claim: Islam is innately violent - and I have the actions of muslims to prove it

response: the majority of muslims are not violent

claim: they don't count - its the minority who are carrying out Allah's violent commands

resposne: how can you claim them to be representing "true" Islam if they are in the minority?

claim: because they are carrying out Allah's violent commands.

and round and round we go...

You forgot the poo joke Gandalf. There is always a poo joke. Otherwise how do you know who won?

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 4^th, 2015 at 12:34pm:

claim: Islam is innately violent - and I have the actions of muslims to prove it response: the majority of muslims are not violent claim: they don't count - its the minority who are carrying out Allah's violent commands resposne: how can you claim them to be representing "true" Islam if they are in the minority? claim: because they are carrying out Allah's violent commands. and round and round we go...

gandalf,

Yes, ISLAM is innately violent.

Moslems simply pretend that ISLAM is not violent,    ....as a stratagem [i.e. deceit], of their warfare.


gandalf,

The 'failure' of [many] moslems living in nations like Australia, to show open animosity and even violence towards their non-moslem 'friends', does not prove that ISLAM is a benign philosophy.


gandalf,

Logically, the 'failure' [i.e. the unwillingness!] of moslems to reveal their true nature while living in nations like Australia has everything to do with the impotence of moslems living in nations like Australia [i.e. the fear of those moslems, that they will be called to account by secular law and law courts, within nations like Australia].



.


"...all notions of peace with non-Muslims are based on circumstance."

as per......

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/



.




FD said it well enough, when speaking to the reason for the apparent 'timidity' of many moslems....

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1391854581/281#281

Quote:

You are mistaking impotence for benign intent. The Muslims are in no hurry to correct you.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1368872008/51#51

Quote:

Chimp you are confusing impotence with benevolence. Abu was fond of this trick. Correlation does not equal causation.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/61#61

Quote:

They want to impose it on everyone. They just recognise their own impotence. Even Abu is telling you this spot. You should learn to tell the difference. Imagine a Nazi telling you he is not capable of slaughtering Jews because Australian law stops him - would you turn around and tell everyone he does not want to slaughter Jews? For someone who claims to oppose this BS you are incredibly blind to it.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/78#78

Quote:

How can you tell the difference? Even when Abu says he believes in the death penalty for apostasy and destroying freedom and democracy yuou refuse to believe it. All he has to do is point out his impotence to achieve his goals and you take this to mean they are not his goals. I have never seen anyone so easy to fool.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1339842765/287#287

Quote:

Do you believe that Abu wants Islamic law for Australia? Can you point to anywhere that he has actually said he does not want it, rather than where he has merely refused to give a straight answer? Can you tell the difference between Abu acknowledging his own impotence to achieve what he wants and not wanting it? Can you explain why he would answer by talking about his inability to achieve Islamic law in Australia if it was not what he wanted?

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344204563/155#155

Quote:

Not really. I am just trying to get you to acknowledge the reality. I have not been quoting the Koran at Abu as you claim and telling him what he believes. I have been asking him. As far as I can tell it still has not sunk in with you that Abu opposes freedom and democracy and wants the death penalty for all sorts of thought crimes. I can provide links and quotes on any that you are interested in. It will help you to face reality, one little step at a time. You can move past your little delusion that impotence is the same thing as benign intent.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344204563/168#168

Quote:

Are you honestly incapable of telling the difference between impotence and benign intent? Why is it good enough to for you to openly lie about what Abu wants by pretending it is the same as what he can achieve?

All of these "ISLAM is a peaceful faith." crowd, are as thick as two short planks.

Either that, or this crowd are really moslems, here on OzPol, who are masquerading as non-moslems.

I would say the latter.



" The Prophet said, "War is deceit." "
hadith/bukhari/ #004.052.269

Moslems lying to, and deceiving 'disbelievers', is still recognised as an aspect of Jihad [religious fighting against 'disbelievers'].



Isn't that correct, gandalf!    ;)

I see you've attracted two of the circular arguers G.   ;D ;D :D :D ;D ;D :D :D ;D ;D

You forgot the pickled stool, G: always absolutely never ever.

We don't call them retarded anymore. We call them people with early-onset dementia. This is a disability - it's no one's fault. The retarded, you see, have the right to not be offended. 

Delish.

|dev|null wrote on Aug 4^th, 2015 at 1:43pm:

I see you've attracted two of the circular arguers G.

dev,

Like many moslems, you have no credibility.

Your arguments are founded in falsehood.

Your denials are empty and uncreditable/unverifiable.


Dictionary;
credible = = able to be believed; convincing.



Moslems are persons who choose to follow a philosophy, ISLAM, which encourages hostility and/or deceit towards non-moslems,         .....the former in places where moslems are politically strong, and the latter in places where moslems are politically weak.

Living within nations like Australia [where moslems have little 'practical' means] the moslem community preaches a relationship of veiled hostility towards the non-moslem jurisdiction.



.




KILLING INNOCENT PEOPLE IS WRONG!!!!!     AND IT IS TOTALLY AGAINST ISLAMIC LAW.      ASK ANY MOSLEM..



The example of an 'Aussie' moslem community leader,


http://resources3.news.com.au/images/2007/01/18/va1237230244821/Sheik-Feiz-Chris-Pavlich-5363339.jpg


Quote:

Use children as troops, says cleric January 18, 2007 SYDNEY'S most influential radical Muslim cleric has been caught on film calling Jews pigs and urging children to die for Allah. Firebrand Sheik Feiz Mohammed, head of the Global Islamic Youth Centre in Liverpool [Australia], delivered the hateful rants on a collection of DVDs called the Death Series being sold in Australia and overseas. .........Sheik Feiz says in the video. "We want to have children and offer them as soldiers defending Islam. Teach them this: There is nothing more beloved to me than wanting to die as a mujahid (holy warrior). Put in their soft, tender hearts the zeal of jihad and a love of martyrdom." An Australian citizen born in Sydney who has spent the past year living in Lebanon, Sheik Feiz was exposed this week in a British documentary Undercover Mosque. ......"The peak, the pinnacle, the crest, the highest point, the pivot, the summit of Islam is jihad," he declares in the film, before denouncing "kaffirs" (non-Muslims). "Kaffir is the worst word ever written, a sign of infidelity, disbelief, filth, a sign of dirt." ......Sheik Feiz - who just two weeks ago said he felt like an "alien" in his own country - leads about 4000 followers through his Global Islamic Youth Centre in Sydney's southwest. He also accused Australian authorities of being over-zealous in their approach to clerics like him.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21074839-2,00.html
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/014863.php





.




Spokesmen for ISLAM will tell anyone who will listen;

THAT IT IS WRONG, AND THAT IT IS TOTALLY AGAINST ISLAMIC LAW,      TO KILL INNOCENT PEOPLE.



Please watch this YT...
A UK moslem community leader, speaking in the wake of the London 7/7 bombing;


Quote:

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




.




KILLING INNOCENT PEOPLE IS WRONG!!!!!     AND IT IS TOTALLY AGAINST ISLAMIC LAW.      ASK ANY MOSLEM..





The example of a moslem community leader,, speaking in the wake of the London 7/7 bombing;

FIRST speaking publicly [to an 'infidel' audience] ------- >



Quote:

"......In public interviews Bakri condemned the killing of all innocent civilians.

BUT, NOW LISTEN TO THE EXACT SAME MOSLEM - SPEAKING [PRIVATELY] TO A GROUP OF MOSLEMS ------- >


Quote:

Later when he addressed his own followers he explained that he had in fact been referring only to Muslims as only they were innocent: Yes I condemn killing any innocent people, but not any kuffar."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1724541,00.html



"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

Yadda wrote on Aug 4^th, 2015 at 2:10pm:

|dev|null wrote on Aug 4th, 2015 at 1:43pm: I see you've attracted two of the circular arguers G.  dev, Like many moslems, you have no credibility.

Except Y., I am NOT a Muslim!  Which rather sinks your whole argument, now doesn't it?   ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D

Yadda wrote on Aug 4^th, 2015 at 2:10pm:

Dictionary; credible = = able to be believed; convincing.

Or in other words:

credible = = the claim that a religion is best represented by the actions and convictions of the few, and not the actions and convictions of the majority.

|dev|null wrote on Aug 4^th, 2015 at 2:13pm:

Yadda wrote on Aug 4th, 2015 at 2:10pm: |dev|null wrote on Aug 4th, 2015 at 1:43pm: I see you've attracted two of the circular arguers G.  dev, Like many moslems, you have no credibility. Except Y., I am NOT a Muslim!  Which rather sinks your whole argument, now doesn't it?   ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D

dev,

I'm sorry to be the one to break this to you, but;

You have NOT achieved 'suspension of disbelief'.




.




Quote:

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




Google;
taqiyya - the muslim doctrine of deceit




Making the claim; "But i'm not a moslem!"

is like when i say; "ISLAM is not a peaceful and tolerant faith."


But i am able to provide evidence to back up my stated opinion.

Can you ?


e.g.
Why would anyone believe, that ISLAM is NOT murderous death cult ???


THE INERRANT KORAN.....


"....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 disbelievers] 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

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 4^th, 2015 at 2:29pm:

Yadda wrote on Aug 4th, 2015 at 2:10pm: Dictionary; credible = = able to be believed; convincing. Or in other words: credible = = the claim that a religion is best represented by the actions and convictions of the few, and not the actions and convictions of the majority.

gandalf,

The argument which i have with you, is not about a claim which is impossible to prove         [i.e. the argument about what are, the 'convictions' of the majority of moslems].


The argument is about what ISLAM is.

The argument is about what ISLAM is.

The argument is about what ISLAM is.





gandalf, is the moslem who claims to be a follower of ISLAM,

.......but, not a follower of ISLAM!!




.




gandalf,

You have no credibility, as a self confessed moslem.

----------- >


Yadda said....

Quote:

Dictionary; Muslim = = a follower of Islam. Google; Shahada, confession of faith, of a muslim "There is no god except for Allah alone; and Muhammad is the Apostle of Allah." Today, many moslems - living in Australia - are insisting that we, Australians, must be forced to believe the incredible; "I'm a moslem, and i worship Allah, and i revere Mohammed his messenger. And i know that Allah calls for the enslavement and/or murder of all non-moslems - THROUGH JIHAD [religious fighting, when moslems have that 'opportunity']. But i don't follow that part of my faith. HONEST!" Dictionary; incredible = = 1 impossible to believe. 2 difficult to believe; extraordinary.

.




Yadda said....
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1431117115/1#1

Quote:

"every moslem in Australia is a latent, wanna-be homicidal maniac" - Yadda QUESTION; What about the innocent moslems ? IMO, [logically] there are no innocent moslems [among persons who have come to the age of consent], and yet still declare themselves to be moslems. How so [logically] ? QUESTION; How credible is it that a person who is devout enough to insist that he is a moslem, is unaware of what ISLAM promotes, and is unaware of what the principle tenets of ISLAM are ? QUESTION; How 'innocent' is a person who agrees to give aid and comfort [and to give their own 'power'],      ...to a philosophy which transforms human beings, into homicidal maniacs ? QUESTION; How 'innocent' is a person who agrees to give aid and comfort [and to give their own 'power'],     ...to a philosophy which claims that murdering, in the cause of religious bigotry, is a religious virtue ?

.





THE INERRANT KORAN.....


"....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 disbelievers] 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

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 4^th, 2015 at 12:34pm:

claim: Islam is innately violent - and I have the actions of muslims to prove it

FACT: No need to have the actions of muslims to prove it even though its there. Islams written ideology the Quran Proves it by stating what Islam actually is or didn't ya know that. Not to mention what has become of the countries it has infested to date.


polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 4^th, 2015 at 12:34pm:

response: the majority of muslims are not violent

FACT: Of course not they only believe the violent ideology as written in the Quran and don't act it out.



polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 4^th, 2015 at 12:34pm:

claim: they don't count - its the minority who are carrying out Allah's violent commands

FACT: With the majority only marching in the streets against the infidellic west and not these so called minority ones carrying it out. LOL


polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 4^th, 2015 at 12:34pm:

resposne: how can you claim them to be representing "true" Islam if they are in the minority?

FACT: There is only one muslim. He follows the Quran if he does not he simply is NOT a muslim. As stated by the Quran or didn't ya know dat.


polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 4^th, 2015 at 12:34pm:

claim: because they are carrying out Allah's violent commands.

FACT: Not one so called mythical moderate muslim to date has EVER refuted the scriptures used by muslim terrorists.


polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 4^th, 2015 at 12:34pm:

and round and round we go...

FACT: Not really, we all know it goes in a muslims left ear and straight out his right. The posts are only made for the less learned people out there. What may appear to be a circle to you is only a response to Islamic propaganda to the rest of the world. No Biggy, we don't takeshit here in Australia. Sometimes we put up with it though until it starts to stink.

Yadda wrote on Aug 4^th, 2015 at 2:51pm:

You have no credibility, as a self confessed moslem.

My argument uses common sense and has nothing to do with being a muslim


Yadda wrote on Aug 4^th, 2015 at 2:51pm:

every moslem in Australia is a latent, wanna-be homicidal maniac

I find this offensive.

LifeOrDeath wrote on Aug 4^th, 2015 at 2:57pm:

FACT: Not one so called mythical moderate muslim to date has EVER refuted the scriptures used by muslim terrorists.

https://thegospelside.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/thats-just-dumb-pic-001.jpg

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 4^th, 2015 at 3:05pm:

LifeOrDeath wrote on Aug 4th, 2015 at 2:57pm: FACT: Not one so called mythical moderate muslim to date has EVER refuted the scriptures used by muslim terrorists. https://thegospelside.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/thats-just-dumb-pic-001.jpg

I agree its pretty dumb and obvious to everyone else.

Yadda wrote on Aug 4^th, 2015 at 2:42pm:

|dev|null wrote on Aug 4th, 2015 at 2:13pm: Yadda wrote on Aug 4th, 2015 at 2:10pm: |dev|null wrote on Aug 4th, 2015 at 1:43pm: I see you've attracted two of the circular arguers G.  dev, Like many moslems, you have no credibility. Except Y., I am NOT a Muslim!  Which rather sinks your whole argument, now doesn't it?   ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D dev, I'm sorry to be the one to break this to you, but; You have NOT achieved 'suspension of disbelief'.

Y. I don't care what you believe.  I know.  ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 4^th, 2015 at 3:01pm:

Yadda wrote on Aug 4th, 2015 at 2:51pm: You have no credibility, as a self confessed moslem. My argument uses common sense and has nothing to do with being a muslim Yadda wrote on Aug 4th, 2015 at 2:51pm: every moslem in Australia is a latent, wanna-be homicidal maniac I find this offensive.

I find Yadda offensive.

Highly offensive.

Yadda's "argument":

- all Muslims are Muslims
- all Muslims are terrorists
- all terrorists are Muslims
- all other views are invalid

His shtick is getting old.

;D ;D ;D

I post pro islam in every thread but I am not a muslim I am just passing time.

Well how cool is that. Well done. The diversity here is very encouraging I must say.

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 4^th, 2015 at 3:45pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 4th, 2015 at 3:01pm: Yadda wrote on Aug 4th, 2015 at 2:51pm: You have no credibility, as a self confessed moslem. My argument uses common sense and has nothing to do with being a muslim Yadda wrote on Aug 4th, 2015 at 2:51pm: every moslem in Australia is a latent, wanna-be homicidal maniac I find this offensive. I find Yadda offensive. Highly offensive. Yadda's "argument": - all Muslims are Muslims - all Muslims are terrorists - all terrorists are Muslims - all other views are invalid His shtick is getting old.

Don't forget

- the quran instructs terrorism
- all REAL muslims believe the quran as stated by the quran

Why would a muslim get offended by their holy book ?

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 4^th, 2015 at 3:01pm:

Yadda wrote on Aug 4th, 2015 at 2:51pm: You have no credibility, as a self confessed moslem. My argument uses common sense and has nothing to do with being a muslim Yadda wrote on Aug 4th, 2015 at 2:51pm: every moslem in Australia is a latent, wanna-be homicidal maniac I find this offensive.

Yes, G, but Y's just saying. Maybe you're a hommersexual maniac and don't know it yet.

It is possible, you know. Y wouldn't say it if it wasn't true.

Google: taqiyya.

why, can you understand why some might find the statement that every single muslim is a wannabe homocidal maniac offensive?

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 4^th, 2015 at 3:52pm:

why, can you understand why some might find the statement that every single muslim is a wannabe homocidal maniac offensive?

Does the quran instruct them to be homicidal maniacs ?

Homicide is the act of a human being causing the death of another human being. There are both unintentional and intentional homicides, and many different types of homicides are generally treated very differently in human societies; such classes of homicide can include murder, manslaughter, euthanasia, and execution.

Maniac (from Greek μανιακός, maniakos) is a pejorative for an individual who experiences the mood known as mania. Also in common usage it is an insult for someone involved in reckless behavior.

LifeOrDeath wrote on Aug 4^th, 2015 at 2:57pm:

FACT: Not one so called mythical moderate muslim to date has EVER refuted the scriptures used by muslim terrorists.

Lets see what Google tells us about your statement, shall we?  Oops!  ;D ;D :D :D ;D ;D :D :D ;D ;D

LifeOrDeath wrote on Aug 4^th, 2015 at 3:56pm:

Does the quran instruct them to be homicidal maniacs ?

No.

I don't expect you to believe this, but given that there are a substantial number of muslims that do, do you understand how such a muslim could take offense at being called a wannabe homocidal maniac?

Koran-The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement".


Another hate book. Walk away from organised religion.

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 4^th, 2015 at 4:05pm:

LifeOrDeath wrote on Aug 4th, 2015 at 3:56pm: Does the quran instruct them to be homicidal maniacs ? No. I don't expect you to believe this, but given that there are a substantial number of muslims that do, do you understand how such a muslim could take offense at being called a wannabe homocidal maniac?

I don't have to believe you you are not an authority on most muslims. I only deal in facts that don't require belief.

If the quran teaches the following definitions of homicide and maniac below, and one calls themselves a muslim and they take offense to the quran as you portray would they actually just be people calling themselves muslims and NOT real ones according to the quran ?

Does the quran instruct them to be homicidal maniacs ?
If so and they believe in islam why would they be offended ?


Definitions : -
Homicide is the act of a human being causing the death of
another human being. There are both unintentional and intentional homicides, and many different types of homicides are generally treated very differently in human societies; such classes of homicide can include murder, manslaughter, euthanasia, and execution.

Maniac (from Greek μανιακός, maniakos) is a pejorative for an individual who experiences the mood known as mania. Also in common usage it is an insult for someone involved in reckless behavior.

You said the quran doesn't teach that. how do explain away all the scriptures then ?

LifeOrDeath wrote on Aug 4^th, 2015 at 4:33pm:

You said the quran doesn't teach that. how do explain away all the scriptures then ?

I believe thats your job.

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 4^th, 2015 at 3:52pm:

why, can you understand why some might find the statement that every single muslim is a wannabe homocidal maniac offensive?

No one has the right to not be offended, G.

Y's allowed to criticize Moslems. He's just doing his job.

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 4^th, 2015 at 4:46pm:

LifeOrDeath wrote on Aug 4th, 2015 at 4:33pm: You said the quran doesn't teach that. how do explain away all the scriptures then ? I believe thats your job.

I believe thats your job you have seen them all posted here umpteen times. I'll humor you with a few.

Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing...
but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful.   And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone.  But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)"  (Translation is from the Noble Quran)  The verse prior to this (190) refers to "fighting for the cause of Allah those who fight you" leading some to believe that the entire passage refers to a defensive war in which Muslims are defending their homes and families.  The historical context of this passage is not defensive warfare, however, since Muhammad and his Muslims had just relocated to Medina and were not under attack by their Meccan adversaries.  In fact, the verses urge offensive warfare, in that Muslims are to drive Meccans out of their own city (which they later did).  Verse 190 thus means to fight those who offer resistance to Allah's rule (ie. Muslim conquest).  The use of the word "persecution" by some Muslim translators is disingenuous (the actual Arabic words for persecution - "idtihad" - and oppression - a variation of "z-l-m" - do not appear in the verse).  The word used instead, "fitna",  can mean disbelief, or the disorder that results from unbelief or temptation.  This is certainly what is meant in this context since the violence is explicitly commissioned "until religion is for Allah" - ie. unbelievers desist in their unbelief.

Quran (2:244) - "Then fight in the cause of Allah, and know that Allah Heareth and knoweth all things."

Quran (2:216) - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not."  Not only does this verse establish that violence can be virtuous, but it also contradicts the myth that fighting is intended only in self-defense, since the audience was obviously not under attack at the time.  From the Hadith, we know that this verse was narrated at a time that Muhammad was actually trying to motivate his people into raiding merchant caravans for loot.

Quran (3:56) - "As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help."

Quran (3:151) - "Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority".  This speaks directly of polytheists, yet it also includes Christians, since they believe in the Trinity (ie. what Muhammad incorrectly believed to be 'joining companions to Allah').

Quran (4:74) - "Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward."  The martyrs of Islam are unlike the early Christians, who were led meekly to the slaughter.  These Muslims are killed in battle as they attempt to inflict death and destruction for the cause of Allah.  This is the theological basis for today's suicide bombers.

Quran (4:76) - "Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah…"

Quran (4:89) - "They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks."

Quran (4:95) - "Not equal are those of the believers who sit (at home), except those who are disabled (by injury or are blind or lame, etc.), and those who strive hard and fight in the Cause of Allah with their wealth and their lives. Allah has preferred in grades those who strive hard and fight with their wealth and their lives above those who sit (at home). Unto each, Allah has promised good (Paradise), but Allah has preferred those who strive hard and fight, above those who sit (at home) by a huge reward "  This passage criticizes "peaceful" Muslims who do not join in the violence, letting them know that they are less worthy in Allah's eyes.  It also demolishes the modern myth that "Jihad" doesn't mean holy war in the Quran, but rather a spiritual struggle.  Not only is this Arabic word (mujahiduna) used in this passage, but it is clearly not referring to anything spiritual, since the physically disabled are given exemption.  (The Hadith reveals the context of the passage to be in response to a blind man's protest that he is unable to engage in Jihad, which would not make sense if it meant an internal struggle).  According to the verse, Allah will allow the disabled into Paradise, but will provide a larger reward to those who are able to kill others in his cause.

Quran (4:104) - "And be not weak hearted in pursuit of the enemy; if you suffer pain, then surely they (too) suffer pain as you suffer pain..."  Is pursuing an injured and retreating enemy really an act of self-defense?

Quran (5:33) - "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement"

Quran (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them"  No reasonable person would interpret this to mean a spiritual struggle.

Quran (8:15) - "O ye who believe! When ye meet those who disbelieve in battle, turn not your backs to them. (16)Whoso on that day turneth his back to them, unless maneuvering for battle or intent to join a company, he truly hath incurred wrath from Allah, and his habitation will be hell, a hapless journey's end."

Quran (8:39) - "And fight with them until there is no more fitna (disorder, unbelief) and religion should be only for Allah"  Some translations interpret "fitna" as "persecution", but the traditional understanding of this word is not supported by the historical context (See notes for  2:193).  The Meccans were simply refusing Muhammad access to their city during Haj.  Other Muslims were allowed to travel there - just not as an armed group, since Muhammad had declared war on Mecca prior to his eviction.  The Meccans were also acting in defense of their religion, since it was Muhammad's intention to destroy their idols and establish Islam by force (which he later did).  Hence the critical part of this verse is to fight until "religion is only for Allah", meaning that the true justification of violence was the unbelief of the opposition.  According to the Sira (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 324) Muhammad further explains that "Allah must have no rivals."

Quran (8:57) - "If thou comest on them in the war, deal with them so as to strike fear in those who are behind them, that haply they may remember." 

Quran (8:67) - "It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war until he had made a great slaughter in the land..."

Quran (8:59-60) - "And let not those who disbelieve suppose that they can outstrip (Allah's Purpose). Lo! they cannot escape.  Make ready for them all thou canst of (armed) force and of horses tethered, that thereby ye may dismay the enemy of Allah and your enemy."

Quran (8:65) - "O Prophet, exhort the believers to fight..."

Quran (9:5) - "So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captive and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them."  According to this verse, the best way of staying safe from Muslim violence is to convert to Islam (prayer (salat) and the poor tax (zakat) are among the religion's Five Pillars).  This popular claim that the Quran only inspires violence within the context of self-defense is seriously challenged by this passage as well, since the Muslims to whom it was written were obviously not under attack.  Had they been, then there would have been no waiting period (earlier verses make it a duty for Muslims to fight in self-defense, even during the sacred months).  The historical context is Mecca after the idolaters were subjugated by Muhammad and posed no threat.  Once the Muslims had power, they violently evicted those unbelievers who would not convert.

Quran (9:14) - "Fight against them so that Allah will punish them by your hands and disgrace them and give you victory over them and heal the breasts of a believing people." Humiliating and hurting non-believers not only has the blessing of Allah, but it is ordered as a means of carrying out his punishment and even "healing" the hearts of Muslims.

Quran (9:20) - "Those who believe, and have left their homes and striven with their wealth and their lives in Allah's way are of much greater worth in Allah's sight. These are they who are triumphant."  The Arabic word interpreted as "striving" in this verse is the same root as "Jihad".  The context is obviously holy war.

Quran (9:29) - "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."  "People of the Book" refers to Christians and Jews.  According to this verse, they are to be violently subjugated, with the sole justification being their religious status.  Verse 9:33 tells Muslims that Allah has charted them to make Islam "superior over all religions." This chapter was one of the final "revelations" from Allah and it set in motion the tenacious military expansion, in which Muhammad's companions managed to conquer two-thirds of the Christian world in the next 100 years.  Islam is intended to dominate all other people and faiths.

Quran (9:30) - "And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!"

Quran (9:38-39) - "O ye who believe! what is the matter with you, that, when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of Allah, ye cling heavily to the earth? Do ye prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the Hereafter. Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place."  This is a warning to those who refuse to fight, that they will be punished with Hell.

Quran (9:41) - "Go forth, light-armed and heavy-armed, and strive with your wealth and your lives in the way of Allah! That is best for you if ye but knew."  See also the verse that follows (9:42) - "If there had been immediate gain (in sight), and the journey easy, they would (all) without doubt have followed thee, but the distance was long, (and weighed) on them"  This contradicts the myth that Muslims are to fight only in self-defense, since the wording implies that battle will be waged a long distance from home (in another country and on Christian soil, in this case, according to the historians).

Quran (9:73) - "O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination."  Dehumanizing those who reject Islam, by reminding Muslims that unbelievers are merely firewood for Hell, makes it easier to justify slaughter.  It also explains why today's devout Muslims have little regard for those outside the faith.

Quran (9:88) - "But the Messenger, and those who believe with him, strive and fight with their wealth and their persons: for them are (all) good things: and it is they who will prosper."

Quran (9:111) - "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: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Quran: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? then rejoice in the bargain which ye have concluded: that is the achievement supreme."  How does the Quran define a true believer?

Quran (9:123) - "O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness."

Quran (17:16) - "And when We wish to destroy a town, We send Our commandment to the people of it who lead easy lives, but they transgress therein; thus the word proves true against it, so We destroy it with utter destruction."  Note that the crime is moral transgression, and the punishment is "utter destruction."  (Before ordering the 9/11 attacks, Osama bin Laden first issued Americans an invitation to Islam).

Quran (18:65-81) - This parable lays the theological groundwork for honor killings, in which a family member is murdered because they brought shame to the family, either through apostasy or perceived moral indiscretion.  The story (which is not found in any Jewish or Christian source) tells of Moses encountering a man with "special knowledge" who does things which don't seem to make sense on the surface, but are then justified according to later explanation.  One such action is to murder a youth for no apparent reason (74).  However, the wise man later explains that it was feared that the boy would "grieve" his parents by "disobedience and ingratitude."  He was killed so that Allah could provide them a 'better' son.  (Note: This is one reason why honor killing is sanctioned by Sharia.  Reliance of the Traveler (Umdat al-Saliq) says that punishment for murder is not applicable when a parent or grandparent kills their offspring (o.1.1-2).)

Quran (21:44) - "We gave the good things of this life to these men and their fathers until the period grew long for them; See they not that We gradually reduce the land (in their control) from its outlying borders? Is it then they who will win?"

Quran (25:52) - "Therefore listen not to the Unbelievers, but strive against them with the utmost strenuousness..."   "Strive against" is Jihad - obviously not in the personal context.  It's also significant to point out that this is a Meccan verse.

Quran (33:60-62) - "If the hypocrites, and those in whose hearts is a disease, and the alarmists in the city do not cease, We verily shall urge thee on against them, then they will be your neighbors in it but a little while.  Accursed, they will be seized wherever found and slain with a (fierce) slaughter."   This passage sanctions the slaughter (rendered "merciless" and "horrible murder" in other translations) against three groups: Hypocrites (Muslims who refuse to "fight in the way of Allah" (3:167) and hence don't act as Muslims should), those with "diseased hearts" (which include Jews and Christians 5:51-52), and "alarmists" or "agitators who include those who merely speak out against Islam, according to Muhammad's biographers.  It is worth noting that the victims are to be sought out by Muslims, which is what today's terrorists do.  If this passage is meant merely to apply to the city of Medina, then it is unclear why it is included in Allah's eternal word to Muslim generations.

Quran (47:3-4) - "Those who disbelieve follow falsehood, while those who believe follow the truth from their Lord... So, when you meet (in fight Jihad in Allah's Cause), those who disbelieve smite at their necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them, then bind a bond firmly (on them, i.e. take them as captives)... If it had been Allah's Will, He Himself could certainly have punished them (without you). But (He lets you fight), in order to test you, some with others. But those who are killed in the Way of Allah, He will never let their deeds be lost."  Those who reject Allah are to be killed in Jihad.  The wounded are to be held captive for ransom.  The only reason Allah doesn't do the dirty work himself is to to test the faithfulness of Muslims.  Those who kill pass the test.

Quran (47:35) - "Be not weary and faint-hearted, crying for peace, when ye should be uppermost (Shakir: "have the upper hand") for Allah is with you,"   

Quran (48:17) - "There is no blame for the blind, nor is there blame for the lame, nor is there blame for the sick (that they go not forth to war). And whoso obeyeth Allah and His messenger, He will make him enter Gardens underneath which rivers flow; and whoso turneth back, him will He punish with a painful doom."  Contemporary apologists sometimes claim that Jihad means 'spiritual struggle.'  Is so, then why are the blind, lame and sick exempted?  This verse also says that those who do not fight will suffer torment in hell.

Quran (48:29) - "Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard (ruthless) against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves"  Islam is not about treating everyone equally.  This verse tells Muslims that there are two very distinct standards that are applied based on religious status.  Also the word used for 'hard' or 'ruthless' in this verse shares the same root as the word translated as 'painful' or severe' to describe Hell in over 25 other verses including 65:10, 40:46 and 50:26..

Quran (61:4) - "Surely Allah loves those who fight in His way"  Religion of Peace, indeed! The verse explicitly refers to "battle array" meaning that it is speaking of physical conflict.  This is followed by (61:9): "He it is who has sent His Messenger (Mohammed) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islam) to make it victorious over all religions even though the infidels may resist."  (See next verse, below).  Infidels who resist Islamic rule are to be fought.

Quran (61:10-12) - "O You who believe! Shall I guide you to a commerce that will save you from a painful torment. That you believe in Allah and His Messenger (Muhammad ), and that you strive hard and fight in the Cause of Allah with your wealth and your lives, that will be better for you, if you but know! (If you do so) He will forgive you your sins, and admit you into Gardens under which rivers flow, and pleasant dwelling in Gardens of 'Adn - Eternity ['Adn (Edn) Paradise], that is indeed the great success."  This verse refers to physical battle in order to make Islam victorious over other religions (see above).  It uses the Arabic word, Jihad.

Quran (66:9) - "O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and be stern with them. Hell will be their home, a hapless journey's end."  The root word of "Jihad" is used again here.  The context is clearly holy war, and the scope of violence is broadened to include "hypocrites" - those who call themselves Muslims but do not act as such.

That's more like it, Matty. If you can get the whole Koran in, you might just crash the board.

Allah Uakbar, no?

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 4^th, 2015 at 4:46pm:

LifeOrDeath wrote on Aug 4th, 2015 at 4:33pm: You said the quran doesn't teach that. how do explain away all the scriptures then ? I believe thats your job.

I'd say people that believe all that would be a wannabe homicidal maniac. Why wouldn't they ?

or don't they believe that ?

Karnal wrote on Aug 4^th, 2015 at 5:16pm:

That's more like it, Matty. If you can get the whole Koran in, you might just crash the board. Allah Uakbar, no?

Take your babbling elsewhere troll.

LifeOrDeath wrote on Aug 4^th, 2015 at 5:19pm:

Are you capable of contributing to the discussion or do you just troll 24/7 ?

Thanks Matty, thats what we call "explaining away the scriptures".

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 4^th, 2015 at 5:38pm:

Thanks Matty, thats what we call "explaining away the scriptures".

Can't you read them ?

Matty, care to explain why those scriptures don't promote homicidal maniacs ?

After all they are from the quran and you said the quran doesn't promote someone becoming a homicidal maniac.

Or were you talking fluff ?

I fail to see why anyone who believes those scriptures would not be a wannabe homicidal maniac. Unless they really don't believe it and are therefore not a muslim.

LifeOrDeath wrote on Aug 4^th, 2015 at 5:42pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 4th, 2015 at 5:38pm: Thanks Matty, thats what we call "explaining away the scriptures". Can't you read them ? Matty, care to explain why those scriptures don't promote homicidal maniacs ? After all they are from the quran and you said the quran doesn't promote someone becoming a homicidal maniac. Or were you talking fluff ? I fail to see why anyone who believes those scriptures would not be a wannabe homicidal maniac. Unless they really don't believe it and are therefore not a muslim.

You believe it.

You must be a Muslim.

Interesting.

LifeOrDeath wrote on Aug 4^th, 2015 at 5:42pm:

Matty, care to explain why those scriptures don't promote homicidal maniacs ?

Because they are cherry picked. You left out the parts about not transgressing limits or to accept peace whenever it is offered or to never wrong those who have never wronged you.

I could quote you twice as many quotes that implore muslims to be peaceful and forgiving, eg:


Quote:

By which Allah guides those who pursue His pleasure to the ways of peace and brings them out from darknesses into the light, by His permission, and guides them to a straight path.

5:16

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 4^th, 2015 at 5:55pm:

LifeOrDeath wrote on Aug 4th, 2015 at 5:42pm: Matty, care to explain why those scriptures don't promote homicidal maniacs ? Because they are cherry picked. You left out the parts about not transgressing limits or to accept peace whenever it is offered or to never wrong those who have never wronged you. I could quote you twice as many quotes that implore muslims to be peaceful and forgiving, eg: Quote: By which Allah guides those who pursue His pleasure to the ways of peace and brings them out from darknesses into the light, by His permission, and guides them to a straight path. 5:16

Cherry picked ;D ;D

So at the end of the day you cannot explain them away as being applicable to every muslim today.

Even if what you said was true that would make the quran the biggest hypocritical book eva and not to mention still promoting people to become wannabe homicidal maniacs.

Anyway back on the subject at hand. Your original answer of 'NO' that the quran does not show a muslim is a wannabe homicidal maniac. I posted scriptures from the quran which teach such things along with the definition of homicidal and the word maniac which obviously fit the quranic teachings.

You have NOT refuted any of those scriptures nor told us why they are not applicable today. They are not a few cherry picked scriptures but a plethora of them for your easy reading.

Why would a muslim not agree with them and strive to be like them if they are words from god ?

This is the problem with islam, the author never thought it through. This is precisely why muslims have such anger issues is they know this. They know the west sees straight through it.

You can cry infidel all you like and say its not true but its all there in history and print.

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 4^th, 2015 at 2:29pm:

Yadda wrote on Aug 4th, 2015 at 2:10pm: Dictionary; credible = = able to be believed; convincing. Or in other words: credible = = the claim that a religion is best represented by the actions and convictions of the few, and not the actions and convictions of the majority.

Should Islam be represented by the actions of the few, the many, or the one Gandalf?


Quote:

Because they are cherry picked. You left out the parts about not transgressing limits or to accept peace whenever it is offered or to never wrong those who have never wronged you.

How does this fit in with your Jew=Borg justification for Muhammed slaughtering 800 innocent people? It sounds to me like you are the one doing the cherry picking Gandalf.

I'll explain cherry picking to you matty:

It is quoting this verse:


LifeOrDeath wrote on Aug 4^th, 2015 at 5:13pm:

Quran (8:57) - "If thou comest on them in the war, deal with them so as to strike fear in those who are behind them, that haply they may remember."

while omitting this one immediately preceding it:

8:56: The ones with whom you made a treaty but then they break their pledge every time, and they do not fear Allah .

and also this one after it:

8:61: And if they incline to peace, then incline to it [also] and rely upon Allah . Indeed, it is He who is the Hearing, the Knowing.

freediver wrote on Aug 4^th, 2015 at 6:33pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 4th, 2015 at 2:29pm: Yadda wrote on Aug 4th, 2015 at 2:10pm: Dictionary; credible = = able to be believed; convincing. Or in other words: credible = = the claim that a religion is best represented by the actions and convictions of the few, and not the actions and convictions of the majority. Should Islam be represented by the actions of the few, the many, or the one Gandalf?

The many (majority).

Ah, so Islam is now a democracy?

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 4^th, 2015 at 5:55pm:

eg: By which Allah guides those who pursue His pleasure to the ways of peace and brings them out from darkness's into the light, by His permission, and guides them to a straight path. 5:16

Just for the record allah here is referring to his own book the quran that has all the scriptures I posted in it that he agrees with. In context why would he say anything different if he agreed with the verses I provided.

That is a bad example on your part.

I am still waiting for the rebuttal on the scriptures I posted promoting muslims to become homicidal maniacs and why they should not take offense if thats what they believe. Rather than a diversion by you to another topic.

Thats not a description of a democracy FD.

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 4^th, 2015 at 6:42pm:

freediver wrote on Aug 4th, 2015 at 6:33pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 4th, 2015 at 2:29pm: Yadda wrote on Aug 4th, 2015 at 2:10pm: Dictionary; credible = = able to be believed; convincing. Or in other words: credible = = the claim that a religion is best represented by the actions and convictions of the few, and not the actions and convictions of the majority. Should Islam be represented by the actions of the few, the many, or the one Gandalf? The many (majority).

I would have thought Islam being a documented religion/ideology depending on how you take your islam, would be represented by those that fulfill what it actually teaches in the quran or even by the quran's teachings alone. Since one cannot be a muslim if one does not believe what the quran teaches.

The majority doesn't really work I am afraid.

LifeOrDeath wrote on Aug 4^th, 2015 at 6:52pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 4th, 2015 at 6:42pm: freediver wrote on Aug 4th, 2015 at 6:33pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 4th, 2015 at 2:29pm: Yadda wrote on Aug 4th, 2015 at 2:10pm: Dictionary; credible = = able to be believed; convincing. Or in other words: credible = = the claim that a religion is best represented by the actions and convictions of the few, and not the actions and convictions of the majority. Should Islam be represented by the actions of the few, the many, or the one Gandalf? The many (majority). I would have thought Islam being a documented religion/ideology depending on how you take your islam, would be represented by those that fulfill what it actually teaches in the quran or even by the quran's teachings alone. Since one cannot be a muslim if one does not believe what the quran teaches. The majority doesn't really work I am afraid.

Logical fallacy.

|dev|null wrote on Aug 4^th, 2015 at 3:42pm:

Yadda wrote on Aug 4th, 2015 at 2:42pm: |dev|null wrote on Aug 4th, 2015 at 2:13pm: Yadda wrote on Aug 4th, 2015 at 2:10pm: |dev|null wrote on Aug 4th, 2015 at 1:43pm: I see you've attracted two of the circular arguers G.  dev, Like many moslems, you have no credibility. Except Y., I am NOT a Muslim!  Which rather sinks your whole argument, now doesn't it?   ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D dev, I'm sorry to be the one to break this to you, but; You have NOT achieved 'suspension of disbelief'. Y. I don't care what you believe.

dev,

If you didn't, you wouldn't respond to the opinions i express in my posts.

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 4^th, 2015 at 7:04pm:

Logical fallacy.

After you still have NOT said why those scriptures I posted do not show every muslim is a wannbe homicidal maniac. With your core argument being cherry picking.

Seriously   ;D ;D

LifeOrDeath wrote on Aug 4^th, 2015 at 7:13pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 4th, 2015 at 7:04pm: Logical fallacy. After you still have NOT said why those scriptures I posted do not show every muslim is a wannbe homicidal maniac. With your core argument being cherry picking. Seriously   ;D ;D

I already showed you how one of the verses was cherry picked.

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 4^th, 2015 at 3:01pm:

Yadda wrote on Aug 4th, 2015 at 2:51pm: every moslem in Australia is a latent, wanna-be homicidal maniac I find this offensive.

gandalf,

I find everything about ISLAM offensive.


Latent, wanna-be homicidal maniacs are walking among us.

Moslems.

------------ >

IMAGE...
http://images.smh.com.au/2012/09/15/3637564/art-protest3-620x349.jpg

"BEHEAD ALL THOSE WHO INSULT THE PROPHET"

Sydney, 2012, moslem street protests.

'Aussie' moslems on a Sydney street, openly demonstrating and exposing to public view, the violent religious bigotry which ISLAM, has put into their hearts.

'Aussie' moslems on a Sydney street, openly demanding their right to exercise their 'freedom of religion'.

Demanding the 'religious freedom', to kill people who offend them, because they do not believe as they [moslems] believe.


< ---------    Those 'Aussie' moslems are engaging in the commission of a HATE CRIME,       on 'MAIN ST', Australia!!!

Those 'Aussie' moslems are inciting cultural and political hatred and cultural and political violence,      against all Australians [i.e. against the government, of the people of Australia].

And those 'Aussie' moslems are engaged in this type of incitement, inter-cultural and political hatred,    simply because many of us, are not moslems, and because Australians do not share the views and opinions of 'Aussie' moslems.




'Aussie' moslems, are inspired by their imam, in their mosques.




.



ISLAMIC DOCTRINE.....

MURDERING DISBELIEVERS IS LAWFUL


ISLAMIC LAW....
"Ibn 'Umar related that the Messenger of Allah, upon whom be peace, said, "I have been ordered to kill the people until they testify that there is no god except Allah, and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and they establish prayer and pay the zakah. If they do that, their blood and wealth are protected from me save by the rights of Islam. Their reckoning will be with Allah." (Related by al-Bukhari and Muslim.) "
fiqhussunnah/fus1_06


ISLAMIC LAW....
"Ibn 'Abbas reported that the Prophet said: "The bare essence of Islam and the basics of the religion are three [acts], upon which Islam has been established. Whoever leaves one of them becomes an unbeliever and his blood may legally be spilled. [The acts are:] Testifying that there is no God except Allah, the obligatory prayers, and the fast of Ramadan."...."
fiqhussunnah/#3.110

n.b.
"Whoever......becomes an unbeliever.....his blood may legally be spilled."




.




Spokesmen for ISLAM will tell anyone who will listen;

THAT IT IS WRONG, AND THAT IT IS TOTALLY AGAINST ISLAMIC LAW,      TO KILL INNOCENT PEOPLE.



Please watch this YT...
A UK moslem community leader, speaking in the wake of the London 7/7 bombing;


Quote:

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



I am offended by what ISLAM is.

It is a murderous death cult.


THE HADITH....

"...the Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him." - DEAD.
hadithsunnah/bukhari/ #004.052.260

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 4^th, 2015 at 3:45pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 4th, 2015 at 3:01pm: Yadda wrote on Aug 4th, 2015 at 2:51pm: You have no credibility, as a self confessed moslem. My argument uses common sense and has nothing to do with being a muslim Yadda wrote on Aug 4th, 2015 at 2:51pm: every moslem in Australia is a latent, wanna-be homicidal maniac I find this offensive. I find Yadda offensive. Highly offensive. Yadda's "argument": - all Muslims are Muslims - all Muslims are terrorists - all terrorists are Muslims - all other views are invalid His shtick is getting old.

greg,

You missed two important preliminary points.

Yadda's "argument":

ISLAM is a death cult
All moslems are followers of ISLAM

- all Muslims are Muslims    CORRECT! , got it in one!
- all Muslims are terrorists    CORRECT! , got it in one!


- all terrorists are Muslims    incorrect
- all other views are invalid     that is not my opinion

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 4^th, 2015 at 7:17pm:

LifeOrDeath wrote on Aug 4th, 2015 at 7:13pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 4th, 2015 at 7:04pm: Logical fallacy. After you still have NOT said why those scriptures I posted do not show every muslim is a wannbe homicidal maniac. With your core argument being cherry picking. Seriously   ;D ;D I already showed you how one of the verses was cherry picked.

You showed me how one verse was cherry picked did you ;D . Well that's it then ha ha. ;D ;D

Even if it was that has nothing to do with my assertion.

You are just showing how weak your argument is by accusing me of cherry picking. Refute the cherry picking then. You won't because you cannot, your argument has no base .

You said the quran never taught it and I showed verses where it clearly did. I would say you are embarrassed by what you thought was real.

At the end of the day you still have NOT said why those scriptures I posted do not show every muslim is a wannbe homicidal maniac.

LifeOrDeath wrote on Aug 4^th, 2015 at 7:30pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 4th, 2015 at 7:17pm: LifeOrDeath wrote on Aug 4th, 2015 at 7:13pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 4th, 2015 at 7:04pm: Logical fallacy. After you still have NOT said why those scriptures I posted do not show every muslim is a wannbe homicidal maniac. With your core argument being cherry picking. Seriously   ;D ;D I already showed you how one of the verses was cherry picked. You showed me how one verse was cherry picked did you ;D . Well that's it then ha ha. ;D ;D Even if it was that has nothing to do with my assertion. You are just showing how weak your argument is by accusing me of cherry picking. Refute the cherry picking then. You won't because you cannot, your argument has no base . You said the quran never taught it and I showed verses where it clearly did. I would say you are embarrassed by what you thought was real. At the end of the day you still have NOT said why those scriptures I posted do not show every muslim is a wannbe homicidal maniac.

So you're not denying the verse was cherry picked I see.

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 4^th, 2015 at 7:35pm:

So you're not denying the verse was cherry picked I see.

Nothing was cherry picked that was your defence for your nothing response.

Once again for the man who cannot substantiate his own religion.

You said the quran never taught it and I showed verses where it clearly did.

At the end of the day you still have NOT said why those scriptures I posted do not show every muslim is a wannbe homicidal maniac.

Here is something more simple if that was too hard a task for you.

What proof do you actually have that mohammed even existed less than 60 years after he was even to have died ?

Just one shred of credible evidence will do. The quran wasn't even around then either.

Then you can tell us why you believe this story ?

$50 says you were born into it and indoctrinated.

LifeOrDeath wrote on Aug 4^th, 2015 at 7:49pm:

Nothing was cherry picked

Right, just so we're clear here: quoting one verse telling muslims to instill fear in the ranks of their enemy - without mentioning the verse preceding it saying it only applies to enemies who repeatedly break treaties, and without mentioning the verse after ordering muslims to accept any overtures of peace by that enemy - isn't cherry picking?

Please confirm this is the case matty, before we go any further.

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 4^th, 2015 at 7:59pm:

LifeOrDeath wrote on Aug 4th, 2015 at 7:49pm: Nothing was cherry picked Right, just so we're clear here: quoting one verse telling muslims to instill fear in the ranks of their enemy - without mentioning the verse preceding it saying it only applies to enemies who repeatedly break treaties, and without mentioning the verse after ordering muslims to accept any overtures of peace by that enemy - isn't cherry picking? Please confirm this is the case matty, before we go any further.

Write those ones off as cherry picking, I couldn't care less. Keep going through the rest and lets see how good your quran is on the homicidal maniac front.

After all you snapped to its defence did you not.

You're the one that said the quran does NOT teach people to become homicidal maniacs. I clearly listed a ton of verses. You can make out they are all cherry picked all you like but they are not.

So lets keep going shall we matty.

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 4^th, 2015 at 6:45pm:

Thats not a description of a democracy FD.

Whatever it is, it is circular. Why should Islam not be represented by the words and deeds of Muhammed?

LifeOrDeath wrote on Aug 4^th, 2015 at 8:06pm:

I clearly listed a ton of verses. You can make out they are all cherry picked all you like but they are not.

Well, actually, they are.

Perhaps you don't understand what 'cherry-picked' means.

You don't seem to understand a lot of things, so I'm guessing we can confidently add "cherry-picked" to the list.

You of all people are not in a position to be talking about understanding a lot of things. Try another id perhaps.
We being all those voices inside your petty little head no doubt.

LifeOrDeath wrote on Aug 4^th, 2015 at 8:33pm:

We being all those voices inside your petty little head no doubt.

"We", being anyone with a basic education.

Let us know when you get one then. Then maybe you won't be read as a mindless troll.

LifeOrDeath wrote on Aug 4^th, 2015 at 8:37pm:

Let us know when you get one then. Then maybe you won't be read as a mindless troll.

How would you recognise an education?

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 4^th, 2015 at 7:59pm:

LifeOrDeath wrote on Aug 4th, 2015 at 7:49pm: Nothing was cherry picked Right, just so we're clear here: quoting one verse telling muslims to instill fear in the ranks of their enemy - without mentioning the verse preceding it saying it only applies to enemies who repeatedly break treaties, and without mentioning the verse after ordering muslims to accept any overtures of peace by that enemy - isn't cherry picking? Please confirm this is the case matty, before we go any further.

Write those ones off as cherry picking, I couldn't care less. Keep going through the rest and lets see how good your quran is on the homicidal maniac front.

After all you snapped to its defence did you not.

You're the one that said the quran does NOT teach people to become homicidal maniacs. I clearly listed a ton of verses. You can make out they are all cherry picked all you like but they are not.

So lets keep going shall we matty.

LifeOrDeath wrote on Aug 4^th, 2015 at 8:59pm:

I clearly listed a ton of verses. You can make out they are all cherry picked all you like but they are not.

They are, actually.

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 4^th, 2015 at 9:01pm:

LifeOrDeath wrote on Aug 4th, 2015 at 8:59pm: I clearly listed a ton of verses. You can make out they are all cherry picked all you like but they are not. They are, actually.

Show me how each one is cherry picked.

LifeOrDeath wrote on Aug 4^th, 2015 at 9:07pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 4th, 2015 at 9:01pm: LifeOrDeath wrote on Aug 4th, 2015 at 8:59pm: I clearly listed a ton of verses. You can make out they are all cherry picked all you like but they are not. They are, actually. Show me how each one is cherry picked.

cherry-pick: "selectively choose (the most beneficial or profitable items, opportunities, etc.) from what is available."

White flag accepted.

You said they were all cherry picked.

Show me the proof where the verses I posted individually were cherry picked.

Just in case you are a bit slow at understanding.

Post each verse here one at a time and in the context of each verse explain how that verse was cherry picked along with the evidence that supports your silly claim for each one being cherry picked.

It appears no one else can.

LifeOrDeath wrote on Aug 4^th, 2015 at 9:23pm:

You said they were all cherry picked. Show me the proof where the verses I posted individually were cherry picked. Just in case you are a bit slow at understanding. Post each verse here one at a time and in the context of each verse explain how that verse was cherry picked along with the evidence that supports your silly claim for each one being cherry picked. It appears no one else can.

Your cherry-picking has been exposed, and your white flag accepted.

No correspondence will be entered into.

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 4^th, 2015 at 9:29pm:

LifeOrDeath wrote on Aug 4th, 2015 at 9:23pm: You said they were all cherry picked. Show me the proof where the verses I posted individually were cherry picked. Just in case you are a bit slow at understanding. Post each verse here one at a time and in the context of each verse explain how that verse was cherry picked along with the evidence that supports your silly claim for each one being cherry picked. It appears no one else can. Your cherry-picking has been exposed, and your white flag accepted. No correspondence will be entered into.

So you're just trolling as usual.

Go destroy another thread with your stupidity you stupid little man.

Language, Matty. You’ve come back to raise the standard of the board, remember.

It should be out of action by Sunday, no?

Impossible, with mindless matty trolls like you around.

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 4^th, 2015 at 3:52pm:

why, can you understand why some might find the statement that every single muslim is a wannabe homocidal maniac offensive?

gandalf,

All respect, but the words which you attribute to me, are misrepresenting how i ACTUALLY expressed myself.



Yadda said....
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1431117115/1#1

Quote:

"every moslem in Australia is a latent, wanna-be homicidal maniac" - Yadda

And, the word - latent - means this --------- >


Dictionary;
latent = = existing but not yet developed, manifest, or active


And the following of ISLAM, introduces the element of intentional killing, aka murder.

Dictionary,
malice aforethought = = the intention to kill or harm, held to distinguish unlawful killing from murder.


CRIMINAL INTENT, IN THE MOSLEM HEART
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1252898491/0#0



gandalf,

ISLAM sanctions the 'lawful' MURDER of persons who reject ISLAM.

How so ?

Because Allah states that those who reject Allah have no protection in law, and that they are in fact, his enemies;


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


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


QUESTION;
But why would a person who declares himself to be, a moslem, commit such an act [i.e. the murder of disbelievers] ?

It isn't rocket science!!!!

ANSWER;
Dictionary;
Muslim = = a follower of Islam.

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 4^th, 2015 at 6:42pm:

freediver wrote on Aug 4th, 2015 at 6:33pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 4th, 2015 at 2:29pm: Yadda wrote on Aug 4th, 2015 at 2:10pm: Dictionary; credible = = able to be believed; convincing. Or in other words: credible = = the claim that a religion is best represented by the actions and convictions of the few, and not the actions and convictions of the majority. Should Islam be represented by           the actions of the few, the many, or the one Gandalf? The many (majority).

gandalf,

I would have suggested that your reply should have suggested,      that ISLAM [i.e. Allah's perfect religion] should be 'represented' [e.g. 'explained'],      by the wishes of the entity that you know as, Allah.

Not so ?


gandalf,

And what is Allah's word, regarding the enmity and hostility, to be shown towards those who do not worship Allah alone ???

a few examples of Allah's direct and actual words ------ >

"There is for you an excellent example (to follow) in Abraham and those with him, when they said to their people: "We are clear of you and of whatever ye worship besides Allah: we have rejected you, and there has arisen, between us and you, enmity and hatred for ever,- unless ye believe in Allah and Him alone"....."
Koran 60:4


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


gandalf,

QUESTION;
If moslems fight against infidels, because moslems are being moslems, and because the infidels refuse to worship Allah, aren't moslems likely to kill those infidels [in the act of fighting against them] ?

Dictionary;
Muslim = = a follower of Islam.




You are fighting the good fight, aren't you gandalf ?          ;)

But your 'fight' is non-lethal for infidels, at this stage of your Jihad.



That is correct, isn't it gandalf ?





.




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/

You would think he would at least wash his forehead wouldn't you. What a grub.

LifeOrDeath wrote on Aug 4^th, 2015 at 8:06pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 4th, 2015 at 7:59pm: LifeOrDeath wrote on Aug 4th, 2015 at 7:49pm: Nothing was cherry picked Right, just so we're clear here: quoting one verse telling muslims to instill fear in the ranks of their enemy - without mentioning the verse preceding it saying it only applies to enemies who repeatedly break treaties, and without mentioning the verse after ordering muslims to accept any overtures of peace by that enemy - isn't cherry picking? Please confirm this is the case matty, before we go any further. Write those ones off as cherry picking, I couldn't care less.

;D - I guess thats as close to an admission of defeat as we'll get.

freediver wrote on Aug 4^th, 2015 at 8:28pm:

Why should Islam not be represented by the words and deeds of Muhammed?

And here we have FD diving head first into his favourite version of the circular argument:

FD: Why should Islam not be represented by the words and deeds of Muhammed?

response: It should - most muslims believe Muhammad represented peace and goodwill

FD: Is that why all those muslims are in Syria on a Muhammad-inspired rape and pillage carnival?

response: most muslims reject those actions and reject the idea that they represent the actions of The Prophet

FD: yeah but they are deluded, lying or stupid - only the rapists are following Muhammad true example

response: why should that minority be seen to represent the true example of Muhammad - when the majority rejects
that representation?

FD: because they are following the real example of Muhammad...

....and on and on

Of course there is always a poo joke. The joke being -

If you don't want to eat Halal certified food, eat poo. lol

I do most of my food shopping at markets and via the farm gate now.  :)

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 4^th, 2015 at 2:29pm:

Yadda wrote on Aug 4th, 2015 at 2:10pm: Dictionary; credible = = able to be believed; convincing. Or in other words: credible = = the claim that a religion is best represented by the actions and convictions of the few, and not the actions and convictions of the majority.

Good point for discussion.

Who are the most faithful to the letter of their religion - the priests and nuns or the laity?

Who are the teachers/preachers and who are the listeners/congregation - the ordained or the laity?

Which are in the minority - the True Believers or the Sunday morning Christians?

The answer is obvious.

Political Islam is driven by the few.

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 5^th, 2015 at 8:13am:

freediver wrote on Aug 4th, 2015 at 8:28pm: Why should Islam not be represented by the words and deeds of Muhammed? And here we have FD diving head first into his favourite version of the circular argument: FD: Why should Islam not be represented by the words and deeds of Muhammed? response: It should - most muslims believe Muhammad represented peace and goodwill FD: Is that why all those muslims are in Syria on a Muhammad-inspired rape and pillage carnival? response: most muslims reject those actions and reject the idea that they represent the actions of The Prophet FD: yeah but they are deluded, lying or stupid - only the rapists are following Muhammad true example response: why should that minority be seen to represent the true example of Muhammad - when the majority rejects that representation? FD: because they are following the real example of Muhammad... ....and on and on

gandalf,

Yes!

According to the moslem [you know! the follower of ISLAM], ISLAM is the lily white and virtuous faith.

It is the actual perfect religion, given to man, by Allah.



And according to the moslem [and Allah], Mohammed [the messenger of Allah] is an example of virtuous conduct for every moslem man.

"Ye have indeed in the Messenger of Allah [i.e. Mohammed] a beautiful pattern (of conduct) for any one whose hope is in Allah and the Final Day, and who engages much in the Praise of Allah."
Koran 33.021



And now please remember, that the Koran, is regarded by every moslem, as inerrant.

But, the problem for those who present ISLAM as a virtuous faith, which is justice based, peaceful and tolerant,    is that the content of ISLAM's own foundation texts [the Koran, regarded by every moslem as inerrant, and the sunnah of Mohammed] present a shocking expose' of what ISLAM really is!

And, ISLAM's foundation texts [the Koran and the Hadith] are considered as authentic ISLAMIC texts and as relevant ISLAMIC texts.

If that is not the case,  then do please explain to us,      why are the Koran and the Hadith, still accounted by ISLAMIC scholars as being authentic ISLAMIC texts, which may be readily quoted, to support doctrine and the actions of moslems ?



.


ISLAM INSTRUCTS THE MOSLEM, THAT MURDERING FOR HIS 'RELIGION' IS HALAL....

"Allah's Apostle said, "Who is willing to kill Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His Apostle?" Thereupon Muhammad bin Maslama got up saying, "O Allah's Apostle! Would you like that I kill him?" The Prophet said, "Yes," Muhammad bin Maslama said, "Then allow me to say a (false) thing (i.e. to deceive Kab). "The Prophet said, "You may say it." "
hadithsunnah/bukhari/ #005.059.369


And this....


ISLAMIC LAW....
"Ibn 'Umar related that the Messenger of Allah, upon whom be peace, said, "I have been ordered to kill the people until they testify that there is no god except Allah, and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and they establish prayer and pay the zakah. If they do that, their blood and wealth are protected from me save by the rights of Islam. Their reckoning will be with Allah." (Related by al-Bukhari and Muslim.) "
fiqhussunnah/fus1_06


ISLAMIC LAW....
"Ibn 'Abbas reported that the Prophet said: "The bare essence of Islam and the basics of the religion are three [acts], upon which Islam has been established. Whoever leaves one of them becomes an unbeliever and his blood may legally be spilled. [The acts are:] Testifying that there is no God except Allah, the obligatory prayers, and the fast of Ramadan."...."
fiqhussunnah/#3.110

n.b.
"Whoever......becomes an unbeliever.....his blood may legally be spilled."



ISLAM INSTRUCTS THE MOSLEM, THAT MURDERING FOR HIS 'RELIGION' IS HALAL....

THE HADITH....

"...the Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him." - DEAD.
hadithsunnah/bukhari/ #004.052.260



Everywhere, there is the shocking account [within ISLAM's own foundation texts] of ISLAM's intolerance and religious bigotry and the promotion of religious violence towards those who reject ISLAM.

And this encouragement, to religious bigotry, and to religious violence, is 'sponsored' even by Allah himself....



WITHIN ALLAH'S INERRANT KORAN.....


"....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 disbelievers] 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

Yadda wrote on Aug 5^th, 2015 at 9:50am:

Everywhere, there is the shocking account [within ISLAM's own foundation texts] of ISLAM's intolerance and religious bigotry and the promotion of religious violence towards those who reject ISLAM. And this encouragement, to religious bigotry, and to religious violence, is 'sponsored' even by Allah himself.... WITHIN ALLAH'S INERRANT KORAN..... "....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 disbelievers] 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

I will just 'get in', and present this information [BELOW], before some wit presents a post which tells me that the OT encouraged violence against gentiles, because they were gentiles.

IT DOES NOT!



.



Spreading ISLAM, by violence and the sword, is the sole 'preview' of ISLAM -    and was not sanctioned in the religion of ancient Israel, or of Christians !!!


As the bible itself testifies.....
The ancient Hebrews HAD NO SANCTION FROM THEIR GOD TO MURDER OR TO HARM, THOSE WHO WERE NOT HEBREWS.    [because they were gentiles]

+++

Exodus 12:49
One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you.

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

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

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

n.b.
.....and thou shalt love him as thyself

Leviticus 25:47-49
[these verses clearly speak of [and reveal that it was entirely 'lawful'] for Hebrews [themselves] to become bond servants [slaves], to prosperous strangers living among the Hebrews.]

Deuteronomy 1:16
And I charged your judges at that time, saying, Hear the causes between your brethren, and judge righteously between every man and his brother, and the stranger that is with him.

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

Deuteronomy 24:17
Thou shalt not pervert the judgment of the stranger, nor of the fatherless; nor take a widow's raiment to pledge:
18  But thou shalt remember that thou wast a bondman in Egypt, and the LORD thy God redeemed thee thence: therefore I command thee to do this thing.

Deuteronomy 27:19
Cursed be he that perverteth the judgment of the stranger...

Yadda wrote on Aug 4^th, 2015 at 7:09pm:

|dev|null wrote on Aug 4th, 2015 at 3:42pm: Yadda wrote on Aug 4th, 2015 at 2:42pm: |dev|null wrote on Aug 4th, 2015 at 2:13pm: Yadda wrote on Aug 4th, 2015 at 2:10pm: |dev|null wrote on Aug 4th, 2015 at 1:43pm: I see you've attracted two of the circular arguers G.  dev, Like many moslems, you have no credibility. Except Y., I am NOT a Muslim!  Which rather sinks your whole argument, now doesn't it?   ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D dev, I'm sorry to be the one to break this to you, but; You have NOT achieved 'suspension of disbelief'. Y. I don't care what you believe. dev, If you didn't, you wouldn't respond to the opinions i express in my posts.

Y. I don't care what you believe.   ;D ;D :D :D ;D ;D :D :D

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 5^th, 2015 at 8:13am:

freediver wrote on Aug 4th, 2015 at 8:28pm: Why should Islam not be represented by the words and deeds of Muhammed? And here we have FD diving head first into his favourite version of the circular argument: FD: Why should Islam not be represented by the words and deeds of Muhammed? response: It should - most muslims believe Muhammad represented peace and goodwill FD: Is that why all those muslims are in Syria on a Muhammad-inspired rape and pillage carnival? response: most muslims reject those actions and reject the idea that they represent the actions of The Prophet FD: yeah but they are deluded, lying or stupid - only the rapists are following Muhammad true example response: why should that minority be seen to represent the true example of Muhammad - when the majority rejects that representation? FD: because they are following the real example of Muhammad... ....and on and on

So what does represent Islam? Muslims driving cars? Eating cornflakes for breakfast? It sounds to me like you are trying on Brian's trick of making Islam an unfathomable mystery that disappears every time you look at it.

Believing that Muhammed "represents peace and goodwill" while also trotting out your excuses for genocide and slavery is nothing more than self deception. It is no different to a Nazi believing that Hitler represents peace and goodwill. Muhammed's actions speak for themselves. When even self-appointed reformists like yourself trip and stumble over when it is appropriate to kill gays, you know there is a problem.

All those Muslims traveling to the middle east to participate in the latest rape and pillage festival are inspired by Islam to do so.

Just because a Muslim rejects the latest incarnation of Islamic utopia does not mean their views are compatible with the civilised world. A slightly less barbaric version - for example where they use women and children as sex slaves rather than slaughtering some of them, would appeal to a broader Muslim audience. There is a whole spectrum of objectionable views held by Muslims that lie to the left of ISIS.

Feel free to point out the circularity in what I am actually saying Gandalf.

freediver wrote on Aug 5^th, 2015 at 5:15pm:

Feel free to point out the circularity in what I am actually saying Gandalf.

Here FD demonstrates how those who suffer from this debilitating condition known as Retarded Circular Argument Syndrome (RCAS) have lost the ability to comprehend the most basic logic, in addition to possessing an irresistible urge to respond to things they so obviously haven't been able to comprehend - combined with a near super-human level of stamina to labor the same inane, illogical points for months on end.

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 4^th, 2015 at 12:34pm:

claim: Islam is innately violent - and I have the actions of muslims to prove it response: the majority of muslims are not violent claim: they don't count - its the minority who are carrying out Allah's violent commands resposne: how can you claim them to be representing "true" Islam if they are in the minority? claim: because they are carrying out Allah's violent commands. and round and round we go...

Lemme try.

Islam - Submission - is based on supposed revelations demanding violence to achieve the goal = Submission.

Most of those who have already Submitted are not naturally inclined to perpetrate violence, even to further the aims of the religion they have submitted to. They are duly called cowards and backsliders by the ones who are hot to obey the letter of the revelation. (this shows just how utterly unnatural and un-godly the revelation really is - it takes fanatics to accept it wholly. But that may well be another thread).


Having submitted, they will not be inclined to contradict those who ARE inclined to perpetrate violence, as their revelations demand.

Ah yes - the good old 'the peaceful majority just aren't devout enough'.

An essential component of RCAS

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 5^th, 2015 at 7:05pm:

Ah yes - the good old 'the peaceful majority just aren't devout enough'. An essential component of RCAS

No - the 'peaceful majority' (which might not be a majority by a wide margin) - simply do not follow the letter of the revelation. It is inhuman. Most people, Muslim or otherwise, aren't.

The letter of the revelation is very, very clear. The history of Islam is also very, very clear.

The 'tiny' minority would not be rampaging in the name of Allah if they had no textual back up from... er... Allah and his 'Messenger'.

Who do you believe?

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 5^th, 2015 at 6:10pm:

freediver wrote on Aug 5th, 2015 at 5:15pm: Feel free to point out the circularity in what I am actually saying Gandalf. Here FD demonstrates how those who suffer from this debilitating condition known as Retarded Circular Argument Syndrome (RCAS) have lost the ability to comprehend the most basic logic, in addition to possessing an irresistible urge to respond to things they so obviously haven't been able to comprehend - combined with a near super-human level of stamina to labor the same inane, illogical points for months on end.

That's odd. You were more than happy to critique my argument before I told you what it was. I guess it is easier for you when I am saying things without actually saying them.

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 4^th, 2015 at 6:45pm:

Thats not a description of a democracy FD.

Islam == a follower of Islam.

Iraq == the next South Korea.

freediver wrote on Aug 5^th, 2015 at 7:37pm:

I guess it is easier for you when I am saying things without actually saying them.

Ah.

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 5^th, 2015 at 7:37am:

LifeOrDeath wrote on Aug 4th, 2015 at 8:06pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 4th, 2015 at 7:59pm: LifeOrDeath wrote on Aug 4th, 2015 at 7:49pm: Nothing was cherry picked Right, just so we're clear here: quoting one verse telling muslims to instill fear in the ranks of their enemy - without mentioning the verse preceding it saying it only applies to enemies who repeatedly break treaties, and without mentioning the verse after ordering muslims to accept any overtures of peace by that enemy - isn't cherry picking? Please confirm this is the case matty, before we go any further. Write those ones off as cherry picking, I couldn't care less. ;D - I guess thats as close to an admission of defeat as we'll get.

Ah the royal we makes a showing when you have nothing. You still cannot refute the scriptures posted from the quran that proves every muslim is a wannbe homicidal maniac.

Nice try, I'll take your non responsiveness as an admission you have been proven wrong. As usual. No need for a royal 'we'. The quran has spoken.

This debate ends up at its beginning, but it doesn't have anything like the elegance of a circle. more like a fractal.

freediver wrote on Aug 5^th, 2015 at 7:37pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 5th, 2015 at 6:10pm: freediver wrote on Aug 5th, 2015 at 5:15pm: Feel free to point out the circularity in what I am actually saying Gandalf. Here FD demonstrates how those who suffer from this debilitating condition known as Retarded Circular Argument Syndrome (RCAS) have lost the ability to comprehend the most basic logic, in addition to possessing an irresistible urge to respond to things they so obviously haven't been able to comprehend - combined with a near super-human level of stamina to labor the same inane, illogical points for months on end. That's odd. You were more than happy to critique my argument before I told you what it was. I guess it is easier for you when I am saying things without actually saying them.

- oh and not forgetting his selective amnesia.

You are going round in circles Gandalf. Perhaps you should try quoting where you think I have made a circular argument.

Poor FD - as we're about to see he's completely lost when people are not drawn into his troll-baiting.

Quote:

Poor FD

How is he poor, Gandalf? Are you trying to put words into FD's mouth again?


Quote:

as we're about to see

Did you study a Muslim course on fortune-telling?


Quote:

he's completely lost

How would you suggest he becomes "found"?" Islamic brainwashing?


Quote:

when people are not

Which people? Muslims or their spineless apologists?


Quote:

drawn into his troll-baiting

Who started this thread, Gandalf?

freediver wrote on Aug 6^th, 2015 at 12:10pm:

You are going round in circles Gandalf. Perhaps you should try quoting where you think I have made a circular argument.

Your entire Islamophobia is circular FD!   ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D

Karnal wrote on Aug 6^th, 2015 at 1:13pm:

Quote: Poor FD How is he poor, Gandalf? Are you trying to put words into FD's mouth again? [quote] as we're about to see

Did you study a Muslim course on fortune-telling?


Quote:

he's completely lost

How would you suggest he becomes "found"?" Islamic brainwashing?


Quote:

when people are not

Which people? Muslims or their spineless apologists?


Quote:

drawn into his troll-baiting

Who started this thread, Gandalf?

[/quote]

urghh stop that K - one FD is enough.

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 6^th, 2015 at 2:00pm:

Karnal wrote on Aug 6th, 2015 at 1:13pm: Quote: Poor FD How is he poor, Gandalf? Are you trying to put words into FD's mouth again? [quote] as we're about to see Did you study a Muslim course on fortune-telling? [quote]he's completely lost

How would you suggest he becomes "found"?" Islamic brainwashing?


Quote:

when people are not

Which people? Muslims or their spineless apologists?


Quote:

drawn into his troll-baiting

Who started this thread, Gandalf?

[/quote]

urghh stop that K - one FD is enough.[/quote]

Put him in the Wiki for evasion, FD.

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 4^th, 2015 at 12:34pm:

claim: Islam is innately violent - and I have the actions of muslims to prove it response: the majority of muslims are not violent claim: they don't count - its the minority who are carrying out Allah's violent commands resposne: how can you claim them to be representing "true" Islam if they are in the minority? claim: because they are carrying out Allah's violent commands. and round and round we go...

What your supposed 'argument' doesn't address (deliberately?) is :

claim: Islam is innately violent - and I have the actions of muslims to prove it - they commit their violence strictly in accordance with their scripture.




This is what is meant by innate violence. Violence in the name of Islam is built into Islam.

;D thanks for proving my point S.

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 6^th, 2015 at 12:36pm:

Poor FD - as we're about to see he's completely lost when people are not drawn into his troll-baiting.

Gandalf, this is what my criticisms of Islam boil down to, in order of what I consider to be 'most valid'

1) The words and deeds of Muhammed.

2) The views of Muslims on Islam (eg the Pew survey).

3) The actions of Muslims, where relevant.

How is this circular?

The "actions of the majority of Muslims" does not even make it onto the list. It does not even make sense. By that logic, driving on the right hand side of the road is more representative of Islam than just about anything else of relevance.

You accused me of circular logic, so how is this troll baiting? Just back up your claim, or else Karnal will have to start apologising for me.

freediver wrote on Aug 6^th, 2015 at 7:28pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 6th, 2015 at 12:36pm: Poor FD - as we're about to see he's completely lost when people are not drawn into his troll-baiting. Gandalf, this is what my criticisms of Islam boil down to, in order of what I consider to be 'most valid' 1) The words and deeds of Muhammed. 2) The views of Muslims on Islam (eg the Pew survey). 3) The actions of Muslims, where relevant. How is this circular? The "actions of the majority of Muslims" does not even make it onto the list. It does not even make sense. By that logic, driving on the right hand side of the road is more representative of Islam than just about anything else of relevance. You accused me of circular logic, so how is this troll baiting? Just back up your claim, or else Karnal will have to start apologising for me.

But FD,
how can your really define the word Muslim?

You have Iran - an Islamic state,  Saudi Arabia -  another one,
you have ISIS & Turkey etc -

they all disagree about what it is to be a Muslim -
& want to fight each other to the death over it yet
they all claim they are Muslims.

Bobby. wrote on Aug 6^th, 2015 at 7:32pm:

freediver wrote on Aug 6th, 2015 at 7:28pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 6th, 2015 at 12:36pm: Poor FD - as we're about to see he's completely lost when people are not drawn into his troll-baiting. Gandalf, this is what my criticisms of Islam boil down to, in order of what I consider to be 'most valid' 1) The words and deeds of Muhammed. 2) The views of Muslims on Islam (eg the Pew survey). 3) The actions of Muslims, where relevant. How is this circular? The "actions of the majority of Muslims" does not even make it onto the list. It does not even make sense. By that logic, driving on the right hand side of the road is more representative of Islam than just about anything else of relevance. You accused me of circular logic, so how is this troll baiting? Just back up your claim, or else Karnal will have to start apologising for me. But FD, how can your really define the word Muslim? You have Iran - an Islamic state,  Saudi Arabia -  another one, you have ISIS & Turkey etc - they all disagree about what it is to be a Muslim - & want to fight each other to the death over it yet they all claim they are Muslims.

If they say there are a muslim why not just believe them?  I know it so inconvenient especially when they commit an atrocity for mo, the usual offenders will attempt to claim they are not a real muslim. 

It am happy to take them at their word. 

Bobby if you want to know if someone is a Muslim, ask them.

freediver wrote on Aug 6^th, 2015 at 7:43pm:

Bobby if you want to know if someone is a Muslim, ask them.

but - they all disagree about what it is to be a Muslim.

A Muslim is a follower of Islam.

freediver wrote on Aug 6^th, 2015 at 8:05pm:

A Muslim is a follower of Islam.

If being Islamic is so well defined then why do the Iranians hate the Saudis & vice versa?

freediver wrote on Aug 6^th, 2015 at 8:05pm:

A Muslim is a follower of Islam.

Yes, FD, but please use the correct formula in future.

freediver wrote on Aug 6^th, 2015 at 7:28pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 6th, 2015 at 12:36pm: Poor FD - as we're about to see he's completely lost when people are not drawn into his troll-baiting. Gandalf, this is what my criticisms of Islam boil down to, in order of what I consider to be 'most valid' 1) The words and deeds of Muhammed. 2) The views of Muslims on Islam (eg the Pew survey). 3) The actions of Muslims, where relevant. How is this circular? The "actions of the majority of Muslims" does not even make it onto the list. It does not even make sense. By that logic, driving on the right hand side of the road is more representative of Islam than just about anything else of relevance. You accused me of circular logic, so how is this troll baiting? Just back up your claim, or else Karnal will have to start apologising for me.

You forgot porkies, FD, which are part and parcel of your criticism as you claim.

Google: taqiyya.

Bobby. wrote on Aug 6^th, 2015 at 8:18pm:

freediver wrote on Aug 6th, 2015 at 8:05pm: A Muslim is a follower of Islam. If being Islamic is so well defined then why do the Iranians hate the Saudis & vice versa?

Because Jesus was right when he said satans kingdom was divided against itself and it cannot stand.

LifeOrDeath wrote on Aug 6^th, 2015 at 9:54pm:

Bobby. wrote on Aug 6th, 2015 at 8:18pm: freediver wrote on Aug 6th, 2015 at 8:05pm: A Muslim is a follower of Islam. If being Islamic is so well defined then why do the Iranians hate the Saudis & vice versa? Because Jesus was right when he said satans kingdom was divided against itself and it cannot stand.

Exactly. Jesus  blamed Islam too.

Jesus never mentioned islam Pho he mentioned "satans kingdom" and false religions and false prophets. Those being the fairy tale mohammed and islam written in the book called the quran.

No biggy.

hey karnal, just in case your confused by Why's refers to you as Pho, its because she thinks im you. rofl right?

hey whywhy just in case you're confused when ever Karnal posts as Pho you just know its Karnal. rofl right?

see ::)

see times ten ::)

Bobby. wrote on Aug 6^th, 2015 at 8:18pm:

freediver wrote on Aug 6th, 2015 at 8:05pm: A Muslim is a follower of Islam. If being Islamic is so well defined then why do the Iranians hate the Saudis & vice versa?

That's what being a Muslim is all about Bobby. Peace, love, and death for apostasy.

freediver wrote on Aug 7^th, 2015 at 6:59am:

Bobby. wrote on Aug 6th, 2015 at 8:18pm: freediver wrote on Aug 6th, 2015 at 8:05pm: A Muslim is a follower of Islam. If being Islamic is so well defined then why do the Iranians hate the Saudis & vice versa? That's what being a Muslim is all about Bobby. Peace, love, and death for apostasy.

It reminds me of the Catholics & the Protestants -

both Christian fundamentalists who murdered each other as
recently as the 1970s in Ireland.

freediver wrote on Aug 6^th, 2015 at 7:28pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 6th, 2015 at 12:36pm: Poor FD - as we're about to see he's completely lost when people are not drawn into his troll-baiting. Gandalf, this is what my criticisms of Islam boil down to, in order of what I consider to be 'most valid' 1) The words and deeds of Muhammed. 2) The views of Muslims on Islam (eg the Pew survey). 3) The actions of Muslims, where relevant.

Thanks - its good to see your criticism broken down into 3 different types of circular logic. Thats quite useful.

oh and sustained with a healthy dose of spinelessly apologising for the porkies too. We mustn't forget that.


freediver wrote on Aug 6^th, 2015 at 8:05pm:

A Muslim is a follower of Islam.

Great point FD. Are you still asking how your argument is circular? Are you asking it with a straight face? I'd love to know.

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 6^th, 2015 at 5:56pm:

;D thanks for proving my point S.

Don't be daft, Gandy.

If you were right then the Crusades had nuffin' to do wiv Christianity either because the vast majority of Christian Europeans stayed home.
Nazi Germany had nuffin' to do with WWII because the vast majority of Germans were not members of the Nazi party not of the German armed forces.

Quote:

Thanks - its good to see your criticism broken down into 3 different types of circular logic. Thats quite useful.

Let's start at the top then. How is criticising Islam, with ultimate reference to the words and deeds of Muhammed, circular?

How is "the actions of the majority of Muslims" a better representation of Islam?

I think the prize for most retarded circular logic has to go to Gandalf for his efforts in demonstrating that my argument is circular

And my submission for second prize: Gandalf, how do you know that Muhammed was a prophet?

freediver wrote on Aug 7^th, 2015 at 9:58am:

Quote: Thanks - its good to see your criticism broken down into 3 different types of circular logic. Thats quite useful. Let's start at the top then. How is criticising Islam, with ultimate reference to the words and deeds of Muhammed, circular? How is "the actions of the majority of Muslims" a better representation of Islam? I think the prize for most retarded circular logic has to go to Gandalf for his efforts in demonstrating that my argument is circular And my submission for second prize: Gandalf, how do you know that Muhammed was a prophet?

Quote:

......how do you know that Muhammed was a prophet?[/.....

because moh said he was, and if you argue islamics will cut your head off to prove you are wrong.

Such is the arrogant violent oppressive way of islam

freediver wrote on Aug 7^th, 2015 at 9:58am:

Let's start at the top then. How is criticising Islam, with ultimate reference to the words and deeds of Muhammed, circular?

Why? Because any attempts to point out that most muslims have a different take on those words and deeeds to you will be dismissed and you will just come back to the same argument as you started with... over and over again- eg:

- FD - Islam is evil because their prophet slaughtered 800 innocent jews in one day
- Response - most muslims don't believe they were innocent, and executing traitors in time of war can be justified etc
- FD - it can't be spun any other way - it was slaughter of innocent people
- Response - just because you can't accept it, doesn't mean people can't have a different perspective - and be sincere about it
- FD - nonsense - it can't be spun any other way - it was slaughter if innocent people - therefore Islam is evil....

....and on and on and on

you getting the picture?

freediver wrote on Aug 7^th, 2015 at 9:58am:

And my submission for second prize: Gandalf, how do you know that Muhammed was a prophet?

Debating religion from a rational point of view is by definition circular - its nothing unique to Islam. Ask any religious person why they "know" the tenets of their religion are true, and it will only ever come down to "because I believe it to be so". Its a matter of faith, not rationality.

To a non-religious person of course its retarded, but its a completely different matter to the "logic" used by you lot to determine what is "inherently" Islamic and what is not.

Gandalf, when the people you are arguing with do not even perceive they are in a circular argument it does kind of make you take a step back and go wow.

Soren wrote on Aug 7^th, 2015 at 8:20am:

If you were right then the Crusades had nuffin' to do wiv Christianity either because the vast majority of Christian Europeans stayed home.

I admit you perked my interest with this point S - because it got me thinking what does it actually mean by "nuffin to do wiv [insert religion/ideology]". To me its an extremely loaded term to use, and I'll point out I don't believe I've ever used it myself (as in "ISIS has nothing to do with Islam"). Or if I have, I'll probably take it back because its rather silly when you think about it. Of course it has something to do with Islam - and of course the crusades had something to do with Christianity, by simple virtue of the fact that in both instances the respective religions were invoked as justification.

But all thats rather meaningless. It misses the point I was talking about - and that is what Islam represents, what is innate to it - particularly from the point of view of outsiders. And for observers who are not interested in getting into the nitty-gritty of Islamic theology, the only trully meaningful measure is what the majority of muslims believe, and what the majority of muslims do. And it is not a valid argument to simply say "oh but when we think of Islam, we immediately think of terrorism - because thats all we hear about". It is simply an illogical argument to say that Islam is inherently violent because of how a minority behaves - while ignoring how the majority behave



Quote:

Nazi Germany had nuffin' to do with WWII because the vast majority of Germans were not members of the Nazi party not of the German armed forces.

A majority of Germans voted for the nazis or the centrist parties that were in coalition with them. The nazis weren't exactly rejected by a "vast majority" of Germans were they?

Soren wrote on Aug 7^th, 2015 at 8:20am:

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 6th, 2015 at 5:56pm: ;D thanks for proving my point S. Don't be daft, Gandy. If you were right then the Crusades had nuffin' to do wiv Christianity either because the vast majority of Christian Europeans stayed home.

Agreed. The Crusades were geopolitics - just like the current battle between Iran and the Gulf States for Middle Eastern supremacy.

Karnal wrote on Aug 7^th, 2015 at 12:02pm:

Agreed. The Crusades were geopolitics

Geopolitics - but with some healthy doses of religious invocation. So does that mean we can't therefore say it had "nuffin to do wiv christianity" - I suppose so, but its a silly point to labour on. If even just one of the thousands of people taking part made some vague reference to a christian justification - then we should say it had something to do with Christianity - minutely. But the only point we should be worried about is was it because of Christianity - and the answer is obviously no.

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 7^th, 2015 at 11:45am:

Soren wrote on Aug 7th, 2015 at 8:20am: If you were right then the Crusades had nuffin' to do wiv Christianity either because the vast majority of Christian Europeans stayed home. I admit you perked my interest with this point S - because it got me thinking what does it actually mean by "nuffin to do wiv [insert religion/ideology]". To me its an extremely loaded term to use, and I'll point out I don't believe I've ever used it myself (as in "ISIS has nothing to do with Islam"). Or if I have, I'll probably take it back because its rather silly when you think about it. Of course it has something to do with Islam - and of course the crusades had something to do with Christianity, by simple virtue of the fact that in both instances the respective religions were invoked as justification. But all thats rather meaningless. It misses the point I was talking about - and that is what Islam represents, what is innate to it - particularly from the point of view of outsiders. And for observers who are not interested in getting into the nitty-gritty of Islamic theology, the only trully meaningful measure is what the majority of muslims believe, and what the majority of muslims do. And it is not a valid argument to simply say "oh but when we think of Islam, we immediately think of terrorism - because thats all we hear about". It is simply an illogical argument to say that Islam is inherently violent because of how a minority behaves - while ignoring how the majority behave Quote: Nazi Germany had nuffin' to do with WWII because the vast majority of Germans were not members of the Nazi party not of the German armed forces. A majority of Germans voted for the nazis or the centrist parties that were in coalition with them. The nazis weren't exactly rejected by a "vast majority" of Germans were they?

Incorrect, firstly the things you have posted here flies in the face of the basic islamic doctrine let alone the nitty gritty of it. Secondly islam is NOT driven by what most muslims personally think up do get it right.

Thirdly those claiming the crusades had something to do with Christianity have rocks in their head. The reason Christianity is referred to is they said they were doing it under the banner of Christianity. Clearly the doctrine dictates to any sane coherent person, that was totally incorrect.

Islam on the other hand totally justifies its violence as it encourages the muslim to do it. You yourself cannot refute the scripture even though you continually say you can but you never do when challenged because simply you cannot. The quran slaps you down every time you try to put it on. The quran fails because it is a false religion against the real God and it fruits are there for all to see. Far to many to hide.

You can associate Islam with its evil doctrine of violence every single time. You cannot associate Christianity as being violent because its doctrine simply does not support it in fact it is the opposite. It is one thing saying Christians are violent wah wah look at the crusades and another to be totally honest and say clearly the Crusades were not driven by true Christianity. It is perfectly normal to say Islamic terrorism and murder and lying is supported by Islam however. I don't expect you to agree with this because after all you want to be muslim. You don't want anything else or better or to see the error you have made. You simply think you are right and simply ignore everything that shows you are in fact wrong. The sign of being caught up in a cult. I know what that feels like as I nearly was once for a while. It all seems just so real.

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 7^th, 2015 at 12:07pm:

Karnal wrote on Aug 7th, 2015 at 12:02pm: Agreed. The Crusades were geopolitics Geopolitics - but with some healthy doses of religious invocation. So does that mean we can't therefore say it had "nuffin to do wiv christianity" - I suppose so, but its a silly point to labour on. If even just one of the thousands of people taking part made some vague reference to a christian justification - then we should say it had something to do with Christianity - minutely. But the only point we should be worried about is was it because of Christianity - and the answer is obviously no.

As you say, G, Religion is the domestic justification. Expansive wars are power grabs. They are always justified by religious or ideological mumbo-jumbo. Christianity, Empire, Civilization, Freeeeedom.

Always, absolutely, never ever.

Karnal wrote on Aug 7^th, 2015 at 12:15pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 7th, 2015 at 12:07pm: Karnal wrote on Aug 7th, 2015 at 12:02pm: Agreed. The Crusades were geopolitics Geopolitics - but with some healthy doses of religious invocation. So does that mean we can't therefore say it had "nuffin to do wiv christianity" - I suppose so, but its a silly point to labour on. If even just one of the thousands of people taking part made some vague reference to a christian justification - then we should say it had something to do with Christianity - minutely. But the only point we should be worried about is was it because of Christianity - and the answer is obviously no. As you say, G, Religion is the domestic justification. Expansive wars are power grabs. They are always justified by religious or ideological mumbo-jumbo. Christianity, Empire, Civilization, Freeeeedom. Always, absolutely, never ever.

Really Pho, maybe you could explain how the Crusades that you muslims babble on about as being justified by the Christian religion is supported by what that religion teaches in its Doctrine then.

We all know how Islam Justifies this, maybe you could pull a burqa out of your hat.

jJust to reiterate Karnal, WhyWhy  thinks we are the same person.

I use the term "thinks" extremely loosely.

Quote:

Just to reiterate WhyWhy, Karnal wants us to think Pho and Him are not the same ID and they just turn up and post together all the time and slip up every now and then. I use the term "thinks" to crack a joke because clearly it doesn't.

Thanks Whywhy I'll take that on board. ;D ;D ;D

Karnal, care to wade in on this? Is this something that Why does often?

I feel like its somehow our responsabilty  to prove that we are different people, but also know that Why is pretty much logic proof, and watching her playing in paranoia land is kinda entertaining.

I guess its just a bit unnerving talking with a true head case.

I always enjoy people chatting with themselves shyte this will convince everyone.

Pho Huc wrote on Aug 7^th, 2015 at 1:02pm:

Karnal, care to wade in on this? Is this something that Why does often? I feel like its somehow our responsabilty  to prove that we are different people, but also know that Why is pretty much logic proof, and watching her playing in paranoia land is kinda entertaining. I guess its just a bit unnerving talking with a true head case.

Whywhy's pretending to be snippy for being called Matty, his old ID (Mattywisk). It's a bit tricky for Whywhy because he keeps getting banned for posting things that crash the board. I don't think he's meant to be here at all.

He's not a "true" headcase. I believe it's drug-induced, although there is definitely a mental health component, possibly bi-polar. His current issues are largely behavioural. If he keeps taking his meds and not going on any amphetamine benders, he should be fine.

Karnal wrote on Aug 7^th, 2015 at 1:24pm:

Pho Huc wrote on Aug 7th, 2015 at 1:02pm: Karnal, care to wade in on this? Is this something that Why does often? I feel like its somehow our responsabilty  to prove that we are different people, but also know that Why is pretty much logic proof, and watching her playing in paranoia land is kinda entertaining. I guess its just a bit unnerving talking with a true head case. Whywhy's pretending to be snippy for being called Matty, his old ID (Mattywisk). It's a bit tricky for Whywhy because he keeps getting banned for posting things that crash the board. I don't think he's meant to be here at all. He's not a "true" headcase. I believe it's drug-induced, although there is definitely a mental health component, possibly bi-polar. His current issues are largely behavioural. If he keeps taking his meds and not going on any amphetamine benders, he should be fine.

Awe poor diddums is a widdle upset.

Well done that took you long enough Pho, Golf Clap.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JIKasELNRc

Matty seems gender confused too

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 7^th, 2015 at 1:45pm:

Matty seems gender confused too

Matty/Medulla aka thousands of banned OzPol nics....is TOTALLY INSANE.

Hence why he chats to himself and/or chats utter nonsense.

Just laugh and post over his online static.

Pho Huc wrote on Aug 7^th, 2015 at 1:02pm:

Karnal, care to wade in on this? Is this something that Why does often? I feel like its somehow our responsabilty  to prove that we are different people, but also know that Why is pretty much logic proof, and watching her playing in paranoia land is kinda entertaining. I guess its just a bit unnerving talking with a true head case.

It's taken you THIS long to figure that out?

Quote:

Why? Because any attempts to point out that most muslims have a different take on those words and deeeds to you will be dismissed and you will just come back to the same argument as you started with... over and over again- eg:

You think it was good. I think it was bad. I think your efforts to justify it reveals the evil of Islam. That is not a circular argument Gandalf.


Quote:

Debating religion from a rational point of view is by definition circular - its nothing unique to Islam. Ask any religious person why they "know" the tenets of their religion are true, and it will only ever come down to "because I believe it to be so". Its a matter of faith, not rationality.

That's why it only gets second prize in the most retarded competition Gandalf.


Quote:

I admit you perked my interest with this point S - because it got me thinking what does it actually mean by "nuffin to do wiv [insert religion/ideology]". To me its an extremely loaded term to use, and I'll point out I don't believe I've ever used it myself (as in "ISIS has nothing to do with Islam"). Or if I have, I'll probably take it back because its rather silly when you think about it. Of course it has something to do with Islam - and of course the crusades had something to do with Christianity, by simple virtue of the fact that in both instances the respective religions were invoked as justification.

It looks like the corollary of your "actions of the majority of Muslims" argument.


Quote:

But all thats rather meaningless. It misses the point I was talking about - and that is what Islam represents,

You have been arguing about what represents Islam - eg the actions of the majority of Muslims.


Quote:

It is simply an illogical argument to say that Islam is inherently violent because of how a minority behaves - while ignoring how the majority behave

It is inherently violent because Muhammed was a violent man and it forces even people like you to excuse and justify that violence.


Quote:

A majority of Germans voted for the nazis or the centrist parties that were in coalition with them. The nazis weren't exactly rejected by a "vast majority" of Germans were they?

The majority of Germans did not gas the Jews. The majority of Germans did not vote for gassing Jews. Does that mean gassing Jews has nothing to do with Nazism?


Quote:

As you say, G, Religion is the domestic justification. Expansive wars are power grabs. They are always justified by religious or ideological mumbo-jumbo. Christianity, Empire, Civilization, Freeeeedom.

You left out Caliphate Karnal. Was Islam the domestic justification for the Caliphate, or was the Caliphate the justification for Islam?

Lisa Jones wrote on Aug 7^th, 2015 at 1:51pm:

Pho Huc wrote on Aug 7th, 2015 at 1:02pm: Karnal, care to wade in on this? Is this something that Why does often? I feel like its somehow our responsabilty  to prove that we are different people, but also know that Why is pretty much logic proof, and watching her playing in paranoia land is kinda entertaining. I guess its just a bit unnerving talking with a true head case. It's taken you THIS long to figure that out?

Karnal has way more brains than to crawl into bed with the likes of you setty with your medulla obsession.

I love the way medulla used to make an utter fool out of you on yahoo and you would come crashing down every time. ;D ;D ;D

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1429877606/315#315

LifeOrDeath wrote on Aug 7^th, 2015 at 12:58pm:

Quote: Just to reiterate WhyWhy, Karnal wants us to think Pho and Him are not the same ID and they just turn up and post together all the time and slip up every now and then. I use the term "thinks" to crack a joke because clearly it doesn't. Thanks Whywhy I'll take that on board. ;D ;D ;D

Whywhy multi banned troll talking to itself.

Lithium issues????

freediver wrote on Aug 7^th, 2015 at 1:55pm:

Quote: Why? Because any attempts to point out that most muslims have a different take on those words and deeeds to you will be dismissed and you will just come back to the same argument as you started with... over and over again- eg: You think it was good. I think it was bad. I think your efforts to justify it reveals the evil of Islam. That is not a circular argument Gandalf. [quote]Debating religion from a rational point of view is by definition circular - its nothing unique to Islam. Ask any religious person why they "know" the tenets of their religion are true, and it will only ever come down to "because I believe it to be so". Its a matter of faith, not rationality.

That's why it only gets second prize in the most retarded competition Gandalf.


Quote:

I admit you perked my interest with this point S - because it got me thinking what does it actually mean by "nuffin to do wiv [insert religion/ideology]". To me its an extremely loaded term to use, and I'll point out I don't believe I've ever used it myself (as in "ISIS has nothing to do with Islam"). Or if I have, I'll probably take it back because its rather silly when you think about it. Of course it has something to do with Islam - and of course the crusades had something to do with Christianity, by simple virtue of the fact that in both instances the respective religions were invoked as justification.

It looks like the corollary of your "actions of the majority of Muslims" argument.


Quote:

But all thats rather meaningless. It misses the point I was talking about - and that is what Islam represents,

You have been arguing about what represents Islam - eg the actions of the majority of Muslims.


Quote:

It is simply an illogical argument to say that Islam is inherently violent because of how a minority behaves - while ignoring how the majority behave

It is inherently violent because Muhammed was a violent man and it forces even people like you to excuse and justify that violence.


Quote:

A majority of Germans voted for the nazis or the centrist parties that were in coalition with them. The nazis weren't exactly rejected by a "vast majority" of Germans were they?

The majority of Germans did not gas the Jews. The majority of Germans did not vote for gassing Jews. Does that mean gassing Jews has nothing to do with Nazism?


Quote:

As you say, G, Religion is the domestic justification. Expansive wars are power grabs. They are always justified by religious or ideological mumbo-jumbo. Christianity, Empire, Civilization, Freeeeedom.

You left out Caliphate Karnal. Was Islam the domestic justification for the Caliphate, or was the Caliphate the justification for Islam?[/quote]

Anyways nutters out of the way, back on topic.

Lisa Jones wrote on Aug 7^th, 2015 at 1:51pm:

Pho Huc wrote on Aug 7th, 2015 at 1:02pm: Karnal, care to wade in on this? Is this something that Why does often? I feel like its somehow our responsabilty  to prove that we are different people, but also know that Why is pretty much logic proof, and watching her playing in paranoia land is kinda entertaining. I guess its just a bit unnerving talking with a true head case. It's taken you THIS long to figure that out?

I havn't spent that much time on this site, up till meeting Why there had been many people who's opinions I disagreed with, but they all possessed the ability to communicate rationally.

Why is first genuine nutter Iv'e met here. she actually reminds of my mum when she's manic/bi polar.

LifeOrDeath wrote on Aug 7^th, 2015 at 1:56pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Aug 7th, 2015 at 1:51pm: Pho Huc wrote on Aug 7th, 2015 at 1:02pm: Karnal, care to wade in on this? Is this something that Why does often? I feel like its somehow our responsabilty  to prove that we are different people, but also know that Why is pretty much logic proof, and watching her playing in paranoia land is kinda entertaining. I guess its just a bit unnerving talking with a true head case. It's taken you THIS long to figure that out? Karnal has way more brains than to crawl into bed with the likes of you setty with your medulla obsession. I love the way medulla used to make an utter fool out of you on yahoo and you would come crashing down every time. ;D ;D ;D http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1429877606/315#315

I'm happily married and so is Karnal.

You're still either trolling forums or trying to hack them. Aren't you sick of it yet? 10yrs and you're the same insane online flamer/troll leper you always were.

Anyway...I suppose you're good to laugh at.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1429877606/315#315

That link says it all really. I think it covers you nicely. You are still the same old lonely bitter elderly greek woman you were 10 years ago. Just older and sadder.

It might be pertinent you take your nonsense elsewhere as you are off topic.

Pho Huc wrote on Aug 7^th, 2015 at 2:06pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Aug 7th, 2015 at 1:51pm: Pho Huc wrote on Aug 7th, 2015 at 1:02pm: Karnal, care to wade in on this? Is this something that Why does often? I feel like its somehow our responsabilty  to prove that we are different people, but also know that Why is pretty much logic proof, and watching her playing in paranoia land is kinda entertaining. I guess its just a bit unnerving talking with a true head case. It's taken you THIS long to figure that out? I havn't spent that much time on this site, up till meeting Why there had been many people who's opinions I disagreed with, but they all possessed the ability to communicate rationally. Why is first genuine nutter Iv'e met here. she actually reminds of my mum when she's manic/bi polar.

Ahhh, then allow me to fill you in.

The nutter Whywhyhuh is in fact a male cyber troll.

He was previously known as Medulla on Yahoo7. There he made an absolute nuisance of himself by disrupting and hijacking EVERY topic he entered.

He was banned daily...sometimes even 3, 4 times a day. All his posts (100 a day plus) would be deleted upon being banned.

It was hilarious to watch after a while.

If he wasn't trolling or flaming topics, he was stalking someone for the day...cloning their nic. However, if he got bored with all that, he'd immerse his energies into hacking the message board itself. Incidentally, he's tried that stunt on Yahoo7 and on OzPol.

Anyway, the last we all heard about this full time unemployed loner and loser is that he was committed.

As you and everyone else can now see, he's been allowed out lmao.

Just a heads up....

Do not validate anything he posts by responding to him.

Do not believe anything the nutter says.

That is how we coped with this insane fool over on Yahoo.

Yeah you do what the mad old Greek Lady tells you Karnal you have been told. ;D

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1429877606/315#315

Poor old setty every one was medulla to her. Yahoo even banned the word 'Lisa Jones' on the forum thats how bad she became.

Lisa Jones wrote on Aug 7^th, 2015 at 2:22pm:

Pho Huc wrote on Aug 7th, 2015 at 2:06pm: Lisa Jones wrote on Aug 7th, 2015 at 1:51pm: Pho Huc wrote on Aug 7th, 2015 at 1:02pm: Karnal, care to wade in on this? Is this something that Why does often? I feel like its somehow our responsabilty  to prove that we are different people, but also know that Why is pretty much logic proof, and watching her playing in paranoia land is kinda entertaining. I guess its just a bit unnerving talking with a true head case. It's taken you THIS long to figure that out? I havn't spent that much time on this site, up till meeting Why there had been many people who's opinions I disagreed with, but they all possessed the ability to communicate rationally. Why is first genuine nutter Iv'e met here. she actually reminds of my mum when she's manic/bi polar. Ahhh, then allow me to fill you in. The nutter Whywhyhuh is in fact a male cyber troll. He was previously known as Medulla on Yahoo7. There he made an absolute nuisance of himself by disrupting and hijacking EVERY topic he entered. He was banned daily...sometimes even 3, 4 times a day. All his posts (100 a day plus) would be deleted upon being banned. It was hilarious to watch after a while. If he wasn't trolling or flaming topics, he was stalking someone for the day...cloning their nic. However, if he got bored with all that, he'd immerse his energies into hacking the message board itself. Incidentally, he's tried that stunt on Yahoo7 and on OzPol. Anyway, the last we all heard about this full time unemployed loner and loser is that he was committed. As you and everyone else can now see, he's been allowed out lmao. Just a heads up.... Do not validate anything he posts by responding to him. Do not believe anything the nutter says. That is how we coped with this insane fool over on Yahoo.

Thanks for the tips, cheers

She goes off like a sealed can of spaghetti in a fireplace that one. Always has.

Pho Huc wrote on Aug 7^th, 2015 at 2:31pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Aug 7th, 2015 at 2:22pm: Pho Huc wrote on Aug 7th, 2015 at 2:06pm: Lisa Jones wrote on Aug 7th, 2015 at 1:51pm: Pho Huc wrote on Aug 7th, 2015 at 1:02pm: Karnal, care to wade in on this? Is this something that Why does often? I feel like its somehow our responsabilty  to prove that we are different people, but also know that Why is pretty much logic proof, and watching her playing in paranoia land is kinda entertaining. I guess its just a bit unnerving talking with a true head case. It's taken you THIS long to figure that out? I havn't spent that much time on this site, up till meeting Why there had been many people who's opinions I disagreed with, but they all possessed the ability to communicate rationally. Why is first genuine nutter Iv'e met here. she actually reminds of my mum when she's manic/bi polar. Ahhh, then allow me to fill you in. The nutter Whywhyhuh is in fact a male cyber troll. He was previously known as Medulla on Yahoo7. There he made an absolute nuisance of himself by disrupting and hijacking EVERY topic he entered. He was banned daily...sometimes even 3, 4 times a day. All his posts (100 a day plus) would be deleted upon being banned. It was hilarious to watch after a while. If he wasn't trolling or flaming topics, he was stalking someone for the day...cloning their nic. However, if he got bored with all that, he'd immerse his energies into hacking the message board itself. Incidentally, he's tried that stunt on Yahoo7 and on OzPol. Anyway, the last we all heard about this full time unemployed loner and loser is that he was committed. As you and everyone else can now see, he's been allowed out lmao. Just a heads up.... Do not validate anything he posts by responding to him. Do not believe anything the nutter says. That is how we coped with this insane fool over on Yahoo. Thanks for the tips, cheers

You're more than welcome  :)

freediver wrote on Aug 7^th, 2015 at 1:55pm:

Quote: Why? Because any attempts to point out that most muslims have a different take on those words and deeeds to you will be dismissed and you will just come back to the same argument as you started with... over and over again- eg: You think it was good. I think it was bad. I think your efforts to justify it reveals the evil of Islam. That is not a circular argument Gandalf. [quote]Debating religion from a rational point of view is by definition circular - its nothing unique to Islam. Ask any religious person why they "know" the tenets of their religion are true, and it will only ever come down to "because I believe it to be so". Its a matter of faith, not rationality.

That's why it only gets second prize in the most retarded competition Gandalf.


Quote:

I admit you perked my interest with this point S - because it got me thinking what does it actually mean by "nuffin to do wiv [insert religion/ideology]". To me its an extremely loaded term to use, and I'll point out I don't believe I've ever used it myself (as in "ISIS has nothing to do with Islam"). Or if I have, I'll probably take it back because its rather silly when you think about it. Of course it has something to do with Islam - and of course the crusades had something to do with Christianity, by simple virtue of the fact that in both instances the respective religions were invoked as justification.

It looks like the corollary of your "actions of the majority of Muslims" argument.


Quote:

But all thats rather meaningless. It misses the point I was talking about - and that is what Islam represents,

You have been arguing about what represents Islam - eg the actions of the majority of Muslims.


Quote:

It is simply an illogical argument to say that Islam is inherently violent because of how a minority behaves - while ignoring how the majority behave

It is inherently violent because Muhammed was a violent man and it forces even people like you to excuse and justify that violence.


Quote:

A majority of Germans voted for the nazis or the centrist parties that were in coalition with them. The nazis weren't exactly rejected by a "vast majority" of Germans were they?

The majority of Germans did not gas the Jews. The majority of Germans did not vote for gassing Jews. Does that mean gassing Jews has nothing to do with Nazism?


Quote:

As you say, G, Religion is the domestic justification. Expansive wars are power grabs. They are always justified by religious or ideological mumbo-jumbo. Christianity, Empire, Civilization, Freeeeedom.

You left out Caliphate Karnal. Was Islam the domestic justification for the Caliphate, or was the Caliphate the justification for Islam?[/quote]

Anyways nutjobs out of the way, back on topic.

freediver wrote on Aug 7^th, 2015 at 1:55pm:

You think it was good. I think it was bad. I think your efforts to justify it reveals the evil of Islam. That is not a circular argument Gandalf.

Alright then, lets put it to the test. Do you accept that muslims can (and do) sincerely believe that Muhammad's actions can be interpreted as the actions of a peaceful and tolerant man - and therefore can (and do) legitimately believe in a peaceful and tolerant Islam?

If you answer yes, I'll happily retract my accusation that you are engaging in circular logic.

Otherwise, its simply a case of your assumption (that it is not possible to honestly have a different interpretation of Islamic doctrine than your own) being the proof of your conclusion (that Islam is evil). That is circular logic. And its a fallacy because its only true if one accepts your assumption - which I obviously don't.

Quote:

It is inherently violent because Muhammed was a violent man and it forces even people like you to excuse and justify that violence.

;D ;D go on FD - ask me again why your argument is circular - I dare you!

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 7^th, 2015 at 3:10pm:

freediver wrote on Aug 7th, 2015 at 1:55pm: You think it was good. I think it was bad. I think your efforts to justify it reveals the evil of Islam. That is not a circular argument Gandalf. Alright then, lets put it to the test. Do you accept that muslims can (and do) sincerely believe that Muhammad's actions can be interpreted as the actions of a peaceful and tolerant man - and therefore can (and do) legitimately believe in a peaceful and tolerant Islam?

In that case they would be ignoring the quran living in ignorance and not muslims in the first place. So use of the word muslim according to islamic doctrine renders your proposition moot as you are not talking about muslims but rather heretics if you're lucky.



polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 7^th, 2015 at 3:10pm:

If you answer yes, I'll happily retract my accusation that you are engaging in circular logic. Otherwise, its simply a case of your assumption (that it is not possible to honestly have a different interpretation of Islamic doctrine than your own) being the proof of your conclusion (that Islam is evil). That is circular logic. And its a fallacy because its only true if one accepts your assumption - which I obviously don't.

Islam is evil because it satisfies the criteria for being evil on a factual basis.

EVIL: - profoundly immoral and wicked. "his evil deeds"
synonyms:      wicked, bad, wrong, morally wrong, wrongful, immoral, sinful, ungodly, unholy, foul, vile, base, ignoble, dishonourable, corrupt, iniquitous, depraved, degenerate, villainous, nefarious, sinister, vicious, malicious, malevolent, demonic, devilish, diabolic, diabolical, fiendish, dark, black-hearted;

So islam being evil is a FACT. The argument that your efforts to justify it reveals the evil of Islam. That is NOT a circular argument.

Quote:

It is inherently violent because Muhammed was a violent man and it forces even people like you to excuse and justify that violence.

I am amazed at the amount of effort put into justifying this pedophillic, murdering piece of garbage. Not that I believe he actually existed there is absolutely no proof. The fact there are people on this earth that remotely excuse the story of the mohammed totally justifies any hardline stand against them and first not after the event of them copying their mentors violent commands and traits.

In order to believe in todays day and age that the character in the quran mohammed was the perfect example one would have to have a very sick mind and be totally ignorant.

I believe Gandalf would probably be a very nice man in real life but the islam he preaches doesn't exist according to the quranic doctrine which continually shoots him down and he continually fails miserably to defend .

What happened, Matty? Did you go early this time?

Karnal wrote on Aug 7^th, 2015 at 5:51pm:

What happened, Matty? Did you go early this time?

I think he might have been forced off lol.

Whilst here, can you explain 2 things for me please :

1. Why does the nic WhywhyHuh talk to himself ie he answers himself as though he is talking to another person?

2. Also, why does he keep referring to the nic Pho as Karnal?