polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 7^th, 2014 at 10:06pm:

If we were all honest here we would admit that every single one of us - you, me, Abu, Yadda - everyone - approaches the topic of islam with certain preconceived notions and perspectives. For my part, I had enough knowledge about islam to be satisfied enough about Islam's overall theme before I started digging deep into the nitty gritty of it. Knowing that islam is ultimately about all the main universal values like justice, acceptance, respect, human rights etc, I have absolutely no problem admitting that I study Quranic verses with this preconceived view in mind.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 7^th, 2014 at 10:06pm:

Nonsense. No one, except maybe a tiny handful of oddball intellectuals with too much time on their hands, embraces islam (or dare I say any other text-based religion) only after they have conducted a thorough analysis of all the relevant religious texts. You learn the core tenets of the religion which will give you the general gist of it and accept that the "details" will reaffirm your initial understandings. Thats how virtually every new convert to any religion comes to embrace that religion.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 7^th, 2014 at 10:54pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 7th, 2014 at 10:16pm: Where did you get those core tenets from? ask an imam, google it, read a flier at the local mosque.... take your pick. This is how all religious work in the real world FD. Do you seriously think that converts to islam actually go and study the entire quran and 4000 odd ahadeeth as a necessary step before they decide to embrace islam?

I am asking you Gandalf. Are you an Imam or not?

Justice and respect make sense to me, as Islam is obviously very legalistic and has a focus on reputation or 'face'. These have been discussed here are lot previously.

I am particularly interested in how acceptance and human rights form core tenets of Islam. By "etc", did you mean any other ones that might otherwise fall under the banner of wishy washy western liberal morals?

This is your chance to correct everyone's misconceptions about Islam.

No amount of smart arsery is going to change the fact that almost every convert to any religion decide to embrace that religion because of what they understand to be the core tenets of it - and this is learned without conducting any sort of in-depth analysis of the religious texts.

Your refusal to even acknowledge the following valid point renders this thread as high farce:


Quote:

Do you seriously think that converts to islam actually go and study the entire quran and 4000 odd ahadeeth as a necessary step before they decide to embrace islam?

Also, title edited to decrease the chances of this becoming an ad-hom sh*t fest.

Moving forward, personalised threads will no longer be allowed

Are you suggesting that all the other Muslims will agree with you about acceptance and human rights being core tenets of Islam?

What other "main universal values" also happen to be core tenets of Islam?

Where do these core tenets come from?

There are few converts to islam.
Most are born into it, and as in cults, have no say in the matter.
many more leave islam than join it.

FD if you don't want me to moderate this forum then just remove my access.

If not, have the courtesy to respect my moderating decisions.

It wasn't me. I think you edited the title of your response, but not the original post.

Anyway, about those core tenets....

In that case I apologise.

freediver wrote on Jun 8^th, 2014 at 9:14pm:

Anyway, about those core tenets....

I refer you to reply#1  :)

You are being an evasive Muslim Gandalf.

Can I hate and despise Islam as an ideology, a cult, a toxic blight - or should I despise it only privately but pretend, publicly, to take it seriously?

Soren wrote on Jun 8^th, 2014 at 10:10pm:

Can I hate and despise Islam as an ideology, a cult, a toxic blight - or should I despise it only privately but pretend, publicly, to take it seriously?

No any of those are fine.

freediver wrote on Jun 8^th, 2014 at 10:02pm:

You are being an evasive Muslim Gandalf.

Don't hold ya breath I have had an entire BBQ and am still waiting for the Grand Mufti's response. I uncovered and cooked my meat before eating however.

freediver wrote on Jun 8^th, 2014 at 10:02pm:

You are being an evasive Muslim Gandalf.

I don't even know what I'm supposed to be evading.

Your OP is, as always, a rambling muddle of disjointed quotes and questions that make no sense at all.

From what I can decipher from your ramblings, your "argument" seems to be along the lines of "lets have a laugh at gandalf thinking islamic core tenets have anything to do with universal human values - because I know they are about justifying aggression and presenting a false image"

Where you fall down though is in your open admission that you don't know the first thing about islamic doctrine except what you think two guys on this forum said about it - and your seeming pride in not wanting to even attempt to understand islam outside this circle of two people.

The fruits of Islam are plain for all to see, I am not quite sure why anyone would take it seriously as something from a god. Clearly it seems to be man made. Just pagan practices re-badged by one man who is probably laughing in his grave.

Soren wrote on Jun 8^th, 2014 at 10:10pm:

Can I hate and despise Islam as an ideology, a cult, a toxic blight - or should I despise it only privately but pretend, publicly, to take it seriously? Isnt it evident your full of hate? or That you complain that your sick about hearing about muslims but run to the ozpolitics islam section.

Soren wrote on Jun 8^th, 2014 at 10:10pm:

Can I hate and despise Islam as an ideology, a cult, a toxic blight - or should I despise it only privately but pretend, publicly, to take it seriously?

Isnt it evident your full of hate?

or That you complain that your sick about hearing about muslims but run to the ozpolitics islam section?

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 8^th, 2014 at 11:49pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 8th, 2014 at 10:02pm: You are being an evasive Muslim Gandalf. I don't even know what I'm supposed to be evading. Your OP is, as always, a rambling muddle of disjointed quotes and questions that make no sense at all. From what I can decipher from your ramblings, your "argument" seems to be along the lines of "lets have a laugh at gandalf thinking islamic core tenets have anything to do with universal human values - because I know they are about justifying aggression and presenting a false image" Where you fall down though is in your open admission that you don't know the first thing about islamic doctrine except what you think two guys on this forum said about it - and your seeming pride in not wanting to even attempt to understand islam outside this circle of two people.

freediver wrote on Jun 8^th, 2014 at 6:04pm:

Are you suggesting that all the other Muslims will agree with you about acceptance and human rights being core tenets of Islam? What other "main universal values" also happen to be core tenets of Islam? Where do these core tenets come from?

Not sure why these questions make so little sense to you. They seem pretty straightforward to me. I deliberately avoided making an argument to give you a chance to correct the misconceptions about Islam that we have inherited from Abu, Falah, and he who shall not be named - a chance you seem wholly intent on squandering.

freediver wrote on Jun 9^th, 2014 at 11:26am:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 8th, 2014 at 11:49pm: freediver wrote on Jun 8th, 2014 at 10:02pm: You are being an evasive Muslim Gandalf. I don't even know what I'm supposed to be evading. Your OP is, as always, a rambling muddle of disjointed quotes and questions that make no sense at all. From what I can decipher from your ramblings, your "argument" seems to be along the lines of "lets have a laugh at gandalf thinking islamic core tenets have anything to do with universal human values - because I know they are about justifying aggression and presenting a false image" Where you fall down though is in your open admission that you don't know the first thing about islamic doctrine except what you think two guys on this forum said about it - and your seeming pride in not wanting to even attempt to understand islam outside this circle of two people. freediver wrote on Jun 8th, 2014 at 6:04pm: Are you suggesting that all the other Muslims will agree with you about acceptance and human rights being core tenets of Islam? What other "main universal values" also happen to be core tenets of Islam? Where do these core tenets come from? Not sure why these questions make so little sense to you. They seem pretty straightforward to me. I deliberately avoided making an argument to give you a chance to correct the misconceptions about Islam that we have inherited from Abu, Falah, and he who shall not be named - a chance you seem wholly intent on squandering.

But arent you a expert on the tenents of islam?

Arent you the same person who wrote a billion page article about islam on wikiislam, and the same person who wrote a thesis about islam on a damn AFL sporting forum for gods sake?

wally1 wrote on Jun 9^th, 2014 at 12:20pm:

Arent you the same person who wrote on a damn AFL sporting forum for gods sake?

Please clarification is sought, which "God" are we on about?

Soren wrote on Jun 8^th, 2014 at 10:10pm:

Can I hate and despise Islam as an ideology, a cult, a toxic blight - or should I despise it only privately but pretend, publicly, to take it seriously?

But of course, dear boy. This is a free society. One can hate and despise whomever one chooses.

The doctors, Matron, all the other patients in the ward. Feel free to really hate.

It is a jolly world, no?

I have never posted anything on wikiislam or afl sporting forums. Some guy once asked permission to copy certain content from the OzPolitic wiki to his wiki. Perhaps that is what you are talking about.

Wally1, can you shed any light on these core tenets of Islam like acceptance and human rights, and other "main universal values"?

Why, FD, you already know the answer to your question - you’re a Muslim yourself, remember?

There is No Gud but Allah, and Muhammed is His prophet.

Sounds like ypu’re practicing Taqiyya.

Cunning, no?

I always enjoy reading the pretend muslim Karnal he makes me giggle.

freediver wrote on Jun 9^th, 2014 at 1:57pm:

I have never posted anything on wikiislam or afl sporting forums. Some guy once asked permission to copy certain content from the OzPolitic wiki to his wiki. Perhaps that is what you are talking about. Wally1, can you shed any light on these core tenets of Islam like acceptance and human rights, and other "main universal values"?

Yeah right.

So you expect me to beleive that somebody in there own spare time went over 20,000 of your posts and then says that this essay is by freediver. Please.

I cant even go back past my 25 posts.

And must be a coincidence that there is a member on a AFL forum who has the name freediver, rants about islam and has a link to ozpolitics in his posts slandering islam.

Yes FD, i beleive it wasnt you.

Could have been an angry muslim from here.
Anyone can make an Id to poo poo on someone.

I wouldn't lose any sleep over the dramatics by people faking ID's elsewhere.

Wally1 would you mind giving me a link to this?

freediver wrote on Jun 9^th, 2014 at 11:26am:

Are you suggesting that all the other Muslims will agree with you about acceptance and human rights being core tenets of Islam?

No. What I am suggesting is that almost all people who convert to islam, or for that matter convert to any of the text-based religions, do so once they were satisfied, in their mind, what the 'core tenets' of the religion are, and they do that without conducting any sort of in-depth study of each and every one of the religion's scriptures.

As for what each convert believes to be the 'core tenets' of their religion, that is entirely up to them


freediver wrote on Jun 9^th, 2014 at 11:26am:

What other "main universal values" also happen to be core tenets of Islam?

.
All universal human values - because in my view islam and universal human values are one in the same. Any adherent to any religion will tell you the same - since if you think about it, for a believer to consider the idea that there exists universal human values that did not begat from their religion, is rather nonsensical.



freediver wrote on Jun 9^th, 2014 at 11:26am:

Where do these core tenets come from?

Islam. Obviously.

Just FYI, I am on the verge of deleting this little ad-hom tangent on FD...

Quote:

As for what each convert believes to be the 'core tenets' of their religion, that is entirely up to them

Is there nothing 'absolute' about the core tenets of Islam?


Quote:

All universal human values - because in my view islam and universal human values are one in the same.

Would you mind listing some more examples?


Quote:

Islam. Obviously.

Can you be a bit more precise? Where does Islam make acceptance and human rights core tenets?

"because in my view islam and universal human values are one in the same. "  ;D ;D ;D

Some screws loose there obviously. Talk about living in ignorance and denial.

Mattywisk wrote on Jun 9^th, 2014 at 4:14pm:

I always enjoy reading the pretend muslim Karnal he makes me giggle.

Ah yes, but we Muslims must pretend to be pretend Muslims, isn’t it? It is our jihad.

Google: Taqiyya.

+++

Karnal wrote on Jun 9^th, 2014 at 5:35pm:

Mattywisk wrote on Jun 9th, 2014 at 4:14pm: I always enjoy reading the pretend muslim Karnal he makes me giggle. Ah yes, but we Muslims must pretend to be pretend Muslims, isn’t it? It is our jihad. Google: Taqiyya. +++

You're just a pretend muslim just the same. I still find your posts a giggle.

freediver wrote on Jun 9^th, 2014 at 5:13pm:

Is there nothing 'absolute' about the core tenets of Islam?

:-? Of course there is. Everything about islam is absolute.


freediver wrote on Jun 9^th, 2014 at 5:13pm:

Would you mind listing some more examples?

I should clarify by "human values" I mean human moral values.

All universal human moral values come from my religion as far as I'm concerned. Obviously. For a religious person to say differently makes absolutely no sense.


freediver wrote on Jun 9^th, 2014 at 5:13pm:

Where does Islam make acceptance and human rights core tenets?

If you are talking about islamic doctrine, its far easier to ask where islam doesn't make acceptance and human rights core tenets. They are everywhere - its kinda why they are considered "core tenets"  :P

Quote:

Of course there is. Everything about islam is absolute.

Quote:

As for what each convert believes to be the 'core tenets' of their religion, that is entirely up to them

Can you clarify this contradiction?


Quote:

I should clarify by "human values" I mean human moral values.

Can you give more examples of universal values that are core tenets of Islam, other than justice, respect, acceptance and human rights? These 4 are not exactly what springs to mind when religious people start talking about moral values.


Quote:

If you are talking about islamic doctrine, its far easier to ask where islam doesn't make acceptance and human rights core tenets. They are everywhere - its kinda why they are considered "core tenets"

What human rights in particular form core tenets of Islam?

freediver wrote on Jun 9^th, 2014 at 5:55pm:

Can you clarify this contradiction?

no contradiction - islam vs what individual muslims believe to be islam.

You've made this same mistake before.


freediver wrote on Jun 9^th, 2014 at 5:55pm:

Can you give more examples of universal values that are core tenets of Islam

no need - its all of them.


freediver wrote on Jun 9^th, 2014 at 5:55pm:

These 4 are not exactly what springs to mind when religious people start talking about moral values.

nonsense. As I said, the idea that a religious person could conceive of the possibility that not all universal moral values originate from their religion is nonsensical.


freediver wrote on Jun 9^th, 2014 at 5:55pm:

What human rights in particular form core tenets of Islam?

All of them.

Are you an Imam Gandalf ?

LOL I am enjoying the tap dancing. ;D

Yes I am Matty.

Several times each day.

Or whats that? You didn't know that an imam is simply someone who leads the islamic prayer in a group of two or more?

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 9^th, 2014 at 6:42pm:

Yes I am Matty. Several times each day. Or whats that? You didn't know that an imam is simply someone who leads the islamic prayer in a group of two or more?

So you're a Sunni Muslim then.

An imam (Arabic: إمام‎ imām, plural: أئمة aʼimmah; Persian: امام‎) is an Islamic leadership position. It is most commonly in the context of a worship leader of a mosque and Muslim community by Sunni Muslims. In this context, Imams may lead Islamic worship services, serve as community leaders, and provide religious guidance. For Shi'a Muslims, the Imam has a more central meaning and role in Islam through the concept of Imamah. Imam may also be used in the form of a title for renowned Muslim scholars.

The Sunni branch of Islam does not have imams in the same sense as the Shi'a, an important distinction often overlooked by those outside of the Islamic faith. In every day terms, the imam for Sunni Muslims is the one who leads Islamic formal (Fard) prayers, even in locations besides the mosque, whenever prayers are done in a group of two or more with one person leading (imam) and the others following by copying his ritual actions of worship. Friday sermon is most often given by an appointed imam. All mosques have an imam to lead the (congregational) prayers, even though it may sometimes just be a member from the gathered congregation rather than an officially appointed salaried person. Women can not lead prayers, except amongst female-only congregations; these are often the wives of imams (see Nusi)). The person that should be chosen according to Hadith is one who has most knowledge of the Qu'ran and is of good character, the age is immaterial.[citation needed]

The term is also used for a recognized religious scholar or authority in Islam, often for the founding scholars of the four Sunni madhhabs, or schools of jurisprudence (fiqh). It may also refer to the Muslim scholars who created the analytical sciences related to Hadith or it may refer to the heads of the Prophet Muhammad's family in their generational times.[citation needed]

I take it you are Sunni muslim.

Quote:

no contradiction - islam vs what individual muslims believe to be islam.

Were Abu and Falah mistaken in what they believe to be Islam?


Quote:

no need - its all of them

Would you say that equality before the law, regardless of sex, religion or race, is a core tenet of Islam? What about tolerance of homsexuality?

Shi'a imams

Main article: Imamah (Shi'a doctrine)

In the Shi'a context, imams have a meaning more central to belief, referring to leaders of the community. Twelver and Ismaili Shi'a believe that these imams are chosen by God to be perfect examples for the faithful and to lead all humanity in all aspects of life. They also believe that all the imams chosen are free from committing any sin, impeccability which is called ismah. These leaders must be followed since they are appointed by God.

So you're a Sunni Imam Gandalf  yes ?

freediver wrote on Jun 9^th, 2014 at 6:53pm:

Were Abu and Falah mistaken in what they believe to be Islam?

I don't know much about what they believe to be islam.


freediver wrote on Jun 9^th, 2014 at 6:53pm:

Would you say that equality before the law, regardless of sex, religion or race, is a core tenet of Islam? What about tolerance of homsexuality?

Like I said - *ALL* universal moral values.

Is tolerance of hommersexuality a core tennant of any other world religion, FD?

I’m curious.

Is Imam Gandalf ashamed to say he is a Sunni muslim ?

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 9^th, 2014 at 7:16pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 9th, 2014 at 6:53pm: Were Abu and Falah mistaken in what they believe to be Islam? I don't know much about what they believe to be islam. freediver wrote on Jun 9th, 2014 at 6:53pm: Would you say that equality before the law, regardless of sex, religion or race, is a core tenet of Islam? What about tolerance of homsexuality? Like I said - *ALL* universal moral values.

Is tolerance of homosexuality a universal moral value?

Mattywisk wrote on Jun 9^th, 2014 at 7:21pm:

Is Imam Gandalf ashamed to say he is a Sunni muslim ?

Yes he is.

Like i already said - I don't believe in the concept of sects in islam.

I am a muslim - nothing more, nothing less.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 9^th, 2014 at 7:16pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 9th, 2014 at 6:53pm: Were Abu and Falah mistaken in what they believe to be Islam? I don't know much about what they believe to be islam. freediver wrote on Jun 9th, 2014 at 6:53pm: Would you say that equality before the law, regardless of sex, religion or race, is a core tenet of Islam? What about tolerance of homsexuality? Like I said - *ALL* universal moral values.

Tap dancing is turning to an tarantella so dazzling is the footwork.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 9^th, 2014 at 7:34pm:

Mattywisk wrote on Jun 9th, 2014 at 7:21pm: Is Imam Gandalf ashamed to say he is a Sunni muslim ? Yes he is. Like i already said - I don't believe in the concept of sects in islam. I am a muslim - nothing more, nothing less.

So you are a Sunni Muslim.

Now we can be specific to Sunni teachings yes.
No need to be so evasive.

Whether  you believe in the concept of sects in islam or not means squat regarding the question from a non Sunni Muslim.

You said you were an Imam because you lead prayers. That's a sunni practice as I pointed out.

So you are a Sunni muslim.

If you aren't a Sunni Muslim but you are an Imam because you lead prayers.
Where does your doctrine state that, if it is not Sunni doctrine, or do you just take a bit of what you want from here and there and call yourself a muslim Imam ?

freediver wrote on Jun 9^th, 2014 at 7:32pm:

Is tolerance of homosexuality a universal moral value?

Sure, why not?

I'd have also accepted "tolerance for personal lifestyle choices that do not adversely affect other people" - or along those lines.

Either way, islam upholds this value.

Abu also preached the "only one Islam" line. Shites of course, don't count, because they are not Muslims.

How does Islam uphold tolerance of homsexuality?

Mattywisk wrote on Jun 9^th, 2014 at 7:39pm:

Whether  you believe in the concept of sects in islam or not means squat regarding the question from a non Sunni Muslim.

By which you mean I have no control over what other people decide to label me - and you are 100% right!  :)

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 9^th, 2014 at 7:48pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 9th, 2014 at 7:32pm: Is tolerance of homosexuality a universal moral value? Sure, why not? I'd have also accepted "tolerance for personal lifestyle choices that do not adversely affect other people" - or along those lines. Either way, islam upholds this value.

That's funny because mohammed never shared that view.

Many apologists have attempted to shift the blame for this Muslim hostility towards homosexuality onto "the adoption of European Victorian attitudes by the new Westernized elite."[4]
However, this explanation falls short. Within the context of Islamic thought, this attitude originated from the Prophet Muhammad, and since he is considered by all mainstream Muslims to be the Uswa Hasana (the perfect example) we find that the majority of Muslims still consider this harsh treatment of homosexuals to be justified.

Muhammad himself had stated, “If you find anyone doing as Lot's people did, kill the one who does it, and the one to whom it is done.”[5] He even went so far as to condemn the “appearance” of homosexuality, when he cursed effeminate men and masculine women and ordered his followers to "Turn them out of your houses."[6] This ruling on homosexuals was naturally adopted by his later successors.
The father of Aisha and Muhammad’s first successor, Abu Bakr, had a homosexual burned at the stake. The fourth Rightly-Guided Caliph, Muhammad’s son-in-law Ali, ordered homosexuals to be stoned, and even had one thrown from the minaret of a mosque.[7] These actions quite obviously pre-date any sort of Western influence on Islamic thought.

According to Shaykh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid: "The spread of homosexuality has caused man diseases which neither the east nor the west can deny exist because of them. Even if the only result of this perversion was AIDS – which attacks the immune system in humans – that would be enough."[8]
Even by moderate Muslims (who are found primarily among the tiny 3% of the world's Muslims living in "more-developed regions"),[9] homosexuality is seen as something that is vile and unacceptable. For example, a Gallup survey carried out in early 2009 found that British Muslims have zero tolerance for Homosexuality. Not even a single British Muslim interviewed believed that homosexual acts were morally acceptable.[10][11] Also according to a Zogby International poll of American Muslims taken in November and December of 2001, a massive 71 percent opposed "allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally."[12] Another worrying statistic to be found among Muslims in the UK, is that although they comprise just 2% of the total British population, they commit 25% of all anti-Homosexual crimes.[13]
So, with the rise of Islam in the UK and the rest of the world, we also see the inadvertent return to the morality of seventh-century Arabia, with Muslim gangs on the streets of England carrying out violent attacks on gays[14] and mosques labeled as “moderate” calling for the murder of homosexuals at the hands of their congregation.[15]

If we look to secular Indonesia, we see that due to pressure from the growing conservative Islamic communities, some local authorities have now been given the right to use Islamic laws, which have successfully criminalized homosexuality.[16] Also in Hindu-majority India, attempts to move forward and decriminalize homosexuality are being hindered by Islamic clerics claiming "Homosexuality is an offence under Sharia Law and haram (prohibited) in Islam," and that "Legalisation of homosexuality is an attack on Indian religious and moral values," a statement not to be taken lightly, when coming from religious leaders of Islam.[17]


http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Islam_and_Homosexuality


Maybe you aren't Muslim after all Imam Gandalf.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 9^th, 2014 at 7:51pm:

Mattywisk wrote on Jun 9th, 2014 at 7:39pm: Whether  you believe in the concept of sects in islam or not means squat regarding the question from a non Sunni Muslim. By which you mean I have no control over what other people decide to label me - and you are 100% right!  :)

No I don't mean that at all. Your opinion means squat if you are calling yourself a muslim. Unless you are making it up for yourself. That's what that means.

Since you adamant you are actually a muslim imam is there not a doctrine that says you are an Imam because you hold prayers because if not then you are a liar or a pretend muslim imam.

Mattywisk wrote on Jun 9^th, 2014 at 7:45pm:

If you aren't a Sunni Muslim but you are an Imam because you lead prayers. Where does your doctrine state that, if it is not Sunni doctrine, or do you just take a bit of what you want from here and there and call yourself a muslim Imam ?

Gee matty, so I believe some things that muslims calling themselves "sunni" also believe. Must be a sunni then right?

But hang on, I also believe some things that muslims calling themselves "shiite" also believe. So I'm a shiite as well?  :-/

For all I know there is another group called "muslims from mars" - who also believe an imam to be a leader of prayer. So I guess I'm a muslim from mars too right matty?

Very confusing all this categorising.

Lucky I have you here to tell me what sect I belong to.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 9^th, 2014 at 7:59pm:

Mattywisk wrote on Jun 9th, 2014 at 7:45pm: If you aren't a Sunni Muslim but you are an Imam because you lead prayers. Where does your doctrine state that, if it is not Sunni doctrine, or do you just take a bit of what you want from here and there and call yourself a muslim Imam ? Gee matty, so I believe some things that muslims calling themselves "sunni" also believe. Must be a sunni then right? But hang on, I also believe some things that muslims calling themselves "shiite" also believe. So I'm a shiite as well?  :-/ For all I know there is another group called "muslims from mars" - who also believe an imam to be a leader of prayer. So I guess I'm a muslim from mars too right matty? Very confusing all this categorising. Lucky I have you here to tell me what sect I belong to.

Not all all. It now is clear you are just making up your brand of muslimhood as you go under waving a muslim flag. Draw a bit from here "he asked if I was an imam now what suits me to win this post" and a bit from there. Whether you like it or not you have your own beliefs that you make up or invent as you go and you call yourself a muslim. You may attend a mosque but you have no core doctrine except what suits you.

You make up your muslim doctrine as you go. I wonder who teaches you Islam at all.

I think it is misleading that you call yourself an Imam in front of the general public with that basis for your doctrine. Anyone can call themselves a muslim using your analogy. Why fly the muslim banner at all then.

so I'm not a sunni after all?

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 9^th, 2014 at 8:38pm:

so I'm not a sunni after all?

No you are not a sunni muslim after all, it is clear you call yourself muslim and make it up as you go, as you yourself stated. I would question the Imam thing unless you declared yourself one according to your own religious doctrine. Rather than sunnie maybe shady muslim   ;) would fit the name of your religion perhaps.  ;D

Hey I don't hate you man, if I wanted to call myself a muslim I'd use that avatar too. I just wanted to clarify how people should look upon your doctrine. Now we know.

At least everyone knows where you stand now.   ;)

freediver wrote on Jun 9^th, 2014 at 7:32pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 9th, 2014 at 7:16pm: freediver wrote on Jun 9th, 2014 at 6:53pm: Were Abu and Falah mistaken in what they believe to be Islam? I don't know much about what they believe to be islam. freediver wrote on Jun 9th, 2014 at 6:53pm: Would you say that equality before the law, regardless of sex, religion or race, is a core tenet of Islam? What about tolerance of homsexuality? Like I said - *ALL* universal moral values. Is tolerance of homosexuality a universal moral value?

Can you name one (1) world religion that tolerates hommersexuality, FD?

Don’t evade the question, please.

Karnal wrote on Jun 9^th, 2014 at 8:52pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 9th, 2014 at 7:32pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 9th, 2014 at 7:16pm: freediver wrote on Jun 9th, 2014 at 6:53pm: Were Abu and Falah mistaken in what they believe to be Islam? I don't know much about what they believe to be islam. freediver wrote on Jun 9th, 2014 at 6:53pm: Would you say that equality before the law, regardless of sex, religion or race, is a core tenet of Islam? What about tolerance of homsexuality? Like I said - *ALL* universal moral values. Is tolerance of homosexuality a universal moral value? Can you name one (1) world religion that tolerates hommersexuality, FD? Don’t evade the question, please.

Islam, apparently.

I’m writing you up for evasion for that.

That makes you no better than the Muselman, you know.

Google: Taqiyya.

Quote:

Muhammad himself had stated, “If you find anyone doing as Lot's people did, kill the one who does it, and the one to whom it is done.”[5] He even went so far as to condemn the “appearance” of homosexuality, when he cursed effeminate men and masculine women and ordered his followers to "Turn them out of your houses."[6] This ruling on homosexuals was naturally adopted by his later successors. The father of Aisha and Muhammad’s first successor, Abu Bakr, had a homosexual burned at the stake. The fourth Rightly-Guided Caliph, Muhammad’s son-in-law Ali, ordered homosexuals to be stoned, and even had one thrown from the minaret of a mosque.[7] These actions quite obviously pre-date any sort of Western influence on Islamic thought.

Gandalf was Muhammed also mistaken about the true nature of Islam?

How tolerant of homosexuality are you? Would you describe yourself as a "gay pride Muslim"?

It’s possible, FD - a bit like how Y and the old boy always become hommersexual activists when discussing Islam.

You?

I'm a live and let live kind of person. Possibly a live and let live kind of Muslim. Wally still hasn't gotten back to me. What do you think Gandalf? Am I a Muslim too? I like long walks on the beach and I'm not into gay-bashing.

Mattywisk wrote on Jun 9^th, 2014 at 8:10pm:

I think it is misleading that you call yourself an Imam in front of the general public

Matty, are you a wisk?

I demand to know. *WE*, the general public have a right to know. If you are not then how dare you mislead us like that??

Same-sex sexual intercourse is legal in five Muslim-majority nations (Albania, Turkey, Bahrain, Jordan, and Mali). In Albania there have been discussions about legalizing same-sex marriage. Homosexual relations between females is legal in Kuwait (but homosexual acts between males are illegal). Lebanon has had recent internal efforts to legalize homosexuality.

Islam may become the religion of choice for homosexuals yet.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 9^th, 2014 at 9:22pm:

Mattywisk wrote on Jun 9th, 2014 at 8:10pm: I think it is misleading that you call yourself an Imam in front of the general public Matty, are you a wisk? I demand to know. *WE*, the general public have a right to know. If you are not then how dare you mislead us like that??

What are you babbling an about ?

Mattywisk wrote on Jun 9^th, 2014 at 9:23pm:

Same-sex sexual intercourse is legal in five Muslim-majority nations (Albania, Turkey, Bahrain, Jordan, and Mali).

All you have to do now is decide which one of those countries you want to live in.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Bon voyage, matty.

freediver wrote on Jun 9^th, 2014 at 9:20pm:

I'm a live and let live kind of person.

I see. Have you gone back to being the 2007 FD?

The 2014 FD couldn’t possibly say that. It goes against everything his religion espouses.

freediver wrote on Jun 9^th, 2014 at 9:08pm:

Muhammad himself had stated, “If you find anyone doing as Lot's people did, kill the one who does it, and the one to whom it is done.”[5] He even went so far as to condemn the “appearance” of homosexuality, when he cursed effeminate men and masculine women and ordered his followers to "Turn them out of your houses."[6] This ruling on homosexuals was naturally adopted by his later successors.

1. Lot is an interesting one. Islamic LGBT activist argue that the real sins of Lot's people was not the act of sodomy itself. Lets take just one description taken from a wiki article to examine this point:

The people of Sodom and Gomorrah, the twin cities which Lot was sent to with God's message, transgressed consciously against the bounds of God. Their avarice led to inhospitality and robbery, which in turn led to the humiliation of strangers by mistreatment and rape. It was their abominable sin of homosexuality which was seen as symptomatic of their attitudes

Taking away, of course, the part about "It was their abominable sin of homosexuality..." - and it can be seen how these activists make their case. The people of Lot "consciously transgressed" their religion, which led to a general display of immorality: inhospitality, robbery, rape etc. It is in this context, and *ONLY* this context that the act of sodomy is condemned - not, so the argument goes, the act of sodomy per se - where it can presumably be performed by righteous, God-fearing people in a proper, loving relationship (ie not lust).

2. The second point in your quote refers to men acting effeminately, and women acting masculine - which has nothing to do with homosexuality. The author is completely wrong to label this as the "appearance of homosexuality".

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 9^th, 2014 at 9:57pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 9th, 2014 at 9:08pm: Muhammad himself had stated, “If you find anyone doing as Lot's people did, kill the one who does it, and the one to whom it is done.”[5] He even went so far as to condemn the “appearance” of homosexuality, when he cursed effeminate men and masculine women and ordered his followers to "Turn them out of your houses."[6] This ruling on homosexuals was naturally adopted by his later successors. 1. Lot is an interesting one. Islamic LGBT activist argue that the real sins of Lot's people was not the act of sodomy itself. Lets take just one description taken from a wiki article to examine this point: The people of Sodom and Gomorrah, the twin cities which Lot was sent to with God's message, transgressed consciously against the bounds of God. Their avarice led to inhospitality and robbery, which in turn led to the humiliation of strangers by mistreatment and rape. It was their abominable sin of homosexuality which was seen as symptomatic of their attitudes Taking away, of course, the part about "It was their abominable sin of homosexuality..." - and it can be seen how these activists make their case. The people of Lot "consciously transgressed" their religion, which led to a general display of immorality: inhospitality, robbery, rape etc. It is in this context, and *ONLY* this context that the act of sodomy is condemned - not, so the argument goes, the act of sodomy per se - where it can presumably be performed by righteous, God-fearing people in a proper, loving relationship (ie not lust). 2. The second point in your quote refers to men acting effeminately, and women acting masculine - which has nothing to do with homosexuality. The author is completely wrong to label this as the "appearance of homosexuality".

"So the argument goes, the act of sodomy per se - where it can presumably be performed by righteous, God-fearing people in a proper, loving relationship (ie not lust)."

Talk about a long stretch of a presumption  ;D ;D ;D

That's bloody hilarious I reckon any local mosque would stone you for that one, all sects  ;D ;D
My goodness that's how the gay muslims get around it  ;D ;D

That's pure Gold :D :D :D

I think we need to think a name up for your particular strand if Islam Gandalf since you agreed that you make it up as you go.

Cant use Shiite or Sunni, maybe Shady or OTF (On The Fly) Islam perhaps ?  ;D

Sodomislam  ;D

Mattywisk wrote on Jun 9^th, 2014 at 10:26pm:

Sodomislam  ;D

stone him !

just jokes !

forgiven - : ) =

namaste

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 9^th, 2014 at 9:57pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 9th, 2014 at 9:08pm: Muhammad himself had stated, “If you find anyone doing as Lot's people did, kill the one who does it, and the one to whom it is done.”[5] He even went so far as to condemn the “appearance” of homosexuality, when he cursed effeminate men and masculine women and ordered his followers to "Turn them out of your houses."[6] This ruling on homosexuals was naturally adopted by his later successors. 1. Lot is an interesting one. Islamic LGBT activist argue that the real sins of Lot's people was not the act of sodomy itself. Lets take just one description taken from a wiki article to examine this point: The people of Sodom and Gomorrah, the twin cities which Lot was sent to with God's message, transgressed consciously against the bounds of God. Their avarice led to inhospitality and robbery, which in turn led to the humiliation of strangers by mistreatment and rape. It was their abominable sin of homosexuality which was seen as symptomatic of their attitudes Taking away, of course, the part about "It was their abominable sin of homosexuality..." - and it can be seen how these activists make their case. The people of Lot "consciously transgressed" their religion, which led to a general display of immorality: inhospitality, robbery, rape etc. It is in this context, and *ONLY* this context that the act of sodomy is condemned - not, so the argument goes, the act of sodomy per se - where it can presumably be performed by righteous, God-fearing people in a proper, loving relationship (ie not lust). 2. The second point in your quote refers to men acting effeminately, and women acting masculine - which has nothing to do with homosexuality. The author is completely wrong to label this as the "appearance of homosexuality".

So what do you think Muhammed meant by "the one who does it, and the one to whom it is done."

I'm not sure FD.

Would you like me to draw you a picture?

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 10^th, 2014 at 12:44pm:

I'm not sure FD.

  ::) ::)

Wilful ignorance is a common currency it seems amongst the dissemblers and apologists.

I thought it was tapdancing datalife

freediver wrote on Jun 10^th, 2014 at 12:46pm:

Would you like me to draw you a picture?

Yes, please.

Anyway...

One would imagine that if it was a specific order against sodomy itself, The Prophet would have said something like "If you find anyone committing sodomy..." rather than the slightly more cryptic "if you find anyone doing as Lot's people did..."

What we do know is that the sins of Lot's people was not sodomy per se - but the whole gamut of base, criminal behaviour that come with a complete moral breakdown - robbery, rape, murder etc, of which sodomy in that context came to symbolise.

By the description, Muhammad is clearly talking about an act of sodomy, but is it necessarily any act of sodomy? In my view, the case has not been conclusively made.

Quote:

One would imagine that if it was a specific order against sodomy itself, The Prophet would have said something like "If you find anyone committing sodomy..." rather than the slightly more cryptic "if you find anyone doing as Lot's people did..."

...kill the one who does it, and the one to whom it is done.

::)


Quote:

What we do know is that the sins of Lot's people was not sodomy per se - but the whole gamut of base, criminal behaviour that come with a complete moral breakdown - robbery, rape, murder etc, of which sodomy in that context came to symbolise.

How do we know that?


Quote:

By the description, Muhammad is clearly talking about an act of sodomy, but is it necessarily any act of sodomy?

What distinction are you trying to make here Gandalf?

FD he's obviously talking about sodomy.

But the argument has been made (not by me) that he is only talking about sodomy that is borne out of lust and debauchery - not from genuine love and commitment.

You've got to admit there is a legitimate question about why he refers to it as "anyone doing as Lot's people did" as opposed to simply saying "anyone who commits sodomy"

Also, the quranic verses referring to Lot's people only refers to sodomy in the context of lust, no mention of sodomy in the context of genuine love and devotion.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 10^th, 2014 at 7:40pm:

FD he's obviously talking about sodomy. But the argument has been made (not by me) that he is only talking about sodomy that is borne out of lust and debauchery - not from genuine love and commitment. You've got to admit there is a legitimate question about why he refers to it as "anyone doing as Lot's people did" as opposed to simply saying "anyone who commits sodomy" Also, the quranic verses referring to Lot's people only refers to sodomy in the context of lust, no mention of sodomy in the context of genuine love and devotion.

That degree of sophistry is worthy of Yadda when defending ridiculous aspects of his sky pixie beliefs.

And as laughable.  Tis a joy to watch you at work. 

Quote:

But the argument has been made (not by me) that he is only talking about sodomy that is borne out of lust and debauchery - not from genuine love and commitment.

Why are you disowning this argument?


Quote:

You've got to admit there is a legitimate question about why he refers to it as "anyone doing as Lot's people did" as opposed to simply saying "anyone who commits sodomy"

No I don't.


Quote:

Also, the quranic verses referring to Lot's people only refers to sodomy in the context of lust, no mention of sodomy in the context of genuine love and devotion.

Duh. I bet the Koran also doesn't talk about Muhammed engaging in Sodomy with his one true love.

Datalife your contribution on this forum is simply awe-inspiring.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 10^th, 2014 at 7:40pm:

FD he's obviously talking about sodomy. But the argument has been made (not by me) that he is only talking about sodomy that is borne out of lust and debauchery - not from genuine love and commitment. You've got to admit there is a legitimate question about why he refers to it as "anyone doing as Lot's people did" as opposed to simply saying "anyone who commits sodomy" Also, the quranic verses referring to Lot's people only refers to sodomy in the context of lust, no mention of sodomy in the context of genuine love and devotion.

It is interesting Gandslam has sodomy born out of love and commitment. Allah (if you call him that in Gandslam) must be delighted.  The world needs a Homosexual Religion its much over due.

The old boy and I prefer sodomy borne out of hate. But that’s just us.

Gud is great. It is a jolly world, no?

So basically you kill gay people (both the giver and the taker), but only if they are also inhospitable?

I wonder how many gay pride parades they had in Muhammed's time?

Gandalf is there some kind of book or school of thought that guides your interpretation of Islam?

What’s wrong with Abu’s posts, FD?

Abu's posts made sense (eventually). Gandalf's don't. But they are very creative. I'd like to know where he gets all this from.

Have you tried talking to Muslims themselves?

If they refer you to a book, they might expect you to read it.

We wouldn’t want to set that sort of precedent here, FD. People could read up on all sorts of things.

Who knows where this could lead?

freediver wrote on Jun 10^th, 2014 at 7:59pm:

Duh. I bet the Koran also doesn't talk about Muhammed engaging in Sodomy with his one true love.

You could argue that the Quran would only ever describe sodomy in negative terms - fair enough.

Its just a point of view though, equally as valid as saying that the Quran deliberately makes a distinction between "acceptable" and "unacceptable" types of sodomy.

And thats the point isn't it? Its just interpretations. No one is going to "prove" that one interpretation is the correct one, as a scientist could prove something about science. How constructive is it for islamic critics to doggedly persist with the "definitely - the extremists have the correct version of islam" line? You could take the Yadda approach and insist their is no hope for the world until islam is completely eradicated - or you could accept the reality, that 20%+ of the world is muslim, it is growing, and we (as in everyone, muslim and non-muslim), will always have to live with and deal with them. I think its incumbent upon everyone - muslims as well as non-muslims - to help give oxygen to the idea that islamic doctrine is adaptable and can be compatible with a modern day society, and to encourage that adaptation. Not militantly demanding that it cannot - and should not be allowed to flourish.

So you can laugh at attempts such as mine to promote a more inclusive and accepting version of islam, Yadda can sweep it all aside with his beheading placards and ahadeeth quotes, and datalife will blunder in every month or so with his tapdancing routine, but know that it is only serving to aid the bigots on both sides who are determined to snuff out any chance of an inclusive and tolerant islam - true islam IMO, becoming dominant.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 11^th, 2014 at 11:43am:

freediver wrote on Jun 10th, 2014 at 7:59pm: Duh. I bet the Koran also doesn't talk about Muhammed engaging in Sodomy with his one true love. You could argue that the Quran would only ever describe sodomy in negative terms - fair enough. Its just a point of view though, equally as valid as saying that the Quran deliberately makes a distinction between "acceptable" and "unacceptable" types of sodomy. And thats the point isn't it? Its just interpretations. No one is going to "prove" that one interpretation is the correct one, as a scientist could prove something about science. How constructive is it for islamic critics to doggedly persist with the "definitely - the extremists have the correct version of islam" line? You could take the Yadda approach and insist their is no hope for the world until islam is completely eradicated - or you could accept the reality, that 20%+ of the world is muslim, it is growing, and we (as in everyone, muslim and non-muslim), will always have to live with and deal with them. I think its incumbent upon everyone - muslims as well as non-muslims - to help give oxygen to the idea that islamic doctrine is adaptable and can be compatible with a modern day society, and to encourage that adaptation. Not militantly demanding that it cannot - and should not be allowed to flourish. So you can laugh at attempts such as mine to promote a more inclusive and accepting version of islam, Yadda can sweep it all aside with his beheading placards and ahadeeth quotes, and datalife will blunder in every month or so with his tapdancing routine, but know that it is only serving to aid the bigots on both sides who are determined to snuff out any chance of an inclusive and tolerant islam - true islam IMO, becoming dominant.

Ah yes, but who wants an inclusive and tolerant Islam? That's not much fun.

We want a brutal and militant Islam as a relentless and constant threat to Our Way Of Life.

Much better.

As the old boy asserts, Islam is the enemy, Islam has always been the enemy, it's very purpose is to be the enemy.

Always, absolutely, never ever.

Most existential, no?

Gud is great.

Karnal wrote on Jun 11^th, 2014 at 12:14pm:

Ah yes, but we do not want an inclusive and tolerant Islam, isn't it. We want a brutal and militant Islam as a relentless and constant threat to Our Way Of Life.

Exactly. We need an "other".

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 11^th, 2014 at 11:43am:

freediver wrote on Jun 10th, 2014 at 7:59pm: Duh. I bet the Koran also doesn't talk about Muhammed engaging in Sodomy with his one true love. You could argue that the Quran would only ever describe sodomy in negative terms - fair enough. Its just a point of view though, equally as valid as saying that the Quran deliberately makes a distinction between "acceptable" and "unacceptable" types of sodomy. And thats the point isn't it? Its just interpretations. No one is going to "prove" that one interpretation is the correct one, as a scientist could prove something about science. How constructive is it for islamic critics to doggedly persist with the "definitely - the extremists have the correct version of islam" line? You could take the Yadda approach and insist their is no hope for the world until islam is completely eradicated - or you could accept the reality, that 20%+ of the world is muslim, it is growing, and we (as in everyone, muslim and non-muslim), will always have to live with and deal with them. I think its incumbent upon everyone - muslims as well as non-muslims - to help give oxygen to the idea that islamic doctrine is adaptable and can be compatible with a modern day society, and to encourage that adaptation. Not militantly demanding that it cannot - and should not be allowed to flourish. So you can laugh at attempts such as mine to promote a more inclusive and accepting version of islam, Yadda can sweep it all aside with his beheading placards and ahadeeth quotes, and datalife will blunder in every month or so with his tapdancing routine, but know that it is only serving to aid the bigots on both sides who are determined to snuff out any chance of an inclusive and tolerant islam - true islam IMO, becoming dominant.

Quote:

........... the Yadda approach and insist their is no hope for the world until islam is completely eradicated ......

or 


Quote:

......... islam IMO, becoming dominant.....

and that is islams goal. To be dominant. for everyone to submit to islam.

I would rather it be exterminated.

I meant dominant as in the dominant version within the muslim world.

Please don't quote me out of context.  :)

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 11^th, 2014 at 12:18pm:

Karnal wrote on Jun 11th, 2014 at 12:14pm: Ah yes, but we do not want an inclusive and tolerant Islam, isn't it. We want a brutal and militant Islam as a relentless and constant threat to Our Way Of Life. Exactly. We need an "other".

Herbie's UK Daily Mail would be lost without one.

Just as we would be lost without Herbie's daily UK Daily Mail panic attacks.

The knuckleheads are smart. They know the purpose of the "threat" is to maintain the threat itself. Herbie has even argued to bring back the death penalty for Muslim drug smugglers so that we can justify the existence of the death penalty.

The threat is not drug smuggling or crime or anything specific. When shown that drug smuggling is at a historic low, or that targeting supply-chains are a more effective way of erradicating drugs, Herbie argues for the death penalty as a way of culling Muslims.

Arguing that such laws could "cull" more non-Muslims than Muslims is pointless. In the US, the hightened security laws following Sept 11, along with the establishment of an entire department of Homeland Security, has been used against more non-Muslims than anyone else. Homeland Security is now just a way to monitor people's phone calls and internet use without a court order.

Citizens will only support such surveillance with a hightened threat. To create such a solution (the death penalty, state surveillance, etc.), you need a problem. Other ways of dealing with the "problem" are not discussed, or considered irrelevant given the risks posed.

The reintroduction of torture by the US was justified with the ticking timebomb scenario. This scenario has been posed in countless movies and TV shows in the last decade. There is no evidence, however, of lives being saved using information gathered through torture. The US military will neither confirm or deny this. The reintroduction of torture was the end-game, not the detonation of any time bombs.

And this is the point. State-sanctioned death, surveillance, torture, and even the illegal invasion of sovereign states, are ends in themselves. To justify our implimentation of these ends, we need a relentless and never-ending threat. Always, absolutely, never ever.

Y's solution speaks volumes - not only does Y argue that we should ban all Muslims, or anyone who identifies as a Muslim, the ones who insist on following their religion should be detained "in the desert for decades". To justify banning religions, imposing religious descrimination and the indefinite incarceration of religious groups (and overturning the Constitution without a parliamentary vote), Y posts his 1200 year old religious quotes and 2003 photos of legal Muslim protests.

As the old boy asserts; it's correlation not causation. For the old boy, the Muslims are simply embematic of a general "tinted" problem, a problem of "values" propagated by the tinted races that they should have the same rights as whites, when they are, by every measure imposed by the old boy, qualitatively inferior. For the old boy, the problem is the theme of post-colonialism and the reaction of the tinted races to white hegemony over the past two centuries; an issue that merely correlates with a majority of tinted and white-skinned people on either side. For the old boy, the threat is the billions of tinted people at risk of being captivated by "ideologies" like Islam and joining to form a "global caliphate" against the West.

However, even the old boy is aware that this is no threat at all. The "threat" is just something you allude to when you're proposing the solution; erradicating the tinted races, for example, by invading their countries and banning them from settling in Australia.

The underlying theme to all these arguments is the belief that the West has gone soft and needs to toughen up. Reinstate the death penalty, remove laws against vilification and descrimination, reinstate the White Australia Policy, impose zero limits on detention without trial, and on the international front, a foreign policy of zero tolerance - invade first and ask questions later, cut ties with neighbours such as Indonesia, withdraw from all international forums and organization such as the UN.

This is why we need a threat. The threat in itself is amorphous. It can be no threat at all. But without it, there would be no justification for the argument that we should return to the Dark Ages.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 11^th, 2014 at 1:00pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 11th, 2014 at 11:43am: freediver wrote on Jun 10th, 2014 at 7:59pm: Duh. I bet the Koran also doesn't talk about Muhammed engaging in Sodomy with his one true love. You could argue that the Quran would only ever describe sodomy in negative terms - fair enough. Its just a point of view though, equally as valid as saying that the Quran deliberately makes a distinction between "acceptable" and "unacceptable" types of sodomy. And thats the point isn't it? Its just interpretations. No one is going to "prove" that one interpretation is the correct one, as a scientist could prove something about science. How constructive is it for islamic critics to doggedly persist with the "definitely - the extremists have the correct version of islam" line? You could take the Yadda approach and insist their is no hope for the world until islam is completely eradicated - or you could accept the reality, that 20%+ of the world is muslim, it is growing, and we (as in everyone, muslim and non-muslim), will always have to live with and deal with them. I think its incumbent upon everyone - muslims as well as non-muslims - to help give oxygen to the idea that islamic doctrine is adaptable and can be compatible with a modern day society, and to encourage that adaptation. Not militantly demanding that it cannot - and should not be allowed to flourish. So you can laugh at attempts such as mine to promote a more inclusive and accepting version of islam, Yadda can sweep it all aside with his beheading placards and ahadeeth quotes, and datalife will blunder in every month or so with his tapdancing routine, but know that it is only serving to aid the bigots on both sides who are determined to snuff out any chance of an inclusive and tolerant islam - true islam IMO, becoming dominant. Quote: ........... the Yadda approach and insist their is no hope for the world until islam is completely eradicated ...... or  [quote]......... islam IMO, becoming dominant.....

and that is islams goal. To be dominant. for everyone to submit to islam.

I would rather it be exterminated. [/quote]

You see?

Quote:

Have you tried talking to Muslims themselves?

I am talking to Gandalf right now.


Quote:

Its just a point of view though, equally as valid as saying that the Quran deliberately makes a distinction between "acceptable" and "unacceptable" types of sodomy.

One point of view takes what is written at face value. The other is complete BS.


Quote:

And thats the point isn't it? Its just interpretations.

Not every point of view is equally valid. Some make sense. Some are stupid.


Quote:

How constructive is it for islamic critics to doggedly persist with the "definitely - the extremists have the correct version of islam" line?

If you could demonstrate that the majority of Muslims interpret Muhammed's command to execute homosexuals as a statement of gay pride, you might have a point. You don't. There is a limit to how much you can re-interpret what is written. You are way beyond that limit. It really makes me wonder why you even bother. You are either setting out to decieve yourself about Islam, or setting out to deceive others about Islam. Either way, you cannot reasonably expect others to share your delusions.

You claim to be promoting this more inclusive version of Islam among Muslims, which may well be a worthy goal, if a little naive, but all I see is you falsely misrepresenting it to non-Muslims as mainstream Islam.

In fact, despite your ideological differences with Abu, you are actually doing pretty much the same thing. Both you and he try to paint Islam as being compatible with and similar to western values. The only difference being that he did it by misrepresenting western values, whereas you do it by misrepresenting Islamic values.

You asked before what my recently acquired "agenda" is. It is to call BS on all this BS.


Quote:

So you can laugh at attempts such as mine to promote a more inclusive and accepting version of islam

My response leans more towards bewilderment. You are hardly promoting it. It has taken a year or so to get you to admit what it is.


Quote:

The knuckleheads are smart.

LOL

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 11^th, 2014 at 1:14pm:

I meant dominant as in the dominant version within the muslim world. Please don't quote me out of context.  :)

ah. I assumed you meant it as moh said "make islam the domiant religion of all." Given it is a political armed force, he meant to overrun to world.

if you did not mean iit as moh said, what did you mean?

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 11^th, 2014 at 3:56pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 11th, 2014 at 1:14pm: I meant dominant as in the dominant version within the muslim world. Please don't quote me out of context.  :) ah. I assumed you meant it as moh said "make islam the domiant religion of all." Given it is a political armed force, he meant to overrun to world.

Do you mean like Freeedom?

Amerika is the biggest armed force in the world right now.

Until the caliphate, that is.

freediver wrote on Jun 11^th, 2014 at 3:56pm:

If you could demonstrate that the majority of Muslims interpret Muhammed's command to execute homosexuals as a statement of gay pride, you might have a point.

Now FD, where did I ever say anything about this being about a majority islamic views?

I fully acknowledge I am in the minority here, and thats precisely the point: the 'Allahu Akhbar' extremists are frothing at the mouth desperate to string up the gays, 'mainstream' islam is largely silent because they believe deep down that they shouldn't really be defending the gays, and the non-muslims are basically looking on in bewilderment, and not unjustifiably thinking "gee these muslims sure hate homosexuality!"

To me thats a problem, and I see it as my duty to present an alternative view - for the benefit of both muslims and non-muslims.


freediver wrote on Jun 11^th, 2014 at 3:56pm:

You are either setting out to decieve yourself about Islam, or setting out to deceive others about Islam. Either way, you cannot reasonably expect others to share your delusions.

And what is "Islam" about? In the end it come down to ancient texts from the medieval world that need to be interpreted for our contemporary world.

You talk about deceiving yourself about Islam - yet 'mainstream' islam does it all the time. You express bewilderment at my interpretation of islamic views on sodomy, yet 'mainstream' islam's take on say the hijab has every bit the tenuous grounding in islamic doctrine as you claim my views on sodomy does. You really do have to jump through hoops and imagine things that are simply not there - to conclude that the Quran commands women to wear the hijab. And yet it is as entrenched a view by mainstream muslims as any. And there are so many others - even ones where significant numbers of muslims - if not a majority - will accept islamic law to be something that is specifically contradicted in the Quran! And thats no exaggeration.

So I ask, if mainstream muslims allow themselves to be fooled by so called "scholars" who take the longest stretch you can imagine in their interpretation of islamic texts to propogate their misogyny and intolerance and call it "islamic law" - I reckon its fair enough to take the same sort of liberties with things like homosexuality. Thats a crude way of putting it, but I hope you get my point.

Quote:

And what is "Islam" about?

Muhammed - what he did and what he said. This places fundamental limitations on your efforts to reinterpret it.


Quote:

You express bewilderment at my interpretation of islamic views on sodomy, yet 'mainstream' islam's take on say the hijab has every bit the tenuous grounding in islamic doctrine as you claim my views on sodomy does. You really do have to jump through hoops and imagine things that are simply not there - to conclude that the Quran commands women to wear the hijab.

I keep forgetting which one it is. Abu often pointed out that women do not have to wear the letterbox outfit.


Quote:

So I ask, if mainstream muslims allow themselves to be fooled by so called "scholars" who take the longest stretch you can imagine in their interpretation of islamic texts to propogate their misogyny and intolerance and call it "islamic law" - I reckon its fair enough to take the same sort of liberties with things like homosexuality. Thats a crude way of putting it, but I hope you get my point.

Maybe that's fair enough, but I'm not going to take you seriously when you accuse other Muslims of misinterpreting Islam. I also don't think you could come up with anything as extreme as interpreting Muhammed's order to execute homosexuals as a pro-gay statement. I doubt any of those Muslims willfully "take liberties" with Islamic doctrine. Most conservative religious people are that way because they try to interpret the religion as literally as possible. They might be amenable if you counter falsehoods about Islam with the truth about Islam, but they will just get hostile if you try to counter it with absurd lies. I'm not sure who you are trying to fool here, but you aren't going to fool anyone. You don't even seem to have convinced yourself.

FD, do you think Y’s version of Christian ethics is the "correct" one?

I’m curious.

Not sure. I haven't been paying that much attention. I expect it would be a bit more complicated given the different focus of the old and new testament.

freediver wrote on Jun 11^th, 2014 at 5:11pm:

I'm not sure who you are trying to fool here, but you aren't going to fool anyone. You don't even seem to have convinced yourself.

But the dazzling footwork has been a joy to behold.

freediver wrote on Jun 11^th, 2014 at 6:08pm:

Not sure. I haven't been paying that much attention. I expect it would be a bit more complicated given the different focus of the old and new testament.

Are you saying you have a better understanding of Islam than Christianity?

If Karnal the pretend muslim is the best Gandalf of Gandslam has I don't hold much confidence in Gandslam taking off.

Karnal wrote on Jun 11^th, 2014 at 7:32pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 11th, 2014 at 6:08pm: Not sure. I haven't been paying that much attention. I expect it would be a bit more complicated given the different focus of the old and new testament. Are you saying you have a better understanding of Islam than Christianity?

I haven't been paying that much attention to Yadda.

freediver wrote on Jun 11^th, 2014 at 7:49pm:

Karnal wrote on Jun 11th, 2014 at 7:32pm: freediver wrote on Jun 11th, 2014 at 6:08pm: Not sure. I haven't been paying that much attention. I expect it would be a bit more complicated given the different focus of the old and new testament. Are you saying you have a better understanding of Islam than Christianity? I haven't been paying that much attention to Yadda.

Good idea, FD. We wouldn’t want to jump to conclusions about anyone’s religious beliefs here. Let’s give Y the benefit of the doubt.

What about Sprint? He moderates the Spirituality forum. Does Sprint espouse the right version of Christian ethics?

Both seem pretty "old testament" to me. Feel free to interrogate them if you want. To me they seem quite open about their views.

No interrogations here, FD. We believe in Freedom.

I’m not asking you about their beliefs - I’m trying to uncover the correct version of Christianity.

What about the old boy? He’s a cheese-eating Freudian Lutheran.

It sounds frightful, I know. But is it the right version?

If you are really interested, perhaps you should start a new thread.

You don’t want to answer?

Why not?

I thought you were interested in "core tenets".

Please excuse me for anticipating your reply, FD, but a strange thought just passed my mind.

Here you are lauding Abu for being a decent, right-thinking Muslim while accusing G for telling fibs.

But you don’t want to judge individual Christians for their beliefs or discuss what they believe.

Despite the daily Bible quotes, it’s never even crossed your mind.

Would you care to explain this discrepancy  in "core tenets"?

Karnal wrote on Jun 11^th, 2014 at 9:55pm:

Please excuse me for anticipating your reply, FD, but a strange thought just passed my mind. Here you are lauding Abu for being a decent, right-thinking Muslim while accusing G for telling fibs. But you don’t want to judge individual Christians for their beliefs or discuss what they believe. Despite the daily Bible quotes, it’s never even crossed your mind. Would you care to explain this discrepancy  in "core tenets"?

What do you like about Islam, PB? What has it given you that made you a better PB; made your life and the the lives of others around you better?


I can't think of a single thing that would recommends it ahead of all the alternatives but you seem to be always on the lookout to defend it? So what is Islamic sunshine in your life, PB?  Can't be just the camel piss, shurely.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 8^th, 2014 at 11:49pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 8th, 2014 at 10:02pm: You are being an evasive Muslim Gandalf. I don't even know what I'm supposed to be evading.

Whaddayagot?

Soren wrote on Jun 11^th, 2014 at 10:58pm:

Karnal wrote on Jun 11th, 2014 at 9:55pm: Please excuse me for anticipating your reply, FD, but a strange thought just passed my mind. Here you are lauding Abu for being a decent, right-thinking Muslim while accusing G for telling fibs. But you don’t want to judge individual Christians for their beliefs or discuss what they believe. Despite the daily Bible quotes, it’s never even crossed your mind. Would you care to explain this discrepancy  in "core tenets"? What do you like about Islam, PB? What has it given you that made you a better PB; made your life and the the lives of others around you better? I can't think of a single thing that would recommends it ahead of all the alternatives but you seem to be always on the lookout to defend it? So what is Islamic sunshine in your life, PB?  Can't be just the camel piss, shurely.

As a Christian, dear boy, what do you get from Christianity?

Oh, that’s right - you’re an atheist.

Is this the correct version of Christianity, FD?

Karnal wrote on Jun 11^th, 2014 at 9:55pm:

Please excuse me for anticipating your reply, FD, but a strange thought just passed my mind. Here you are lauding Abu for being a decent, right-thinking Muslim while accusing G for telling fibs. But you don’t want to judge individual Christians for their beliefs or discuss what they believe. Despite the daily Bible quotes, it’s never even crossed your mind. Would you care to explain this discrepancy  in "core tenets"?

I encouraged you to start a new thread to discuss it Karnal. I have in this thread (previous page I think) criticised both Gandalf and Abu for misrepresenting Islam to make it appear consistent with western liberal morals. Yadda, sprint, etc are quite open about their views. You will not see either of them doing the peculiar tapdance that Gandalf has in this thread.

Be my guest. Prove me wrong. But don't expect me to do it for you out of some deluded sense of fairness.

Please help me to get this right, FD. When Muslims desceribe their views on things you agree with, they’re tapdancing.

When they advocate Abu-style fundamentalism,  you agree with them. Is that right?

Why are Abu, Y, Sprint and the old boy allowed to have views on ethics, but G isn’t?

Thoughts?

Karnal wrote on Jun 12^th, 2014 at 1:41am:

Soren wrote on Jun 11th, 2014 at 10:58pm: Karnal wrote on Jun 11th, 2014 at 9:55pm: Please excuse me for anticipating your reply, FD, but a strange thought just passed my mind. Here you are lauding Abu for being a decent, right-thinking Muslim while accusing G for telling fibs. But you don’t want to judge individual Christians for their beliefs or discuss what they believe. Despite the daily Bible quotes, it’s never even crossed your mind. Would you care to explain this discrepancy  in "core tenets"? What do you like about Islam, PB? What has it given you that made you a better PB; made your life and the the lives of others around you better? I can't think of a single thing that would recommends it ahead of all the alternatives but you seem to be always on the lookout to defend it? So what is Islamic sunshine in your life, PB?  Can't be just the camel piss, shurely. As a Christian, dear boy, what do you get from Christianity? Oh, that’s right - you’re an atheist. Is this the correct version of Christianity, FD?

So - What do you like about Islam, PB? What has it given you that made you a better PB; made your life and the the lives of others around you better?


Or would you defend anything and everything just because it is disliked by people you dislike?
What's your thinking (if that's the word)?

freediver wrote on Jun 11^th, 2014 at 5:11pm:

I doubt any of those Muslims willfully "take liberties" with Islamic doctrine. Most conservative religious people are that way because they try to interpret the religion as literally as possible. They might be amenable if you counter falsehoods about Islam with the truth about Islam, but they will just get hostile if you try to counter it with absurd lies.

You are very much mistaken on both counts.

These conservatives you refer to absolutely try and interpret their religion to conform to their narrow, prejudiced, non-inclusive world view. It is a world view these people already have, and religion is used to fit into this outlook, not the other way around. And the most ironic thing about this statement of yours is that it is they who try and justify their interpretation with absurd lies.

Just take homosexuality - they will take the statements in the Quran about the wayward people of Lot (who as discussed, were guilty of lust and depravity, not sodomy per se), and launch into a lengthy argument about how the Quran is talking about sodomy per se being a violation of the natural order that God intended, and all the usual prejudicial stereotypes about homosexuals being particularly prone to lewd, immodest etc behaviour. Literally putting words into the Quran that are simply not there. And the justification for their stance on the hijab is along the same lines - covering the hair = the minimum requirement for acceptable public appearance - even though the hair and head is not even specified in the quran.

Quote:

Please help me to get this right, FD. When Muslims desceribe their views on things you agree with, they’re tapdancing.

When they spend thread after thread trying to avoid the topic, it is tapdancing. This is not my first attempt to figure out where Gandalf is coming from, and this particular thread has certainly been an eye-opener. When they try to argue that Muhammed calling for the execution of homosexuals fits in with western liberal morals, that is spinning BS. It has been clear for some time that there is something "special" in the way Gandalf interprets Islam, and it was his efforts to avoid shedding any light on that that brought out the allusions to tapdancing.


Quote:

When they advocate Abu-style fundamentalism,  you agree with them. Is that right?

When they quote tracts from the Koran that clearly support that position, I agree that it is a genuine reflection of Islam. That doesn't mean I support the position.


Quote:

Why are Abu, Y, Sprint and the old boy allowed to have views on ethics, but G isn’t?

He is. I have put a lot of effort into getting him to reveal them. Thinking they are stupid is not the same as thinking he is not entitled to his opinions.


Quote:

These conservatives you refer to absolutely try and interpret their religion to conform to their narrow, prejudiced, non-inclusive world view.

So they are just lucky that they are Muslims?


Quote:

It is a world view these people already have, and religion is used to fit into this outlook, not the other way around. And the most ironic thing about this statement of yours is that it is they who try and justify their interpretation with absurd lies.

I think you are projecting your own methodology onto them. I see more parallels with Falah here. He argued that the people he disagreed with were obviously deliberately lying, which justified his own deliberate lies. Obviously it is not a clear-cut case of people downloading their opinions from the Koran, but what you do is the opposite extreme. The reason these backwards views survive when the rest of the world moves on is because of the legitimacy given to them by Islam. Your efforts at reinterpretation are not going to change that.


Quote:

Just take homosexuality - they will take the statements in the Quran about the wayward people of Lot (who as discussed, were guilty of lust and depravity, not sodomy per se), and launch into a lengthy argument about how the Quran is talking about sodomy per se being a violation of the natural order that God intended, and all the usual prejudicial stereotypes about homosexuals being particularly prone to lewd, immodest etc behaviour.

That is how I interpreted Muhammed's call to execute homosexuals. Saying nasty things about the immodesty of homosexuals is kind of moot compared to stoning them to death.


Quote:

And the justification for their stance on the hijab is along the same lines - covering the hair = the minimum requirement for acceptable public appearance - even though the hair and head is not even specified in the quran.

What is your view on the Islamic dress code? Perhaps you can reinterpret a comment from Muhammed to derive support for nudism? Perhaps Muhammed actually intended to ban clothing? Stay tuned for another episode of "Gandslam, the real truth about Islam".

Hey, I'm getting a bit confused here.

Is Gandalf actually, in real life, an Imam or a Grand Duke? Sorry if it sounds a bit stupid, I'm new here.

I'm just wondering if he's speaking on behalf of Muslims generally or just himself.

Again, sorry if I sound thick Gandalf.

Soren wrote on Jun 12^th, 2014 at 12:00pm:

Karnal wrote on Jun 12th, 2014 at 1:41am: Soren wrote on Jun 11th, 2014 at 10:58pm: Karnal wrote on Jun 11th, 2014 at 9:55pm: Please excuse me for anticipating your reply, FD, but a strange thought just passed my mind. Here you are lauding Abu for being a decent, right-thinking Muslim while accusing G for telling fibs. But you don’t want to judge individual Christians for their beliefs or discuss what they believe. Despite the daily Bible quotes, it’s never even crossed your mind. Would you care to explain this discrepancy  in "core tenets"? What do you like about Islam, PB? What has it given you that made you a better PB; made your life and the the lives of others around you better? I can't think of a single thing that would recommends it ahead of all the alternatives but you seem to be always on the lookout to defend it? So what is Islamic sunshine in your life, PB?  Can't be just the camel piss, shurely. As a Christian, dear boy, what do you get from Christianity? Oh, that’s right - you’re an atheist. Is this the correct version of Christianity, FD? So - What do you like about Islam, PB? What has it given you that made you a better PB; made your life and the the lives of others around you better? Or would you defend anything and everything just because it is disliked by people you dislike? What's your thinking (if that's the word)?

Dislike? But, dear boy, I like everyone!

We all have a contribution to make - this is how knowledge and ideas grow and spread. Knowledge is quite secular that way.

What I like about Islam is the idea of jihad, a spiritual struggle with your own faults. I also like the rule about giving alms to the poor. The idea of submission to the Almighty is also interesting to me, although it's not really my path. There are a few others, but essentially, these are the "core tenets" of Islam.

I have no real interest in Islam - unlike you and FD. My interest is in the particularly modern phenomenon of deliberate ignorance - what John Ralston-Saul calls the Unconscious Civilization; a process that, for Alain de Botton, renders us "truly shallow and irresponsible" citizens.

For de Botton, we've given up seeing the world around us and making our judgments of reality based on our observations. Instead, we trawl through our UK Daily Mail articles and our Jihadwatch sites, and this is meant to tell us what's happening in our very own neighbourhoods and lives.

For most here, Islam is so far from their own lives it is completely irrelevant to them. And yet, they blame it for all their problems.

What's worse is they pretend to know something about it - Islamic jurisprudence, ethics, textual interpretation, relationships and culture. They pretend to know what's going on in distant civil wars and complex social/political issues. These issues are dumbed-down, misinterpreted and deliberately misconstrued - each and every time.

But crucially, this process of willful ignorance is held up as a virtue. If anyone questions this process, they're a PB, an appeaser, a spineless apologist, a pretend Muslim.

This process, of course, is not just the work of Islam board posters. The recent debate on Muslim child marriage in Sydney quoted the Community Services Minister, Pru Goward. If you question the information Pru Goward provided, as any Community Services caseworker would be required to do in an investigation, you're seen as standing up for Islam and/or approving of paedophilia.

This is the dearth of the Enlightenment  - of every value that underpins Western civilization - of every value we believe separates us from the Muselman. It's groupthink, tribalism and supersticion on a grand scale, and when we seek out the source of many of the rumoured "truths", we find them to be deliberately fabricated lies.

What's worse is that exposing these lies is seen as foul play. We should have lies if they help in the smear campaign. Even when the lies are exposed - and Bolt has been found guilty of this many times - the lies are systematically repeated in the hope that they'll become truths.

This is not a Muslim issue, it's a question of ideology. It's not a defence of Islam, it's a defence of facts. People have given up observing what they see and regressed to an almost trance-like state, propagated and sustained by foreign media, the new opiate of the masses.

The Godfathers of the Enlightenment have been forgotten. Descartes, Locke, Voltaire - all cast aside in a modern tribal attack on a non-existant enemy.

If that's the word, that's my thinking.

That's what they used to say in defence of the Soviet Union, too.

Soren wrote on Jun 12^th, 2014 at 1:25pm:

That's what they used to say in defence of the Soviet Union, too.

What's that, dear boy?

freediver wrote on Jun 12^th, 2014 at 12:43pm:

When they quote tracts from the Koran that clearly support that position, I agree that it is a genuine reflection of Islam.

When it is a tract supporting the violent, intolerant position - yes you do.

When its a tract supporting the peaceful, tolerant position - you do not.

Case in point - recent discussions on the "no compulsion in religion" verse.


freediver wrote on Jun 12^th, 2014 at 12:43pm:

So they are just lucky that they are Muslims?

No, its views held by people of all religions - and many non-religious people too.


freediver wrote on Jun 12^th, 2014 at 12:43pm:

The reason these backwards views survive when the rest of the world moves on is because of the legitimacy given to them by Islam.

The reason these backward views survive is because the backward people who propagate them are allowed to do so unchallenged - not least of all by cheerleading non-muslims such as yourself. I am doing my bit to challenge them.


freediver wrote on Jun 12^th, 2014 at 12:43pm:

That is how I interpreted Muhammed's call to execute homosexuals.

And yet it wasn't a call to execute homosexuals. Why do you think he described them in the terms "doing as Lot's people did"? Do you think sodomy was unheard of in pre-islamic times that he had to make this reference? Do you think everyone at that time referred to sodomy as "doing as Lot's people did"? You demand a literal interpretation of the texts - well this is it - in literal terms, he is not calling for homosexuals to be executed, he is calling for people who did "as Lot's people did" to be executed - which included sodomy and debauchery, robbery, rape and generally flaunted God's laws. Its a whole package.


freediver wrote on Jun 12^th, 2014 at 12:43pm:

What is your view on the Islamic dress code? Perhaps you can reinterpret a comment from Muhammed to derive support for nudism?

No, the islamic dress code is very clear - for women, clothing must cover the torso and be loose fitting and ensure that the shape of the breasts and buttocks are not obviously visible, and that you cannot see the breasts bouncing when the woman moves. All those things are clearly described - using all the key words I mentioned. The key words that are not mentioned that would be required for a compulsory head scarf, are the key words "hair" and "cover" in the same sentence (hair is not mentioned at all) - or even "head" and "cover".

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 12^th, 2014 at 1:41pm:

The reason these backward views survive is because the backward people who propagate them are allowed to do so unchallenged - not least of all by cheerleading non-muslims such as yourself. I am doing my bit to challenge them.

The post-2007 FD has been calling for Muslims to challenge the fanatics since he changed from the 2007 FD.

When you do, he disagrees with you.

The post-2007 FD has been arguing for Muslims to come into line with Western values for years.

When you do, he disagrees.

The post-2007 FD advocated Freeedom, self-determination and demokracy in Muslim countries.

When the Arab Spring happened - silence.

The more you agree with FD, the more he'll find fault with you. The more the world changes, the more FD will fortify his position.

The more things change, the more they stay the same. Always, absolutely, never ever.

It is an FD world, no?

Ah, hah! Gandalf, you're online now. Can you PLEASE put me out of my misery wondering whether you're actually a Grand Duke or an Imam in real life?

It's totally cool if that's just your online handle. Hell, I'm not actually blind, just tapping into the old "Even Blind Freddy could see ..." saying.

BlindFreddy wrote on Jun 12^th, 2014 at 2:00pm:

Can you PLEASE put me out of my misery wondering whether you're actually a Grand Duke

https://warosu.org/data/lit/img/0047/18/1396210044624.png

For some bizarre reason I'm thinking of a mattywisk sock...  :-/

Well, it's more the Imam part than the Grand Duke part. I just mentioned Grand Duke to be on the safe side.

So, moment of truth: Are you, or are you not, a qualified Imam? It's killing me! That way, I can have some appreciation as to whether you speak merely for yourself, or on behalf of a certain sub-set of Muslims generally.

NB:I use "qualified" in the sense of a formal qualification relating to a detailed understanding of Islam, awarded by a recognised educational institution.

Freddy, or matty - whoever you are, lets get one thing straight:

The strength or otherwise of my arguments are not determined in any way by the name I give myself on this forum. And your ability to discuss/debate my views on islam is not in any sense restricted by you not knowing who or what I am in real life.

In short, my name is completely irrelevant and bringing it up is nothing but a red herring

Maybe Matty didn't like being a wisk.

BlindFreddy wrote on Jun 12^th, 2014 at 2:00pm:

Ah, hah! Gandalf, you're online now. Can you PLEASE put me out of my misery wondering whether you're actually a Grand Duke or an Imam in real life? It's totally cool if that's just your online handle. Hell, I'm not actually blind, just tapping into the old "Even Blind Freddy could see ..." saying.

Hi Fred,
Unfortunately muslims rarely answer questions.

Quote:

I have no real interest in Islam - unlike you and FD

So why do you post so much?


Quote:

For most here, Islam is so far from their own lives it is completely irrelevant to them. And yet, they blame it for all their problems.

Can you give some examples? I don't recall anyone blaming their personal problems on Islam.


Quote:

This is not a Muslim issue, it's a question of ideology. It's not a defence of Islam, it's a defence of facts.

Is that what you are doing when you ask why I don't question Yadda and Sprint as much as I do Gandalf?


Quote:

The Godfathers of the Enlightenment have been forgotten. Descartes, Locke, Voltaire - all cast aside in a modern tribal attack on a non-existant enemy.

Sounds a little dramatic to me. What level of criticism of or interest in Islam would you tolerate as being within the bounds of rational inquiry? Or is being an apologist like you the only rational position to have? We can only complain about Muslims killing people after we ourselves have been murdered? Can you point out any famous philosophers who were as keen as you to apologise for head hacking ideologues? Or who had any respect for "disinterested" cheerleaders?


Quote:

When its a tract supporting the peaceful, tolerant position - you do not.

Like when I refuse to accept that Muhammed calling for the execution of homosexuals is actually a tract supporting peace and tolerance towards gays?


Quote:

Case in point - recent discussions on the "no compulsion in religion" verse.

The verse you cited claimed there should be no compulsion "in acceptance of" religion. This is pretty much the position adopted by Malik, Abu, Falah etc. This is the position accepted by me as representative of Islamic theory, though obviously not practice. I would also add that a lot of discriminative Islamic law is a form of coercion, even if it does not involve holding a sword to the infidel's throat. We discussed this in detail at the time, and it is completely misleading of you to present it this way. Just because someone disagrees with you does not mean they reject the facts off-hand.


Quote:

The reason these backward views survive is because the backward people who propagate them are allowed to do so unchallenged - not least of all by cheerleading non-muslims such as yourself. I am doing my bit to challenge them.

No you aren't. You are doing your bit to convince non-Muslims that they either do not exist or do not need to be challenged. Case in point - Malaysia.


Quote:

And yet it wasn't a call to execute homosexuals.

Yes it was. Blind Freddy could see that. Go ahead and ask him if you don't believe me.


Quote:

Why do you think he described them in the terms "doing as Lot's people did"? Do you think sodomy was unheard of in pre-islamic times that he had to make this reference? Do you think everyone at that time referred to sodomy as "doing as Lot's people did"?

I think he wanted to reinforce his awareness of the old testament. I do not think he was trying to make it about anything other than gay sex.


Quote:

You demand a literal interpretation of the texts - well this is it - in literal terms, he is not calling for homosexuals to be executed, he is calling for people who did "as Lot's people did" to be executed - which included sodomy and debauchery, robbery, rape and generally flaunted God's laws. Its a whole package.

You can't expect people to take this BS seriously Gandalf. It is absurd. That is why you leave out so much of what he said and rephrase the rest. What he said was that the giver and the taker should be executed - an obvious reference to gay sex, even by your own admission.


Quote:

The post-2007 FD has been calling for Muslims to challenge the fanatics since he changed from the 2007 FD. When you do, he disagrees with you.

Gandalf is not challenging the fanatics. He is saving all his efforts at "reinterpretation" for the benefit of non-Muslims. When other Muslims were here Gandalf pretty much refused to talk to them in case they disagreed on something. From what I see, he is doing the same thing as Abu and all those Imams who have been busted spinning lies to the media. They are all trying to misrepresent Islam as being compatible with western liberal morals. They choose slightly different, often bewildering methods, but the effect is the same.


Quote:

The post-2007 FD has been arguing for Muslims to come into line with Western values for years. When you do, he disagrees.

I disagree that Muhammed calling for the execution of homosexuals is a statement of peace and tolerance towards homosexuals. If Gandalf really holds the views he espouses, that's great, but he cannot expect us to believe he represents Islam or has any ability to change Islam by spreading that crap.


Quote:

The post-2007 FD advocated Freeedom, self-determination and demokracy in Muslim countries. When the Arab Spring happened - silence.

There was plenty of discussion here about it. Gandalf even insisted that because of my views on democracy I should support the Muslim brotherhood in Egypt.


Quote:

So, moment of truth: Are you, or are you not, a qualified Imam?

Gandalf explained recently that the only requirement is to lead 2 (other?) Muslims in prayer, which he apparently does regularly. I wonder if he has informed them of the "true" interpretation of Muhammed's call to execute gays.

I’ll throw the question back to you, FD: what do you think is a reasonable criticism of something?

Do you agree, for example, that any criticism has to be true?

I’m curious.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 12^th, 2014 at 5:59pm:

BlindFreddy wrote on Jun 12th, 2014 at 2:00pm: Ah, hah! Gandalf, you're online now. Can you PLEASE put me out of my misery wondering whether you're actually a Grand Duke or an Imam in real life? It's totally cool if that's just your online handle. Hell, I'm not actually blind, just tapping into the old "Even Blind Freddy could see ..." saying. Hi Fred, Unfortunately muslims rarely answer questions.

This must give them an uncanny resemblance to FD.

freediver wrote on Jun 12^th, 2014 at 7:07pm:

The verse you cited claimed there should be no compulsion "in acceptance of" religion.

No it didn't. Those words were added in - I've explained this already. I also explained to you the obvious point that it is simply absurd to claim that "[non] acceptance of religion" is somehow excluding apostates.


freediver wrote on Jun 12^th, 2014 at 7:07pm:

No you aren't. You are doing your bit to convince non-Muslims that they either do not exist or do not need to be challenged. Case in point - Malaysia.

Ah, back to the old "gandalf doesn't believe the Malaysians said what they mean" strawman I see.

My message is for muslims just as much as for non-muslims. In fact even more so. I even got banned from an islam forum recently for daring to criticise people who attacked some Iranian women who posted facebook pictures without their hijab.  :P

That just makes you a spineless apologist, G.

FD, on behalf of Muslims everywhere, preaches Abu’s version of Islam as the correct one. If it was up.to FD, you’d be stoned for apostacy.

FD’s a live-and-let-live kind of guy.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 12^th, 2014 at 8:13pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 12th, 2014 at 7:07pm: The verse you cited claimed there should be no compulsion "in acceptance of" religion. No it didn't. Those words were added in - I've explained this already. I also explained to you the obvious point that it is simply absurd to claim that "[non] acceptance of religion" is somehow excluding apostates. freediver wrote on Jun 12th, 2014 at 7:07pm: No you aren't. You are doing your bit to convince non-Muslims that they either do not exist or do not need to be challenged. Case in point - Malaysia. Ah, back to the old "gandalf doesn't believe the Malaysians said what they mean" strawman I see. My message is for muslims just as much as for non-muslims. In fact even more so. I even got banned from an islam forum recently for daring to criticise people who attacked some Iranian women who posted facebook pictures without their hijab.  :P

gandalf,

An infidel ['sponsored' and controlled] political forum like OzPol, must be a breath of fresh air to a moslem like yourself then.         ;)

???

i.e.
You do seem to appreciate the opportunity to express your opinions - without your posts [and your opinions] being deleted [from open and public view], by persons who don't want you to be able to express your [political and religious] opinions.

My apologies Gandalf. It seems I have touched a nerve. I was just curious, that's all.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 12^th, 2014 at 3:26pm:

The strength or otherwise of my arguments are not determined in any way by the name I give myself on this forum.

True, but I was more seeking to establish whether you were speaking on behalf of Muslims generally or simply your own individual beliefs. Consider if our positions were reversed: If I were the Pope speaking about the fundamental tenets of Christianity, I'm sure you'd give my arguments more weight - not as to their truth or otherwise - but as to what is generally accepted as a tenet of Christianity. I was simply seeking to establish if your tenets of Islam are generally accepted in the Islamic community or simply your idiosyncratic views.

Anyhow, I included that bit to show that I was simply trying to understand what you are trying to say. I didn't realise you were uncomfortable talking about it. But, I can't say I blame you - I encountered some chap threatening another with burning coffee and another bloke with a smiling swastika on other boards. There do seem to be rather a few nutters around.

Apologies - I'm not a nutter (or at least I hope not) and was simply being inquisitive. I am sorry you see it as a red herring, and I hope you aren't offended. I was simply wondering whether you are  speaking about tenets of Islam as generally accepted by the community, or what you personally regard them to be.

And PS: I must be missing something, but it's freddy not matty.

Gandalf you have distanced yourself, a few times, from the gay pride interpretation of Muhammed's call to execute homosexuals. Do you have your own view on it?


Quote:

I’ll throw the question back to you, FD: what do you think is a reasonable criticism of something?

I think my criticism of Islam is entirely reasonable. I am not sure who your criticism was targeted at. You tend to pick some rather vague strawmen, but I don't think it applies to me and much of it does not apply to any of the other critics of Islam we have here. Perhaps it was all about Andrew Bolt, but we'll probably never know.


Quote:

Do you agree, for example, that any criticism has to be true?

Statements of fact can be true or false. A criticism is a personal judgement. I'm not sure what you are getting at here, but it sounds very messy.


Quote:

No it didn't. Those words were added in - I've explained this already. I also explained to you the obvious point that it is simply absurd to claim that "[non] acceptance of religion" is somehow excluding apostates.

Yet that is what other Muslims have explained to me. If Muhammed makes a specific ruling that apostates should be executed, this obviously over-rules the more general statement about no compulsion, and is probably the reason for "adding in" the bit about acceptance (if not a subtlety of the original Arabic). Just like all the other examples of Muhammed telling people to do nasty things over-rules his general request that we all be nice to each other. He is merely defining exactly what he means by being nice, by compulsion, and by acceptance of religion.


Quote:

My message is for muslims just as much as for non-muslims. In fact even more so.

It is targeted directly at non-Muslims. You shy away from addressing Muslims. We had to drag these "core tenets" out of you. You are not promoting them. All you are promoting is the appearance of an Islam that is compatible with western values.


Quote:

I even got banned from an islam forum recently for daring to criticise people who attacked some Iranian women who posted facebook pictures without their hijab.

It's probably the same one Abu got banned from. Join the club. (I am still a member BTW)

You don’t care whether a criticism is true or not?

That’s a relief. 

Your criticism of Islam is the valid one - that’s a relief too, FD. Freeedom is in safe hands. The winner here is demokracy.

Would you care to posit who’s version of Christianity is the valid one? Y’s absence-of-Christ version or the old boy’s atheism?

We won’t bite, you know.

Karnal wrote on Jun 12^th, 2014 at 11:14pm:

You don’t care whether a criticism is true or not? That’s a relief.  Your criticism of Islam is the valid one

It may be.

And if it isn't, then it is your responsibility to stop him, ban him, gag him, and to kill him - the 'transgressor'.

Coz being wrong, is a capital crime in utopia.

And you are the state executioner - or would clearly like to apply for the job.







Quote:

- that’s a relief too, FD. Freeedom is in safe hands. The winner here is demokracy. Would you care to posit who’s version of Christianity is the valid one? Y’s absence-of-Christ version or the old boy’s atheism? We won’t bite, you know.

In growing into adulthood [i.e. in growing into a responsible and rational 'entity' - in the presence of our peers], shouldn't we all have the right to decide for ourself - if something is real [i.e. valid] - even if our 'determination' is only our own opinion ?

Or should i only be allowed to accept an idea, or a concept, or a philosophy, which a person like yourself chooses to endorse and to tolerate ?




Surely we come to 'perfection', through first making many mistakes.

And, [we come to 'perfection'] by being 'instructed' in knowledge, by coming to distinguish - within our own selves - the difference between error and truth ?

Or is it your opinion, that there is a specific fountain of truth which we must all be forced [compelled] to 'drink' from ?

Isaiah 30:18
.....for the LORD is a God of judgment: blessed are all they that wait for him.

Yadda wrote on Jun 13^th, 2014 at 12:38am:

shouldn't we all have the right to decide for ourself - if something is real [i.e. valid] - even if our 'determination' is only our own opinion ? Or should i only be allowed to accept an idea, or a concept, or a philosophy, which a person like yourself chooses to endorse and to tolerate ?

You've hit the nail on the head, Y. Not according to FD. He tolerates differing views and schools of Christianity, but he will not accept difference within Islam.

You are, of course, free to follow any system of belief, but if you're going to "criticize" something or someone, it's important to get your facts right.

Religion is different. People should be free to follow the most bizarre of beliefs. I know people who have alters of elephant and monkey gods. What's important here is not so much the object of adoration, but the adoration itself. It's your own choice which god you follow because it doesn't effect anyone else.

Religion is not about criticizing others. If your religion is solely an attack of another religion, it's a false religion. And yes, when your religion or belief system is about creating division and harm to others, you should be pulled up on it. This is entirely consistent with our Western conception of liberty, as argued by John Stuart Mill: do what you want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else.

Your description of free speech - the freedom to criticize whomever you want, making up things about them and sometimes getting your facts wrong because we're all human - is phoney too. Freedom of speech was meant to disseminate forms of truth, not the propagation of lies. Your conception of free speech embraces Goebels, Pol Pot, and yes, protesters who want to behead all those who insult the prophet.

Freedom of speech does have limits. More importantly, it involves personal responsibility. If you're going to "criticize" something or someone, you should make sure you've got your facts straight. Twisting the words of others, lying about what they said, and doing everything in your power to "criticize" them, is not freedom of speech.

You know it, I know it, and FD knows it, which is why he avoids a sensible discussion on the subject.

freediver wrote on Jun 12^th, 2014 at 7:07pm:

What level of criticism of or interest in Islam would you tolerate as being within the bounds of rational inquiry? Or is being an apologist like you the only rational position to have?

Pretty much, FD. The founding fathers of rational inquiry devised their methods to advocate freedom of religion. Descartes, Locke, Kant, Hegel - all based their respective philosophies in the context of religious enquiry.

As I've argued, any criticism of Islam or the actions of Muslims should be based on actual facts. Not rumours, not misconstrued or fabricated events, not twisted words or ridiculous hypertheticals.

Y's final solution of banning Islam and detaining Muslims "in the desert for decades" stands completely at odds with the forerunners of rational enquiry. Such ideas are the very reason they invented rational enquiry.

freediver wrote on Jun 12^th, 2014 at 9:08pm:

Gandalf you have distanced yourself, a few times, from the gay pride interpretation of Muhammed's call to execute homosexuals.

I ignored it because its not what I said.

"gay pride" - really??

Karnal wrote on Jun 13^th, 2014 at 11:12am:

You've hit the nail on the head, Y. Not according to FD. He tolerates differing views and schools of Christianity, but he will not accept difference within Islam. You are, of course, free to follow any system of belief, but if you're going to "criticize" something or someone, it's important to get your facts right.

There is no 'difference' within ISLAM.

ISLAM itself defines who a moslem is.    [......NOT, the moslem]

ISLAM, essentially, is the Koran [and the Hadith].

And the Koran, is ISLAM.

+++

Some moslems try to project a divergence among moslems - but simply so that they [when in the presence of non-moslems], can disavow 'ownership' of what is done [by 'other', 'extremist' moslems] in the name of ISLAM.


AND SUCH DISSIMULATION IS EFFECTIVE,
.....IN SHIELDING MOSLEMS FROM CRITICISM AND SCRUTINY, FOR 'THE CAUSE' OF WHAT ISLAM IS !!!!

e.g.

The New York Times Defends Al-Qaeda
by Raymond Ibrahim
Gatestone Institute
June 11, 2014
http://www.meforum.org/4722/the-new-york-times-defends-al-qaedaiKarnal wrote on Jun 13^th, 2014 at 11:12am:

Religion is different. People should be free to follow the most bizarre of beliefs. I know people who have alters of elephant and monkey gods. What's important here is not so much the object of adoration, but the adoration itself. It's your own choice which god you follow because it doesn't effect anyone else. Religion is not about criticizing others. If your religion is solely an attack of another religion, it's a false religion. And yes, when your religion or belief system is about creating division and harm to others, you should be pulled up on it. This is entirely consistent with our Western conception of liberty, as argued by John Stuart Mill: do what you want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else.

K,

Your fact, or truth, in defending ISLAM from criticism - that religion should be above criticism of others - does not align with the facts or truth about what ISLAM itself encourages among its cadres, imo.

Enmity and intolerance, towards that and those which is not ISLAM.




e.g.
The Koran attests that those who are not moslems - are detestable and intolerable to moslems [precisely because they are not moslems]....

And Allah demands that moslems fight against them - because of their unbelief in him, Allah.

"Ye [moslems] are the best of peoples, evolved for mankind, enjoining what is right, forbidding what is wrong, and believing in Allah. If only the People of the Book had faith, it were best for them: among them are some who have faith, but most of them are perverted transgressors."
Koran 3.110

"Let those fight in the cause of Allah Who sell the life of this world for the hereafter. To him who fighteth in the cause of Allah,- whether he is slain or gets victory - Soon shall We give him a reward of great (value).
And why should ye not fight in the cause of Allah and of those who, being weak, are ill-treated (and oppressed)?- Men, women, and children, whose cry is: "Our Lord! Rescue us from this town, whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from thee one who will protect; and raise for us from thee one who will help!"
Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah, and those who reject Faith Fight in the cause of Evil: So fight ye against the friends of Satan: feeble indeed is the cunning of Satan."
Koran 4.74-76i

Karnal wrote on Jun 13^th, 2014 at 11:12am:

Your description of free speech - the freedom to criticize whomever you want, making up things about them and sometimes getting your facts wrong because we're all human - is phoney too. Freedom of speech was meant to disseminate forms of truth, not the propagation of lies. Your conception of free speech embraces Goebels, Pol Pot, and yes, protesters who want to behead all those who insult the prophet. Freedom of speech does have limits. If you're going to "criticize" something or someone, you should make sure you've got your facts straight. Twisting the words of others, lying about what they said, and doing everything in your power to "criticize" them, is not freedom of speech. You know it, I know it, and FD knows it, which is why he avoids a sensible discussion on the subject.

You claim - that i make things up.



k,

I have proposed that ISLAM, is a philosophy which encourages lawlessness and criminality [by our Australian laws].

What is my error ?



My evidence for my claim, that ISLAM, is a philosophy which encourages lawlessness and criminality [by our Australian laws] - is below.

+++

Jihad [religious fighting in Allah's cause] is the pinnacle of ISLAM.

Google;
jihad is the pinnacle of islam





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


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


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


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


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


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




+++





With the moslem, the direct circumstance of the moslem, himself, always dictates [for the moslem] what 'truth' is, and dictates the type and the nature of the relationship that the moslem has with those around him, who are not moslems;

IMAGE...
http://www.raymondibrahim.com/_admin/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/129.jpeg

Sheikh Yassir al-Burhami



Quote:

How Circumstance Dictates Islamic Behavior January 18, 2012 Preach Peace When Weak, Wage War When Strong "...all notions of peace with non-Muslims are based on circumstance. When Muslims are weak, they should be peaceful; when strong, they should go on the offensive."

Sheikh Yassir al-Burhami - an ISLAMIC scholar and Egyptian Salafi leader
http://www.raymondibrahim.com/from-the-arab-world/how-circumstance-dictates-islamic-behavior/

Yadda wrote on Jun 13^th, 2014 at 11:48am:

Karnal wrote on Jun 13th, 2014 at 11:12am: You've hit the nail on the head, Y. Not according to FD. He tolerates differing views and schools of Christianity, but he will not accept difference within Islam. You are, of course, free to follow any system of belief, but if you're going to "criticize" something or someone, it's important to get your facts right. There is no 'difference' within ISLAM. ISLAM itself defines who a moslem is.    [......NOT, the moslem] ISLAM, essentially, is the Koran [and the Hadith]. And the Koran, is ISLAM. +++

So how do you account for G's beliefs on homosexuality?

freediver wrote on Jun 12^th, 2014 at 9:08pm:

I think my criticism of Islam is entirely reasonable.

;D- its "reaonsable" because whatever you argue you can simply back it up with "Abu said...", and the matter is closed. Even when it flies directly in the face of what islamic doctrine actually says - which you would never bother checking, since Abu or Falah is the only authority you ever need.

And what fascinating authorities they are - they are simultaneously both the ultimate deceivers and obfuscaters and the ultimate and clearest authorities on islamic doctrine. And best of all, both sides can be used as irrefutable proof of what islam is about: they talk about the militant side of islam - proof that islam is militant. But if they talk about the peaceful/tolerant side of islam - proof that they are deceiving or obfuscating - therefore proof that islam is militant/intolerant.

Karnal wrote on Jun 13^th, 2014 at 11:56am:

So how do you account for G's beliefs on homosexuality?

google: taqqiya

Yadda wrote on Jun 13^th, 2014 at 11:51am:

Karnal wrote on Jun 13th, 2014 at 11:12am: Your description of free speech - the freedom to criticize whomever you want, making up things about them and sometimes getting your facts wrong because we're all human - is phoney too. Freedom of speech was meant to disseminate forms of truth, not the propagation of lies. Your conception of free speech embraces Goebels, Pol Pot, and yes, protesters who want to behead all those who insult the prophet. Freedom of speech does have limits. If you're going to "criticize" something or someone, you should make sure you've got your facts straight. Twisting the words of others, lying about what they said, and doing everything in your power to "criticize" them, is not freedom of speech. You know it, I know it, and FD knows it, which is why he avoids a sensible discussion on the subject. You claim - that i make things up. k, I have proposed that ISLAM, is a philosophy which encourages lawlessness and criminality [by our Australian laws]. What is my error ? My evidence for my claim, that ISLAM, is a philosophy which encourages lawlessness and criminality [by our Australian laws] - is below. +++

Your error is this:


Quote:

Ibn Umar reported: The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said: Listening to and obeying the leader is an obligation as long as he does not command disobedience to Allah. If he commands disobedience, then there is no listening to him or obedience. Source: Sahih Bukhari 2796, Grade: Sahih

Here's an interpretation:


Quote:

Sheikh Salman Al-Oadah said: Muslims living in non-Muslim countries have to comply with laws and regulations of the country they have been entrusted though valid visas to enter. At the same time, they have to avoid whatever contradicts Islamic teachings. In case they are obliged by law to uphold something contrary to Islamic teachings, they have to adhere to the minimum that the law requires of them. One of the best approaches for a Muslim living in these countries is patience. As long as he agrees to live in a non-Muslim country, he is never to rebel against the inhabitants of his choice of residence, even it seems too hard for him to endure. Source: Islamtoday.net

There you go, Y, your error is the whole line on criminality. If you continue posting this error with the information above, it becomes a lie.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 13^th, 2014 at 12:02pm:

Karnal wrote on Jun 13th, 2014 at 11:56am: So how do you account for G's beliefs on homosexuality? google: taqqiya

Ah. How cunning.

But then, how do we account for Christians who accept homosexuality? Paul is quite clear that homosexuality is a sin, and Christians don't have taqqiya.

The Christians I've heard or read on this issue say that the entirity of Jesus's teachings must be taken into account, not isolated or out of context quotes.

Does the same idea apply to Islam and the Koran?

Yes, K, but remember its all about "biding their time". They are not law abiding and loyal to their adopted country - they are smart, cold and calculated. Never forget that at all times we must presume the worst of muslims.


Karnal wrote on Jun 13^th, 2014 at 12:10pm:

One of the best approaches for a Muslim living in these countries is patience.

Oh man, just watch how Y and/or FD spin's this.

Supported by what Abu didn't say.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 13^th, 2014 at 12:22pm:

Oh man, just watch how Y and/or FD spin's this. Supported by what Abu didn't say.

Mo was far more specific than Jesus' "render unto Caesar" argument.

"Listening to and obeying the leader (of a country) is an obligation."

I'm not sure how Y can spin this.

Karnal wrote on Jun 13^th, 2014 at 12:19pm:

But then, how do we account for Christians who accept homosexuality? Paul is quite clear that homosexuality is a sin, and Christians don't have taqqiya. The Christians I've heard or read on this issue say that the entirity of Jesus's teachings must be taken into account, not isolated or out of context quotes.

Indeed.

It seems prosperity and power cause religions to become more 'liberal' towards such matters. I was just reading how during the golden age homosexuality was common place in the islamic world - even in Medina and Mecca. FD will no doubt use this as evidence that islam is even more intolerant towards homosexuality than he previously thought. Somehow...

Furthermore, we could examine how tolerant the impoverished christian parts of Africa are towards homosexuality - compared to the prosperous western nations. There was news recently about one (christian) African nation imposing the death penalty for homosexuality.

Of course there are exceptions to this rule - Saudi Arabia springs to mind - no shortage of prosperity there. But I suppose you could say what they are lacking in is the cultural/intellectual prosperity that existed during both the golden age and the west today - through open borders, free exchange of ideas etc.

The muslim world simply needs a bit of economic prosperity, in combination with an intellectual and cultural revival. Then I think you'll see some pretty dramatic reinterpretation of islamic texts.

Karnal wrote on Jun 13^th, 2014 at 12:29pm:

Mo was far more specific than Jesus' "render unto Caesar" argument. "Listening to and obeying the leader (of a country) is an obligation." I'm not sure how Y can spin this.

He'll spin it as a means to an end - a deeply sinister end.

Muslims simply need to bide their time - for eventually, through Herb's PC inspired immigration and FD's spineless apologetics in allowing islam to grow, "the country" will eventually be "their country" - by default. The 'render unto Caesar' argument then becomes null and void, and the holocaust will commence.

Yadda wrote on Jun 13^th, 2014 at 11:51am:

k, I have proposed that ISLAM, is a philosophy which encourages lawlessness and criminality [by our Australian laws]. What is my error ?

Here's your second error, Y - that Islam compels Muslims to kill infidels.


Quote:

Individual choice is an integral facet of religious devotion, and the Qur’an acknowledge this in the verse, “There is no compulsion in religion” (2:256).  Furthermore, the Qur’an draws firm limits toward entrenched thinking in relation to Non-Muslims.  It states, “Had God willed, they had not been idolatrous.  We have not set thee as a keeper over them, nor art thou responsible for them” (6:107).  Here, the Qur’an instructs us to recognize Non-Muslims’ religious self-sovereignty and to leave them alone! The Qur’an goes further than religious freedom, instructing Muslims to show tolerance and respect to other religions.  The verse, “Do not revile those unto whom they pray beside God, lest they wrongfully revile God through ignorance” (6:108), directly forbids verbal religious intolerance, candidly pointing out the logical consequence of mutual animosity and hatred. God commands the Muslims to show indulgence, tolerance, forgiveness, justice, and compassion toward Non-Muslim groups who do not take up arms fighting against Muslims.  God says, “God does not forbid you to be kind to those who do not take arms against you.  God loves those who are just” (60:8). In all of these cases, as in the case of peace and cooperation, the Qur’an enjoins forgiveness, indulgence, justice, and compassion toward Non-Muslims.  For example, the Qur’an mentions that some groups of Jews and Christians wish for ruination of Muslim nations.  Toward them, the Qur’an instructs, “Forgive and show indulgence to them…Whosoever surrendereth his purpose to God while doing good, his reward is with his Lord; and there shall no fear come upon them neither shall they grieve” (2:109-112). In another chapter, the Qur’an deals with situations where Muslims might feel hatred toward Non-Muslim groups.  Again, the message is patience and justice.  God says, “Do not allow your hatred of a folk who [once] stopped your going to the Inviolable Place of Worship [2] seduce you to transgress; but help ye one another unto righteousness and pious duty.  Help not one another unto sin and transgression, but keep your duty to God” (5:2).  Warring nations confront a difficult psychological task when arms are finally laid aside for olive branches.  What happens to the hearts that remember lost soldiers and former offenses?  The Qur’anic reply is God-consciousness.  By remembering God’s love for justice, we can avoid seductions of violence and vengefulness.

http://english.islammessage.com/ArticleDetails.aspx?articleId=649

I don't know whether any of this is true or whether it's just an elaborate ruse (Google taqqiya), but it may explain the Muslims I know who go out of their way to not kill me.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 13^th, 2014 at 12:42pm:

Karnal wrote on Jun 13th, 2014 at 12:29pm: Mo was far more specific than Jesus' "render unto Caesar" argument. "Listening to and obeying the leader (of a country) is an obligation." I'm not sure how Y can spin this. He'll spin it as a means to an end - a deeply sinister end. Muslims simply need to bide their time - for eventually, through Herb's PC inspired immigration and FD's spineless apologetics in allowing islam to grow, "the country" will eventually be "their country" - by default. The 'render unto Caesar' argument then becomes null and void, and the holocaust will commence.

But hang on, G, you're a Muslim, right? And Herbie and FD are non/anti-Muslims.

Why is this their argument and not yours?

Quote:

You don’t care whether a criticism is true or not?

Read what I posted Karnal. Criticism is, by it's nature, a values based statement.


Quote:

Religion is not about criticizing others. If your religion is solely an attack of another religion, it's a false religion. And yes, when your religion or belief system is about creating division and harm to others, you should be pulled up on it.

I have never seen you do this.


Quote:

You know it, I know it, and FD knows it, which is why he avoids a sensible discussion on the subject.

What I said is sensible karnal. You just completely missed the point.


Quote:

Pretty much, FD. The founding fathers of rational inquiry devised their methods to advocate freedom of religion.

Are you suggesting that I am violating someone's freedom of religion, or advocating it's violation? Does freedom to you mean freedom from criticism, or freedom from criticism that you disapprove of?


Quote:

As I've argued, any criticism of Islam or the actions of Muslims should be based on actual facts.

So you agree that it does not make sense to demand the criticism itself be true?


polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 13^th, 2014 at 11:37am:

freediver wrote on Jun 12th, 2014 at 9:08pm: Gandalf you have distanced yourself, a few times, from the gay pride interpretation of Muhammed's call to execute homosexuals. I ignored it because its not what I said. "gay pride" - really??

Can you state your position, rather than letting other people have all the opinions? You aren't exactly helping to create an image of open and honest Muslims here.


Quote:

its "reaonsable" because whatever you argue you can simply back it up with "Abu said..."

Or Pew surveys. Thanks for that. OIr extracts from the Koran.


Quote:

Even when it flies directly in the face of what islamic doctrine actually says

Islamic doctrine actually says to execute homosexuals.


Quote:

which you would never bother checking, since Abu or Falah is the only authority you ever need.

The reason I put more weight on their interpretation is because they could back it up. You on the other hand rely on finding a verse that says the exact opposite and then reinterpreting it.


Quote:

And best of all, both sides can be used as irrefutable proof of what islam is about: they talk about the militant side of islam - proof that islam is militant. But if they talk about the peaceful/tolerant side of islam - proof that they are deceiving or obfuscating - therefore proof that islam is militant/intolerant.

What it proves is that the meaning of peace in Islam is heavily qualified.


Quote:

The muslim world simply needs a bit of economic prosperity, in combination with an intellectual and cultural revival. Then I think you'll see some pretty dramatic reinterpretation of islamic texts.

They will not decide that Muhammed's order to execute homosexuals is a statement of gay pride.

freediver wrote on Jun 13^th, 2014 at 12:58pm:

Quote: Are you suggesting that I am violating someone's freedom of religion, or advocating it's violation? Does freedom to you mean freedom from criticism, or freedom from criticism that you disapprove of? [quote]As I've argued, any criticism of Islam or the actions of Muslims should be based on actual facts. So you agree that it does not make sense to demand the criticism itself be true?

Of course criticism of others should be true. Who would argue anything else?

You have argued against Muslim immigration - you're arguing to discriminate on entry to Australia on the basis of religion. If this doesn't violate someone's freedom of religion, I don't know what does.

To me, freedom requires integrity. If you're shown to be wrong, admit it and change your mind. If your argument is proven wrong, change your thesis. If the facts you use to back up your argument are found to be false, don't deny this and excuse it and forrage around desperately for new facts, admit it.

Don't twist others' words, don't make up things they've said, don't use their lack of reply as proof of your argument. When you do this, you lose integrity, your credibility, and any freedom you have. As Jesus said, the truth shall set you free.

This is the process of reason, of the scientific method. It's how we come to consensus on truth. "Truth" is relative to the processes we use. If the process is faulty, any conclusion will be highly questionable. Likewise, if your intent or purpose is pre-determined, your conclusions wil be flawed.

You've already stated here that you have an anti-Muslim agenda. I'm stating here that I have no pro-Muslim agenda. If I'm an apologist, I'm an "apologist" for people I know who happen to be Muslims. I don't aim to defend Islam, and I'm against many Islamic practices - particularly Halal slaughter techniques.

I also know that many Muslim practices are not prescribed Islamic practices, despite Muslims almost universally adopting them as their culture. Head coverings are one example of this, circumcision is another. All the Muslim rape and crime articles here are just silly, particularly when the teachings of Islam forbid this. "Joining the dots" and making connections to Islam or Mohammed's teachings is impossible when you admit that you have an anti-Islam agenda.

If I admitted that I have a pro-Muslim agenda, you'd be equally free to take what I say with a grain of salt.

I don't hold that people should be free to "criticize" whatever they don't like. I do, however, believe that people should be free to criticize things, where necessary, that they have a sound awareness of - that they have actual experience with. Criticism isn't an end in itself, its goal should be improvement. Critics often fall into the trap of looking for faults. In itself, this does not make for good critique.

Civilisation requires restraint and humility. Civilisation is not an all-out war against a never-ending and ever-changing enemy. Such an understanding of civilisation (which is implicit in schools of thought like the neo-conservatism of Leo Strauss) owes much more to barbarism than an evolved and civilised social/political outlook.

While I admit that these competing views of civilisation are an important tension in Western thought, I believe such attitudes are implicitly anti-Western. As Western subjects, we define ourselves through our tolerance and fairness. Again, and I'll continue to remind you of this, without such a way or view of life, you're no different to those you "criticize". Without an emphasis on truth and honesty, you fall prey to superstition, gossip, and what Francis Bacon called the "idols of the marketplace" - those who were the subject of false rumours and mercilessly hunted down or excluded.

You can't argue for Freedom by ignoring the very basis of freedom, which requires certain restraints.

You will, I think, agree with this.

evidently the core tenet of islam is to never answer a question.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 13^th, 2014 at 2:09pm:

evidently the core tenet of islam is to never answer a question.

That's strange, Sprint. Every question I've asked you has gone unanswered too.

It seems pretty clear to me, there are two sets of core tenets in islam.

First you have the number one muslim, he is assured a place in the big brothel in the sky, being a true muslim his core tenets of islam are:

The filth and perversion of the commands of allah, the teachings of muhammad, the verses in the qur'an and hadi'th, which define his divine right to thieve, tell lies, engage in sexual depravity, mass murder, torture, rape beheading etc. etc. These are the noble tasks for true muslim believers.


Then we have the number two muslim he has a priori knowledge of core islamic tenets.


From the dictionary priori means:

Adjective: a priori
Involving deductive reasoning from a general principle to a necessary effect; not supported by fact

Adverb: a priori
Derived by logic, without observed facts


So the number two muslim does not have any facts to support his views, for his core tenets, he make up lies to suit himself, to obtain the necessary effect

A number two muslim will never castigate, ridicule or decry the commands, teachings and verses of islam, which elicit the blood lust and degenerate perversion of the true muslim. 

Karnal wrote on Jun 13^th, 2014 at 2:28pm:

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 13th, 2014 at 2:09pm: evidently the core tenet of islam is to never answer a question. That's strange, Sprint. Every question I've asked you has gone unanswered too.

ask any question, open up a thread for it, so I see it.

freediver wrote on Jun 13^th, 2014 at 12:58pm:

Can you state your position, rather than letting other people have all the opinions?

I given you my opinion in great detail. See post #s 70. 81 and 83. Even if you are not sure what my opinion is, I kindly request that you don't simply make crap up.


freediver wrote on Jun 13^th, 2014 at 12:58pm:

The reason I put more weight on their interpretation is because they could back it up. You on the other hand rely on finding a verse that says the exact opposite and then reinterpreting it.

Is that a bit like you reinterpreting 2:256 to mean the exact opposite to what it says?


freediver wrote on Jun 13^th, 2014 at 12:58pm:

What it proves is that the meaning of peace in Islam is heavily qualified.

Well gee whiz FD - one could argue with equal conviction and legitimacy that the meaning of war in islam is heavily qualified. No? Well why ever not then?? There are certainly no shortage of verses and ahadith that encourage peace and coexistence. Start with K's extract above.

But they can be dismissed right? Not sure why - maybe it all comes down to what Abu didn't say. I blame islam  :P

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 13^th, 2014 at 3:09pm:

Karnal wrote on Jun 13th, 2014 at 2:28pm: Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 13th, 2014 at 2:09pm: evidently the core tenet of islam is to never answer a question. That's strange, Sprint. Every question I've asked you has gone unanswered too. ask any question, open up a thread for it, so I see it.

Do you think your version of Christianity is the correct one?

moses wrote on Jun 13^th, 2014 at 2:50pm:

the true muslim.

And what, exactly, is a "true" muslim? While we're at it, what is a "true" Christian? It sounds like you're going for the no true Scotsman fallacy.

And if Gandalf is being evasive, why not give him a list of questions to answer? Then, Gandalf can either answer them and you can stop calling him evasive, or he can decline to do so and prove you correct. Either way, we avoid bickering like school girls.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 13^th, 2014 at 12:36pm:

Karnal wrote on Jun 13th, 2014 at 12:19pm: But then, how do we account for Christians who accept homosexuality? Paul is quite clear that homosexuality is a sin, and Christians don't have taqqiya. The Christians I've heard or read on this issue say that the entirity of Jesus's teachings must be taken into account, not isolated or out of context quotes. Indeed. It seems prosperity and power cause religions to become more 'liberal' towards such matters. I was just reading how during the golden age homosexuality was common place in the islamic world - even in Medina and Mecca. FD will no doubt use this as evidence that islam is even more intolerant towards homosexuality than he previously thought. Somehow... Furthermore, we could examine how tolerant the impoverished christian parts of Africa are towards homosexuality - compared to the prosperous western nations. There was news recently about one (christian) African nation imposing the death penalty for homosexuality. Of course there are exceptions to this rule - Saudi Arabia springs to mind - no shortage of prosperity there. But I suppose you could say what they are lacking in is the cultural/intellectual prosperity that existed during both the golden age and the west today - through open borders, free exchange of ideas etc. The muslim world simply needs a bit of economic prosperity, in combination with an intellectual and cultural revival. Then I think you'll see some pretty dramatic reinterpretation of islamic texts.

Maybe, but the biggest cause of homosexuality is the lack of women - think of prisoners, sailors and travelling salesmen. Medina and Mecca were trading centres. They accommodated traders who travellied for months at a time. When they arrived in cities they wanted a piece of the action. Islam is not too tolerant of the prostitution of women, so boys it had to be.

The same is true in modern cities like Peshawar. Here, long-distance truckdrivers and travelling black marketeers get boys - some as young as 8. It’s condemned by the imams, but what can they do? Pakistan has a surplus of street kids and plenty of dirty old men - young men too. Many describe an "addiction" to boys.

This doesn’t tend to happen in prosperous countries these days - not since the global rise of child protection, anyway.

BlindFreddy wrote on Jun 13^th, 2014 at 5:45pm:

moses wrote on Jun 13th, 2014 at 2:50pm: the true muslim. Either way, we avoid bickering like school girls.

But that’s the very.purpose of this board.

With Karnal having so many questions I am looking in vain for the Core Tenets of Christianity thread.

Or is the plan to run interception and distraction from the tap dancing within this thread?

HEY!!!!  Look over there...

Quote:

I given you my opinion in great detail. See post #s 70.

Quote:

Islamic LGBT activist argue that

Quote:

81

Quote:

One would imagine that

Quote:

and 83.

Quote:

But the argument has been made (not by me) that

Do you often promote arguments that you know to be crap?


Quote:

Even if you are not sure what my opinion is, I kindly request that you don't simply make crap up.

You are making crap up about Muhammed's command to execute homosexuals being a statement of peace of tolerance of true gay love. Then you are disowning it at the same time as promoting it.


Quote:

Well gee whiz FD - one could argue with equal conviction and legitimacy that the meaning of war in islam is heavily qualified. No?

Muhammed gave plenty of demonstrations of war, and they seem pretty conventional to me. I'm not sure what the purpose of such an argument would be.


Quote:

There are certainly no shortage of verses and ahadith that encourage peace and coexistence.

Sure, unless someone looks at you the wrong way. Even peace and coexistence is heavily qualified by all the discrimination against non-Muslims. Muslims are peaceful and tolerate of them so long as they assume a status of inferiority in law and custom.


Quote:

But they can be dismissed right? Not sure why - maybe it all comes down to what Abu didn't say. I blame islam

Ultimately it comes down to what Muhammed said, and Abu's interpretation encompasses all of the evidence that has been presented, including the peace quotes from Karnal.


Quote:

Maybe, but the biggest cause of homosexuality is the lack of women

Abu actually made the same argument, in arguing against the letterbox outfit and overly restrictive social policy in Saudi Arabia. Apparently that is why so many men have sex with each other in public toilets there.

Karnal wrote on Jun 13^th, 2014 at 4:17pm:

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 13th, 2014 at 3:09pm: Karnal wrote on Jun 13th, 2014 at 2:28pm: Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 13th, 2014 at 2:09pm: evidently the core tenet of islam is to never answer a question. That's strange, Sprint. Every question I've asked you has gone unanswered too. ask any question, open up a thread for it, so I see it. Do you think your version of Christianity is the correct one?

ask in a specific thread in a forum not modded by muslims, please.
From past experience, I don't trust them.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 13^th, 2014 at 7:32pm:

Karnal wrote on Jun 13th, 2014 at 4:17pm: Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 13th, 2014 at 3:09pm: Karnal wrote on Jun 13th, 2014 at 2:28pm: Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 13th, 2014 at 2:09pm: evidently the core tenet of islam is to never answer a question. That's strange, Sprint. Every question I've asked you has gone unanswered too. ask any question, open up a thread for it, so I see it. Do you think your version of Christianity is the correct one? ask in a specific thread in a forum not modded by muslims, please. From past experience, I don't trust them.

You sound a bit paranoid there, Sprint. You  want a separate thread and forum to answer an itty-bitty question?

You seem to have a lot of requirements to express your opinions.

Lucky we’re a demokracy, eh?

Hey, FD - do you often promote arguments that you know to be crap?

You can tell us.

freediver wrote on Jun 13^th, 2014 at 7:08pm:

You are making crap up about Muhammed's command to execute homosexuals being a statement of peace of tolerance of true gay love

Absolutely no point persisting with you is there FD?


Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 13^th, 2014 at 7:32pm:

ask in a specific thread in a forum not modded by muslims, please. From past experience, I don't trust them.

Being a global moderator, nowhere is safe from this muslim  ;)

But fear not sprint - I have no desire to delete your posts - its rather enjoyable watching you embarass yourself.

Karnal wrote on Jun 13^th, 2014 at 1:58pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 13th, 2014 at 12:58pm: Quote: Are you suggesting that I am violating someone's freedom of religion, or advocating it's violation? Does freedom to you mean freedom from criticism, or freedom from criticism that you disapprove of? [quote]As I've argued, any criticism of Islam or the actions of Muslims should be based on actual facts. So you agree that it does not make sense to demand the criticism itself be true? Of course criticism of others should be true. Who would argue anything else? You have argued against Muslim immigration - you're arguing to discriminate on entry to Australia on the basis of religion. If this doesn't violate someone's freedom of religion, I don't know what does.

Islam is not a religion  -  private, personal creed (which is what 'religious freedom' is taken to be.)
It is a political ideology like Zionism.
That is why 'Islam' has so much trouble with Zionism -it is a political clash, not a religious one.

True, old dear. Here at the Faculty, we believe that the personal is political.

As a Freudian, I’m sure you will concur.

As a cheeseating Lutheran Hun, who knows?

Anything goes.

Soren wrote on Jun 13^th, 2014 at 10:39pm:

Karnal wrote on Jun 13th, 2014 at 1:58pm: freediver wrote on Jun 13th, 2014 at 12:58pm: Quote: Are you suggesting that I am violating someone's freedom of religion, or advocating it's violation? Does freedom to you mean freedom from criticism, or freedom from criticism that you disapprove of? [quote]As I've argued, any criticism of Islam or the actions of Muslims should be based on actual facts. So you agree that it does not make sense to demand the criticism itself be true? Of course criticism of others should be true. Who would argue anything else? You have argued against Muslim immigration - you're arguing to discriminate on entry to Australia on the basis of religion. If this doesn't violate someone's freedom of religion, I don't know what does.  Islam is not a religion  -  private, personal creed (which is what 'religious freedom' is taken to be.) It is a political ideology like Zionism. That is why 'Islam' has so much trouble with Zionism -it is a political clash, not a religious one.

yes. muslims should be banned as they want their laws imposed on Aussie.

So chuck 'em out

Yes, and we’ve already been shown exactly where the Koran instructs against imposing laws on non-Muslim countries, chapter and verse.

Still, here you are telling Aussie to change its laws. Which religion are you from, Sprint?

Sorry - don’t answer that. Can I ask which country you’re from instead? Or should I start a new thread to ask this?

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 13^th, 2014 at 10:15pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 13th, 2014 at 7:08pm: You are making crap up about Muhammed's command to execute homosexuals being a statement of peace of tolerance of true gay love Absolutely no point persisting with you is there FD?

Do you believe the "Muslim LBGT argument" you have promoted about Muhammed's command to execute homosexuals?

I believe the argument I articulated. Not your version of it.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 12^th, 2014 at 1:41pm:

No, the islamic dress code is very clear - for women, clothing must cover the torso and be loose fitting and ensure that the shape of the breasts and buttocks are not obviously visible, and that you cannot see the breasts bouncing when the woman moves.

Quote:

Giving a hint of their vision of a caliphate, ISIL published sharia rules for the realm they have carved out in northern Iraq, including a ban on drugs, alcohol, cigarettes and an edict on women to wear only all-covering, shapeless clothing. http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/06/13/us-iraq-security-idUSKBN0EN0RV20140613

sinnister innit data?

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 14^th, 2014 at 10:51am:

sinnister innit data?

It appears that it is an edict that you and the jihadists both agree on, very clear as you say.  But yes, if like me, you prefer a society where women can dress as they want, including uncovered meat, or anonymous and faceless peering out of a head to ground black letter box then yes, sinister and repressive.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 14^th, 2014 at 10:34am:

I believe the argument I articulated. Not your version of it.

So why do you keep disowning it?


polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 10^th, 2014 at 7:40pm:

But the argument has been made (not by me)

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 9^th, 2014 at 9:57pm:

Islamic LGBT activist argue

Yadda wrote on Jun 13^th, 2014 at 11:51am:

k, I have proposed that ISLAM, is a philosophy which encourages lawlessness and criminality [by our Australian laws]. What is my error ?

Karnal wrote on Jun 13^th, 2014 at 12:10pm:

Your error is this: Quote: Sheikh Salman Al-Oadah said: Muslims living in non-Muslim countries have to comply with laws and regulations of the country they have been entrusted though valid visas to enter. At the same time, they have to avoid whatever contradicts Islamic teachings. In case they are obliged by law to uphold something contrary to Islamic teachings, they have to adhere to the minimum that the law requires of them. One of the best approaches for a Muslim living in these countries is patience. As long as he agrees to live in a non-Muslim country, he is never to rebel against the inhabitants of his choice of residence, even it seems too hard for him to endure. Source: Islamtoday.net There you go, Y, your error is the whole line on criminality. If you continue posting this error with the information above, it becomes a lie.

K,

I am not posting an error.

THAT MOSLEM IS A LIAR.

Moslems spread their lies, to spread confusion among their enemies - LYING IS A TACTIC OF MOSLEM WAR.

Moslems spread their lies, pretending to be tolerant of their enemies, their non-moslem society, their non-moslem law - IT IS A LIE.

ALL of these moslem declarations of moslem tolerance, of those who are not moslems - IT IS A LIE.

And i can prove it.







K,

If we know [if we learn] that a person we know is continually deceiving us [for a nefarious and malicious purpose],
THEN HOW CAN WE HAVE A MEANINGFUL AND PEACEFUL RELATIONSHIP WITH THAT PERSON ?

We cannot.

And that is the relationship that the Australian community has with members of the moslem community.




e.g.
A body representing British 'mainstream' moslems, The Muslim Council of Britain, has declared on its website;


Quote:

Rejecting Terror Thursday, 11 April 2013 Muslims everywhere consider all acts of terrorism that aims to murder and maim innocent human beings utterly reprehensible and abhorrent. There is no theological basis whatsoever for such acts in our faith. The very meaning of the word 'Islam' is peace. It [ISLAM] rejects terror and promotes peace and harmony.

http://www.mcb.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2307:mcbnewstemplate&catid=82:mcb-news
http://www.mcb.org.uk/article_detail.php?article=announcement-656






"[ISLAM] rejects terror and promotes peace and harmony."

;D

Honest!


A body representing British 'mainstream' moslems, The Muslim Council of Britain, has declared that it is;

"innocent human beings"

that are safe from moslem warfare, and moslem terror.


NOBODY ELSE IS SAFE FROM THE MOSLEM JIHAD!!!

AND THE INFIDEL IS -- NOT -- SAFE FROM THE MOSLEM JIHAD!!!




Elsewhere, the moslems of the UK have declared who the moslem regards as an;

"innocent human beings"





YT
KILLING OF NON-MUSLIMS IS LEGITIMATE
"...when we say innocent people, we mean moslems."
"....[not accepting ISLAM] is a crime against God."
"...If you are a non-moslem, then you are guilty of not believing in God."
"...as a moslem....i must have hatred towards everything which is non-ISLAM."
"...[moslems] allegiance is always with the moslems, so i will never condemn a moslem for what he does."
"...Britain has always been Dar al Harb [the Land of War]"
"...no, i could never condemn a moslem brother, i would never condemn a moslem brother. I will always stand with my moslem brother....whether he is an oppresser or the oppressed."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maHSOB2RFm4





K,

All of your protestations about moslem tolerance of, and their intent of a peaceful relationship with their non-moslem hosts, in non-moslem host nations, is shown to be a GIANT lie, by moslems.


K,

YOU ARE A FAKE.

YOU ARE NOT A SINCERE PERSON.

YOU ARE INTENTIONALLY SPREADING THE LIES THAT MOSLEMS SPREAD.




+++





With the moslem, the direct circumstance of the moslem, himself, always dictates [for the moslem] what 'truth' is, and dictates the type and the nature of the relationship that the moslem has with those around him, who are not moslems;

IMAGE...
http://www.raymondibrahim.com/_admin/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/129.jpeg

Sheikh Yassir al-Burhami



Quote:

How Circumstance Dictates Islamic Behavior January 18, 2012 Preach Peace When Weak, Wage War When Strong "...all notions of peace with non-Muslims are based on circumstance. When Muslims are weak, they should be peaceful; when strong, they should go on the offensive."

Sheikh Yassir al-Burhami - an ISLAMIC scholar and Egyptian Salafi leader
http://www.raymondibrahim.com/from-the-arab-world/how-circumstance-dictates-islamic-behavior/

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 13^th, 2014 at 12:22pm:

Yes, K, but remember its all about "biding their time". They are not law abiding and loyal to their adopted country - they are smart, cold and calculated. Never forget that at all times we must presume the worst of muslims.

Yes we must.

Because it is the Koran which ultimately guides the moslem, and dictates to the moslem, the nature of THE ONLY LAWFUL relationship, that the moslem must seek to establish with all 'disbelievers';





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


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


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


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


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


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

Oh man, just watch how Y and/or FD spin's this.

I don't have to spin anything.

Listen to how moslem teachers and community leaders advise members of the moslem community, on the type of of relationship, that the moslem must seek to establish with all 'disbelievers';



IMAGE...
http://www.raymondibrahim.com/_admin/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/129.jpeg

Sheikh Yassir al-Burhami



Quote:

How Circumstance Dictates Islamic Behavior January 18, 2012 Preach Peace When Weak, Wage War When Strong "...all notions of peace with non-Muslims are based on circumstance. When Muslims are weak, they should be peaceful; when strong, they should go on the offensive."

Sheikh Yassir al-Burhami - an ISLAMIC scholar and Egyptian Salafi leader
http://www.raymondibrahim.com/from-the-arab-world/how-circumstance-dictates-islamic-behavior/








How Taqiyya Alters Islams Rules of War
http://www.meforum.org/2538/taqiyya-islam-rules-of-war


Google,
smile to the face "while our hearts curse them"






Quote:

"A Study in Muslim Doctrine ...while sincere friendship with non-Muslims is forbidden, insincere friendship - whenever beneficial to Muslims - is not."

http://www.meforum.org/2512/nidal-hasan-fort-hood-muslim-doctrine



Google;
taqiyya - the muslim doctrine of deceit


Taqiyya
“Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish it through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible..., and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory. ...One should compare the bad consequences entailed by lying to those entailed by telling the truth, and if the consequences of telling the truth are more damaging, one is entitled to lie…”
google







QUESTION;
How can anyone [e.g. non-moslems] have a meaningful relationship with another person [e.g. a moslem], when that 2nd person [e.g. a moslem] is constantly and intentionally deceiving them - for malicious and nefarious reasons.

You sound a bit cranky, Y. Sala’am Aleikum to you on this great new day.

Why would imams lie to Muslims in their sermons and lessons? Why would Mo lie to Muslims in the Koran? And why would I lie by posting the first page in a Google search with millions of sites saying exactly the same thing?

No, Y, I can prove it: no Muselman has ever blown me up, beheaded me or tried to change my laws.

Allah Uakbar, no?