland.

Quote:

........."We don't accept the system of infidels which is called democracy," Mr Mehsud wrote in the letter dated May 1. "I am sending a list of attacks and the modus operandi, along with a separate list of fedayeen (suicide bombers) . . . you take care of attacks in Punjab and Singh. I will take care of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Baluchistan." .

http://www.theage.com.au/world/pakistan-votes-under-talibans-bloody-threat-20130510-2jd2c.html

a muslims mindset.  "we will do anything to have our way."
"the more extreme we are, the more muslim we are."

Sprintcyclist wrote on May 10^th, 2013 at 11:33pm:

Quote: ........."We don't accept the system of infidels which is called democracy," Mr Mehsud wrote in the letter dated May 1. "I am sending a list of attacks and the modus operandi, along with a separate list of fedayeen (suicide bombers) . . . you take care of attacks in Punjab and Singh. I will take care of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Baluchistan." . http://www.theage.com.au/world/pakistan-votes-under-talibans-bloody-threat-20130510-2jd2c.html a muslims mindset.  "we will do anything to have our way." "the more extreme we are, the more muslim we are."

This raises several questions.

Why do the Taliban have to send suicide bombers to other regions of the country to blow up fellow Muslims?  Surely their fellow Muslims, if they were all true followers of Islam, as defined by you and other of it's critics here, would all hold the same opinion and automatically reject the democratic process.

Why would a Muslim nation like Pakistan even be a democracy (in theory, if not thus far in practice) in the first place if Islam rejected the concepts of democracy so completely, as you and the Taliban claim?

So many contradictions...   ::)

how many did moh murder

Sprintcyclist wrote on May 10^th, 2013 at 11:41pm:

how many did moh murder

You have evidence that he personally murdered someone?

Quick, report it to the police!

Oh, wait, that was 1400 years ago.    ::)

and

it seems males on this topic... Muslim? or not.. are AFRAID TO RESPOND.

What are you afraid of..??

Perhaps you are closet Muslim.. or even
radicalised Muslim.?.. 
someone who doesn't wish to be seen engaging in dialogue with an unclean infidel woman....  ???


perhaps you males are all Moslem. But p'haps from diff sects ...  ready to cut each others throat?? or blow up the other sects shop, or home or family..??

You think  A GOD

could give ahit...!@!!shop??

Wankers ...the lot of you.!!!

Is "Emma Peel" Sprintcyclist under another name?

The only Muslim I'm aware of here, is Gandalf.  He isn't online, so obviously can't answer either yours or Sprintcyclist's questions.

I note you claim you reject all religion.  So why are you even asking questions about Islam?   Why aren't you busy questioning the patriarchal nature of other religions, such as Christianity?

When was the last time you saw a female Pope?

When was the last time you saw a female Catholic priest or any other member of the clergy?

Why does Christianity have at it's core a misogynist view of women?

oh I have

you just weren't here at the time.

and still I have no response of significance from MEN..
Islamic or otherwise.

Seems all men.. live in fear of connecting with women.

bugger'em yeah
kill'em yeah
talkto'm..wtf??

Emma wrote on May 11^th, 2013 at 12:03am:

it seems males on this topic... Muslim? or not.. are AFRAID TO RESPOND. What are you afraid of..??

What exactly would you like me to say? Cite some text to prove you wrong? Oh thats right, you don't do text. Or would you prefer me to admit the error of my ways and beg for forgiveness "Oh please great sage Emma, I've been a horrible misogynist, won't you please forgive me??"

*starts to feel remorseful for murdering his mother and raping his wife*  :'(

Quote:

I also wonder why, if he's spoke to so many, he continually only cites a few? It's interesting that FD just doesn't detect the irony of his own comments.

You have cited zero Brian. In fact you have gone to some length to avoid discussing the details, sticking steadfastly to vague platitudes.


Quote:

Why do the Taliban have to send suicide bombers to other regions of the country to blow up fellow Muslims?  Surely their fellow Muslims, if they were all true followers of Islam, as defined by you and other of it's critics here, would all hold the same opinion and automatically reject the democratic process.

Abu has suggested that the death penalty is an appropriate punishment for promoting the wrong type of Islam.


Quote:

Why would a Muslim nation like Pakistan even be a democracy (in theory, if not thus far in practice) in the first place if Islam rejected the concepts of democracy so completely, as you and the Taliban claim?

Because Islam makes Muslims so impotent today. The same thing that made them such a feared empire is destroying them today. Do you realise that western nations created the nation of Pakistan, and that one of the chief complaints from Muslims is this type of foreign interference?


Quote:

Oh, wait, that was 1400 years ago.

Again Brian, this would be relevant if Muslims left these standards in the past. The problem is that they consider them to be timeless universal moral standards.


Quote:

you just weren't here at the time.

What Brian means is why aren't you constantly interuppting discussion about Islam with references to toher religions the way he does to prove your lack of bias.


Quote:

*starts to feel remorseful for murdering his mother and raping his wife*

You could always feel remorseful for adopting a bloke like Muhammed as some kind of spiritual leader.

freediver wrote on May 11^th, 2013 at 9:57am:

You have cited zero Brian. In fact you have gone to some length to avoid discussing the details, sticking steadfastly to vague platitudes.

Because Brian's not attempting to claim that asking two or three random posters on the internet is representative of mainstream islam. He is merely pointing out the gaping hole in your claim - he doesn't need to prove anything.


freediver wrote on May 11^th, 2013 at 9:57am:

You could always feel remorseful for adopting a bloke like Muhammed as some kind of spiritual leader.

I should be remorseful if I genuinely believed I was following the example of a guy who was as terrible as you claim he was. But I don't. Its curious that you seem to believe that muslims actually think its ok to follow a doctrine of intolerance and aggression.

Quote:

Because Brian's not attempting to claim that asking two or three random posters on the internet is representative of mainstream islam. He is merely pointing out the gaping hole in your claim - he doesn't need to prove anything.

Brian has made many claims about Islam. He has admitted he does not actually know anything about Islam. He would not explain what lead him to make the claims, except that he knows some Muslims. I can only conclude that like spot, instead of actually asking Muslims about islam, he has deluded himself into thinking he has learnt about Islam through some kind of osmotic process.


Quote:

I should be remorseful if I genuinely believed I was following the example of a guy who was as terrible as you claim he was. But I don't. Its curious that you seem to believe that muslims actually think its ok to follow a doctrine of intolerance and aggression.

Abu got around that dilemma by redefining intolerance and aggression. He also redefined words like warmonger and pedophile. How do you?

He was not a warmonger or a pedophile, thats just ridiculous.

What is the age of consent under Islamic law?

Look up the definition of pedophile FD, then explain to me how you are going to prove Mohammad was one.

freediver wrote on May 11^th, 2013 at 12:43pm:

Quote: I should be remorseful if I genuinely believed I was following the example of a guy who was as terrible as you claim he was. But I don't. Its curious that you seem to believe that muslims actually think its ok to follow a doctrine of intolerance and aggression. Abu got around that dilemma by redefining intolerance and aggression. He also redefined words like warmonger and pedophile. How do you?

I guess that answers that question.

Emma wrote on May 11^th, 2013 at 12:30am:

oh I have you just weren't here at the time. and still I have no response of significance from MEN.. Islamic or otherwise. Seems all men.. live in fear of connecting with women. bugger'em yeah kill'em yeah talkto'm..wtf??

That is a very big bow you're pulling there...

Are you a seperatist feminist?

I have no problems interacting with women.  I enjoy it.  :D :D

Your questions though appear to be worded rather aggressively, don't you think?  Does such an attitude really get the best response from people?  ::)

freediver wrote on May 11^th, 2013 at 1:21pm:

I guess that answers that question.

FD Im very happy to go with the commonly accepted definition of pedophilia when arguing whether or not Mohammad was one. It seems you are not:


Quote:

As a medical diagnosis, pedophilia or paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in persons 16 years of age or older typically characterized by a primary or exclusive sexual interest toward prepubescent children

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia

Is that an acceptable definition?

If so, please demonstrate to me that prophet Mohammad had " a primary or exclusive sexual interest toward prepubescent children"

freediver wrote on May 11^th, 2013 at 9:57am:

Quote: I also wonder why, if he's spoke to so many, he continually only cites a few? It's interesting that FD just doesn't detect the irony of his own comments. You have cited zero Brian. In fact you have gone to some length to avoid discussing the details, sticking steadfastly to vague platitudes.

Obviously you're not reading all my messages, FD.

I've yet to see you cite more than two sources.  I tend to cite many, including the Q'ran.


Quote:

[quote]Why do the Taliban have to send suicide bombers to other regions of the country to blow up fellow Muslims?  Surely their fellow Muslims, if they were all true followers of Islam, as defined by you and other of it's critics here, would all hold the same opinion and automatically reject the democratic process.

Abu has suggested that the death penalty is an appropriate punishment for promoting the wrong type of Islam.
[/quote]

Abu whom?  Please provide me with a link to where he "suggested" this.  Who BTW defines what is the "wrong type of Islam"?  You?  Him?  The Taliban?   I'm interested to find this out...


Quote:

[quote]Why would a Muslim nation like Pakistan even be a democracy (in theory, if not thus far in practice) in the first place if Islam rejected the concepts of democracy so completely, as you and the Taliban claim?

Because Islam makes Muslims so impotent today. The same thing that made them such a feared empire is destroying them today. Do you realise that western nations created the nation of Pakistan, and that one of the chief complaints from Muslims is this type of foreign interference?
[/quote]

Errr, Muslims created the nation of Pakistan and it's constitution, FD.  The UK granted independence, not the form of government that the majority population of Pakistan created.    It's obviously you know very little of the history of the Partition of India if you believe otherwise.


Quote:

[quote]Oh, wait, that was 1400 years ago.

Again Brian, this would be relevant if Muslims left these standards in the past. The problem is that they consider them to be timeless universal moral standards.
[/quote]

Do they or is just that some Muslims believe this?

Most Muslims live today, in the modern age.  They use the Q'ran and Muhammed's teachings as a guide.  Some take them literally, most less so.   You assume that all Muslims are both devout and perfect.  I wonder why?  Perhaps because it suits your purpose to do so? 

Tell, FD, do you have any good figures on Mosque attendance in Western countries?  The best I've come across for Australia suggest that only about ~40% of Muslims here regularly attend Mosque.  You realise that isn't much higher than Christians attending Church?   Appears we have many Muslims who aren't devout, aren't obedient and don't bother with what the Imams tell them.  Funny that...   ::)


Quote:

[quote]you just weren't here at the time.

What Brian means is why aren't you constantly interuppting discussion about Islam with references to toher religions the way he does to prove your lack of bias.
[/quote]

No, what Brian means is that you keep referring to people who no longer post here.   You seem to believe they are some sort of authority on the topic of Islam without any means to prove they are.   I could Moses about Christianity but I'd get an extremely distorted view of what the realities of Christianity as a religion are and have been.   Citing him would be pointless.  That is on a par with your continual citing of this Abu person.   ::)

Have you ever tried asking Moses about Christianity? Have you ever tried asking a Muslim about Islam?

polite_gandalf wrote on May 11^th, 2013 at 1:48pm:

freediver wrote on May 11th, 2013 at 1:21pm: I guess that answers that question. FD Im very happy to go with the commonly accepted definition of pedophilia when arguing whether or not Mohammad was one. It seems you are not: Quote: As a medical diagnosis, pedophilia or paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in persons 16 years of age or older typically characterized by a primary or exclusive sexual interest toward prepubescent children https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia Is that an acceptable definition? If so, please demonstrate to me that prophet Mohammad had " a primary or exclusive sexual interest toward prepubescent children"

Gandalf, you're falling into the same trap as those who claim he was a paedophile - you cannot judge the morals of yesteryear by the morals of today.

Arranged marriages for dynastic purposes were quite common and remain common amongst the Royal houses of Europe and of course, in Hindu culture in India.

Marriage of young girls was often undertaken for the purpose of uniting powerful houses and clans.   Even in modern, Industrial, Christian America, the age of consent for marriage in some US states was as low as 12 and marriages between young girls and older men were common.

Today, we'd consider such matters under the very broad-brush of "paedophilia" but our standards have changed.   E.P. Hartley summed it up best, "the past is another country, they do things differently there."   Judging Arab society 1400 years ago by modern standards is pretty stupid and pointless.   They were different and did things differently.  QED.    ::)

freediver wrote on May 11^th, 2013 at 1:56pm:

Have you ever tried asking Moses about Christianity? Have you ever tried asking a Muslim about Islam?

I have tried many times to talk to Moses about Christianity and Islam and failed dismally to match what he claims with what I know.

I have spoke to many Muslims about Islam.  How many have you spoken to, FD?  Two?   ::)

Gandalf, are you arguing that Muhammed wasn't a pedophile because he had lots of other wives and sex slaves?


Quote:

Arranged marriages for dynastic purposes were quite common and remain common amongst the Royal houses of Europe and of course, in Hindu culture in India.

Brian can you explain why this is relevant to the example of Muhammed?

freediver wrote on May 11^th, 2013 at 1:59pm:

Gandalf, are you arguing that Muhammed wasn't a pedophile because he had lots of other wives and sex slaves?

I'm arguing he wasn't a pedophile because there's not a damn piece of evidence suggesting he was. Were, for example, any of his wives or alleged sex slaves pre-pubescent when he had sex with them? Is there any accounts which detail Muhammad's sexual lust for pre-pubescent children?


Brian Ross wrote on May 11^th, 2013 at 1:56pm:

Gandalf, you're falling into the same trap as those who claim he was a paedophile - you cannot judge the morals of yesteryear by the morals of today.

No genuine muslim can ever adhere to this logic - and I'm no exception. If we are to believe that the prophet was a man for all humanity and all times, then clearly such rationalising about "you cannot judge him by todays standards" cannot apply.

Thus I will not attempt to explain away his alleged bloodlust and sexual perversity - I will vigorously dismiss it for what it is - baseless slander.

Gandalf you are not supposed to correct the useful idiots when they make excuses for you.

Why do you say "alleged" to describe his sex slaves?

freediver wrote on May 11^th, 2013 at 2:22pm:

Why do you say "alleged" to describe his sex slaves?

Because he had no sex slaves.

Now after you've proven to me that the prophet was a pedophile, then perhaps you can move on to proving that he has sex slaves. You've got a bit of work to do FD.

polite_gandalf wrote on May 11^th, 2013 at 2:15pm:

freediver wrote on May 11th, 2013 at 1:59pm: Gandalf, are you arguing that Muhammed wasn't a pedophile because he had lots of other wives and sex slaves? I'm arguing he wasn't a pedophile because there's not a damn piece of evidence suggesting he was. Were, for example, any of his wives or alleged sex slaves pre-pubescent when he had sex with them? Is there any accounts which detail Muhammad's sexual lust for pre-pubescent children? Brian Ross wrote on May 11th, 2013 at 1:56pm: Gandalf, you're falling into the same trap as those who claim he was a paedophile - you cannot judge the morals of yesteryear by the morals of today. No genuine muslim can ever adhere to this logic - and I'm no exception. If we are to believe that the prophet was a man for all humanity and all times, then clearly such rationalising about "you cannot judge him by todays standards" cannot apply. Thus I will not attempt to explain away his alleged bloodlust and sexual perversity - I will vigorously dismiss it for what it is - baseless slander.

Do you believe Mohammad was a man for all times Gandalf or are parts of his meesage like child brides not relevant today?

Mo was pedo
Before Mohammad invented Islam his first wife Khadija was in her 40's and he was about 25 when they married.
They were married for over 20 years until she died and during this time he took no other wives.
Mohammad's first wife was a cougar who was over 20 years older than he was, she lived into her 60's which shows younger men married older women and people did not die as young as Islamic apologists claim.

When Mohammad became a man representing his imaginary friend in the sky called Allah,he had a wet dream or was that a revelation from Allah that he would marry Aisha the daughter of his neighbor and the first person to convert to Islam called Abu Bakr.
There is no evidence of Mohammad porking younger girls before he invented his religion he was married to a cougar for over 20 years.


Quote:

Narrated by Aisha ( Mohammads favourite wife, i guess the others were not young enough.) The Prophet married her when she was 6 years old and he consummated his marriage when she was 9 years old,and then she remained with him for 9 years (ie till his death) www.sunnah.com/bukhari/67/69

If you stick up for Islam then you have to stick up for child brides, if Mohammad did it then it is halal for muslims.
Child brides are rampant in the Islamic world yet those hypocrites (munfiq for Gandalf)who are so keen to defend Islam say nothing about this despicable practice.

Quote:

A Saudi judge has refused for a second time to annul a marriage between an 8 year old girl and a 47 year old man www.edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/04/12/saudi.child.marriage/

If you believe marrying a child is wrong then Mohammad is not a not your guide for morality.

polite_gandalf wrote on May 11^th, 2013 at 2:36pm:

freediver wrote on May 11th, 2013 at 2:22pm: Why do you say "alleged" to describe his sex slaves? Because he had no sex slaves. Now after you've proven to me that the prophet was a pedophile, then perhaps you can move on to proving that he has sex slaves. You've got a bit of work to do FD.

Was Rayhana bint Zayd ibn Amr a sex slave?

freediver wrote on May 11^th, 2013 at 1:59pm:

Gandalf, are you arguing that Muhammed wasn't a pedophile because he had lots of other wives and sex slaves? Quote: Arranged marriages for dynastic purposes were quite common and remain common amongst the Royal houses of Europe and of course, in Hindu culture in India. Brian can you explain why this is relevant to the example of Muhammed?

To show that Arabic culture wasn't all that unique as you'd seem to have us believe, FD? 

If it occurred and is still occuring elsewhere in the world, how can you condemn it as reprehensible, except by attempting to claim that modern Western values have always been the norm?   ::)

Baronvonrort wrote on May 11^th, 2013 at 2:53pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on May 11th, 2013 at 2:15pm: freediver wrote on May 11th, 2013 at 1:59pm: Gandalf, are you arguing that Muhammed wasn't a pedophile because he had lots of other wives and sex slaves? I'm arguing he wasn't a pedophile because there's not a damn piece of evidence suggesting he was. Were, for example, any of his wives or alleged sex slaves pre-pubescent when he had sex with them? Is there any accounts which detail Muhammad's sexual lust for pre-pubescent children? Brian Ross wrote on May 11th, 2013 at 1:56pm: Gandalf, you're falling into the same trap as those who claim he was a paedophile - you cannot judge the morals of yesteryear by the morals of today. No genuine muslim can ever adhere to this logic - and I'm no exception. If we are to believe that the prophet was a man for all humanity and all times, then clearly such rationalising about "you cannot judge him by todays standards" cannot apply. Thus I will not attempt to explain away his alleged bloodlust and sexual perversity - I will vigorously dismiss it for what it is - baseless slander. Do you believe Mohammad was a man for all times Gandalf or are parts of his meesage like child brides not relevant today? Mo was pedo Before Mohammad invented Islam his first wife Khadija was in her 40's and he was about 25 when they married. They were married for over 20 years until she died and during this time he took no other wives. Mohammad's first wife was a cougar who was over 20 years older than he was, she lived into her 60's which shows younger men married older women and people did not die as young as Islamic apologists claim.

Wow, haven't seen such erronous thinking in a long, long time.

The reality was, life expectancy was short in Arabic society at that time, with the average being about 40.  You do know how averages are calculated or are you as innumerate as you are historically ignorant?

If you survived childhood, generally you had a good chance to survive to forty.  If you survived to forty, there was a chance you'd survive to sixty.  If you reached sixty, you might survive to eighty.

If you were female and older, generally you need a young male as both protector and of course, a front for your business.  Older women marrying younger men was no more unusual than older men marrying younger women.   ::)

As I've pointed out, dynastic marriage arrangements was and is a common practice in many societies.  Why keep singling Muhammad out as something unique for doing what was common in Arabic society at the time?   ::)

freediver wrote on May 11^th, 2013 at 3:05pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on May 11th, 2013 at 2:36pm: freediver wrote on May 11th, 2013 at 2:22pm: Why do you say "alleged" to describe his sex slaves? Because he had no sex slaves. Now after you've proven to me that the prophet was a pedophile, then perhaps you can move on to proving that he has sex slaves. You've got a bit of work to do FD. Was Rayhana bint Zayd ibn Amr a sex slave?

Depends upon whom you read and want to believe, FD.

Any doubt possible in your view of Islamic history?  Your sources are of course all impeccable and hold absolute truth...   ::)


Quote:

Rayhāna bint Zayd ibn ʿAmr (Arabic: ريحانة بنت زيد بن عمرو‎) was a Jewish woman from the Banu Qurayza tribe. Her relationship with Muhammad is disputed[citation needed]. Rayhana was originally a member of the Banu Nadir tribe who married a man from the Banu Qurayza. After the Banu Qurayza were defeated by the armies of Muhammad in the Siege of the Banu Qurayza neighborhood, Rayhana was among those enslaved, while the men were executed for treason. According to Ibn Ishaq, Muhammad took her as a maiden slave and offered her the status of becoming his wife if she accepted Islam, but she refused. According to his account, even though Rayhana is said to have later converted to Islam, she died as a slave.[1] According to Marco Schöller, Rayhana either became the Prophet's concubine or, was married to him and later divorced.[2] Ibn Sa'd writes and quotes Waqidi that she was manumitted but later married by Muhammad.[3] According to Al-Halabi, Muhammad married and appointed dowry for her. It is further narrated that, upon marriage, she refused to wear the hijab, causing a rift between her and Muhammad. The couple later reconciled. She died young, shortly after Muhammad's hajj and was buried in Jannat al-Baqi cemetery.[4] Ibn Hajar quotes a description of the house that Muhammad gave to Rayhana after their marriage from Muhammad Ibn al-Hassam's History of Medina.[5] In another version, Hafiz Ibn Minda writes that Muhammad set Rayhana free, and she went back to live with her own people. This version is also supported as the most likely by 19th-century Muslim scholar, Shibli Nomani.[6] Not much is known about Rayhana; she died a year before Muhammad.

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayhana]Source[/url]

Note the use of the words "disputed" and the use of differing sources all with different versions of the same story?

Most interesting though, is the words, "Not much is known about Rayhana".   Which suggests of course that anything written about her is doubtful.

You will of course entertain that possibility in your effort to accord balance to your debate?   Or will you?   ::)

Quote:

To show that Arabic culture wasn't all that unique as you'd seem to have us believe, FD?

When have I ever come even close to arguing this?


Quote:

If it occurred and is still occuring elsewhere in the world, how can you condemn it as reprehensible, except by attempting to claim that modern Western values have always been the norm?

Are you saying you would not condemn slavery, rape etc on the grounds that Muhammed permitted it 1400 years ago and it was normal back then?

freediver wrote on May 11^th, 2013 at 3:25pm:

Quote: To show that Arabic culture wasn't all that unique as you'd seem to have us believe, FD? When have I ever come even close to arguing this?

You imply it in your unique condemnation of Mohammed, FD.

You keep seem to be singling the founder of Islam out for special attention, yet as I've pointed out, what he did wasn't unique.   It was common practice and common practice until recently.   A perfect example of a dynastic marriage in modern times was that of Prince Charles to Diana Spencer.  He didn't love her, he married her for ability to breed the next generation of Royals and of course her connections.


Quote:

[quote]If it occurred and is still occurring elsewhere in the world, how can you condemn it as reprehensible, except by attempting to claim that modern Western values have always been the norm?

Are you saying you would not condemn slavery, rape etc on the grounds that Muhammed permitted it 1400 years ago and it was normal back then?[/quote]

Condemn them now?  Certainly.  Condemn them 1400 years ago?  Much more difficult because of course, it was considered normal.   Remember the quote from E.B. Hartley I keep using?  "The past is a different country.  They do things differently there."   What occurred 1400 years ago should be judged against the norms and mores of the day, FD, not by the standards of today, which is what you're attempting to do.

Remember, FD - balance.  Something sadly lacking in your attacks on Islam and Muslims.    ::)

Quote:

Condemn them now?  Certainly. & balance

Well I'd say that is exactly what is happening around the globe today.

islam  / muslims are being decried by civilised people everywhere, because of the innumerable acts of savagery carried out by muslims, in the name of allah / islam.

These barbaric muslims can and do justify their atrocities with islamic theology.

If some muslims want to claim no affiliation with the degenerates, why don't they tackle the issue of violence, hatred and bigotry in the commands from allah, the teachings of muhammad and the verses in the qur'an?


Now with regards to *balance* should the criticism be in proportion to the number of attacks carried out by the various extremists?

Or is that too balanced, as the muslim unfavourable judgment would be about a thousand times more than anyone else?   

Quote:

You imply it in your unique condemnation of Mohammed, FD.

I have probably told you this before Brian. You really should stick to what I actually say.


Quote:

You keep seem to be singling the founder of Islam out for special attention

This is the Islam board Brian. If we were discussing Christianity, would you have a go at people for talking about Jesus all the time?


Quote:

yet as I've pointed out, what he did wasn't unique.   It was common practice and common practice until recently.   A perfect example of a dynastic marriage in modern times was that of Prince Charles to Diana Spencer.

Muhammed did not marry a 6 year old girl to build a dynasty. It was his neighbour - the daughter of the first convert to Islam. Think about it. The very first conversion to Islam, and the outcome was the marriage of a 6 year old girl off to the founder of the religion.


Quote:

Condemn them now?  Certainly.

So why did you say this?


Quote:

If it occurred and is still occurring elsewhere in the world, how can you condemn it as reprehensible

Quote:

What occurred 1400 years ago should be judged against the norms and mores of the day, FD, not by the standards of today, which is what you're attempting to do.

According to Muslims themselves, it should be, because Muslims consider them to be timeless. Muslims think those same standards should apply today and forever. Even Gandalf, who is probably the most progressive Muslim we have ever had here, pointed this out to you.

Baronvonrort wrote on May 11^th, 2013 at 2:53pm:

Mo was pedo

You have provided no shred of proof to support this claim. That shouldn't surprise me though.

You did mention the hadith that states Ayesha was 6 years old when betrothed to Mohammad, and 9 years old when the marriage was consumated. FIrstly it needs to be pointed out that these ages are disputed amongst historians. But even if we accepted them, is being betrothed to a girl at age 6 then consumating that marriage at age 9 proof of pedophilia? Lets look again at the definition:

As a medical diagnosis, pedophilia or paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in persons 16 years of age or older typically characterized by a primary or exclusive sexual interest toward prepubescent children (generally age 11 years or younger, though specific diagnosis criteria for the disorder extends the cut-off point for prepubescence to age 13)

Do we know Ayeesha was prepubescent at the time of consummation? No. While unusual, puberty has been known to be reached by 9 years old.  But the biggest giveaway for me is - if they were betrothed when she was 6, and if Mohammad was the vicious kiddy-fiddler you claim, why did he wait a whole three years before getting in bed with her? What happened after that three years? Puberty perhaps? In any case, recent historical evidence suggests she was more like 15, not 9. In any case, citing this as evidence of "a primary or exclusive sexual interest toward prepubescent children" is simply laughable.

Quote:

In any case, recent historical evidence suggests she was more like 15, not 9.

What evidence? Are you suggesting Muslims fabricated this story? I can understand them pushing up the age at which he had sex with the little girl to make Islam seem more morally upright, but it makes no sense for them to push it down.

freediver wrote on May 11^th, 2013 at 3:05pm:

Was Rayhana bint Zayd ibn Amr a sex slave?

No. Perhaps you have some proof that she was? By the way, has this anything to do with proving that Mohammad was a pedophile? Don't lose focus FD.

You two really are making a complete mockery of yourselves running with this nonsense. I suggest you both bail out now.

Brian Ross wrote:

Quote:

dynastic marriage arrangements was and is a common practice in many societies.  Why keep singling Muhammad out as something unique for doing what was common in Arabic society at the time?

gandalf in response to Baronvonrort wrote:

Quote:

You have provided no shred of proof to support this claim

 



There is plenty of proof to discount both of you:

from the (inthenameofallah.org/Muhammad%20the%20Child%20Molester.html) site

There are plenty of others that tell us the same thing.


Quote:

Sahih Al-Bukhari HadithHadith 7.18   Narrated by Ursa The Prophet asked Abu Bakr for 'Aisha's hand in marriage. Abu Bakr said "But I am your brother." The Prophet said, "You are my brother in Allah's religion and His Book, but she (Aisha) is lawful for me to marry."  For those who speak Arabic, this will read as: " Innama ana akhooka" and Muhammad replied " Anta akhi fi deen Allah wa kitabihi, wa hiya li halal" Abu Bakr was so shocked at Muhammad's proposal to marry the child Aisha of six years that he told him 'but I am your brother' meaning that it should not be permissible as if it were incestuous. This word 'but' brings out the true disbelief of Abu Bakr regarding the request, which of course turrned out to be an unchallengeable demand. Muhammad after all was of a similar age to Abu Bakr. Unfortunately, Abu Bakr, like all the other gullible, superstitious and  frightened followers of Muhammad, actually believed that he was the messenger of allah and was totally petrified to go against his wishes or demands. Even a pagan like Abu Bakr found it unseemly if not offensive to expect and allow a child girl to have sexual intercourse with a man, especially one who was already over fifty years old. His shock alone is evidence that what Muhammad was demanding was against the social norms of even the pagans. Muhammad had his fantasies and was able to fulfil each and every one of them by introducing an alleged 'divine' verse justifying each and every one of his requirements. In this manner, with 'allah' always and very conveniently at his beck and call, Muhammad was able to justify all his actions, deeds, misdeeds and desires without any mere mortals being able to challenge the 'messenger of allah'

Despite all the lies and bastardising of words muslims and their apologists are confronted by historical evidence every time, no wonder they want to rewrite history and review the hadith.

The truth is:it was not a dynastic marriage it was pure pedophilia on the part of muhammad;

Abu Bakr was not in favour of the pedophilia but bowed to muhammad's supposed *holy* status


Quote:

Sahih Al-Bukhari HadithHadith 9.140        Narrated byAisha Allah's Apostle said to me, "You were shown to me twice (in my dream) before I married you. I saw an angel carrying you in a silken piece of cloth, and I said to him, 'Uncover (her),' and behold, it was you. I said (to myself), 'If this is from Allah, then it must happen.' Then you were shown to me, the angel carrying you in a silken piece of cloth, and I said (to him), 'Uncover (her),' and behold, it was you. I said (to myself), 'If this is from Allah, then it must happen.' "

The truth is muhammad sexually fantasied about Aisha even when she was a BABY.

freediver wrote on May 11^th, 2013 at 4:47pm:

What evidence?

Quote:

“A great misconception prevails as to the age at which Aisha was taken in marriage by the Prophet. Ibn Sa‘d has stated in the Tabaqat that when Abu Bakr [father of Aisha] was approached on behalf of the Holy Prophet, he replied that the girl had already been betrothed to Jubair, and that he would have to settle the matter first with him. This shows that Aisha must have been approaching majority at the time. Again, the Isaba, speaking of the Prophet’s daughter Fatima, says that she was born five years before the Call and was about five years older than Aisha. This shows that Aisha must have been about ten years at the time of her betrothal to the Prophet, and not six years as she is generally supposed to be. This is further borne out by the fact that Aisha herself is reported to have stated that when the chapter [of the Holy Quran] entitled The Moon, the fifty-fourth chapter, was revealed, she was a girl playing about and remembered certain verses then revealed. Now the fifty-fourth chapter was undoubtedly revealed before the sixth year of the Call. All these considerations point to but one conclusion, viz., that Aisha could not have been less than ten years of age at the time of her nikah, which was virtually only a betrothal. And there is one report in the Tabaqat that Aisha was nine years of age at the time of nikah. Again it is a fact admitted on all hands that the nikah of Aisha took place in the tenth year of the Call in the month of Shawwal, while there is also preponderance of evidence as to the consummation of her marriage taking place in the second year of Hijra in the same month, which shows that full five years had elapsed between the nikah and the consummation. Hence there is not the least doubt that Aisha was at least nine or ten years of age at the time of betrothal, and fourteen or fifteen years at the time of marriage.”

http://www.muslim.org/islam/aisha-age.htm

Either way, it is still woefully inadequate evidence that he was a pedophile.

Are you suggesting that Muslims accidentally came to believe that their prophet married a six year old girl, when she was in fact the ripe old age of ten?

Quote:

Narrated Aisha: The Prophet engaged me when I was a girl of six (years). We went to Medina and stayed at the home of Bani-al-Harith bin Khazraj. Then I got ill and my hair fell down. Later on my hair grew (again) and my mother, Um Ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some of my girl friends. She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she wanted to do to me. She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house. I was breathless then, and when my breathing became Allright, she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it. Then she took me into the house. There in the house I saw some Ansari women who said, "Best wishes and Allah's Blessing and a good luck." Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage). Unexpectedly Allah's Apostle came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of age. (Sahih Bukhari 5.234) Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu'minin: The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) married me when I was seven or six. When we came to Medina, some women came. according to Bishr's version: Umm Ruman came to me when I was swinging. They took me, made me prepared and decorated me. I was then brought to the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him), and he took up cohabitation with me when I was nine. (Sunan Abu Da'ud 41.4915, Sunan Abu Da'ud 41.4916, Sunan Abu Da'ud 41.4917)

No wonder muslims and their apologists want to rewrite history.

freediver wrote on May 11^th, 2013 at 5:29pm:

Are you suggesting that Muslims accidentally came to believe that their prophet married a six year old girl, when she was in fact the ripe old age of ten?

The author of the hadith attributed the age claim from Ayeesha herself. That report has subsequently come into question.

from the same link as my previous post:

Quote:

As to the authenticity of these reports, it may be noted that the compilers of the books of Hadith did not apply the same stringent tests when accepting reports relating to historical matters as they did before accepting reports relating to the practical teachings and laws of Islam. The reason is that the former type of report was regarded as merely of academic interest while the latter type of report had a direct bearing on the practical duties of a Muslim and on what was allowed to them and what was prohibited. Thus the occurrence of reports such as the above about the marriage of Aisha in books of Hadith, even in Bukhari, is not necessarily a proof of their credibility.

Does this actually change anything in relation to the question of the pedophilia claim? No. Why don't you want to address that FD? I'm happy for you to assume that she was 9.

moses wrote on May 11^th, 2013 at 4:06pm:

Quote: Condemn them now?  Certainly. & balance Well I'd say that is exactly what is happening around the globe today. islam  / muslims are being decried by civilised people everywhere, because of the innumerable acts of savagery carried out by muslims, in the name of allah / islam. These barbaric muslims can and do justify their atrocities with islamic theology. If some muslims want to claim no affiliation with the degenerates, why don't they tackle the issue of violence, hatred and bigotry in the commands from allah, the teachings of muhammad and the verses in the qur'an? Now with regards to *balance* should the criticism be in proportion to the number of attacks carried out by the various extremists? Or is that too balanced, as the muslim unfavourable judgment would be about a thousand times more than anyone else?

You really don't understand what "guilt by association" means, do you, FD?   ::)

So, a newborn Muslim baby is guilty of all the, "innumerable acts of savagery carried out by muslims, in the name of allah / islam."?

So, a Muslim living thousands of kilometres away from where these "innumerable acts of savagery carried out by muslims, in the name of allah / islam." is guilty of them?

So, a Muslim who has never broken any laws, never carried out any "acts of savagery," carried out by other Muslims, "in the name of Allah / Islam" is guilty of them?

FD, you are a bigot.  You do believe in guilt by association.

You don't judge people by what they have done, themselves but merely because they share a religion's name with people who do bad things.

Do you do the same with Christians/Hindus/Jews/etc?  Nope, can't find any posts along those lines under your name.

You have no idea about balance and fairness.  You are acting it seems out of prejudice, hatred and bigotry.   ::)

Tell, would you believe it fair if someone started blaming all Australians for the acts of this man?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f1/Ivan_Milat.jpg

::)

moses wrote:
Quote:

Well I'd say that is exactly what is happening around the globe today. islam  / muslims are being decried by civilised people everywhere, because of the innumerable acts of savagery carried out by muslims, in the name of allah / islam. These barbaric muslims can and do justify their atrocities with islamic theology. If some muslims want to claim no affiliation with the degenerates, why don't they tackle the issue of violence, hatred and bigotry in the commands from allah, the teachings of muhammad and the verses in the qur'an? Now with regards to *balance* should the criticism be in proportion to the number of attacks carried out by the various extremists? Or is that too balanced, as the muslim unfavourable judgment would be about a thousand times more than anyone else?

Brian Ross wrote:
Quote:

You really don't understand what "guilt by association" means, do you, FD?    So, a newborn Muslim baby is guilty of all the, "innumerable acts of savagery carried out by muslims, in the name of allah / islam."? So, a Muslim living thousands of kilometres away from where these "innumerable acts of savagery carried out by muslims, in the name of allah / islam." is guilty of them? So, a Muslim who has never broken any laws, never carried out any "acts of savagery," carried out by other Muslims, "in the name of Allah / Islam" is guilty of them? FD, you are a bigot.  You do believe in guilt by association. You don't judge people by what they have done, themselves but merely because they share a religion's name with people who do bad things. Do you do the same with Christians/Hindus/Jews/etc?  Nope, can't find any posts along those lines under your name. You have no idea about balance and fairness.  You are acting it seems out of prejudice, hatred and bigotry.    Tell, would you believe it fair if someone started blaming all Australians for the acts of this man?

You ran away from the issues:

1/.If some muslims want to claim no affiliation with the degenerates, why don't they tackle the issue of violence, hatred and bigotry in the commands from allah, the teachings of muhammad and the verses in the qur'an?

2/.Now with regards to *balance* should the criticism be in proportion to the number of attacks carried out by the various extremists?

Or is that too balanced, as the muslim unfavourable judgment would be about a thousand times more than anyone else?

   

Hi Moses.

I must be missing something. Can you please explain to me how the Al-Bukhari hadith is any sort of proof of the prophet's pedophilia?

(hint: keep in mind what pedophilia actually means).

Brian Ross wrote on May 10^th, 2013 at 11:39pm:

Sprintcyclist wrote on May 10th, 2013 at 11:33pm: Quote: ........."We don't accept the system of infidels which is called democracy," Mr Mehsud wrote in the letter dated May 1. "I am sending a list of attacks and the modus operandi, along with a separate list of fedayeen (suicide bombers) . . . you take care of attacks in Punjab and Singh. I will take care of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Baluchistan." . http://www.theage.com.au/world/pakistan-votes-under-talibans-bloody-threat-20130510-2jd2c.html a muslims mindset.  "we will do anything to have our way." "the more extreme we are, the more muslim we are." This raises several questions. Why do the Taliban have to send suicide bombers to other regions of the country to blow up fellow Muslims?

Brian_Ross,

The Taliban ARE NOT sending suicide bombers to other regions of the country to blow up fellow moslems.

As you well know, Allah's law declares that moslems, must never knowingly kill another moslem.

"......If a man kills a believer intentionally, his recompense is Hell, to abide therein (For ever): And the wrath and the curse of Allah are upon him, and a dreadful penalty is prepared for him."
Koran 4.92, 93

Therefore, it follows [using moslem logic] that the Taliban ARE NOT sending suicide bombers to other regions of the country to blow up fellow moslems.

Got it now ????





The Taliban ARE sending suicide bombers to other regions of the country to murder the kuffar.

That the kuffar in Pakistan call themselves, and think that that they are, moslems, is irrelevant to the Taliban.i

Quote:

Surely their fellow Muslims, if they were all true followers of Islam, as defined by you and other of it's critics here, would all hold the same opinion and automatically reject the democratic process. Why would a Muslim nation like Pakistan even be a democracy (in theory, if not thus far in practice) in the first place if Islam rejected the concepts of democracy so completely, as you and the Taliban claim? So many contradictions...   ::)

So many uninformed idiots called 'Brian', on Australian internet forums.

:D               :D               :D             

Duh!!!!!!!!!!

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

what are you??? not men... you are the male child that beats and rapes its own mother.   The brother or Uncle who kills the young woman ..because you didn't approve of her. You are the male child that stones women to death for infidelity... because they were raped,  by one of YOU. YOU ARE THE MALE CHILD that needs women (mothers) ... until you are old enough to spit on her. You are the never to-be-adult male who always needs to be led, your fear of ?? requires inate cruelty, because you lack the capacity for genuine human relations. The male who demands respect, and gives none. No MAtter HOW PIOUS YOU BELIEVE YOURSELVES... you are swine.

Have to say Emma/jalane,.......

I wouldn't want to meet you, in a dark ally.               :o




Emma,

You are not related to Aileen Wuornos are you ?             :o

A cousin, perhaps ???

moses wrote on May 11^th, 2013 at 5:57pm:

You ran away from the issues: 1/.If some muslims want to claim no affiliation with the degenerates, why don't they tackle the issue of violence, hatred and bigotry in the commands from allah, the teachings of muhammad and the verses in the qur'an?

I would ask the same of Christians.  Their holy book includes an entire "testament" where hatred, racism, violence, intolerance and so on are writ large for all to see.  Why haven't they removed The Old Testament from their Bible, Moses?

You ask of others, what you and your own co-religionists are unwilling to do.   Again I pointed out that you have forgotten Matthew 7:5 and John 8:7.   Obviously you are a bad Christian, Moses!   ::)

Despite that, let us continue with your question.  How do you know they aren't tackling the violence within their midst?  The MSM and the Internet which you rely so much upon for your information don't publicise the efforts being made by many Muslims to eject the radical Islamists from their midst, yet we see them finding it harder and harder to preach in Mosques in the West.  In Muslim countries, the Takfiri Islamists attack and kill the moderates.   In some of those countries moderate regimes are being helped by the West, yet again you don't give them credit for their efforts against the radicals.   Indeed, you fail dismally to even consider that there are moderates within Islamd, instead you continually attack all Muslims, Moses.   ::)


Quote:

2/.Now with regards to *balance* should the criticism be in proportion to the number of attacks carried out by the various extremists?

Your criticisms should be directed against the extremists.  You make no differentiation.  To you, all Muslims are guilty of any crime committed by any Muslim, no matter how removed from it.  That is blatant bigotry, Moses, as I keep pointing out.   If Christians were persecuted the same way you treat Muslims, as some Muslims actually do, you'd be bleating about it without a doubt.   Again, read Matthew 7:5 and John 8:7 and consider your comments against Muslims in their light, Moses.


Quote:

Or is that too balanced, as the muslim unfavourable judgment would be about a thousand times more than anyone else?

Bad Muslims deserve every ounce of your vitriole, Moses.

Problem is, you make no differentiation between bad Muslims and good Muslims.    ::)

Yadda wrote on May 11^th, 2013 at 6:45pm:

Brian Ross wrote on May 10th, 2013 at 11:39pm: Sprintcyclist wrote on May 10th, 2013 at 11:33pm: Quote: ........."We don't accept the system of infidels which is called democracy," Mr Mehsud wrote in the letter dated May 1. "I am sending a list of attacks and the modus operandi, along with a separate list of fedayeen (suicide bombers) . . . you take care of attacks in Punjab and Singh. I will take care of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Baluchistan." . http://www.theage.com.au/world/pakistan-votes-under-talibans-bloody-threat-20130510-2jd2c.html a muslims mindset.  "we will do anything to have our way." "the more extreme we are, the more muslim we are." This raises several questions. Why do the Taliban have to send suicide bombers to other regions of the country to blow up fellow Muslims? Brian_Ross, The Taliban ARE NOT sending suicide bombers to other regions of the country to blow up fellow moslems. As you well know, Allah's law declares that moslems, must never knowingly kill another moslem. "......If a man kills a believer intentionally, his recompense is Hell, to abide therein (For ever): And the wrath and the curse of Allah are upon him, and a dreadful penalty is prepared for him." Koran 4.92, 93 Therefore, it follows [using moslem logic] that the Taliban ARE NOT sending suicide bombers to other regions of the country to blow up fellow moslems. Got it now ???? The Taliban ARE sending suicide bombers to other regions of the country to murder the kuffar. That the kuffar in Pakistan call themselves, and think that that they are, moslems, is irrelevant to the Taliban.i [quote] Surely their fellow Muslims, if they were all true followers of Islam, as defined by you and other of it's critics here, would all hold the same opinion and automatically reject the democratic process. Why would a Muslim nation like Pakistan even be a democracy (in theory, if not thus far in practice) in the first place if Islam rejected the concepts of democracy so completely, as you and the Taliban claim? So many contradictions...   ::)

So many uninformed idiots called 'Brian', on Australian internet forums.

:D               :D               :D             

Duh!!!!!!!!!!


[/quote]

"Uninformed" or merely unwilling to accept your bigoted viewpoint, Yadda?   

Who made you Pope?  ::)

polite_gandalf wrote on May 11^th, 2013 at 1:48pm:

freediver wrote on May 11th, 2013 at 1:21pm: I guess that answers that question. FD Im very happy to go with the commonly accepted definition of pedophilia when arguing whether or not Mohammad was one. It seems you are not: Quote: As a medical diagnosis, pedophilia or paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in persons 16 years of age or older typically characterized by a primary or exclusive sexual interest toward prepubescent children https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia Is that an acceptable definition? If so, please demonstrate to me that prophet Mohammad had " a primary or exclusive sexual interest toward prepubescent children"

Why is that an acceptable definition ?

Many convicted paedophiles have also been married men.






polite_gandalf wrote on May 11^th, 2013 at 2:36pm:

freediver wrote on May 11th, 2013 at 2:22pm: Why do you say "alleged" to describe his sex slaves? Because he had no sex slaves. Now after you've proven to me that the prophet was a pedophile, then perhaps you can move on to proving that he has sex slaves. You've got a bit of work to do FD.

According to ISLAMIC texts, Mohammed was married to Aisha when she was six years old.

Their marriage was consummated when Aisha was 9 years old.

But of course, Mohammed had the agreement of Aisha's father, so it must have been OK.

Seeking to marry a six year old girl, had nothing to do with a sexual interest, by Mohammed, in a prepubescent little girl.           :P

Yadda wrote on May 11^th, 2013 at 7:32pm:

Seeking to marry a six year old girl, had nothing to do with a sexual interest, by Mohammed, in a prepubescent little girl.

Yet he waited a whole three years before anything physical happened.

Mohammad purportedly had 12 wives after his 25 year marriage with Khadija - only one of them was pre-pubescent at the time of betrothal. Then he waited a whole three years before he consumated that marriage. And the father of that wife *JUST HAPPENED* to be the man he wanted to take over the leadership of the islamic nation?

Brian Ross wrote on May 11^th, 2013 at 7:26pm:

moses wrote on May 11th, 2013 at 5:57pm: You ran away from the issues: 1/.If some muslims want to claim no affiliation with the degenerates, why don't they tackle the issue of violence, hatred and bigotry in the commands from allah, the teachings of muhammad and the verses in the qur'an? I would ask the same of Christians.  Their holy book includes an entire "testament" where hatred, racism, violence, intolerance and so on are writ large for all to see.  Why haven't they removed The Old Testament from their Bible, Moses? You ask of others, what you and your own co-religionists are unwilling to do.   Again I pointed out that you have forgotten Matthew 7:5 and John 8:7.   Obviously you are a bad Christian, Moses!   ::) Despite that, let us continue with your question.  How do you know they aren't tackling the violence within their midst?  The MSM and the Internet which you rely so much upon for your information don't publicise the efforts being made by many Muslims to eject the radical Islamists from their midst, yet we see them finding it harder and harder to preach in Mosques in the West.  In Muslim countries, the Takfiri Islamists attack and kill the moderates.   In some of those countries moderate regimes are being helped by the West, yet again you don't give them credit for their efforts against the radicals.   Indeed, you fail dismally to even consider that there are moderates within Islamd, instead you continually attack all Muslims, Moses.   ::) Quote: 2/.Now with regards to *balance* should the criticism be in proportion to the number of attacks carried out by the various extremists? Your criticisms should be directed against the extremists.  You make no differentiation.  To you, all Muslims are guilty of any crime committed by any Muslim, no matter how removed from it.  That is blatant bigotry, Moses, as I keep pointing out.   If Christians were persecuted the same way you treat Muslims, as some Muslims actually do, you'd be bleating about it without a doubt.   Again, read Matthew 7:5 and John 8:7 and consider your comments against Muslims in their light, Moses. [quote] Or is that too balanced, as the muslim unfavourable judgment would be about a thousand times more than anyone else?

Bad Muslims deserve every ounce of your vitriole, Moses.

Problem is, you make no differentiation between bad Muslims and good Muslims.    ::)


[/quote]


'Good' moslems, 'bad' moslems.

It all a load of shyte, Brian_Ross

These definitions, of 'good moslems' or 'bad moslems', is just a 'smoke screen', used by moslems, to confuse the infidels.




Quote:

.....in those places where moslems do not have authority, sowing and nurturing confusion, and avoiding being pinned down to making direct definitions, and prolonging delays in 'coming to knowledge'......seem to be the main order of business. Dictionary; obfuscate = = 1 make unclear or unintelligible. 2 bewilder.

Quote:

"Don’t call me radical. Don’t call me moderate. Call me Muslim." .....We do not have “radical” and “moderate” in Islam. Muslims are Muslims. .....Unfortunately those who follow the Quran and practise their religion are called radical Muslims or extremist or Islamist or fundamentalist. And those who only carry the name of Muslim and Islam without following the orders of Allah in the Holy Quran are called moderate Muslims or understanding Muslims or open minded Muslims!

google







Quote:

Cleric preaches that violence is part of Islam By Duncan Gardham 01/05/2007 In documents seen by The Daily Telegraph, al-Muhajiroun claimed: "Terrorism is a part of Islam" and "Allah made it obligatory to prepare and to terrify the enemy of Allah". The article advised: "The kuffar of USA and UK are without doubt our enemy.There is no such thing as an innocent kafir, innocence is only applicable for the Muslims. Not only is it obligatory to fight them, it is haram [forbidden] to feel sorry for them."

google








FACT;
Moslems choose to belong to, and to associate themselves with, ISLAM.

All moslems choose to associate themselves with the evil which ISLAM is.

All moslems, who say "I am a moslem.", are choosing to associate themselves with the religious violence which ISLAM promotes in the world - a religious violence which ISLAM calls, 'religious devotion'.

LOOK HERE ----->
THE RELIGION OF PEACE
http://thereligionofpeace.com/

[/quote]






WHAT MOSLEMS WANT NAIVE NON-MOSLEMS TO ACCEPT IS THIS;

That even if a moslem chooses to associate himself with what ISLAM is;

And even if ISLAM is an evil philosophy, moslems claim that they cannot be held responsible, for their association with the evil and violent behaviour which ISLAM encourages, condones, justifies, and legitimises.


The fault lays somewhere else.

But not with those who declare themselves to be moslems.

Yadda wrote on May 11^th, 2013 at 8:06pm:

'Good' moslems, 'bad' moslems. It all a load of shyte, Brian_Ross These definitions, of 'good moslems' or 'bad moslems', is just a 'smoke screen', used by moslems, to confuse the infidels.

Thank you, Yadda for removing any doubt about you being a bigot.   ::)

Brian Ross wrote on May 11^th, 2013 at 8:35pm:

Yadda wrote on May 11th, 2013 at 8:06pm: 'Good' moslems, 'bad' moslems. It all a load of shyte, Brian_Ross These definitions, of 'good moslems' or 'bad moslems', is just a 'smoke screen', used by moslems, to confuse the infidels. Thank you, Yadda for removing any doubt about you being a bigot.   ::)

You are an ignorant eeeeediot, Brian, imo.




Being a bigot means that a person [i.e. the bigot!] objects to others with differing opinion(s), expressing their opinion(s).

It does not mean that i am a bigot, BECAUSE i express an opinion, Brian.






Dictionary;
bigot = = a person who is prejudiced in their views and intolerant of the opinions of others.

Bigots, are those people who are,
".....intolerant of the opinions of others."

Yadda wrote on May 11^th, 2013 at 8:45pm:

Being a bigot means that a person [i.e. the bigot!] objects to others with differing opinion(s), expressing their opinion(s). It does not mean that i am a bigot, BECAUSE i express an opinion, Brian. Dictionary; bigot = = a person who is prejudiced in their views and intolerant of the opinions of others. Bigots, are those people who are, ".....intolerant of the opinions of others."

AGAIN....
Dictionary;
bigot = = a person who is prejudiced in their views and intolerant of the opinions of others.

Bigots, are those people who are,
".....intolerant of the opinions of others."





Brian,

Do you want to see bigotry ?

Then scrutinise a devout moslem.

Devout moslems insist that no-one must be permitted to scrutinise, satirise, or criticise Mohammed/ISLAM.

THAT, is bigotry.

And here [below] are a whole crowd of BIGOTS, proudly displaying their bigotry!


p.s.
Where is your criticism of this moslem bigotry, Brian ?




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"

Yadda wrote on May 11^th, 2013 at 9:01pm:

[quote author=Yadda link=1367461526/103#103 date=1368269157] Being a bigot means that a person [i.e. the bigot!] [objects to others with differing opinion(s), expressing their opinion(s). It does not mean that i am a bigot, BECAUSE i express an opinion, Brian.

I've never claimed that, Yadda.  You are a bigot because of the content of the opinion you express, not because you're actually expressing an opinion.

That you seem unable to detect that your opinions are bigoted is understandable, afterall bigots always assume they are right, particularly about issues of religion...   ::)

Brian Ross wrote on May 11^th, 2013 at 10:28pm:

Yadda wrote on May 11th, 2013 at 9:01pm: Yadda wrote on May 11th, 2013 at 8:45pm: Being a bigot means that a person [i.e. the bigot!] [objects to others with differing opinion(s), expressing their opinion(s). It does not mean that i am a bigot, BECAUSE i express an opinion, Brian. I've never claimed that, Yadda. You are a bigot because of the content of the opinion you express, ....not because you're actually expressing an opinion. That you seem unable to detect that your opinions are bigoted is understandable, afterall bigots always assume they are right, particularly about issues of religion...   ::) Brian_Ross, So. You claim that i am a bigot, because e.g., i say that ISLAM is a deceitful, vicious, violent philosophy ? Is that it ? Truth = = bigotry ? No it isn't. Truth should always be declared, fearlessly,   ....no matter the cost.     [Matthew 16:25,26] Love of truth [by some!] is what protects our rights, and our very liberty. yadda said.... Quote: Many people do not want to believe,     .....the truth. Many people today, hate,     .....the truth. And yet the truth is never diminished, by those who reject the truth. The integrity of truth remains intact, even though some will always reject it. i yadda said.... [quote] Whenever we become tolerant of evil [in our midst], we ourselves, become evil. Think about this; If we consent to live with evil [in our midst], it is because we have become tolerant of evil. And if we are tolerant of evil, it is because we now, ARE evil. Our leaders have chosen to embrace darkness, and lies. Those 'leaders of men', have become a group of people who refuse to discern between good and evil, between truth and falsehood. No one, nobody among them, will today criticise the evil [i.e. ISLAM], which they [our leaders] have chosen to embrace as a 'partner'. We become, what we are tolerant of. If we tolerate evil, and wickedness, in our midst, ...we become those, who are evil, OURSELVES. Tolerance of what is evil, is not 'tolerance'. Tolerance of what is evil, is not a 'virtue'. It is wickedness! Truth, is saying that white IS white. Truth, is saying that black IS black. Truth is condemning the guilty. Truth is defending the innocent. Truth is rejecting political correctness, by having the courage to expose, and condemn lies. The love of truth is that what comes from God [from God's spirit within us]. Being 'tolerant' of what is evil, is not 'good', nor is it not a display of 'love'. ...but rather, it is a display of craven stupidity, and [moral] cowardice. If we tolerate evil, and wickedness, in others [in those in our midst], we will become spiritually lost [which is ALWAYS exhibited in a 'people' by emotions and 'feelings' like, confusion, indecisivenesses, depression, etc.] Jeremiah 9:3 ....they bend their tongues like their bow for lies: but they are not valiant for the truth upon the earth; for they proceed from evil to evil, and they know not me, saith the LORD.

"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act."
George Orwell

"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear."
George Orwell

Among a people generally corrupt, liberty cannot long exist.
Edmund Burke

I can understand a child being afraid of the dark, but I cannot understand an adult being afraid of the light.
Plato

Those who voluntarily put power into the hands of a tyrant or an enemy, must not wonder if it be at last turned against themselves.
   - Aesop

You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in their struggle for independence.
   - Charles Austin Beard, American Historian, 1874-1948

Yadda wrote on May 12^th, 2013 at 9:54am:

Brian Ross wrote on May 11th, 2013 at 10:28pm: Yadda wrote on May 11th, 2013 at 9:01pm: [quote author=Yadda link=1367461526/103#103 date=1368269157] Being a bigot means that a person [i.e. the bigot!] [objects to others with differing opinion(s), expressing their opinion(s). It does not mean that i am a bigot, BECAUSE i express an opinion, Brian. I've never claimed that, Yadda. You are a bigot because of the content of the opinion you express, ....not because you're actually expressing an opinion. That you seem unable to detect that your opinions are bigoted is understandable, afterall bigots always assume they are right, particularly about issues of religion...   ::) Brian_Ross, So. You claim that i am a bigot, because e.g., i say that ISLAM is a deceitful, vicious, violent philosophy ?

Yes.  You also claim Muslims are "deceitful, vicious," and, "violent", without proof that they have done such things as individuals.

If I substituted the word "black person" for the word "Muslim", Yadda in your comments,  I'd hope even you'd see it as being racist.   Saying the same thing about Muslims is bigoted.    ::)

polite_gandalf wrote on May 11^th, 2013 at 5:17pm:

freediver wrote on May 11th, 2013 at 4:47pm: What evidence? Quote: “A great misconception prevails as to the age at which Aisha was taken in marriage by the Prophet. Ibn Sa‘d has stated in the Tabaqat that when Abu Bakr [father of Aisha] was approached on behalf of the Holy Prophet, he replied that the girl had already been betrothed to Jubair, and that he would have to settle the matter first with him. This shows that Aisha must have been approaching majority at the time. Again, the Isaba, speaking of the Prophet’s daughter Fatima, says that she was born five years before the Call and was about five years older than Aisha. This shows that Aisha must have been about ten years at the time of her betrothal to the Prophet, and not six years as she is generally supposed to be. This is further borne out by the fact that Aisha herself is reported to have stated that when the chapter [of the Holy Quran] entitled The Moon, the fifty-fourth chapter, was revealed, she was a girl playing about and remembered certain verses then revealed. Now the fifty-fourth chapter was undoubtedly revealed before the sixth year of the Call. All these considerations point to but one conclusion, viz., that Aisha could not have been less than ten years of age at the time of her nikah, which was virtually only a betrothal. And there is one report in the Tabaqat that Aisha was nine years of age at the time of nikah. Again it is a fact admitted on all hands that the nikah of Aisha took place in the tenth year of the Call in the month of Shawwal, while there is also preponderance of evidence as to the consummation of her marriage taking place in the second year of Hijra in the same month, which shows that full five years had elapsed between the nikah and the consummation. Hence there is not the least doubt that Aisha was at least nine or ten years of age at the time of betrothal, and fourteen or fifteen years at the time of marriage.” http://www.muslim.org/islam/aisha-age.htm Either way, it is still woefully inadequate evidence that he was a pedophile.

Your source is hardly mainstream Islam,The Ahmadi in Pakistan cannot even call themselves muslims thanks to the Pakistani penal code #295.
99% of the population of Pakistan is muslim.

The ahmadi are persecuted by mainstream Islam for heretical beliefs. ;D


Quote:

Ahmadis are considered non muslims by mainstream muslims. The Ahmadis have been considered heretics and non muslim and subjected to systematic persecution and oppression (by mainstream muslims.. ;D) www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Ahmadis

What do you think Al Munajid who studied under the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia will say about Aishas age,the Saudis do think al Bukhari is rock solid.

It is a muslim hadith that says Aisha took her toys with her when she was taken to the profit at age 9.
Girls who have reached puberty are not allowed to have dolls/toys so this indicates Aisha was prepubescent,Falah has argued she reached puberty at age 9.
www.islamqa.com/en/ref/1493/aisha

Why are the words "black person" being substituted for the word "n.i.g.g.e.r" in my posts?  Who is forcing political correctness here?   Appears some people don't think that black people should be offended...  ::)

hello again morons.

Yadda... I would have responded to your posts,.. but mysteriously... ::) ::) I have received no notification of posts after mine on 11.5.  so ...no reply from me.

I had this happen before,,,   ::)  mayhap its the mod cutting me out of the thread. >:(


as to the general THRUST till now ...  a female child.... no countless millions of female children, over the centuries,  have been used and abused by elder, even senile men.. MUSLIM men. 

Tho... my view of manhood does not include enslaving abusing impregnating and killing young females as a holy duty.
Fheads.
I wouldn't want to meet me in a dark place either,  if I believed in the crap you pricks think is good, noble, even holy.!!

What a huge pile of self-deceivers you Muslims are.  You can't agree on anything... except killing each other,  and infidels.

Keep on killing each other... perfectly cool....  do better...!!!
Hey Iraq and Syria are leading the way... go for it fwits.
:P :P

Rather strident stuff.

What about the Muslims who respect and honour women are they to be condemned as well along with those that don't?

Appears you're applying rather a scattergun approach there.

Of course it also seems to include the Muslim women and girls as well.

Typical of bigots to blame the victims too.   ::) ::)

|dev|null wrote on May 23^rd, 2013 at 12:44pm:

Rather strident stuff. What about the Muslims who respect and honour women are they to be condemned as well along with those that don't? Appears you're applying rather a scattergun approach there. Of course it also seems to include the Muslim women and girls as well. Typical of bigots to blame the victims too.   ::) ::)

Where did I say all muslims..??
or blame the victims..??

(at least you agree there ARE victims...?)

I was referring to those Muslim men who do these deeds with impunity...  even honour...  even here in Australia..  not those you refer to.

Perhaps that wasn't obvious...   >?? 

Emma wrote on May 23^rd, 2013 at 8:29pm:

I was referring to those Muslim men who do these deeds with impunity...  even honour...  even here in Australia..  not those you refer to. Perhaps that wasn't obvious...   >??

Yes, it wasn't obvious.  Perhaps a little less strident and more intelligence?   ::)

|dev|null wrote on May 23^rd, 2013 at 12:44pm:

Rather strident stuff. What about the Muslims who respect and honour women are they to be condemned as well along with those that don't?

So what rights do women have where Islam originated from in Saudi Arabia?

Can they drive or leave their homes without a mahram (blood relative they are forbidden to marry)?

Women should learn this verse to understand women's rights in Islam, or you could listen to what Sheik Hilaly said about staying home with your hijab on to avoid being treated like uncovered meat in relation to gang rapes from muslim men.


Quote:

Allah speaking- Men are in charge of women by (right of) what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend (for maintenance) from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in (the husbands) absence what Allah would have them guard. But those wives from whom you fear arrogance-(first) advise them  (then if they persist) forsake them in bed (works with polygamy the man does not go without) and finally strike them.But if they obey you(once more) seek no means against them.Allah is ever exalted and grand www.quran.com/4/34

Allah the most merciful of those who show mercy allows wife beating if you fear disobedience, the muslim women are raised to know their place.

If a muslim dies while he is unhappy with his wife she goes to the hellfire, this is the religion leftist dim wits support.

Baronvonrort wrote on May 24^th, 2013 at 10:31am:

|dev|null wrote on May 23rd, 2013 at 12:44pm: Rather strident stuff. What about the Muslims who respect and honour women are they to be condemned as well along with those that don't? So what rights do women have where Islam originated from in Saudi Arabia?

Last time I checked, Saudi Arabia is not the whole Muslim world and is considered rather backward and autocratic by many Muslims.  Some even consider Wahabbism an aberration and heretical.

So, instead of letting your prejudices do your thinking for you, actually look at reality!   ;D ;D

|dev|null wrote on May 24^th, 2013 at 2:39pm:

Some even consider Wahabbism an aberration and heretical.

word.

|dev|null wrote on May 24^th, 2013 at 2:39pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on May 24th, 2013 at 10:31am: |dev|null wrote on May 23rd, 2013 at 12:44pm: Rather strident stuff. What about the Muslims who respect and honour women are they to be condemned as well along with those that don't? So what rights do women have where Islam originated from in Saudi Arabia? Last time I checked, Saudi Arabia is not the whole Muslim world and is considered rather backward and autocratic by many Muslims.  Some even consider Wahabbism an aberration and heretical. So, instead of letting your prejudices do your thinking for you, actually look at reality!   ;D ;D

The munafiqs (hypocrites is what the allah of the quran calls them) like to say the Saudis do not represent Islam yet Saudi Arabia has been ruled by Islam for the last 1400 years, one of the 5 pillars of Islam is Hajj and muslims go to Mecca and Medina in Saudi Arabia for that, even the shia do Hajj.
Muslims face Mecca in Saudi Arabia when praying.

The Saudi constitution has in article 1 that Gods book (Quran) and the sunnah of his prophet (Sahih al Bukhari would be one) are the country's constitution.
The Saudi royals are the only unislamic thing in Saudi Arabia, there has never been royalty in Islam they do a caliphate form of fascist  dictatorship, fascists dont tolerate critics and Islam demands critics are to be executed for blasphemy.

By calling their Islam wahhabism you are showing your ignorance of Islam.
Muhammad Wahhab is a well respected Islamic scholar, he did nothing innovative he just returned Islam to what it was by purifying it.

Quote:

The Salafi movement is a movement among sunni muslims. Many Salafists consider the term Wahhabi derogatory and object to being called that. Salafism has become associated with literalist strict and puritanical approaches to Islam. According to the 2010 German domestic intelligence report,Salafism is the fastest growing Islamic movement in the world. (The Saudi petrodollars are funding mosques, do you get a Saudi imam with that package?) Salafis view the salaf as an eternal model for all succeeding muslim generations in their beliefs,exegesis,method of worship,mannerisms,moral piety and conduct:The Islam they practice is seen as pure,unadulterated and therefore,the ultimate authority for the interpretation of the sunnah. (Annie a sunni muslim who posts here even asked the Salafi called Falah for opinions on Islam) www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salafi

Wiki is never reliable with muslims editing it, lets see what salafi websites say-

Quote:

The salafi dawah is that of the Quran and sunnah, ie the religion of Islam-pure and free from any and all additions,deletions and alterations. www.salafipublications.com/sps/sp.cfm?subsecID=SLF02&articleID=SLF020001&articlePages=1

Islam is rather backward as you say, those who flee from the political,social,economic and moral failures of Islamic countries still come with Islam because they fail to recognise it is Islam that explains these political,social,economic and moral failures.

The Quran says you cannot pick and choose which parts to believe in , it is a package deal if you want those houris and a evelasting erection to service them,the muslims who have posted in this forum say the ability to pick and choose is what separates Islam from the other religions.

Quote:

Allah speaking- So do you believe in part of the scripture and disbelieve in part? Then what is the recompense for those who do that among you except disgrace in this worldly life:and on the day of resurrection they ill be sent back to the severest of punishment,Allah is not unaware of what you do. www.quran.com/2/85

Allah calls those who think they can pick and choose what parts of Islam to follow munafiqs (hypocrites).

Quote:

Allah speaking- O Prophet, fight against the disbelievers and the hypocrites and be harsh upon them. And their refuge is hell, and wretched is the destination. www.quran.com/9/73

Gandalf has no hope of taming the fundamentalists, they will call him a hypocrite just like allah does. :)

Most Muslims should be eradicated.

word...
indeed

Socrates wrote on May 24^th, 2013 at 3:52pm:

Most Muslims should be eradicated.

And how would that be achieved?

You don't think proposing genocide might be rather outrageous?

Since when did "most Muslims" earn such a comment?

If we substituted "jew" or "n.i.g.g.e.r" for "Muslim" your hatred would be exposed for what it was, yet it seems acceptable to suggest such things about Muslims.  I wonder why?   ::)

|dev|null wrote on May 9^th, 2013 at 11:10am:

So, they may want Sharia law.  Do they necessarily understand what it is and how it works?   Do they also recognise that Sharia law has real difficulties coping with modern civil cases about issues relating to contract law and so on?   I suspect not. It's a motherhood and apple-pie question which does not actually tell us very much about what Muslims actually want as against what they desire.   It is akin to asking an Australian if they want faster broadband speeds.  Obviously the answer will be "yes," but few will understand what that actually entails.

Yeah, internet speed and an entire philosophical, religious and legal/social outlook are the same thing.

This is your idea, I have no doubt.

Brian Ross wrote on May 25^th, 2013 at 9:45am:

Socrates wrote on May 24th, 2013 at 3:52pm: Most Muslims should be eradicated. And how would that be achieved? You don't think proposing genocide might be rather outrageous? Since when did "most Muslims" earn such a comment? If we substituted "jew" or "n.i.g.g.e.r" for "Muslim" your hatred would be exposed for what it was, yet it seems acceptable to suggest such things about Muslims.  I wonder why?   ::)

I would loathe to live in a society that is based on Islam and is organised and governed along the lines of sharia. Just hate it. I do not want any part of it, I do not believe that it has anything to recommend it. I am opposed to anyone who wants to impose such a society on me or my children. I consider anyone who wants to impose sharia in the West as my political enemies.

Why is this such a sore point for you?

Errr Soren, so Brian makes a post pointing out that a direct call for genocide is perhaps a tad extreme - and you respond as if he's being the unreasonable one?

Hey Soren, what are you doing to reign in the extremists amongst your ranks? I noticed none of you lot condemning the petrol bombing of a mosque in the UK yesterday. Pot, kettle, black.

polite_gandalf wrote on May 25^th, 2013 at 10:29am:

Hey Soren, what are you doing to reign in the extremists amongst your ranks? I noticed none of you lot condemning the petrol bombing of a mosque in the UK yesterday. Pot, kettle, black.

Yes, when those communities push back against the threat they perceive (rightly or wrongly) from the religion of the peace, it is going to get messy. 

you sound like an apologist for violence Datalife.

Socrates wrote on May 24^th, 2013 at 3:52pm:

Most Muslims should be eradicated.

Maybe 'irradiated' might be better ~ so we can use them as glowing speed bumps and environmentally-friendly nighttime lighting for our major highways?

8-)

polite_gandalf wrote on May 25^th, 2013 at 10:29am:

I noticed none of you lot condemning the petrol bombing of a mosque in the UK yesterday.

Muslims have no place in Britain. Chalk-and-cheese. EVERYONE knows they are there for the financial benefits through work or the dole.

Except for 10% of them (from a poll) ~ around 90% of them are intransigently committed to remaining as much as possible a foreign identity in the mould of their original homelands.

They're not English, or even British. They are a colonial presence of incompatible foreigners who are using Britain as a means of gaining the sort of wealth they never could acquire in their own countries.

They haven't the slightest intention of letting their offspring assimilate with the locals towards becoming 'English'. How many of the babies born to the 2,000,000 Muslims in Britain are given a British name?

They are interlopers nestled in amongst the British, but with their own very separate agendas.

The UK-born Muslim terrorists of the past few years is only the tip of the iceberg of the vast bulk who feel an Islamic antipathy towards the British people, the British government, and Britain's political allies.

It's time the wheat from the chaff was sorted out amongst these religion-saturated enemies of the British people.

Lord Herbert wrote on May 25^th, 2013 at 12:02pm:

They haven't the slightest intention of letting their offspring assimilate with the locals towards becoming 'English'.

keep spouting that baseless crap if it gives your life meaning Herb.

Personally I think you should put your money where your mouth is - if you are genuinely in favour of deporting intolerant extremist immigrants, you should take the next flight back to the UK.

Quote:

The Australian Muslim Youth Network has sent text messages and emails warning Muslims to avoid arguments about their faith and steer clear of anti-Islamic protests planned for some Australian cities.

source

Guess which people are going to confront these protestors on the streets?

Muslims?

No way.

It'll be the Muslims' Useful Idiots ~ Leftwing donkeys yelling and kicking under the red flags of their various affiliations just as they did with Pauline Hanson.

I'll be the one carrying the sign saying ... Behead all Those who Insult our Intelligence!

You'd better stay away, gandalf. I don't want you to get beheaded by one of the more enthusiastic of my protestors.

I've made special arrangements for Celebrity Protestor 'Rage Boy' to attend this street rally. (He's for hire nowadays).

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e150/ruffdiamond/January%202013/rage_zps7820a555.pnghttp://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e150/ruffdiamond/New%20Album/rage2_zps3f53896b.png

polite_gandalf wrote on May 25^th, 2013 at 12:34pm:

Lord Herbert wrote on May 25th, 2013 at 12:02pm: They haven't the slightest intention of letting their offspring assimilate with the locals towards becoming 'English'. keep spouting that baseless crap if it gives your life meaning Herb. Personally I think you should put your money where your mouth is - if you are genuinely in favour of deporting intolerant extremist immigrants, you should take the next flight back to the UK.

You remind me of Julia Gillard a couple of years ago, spruiking the joys of multiculturalism as she herself is in fact Welsh.

What you and Julia Gillard fail to recognise is that Australia draws it's cultural heritage from the UK. Herbert and Julia as immigrants are an entirely different proposition to someone from downtown Beruit.

Surely you can appreciate that?

polite_gandalf wrote on May 25^th, 2013 at 12:34pm:

Lord Herbert wrote on May 25th, 2013 at 12:02pm: They haven't the slightest intention of letting their offspring assimilate with the locals towards becoming 'English'. keep spouting that baseless crap if it gives your life meaning Herb.

"Baseless" ... ? Are you a hobbit living in a hole in the ground?

What do you think the 'Multicultural' imperative is all about? It's about our duplicitous government officially recognising that certain immigrant groups will never assimilate into the local culture no matter how many generations pass.

Specifically: Muslims. They will always remain as foreign objects lodged within the body of Australia's home society.

********

Hi Nicole!  :) Glad you could drop by. Keeping an eye on the Old Man, huh?  ;D

the vast majority of muslims in both the UK and Australia are assimilating very well. Nothing either of you or anyone else has said has come close to disproving this. The presense of a very noticeable and publicized minority doesn't change this fact.

Soren wrote on May 25^th, 2013 at 10:16am:

Brian Ross wrote on May 25th, 2013 at 9:45am: Socrates wrote on May 24th, 2013 at 3:52pm: Most Muslims should be eradicated. And how would that be achieved? You don't think proposing genocide might be rather outrageous? Since when did "most Muslims" earn such a comment? If we substituted "jew" or "n.i.g.g.e.r" for "Muslim" your hatred would be exposed for what it was, yet it seems acceptable to suggest such things about Muslims.  I wonder why?   ::) I would loathe to live in a society that is based on Islam and is organised and governed along the lines of sharia. Just hate it. I do not want any part of it, I do not believe that it has anything to recommend it. I am opposed to anyone who wants to impose such a society on me or my children. I consider anyone who wants to impose sharia in the West as my political enemies. Why is this such a sore point for you?

The whole concern is a furphy, Soren.  With Muslims being only ~2% of the population they will never have sufficient numbers to gain a democratic majority nor could they succeed to try and force it upon the overwhelming majority who aren't interested.   It is a storm in a teacup, as only a minority of Muslims in Australia actively seek such an outcome anyway.

It is merely yet another convenient stick for you to use to beat Muslims because of your prejudices.   You prefer to list to that minority rather than what the majority of Muslims are saying and doing.   ::)

polite_gandalf wrote on May 25^th, 2013 at 1:13pm:

the vast majority of muslims in both the UK and Australia are assimilating very well. Nothing either of you or anyone else has said has come close to disproving this. The presense of a very noticeable and publicized minority doesn't change this fact.

You've dodged my question.

Do you or do you not think an immigrant from the UK fits better into Australia's cultural identity thank an immigrant from Muslim countries?

Hello, Herbert  :) John is now posting on DR. It will be interesting to see what Brian does with his button.

polite_gandalf wrote on May 25^th, 2013 at 11:29am:

you sound like an apologist for violence Datalife.

I don't see that, Gandalf.  DL is merely making an observation.   He's neither apologising or advocating such matters.  Nor though, is he condemning it.

Lord Herbert wrote on May 25^th, 2013 at 11:51am:

Socrates wrote on May 24th, 2013 at 3:52pm: Most Muslims should be eradicated. Maybe 'irradiated' might be better ~ so we can use them as glowing speed bumps and environmentally-friendly nighttime lighting for our major highways? 8-)

Still trolling, Herbie?   ::)

Nicole Page wrote on May 25^th, 2013 at 1:25pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on May 25th, 2013 at 1:13pm: the vast majority of muslims in both the UK and Australia are assimilating very well. Nothing either of you or anyone else has said has come close to disproving this. The presense of a very noticeable and publicized minority doesn't change this fact. You've dodged my question. Do you or do you not think an immigrant from the UK fits better into Australia's cultural identity thank an immigrant from Muslim countries?

What if he is a Muslim from the UK, "Nicole"?

Which predominates, his Britishness or his Muslimness (if such a word exists)?

I am sure you'll claim that his Muslim identity over-shadows all his Britishness.

So, what if he's a late convert to Islam?  Been British all their life until the day before they immigrate.  Which predominates?  Does conversion to Islam automatically destroy all vestiges of Britishness?   ::)

You know, not that long ago, everything you're claiming about Muslims was claimed about Catholics and Jews and the Indochinese?


Quote:

Hello, Herbert  :) John is now posting on DR. It will be interesting to see what Brian does with his button.

John is registered.  He has yet to make a post.  If he abides by the rules, he can post to his heart's content.  Why aren't you posting?  Unable to abide by the rules?

Herbie by the way isn't posting 'cause he's incompetent and can't follow the instructs to reset his own password.   ::)

polite_gandalf wrote on May 25^th, 2013 at 1:13pm:

the vast majority of muslims in both the UK and Australia are assimilating very well. Nothing either of you or anyone else has said has come close to disproving this. The presense of a very noticeable and publicized minority doesn't change this fact.

Integrating ~ but not assimilating.

Any people applying for emigration to Britain or Australia who believe it is a criminal act for a Muslim to convert to Christianity ~ should be immediately disqualified.

Any people who believe Sharia Law is above the law of the prospective host country ~ should immediately be disqualified from immigration.

Any people who believe the interests of ANY Muslim country takes priority in importance over their British or Australian adopted country ~ should be immediately deported.

Any Australian or British Muslim now fighting as volunteers in Syria with al-Qaeda affiliated rebel forces should have their citizenship papers torn up and be immediately deported upon their return.

Any Muslim on the dole longer than 5 years should be summarily deported back to the Middle East or elsewhere.

Etc etc.

One day, some day, just maybe we will get a national leader with the common sense to put these policies into law.

Brian Ross wrote on May 25^th, 2013 at 1:25pm:

Lord Herbert wrote on May 25th, 2013 at 11:51am: Socrates wrote on May 24th, 2013 at 3:52pm: Most Muslims should be eradicated. Maybe 'irradiated' might be better ~ so we can use them as glowing speed bumps and environmentally-friendly nighttime lighting for our major highways? 8-) Still trolling, Herbie?   ::)

Still chasing me to come play in your sandpit at the newly erected Lenin-Marxist version of D&R .. ?

I finally solved the login problem ... but then just couldn't be bothered.

(I can be bribed though. Monthly payments to my account through PayPal or a Visa Card). 

Don't forget the anti-Muslim protests in "every major city". Should prove to be ... er ... 'lively'.

I'm planning on kicking the police dogs and then throwing a milk crate through a police car's windshield.

I'll be interested to see what penalty the judge gives me.

VERY interested.

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e150/ruffdiamond/New%20Album/omar_zps7531d9df.png

Make you sick, wouldn't it? I share their smirking contempt for our politicians and our legal fraternity.

Lord Herbert wrote on May 25^th, 2013 at 2:30pm:

Brian Ross wrote on May 25th, 2013 at 1:25pm: Lord Herbert wrote on May 25th, 2013 at 11:51am: Socrates wrote on May 24th, 2013 at 3:52pm: Most Muslims should be eradicated. Maybe 'irradiated' might be better ~ so we can use them as glowing speed bumps and environmentally-friendly nighttime lighting for our major highways? 8-) Still trolling, Herbie?   ::) Still chasing me to come play in your sandpit at the newly erected Lenin-Marxist version of D&R .. ?

Where has any Marxist-Leninist viewpoint been expressed, Herbie?

I expect you couldn't identify Marxist-Leninist views if they bit you on the bum, it's just another trolling effort by throwing abuse at any that questions your views, Herbie.   ::)


Quote:

I finally solved the login problem ... but then just couldn't be bothered.

The problem was between screen and keyboard, Herbie.  Nothing to do with the forum software.   ;D ;D ;D


Quote:

(I can be bribed though. Monthly payments to my account through PayPal or a Visa Card).  Don't forget the anti-Muslim protests in "every major city". Should prove to be ... er ... 'lively'. I'm planning on kicking the police dogs and then throwing a milk crate through a police car's windshield. I'll be interested to see what penalty the judge gives me. VERY interested. http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e150/ruffdiamond/New%20Album/omar_zps7531d9df.png Make you sick, wouldn't it? I share their smirking contempt for our politicians and our legal fraternity.

I've always maintained that you shared the same views with those you criticise, Herbie.

Keep on trolling here, please.  We are better off it would seem without you, if this is the best you can come up with.   ::)

Nicole Page wrote on May 25^th, 2013 at 1:25pm:

You've dodged my question. Do you or do you not think an immigrant from the UK fits better into Australia's cultural identity thank an immigrant from Muslim countries?

An immigrant like Herbert? No thanks.

Nicole, the white Australia Policy was abolished over 40 years ago, and multiculturalism has been well and trully embraced. Most Australians would (and do if polls are anything to go by) agree that Australian society is the better for it - both culturally and economically.

There are bigots in every community - not least of all the British/white community. Are you suggesting that embarking on a discriminatory immigration policy - or God forbid - returning to the WAP will actually make us a better society? I don't. We have endured ethnic crime and unrest for our entire existence, but always the benefits of those ethnic communities has outweighed the problems.

Lord Herbert wrote on May 25^th, 2013 at 12:02pm:

[quote author=gandalf link=1367461526/124#124 date=1369441749] ...... around 90% of them are intransigently committed to remaining as much as possible a foreign identity in the mould of their original homelands. They're not English, or even British. They are a colonial presence of incompatible foreigners who are using Britain as a means of gaining the sort of wealth they never could acquire in their own countries.They haven't the slightest intention of letting their offspring assimilate with the locals towards becoming 'English'. ....

Sounds familiar does it herbie??  Should.. shouldn't it?  Sounds like a rather good description of the British Raj in India . !!   

What goes around comes around... and there is simply nothing to gain from bemoaning karma.  :)

I shall now read on.

polite_gandalf wrote on May 25^th, 2013 at 8:13pm:

Nicole Page wrote on May 25th, 2013 at 1:25pm: You've dodged my question. Do you or do you not think an immigrant from the UK fits better into Australia's cultural identity thank an immigrant from Muslim countries? An immigrant like Herbert? No thanks. Nicole, the white Australia Policy was abolished over 40 years ago, and multiculturalism has been well and trully embraced. Most Australians would (and do if polls are anything to go by) agree that Australian society is the better for it - both culturally and economically. There are bigots in every community - not least of all the British/white community. Are you suggesting that embarking on a discriminatory immigration policy - or God forbid - returning to the WAP will actually make us a better society? I don't. We have endured ethnic crime and unrest for our entire existence, but always the benefits of those ethnic communities has outweighed the problems.

Agreed.

Asian and Middle Eastern and African societies are fundamentally unstable, poor, fractious, corrupt.

Australia isn't. Because it wasn't made along Asian, Middle Eastern, African lines.

This is why Australia is desirable to all, including Asians, Middle Easterners and Africans. Because it is Western and essentially Anglo-European politically, socially, culturally.
Non-Europeans are coming here because Australia is NOTHING like where they come from. But a lot of them, once they are here, are agitating for making Australia more like an Asian, Middle Eastern or African society.
Go figure, as the Americans say.

yeah Soren 

seems human (not dog)  nature to bite the hand that feeds them.

then again....  being human, they are indelibly affected by their experiences,  as are we all.  :(


I would NEVER say,  that refugees would act as those two British born young islamic terrorists did...  that is an act that almost  beggars belief!!!
Sadly.. I say  almost.  .THAT speaks more to another mindset.  ..Like the homegrown terrorists in the US..  and no..  before the Boston attack...  the earlier acts by US fundamentalists who hated the govt...   it is NOT confined to Moslem extremists..

seems we should expect more... :(

Emma wrote on May 25^th, 2013 at 9:44pm:

Lord Herbert wrote on May 25th, 2013 at 12:02pm: [quote author=gandalf link=1367461526/124#124 date=1369441749] ...... around 90% of them are intransigently committed to remaining as much as possible a foreign identity in the mould of their original homelands. They're not English, or even British. They are a colonial presence of incompatible foreigners who are using Britain as a means of gaining the sort of wealth they never could acquire in their own countries.They haven't the slightest intention of letting their offspring assimilate with the locals towards becoming 'English'. .... Sounds familiar does it herbie??  Should.. shouldn't it?  Sounds like a rather good description of the British Raj in India . !!    What goes around comes around... and there is simply nothing to gain from bemoaning karma.  :) I shall now read on.

Stop doing the blame game emma.

We can all quote history.There's plenty of it to quote.
But that sadly isn't going to solve this particular era of history is it?
You either learn by mistakes or you are destined to repeat them.Quoting them isn't going to do it.There is an evilness in our time that has to be sorted.

Soren wrote on May 25^th, 2013 at 10:08pm:

Asian and Middle Eastern and African societies are fundamentally unstable, poor, fractious, corrupt.

Right - so when people from these places get the opportunity to come to a place like Australia, they will invariably jump at it, and determine to make the best of the opportunity. Consequently, immigrants from the poorest parts of the world have been amongst our most valuable and productive immigrants. Most Australians will attest to this. I've frankly never heard of an immigrant from a tin pot sh!t hole attempting to turn Australia into that same tin pot sh!t hole.

brumbie wrote on May 25^th, 2013 at 10:51pm:

Emma wrote on May 25th, 2013 at 9:44pm: Lord Herbert wrote on May 25th, 2013 at 12:02pm: [quote author=gandalf link=1367461526/124#124 date=1369441749] ...... around 90% of them are intransigently committed to remaining as much as possible a foreign identity in the mould of their original homelands. They're not English, or even British. They are a colonial presence of incompatible foreigners who are using Britain as a means of gaining the sort of wealth they never could acquire in their own countries.They haven't the slightest intention of letting their offspring assimilate with the locals towards becoming 'English'. .... Sounds familiar does it herbie??  Should.. shouldn't it?  Sounds like a rather good description of the British Raj in India . !!    What goes around comes around... and there is simply nothing to gain from bemoaning karma.  :) I shall now read on. Stop doing the blame game emma. We can all quote history.There's plenty of it to quote. But that sadly isn't going to solve this particular era of history is it? You either learn by mistakes or you are destined to repeat them.Quoting them isn't going to do it.There is an evilness in our time that has to be sorted.

oh I do agree with you  brumbie, and the 'blame game' ..? 
like I said  ... What goes around comes around... and there is simply nothing to gain from bemoaning karma.  :)

By which I mean there is NO real advantage in pointing to others as responsible for the atrocities of the past. In that lies a continuation of the same. Naive..?? 

We are all in need of a new start ... which cannot be achieved until we address  '....evilness in our time that has to be sorted.'  Again I agree.

I believe... ( and I have very few beliefs) ...  that we can only respect ourselves as humans... all of us .. as humans... we..== all of us.. regardless of creed or colour.. 

..we can only achieve peace by starting at the beginning... 

WE MUST TREASURE our home.. we must care for this EARTH before OURSELVES...  or our GODS.!
..we must not foul our only home...
WE MUST NOT FOUL OUR HOME.!

Whilst we continue to do so... for whatever reason..!!..we remain foul.. and less than animals.

That is where we start , and where we eradicate.. this evilness upon us.

Not by worshipping the dollar,   nor any God.

Soren wrote on May 25^th, 2013 at 10:08pm:

Asian and Middle Eastern and African societies are fundamentally unstable, poor, fractious, corrupt. Australia isn't. Because it wasn't made along Asian, Middle Eastern, African lines. This is why Australia is desirable to all, including Asians, Middle Easterners and Africans. Because it is Western and essentially Anglo-European politically, socially, culturally. Non-Europeans are coming here because Australia is NOTHING like where they come from. But a lot of them, once they are here, are agitating for making Australia more like an Asian, Middle Eastern or African society. Go figure, as the Americans say.

Attempting to justify our Xenophobia with racism, Soren? 

which is why I'll repeat my original post


more or less

Perhaps??
Most MALE Muslims Want Sharia Law.

I doubt that  myself,, BUT  ,, if you include women as Muslim...  then... significanltly LESS than MOST  want SHARIA LAW.

So.. MOST MUSLIMS WORLDWIDE... inclusive of women and secular states  DO NOT WANT Sharia Law.

ONLY RADICAL MINDBLASTED FANATICS WOULD SUGGEST
OTHERWISE.

polite_gandalf wrote on May 25^th, 2013 at 10:57pm:

Soren wrote on May 25th, 2013 at 10:08pm: Asian and Middle Eastern and African societies are fundamentally unstable, poor, fractious, corrupt. Right - so when people from these places get the opportunity to come to a place like Australia, they will invariably jump at it, and determine to make the best of the opportunity. Consequently, immigrants from the poorest parts of the world have been amongst our most valuable and productive immigrants. Most Australians will attest to this. I've frankly never heard of an immigrant from a tin pot sh!t hole attempting to turn Australia into that same tin pot sh!t hole.

True, but the old boy can’t give up his pot to save himself. He longs to turn this country into the poo-eating vaterland he left behind. Old boy veltgeist uber alles.

The old boy suffers from chronic blockages issues. The old gas attack playing up again.

Karnal wrote on May 26^th, 2013 at 1:20am:

polite_gandalf wrote on May 25th, 2013 at 10:57pm: Soren wrote on May 25th, 2013 at 10:08pm: Asian and Middle Eastern and African societies are fundamentally unstable, poor, fractious, corrupt. Right - so when people from these places get the opportunity to come to a place like Australia, they will invariably jump at it, and determine to make the best of the opportunity. Consequently, immigrants from the poorest parts of the world have been amongst our most valuable and productive immigrants. Most Australians will attest to this. I've frankly never heard of an immigrant from a tin pot sh!t hole attempting to turn Australia into that same tin pot sh!t hole. True, but the old boy can’t give up his pot to save himself. He longs to turn this country into the poo-eating vaterland he left behind. Old boy veltgeist uber alles. The old boy suffers from chronic blockages issues. The old gas attack playing up again.

What wit!

It is to laugh.

Ho, ho, ho, what a comedienne.

Emma wrote on May 26^th, 2013 at 12:57am:

which is why I'll repeat my original post more or less Perhaps?? Most MALE Muslims Want Sharia Law. I doubt that  myself,, BUT  ,, if you include women as Muslim...  then... significanltly LESS than MOST  want SHARIA LAW. So.. MOST MUSLIMS WORLDWIDE... inclusive of women and secular states  DO NOT WANT Sharia Law. ONLY RADICAL MINDBLASTED FANATICS WOULD SUGGEST OTHERWISE.

it's the extremists that run islam.
it's an extremist belief.
go and be a muslim in another country.

@ Brian Ross


Quote:

Why aren't you posting?  Unable to abide by the rules?

I am here Brian because I don't like your "rules" and I don't agree with what you're dumping.

Nicole Page wrote on May 26^th, 2013 at 1:50pm:

@ Brian Ross Quote: Why aren't you posting?  Unable to abide by the rules? I am here Brian because I don't like your "rules" and I don't agree with what you're dumping.

That is your choice.   You were always and still are free to debate the rules there, if you create a thread to do so.

"Nicole", the old D&R was a sewer.   Perhaps you liked playing in sewage but I didn't.   

Sprintcyclist wrote on May 26^th, 2013 at 2:51am:

Emma wrote on May 26th, 2013 at 12:57am: which is why I'll repeat my original post more or less Perhaps?? Most MALE Muslims Want Sharia Law. I doubt that  myself,, BUT  ,, if you include women as Muslim...  then... significanltly LESS than MOST  want SHARIA LAW. So.. MOST MUSLIMS WORLDWIDE... inclusive of women and secular states  DO NOT WANT Sharia Law. ONLY RADICAL MINDBLASTED FANATICS WOULD SUGGEST OTHERWISE. it's the extremists that run islam.

No, they run your perceptions for you because they reinforce your prejudices.


Quote:

it's an extremist belief.

Is it?  According to whom?


Quote:

go and be a muslim in another country.

Why?  If they are citizens of this one, why should they be forced to leave by bigots?  Don't they have a right to voice their opinions?

Emma wrote on May 26^th, 2013 at 12:57am:

which is why I'll repeat my original post more or less Perhaps?? Most MALE Muslims Want Sharia Law.

I am unsure what you're saying here.  Are you saying, "Perhaps??" and then "Most MALE Muslims Want Sharia Law[sic]"?

Or are you saying, "Perhaps most MALE Muslims want Sharia law"?

You will of course have evidence to prove that contention, either way and supply us with a breakdown by gender of any polls you're relying on?


Quote:

I doubt that  myself,, BUT  ,, if you include women as Muslim...  then... significanltly LESS than MOST  want SHARIA LAW.

Again, you'll be able to provide evidence to back that contention?


Quote:

So.. MOST MUSLIMS WORLDWIDE... inclusive of women and secular states  DO NOT WANT Sharia Law. ONLY RADICAL MINDBLASTED FANATICS WOULD SUGGEST OTHERWISE.

Perhaps.  Again, I ask for evidence either way...

@ Brian Ross


Quote:

You were always and still are free to debate the rules there, if you create a thread to do so.

Not my style, Brian. As someone who has been an admin for the last 10 years or so it's not my style to piss on other admin's carpet.

You pay the piper, the board is yours to do with what you want.

I'll just exercise my right not to walk, thanks all the same.

Nicole Page wrote on May 26^th, 2013 at 2:08pm:

@ Brian Ross Quote: You were always and still are free to debate the rules there, if you create a thread to do so. Not my style, Brian. As someone who has been an admin for the last 10 years or so it's not my style to piss on other admin's carpet. You pay the piper, the board is yours to do with what you want. I'll just exercise my right not to walk, thanks all the same.

Up to you.  The invitation will remain open and you cannot deny that you weren't given the opportunity...

When all is said and done, Muslims remain entirely and solely responsible for is done in their name.

Soren wrote on May 26^th, 2013 at 8:48pm:

When all is said and done, Muslims remain entirely and solely responsible for is done in their name.

So do Christians, for everything done in their name.

Waiting to see a crusade being called to capture Joseph Kony, Soren...   ::)

hmm ... ??!!   >:( >:( 8-) 

methinks ..B.ro.'ss  (OK  I'll come up with something better for the Bro  ...  hey ??? !!!    The BRO... 


methinks  The BRO.. that you are full of ... and   ..malice  aforethought..!

your recent conversation demonstrates your hubris  BRO.

nothin to do with the topic.. which I was referring to ...so NO  go find your own evidence for your POV  ..wanker.

Brian Ross wrote on May 26^th, 2013 at 9:53pm:

Soren wrote on May 26th, 2013 at 8:48pm: When all is said and done, Muslims remain entirely and solely responsible for is done in their name. So do Christians, for everything done in their name. Waiting to see a crusade being called to capture Joseph Kony, Soren...   ::)

You are saying that Joseph Kony weighs as much as September 11 (and the previous attacks on the WTC), Bali, Madrid, London, Glasgow, and all the long list of Islamist attacks on the west that have been prevented (Holsworthy, Lucas Heights, Time SQ, etc, etc) and not prevented - Theo van Gogh, the cartoon riots and murders, Rushdie murders, the youtube riots and murders, now the London slaying.

All ALL that is balanced out by some fvckn lunatic in Africa who speaks for no-one, owned by no-one, recognised by no-one.


You are not a serious person. Brian. You are as unhinged and as unbalanced and discombobulated as any two-bit fvkn jihadi ranter. You are just not to be taken seriously.

Emma wrote on May 26^th, 2013 at 10:12pm:

hmm ... ??!!   >:( >:( 8-)  methinks ..B.ro.'ss  (OK  I'll come up with something better for the Bro  ...  hey ??? !!!    The BRO...  methinks  The BRO.. that you are full of ... and   ..malice  aforethought..! your recent conversation demonstrates your hubris  BRO. nothin to do with the topic.. which I was referring to ...so NO  go find your own evidence for your POV  ..wanker.

I asked for clarification for what you were attempting to say, EP.  Appears you are unwilling to give it for some reason.  Perhaps you didn't want to discuss the matter but rather make some obscure, unsupported declaration?  Mmm?   ::)

Soren wrote on May 26^th, 2013 at 10:15pm:

Brian Ross wrote on May 26th, 2013 at 9:53pm: Soren wrote on May 26th, 2013 at 8:48pm: When all is said and done, Muslims remain entirely and solely responsible for is done in their name. So do Christians, for everything done in their name. Waiting to see a crusade being called to capture Joseph Kony, Soren...   ::) You are saying that Joseph Kony weighs as much as September 11 (and the previous attacks on the WTC), Bali, Madrid, London, Glasgow, and all the long list of Islamist attacks on the west that have been prevented (Holsworthy, Lucas Heights, Time SQ, etc, etc) and not prevented - Theo van Gogh, the cartoon riots and murders, Rushdie murders, the youtube riots and murders, now the London slaying. All ALL that is balanced out by some fvckn lunatic in Africa who speaks for no-one, owned by no-one, recognised by no-one. You are not a serious person. Brian. You are as unhinged and as unbalanced and discombobulated as any two-bit fvkn jihadi ranter. You are just not to be taken seriously.

I provided an example, Soren.  Appears you don't like the logic you apply to Muslims being applied to Christians for some reason.

So, we going to hear the crashing of booted feet any time soon as Christians rush to form a Crusade to capture this man who is doing heinous deeds in their name and the name of their god?