Q. What is a cult? And how does someone know if the faith they are following is harmful?

A. The word cult has three definitions. First of all, it can simply be a group that loves something. When people refer to an "Elvis cult" or "The O.C. cult," they mean really devoted fans.

The second definition is that of a religion whose beliefs differ from the majority around them. In the Roman Empire, Christians were sometimes considered a cult because they worshiped Jesus rather than the Roman gods.

The third, and most commonly used definition, refers to a religious group that is:

1) Exclusive. They may say, "We're the only ones with the truth; everyone else is wrong; and if you leave our group your salvation is in danger."

2) Secretive. Certain teachings are not available to outsiders or they're presented only to certain members, sometimes after taking vows of confidentiality.

3) Authoritarian. A human leader expects total loyalty and unquestioned obedience.

I see the Islamic Cult as just a Cult, an evil cult where you believe or you are nothing but a target.

It was not always this way.
The Koran before Mohamed was a peaceful and intellectual doctrine of peace.

Then the pedophile, sociopath Mohamed came along and changed the way it was interpreted and forever doomed its followers to eternal hatred, fear, murder and draconian punishment.

This diseased cult will continue to grow, feeding on the distrust and rebellion against insane and immoral governments, until governments become fairer, more altruistic and morally driven.

I hold out little faith in this, so I can only look forward to a future of ever increasing fear, distrust, religious intolerance and the machinations of men striving through violence to increase their power and influence.

Sad times indeed

imho, many organisations could be termed a cult.

As long as they do not harm and conform to the greater society, that's ok.

eg, the Star Wars group do no harm.
The Buddhists and Hare Krishnas do not harm.


If a cult has in it's beliefs to subdue others, to change society, to commit violence.
Then it should be a banned cult.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Apr 11^th, 2016 at 11:37am:

imho, many organisations could be termed a cult. As long as they do not harm and conform to the greater society, that's ok. eg, the Star Wars group do no harm. The Buddhists and Hare Krishnas do not harm.

Alas, Sprint, that's not the definition of a cult. It is, however, the definition of liberalism: "do whatever you like as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else".

A cult is a hierarchical organization, built around a strong, usually charismatic, leader. Cults encourage members to see outsiders as dangerous and/or evil. They encourage members to proselytize and bring more members into the cult. Cults enforce obedience and involve themselves in all areas of their members lives. There are no secrets in a cult - the leadership must know everything about its members. Leaders of cults are usually paranoid about potential rivals, and hunt down powerful members.

The Hare Krishnas are indeed a cult, although they've softened over the last 2 decades. Their leader, Prabhubada, who died in the early 1970s, is immortalized in lifelike wax statues placed in every Krishna temple. This is common in a cult - leaders do not lose their power after death.

The most seemingly trivial details of members' lives are controlled, particularly around sex and family life. In the Krishnas, couples can only have sex a few times a year, and only then after chanting thousands of rounds of mantras. Only the missionary position is allowed, and only vaginal intercourse. Couples must be married, and those marriages must be approved. In the early days, members weren't allowed to get married at all. Chastity was crucial. After that, marriage partners were chosen for them. Today, they're given a bit more rope, but not a lot.

Islam is not a cult. There are certainly cults within Islam, and I believe ISIS is probably one. Islam lacks the central leadership, the insider/outsider group-think, and the restrictive practices. There are a few cult-like practices within Islam - the prayer times, the fasting, the rules around certain routines and rituals, but Islam is not organized like a cult. It is way too diverse to function as a cult, and there are too many competing groups, beliefs and practices.

The Hare Krishnas are a cult. Islam - in itself - is not.

A recent article on cults identified the 15 separate traits that the International Cultic Studies Association (ICSA) identifies as common among cults. According to Michael D. Langone, Ph.D., concerted efforts at influence and control lie at the core of cultic groups, programs, and relationships.  Many members and supporters of cults are not fully aware of the extent to which members may have been manipulated, exploited, even abused – some would say brainwashed. The list of social-structural, social-psychological, and interpersonal behavioral patterns commonly found in cultic environments may be helpful in assessing a particular group to help determine if it is in fact a cult. Langone states that this list is not a definitive checklist but is an analytical tool to determine if a specific group is a cult.

Studying the 15 traits is informative when considering Islam.

1.  The group displays excessively zealous and unquestioning commitment to its leader and (whether he is alive or dead) regards his belief system, ideology, and practices as the Truth, as law.

This quite accurately describes Islam which is a totalitarian ideology with a façade of religion. Its leader, Muhammad who is probably a myth, is proclaimed to be the perfect man whose example every Muslim should follow. Everything he supposedly did or expounded is considered perfect and cannot be challenged or changed upon threat of death. This idolatry, which Islam professes to decry, is exhibited in the total obeisance and repeated use of the expression “Peace Be Upon Him” – PBUH every time his name is even mentioned. Sharia, Islamic law, is derived from the Qur’an and the actions and sayings of Muhammad (taken from the sira and hadiths).

The supremacy (or arrogance) of the concept of Muhammad is that he is supposedly the last prophet – there can be no more prophets (this was in the sixth century in a very backward part of the world), and the extreme arrogance of the claimed statement by Muhammad, “Every prophet was sent to his nation but only I have been sent to all mankind.”

Islam is the Arabic word meaning submission (to Muhammad’s “god” – Allah) and is derived from a word meaning peace. Muslims are those who have submitted. For Westerners, the clearest expression of that submission is the bowing down with the head on the ground in daily prayers. Total submission to Allah (or Muhammad) results in fatalism resulting in not taking responsibility for one’s actions. Muslims regularly rationalize their actions, or inactions, or events as InshAllah (also In Sha’ Allah) – “Allah’s will.”

The Qur’an is purported to be the exact word of Allah as transmitted to Muhammad by the angel Gabriel.  Therefore, it is not open for discussion, analysis, or critique, even though it contains grammatical and historical errors, is completely illogical in that surahs (chapters) are arranged based on length, not chronological context, there are parts which no one understands, and there are many contradictions. It was written in the poetic style of the desert, which is not fully translatable, and the Bedouins had little concern for chronology such as placing Moses and Jesus together in time.

Islam is a totalitarian ideology covering every aspect of life, is considered perfect, and calls for its imposition on everyone in the world whether they want it or not.

2.  Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished.

It is a crime to criticize, doubt, or disagree with Islam. This is blasphemy and the sentence is death. It is a crime and a sin to leave Islam. A Muslim who rejects Islam is an “apostate” and the punishment for apostasy is death (and eternal damnation in hell thereafter). Under sharia, it is forbidden for anyone to try to convert a Muslim to another religion.

When Islam is defamed in any way, Muslims should violently defend it. Even in a cartoon! But Muslims can and should defame Jews and Christians in Muslim newspapers, the internet, and television, and they should defame any infidel or enemy, as they defame the US today.

3.   Mind-altering practices (such as meditation, chanting, speaking in tongues, denunciation sessions, and debilitating work routines) are used in excess and serve to suppress doubts about the group and its leader(s).

There are five “pillars” of Islam: profession of faith, prayer, fasting during Ramadan, religious tax, and the hajj (pilgrimage to Mecca). [Jihad was almost a sixth pillar.] Every Muslim must pray five times a day. This repetition helps dominate a Muslim’s life, infusing his daily routine with Islam. It would be impossible to forget anything you deliberately do so often. Five times a day, every day, a Muslim must bow down and pray to Allah. The more effort a person expends for a cause, the more he is likely to believe and value it. This also helps make believers out of people who became Muslims through coercion.

4.  The leadership dictates, sometimes in great detail, how members should think, act, and feel (for example, members must get permission to date, change jobs, marry—or leaders prescribe what types of clothes to wear, where to live, whether or not to have children, how to discipline children, and so forth).

Every imaginable aspect of life is dictated by Islam from how to go to the bathroom, to all aspects of personal hygiene, how to place the feet to pray properly, what can and cannot be done including photography, television, drinking, eating pork, charging interest, gambling, playing stringed instruments, depicting animate life, the clothes to wear, and what women are permitted to do, what their testimony is worth, what they can inherit, how they can get to paradise, and that they can be beaten (or killed).

5.  The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s) and members (for example, the leader is considered the Messiah, a special being, an avatar—or the group and/or the leader is on a special mission to save humanity).

Muslims consider all non-Muslims and non-Muslim culture useless and see their goal to make the whole world Muslim. Everything before Islam is jahiliyya or ignorance, of no value and should be destroyed, such as the Bamiyan Buddhas.

We have already noted how special Muhammad is so that everything he said or did is revered. Muslims are permitted four wives, but Muhammad was “permitted” unlimited wives and he was permitted to marry Zeinab, the wife of his adopted son (both revelations from the Qur’an).   

Under Islam, non-Muslims must pay a large tax. Once Muslims conquer a country and convert the government to Islamic law, non-Muslims have the choice to convert or die. However, Christians, Jews, and some Zoroastrians have the choice between becoming Muslim or becoming a dhimmi. Dhimmis are allowed to practice their non-Muslim religion if they pay the jizya (a tax). If they convert to Islam, they no longer have to pay a tax, so there is a practical incentive to convert. This was a brilliant idea from the early days of Islam. The tax took money away from the non-Muslims and their competing systems and gave that money to support Islam. The income from those taxes (usually a 25% income tax) helped fund the Islamic conquests during the first two major jihads. This third class citizens/slaves status under Islam is called Dhimmitude.

Several ideas within Sharia law extend this effect. For example, non-Muslims are not allowed to build any new houses of worship. They're not even allowed to repair already-existing churches or synagogues. This puts the houses of worship of any competing religion or ideology in a state of permanent decline. Also, non-Islamic prayers cannot be spoken within earshot of a Muslim — again, preventing Muslims from being infected by a competing religion. No public displays of any symbols of another faith may be shown either. All of this prevents the spread of any competing religion or ideology, and makes them die out over time. That's why today there are so many "Muslim countries." Most of the Muslim countries are now at or near 100% Muslim. Almost all other countries in the world are made up of many different religions. Also, non-Muslims are not allowed to own weapons of any kind.

The Wahhabis of Saudi Arabia have been and still are pouring money into building mosques all over the free world, including extensive construction in the US. But in Saudi Arabia, no non-Muslim religious structures are allowed to be built. Muslims all over the world protest loudly and violently when anyone in Europe or America resists the building of more mosques in their countries. Islamic supremacists don't see the irony in it. They don't feel strange having such an obvious double standard. They are, after all, Allah's followers and everyone else is deluded. Fairness and equality with such unworthy infidels would seem very out of place. A double standard seems completely appropriate from that perspective.

The double standard principle is a key part of Islam, and it has been a great advantage in the spread of Islam (and the suppression of competing religions or ideologies). Muslims demand concessions and accommodations but they refuse any reciprocity. They demand respect but show no respect to non-Muslims. Their arrogant intolerance stands them against the rest of the world.

It is forbidden to kill a Muslim (except for a just cause). It is not forbidden to kill an infidel. This causes a bond between Muslims, fear in non-Muslims, and motivation to become Muslim.

6.  The group has a polarized us-versus-them mentality, which may cause conflict with the wider society.          

Islam is dualistic: humanity is divided into believers (that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the prophet of Allah) and kafirs (all non-Muslims or unbelievers). A kafir is hated, ignorant, evil, a liar, disgraced, unclean, cursed, a partner of Satan, and can be beheaded, enslaved, raped, mocked, confused, terrorized, deceived, annihilated, robbed, killed, crucified, plotted against, made war on and humiliated, and a Muslim cannot be his friend. [Each of these is from Islamic texts.]

Islam divides the world, which belongs to Allah, into the Dar al-Islam (land of submission) and the Dar al-Harb (land of war). That is that Islamic lands are good and the rest of the world should be subjugated. It is the duty of the faithful to gain control of any parts of the world that are not following Islamic law and establish sharia. It is a sin to let it be.

Islam must always be defended. This idea is a primary linchpin that gives justification for war with almost anybody. After the enemy is defeated, of course, Muslims are required to establish an Islamic state. Islamic writings teach the use of pretext to start wars. The use of pretext tends to make the West defenseless against the Islamic invasion now underway. Muslim terrorists are not naïve people. They are smart, educated, well-funded, and being used by a very clever ideology.

7.  The leader is not accountable to any authorities (unlike, for example, teachers, military commanders or ministers, priests, monks, and rabbis of mainstream religious denominations).

Muhammad was supposedly the perfect man, answerable only to Allah if anyone, but Allah seems to be an invention of Muhammad or whoever invented Muhammad. There is no central authority in Islam. Thus various imams, mullahs, ayatollahs, sheikhs, and other leaders often add their own interpretations to theocratic and political questions. Al Azhar University in Cairo is regarded as a top center of Sunni Islam and the supreme leader or ayatollah in Iran tries to represent Shiites, but there are still other groups: Alawites, Ismailis, Sufis, Druze, Deobandis, etc.

8.  The group teaches or implies that its supposedly exalted ends justify whatever means it deems necessary. This may result in members' participating in behaviors or activities they would have considered reprehensible or unethical before joining the group (for example, lying to family or friends, or collecting money for bogus charities).

Islam has explicit double standards:  one standard for Muslims and a different standard for non-Muslims, which always gives the advantage to Muslims and within a Muslim country, it provides incentives to convert.  There is no right and wrong in Islam; there is NO GOLDEN RULE IN ISLAM. What advances Islam is good; what impedes the advance of Islam is bad. Islam must be free to spread around the world, but other religions cannot try to spread their religion.

The Qur'an counsels the use of deceit when dealing with infidels. According to one of the hadiths, Muhammad instructed one of his followers to lie if he had to. The principle was clear: If it helps Islam, it's okay to deceive non-Muslims. This is taqiyya. It has been used historically and is still used: Islamic leaders saying one thing in English for the Western press, and saying something entirely different in Arabic for their Muslim audience.

The Qur'an says, "War is deceit" and since Islam is at war with the non-Islamic world until the whole world follows sharia, all non-Muslims living in non-Islamic states are enemies. So deceiving Westerners is totally acceptable. It is encouraged if it can forward the goal of the spread of Islam.

One of the most embarrassing events of Islamic history, or mythology, is when Muhammad had up to 900 Jews of the Banu Qurayzah tribe in Medina beheaded before their wives and children for refusing to convert to Islam after the Battle of the Ditch. Beheading has been a hallmark of Islam as well as rape, torture, dismemberment, and castration. Professionals who have studied this behavior state that Islamist mutilation is a ritualistic crime, a deliberate desecration of the enemy, to alleviate shame and restore honor. For Islamists, honor is the male characteristic of courage and bravery while dishonor is a female characteristic signified by weakness and submissiveness. Shame comes from hypersensitivity to real or perceived humiliation. Thus compassion symbolizes weakness while brutality and violence symbolize strength and are viewed as heroic. Islamists can therefore commit crimes which otherwise would be considered atrocities by civilized nations and still be hailed as heroes by Islamists all over the world.

Giving money to charities which have later been shown in courts to be supporters of Hamas and HezbAllah has been widespread in the US Muslim community. Hamas was created in 1987 by the International Muslim Brotherhood and it ordered the Brotherhood chapters around the world to establish Palestine Committees. The trial of the Holy Land Foundation revealed that CAIR (the Council on American-Islamic Relations) had been created as part of the US Palestine Committee and CAIR and its founder Omar Awad were named as unindicted co-conspirators.

9.  The leadership induces feelings of shame and/or guilt in order to influence and/or control members. Often, this is done through peer pressure and subtle forms of persuasion.

The pressure to conform is intense starting with the affirmation that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is his messenger and then bowing down in complete submission five times a day in prayer. Not conforming brings great shame to a family, which is unacceptable in tribal societies. To criticize Islam is a death sentence and to in any way bring dishonor to a family is so critical that honor killing, mainly of women (mothers, daughters, sisters), is acceptable, even demanded. The psychological term for such behavior is brainwashing.

10.  Subservience to the leader or group requires members to cut ties with family and friends, and radically alter the personal goals and activities they had before joining the group.

A Muslim is not supposed to be friends with non-Muslims. This extends to family if members are not Muslims. This in-gathering is seen in Jamaat ul Fuqra, Muslim terrorist training camps, communes of primarily black American-born Muslims. They have established more than 35 of these “Jamaats” in 22 states and Canada.

11.  The group is preoccupied with bringing in new members.

Under Islam, it is a holy requirement that the whole world should be brought under Islam. There can be no “peace” until everyone is a Muslim. [This is a bad joke since even if the Muslims could gain power, they would fight among themselves.] This dates from the Qur’an and has been repeated regularly over the centuries. Ibn Khaldun reiterated it in the 15th Century: “In the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the (Muslim) mission and the obligation to convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force... Islam is under obligation to gain power over nations.” This is echoed in the writings of Sayyid Qutb and other Muslim writers and to the present with Yusuf al-Qaradawi.

12.  The group is preoccupied with making money.

Money is the key and the power behind jihad and expansion. The success of Islam finally took off only after Muhammad’s raids on caravans and they gained wealth from non-Muslim sources from plunder. Muslim groups are not averse to using extortion, kidnappings, crime, and the drug business to finance their endeavors. 

There was relative calm in Islamic action between the fall of the Ottoman Empire and the dissolution of the caliphate after World War I and the vast oil income that befell to the Arab states after World War II. The enormous flow of oil money allowed the Muslim states to export their ideology and move against non-Muslims.

13.  Members are expected to devote inordinate amounts of time to the group and group-related activities.

The requirement to pray five times a day is time consuming and controlling. Muslims are also supposed to attend Friday prayers at the mosque (during which they are often fired up and incited to riot afterward as seen repeatedly in recent years). The mosques are usually also community centers for activities, jihadist training, and for training youth. The pilgrimage to Mecca, the hajj, is a onetime requirement for all Muslims who can make it.

14.  Members are encouraged or required to live and/or socialize only with other group members.         

A Muslim is forbidden to make friends with an infidel. A Muslim is allowed to pretend to be a friend, but in his heart he must never actually be a friend to a non-Muslim. Muslims in non-Muslim countries tend to stay together and form ghettos. The ghettos have become so closed in parts of Europe that they have become No-Go Zones into which firemen and police will not enter without escort. These closed communities impose sharia and crimes are not reported to the authorities. Non-Muslims are ordered to stay out. 

15.  The most loyal members (the “true believers”) feel there can be no life outside the context of the group. They believe there is no other way to be, and often fear reprisals to themselves or others if they leave (or even consider leaving) the group.

Islam is a total ideology of submission to Allah (or Muhammad). Muslims are the only acceptable people. All others are kafirs, of no value. The reprisals are strong for even thinking against Islam, blasphemy, or daring to leave, apostasy. The penalty for both is death.

Islam seems to fit the ICSA criteria for a cult. Since Allah is deemed to be unknowable, Islam seems to better fit as the cult of Muhammad. Muslims refer to Allah, but they seem to have deified Muhammad. Everything is about Muhammad. One strong indication of this is that the Sacred Law is not the law of Allah but the Sacred Law of Muhammad. Throughout the Qur’an, it is “Allah and his Messenger,” but sometimes it is just the Messenger. In Reliance of the Traveller [‘Umdat al-Salik from the 14th Century], a Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law updated and certified by Al Azhar in 1991, it is stated it rather clearly. Allah sent Muhammad, “the Qurayshite unlettered prophet, to deliver His inspired message to the entire world, Arabs and non-Arabs, jinn and mankind, superseding and abrogating all previous religious systems with the Prophet’s Sacred Law, except for the provisions of them that the new revelation explicitly reconfirmed. Allah has favored him above all the other prophets and made him the highest of mankind, rejecting anyone’s attesting to the divine oneness by saying ‘There is no god but Allah,’ unless they also attest to the Prophet by saying ‘Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah.’ He has obliged men and jinn to believe everything the Prophet has informed us concerning this world and the next, and does not accept anyone’s faith unless they believe in what he has told us will happen after death.”

The interesting aspect of the Cult of Muhammad is that he probably never existed. Muhammad was born two hundred years after his birth. That is the conclusion of Norbert Pressburg in his book What the Modern Martyr Should Know [a good companion work to Robert Spencer’s Did Muhammad Exist?]  Pressburg establishes that there is no record of any Muhammad from the seventh century – all of it dates from the eighth and ninth centuries. Also the word “muhamad” is a gerund, meaning “the praised one” [often referring to Christ], and could not possibly be understood as a name. The birth of Islam took a long time. Christendom had split off from Judaism. At that time there were considerable differences in the Christian world over the real role of Jesus. The Arab Christians (Arabs were really the people of Greater Syria and Mesopotamia [Iraq] not the Bedouins of the desert of the Arabian Peninsula) had their own views of Christianity and eventually separated themselves from Greek Christianity. However, they needed their own holy book and prophet. Over hundreds of years, the Aramaic liturgical book, the Qeryan, a Christian book, was transformed into the Islamic Qur’an when Jesus lost his special status. There were many authors of the new book with different political agendas and often with limited understanding of the languages involved. This separation was seen coming in the sixth and seventh centuries but did not take place until the eighth and ninth centuries. The traditions of that first two hundred years of Islam are mostly mythical or as Pressburg suggests, “tales from the East.” What we now know as Islam was not completed until the twelfth or even the thirteenth century.[The Qur’an was not printed until 1802 in Russia.] By the third Islamic century (the 900s), Islam had transformed into “an excessive personality cult,” now the trademark of Islam and what they had been so strongly against in the beginning.




That is the Cult of Muhammad.

Usually for people of a more, shall we say, simple mind or low of intellect to be precise.

Sir James wrote on Apr 11^th, 2016 at 2:29pm:

1.  The group displays excessively zealous and unquestioning commitment to its leader and (whether he is alive or dead) regards his belief system, ideology, and practices as the Truth, as law. This quite accurately describes Islam which is a totalitarian ideology with a façade of religion. Its leader, Muhammad who is probably a myth, is proclaimed to be the perfect man whose example every Muslim should follow. Everything he supposedly did or expounded is considered perfect and cannot be challenged or changed upon threat of death. This idolatry, which Islam professes to decry, is exhibited in the total obeisance and repeated use of the expression “Peace Be Upon Him” – PBUH every time his name is even mentioned. Sharia, Islamic law, is derived from the Qur’an and the actions and sayings of Muhammad (taken from the sira and hadiths). The supremacy (or arrogance) of the concept of Muhammad is that he is supposedly the last prophet – there can be no more prophets (this was in the sixth century in a very backward part of the world), and the extreme arrogance of the claimed statement by Muhammad, “Every prophet was sent to his nation but only I have been sent to all mankind.” Islam is the Arabic word meaning submission (to Muhammad’s “god” – Allah) and is derived from a word meaning peace. Muslims are those who have submitted. For Westerners, the clearest expression of that submission is the bowing down with the head on the ground in daily prayers. Total submission to Allah (or Muhammad) results in fatalism resulting in not taking responsibility for one’s actions. Muslims regularly rationalize their actions, or inactions, or events as InshAllah (also In Sha’ Allah) – “Allah’s will.” The Qur’an is purported to be the exact word of Allah as transmitted to Muhammad by the angel Gabriel.  Therefore, it is not open for discussion, analysis, or critique, even though it contains grammatical and historical errors, is completely illogical in that surahs (chapters) are arranged based on length, not chronological context, there are parts which no one understands, and there are many contradictions. It was written in the poetic style of the desert, which is not fully translatable, and the Bedouins had little concern for chronology such as placing Moses and Jesus together in time. Islam is a totalitarian ideology covering every aspect of life, is considered perfect, and calls for its imposition on everyone in the world whether they want it or not.

Muhammed is a prophet, Matty, not a leader. Muslims don't "obey" Muhammed's orders, they use his life and his ideas about God as an example and belief system.

We see the same with Mormons and their prophet Joseph Smith. I think Mormonism is much more cult-like than Islam, but only because of its hierarchical leadership. It is possible to be a Mormon and not an active participant in the church.

A cult can't possibly have a 700 year old leader. Cults usually die out when their leader dies.

Karnal wrote on Apr 11^th, 2016 at 2:37pm:

Sir James wrote on Apr 11th, 2016 at 2:29pm: 1.  The group displays excessively zealous and unquestioning commitment to its leader and (whether he is alive or dead) regards his belief system, ideology, and practices as the Truth, as law. This quite accurately describes Islam which is a totalitarian ideology with a façade of religion. Its leader, Muhammad who is probably a myth, is proclaimed to be the perfect man whose example every Muslim should follow. Everything he supposedly did or expounded is considered perfect and cannot be challenged or changed upon threat of death. This idolatry, which Islam professes to decry, is exhibited in the total obeisance and repeated use of the expression “Peace Be Upon Him” – PBUH every time his name is even mentioned. Sharia, Islamic law, is derived from the Qur’an and the actions and sayings of Muhammad (taken from the sira and hadiths). The supremacy (or arrogance) of the concept of Muhammad is that he is supposedly the last prophet – there can be no more prophets (this was in the sixth century in a very backward part of the world), and the extreme arrogance of the claimed statement by Muhammad, “Every prophet was sent to his nation but only I have been sent to all mankind.” Islam is the Arabic word meaning submission (to Muhammad’s “god” – Allah) and is derived from a word meaning peace. Muslims are those who have submitted. For Westerners, the clearest expression of that submission is the bowing down with the head on the ground in daily prayers. Total submission to Allah (or Muhammad) results in fatalism resulting in not taking responsibility for one’s actions. Muslims regularly rationalize their actions, or inactions, or events as InshAllah (also In Sha’ Allah) – “Allah’s will.” The Qur’an is purported to be the exact word of Allah as transmitted to Muhammad by the angel Gabriel.  Therefore, it is not open for discussion, analysis, or critique, even though it contains grammatical and historical errors, is completely illogical in that surahs (chapters) are arranged based on length, not chronological context, there are parts which no one understands, and there are many contradictions. It was written in the poetic style of the desert, which is not fully translatable, and the Bedouins had little concern for chronology such as placing Moses and Jesus together in time. Islam is a totalitarian ideology covering every aspect of life, is considered perfect, and calls for its imposition on everyone in the world whether they want it or not. Muhammed is a prophet, Matty, not a leader. Muslims don't "obey" Muhammed's orders, they use his life and his ideas about God as an example and belief system. We see the same with Mormons and their prophet Joseph Smith. I think Mormonism is much more cult-like than Islam, but only because of its hierarchical leadership. It is possible to be a Mormon and not an active participant in the church. A cult can't possibly have a 700 year old leader. Cults usually die out when their leader dies.

Incorrect. You just make yourself look even more stupid by acting like a child with your silly matty nonsense. Yet you still are incorrect. As usual. Do some research and post maturely if at all possible next time dear and someone may actually take you seriously.

Sir James wrote on Apr 11^th, 2016 at 2:37pm:

15.  The most loyal members (the “true believers”) feel there can be no life outside the context of the group. They believe there is no other way to be, and often fear reprisals to themselves or others if they leave (or even consider leaving) the group. Islam is a total ideology of submission to Allah (or Muhammad). Muslims are the only acceptable people. All others are kafirs, of no value. The reprisals are strong for even thinking against Islam, blasphemy, or daring to leave, apostasy. The penalty for both is death. Islam seems to fit the ICSA criteria for a cult. Since Allah is deemed to be unknowable, Islam seems to better fit as the cult of Muhammad. Muslims refer to Allah, but they seem to have deified Muhammad. Everything is about Muhammad. One strong indication of this is that the Sacred Law is not the law of Allah but the Sacred Law of Muhammad. Throughout the Qur’an, it is “Allah and his Messenger,” but sometimes it is just the Messenger. In Reliance of the Traveller [‘Umdat al-Salik from the 14th Century], a Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law updated and certified by Al Azhar in 1991, it is stated it rather clearly. Allah sent Muhammad, “the Qurayshite unlettered prophet, to deliver His inspired message to the entire world, Arabs and non-Arabs, jinn and mankind, superseding and abrogating all previous religious systems with the Prophet’s Sacred Law, except for the provisions of them that the new revelation explicitly reconfirmed. Allah has favored him above all the other prophets and made him the highest of mankind, rejecting anyone’s attesting to the divine oneness by saying ‘There is no god but Allah,’ unless they also attest to the Prophet by saying ‘Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah.’ He has obliged men and jinn to believe everything the Prophet has informed us concerning this world and the next, and does not accept anyone’s faith unless they believe in what he has told us will happen after death.” The interesting aspect of the Cult of Muhammad is that he probably never existed. Muhammad was born two hundred years after his birth. That is the conclusion of Norbert Pressburg in his book What the Modern Martyr Should Know [a good companion work to Robert Spencer’s Did Muhammad Exist?]  Pressburg establishes that there is no record of any Muhammad from the seventh century – all of it dates from the eighth and ninth centuries. Also the word “muhamad” is a gerund, meaning “the praised one” [often referring to Christ], and could not possibly be understood as a name. The birth of Islam took a long time. Christendom had split off from Judaism. At that time there were considerable differences in the Christian world over the real role of Jesus. The Arab Christians (Arabs were really the people of Greater Syria and Mesopotamia [Iraq] not the Bedouins of the desert of the Arabian Peninsula) had their own views of Christianity and eventually separated themselves from Greek Christianity. However, they needed their own holy book and prophet. Over hundreds of years, the Aramaic liturgical book, the Qeryan, a Christian book, was transformed into the Islamic Qur’an when Jesus lost his special status. There were many authors of the new book with different political agendas and often with limited understanding of the languages involved. This separation was seen coming in the sixth and seventh centuries but did not take place until the eighth and ninth centuries. The traditions of that first two hundred years of Islam are mostly mythical or as Pressburg suggests, “tales from the East.” What we now know as Islam was not completed until the twelfth or even the thirteenth century.[The Qur’an was not printed until 1802 in Russia.] By the third Islamic century (the 900s), Islam had transformed into “an excessive personality cult,” now the trademark of Islam and what they had been so strongly against in the beginning. That is the Cult of Muhammad. Usually for people of a more, shall we say, simple mind or low of intellect to be precise.

Plagiarism.

Ah.

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 11^th, 2016 at 2:47pm:

Plagiarism. Ah.

No troll I just can't post links. Bew Hew....

Karnal wrote on Apr 11^th, 2016 at 2:37pm:

I think Mormonism is much more cult-like than Islam, but only because of its hierarchical leadership.

Yes, absolutely.

Sir James wrote on Apr 11^th, 2016 at 2:52pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 11th, 2016 at 2:47pm: Plagiarism. Ah. No troll I just can't post links. Bew Hew....

Hotlinks, you mean.

You can now, though.

Before that, you could have just posted a link like this:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1460334257/15#18

I'm here to educate you, boy.

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 11^th, 2016 at 2:52pm:

Sir James wrote on Apr 11th, 2016 at 2:52pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 11th, 2016 at 2:47pm: Plagiarism. Ah. No troll I just can't post links. Bew Hew.... You can now.

LOL whats the chances of that... ha ha

Sir James wrote on Apr 11^th, 2016 at 2:53pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 11th, 2016 at 2:52pm: Sir James wrote on Apr 11th, 2016 at 2:52pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 11th, 2016 at 2:47pm: Plagiarism. Ah. No troll I just can't post links. Bew Hew.... You can now. LOL whats the chances of that... ha ha

One in a hundred.

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 11^th, 2016 at 2:52pm:

Karnal wrote on Apr 11th, 2016 at 2:37pm: I think Mormonism is much more cult-like than Islam, but only because of its hierarchical leadership. Yes, absolutely.

If that's the only reason you determine what a cult is then you clearly have no idea what a cult is. Do some research before commenting on that which you now nothing about.

Sir James wrote on Apr 11^th, 2016 at 2:55pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 11th, 2016 at 2:52pm: Karnal wrote on Apr 11th, 2016 at 2:37pm: I think Mormonism is much more cult-like than Islam, but only because of its hierarchical leadership. Yes, absolutely. If that's the only reason you determine what a cult is then you clearly have no idea what a cult is. Do some research before commenting on that which you now nothing about.

Pay attention.

"cult-like"

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 11^th, 2016 at 2:58pm:

Sir James wrote on Apr 11th, 2016 at 2:55pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 11th, 2016 at 2:52pm: Karnal wrote on Apr 11th, 2016 at 2:37pm: I think Mormonism is much more cult-like than Islam, but only because of its hierarchical leadership. Yes, absolutely. If that's the only reason you determine what a cult is then you clearly have no idea what a cult is. Do some research before commenting on that which you now nothing about. Pay attention. "cult-like"

Hence my comment on what a cult actually was.

Sir James wrote on Apr 11^th, 2016 at 2:43pm:

Karnal wrote on Apr 11th, 2016 at 2:37pm: Sir James wrote on Apr 11th, 2016 at 2:29pm: 1.  The group displays excessively zealous and unquestioning commitment to its leader and (whether he is alive or dead) regards his belief system, ideology, and practices as the Truth, as law. This quite accurately describes Islam which is a totalitarian ideology with a façade of religion. Its leader, Muhammad who is probably a myth, is proclaimed to be the perfect man whose example every Muslim should follow. Everything he supposedly did or expounded is considered perfect and cannot be challenged or changed upon threat of death. This idolatry, which Islam professes to decry, is exhibited in the total obeisance and repeated use of the expression “Peace Be Upon Him” – PBUH every time his name is even mentioned. Sharia, Islamic law, is derived from the Qur’an and the actions and sayings of Muhammad (taken from the sira and hadiths). The supremacy (or arrogance) of the concept of Muhammad is that he is supposedly the last prophet – there can be no more prophets (this was in the sixth century in a very backward part of the world), and the extreme arrogance of the claimed statement by Muhammad, “Every prophet was sent to his nation but only I have been sent to all mankind.” Islam is the Arabic word meaning submission (to Muhammad’s “god” – Allah) and is derived from a word meaning peace. Muslims are those who have submitted. For Westerners, the clearest expression of that submission is the bowing down with the head on the ground in daily prayers. Total submission to Allah (or Muhammad) results in fatalism resulting in not taking responsibility for one’s actions. Muslims regularly rationalize their actions, or inactions, or events as InshAllah (also In Sha’ Allah) – “Allah’s will.” The Qur’an is purported to be the exact word of Allah as transmitted to Muhammad by the angel Gabriel.  Therefore, it is not open for discussion, analysis, or critique, even though it contains grammatical and historical errors, is completely illogical in that surahs (chapters) are arranged based on length, not chronological context, there are parts which no one understands, and there are many contradictions. It was written in the poetic style of the desert, which is not fully translatable, and the Bedouins had little concern for chronology such as placing Moses and Jesus together in time. Islam is a totalitarian ideology covering every aspect of life, is considered perfect, and calls for its imposition on everyone in the world whether they want it or not. Muhammed is a prophet, Matty, not a leader. Muslims don't "obey" Muhammed's orders, they use his life and his ideas about God as an example and belief system. We see the same with Mormons and their prophet Joseph Smith. I think Mormonism is much more cult-like than Islam, but only because of its hierarchical leadership. It is possible to be a Mormon and not an active participant in the church. A cult can't possibly have a 700 year old leader. Cults usually die out when their leader dies. Incorrect. You just make yourself look even more stupid by acting like a child with your silly matty nonsense. Yet you still are incorrect. As usual. Do some research and post maturely if at all possible next time dear and someone may actually take you seriously.

You sound a bit cranky, Matty. Remember, when we discuss scholarly articles, we like to keep things nice. We like to use things like facts, and test them on others.

We're not trying to prove something here, you see, we're keeping our minds open so we can uncover the truth.

From what I see, you're stretching the cult criteria to the max. A cult is a single organization. Islam could only be a cult if one leader and one organization rose to unify the entire religion.

For example, Nazism is usually recognized as a cult, but Germany (and Austria, Prussia and the Sudentenland) isn't. Islam is too big and too diverse to be a cult. There are too many competing schools of thought, ignoring the schism between its Sunni and Shia branches.

Leadership means leadership, not an historical figurehead. If you were to say the Iranian revolution was a cult, I'd agree. I think that fits all your criteria.

You can fall into cult-like behavior when you see others with different points of view as evil. There is a tension on discussion boards like this one between those who seek to convert others at all costs (including fibs), and those who like to discuss and reflect on competing points of view.

You might like to consider which type you belong to.

Sir James wrote on Apr 11^th, 2016 at 2:29pm:

1.  The group displays excessively zealous and unquestioning commitment to its leader and (whether he is alive or dead) regards his belief system, ideology, and practices as the Truth, as law. This quite accurately describes Islam which is a totalitarian ideology with a façade of religion. Its leader, Muhammad who is probably a myth, is proclaimed to be the perfect man whose example every Muslim should follow. Everything he supposedly did or expounded is considered perfect and cannot be challenged or changed upon threat of death. This idolatry, which Islam professes to decry, is exhibited in the total obeisance and repeated use of the expression “Peace Be Upon Him” – PBUH every time his name is even mentioned. Sharia, Islamic law, is derived from the Qur’an and the actions and sayings of Muhammad (taken from the sira and hadiths). The supremacy (or arrogance) of the concept of Muhammad is that he is supposedly the last prophet – there can be no more prophets (this was in the sixth century in a very backward part of the world), and the extreme arrogance of the claimed statement by Muhammad, “Every prophet was sent to his nation but only I have been sent to all mankind.” Islam is the Arabic word meaning submission (to Muhammad’s “god” – Allah) and is derived from a word meaning peace. Muslims are those who have submitted. For Westerners, the clearest expression of that submission is the bowing down with the head on the ground in daily prayers. Total submission to Allah (or Muhammad) results in fatalism resulting in not taking responsibility for one’s actions. Muslims regularly rationalize their actions, or inactions, or events as InshAllah (also In Sha’ Allah) – “Allah’s will.” The Qur’an is purported to be the exact word of Allah as transmitted to Muhammad by the angel Gabriel.  Therefore, it is not open for discussion, analysis, or critique, even though it contains grammatical and historical errors, is completely illogical in that surahs (chapters) are arranged based on length, not chronological context, there are parts which no one understands, and there are many contradictions. It was written in the poetic style of the desert, which is not fully translatable, and the Bedouins had little concern for chronology such as placing Moses and Jesus together in time. Islam is a totalitarian ideology covering every aspect of life, is considered perfect, and calls for its imposition on everyone in the world whether they want it or not.

Kamal, when you can understand the first sentence then come back for a discussion instead of throwing yet another tanty that someone thinks islam is a cult which of course it is.

Hell the quran has more childish bigotry and and instructional terrrorism in it that adolf hitlers mein kamph.

Sir James wrote on Apr 11^th, 2016 at 2:32pm:

5.  The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s) and members (for example, the leader is considered the Messiah, a special being, an avatar—or the group and/or the leader is on a special mission to save humanity).

Who are these leaders within Islam, Matty?

Again, I'm curious.

Islam is a CULT of a religion. ;)

Karnal wrote on Apr 11^th, 2016 at 3:32pm:

Sir James wrote on Apr 11th, 2016 at 2:32pm: 5.  The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s) and members (for example, the leader is considered the Messiah, a special being, an avatar—or the group and/or the leader is on a special mission to save humanity). Who are these leaders within Islam, Matty? Again, I'm curious.

Any muslim with followers.  A few of them are styled as imans and preach intolerance and hatred.

Were you not aware of that? 

Karnal wrote on Apr 11^th, 2016 at 3:32pm:

Sir James wrote on Apr 11th, 2016 at 2:32pm: 5.  The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s) and members (for example, the leader is considered the Messiah, a special being, an avatar—or the group and/or the leader is on a special mission to save humanity). Who are these leaders within Islam, Matty? Again, I'm curious.

No you're not curious at all, troll you are illiterate, and carry on like a child. No surprises no one takes you seriously,

And here was me thinking nazism was generally known as a political movement. 

Where is it generally known as a cult?

Sir James wrote on Apr 11^th, 2016 at 3:26pm:

Kamal, when you can understand the first sentence then come back for a discussion instead of throwing yet another tanty that someone thinks islam is a cult which of course it is.

A very cult-like response, Matty. To the cultist, any alternative beliefs are illogical and irrational. They simply make no sense. But remember, no sense is used when backing up your argument. "Of course it is" is a very brainwashed response.

The thing about cults you lack, I think, is the seduction. Cult leaders are charismatic. They understand that followers must undergo stages in their conversion. You don't cut to the whacky beliefs at the outset.

Initially, potential members or targets must be won over. The Christian cult known as The Family, or Children of God, used a technique called "flirty fishing". Here, female members would sleep with males to bring them into the fold. The Krishnas use food: Sunday Feasts where potential followers are seduced with incense, beautiful imagery and stories. Recruits are greeted with smiles and flattery.

Hitler used mass rallies, staged events where citizens would be martialed like soldiers and inspired with Hitler's renowned, allegedly hypnotic speeches. Here, the German people were included in the in-group, with the Jews, communists and degenerates used as the enemy to rile Germans into a state of hate and bond them as a group.

Scientologists use "personality tests", questionnaires that point out weaknesses to exploit. The psychological state of "clear" is used to seduce recruits. Scientology then uses auditing, a form of confessional where recruits are encouraged to talk about their lives (and their deepest, darkest secrets which are all recorded and used later). Scientology is good for therapy junkies, those who want to better themselves - earn more money, have better relationships, find peace and happiness, etc. Most cults do. Somehow, members forget why they initially joined when they're working 14 hour days, giving all their money to the cult, and having relationships only with other cult members.

Members of Scientology are brainwashed slowly, in stages. You don't get taught about reincarnation at first. If you ask, you won't get a straight answer. You don't hear about the aliens who populated Earth initially - all this comes later, almost as a test of your loyalty once you're in. If you join the inner group, the Sea Org, you make a pledge to practice Scientology for a billion years, and not to rest until all forms of life have become clear.

Heed the example of members like Herbie, Matty. Start out softly-softly, nicey nice. Don't uncover your former membership of Nazi organizations until you've flattered and persuaded and convinced with lies. Bring them into the fold gradually, and only then, once you've captured their minds, reveal what that fold really is.

This is Rule Number 1 in all cults.

Secret Wars wrote on Apr 11^th, 2016 at 3:38pm:

And here was me thinking nazism was generally known as a political movement.  Where is it generally known as a cult?

In every book on cults I've ever read, Secret.


Quote:

Historians, political scientists and philosophers have studied Nazism with a specific focus on its religious and pseudo-religious aspects.[1] It has been debated whether Nazism would constitute a political religion, and there has also been research on the millenarian, messianic, and occult or esoteric aspects of Nazism.

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

Secret Wars wrote on Apr 11^th, 2016 at 3:35pm:

Karnal wrote on Apr 11th, 2016 at 3:32pm: Sir James wrote on Apr 11th, 2016 at 2:32pm: 5.  The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s) and members (for example, the leader is considered the Messiah, a special being, an avatar—or the group and/or the leader is on a special mission to save humanity). Who are these leaders within Islam, Matty? Again, I'm curious. Any muslim with followers.  A few of them are styled as imans and preach intolerance and hatred. Were you not aware of that?

I am, and I've already mentioned ISIS (under Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi) and the Iranian revolution (under Ayotollah Khomeini). Can you name any Islamic cults yourself?

Matty's claim, however, is that Islam itself is a cult, which would require a central leader or imam of the entire religion.

My argument is that Islam can only be classed as a cult if/when this happens.

Secret Wars wrote on Apr 11^th, 2016 at 3:38pm:

And here was me thinking nazism was generally known as a political movement.  Where is it generally known as a cult?

From within the Islamic cult that became allies with the Nazi's in World War Two.

Watch out or kamal will burst into tears calling you matty.

Islam is the cult.

What a shame its leader mohammed is dead as a door nail now burning in hell for all eternity.

Karnal wrote on Apr 11^th, 2016 at 4:15pm:

Secret Wars wrote on Apr 11th, 2016 at 3:38pm: And here was me thinking nazism was generally known as a political movement.  Where is it generally known as a cult? In every book on cults I've ever read, Secret. Quote: Historians, political scientists and philosophers have studied Nazism with a specific focus on its religious and pseudo-religious aspects.[1] It has been debated whether Nazism would constitute a political religion, and there has also been research on the millenarian, messianic, and occult or esoteric aspects of Nazism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_aspects_of_Nazism

You should have read the first part of wiki, the political part.  I disagree that it is generally known as a cult. 

Everything  I have read is generally (that word again) regards it as a politcal movement. 

FYI I don't regard Islam as a cult but it's distributed and method of leadership leads to outcomes with a cult like aspect, though that might also be described as radical cells.

But the intolerance draws from a common well of inspiration, not all choose to drink from that well, but enough do for it to be a massive problem that is growing. 

And the alaakbahing head loppers can legitimately point to that well and accurately describe themselves as Muslims. No matter how many times am apologist luvvie opines that they are not real Muslims.  They themselves consider themselves to be real, even the most real of Muslims and take legitimate inspiration and direction from the well. 

Some consider the Hillsong Church as a cult. The ex-member Tanya Levin's book, People in Glass Houses, made this claim, and the internet's full of blogs and articles on the cult-like aspects of Hillsong.

I disagree. While Hillsong does attempt to bring recruits into a tight group (using smiles and Gloria Jeans coffee as a form of seduction), it's aim, I think, is the standard Christian conversion and a personal relationship with God. The Hillsong Church does not differentiate itself from any other form of Christianity. Its Christianity is quite mainstream. There are no different beliefs or surprises. While it seeks to get you back to Hillsong, it aims to turn you into a Christian, not a member of Hillsong.

Hillsong fulfills many of the other criteria - a strong, charismatic leader (Brian Houston), a seductive, ritualistic service (music, speaking in tongues), an inner circle of pastors who even dress in a certain style (high-end casual fashion with plenty of bling).

And it certainly meets the criterion of money-raising. Members are encouraged to tithe 10% of their incomes. Workshops and conferences cost a fortune. Its music publishing arm is the biggest money-earner in the Christian music genre.

So while I don't agree, I can see how the Hillsong church can be seen as a cult. The religion of Christianity, however, cannot be seen as a cult. It's too big and diverse. It was definitely a cult in its early days, when it was known by Romans as the cult of Paul.

Not anymore.

Secret Wars wrote on Apr 11^th, 2016 at 4:32pm:

FYI I don't regard Islam as a cult but it's distributed and method of leadership leads to outcomes with a cult like aspect, though that might also be described as radical cells.

I'd call those cells cults, Secret. They meet all of Matty's criteria. Killing yourself to take out a perceived enemy and be rewarded in paradise is a perfect example of cult-like behavior.

Many cults are political movements - the "cult of Mao", for example. Some of the more ambitious cults have political takeover as their eventual aim. The Moonies, for example, believed the Reverend Moon would eventually become the leader of the world. The Moonies were stacked with political connections, as is Scientology. Scientology uses its resources to get members into high positions in offices like the US tax department. Like the Moonies, it actively seeks connections to US politicians, and has used these connections to get favours like its tax-exemption status (as did the Moonies).

Bribery, blackmail, kidnapping and excessive litigation are all tactics used. I believe murder has also been proven by members acting on church orders.

Cults work by breaking down members' consciences and personal values. The suicide bomber is a classic example of this. Murder and suicide are prohibited in Islam. All mainstream Muslim scholars, teachers and leaders make this point. That a cult can teach people to practice things completely prohibited by their religion shows, I think, just how brainwashed people can become in cults.

Karnal wrote on Apr 11^th, 2016 at 4:49pm:

Secret Wars wrote on Apr 11th, 2016 at 4:32pm: FYI I don't regard Islam as a cult but it's distributed and method of leadership leads to outcomes with a cult like aspect, though that might also be described as radical cells. I'd call those cells cults, Secret. They meet all of Matty's criteria. Killing yourself to take out a perceived enemy and be rewarded in paradise is a perfect example of cult-like behavior. Many cults are political movements - the "cult of Mao", for example. Some of the more ambitious cults have political takeover as their eventual aim. The Moonies, for example, believed the Reverend Moon would eventually become the leader of the world. The Moonies were stacked with political connections, as is Scientology. Scientology uses its resources to get members into high positions in offices like the US tax department. Like the Moonies, it actively seeks connections to US politicians, and has used these connections to get favours like its tax-exemption status (as did the Moonies). Bribery, blackmail, kidnapping and excessive litigation are all tactics used. I believe murder has also been proven by members acting on church orders.

Would it be fair to say that within Islam there are many aspects if dwelt upon, not taken out of context but simply focused upon by a particular group would become a cult ?

Karnal wrote on Apr 11^th, 2016 at 2:23pm:

Sprintcyclist wrote on Apr 11th, 2016 at 11:37am: imho, many organisations could be termed a cult. As long as they do not harm and conform to the greater society, that's ok. eg, the Star Wars group do no harm. The Buddhists and Hare Krishnas do not harm. Alas, Sprint, that's not the definition of a cult. It is, however, the definition of liberalism: "do whatever you like as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else". A cult is a hierarchical organization, built around a strong, usually charismatic, leader. Cults encourage members to see outsiders as dangerous and/or evil. They encourage members to proselytize and bring more members into the cult. Cults enforce obedience and involve themselves in all areas of their members lives. There are no secrets in a cult - the leadership must know everything about its members. Leaders of cults are usually paranoid about potential rivals, and hunt down powerful members. The Hare Krishnas are indeed a cult, although they've softened over the last 2 decades. Their leader, Prabhubada, who died in the early 1970s, is immortalized in lifelike wax statues placed in every Krishna temple. This is common in a cult - leaders do not lose their power after death. The most seemingly trivial details of members' lives are controlled, particularly around sex and family life. In the Krishnas, couples can only have sex a few times a year, and only then after chanting thousands of rounds of mantras. Only the missionary position is allowed, and only vaginal intercourse. Couples must be married, and those marriages must be approved. In the early days, members weren't allowed to get married at all. Chastity was crucial. After that, marriage partners were chosen for them. Today, they're given a bit more rope, but not a lot. Islam is not a cult. There are certainly cults within Islam, and I believe ISIS is probably one. Islam lacks the central leadership, the insider/outsider group-think, and the restrictive practices. There are a few cult-like practices within Islam - the prayer times, the fasting, the rules around certain routines and rituals, but Islam is not organized like a cult. It is way too diverse to function as a cult, and there are too many competing groups, beliefs and practices. The Hare Krishnas are a cult. Islam - in itself - is not.

Modern Islam is what happens when a cult goes imperialistic, gets too big, then collapses in on itself. Had Muhammed not had the chance, his cult would have been similar to the others you describe. People talk about the "peaceful Islam", which is what it was before Muhammed started murdering people en masse. He flipped Islam on its head when he got the chance to be the oppressor, and the rest is history.

The Mormons could have gone the same way, but John Smith was not a psychopath.

GordyL wrote on Apr 11^th, 2016 at 4:54pm:

Karnal wrote on Apr 11th, 2016 at 4:49pm: Secret Wars wrote on Apr 11th, 2016 at 4:32pm: FYI I don't regard Islam as a cult but it's distributed and method of leadership leads to outcomes with a cult like aspect, though that might also be described as radical cells. I'd call those cells cults, Secret. They meet all of Matty's criteria. Killing yourself to take out a perceived enemy and be rewarded in paradise is a perfect example of cult-like behavior. Many cults are political movements - the "cult of Mao", for example. Some of the more ambitious cults have political takeover as their eventual aim. The Moonies, for example, believed the Reverend Moon would eventually become the leader of the world. The Moonies were stacked with political connections, as is Scientology. Scientology uses its resources to get members into high positions in offices like the US tax department. Like the Moonies, it actively seeks connections to US politicians, and has used these connections to get favours like its tax-exemption status (as did the Moonies). Bribery, blackmail, kidnapping and excessive litigation are all tactics used. I believe murder has also been proven by members acting on church orders. Would it be fair to say that within Islam there are many aspects if dwelt upon, not taken out of context but simply focused upon by a particular group would become a cult ?

I'm not sure of your question, Gordy. Are you suggesting Islam is more susceptible to cults than other religions?

Islam matches the “Characteristics Associated with Cultic Groups” according to the International Cultic Studies Association (ICSA).

Here are some of these characteristics, according to the ICSA:

- The group displays excessively zealous and unquestioning commitment to its leader and (whether he is alive or dead) regards his belief system, ideology, and practices as the Truth, as law.


- Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished.


- Mind-altering practices (such as meditation, chanting, speaking in tongues, denunciation sessions, and debilitating work routines) are used in excess and serve to suppress doubts about the group and its leader(s).


- The leadership dictates, sometimes in great detail, how members should think, act, and feel (for example, members must get permission to date, change jobs, marry — or leaders prescribe what types of clothes to wear, where to live, whether or not to have children, how to discipline children, and so forth).

- The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s) and members (for example, the leader is considered the Messiah, a special being, an avatar — or the group and/or the leader is on a special mission to save humanity).

- The group has a polarized us-versus-them mentality, which may cause conflict with the wider society.

- The leader is not accountable to any authorities.

- The group teaches or implies that its supposedly exalted ends justify whatever means it deems necessary. This may result in members’ participating in behaviors or activities they would have considered reprehensible or unethical before joining the group (for example, lying to family or friends, or collecting money for bogus charities).

-The leadership induces feelings of shame and/or guilt in order to influence and/or control members. Often, this is done through peer pressure and subtle forms of persuasion.

- Subservience to the leader or group requires members to cut ties with family and friends, and radically alter the personal goals and activities they had before joining the group.

- The group is preoccupied with bringing in new members.

- Members are expected to devote inordinate amounts of time to the group and group-related activities.

- Members are encouraged or required to live and/or socialize only with other group members.

- The most loyal members (the “true believers”) feel there can be no life outside the context of the group. They believe there is no other way to be, and often fear reprisals to themselves or others if they leave (or even consider leaving) the group.



I know it is hard to imagine — 20% of humanity is tied up in a deceptive murderous cult — but that’s exactly what the situation is. Islam is a contagious cult that incites its followers to commit violence. Either the non-Muslim world unites and deals with this intellectual Islamic scourge, or Islam will continue its expansion.

I prefer the opinion of the International Cultic Studies Association (ICSA) than some upset little muslim running around on an internet forum.

Karnal wrote on Apr 11^th, 2016 at 5:04pm:

GordyL wrote on Apr 11th, 2016 at 4:54pm: Karnal wrote on Apr 11th, 2016 at 4:49pm: Secret Wars wrote on Apr 11th, 2016 at 4:32pm: FYI I don't regard Islam as a cult but it's distributed and method of leadership leads to outcomes with a cult like aspect, though that might also be described as radical cells. I'd call those cells cults, Secret. They meet all of Matty's criteria. Killing yourself to take out a perceived enemy and be rewarded in paradise is a perfect example of cult-like behavior. Many cults are political movements - the "cult of Mao", for example. Some of the more ambitious cults have political takeover as their eventual aim. The Moonies, for example, believed the Reverend Moon would eventually become the leader of the world. The Moonies were stacked with political connections, as is Scientology. Scientology uses its resources to get members into high positions in offices like the US tax department. Like the Moonies, it actively seeks connections to US politicians, and has used these connections to get favours like its tax-exemption status (as did the Moonies). Bribery, blackmail, kidnapping and excessive litigation are all tactics used. I believe murder has also been proven by members acting on church orders. Would it be fair to say that within Islam there are many aspects if dwelt upon, not taken out of context but simply focused upon by a particular group would become a cult ? I'm not sure of your question, Gordy. Are you suggesting Islam is more susceptible to cults than other religions?

Yes.

GordyL wrote on Apr 11^th, 2016 at 4:54pm:

Karnal wrote on Apr 11th, 2016 at 4:49pm: Secret Wars wrote on Apr 11th, 2016 at 4:32pm: FYI I don't regard Islam as a cult but it's distributed and method of leadership leads to outcomes with a cult like aspect, though that might also be described as radical cells. I'd call those cells cults, Secret. They meet all of Matty's criteria. Killing yourself to take out a perceived enemy and be rewarded in paradise is a perfect example of cult-like behavior. Many cults are political movements - the "cult of Mao", for example. Some of the more ambitious cults have political takeover as their eventual aim. The Moonies, for example, believed the Reverend Moon would eventually become the leader of the world. The Moonies were stacked with political connections, as is Scientology. Scientology uses its resources to get members into high positions in offices like the US tax department. Like the Moonies, it actively seeks connections to US politicians, and has used these connections to get favours like its tax-exemption status (as did the Moonies). Bribery, blackmail, kidnapping and excessive litigation are all tactics used. I believe murder has also been proven by members acting on church orders. Would it be fair to say that within Islam there are many aspects if dwelt upon, not taken out of context but simply focused upon by a particular group would become a cult ?

The word cult is like nailing jelly to a wall, it is slippery.   Many Muslims think that Suffism is a cult. 

Context is dependent on the person, it is subjective what rules and interpretations you take from a religious text.  Unhappily a large number of Muslims, and legitimately Muslim, despite luvvies diminishing them as not real, take a version that they hold to be a true and a large population as revealed in some surveys, hold intolerant views. 

The radical Muslims swim in a sea of support.

Secret Wars wrote on Apr 11^th, 2016 at 5:12pm:

GordyL wrote on Apr 11th, 2016 at 4:54pm: Karnal wrote on Apr 11th, 2016 at 4:49pm: Secret Wars wrote on Apr 11th, 2016 at 4:32pm: FYI I don't regard Islam as a cult but it's distributed and method of leadership leads to outcomes with a cult like aspect, though that might also be described as radical cells. I'd call those cells cults, Secret. They meet all of Matty's criteria. Killing yourself to take out a perceived enemy and be rewarded in paradise is a perfect example of cult-like behavior. Many cults are political movements - the "cult of Mao", for example. Some of the more ambitious cults have political takeover as their eventual aim. The Moonies, for example, believed the Reverend Moon would eventually become the leader of the world. The Moonies were stacked with political connections, as is Scientology. Scientology uses its resources to get members into high positions in offices like the US tax department. Like the Moonies, it actively seeks connections to US politicians, and has used these connections to get favours like its tax-exemption status (as did the Moonies). Bribery, blackmail, kidnapping and excessive litigation are all tactics used. I believe murder has also been proven by members acting on church orders. Would it be fair to say that within Islam there are many aspects if dwelt upon, not taken out of context but simply focused upon by a particular group would become a cult ? The word cult is like nailing jelly to a wall, it is slippery.   Many Muslims think that Suffism is a cult.  Context is dependent on the person, it is subjective what rules and interpretations you take from a religious text.  Unhappily a large number of Muslims, and legitimately Muslim, despite luvvies diminishing them as not real, take a version that they hold to be a true and a large population as revealed in some surveys, hold intolerant views.  The radical Muslims swim in a sea of support.

At the center are groups like the Islamic State,5 al-Qaeda, al-Shebab, Boko Haram, and so on. Their members apparently wake each morning yearning to kill infidels and apostates. Many of them also seem eager to be martyred in the process. Most of us refer to these people as “jihadists.” Then there is a larger circle of Islamists who are more politically motivated and appear less eager to kill and be killed. Beyond that is a wider circle of Muslims who probably support jihad and Islamism—financially, morally, or philosophically—but are not inclined to get their hands dirty.

freediver wrote on Apr 11^th, 2016 at 5:00pm:

Karnal wrote on Apr 11th, 2016 at 2:23pm: Sprintcyclist wrote on Apr 11th, 2016 at 11:37am: imho, many organisations could be termed a cult. As long as they do not harm and conform to the greater society, that's ok. eg, the Star Wars group do no harm. The Buddhists and Hare Krishnas do not harm. Alas, Sprint, that's not the definition of a cult. It is, however, the definition of liberalism: "do whatever you like as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else". A cult is a hierarchical organization, built around a strong, usually charismatic, leader. Cults encourage members to see outsiders as dangerous and/or evil. They encourage members to proselytize and bring more members into the cult. Cults enforce obedience and involve themselves in all areas of their members lives. There are no secrets in a cult - the leadership must know everything about its members. Leaders of cults are usually paranoid about potential rivals, and hunt down powerful members. The Hare Krishnas are indeed a cult, although they've softened over the last 2 decades. Their leader, Prabhubada, who died in the early 1970s, is immortalized in lifelike wax statues placed in every Krishna temple. This is common in a cult - leaders do not lose their power after death. The most seemingly trivial details of members' lives are controlled, particularly around sex and family life. In the Krishnas, couples can only have sex a few times a year, and only then after chanting thousands of rounds of mantras. Only the missionary position is allowed, and only vaginal intercourse. Couples must be married, and those marriages must be approved. In the early days, members weren't allowed to get married at all. Chastity was crucial. After that, marriage partners were chosen for them. Today, they're given a bit more rope, but not a lot. Islam is not a cult. There are certainly cults within Islam, and I believe ISIS is probably one. Islam lacks the central leadership, the insider/outsider group-think, and the restrictive practices. There are a few cult-like practices within Islam - the prayer times, the fasting, the rules around certain routines and rituals, but Islam is not organized like a cult. It is way too diverse to function as a cult, and there are too many competing groups, beliefs and practices. The Hare Krishnas are a cult. Islam - in itself - is not. Modern Islam is what happens when a cult goes imperialistic, gets too big, then collapses in on itself. Had Muhammed not had the chance, his cult would have been similar to the others you describe. People talk about the "peaceful Islam", which is what it was before Muhammed started murdering people en masse. He flipped Islam on its head when he got the chance to be the oppressor, and the rest is history. The Mormons could have gone the same way, but John Smith was not a psychopath.

You could argue that Muhammed started a cult - I'd definitely say Joseph Smith did. I'd need to know more about early Islam before I'd make this claim.

Muhammed and his followers were at war. If you can prove Muhammed started this war as a mission to proselytize, then yes, I think you can prove Islam started out as a cult. 

Muslims (along with historians) believe, however, that Muhammed and his followers were attacked and chose to defend themselves. This self-defense is one of the main themes of the Koran, so it's pretty hard to miss. I believe you've argued before that this is one of the earliest examples of taqiyya; the Koran itself being based on a lie.

Personally, I'd need to know more about this to believe it, but even if its true, the religion of Islam is based on this principle.

You don't need to be a psychopath to start a cult. St Paul, for example, preached with words, not the sword.

LOL. look at the tears fly.

Sir James wrote on Apr 11^th, 2016 at 5:09pm:

Islam matches the “Characteristics Associated with Cultic Groups” according to the International Cultic Studies Association (ICSA). Here are some of these characteristics, according to the ICSA: - The group displays excessively zealous and unquestioning commitment to its leader and (whether he is alive or dead) regards his belief system, ideology, and practices as the Truth, as law. - Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished. - Mind-altering practices (such as meditation, chanting, speaking in tongues, denunciation sessions, and debilitating work routines) are used in excess and serve to suppress doubts about the group and its leader(s). - The leadership dictates, sometimes in great detail, how members should think, act, and feel (for example, members must get permission to date, change jobs, marry — or leaders prescribe what types of clothes to wear, where to live, whether or not to have children, how to discipline children, and so forth). - The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s) and members (for example, the leader is considered the Messiah, a special being, an avatar — or the group and/or the leader is on a special mission to save humanity). - The group has a polarized us-versus-them mentality, which may cause conflict with the wider society. - The leader is not accountable to any authorities. - The group teaches or implies that its supposedly exalted ends justify whatever means it deems necessary. This may result in members’ participating in behaviors or activities they would have considered reprehensible or unethical before joining the group (for example, lying to family or friends, or collecting money for bogus charities). -The leadership induces feelings of shame and/or guilt in order to influence and/or control members. Often, this is done through peer pressure and subtle forms of persuasion. - Subservience to the leader or group requires members to cut ties with family and friends, and radically alter the personal goals and activities they had before joining the group. - The group is preoccupied with bringing in new members. - Members are expected to devote inordinate amounts of time to the group and group-related activities. - Members are encouraged or required to live and/or socialize only with other group members. - The most loyal members (the “true believers”) feel there can be no life outside the context of the group. They believe there is no other way to be, and often fear reprisals to themselves or others if they leave (or even consider leaving) the group. I know it is hard to imagine — 20% of humanity is tied up in a deceptive murderous cult — but that’s exactly what the situation is. Islam is a contagious cult that incites its followers to commit violence. Either the non-Muslim world unites and deals with this intellectual Islamic scourge, or Islam will continue its expansion.

I prefer the opinion of the International Cultic Studies Association (ICSA) than some upset little muslim running around on an internet forum.

Secret Wars wrote on Apr 11^th, 2016 at 5:12pm:

GordyL wrote on Apr 11th, 2016 at 4:54pm: Karnal wrote on Apr 11th, 2016 at 4:49pm: Secret Wars wrote on Apr 11th, 2016 at 4:32pm: FYI I don't regard Islam as a cult but it's distributed and method of leadership leads to outcomes with a cult like aspect, though that might also be described as radical cells. I'd call those cells cults, Secret. They meet all of Matty's criteria. Killing yourself to take out a perceived enemy and be rewarded in paradise is a perfect example of cult-like behavior. Many cults are political movements - the "cult of Mao", for example. Some of the more ambitious cults have political takeover as their eventual aim. The Moonies, for example, believed the Reverend Moon would eventually become the leader of the world. The Moonies were stacked with political connections, as is Scientology. Scientology uses its resources to get members into high positions in offices like the US tax department. Like the Moonies, it actively seeks connections to US politicians, and has used these connections to get favours like its tax-exemption status (as did the Moonies). Bribery, blackmail, kidnapping and excessive litigation are all tactics used. I believe murder has also been proven by members acting on church orders. Would it be fair to say that within Islam there are many aspects if dwelt upon, not taken out of context but simply focused upon by a particular group would become a cult ? The word cult is like nailing jelly to a wall, it is slippery.   Many Muslims think that Suffism is a cult.

Who says this? I can't think of anything less cult-like than Sufism. It sees God in everything, especially enemies. It teaches learning from silence. Humility is a core value - "the tree with the most fruit bows the lowest" is a Sufi saying. Sufi teachers believe in teaching through practice and example, not words.

Cults are very clearly defined - Matty's criteria nails them to the wall. The definition of cult is about the practices of the organization, not members themselves. People can be cult-like devotees of Catholicism and Anglicanism, but these churches don't meet the criteria of cults.

To answer Gordy's question, no, I don't think Islam is more susceptible to cultish practices than other religions. Islam can inspire Sufism, and it can inspire suicide bombers - just as Hindu-nationalism can simultaneously inspire Ghandi and the Tamil Tigers, who invented the suicide vest.

Five Reasons Why Islam is a Cult

Unpleasant fact — worldwide consequences

by Bob Smith

1. A Muslim who quits Islam has to worry about being killed by another Muslim.

This is the first rule of Islam. This is why so few Muslims quit the faith. This simple fact — alone — makes Islam a cult. It is hard to understate the significance of this cold hard fact about Islam.

This practice is widely followed today throughout the Islamic world. The most frequently quoted Islamic theological source is Sahih Al-Bukhari Number 6922:

Allah’s apostle said, “if anyone changes his (Islamic) religion, then kill him.”

WikiIslam.net says the following: “the rejection of faith, is a serious offense in Islam. The punishment for apostasy as prescribed by Prophet Muhammad is death”.

Don’t let any Muslim try to deny this fact by quoting the Islamic phrase “there is no compulsion in religion”. All Muslims know the Islamic doctrine of “abrogation” negates this phrase. And Muslims only use this phrase when they are trying to deceive non-Muslims

In Afghanistan, NATO had to use a promise of asylum in Europe to get Said Musa out of prison for the crime of converting to Christianity.

The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI.org), in clip #3926, translated a broadcast from Al-Arabiya TV on June 14, 2013, which quotes Egyptian Islamist Abu Al-’Ela Abd Rabbo, one of the assassins of secularist Farag Foda in 1992:

Interviewer: What was the religious justification for the assassination of Farag Foda?

Abu Al-’Ela Abd Rabbo: The punishment for an apostate is death, even if he repents.

Need more proof? Simply Google “quit Islam”

2. Muslims are encouraged to commit violence in the name of Islam.

Muslim theological documents — the Koran, Hadith, and Sunna — are filled with statements which encourage devout Muslims to commit violence in the name of Islam.

Here are just a few:

Slay the unbelievers wherever you find them(2:191)
Make war on the infidels living in your neighborhood (9:123)
When opportunity arises, kill the infidels wherever you catch them (9:5)
Kill the Jews and the Christians if they do not convert to Islam or refuse to pay Jizya tax (9:29)
Any religion other than Islam is not acceptable (3:85)
The Jews and the Christians are perverts; fight them (9:30)
Maim and crucify the infidels if they criticize Islam (5:33)
The infidels are unclean; do not let them into a mosque (9:28)
Punish the unbelievers with garments of fire, hooked iron rods, boiling water; melt their skin and bellies (22:19)
Do not hanker for peace with the infidels; behead them when you catch them (47:4)
The unbelievers are stupid; urge the Muslims to fight them (8:65)
Muslims must not take the infidels as friends (3:28)
Terrorize and behead those who believe in scriptures other than the Qur’an (8:12)
Muslims must muster all weapons to terrorize the infidels
In addition to the Muslim theological documents mentioned above, Islamic social norms encourage violence. It is widely noted that Friday is the most likely day when jihad attacks will occur within Muslim society. This is because the mullahs use their Friday pulpits to encourage their flock to commit violence in the name of Islam.

In Muslim societies, even the media become involved in the incitement to violence. MEMRI.org has translated thousands of articles from print and electronic media. These translated articles are filled with direct incitement to commit violence in the name of Islam.

Remarkably, some of the most glaring examples of incitement to violence come from new “converts” to Islam. Why would a new convert to Islam commit violence? The obvious answer is the “theological” incitement from their new religion — Islam’s core texts.


There is an unfortunate PC effort to deny, ignore and whitewash this Islam inspired violence. The amount of violence committed worldwide since 9/11 is simply too high to overlook.

The web site The Religion of Peace has been collecting, counting, and publishing a list of deadly Islamic terror attacks worldwide since 9/11/2001. As of January 1, 2014 the number was 22,178. Don’t let the PC crowd tell you it is just the same as the Christians, Buddhists, Hindus or the Jews — make them prove it. Only an intellectual buffoon would try to deny the relationship between Islam and violence.

Who says this?  Other Muslims.

Seeing God in everything a sign of a cult?  Who knew.

Secret Wars wrote on Apr 11^th, 2016 at 5:40pm:

Who says this?  Other Muslims. Seeing God in everything a sign of a cult?  Who knew.

Which other Muslims?

3. Islam does not allow criticism or change.

Islam considers anyone who criticizes or tries to change Islam guilty of blasphemy. And blasphemy is an capital crime under Sharia law. As a result any Muslim who even critiques or attempts to change Islam has to worry about being murdered by some devout Muslim.

In Denmark in late 2013, an 18-year-old Muslim named Yahya Hassan received numerous death threats after reading one of his Islam-critical poems on TV.

It is bad enough that Muslims can’t criticize Islam, but this rule even applies to non-Muslims in non-Muslim societies. Just look at what happened to Theo Van Gogh in Amsterdam. He made a short movie about women in Islam. As Van Gogh walked to work one morning, he was murdered by a devout Muslim named Mohammed Bouyeri. At his trial the murderer told the court Van Gogh had insulted Islam. “What moved me to do what I did was purely my faith,” Bouyeri went on. “I was motivated by the law that commands me to cut off the head of anyone who insults Allah and his prophet.”

The Comedy Central series “South Park” parodied Islam in a couple of 2010 episodes. What happened? According to the New York Times:

Mat Stone and Trey Parker the creators of South Park were threatened by the Islamic web site RevolutionMuslim.com. It warned Mat and Trey “what they are doing is stupid, and they will probably wind up like Theo van Gogh for airing this show. This is not a threat, but a warning of the reality of what will likely happen to them.”

In Seattle, the cartoonist Molly Norris thought she could counter Islamic reality. She declared May 20, 2010 “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day”. She published a cartoon with a number of household items (a spool of thread, a cup and saucer, a domino…) all claiming to be Mohammed. Within a week Norris had received numerous death threats. Eventually the Islamic cleric Anwar al-Awlaki put a fatwa on Norris’ head. After talks with the FBI she ultimately had to implement her own “cartoonist protection program”. She has reportedly changed her name, left Seattle, and gone underground.

To make matters worse, Islam encourages devout believers to be “self-initiating” in the enforcement of Sharia law. This means any devout Muslim believer anywhere might commit violence in the blink of an eye, if he finds you doing something he considers offensive to Islam.

4. Muslim theology teaches hatred of non-Muslims.

This practice is widespread within Islamic society. It has been documented by numerous authors literally thousands of time. (See a long list of articles below.)

The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI.org) has recorded and translated hundreds of television broadcasts in which Muslim religious leaders encourage hatred and violence against non-Muslims, and especially the Jews.

Here is a screen shot from one:

http://gatesofvienna.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/memricap.jpg

To make matters worse, this Islamic hate-theology is being taught right here in Western society right under the noses of politically correct governments.

In the United States, the Freedom House Center for Religious Freedom published in 2005 an investigative report titled “Saudi Publications on Hate Ideology Invade American Mosques”. This extensive analysis states: “The Saudi Arabian publications in this study, which espouse an ideology of hate and purport to be the authoritative interpretation of Islam, continue to be in plentiful supply at some of our nation’s main mosques and continue to be used as a principal educational resource on Islam for Muslims in America”. (Is there any wonder how the Boston Marathon bombers got their ideas?)

In the UK a Dispatches Magazine Channel 4 news undercover reporter joined mosque “worshippers to find a message of religious bigotry and extremism being preached. He captures chilling sermons in which Saudi-trained preachers proclaim the supremacy of Islam, preach hatred for non-Muslims.”

After this Dispatches report aired, there was a public outcry. Muslim spokespersons said this was an aberration and that the problem had been cured. Months later Dispatches returned, and found a continuation of hate teaching in the mosques.

Karnal wrote on Apr 11^th, 2016 at 5:42pm:

Secret Wars wrote on Apr 11th, 2016 at 5:40pm: Who says this?  Other Muslims. Seeing God in everything a sign of a cult?  Who knew. Which other Muslims?

Whabbist, some Shia Muslims are hostile.  ISIS were killing them. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sufi–Salafi_relations

Secret Wars wrote on Apr 11^th, 2016 at 5:56pm:

Karnal wrote on Apr 11th, 2016 at 5:42pm: Secret Wars wrote on Apr 11th, 2016 at 5:40pm: Who says this?  Other Muslims. Seeing God in everything a sign of a cult?  Who knew. Which other Muslims? Whabbist, some Shia Muslims are hostile.  ISIS were killing them.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sufi–Salafi_relations

Thanks for the research, Secret. Would you mind quoting the part about Muslims calling Sufism a cult, please?

5. Islam matches the “Characteristics Associated with Cultic Groups” according to the International Cultic Studies Association (ICSA).

Here are some of these characteristics, according to the ICSA:

The group displays excessively zealous and unquestioning commitment to its leader and (whether he is alive or dead) regards his belief system, ideology, and practices as the Truth, as law.
Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished.
Mind-altering practices (such as meditation, chanting, speaking in tongues, denunciation sessions, and debilitating work routines) are used in excess and serve to suppress doubts about the group and its leader(s).
The leadership dictates, sometimes in great detail, how members should think, act, and feel (for example, members must get permission to date, change jobs, marry — or leaders prescribe what types of clothes to wear, where to live, whether or not to have children, how to discipline children, and so forth).
The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s) and members (for example, the leader is considered the Messiah, a special being, an avatar — or the group and/or the leader is on a special mission to save humanity).
The group has a polarized us-versus-them mentality, which may cause conflict with the wider society.
The leader is not accountable to any authorities.
The group teaches or implies that its supposedly exalted ends justify whatever means it deems necessary. This may result in members’ participating in behaviors or activities they would have considered reprehensible or unethical before joining the group (for example, lying to family or friends, or collecting money for bogus charities).
The leadership induces feelings of shame and/or guilt in order to influence and/or control members. Often, this is done through peer pressure and subtle forms of persuasion.
Subservience to the leader or group requires members to cut ties with family and friends, and radically alter the personal goals and activities they had before joining the group.
The group is preoccupied with bringing in new members.
Members are expected to devote inordinate amounts of time to the group and group-related activities.
Members are encouraged or required to live and/or socialize only with other group members.
The most loyal members (the “true believers”) feel there can be no life outside the context of the group. They believe there is no other way to be, and often fear reprisals to themselves or others if they leave (or even consider leaving) the group.
I know it is hard to imagine — 20% of humanity is tied up in a deceptive murderous cult — but that’s exactly what the situation is. Islam is a contagious cult that incites its followers to commit violence. Either the non-Muslim world unites and deals with this intellectual Islamic scourge, or Islam will continue its expansion.

Below is a list of articles (with links) to support my thesis — Islam is a cult:

Muslim Cleric Incites Children to ‘Slaughter’ Christians and Alawites in Syria
Al-Qaeda in Syrian School: Infidels Must Be Slaughtered; Obama, World Leaders Are Infidels
Tanzania dismantles al-Shabaab child indoctrination camp in Tanga region
Textbooks In Pakistani Government Schools Teaching Hate Against Christians And Hindus, Jihad And Martyrdom To Young Students
Thousands of terror videos urging British Muslims to maim and kill can be found within seconds online
Saudi Textbooks Incite Hate Say Leaders in American Publishing
Hate content against religious minorities rampant in school textbooks across Pakistan
Barbados Muslim Girls School, 14 year old student: “Nothing wrong with beheading, chopping off your hands, severe beatings”
Op-Ed: A Psychiatrist Talks About PA Children’s Indoctrination
Denmark Immigrant children learn to hate
Education in hate for ‘tender hearts’
Kasab thought he was on Mission Kashmir
How I came face to face with Taliban teen killers
Inside a Pakistani school where children are being brainwashed into terrorists
Islamic Textbook Teaches It’s OK to Kill
Italy: Police arrest six Moroccan ‘jihadists’ in north
Kids learn hate at Afghan mosque(This article also included a good video)
‘Muslim Eton’ at centre of Channel 4 hate-preaching allegations is forced to shut over far-Right safety fears
Psychologist: Western Quran schools are “terrorist factories”
Exclusive: over 60 per cent of Britain’s Muslim schools have extremist links, says draft report
Pak textbooks build hate culture against India
Police probe into child beatings at mosques
Police warn of Jihad training for children
Preachers of separatism at work inside Britain’s mosques
Provincial govt to review programmes in Islamic religious schools
Study offers glimpse into what it takes to be suicide bomber
Taliban using mosques as recruitment centres: Media reports
The 14-year-old Afghan suicide bomber
UK: Anti-Semitism Rampant in Muslim Schools Second Generation More Extreme than Parents
‘Death to bloggers’: Bangladesh Islamists
1226613966218?sv=77818a7f700554d69830c9dbaa98f596#.UWAorVi_jzM.twitter
Slain Egyptian anti-Islamist writer Faraj Fouda remembered
Islamic TV channel fined £85,000 for inciting violence
EU urges Tehran to drop death penalty for apostasy
Algeria: Al-Qaeda attacks moderates

Quote:

Islam matches the “Characteristics Associated with Cultic Groups” according to the International Cultic Studies Association (ICSA).

Would you mind showing where the ICSA makes this claim, Matty?

Cheers.

Karnal wrote on Apr 11^th, 2016 at 5:59pm:

Secret Wars wrote on Apr 11th, 2016 at 5:56pm: Karnal wrote on Apr 11th, 2016 at 5:42pm: Secret Wars wrote on Apr 11th, 2016 at 5:40pm: Who says this?  Other Muslims. Seeing God in everything a sign of a cult?  Who knew. Which other Muslims? Whabbist, some Shia Muslims are hostile.  ISIS were killing them.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sufi–Salafi_relations Thanks for the research, Secret. Would you mind quoting the part about Muslims calling Sufism a cult, please?

Wahhabis all to often try to paint Sufis as a deviant cult but yet are unaware that Imaam Ibn Taymiyyah has dedicated a whole volume [volume 11] from his Majmu’a al-Fatawaa to the science of tassawuf, in which he wrote the following: “The Sufi is in reality from amongst the people of truth. So he is one who specialises in the field of Zuhd and worship… “as-Sufi huwa fil-haqiqah naw’un min as-siddiqeen. Fahuwa as-siddiq alladhi ikhtassa bil-zuhadi wal-’Ibadan

https://thewahhabithreat.com/zuhd-tazkiyah-tassawuf/are-the-sufis-a-deviant-sect/

Seems in my quick squizz, sect is the preffered word, so it is a sect persecuted by other Muslims.  A distinction with cult without a difference. 

Secret Wars wrote on Apr 11^th, 2016 at 6:08pm:

Karnal wrote on Apr 11th, 2016 at 5:59pm: Secret Wars wrote on Apr 11th, 2016 at 5:56pm: Karnal wrote on Apr 11th, 2016 at 5:42pm: Secret Wars wrote on Apr 11th, 2016 at 5:40pm: Who says this?  Other Muslims. Seeing God in everything a sign of a cult?  Who knew. Which other Muslims? Whabbist, some Shia Muslims are hostile.  ISIS were killing them.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sufi–Salafi_relations Thanks for the research, Secret. Would you mind quoting the part about Muslims calling Sufism a cult, please? Wahhabis all to often try to paint Sufis as a deviant cult but yet are unaware that Imaam Ibn Taymiyyah has dedicated a whole volume [volume 11] from his Majmu’a al-Fatawaa to the science of tassawuf, in which he wrote the following: “The Sufi is in reality from amongst the people of truth. So he is one who specialises in the field of Zuhd and worship… “as-Sufi huwa fil-haqiqah naw’un min as-siddiqeen. Fahuwa as-siddiq alladhi ikhtassa bil-zuhadi wal-’Ibadan https://thewahhabithreat.com/zuhd-tazkiyah-tassawuf/are-the-sufis-a-deviant-sect/ Seems in my quick squizz, sect is the preffered word, so it is a sect persecuted by other Muslims.  A distinction with cult without a difference.

I can't open your link, Secret, but the URL says the Sufis are a sect.

Is that what your article says too? You've written the word, "cult".

Karnal wrote on Apr 11^th, 2016 at 5:19pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 11th, 2016 at 5:00pm: Karnal wrote on Apr 11th, 2016 at 2:23pm: Sprintcyclist wrote on Apr 11th, 2016 at 11:37am: imho, many organisations could be termed a cult. As long as they do not harm and conform to the greater society, that's ok. eg, the Star Wars group do no harm. The Buddhists and Hare Krishnas do not harm. Alas, Sprint, that's not the definition of a cult. It is, however, the definition of liberalism: "do whatever you like as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else". A cult is a hierarchical organization, built around a strong, usually charismatic, leader. Cults encourage members to see outsiders as dangerous and/or evil. They encourage members to proselytize and bring more members into the cult. Cults enforce obedience and involve themselves in all areas of their members lives. There are no secrets in a cult - the leadership must know everything about its members. Leaders of cults are usually paranoid about potential rivals, and hunt down powerful members. The Hare Krishnas are indeed a cult, although they've softened over the last 2 decades. Their leader, Prabhubada, who died in the early 1970s, is immortalized in lifelike wax statues placed in every Krishna temple. This is common in a cult - leaders do not lose their power after death. The most seemingly trivial details of members' lives are controlled, particularly around sex and family life. In the Krishnas, couples can only have sex a few times a year, and only then after chanting thousands of rounds of mantras. Only the missionary position is allowed, and only vaginal intercourse. Couples must be married, and those marriages must be approved. In the early days, members weren't allowed to get married at all. Chastity was crucial. After that, marriage partners were chosen for them. Today, they're given a bit more rope, but not a lot. Islam is not a cult. There are certainly cults within Islam, and I believe ISIS is probably one. Islam lacks the central leadership, the insider/outsider group-think, and the restrictive practices. There are a few cult-like practices within Islam - the prayer times, the fasting, the rules around certain routines and rituals, but Islam is not organized like a cult. It is way too diverse to function as a cult, and there are too many competing groups, beliefs and practices. The Hare Krishnas are a cult. Islam - in itself - is not. Modern Islam is what happens when a cult goes imperialistic, gets too big, then collapses in on itself. Had Muhammed not had the chance, his cult would have been similar to the others you describe. People talk about the "peaceful Islam", which is what it was before Muhammed started murdering people en masse. He flipped Islam on its head when he got the chance to be the oppressor, and the rest is history. The Mormons could have gone the same way, but John Smith was not a psychopath. You could argue that Muhammed started a cult - I'd definitely say Joseph Smith did. I'd need to know more about early Islam before I'd make this claim. Muhammed and his followers were at war. If you can prove Muhammed started this war as a mission to proselytize, then yes, I think you can prove Islam started out as a cult.  Muslims (along with historians) believe, however, that Muhammed and his followers were attacked and chose to defend themselves. This self-defense is one of the main themes of the Koran, so it's pretty hard to miss. I believe you've argued before that this is one of the earliest examples of taqiyya; the Koran itself being based on a lie. Personally, I'd need to know more about this to believe it, but even if its true, the religion of Islam is based on this principle. You don't need to be a psychopath to start a cult. St Paul, for example, preached with words, not the sword.

Muhammed openly robbed Meccan caravans for years before they attacked him. The Jews he slaughtered did not attack him, and he had been weeding out Jews and preaching hostility against them for a long time prior. Muhammed sent raids to slaughter people and destroy pagan sites, not because they attacked him, but because they were pagans. Muhammed's self defense is no different from that of French Muslims 'defending' themselves against cartoonists. The self-defense delusion is what drives the modern Islamic victimhood industry. They get so good at turning Muhammed's hostility into victimhood that they cannot help doing it for themselves and their fellow Muslims, and suddenly anyone who complains about people getting blown up in the street is a racist.

Karnal wrote on Apr 11^th, 2016 at 6:16pm:

Secret Wars wrote on Apr 11th, 2016 at 6:08pm: Karnal wrote on Apr 11th, 2016 at 5:59pm: Secret Wars wrote on Apr 11th, 2016 at 5:56pm: Karnal wrote on Apr 11th, 2016 at 5:42pm: Secret Wars wrote on Apr 11th, 2016 at 5:40pm: Who says this?  Other Muslims. Seeing God in everything a sign of a cult?  Who knew. Which other Muslims? Whabbist, some Shia Muslims are hostile.  ISIS were killing them.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sufi–Salafi_relations Thanks for the research, Secret. Would you mind quoting the part about Muslims calling Sufism a cult, please? Wahhabis all to often try to paint Sufis as a deviant cult but yet are unaware that Imaam Ibn Taymiyyah has dedicated a whole volume [volume 11] from his Majmu’a al-Fatawaa to the science of tassawuf, in which he wrote the following: “The Sufi is in reality from amongst the people of truth. So he is one who specialises in the field of Zuhd and worship… “as-Sufi huwa fil-haqiqah naw’un min as-siddiqeen. Fahuwa as-siddiq alladhi ikhtassa bil-zuhadi wal-’Ibadan https://thewahhabithreat.com/zuhd-tazkiyah-tassawuf/are-the-sufis-a-deviant-sect/ Seems in my quick squizz, sect is the preffered word, so it is a sect persecuted by other Muslims.  A distinction with cult without a difference.  I can't open your link, Secret, but the URL says the Sufis are a sect. Is that what your article says too? You've written the word, "cult".

I resent that implication, I try to be an honest debater.

Wahhabis all to often try to paint Sufis as a deviant cult but yet are unaware that Imaam Ibn Taymiyyah has dedicated a whole volume [volume 11] from his Majmu’a al-Fatawaa to the science of tassawuf, in which he wrote the following: “The Sufi is in reality from amongst the people of truth. So he is one who specialises in the field of Zuhd and worship… “as-Sufi huwa fil-haqiqah naw’un min as-siddiqeen. Fahuwa as-siddiq alladhi ikhtassa bil-zuhadi wal-’ibadah…”

Try this https://thewahhabithreat.com/zuhd-tazkiyah-tassawuf/are-the-sufis-a-deviant-sect/

freediver wrote on Apr 11^th, 2016 at 6:25pm:

Muhammed openly robbed Meccan caravans for years before they attacked him. The Jews he slaughtered did not attack him, and he had been weeding out Jews and preaching hostility against them for a long time prior. Muhammed sent raids to slaughter people and destroy pagan sites, not because they attacked him, but because they were pagans. Muhammed's self defense is different from that of French Muslims 'defending' themselves against cartoonists. The self-defense delusion is what drives the modern Islamic victimhood industry.

I hope you'll forgive me if I take all this with a grain of salt, FD.

FD is saying this.

Karnal wrote on Apr 11^th, 2016 at 6:27pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 11th, 2016 at 6:25pm: Muhammed openly robbed Meccan caravans for years before they attacked him. The Jews he slaughtered did not attack him, and he had been weeding out Jews and preaching hostility against them for a long time prior. Muhammed sent raids to slaughter people and destroy pagan sites, not because they attacked him, but because they were pagans. Muhammed's self defense is different from that of French Muslims 'defending' themselves against cartoonists. The self-defense delusion is what drives the modern Islamic victimhood industry. I hope you'll forgive me if I take all this with a grain of salt, FD. FD is saying this.

Salt you say, a grain is ok ;)


Lets try understand this with chemistry.

Australia = potable water
Muslims = salt

If you ad the salt slowly and gradually and stir the water vigorously, adding a bit more potable water as you go, the water will remain potable.

However, if you ad too much salt too quickly, or if the salt is not added evenly, for instance if there is a part of container where the salt tends to clump together (Lakemba) the salt will stop dissolving into the water.

When you've exceeded 385 grams of salt per liter of water, the water will no longer be drinkable and the salt will totally fail to dissolve.

This post will be filed under Muslim immigration and basic chemistry.

Secret Wars wrote on Apr 11^th, 2016 at 6:26pm:

Karnal wrote on Apr 11th, 2016 at 6:16pm: Secret Wars wrote on Apr 11th, 2016 at 6:08pm: Karnal wrote on Apr 11th, 2016 at 5:59pm: Secret Wars wrote on Apr 11th, 2016 at 5:56pm: Karnal wrote on Apr 11th, 2016 at 5:42pm: Secret Wars wrote on Apr 11th, 2016 at 5:40pm: Who says this?  Other Muslims. Seeing God in everything a sign of a cult?  Who knew. Which other Muslims? Whabbist, some Shia Muslims are hostile.  ISIS were killing them.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sufi–Salafi_relations Thanks for the research, Secret. Would you mind quoting the part about Muslims calling Sufism a cult, please? Wahhabis all to often try to paint Sufis as a deviant cult but yet are unaware that Imaam Ibn Taymiyyah has dedicated a whole volume [volume 11] from his Majmu’a al-Fatawaa to the science of tassawuf, in which he wrote the following: “The Sufi is in reality from amongst the people of truth. So he is one who specialises in the field of Zuhd and worship… “as-Sufi huwa fil-haqiqah naw’un min as-siddiqeen. Fahuwa as-siddiq alladhi ikhtassa bil-zuhadi wal-’Ibadan https://thewahhabithreat.com/zuhd-tazkiyah-tassawuf/are-the-sufis-a-deviant-sect/ Seems in my quick squizz, sect is the preffered word, so it is a sect persecuted by other Muslims.  A distinction with cult without a difference.  I can't open your link, Secret, but the URL says the Sufis are a sect. Is that what your article says too? You've written the word, "cult". I resent that implication, I try to be an honest debater. Wahhabis all to often try to paint Sufis as a deviant cult but yet are unaware that Imaam Ibn Taymiyyah has dedicated a whole volume [volume 11] from his Majmu’a al-Fatawaa to the science of tassawuf, in which he wrote the following: “The Sufi is in reality from amongst the people of truth. So he is one who specialises in the field of Zuhd and worship… “as-Sufi huwa fil-haqiqah naw’un min as-siddiqeen. Fahuwa as-siddiq alladhi ikhtassa bil-zuhadi wal-’ibadah…” Try this https://thewahhabithreat.com/zuhd-tazkiyah-tassawuf/are-the-sufis-a-deviant-sect/

I'm not making any implication, Secret. Your article says sect. You've then said sect is the "preferred" word. I'm not sure whether you're quoting your passage above or stating it:
Quote:

Wahhabis all to often try to paint Sufis as a deviant cult

If they have, can you show where?

Also, do you know the difference between a sect and a cult?

Remember, you're an honest debater. You've provided two links now without any references to Sufism as a cult, which is your claim.

Quote:

We see the same with Mormons and their prophet Joseph Smith. I think Mormonism is much more cult-like than Islam, but only because of its hierarchical leadership. It is possible to be a Mormon and not an active participant in the church.

Islam does not lack central eladership by design. It is supposed to be centralised under Muhammed and his successors, as it was for a long time. It is only when it turned on itself that it lacked this. If the Mormons started killing each other over who got to be head honcho, they would also soon find themselves to be part of a decentralised religion. I am not sure why Muslims trot this one out so willingly. Not only is Islam meant to be a centralised religion, it is meant to be a centralised state and empire.


Quote:

I hope you'll forgive me if I take all this with a grain of salt, FD.

Ask me to back it up Karnal.

freediver wrote on Apr 11^th, 2016 at 6:32pm:

Ask me to back it up Karnal.

You want me to ask?

No, FD, I'll pass. I think you're forgetting I've been reading your posts on Islam for a few years now. I've also read your posts (and some convincing rebuttals) on this very issue.

If you've got anything new, by all means, post away. But I do hope you'll forgive me if I'm reluctant to accept the claims of someone who refuses to state whether he's okay with porkies or not.

The issue of this thread is cults. You don't have to prove Islam's a cult to disagree with it. I don't agree with plenty of things, but I don't try to present them as cults.

Karnal wrote on Apr 11^th, 2016 at 6:31pm:

Secret Wars wrote on Apr 11th, 2016 at 6:26pm: Karnal wrote on Apr 11th, 2016 at 6:16pm: Secret Wars wrote on Apr 11th, 2016 at 6:08pm: Karnal wrote on Apr 11th, 2016 at 5:59pm: Secret Wars wrote on Apr 11th, 2016 at 5:56pm: Karnal wrote on Apr 11th, 2016 at 5:42pm: Secret Wars wrote on Apr 11th, 2016 at 5:40pm: Who says this?  Other Muslims. Seeing God in everything a sign of a cult?  Who knew. Which other Muslims? Whabbist, some Shia Muslims are hostile.  ISIS were killing them.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sufi–Salafi_relations Thanks for the research, Secret. Would you mind quoting the part about Muslims calling Sufism a cult, please? Wahhabis all to often try to paint Sufis as a deviant cult but yet are unaware that Imaam Ibn Taymiyyah has dedicated a whole volume [volume 11] from his Majmu’a al-Fatawaa to the science of tassawuf, in which he wrote the following: “The Sufi is in reality from amongst the people of truth. So he is one who specialises in the field of Zuhd and worship… “as-Sufi huwa fil-haqiqah naw’un min as-siddiqeen. Fahuwa as-siddiq alladhi ikhtassa bil-zuhadi wal-’Ibadan https://thewahhabithreat.com/zuhd-tazkiyah-tassawuf/are-the-sufis-a-deviant-sect/ Seems in my quick squizz, sect is the preffered word, so it is a sect persecuted by other Muslims.  A distinction with cult without a difference.  I can't open your link, Secret, but the URL says the Sufis are a sect. Is that what your article says too? You've written the word, "cult". I resent that implication, I try to be an honest debater. Wahhabis all to often try to paint Sufis as a deviant cult but yet are unaware that Imaam Ibn Taymiyyah has dedicated a whole volume [volume 11] from his Majmu’a al-Fatawaa to the science of tassawuf, in which he wrote the following: “The Sufi is in reality from amongst the people of truth. So he is one who specialises in the field of Zuhd and worship… “as-Sufi huwa fil-haqiqah naw’un min as-siddiqeen. Fahuwa as-siddiq alladhi ikhtassa bil-zuhadi wal-’ibadah…” Try this https://thewahhabithreat.com/zuhd-tazkiyah-tassawuf/are-the-sufis-a-deviant-sect/ I'm not making any implication, Secret. Your article says sect. You've then said sect is the "preferred" word. I'm not sure whether you're quoting your passage above or stating it: Quote: Wahhabis all to often try to paint Sufis as a deviant cult If they have, can you show where? Also, do you know the difference between a sect and a cult? Remember, you're an honest debater. You've provided two links now without any references to Sufism as a cult, which is your claim.

That is the direct quote, not altered. I don't do that.  And again I resent your implication.  That url is direct from my iPad bar.

Try going to https://thewahhabithreat.com/

Quote:

No, FD, I'll pass. I think you're forgetting I've been reading your posts on Islam for a few years now. I've also read your posts (and some convincing rebuttals) on this very issue.

Are you saying Muhammed did not spend years robbing Meccan caravans, or were you merely convinced by Abu's rebuttal that he was merely 'stealing it all back' after getting chased out of Mecca for unknown reasons?


Quote:

Members of Scientology are brainwashed slowly, in stages. You don't get taught about reincarnation at first. If you ask, you won't get a straight answer. You don't hear about the aliens who populated Earth initially - all this comes later, almost as a test of your loyalty once you're in. If you join the inner group, the Sea Org, you make a pledge to practice Scientology for a billion years, and not to rest until all forms of life have become clear.

I think you have answered a question I have been directing at Gandalf. Muhammed did this. His early peaceful, alcohol tolerant religion is completely different from the rape and pillage version that later followed. Today, mainstream Muslim leaders are frequently exposed in the press for telling blatant lies to the media and something completely different to their followers. Of course, they aren't Christian, but it is still a good example.

https://thewahhabithreat.com/zuhd-tazkiyah-tassawuf/are-the-sufis-a-deviant-sect/

Can anyone else apart from karnal find it using this link?

Secret Wars wrote on Apr 11^th, 2016 at 6:40pm:

Karnal wrote on Apr 11th, 2016 at 6:31pm: Secret Wars wrote on Apr 11th, 2016 at 6:26pm: Karnal wrote on Apr 11th, 2016 at 6:16pm: Secret Wars wrote on Apr 11th, 2016 at 6:08pm: Karnal wrote on Apr 11th, 2016 at 5:59pm: Secret Wars wrote on Apr 11th, 2016 at 5:56pm: Karnal wrote on Apr 11th, 2016 at 5:42pm: Secret Wars wrote on Apr 11th, 2016 at 5:40pm: Who says this?  Other Muslims. Seeing God in everything a sign of a cult?  Who knew. Which other Muslims? Whabbist, some Shia Muslims are hostile.  ISIS were killing them.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sufi–Salafi_relations Thanks for the research, Secret. Would you mind quoting the part about Muslims calling Sufism a cult, please? Wahhabis all to often try to paint Sufis as a deviant cult but yet are unaware that Imaam Ibn Taymiyyah has dedicated a whole volume [volume 11] from his Majmu’a al-Fatawaa to the science of tassawuf, in which he wrote the following: “The Sufi is in reality from amongst the people of truth. So he is one who specialises in the field of Zuhd and worship… “as-Sufi huwa fil-haqiqah naw’un min as-siddiqeen. Fahuwa as-siddiq alladhi ikhtassa bil-zuhadi wal-’Ibadan https://thewahhabithreat.com/zuhd-tazkiyah-tassawuf/are-the-sufis-a-deviant-sect/ Seems in my quick squizz, sect is the preffered word, so it is a sect persecuted by other Muslims.  A distinction with cult without a difference.  I can't open your link, Secret, but the URL says the Sufis are a sect. Is that what your article says too? You've written the word, "cult". I resent that implication, I try to be an honest debater. Wahhabis all to often try to paint Sufis as a deviant cult but yet are unaware that Imaam Ibn Taymiyyah has dedicated a whole volume [volume 11] from his Majmu’a al-Fatawaa to the science of tassawuf, in which he wrote the following: “The Sufi is in reality from amongst the people of truth. So he is one who specialises in the field of Zuhd and worship… “as-Sufi huwa fil-haqiqah naw’un min as-siddiqeen. Fahuwa as-siddiq alladhi ikhtassa bil-zuhadi wal-’ibadah…” Try this https://thewahhabithreat.com/zuhd-tazkiyah-tassawuf/are-the-sufis-a-deviant-sect/ I'm not making any implication, Secret. Your article says sect. You've then said sect is the "preferred" word. I'm not sure whether you're quoting your passage above or stating it: Quote: Wahhabis all to often try to paint Sufis as a deviant cult If they have, can you show where? Also, do you know the difference between a sect and a cult? Remember, you're an honest debater. You've provided two links now without any references to Sufism as a cult, which is your claim. That is the direct quote, not altered. I don't do that.  And again I resent your implication.  That url is direct from my iPad bar. Try going to https://thewahhabithreat.com/

Nothing again, Secret. Why don't you post a bit more of your article? It seems to be about Wahabi views of Sufism, not Sufism as a cult.

Either this, or try another article. Your original proposal was that Muslims see Sufism as a cult. You're now posting articles that show Muslims ganging up on Sufis for having a different take on Islam, and they do. We all know this. I met a refugee from Iran who left because they persecuted him being a Sufi.

A lovely guy, but definitely not in a cult.

Are the Sufis a Deviant Sect?
Sufi is simply an active participle for a person who practices the science of tassawuf by study and application. Tassawuf, although new in terminology, is in fact from the Qur’an and the Sunnah. It is described in the Qur’an as tazkiyah, and is known in the Ahaadeeth as Ihsaan. Imaam Ibn Taymiyyah states that “Tassawuf is the state of Ihsaan and it is described in the Qur’an as Tazkiyah an-Nafs…”

In short Tassawuf is the science of purification of the heart, mind, body and the soul, by the development of taqwa to avoid what Allah has forbidden and take the path that Allah has enjoined, and to have adab and Akhlaaq knowing “Allah is seeing you” at every moment. So not only is tazkiyah purification from sins, but also perfection of character. Tassawuf is therefore simply a synonym

Wahhabis all to often try to paint Sufis as a deviant cult but yet are unaware that Imaam Ibn Taymiyyah has dedicated a whole volume [volume 11] from his Majmu’a al-Fatawaa to the science of tassawuf, in which he wrote the following: “The Sufi is in reality from amongst the people of truth. So he is one who specialises in the field of Zuhd and worship… “as-Sufi huwa fil-haqiqah naw’un min as-siddiqeen. Fahuwa as-siddiq alladhi ikhtassa bil-zuhadi wal-’ibadah…”

The Shaykh says further: “…Some of the people accept blindly the wrong practices that has been innovated with Tassawuf, causing others to reject it in totality. The right attitude, however, is to accept what is in agreement with the Qur’an, and the Sunnah, and to reject whatever has no foundation upon [the Qur’an and the Sunnah]…”

We cannot deny the reality that not every Muslim is guided correctly on the path of Islam due to the division of the 72 cults, however it would not be correct to claim that every Muslim is misguided. Sufis are from the Muslims, some are rightly guided some are misguided. This is a reality that the true Sufiyah accept. Imaam ‘Abdur Rahmaan al-Jawzi has made a point of the deviant Sufis in his text Talbees Iblees, however we cannot forget who his teacher was, the great Shaykh Abdul Qaadr al-Jilaani!

Shaykh Abdul Qaadir al-Jilaani said in his text Sirr al-Asrar, p. 65:

“There is a group of people called the Sufis. Four interpretations are given for this name. Some see, looking at their exterior, that they wear rough woollen garb. In Arabic the word for wool is suf, and they call them Sufis from this. Others, looking at their way of life free from the anxieties of this world, and at their ease and at peace, which in Arabic is safa, call them Sufis on that account. Yet others, seeing deeper, look at their hearts, which are purified of everything other than the Essence of Allah. Because of the purity of those hearts, in Arabic safi, they term them
Sufis. Others who know call them Sufis because they are close to Allah and will stand in the first row, in Arabic saff, before Allah on the day of the Last Judgement.”

The word tassawuf and its active participle [ism faa’3l] has been around as long as Imaam Maalik’s time, for Imaam Maalik has been reported to have said ” “Whoever practices tassawuf and does not practice his fiqh has corrupted his faith; likewise, whoever practices his fiqh and does not practice tassawuf has corrupted himself. Whosoever combines the two together, has proven to be true”

We see from this that Muslims upon the Ahl us-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah have long identified themselves with being upon the path of Sufis, throughout almost 1400 years as Imaam Maalik was from the first generation! The same cannot be said for the term “Salafi” which has only appeared in the 13th century AH/ 1900ce.

With this said, the claim that the Sufis are a deviant cult, simply falls to the ground

As-Salaamu ‘alaykum, Wahhabis do much disparaging talk about the four Sisalahs of Sufi Islam. Below is a little something I have recently written. Even though I specifically speak from being inside the Naqshbani Tareeqah, I would like the reader to keep in mind I mean all sisalahs in general.

IMG_5539

The Naqshbandi Tareeqah owes it’s name to Baha-ud-Din Naqshband Bukhari [rahmatullah alayhi] who was born in the 7th century of Islam [after hijrah]. But yet out of the 13 spiritual masters [Khawajagaan] between Baha ud-deen and Abu Bakr as-Sideeq radiy Allahu anhu, the spiritual teachings and order was named Naqshbandi after him. There is nothing wrong with this labeling of the tareeqah, and since the teachings have been passed down from teacher to teacher, it is far from being an innovation of any sort.

Do those who criticize the four sisalas a ever stop to think why their favourate hadeeth collection is called Saheeh al-Bukhari instead of Saheeh al-Hadeeth?

The Sahaabah radiy Allahu anhum never quoted any hadeeth from a collection called Saheeh al-Bukhaari, nor Saheeh Muslim for that matter. These collections were unknown to them. Yet the hadeeth found within were certainly passed down from the Sahaabah radiy Allahu anhum.

The same is true when it comes to the the fiqh of tassawuf, which has only been coined with the names of the four sisalahs.

It is all too easy to confuse people regarding these matters. So much so, that the hadeeth prophecy that in the end times the Sunnah will be classified as bid’ah and the bid’ah will be classified as Sunnah has now come true. How can we distinguish sunnah from bid’ah when cultists are playing deceptive games with labels, yet fail to realize that the spirit behind these labels are

Secret Wars wrote on Apr 11^th, 2016 at 6:45pm:

https://thewahhabithreat.com/zuhd-tazkiyah-tassawuf/are-the-sufis-a-deviant-sect/ Can anyone else apart from karnal find it using this link?

Got it - thank you. And yes, it makes a reference to cult. And yes again, it uses this word in this context to mean a minority group.

You're telling the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

See, FD? It's possible.

freediver wrote on Apr 11^th, 2016 at 6:43pm:

Quote: No, FD, I'll pass. I think you're forgetting I've been reading your posts on Islam for a few years now. I've also read your posts (and some convincing rebuttals) on this very issue. Are you saying Muhammed did not spend years robbing Meccan caravans, or were you merely convinced by Abu's rebuttal that he was merely 'stealing it all back' after getting chased out of Mecca for unknown reasons?

Ah yes, you're right. I was indeed thinking of Abu's rebuttals, but do you know? I don't remember him making this claim.

Is it possible you've changed his argument in your mind after all these years?

freediver wrote on Apr 11^th, 2016 at 6:43pm:

Muhammed did this. His early peaceful, alcohol tolerant religion is completely different from the rape and pillage version that later followed.

What?

all too easy to confuse people regarding these matters. So much so, that the hadeeth prophecy that in the end times the Sunnah will be classified as bid’ah and the bid’ah will be classified as Sunnah has now come true. How can we distinguish sunnah from bid’ah when cultists are playing deceptive games with labels, yet fail to realize that the spirit behind these labels are in fact from the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah and his Sahaabah?

Let us look at a modern example unreleated to the deen. Let us use Asda supermarket as an example. Asda is a new company that merged with Wall-mart in 1999. Asda was unknown in the Prophet’s time, the Sahaabah certinaly did not shop for Asda special price products or ever witness the extravagance of what we know in our times as a supermarket,

Can we call Asda an innovation? What is Asda but a label? What about the products that are sold inside? Did not the Prophet sal Allahu alayhi wasallam have honey? vinegar? and other products found within this “great innovation”? I am pretty sure milk has been around since the creation of a cow, has it not? In all sincerity, we cannot claim the products are innovation, no matter what label they come under. You can deceive people by the label, but not by the product. New label, same product, should register in any sound mind as not an innovation.

The unfortunate reality is that the charge of innovation is all to common amongst those who wish to foster bad opinion and evil about their brothers, This causes self righteous people to form puritan cults and make false claims and accusations against the people of truth, But let us peel back these false claims and accusations and place them under the microscope to see if they can stand the test of sincere research and examination.

If we did this with everything that our opposition claims to be innovation, indeed we would uncover the many trickery tactics and flawed logic of none other than Shaytaan, and indeed he is truly weak. With sincere research, the true facts surface and the false claims of the cultists fail dismally, and as always the truth prevails.

The simple truth regarding the Naqshbandi Sufi order is that it is in fact from the Sunnah and part of Islam. Just as the names of the four known surviving madh-habs of Fiqh, Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi and Hanbali, the sisalas [i.e. the Sufi Tareeqahs] also take their names after the Ulemaa that were most famous for reviving the science of tasawwuf. This does not mean that the science was unknown to Rasul Allah sal Allahu alayhi wasallam and the Sahaabah, all because the names Naqshbandi, Qadri, Chisti, etc were unheard of in their time.

The Prophet sal Allahu alayhi wasallam taught the doctrine onto his companions in which was then passed down from teacher to student in a traditional manner. Each of the sislahs has a chain leading back to the Prophet sal Allahu alayhi wasallam, and these chains are unique to the true claimants of the Ahl us-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah. “

Furthermore, we fail to see any revivers [mujadiddeen] that came after the naming of the Naqshbandi ever call the Naqshbandiyyah out by name to be either innovation or deviance. Nothing is said in Ibn Hajara al-Asqalani’s works, Ibn Katheer’s works, Imaam as-Suyuti’s works, Imaam adh-Dhahabi’s works, Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali’s works. Had the Naqshbandis been in oppistion to the doctrines and the truth of the Ahl us-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah, then surely we should have at least found some warning about them in the books of the mentioned Imaams!

Not even Taqi ud-Deen Ibn Taymiyyah has spoken about the Naqshbandis as being a deviated cult, not once, and the Naqshbandi movement [as Wahhabis would have us believe] is said to have originated in his era. Yet “Shaykh ul-Islam” failed to warn against this “deviated cult”? Had Ibn Taymiyyah warned against the Naqshbandiyyah, would have Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab an-Najdi studied under Muhammad Hayyat as-Shindi who was not only a Hanafi by fiqh, but a Naqshbandi Sufi! Why do we not even find in Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab’s works any mention of the Naqshbandis as being a deviated cult? The only reason why is because it is simply not there.

These accusations against the four Sufi sislahs are new, and any new thesis without any authority being sent down by Allah is simply innovation. We have no choice but to conclude that it is the modern Wahhabi rhetoric that is the true innovation. Such people who carry these ideas only deal in slander and evil opinions about their Muslim brothers, and if they are not careful, their tongues, their false accusations and slanderous remarks will be the cause of them entering the Jahhanam. May Allah save us all from this. Ameen

Muhammed did not ban alcohol until he had considerable power. The only Islamic justification I have seen for this is that people would not have converted in the early days had they known this would happen. The violence and aggression also had no place until Muhammed was in a powerful position. This is why there seem to be two faces to Islam.

What of Abu's rebuttals do you remember? Did he deny the fact that Muhammed robbed Meccan caravans from Medina before the Meccans attacked him?

Secret, your article discusses a particular school of Sufism called the Naqshbandi Sufi order. It's defending this order from Wahabi attacks on it as falsely Islamic. It references your earlier quote from someone called Taqi ud-Deen Ibn Taymiyyah who called this order a "deviant cult".

Ah, the shifting sands of Arabian religious politics.

Karnal wrote on Apr 11^th, 2016 at 4:15pm:

Secret Wars wrote on Apr 11th, 2016 at 3:38pm: And here was me thinking nazism was generally known as a political movement.  Where is it generally known as a cult? In every book on cults I've ever read, Secret. Quote: Historians, political scientists and philosophers have studied Nazism with a specific focus on its religious and pseudo-religious aspects.[1] It has been debated whether Nazism would constitute a political religion, and there has also been research on the millenarian, messianic, and occult or esoteric aspects of Nazism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_aspects_of_Nazism

Do you think it would have turned into a religion if Hitler had been as successful as Muhammed?


Quote:

No, FD, I'll pass. I think you're forgetting I've been reading your posts on Islam for a few years now. I've also read your posts (and some convincing rebuttals) on this very issue. If you've got anything new, by all means, post away. But I do hope you'll forgive me if I'm reluctant to accept the claims of someone who refuses to state whether he's okay with porkies or not. The issue of this thread is cults. You don't have to prove Islam's a cult to disagree with it. I don't agree with plenty of things, but I don't try to present them as cults.

This is from my first post in this thread:

Modern Islam is what happens when a cult goes imperialistic, gets too big, then collapses in on itself. Had Muhammed not had the chance, his cult would have been similar to the others you describe. People talk about the "peaceful Islam", which is what it was before Muhammed started murdering people en masse. He flipped Islam on its head when he got the chance to be the oppressor, and the rest is history.

Karnal wrote on Apr 11^th, 2016 at 7:12pm:

Secret, your article discusses a particular school of Sufism called the Naqshbandi Sufi order. It's defending this order from Wahabi attacks on it as falsely Islamic. It references your earlier quote from someone called Taqi ud-Deen Ibn Taymiyyah who called this order a "deviant cult".

Agreed, so other Muslims do consider Suffism a cult. 

freediver wrote on Apr 11^th, 2016 at 7:04pm:

What of Abu's rebuttals do you remember?

Weren't we just discussing your memory of Abu's rebuttals?

There's a simple solution, of course, to discussing our memories of Abu, FD. You could qu...

...Pretend G said it.

Secret Wars wrote on Apr 11^th, 2016 at 7:16pm:

Karnal wrote on Apr 11th, 2016 at 7:12pm: Secret, your article discusses a particular school of Sufism called the Naqshbandi Sufi order. It's defending this order from Wahabi attacks on it as falsely Islamic. It references your earlier quote from someone called Taqi ud-Deen Ibn Taymiyyah who called this order a "deviant cult". Agreed, so other Muslims do consider Suffism a cult.

You mean the Naqshbandi Sufi order?

This is getting more complicated. Your references originally pointed to rather jaundiced Wahabist view of Sufis. Now we find out such disputes involve the lineage of particular Muslim orders.

To be honest, Secret, I just wanted to see how Sufism could possibly be seen as a cult by other Muslims. Now we find out there are historical rivalries, wheels within wheels, sects within schools.

For once, and I wholeheartedly congratulate you for this, you've managed to completely complicate things while still not proving your claim that Sufism is viewed as a cult.

Excellent work.

Or, don't worry at all about who said what first. I don't need quotes from Abu to show that Muhammed robbed caravans from his base in Medina before the Meccans attacked. It is pretty much the opposite of self defense. What is most striking is that the Meccans let him get away with it for so long.

You have fallen hook, line and sinker for the Islamic victimhood industry, to the point where you, like Muslims, believe that Muhammed's rapidly expanding military empire and frequent rape and pillage sprees were actually self defense.

Perhaps they were being racist.

freediver wrote on Apr 11^th, 2016 at 7:24pm:

Or, don't worry at all about who said what first. I don't need quotes from Abu to show that Muhammed robbed caravans from his base in Medina before the Meccans attacked. It is pretty much the opposite of self defense.

But of course, that's the beauty of it. You don't need quotes or references for any of this, but here's a question:

Do you rule out the use of porkies in your tireless crusade against the Muselman?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

Karnal wrote on Apr 11^th, 2016 at 7:23pm:

Secret Wars wrote on Apr 11th, 2016 at 7:16pm: Karnal wrote on Apr 11th, 2016 at 7:12pm: Secret, your article discusses a particular school of Sufism called the Naqshbandi Sufi order. It's defending this order from Wahabi attacks on it as falsely Islamic. It references your earlier quote from someone called Taqi ud-Deen Ibn Taymiyyah who called this order a "deviant cult". Agreed, so other Muslims do consider Suffism a cult.  You mean the Naqshbandi Sufi order? This is getting more complicated. Your references originally pointed to rather jaundiced Wahabist view of Sufis. Now we find out such disputes involve the lineage of particular Muslim orders. To be honest, Secret, I just wanted to see how Sufism could possibly be seen as a cult by other Muslims. Now we find out there are historical rivalries, wheels within wheels, sects within schools. For once, and I wholeheartedly congratulate you for this, you've managed to completely complicate things while still not proving your claim that Sufism is viewed as a cult. Excellent work.

Proving you say? 

I have done more demonstrating my claim that some Whabbist Muslims consider Sufism a cult than you did  demonstrating your claim that Nazism is generally considered a cult.

I am happy to provide references Karnal. I even tried prompting you to ask for them.

freediver wrote on Apr 11^th, 2016 at 7:30pm:

I am happy to provide references Karnal. I even tried prompting you to ask for them.

Yes, FD, it's a pity I knocked back that opportunity. We'll never see them now.

Secret Wars wrote on Apr 11^th, 2016 at 7:29pm:

Karnal wrote on Apr 11th, 2016 at 7:23pm: Secret Wars wrote on Apr 11th, 2016 at 7:16pm: Karnal wrote on Apr 11th, 2016 at 7:12pm: Secret, your article discusses a particular school of Sufism called the Naqshbandi Sufi order. It's defending this order from Wahabi attacks on it as falsely Islamic. It references your earlier quote from someone called Taqi ud-Deen Ibn Taymiyyah who called this order a "deviant cult". Agreed, so other Muslims do consider Suffism a cult.  You mean the Naqshbandi Sufi order? This is getting more complicated. Your references originally pointed to rather jaundiced Wahabist view of Sufis. Now we find out such disputes involve the lineage of particular Muslim orders. To be honest, Secret, I just wanted to see how Sufism could possibly be seen as a cult by other Muslims. Now we find out there are historical rivalries, wheels within wheels, sects within schools. For once, and I wholeheartedly congratulate you for this, you've managed to completely complicate things while still not proving your claim that Sufism is viewed as a cult. Excellent work. Proving you say?  I have done more demonstrating my claim that some Whabbist Muslims consider Sufism a cult than you did  demonstrating your claim that Nazism is generally considered a cult.

Alas, Secret, if it makes you feel any better, I'll even believe that the Naqshbandi order within Sufism is a cult.

Sufism, however, even more than Islam, could not possibly be described as a cult.

I'm not trying to prove Nazism is a cult anymore. I've just made that claim. If I've failed to prove it, so be it.

Karnal wrote on Apr 11^th, 2016 at 7:32pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 11th, 2016 at 7:30pm: I am happy to provide references Karnal. I even tried prompting you to ask for them. Yes, FD, it's a pity I knocked back that opportunity. We'll never see them now.

Would it be fair to describe you as willfully ignorant on the matter?

I cited Muhammed's trick of not revealing the true nature of Islam until he was in a position of power as a cult-like property. You countered that he was merely acting in self defense, but have refused to discuss it ever since.

Would you describe the Islamic victimhood industry as part of the "seduction" strategy? Do you think Islam is unique in co-opting so many foolish non-Muslims into this stage of recruitment? Perhaps that is why Gandalf doesn't like to talk about it any more.

freediver wrote on Apr 11^th, 2016 at 6:25pm:

Muhammed openly robbed Meccan caravans for years before they attacked him.

So you wouldn't describe attempting to kill him and forcing him and his followers to flee into exile and confiscating all their property as an "attack"?

It depends on why they booted him out. Let me guess the answer - because he was a victim?

Are the Meccans another hive-mind group that Muhammed conveniently identified as a target of his justice, in this case, stealing whatever he can from them? Or did he only steal from the Meccans who mistreated him?

Has FD ever NOT answered a question with a question?

freediver wrote on Apr 11^th, 2016 at 8:02pm:

It depends on why they booted him out.

No it doesn't actually. An attack is an attack, irrespective of whether you think its justified.

You said the Meccans never attacked him before he did. Are you prepared to retract that claim?

Dear Gandalf -
do you honestly believe that Mohammad went up to
heaven on a horse with wings?

I'm curious

namaste

Yes Gandy..  https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bHvxiQbQ37I

Excellent reading on this thread, Karnal. Brilliant stuff.

freediver wrote on Apr 11^th, 2016 at 7:57pm:

Karnal wrote on Apr 11th, 2016 at 7:32pm: freediver wrote on Apr 11th, 2016 at 7:30pm: I am happy to provide references Karnal. I even tried prompting you to ask for them. Yes, FD, it's a pity I knocked back that opportunity. We'll never see them now. Would it be fair to describe you as willfully ignorant on the matter?

Ignorant of eighth century Arab tribal wars, or Abu’s views on them?

Questions, questions.

Feel free to clear this mess up with your old posts, FD.

Not the faith ratchet one this time, please.

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 11^th, 2016 at 8:04pm:

Has FD ever NOT answered a question with a question?

But of course. Sometimes he doesn’t answer them at all.

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 11^th, 2016 at 8:04pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 11th, 2016 at 8:02pm: It depends on why they booted him out. No it doesn't actually. An attack is an attack, irrespective of whether you think its justified. You said the Meccans never attacked him before he did. Are you prepared to retract that claim?

Retract? Oh, G. You should know by now that you’re just twisting FD’s words, so unfair.

You Muslims do like to victimize poor FD so. Fancy taking away his Freeeeedom like this, you take that back.

Karnal wrote on Apr 11^th, 2016 at 3:32pm:

Sir James wrote on Apr 11th, 2016 at 2:32pm: 5.  The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s) and members (for example, the leader is considered the Messiah, a special being, an avatar—or the group and/or the leader is on a special mission to save humanity). Who are these leaders within Islam, Matty? Again, I'm curious.

moh

Sprintcyclist wrote on Apr 11^th, 2016 at 10:50pm:

Karnal wrote on Apr 11th, 2016 at 3:32pm: Sir James wrote on Apr 11th, 2016 at 2:32pm: 5.  The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s) and members (for example, the leader is considered the Messiah, a special being, an avatar—or the group and/or the leader is on a special mission to save humanity). Who are these leaders within Islam, Matty? Again, I'm curious. moh

Kill him (pbuh).

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 11^th, 2016 at 8:04pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 11th, 2016 at 8:02pm: It depends on why they booted him out. No it doesn't actually. An attack is an attack, irrespective of whether you think its justified. You said the Meccans never attacked him before he did. Are you prepared to retract that claim?

Why should I retract it? I have never been able to get a straight answer from Muslims on why he left Mecca, other than that children bit him and dogs spat on him whenever he sat down to pee.

Typically, the Muslim equates some kind of perceived injustice with an organised attack by a group of people, in order to justify organised hostilities by themselves or other Muslims.

Gandalf do you think this is a good example of the extreme "us vs them" characteristic of cults?

If we withdrew dual citizenship from Muslims for being terrorist supporters, could they use Islamic logic to justify stealing anything they could on it's way in to or out of Australia? Or is this behaviour by Muhammed abrogated by Muhammed's convenient revelation that theft should be punished by cutting off hands and feet, or death in the case of highway robbery? Or could they simply argue that Australia attacked them first and they are really at war, so anything goes? It's not so much a case of Muhammed withholding unpalatable parts of Islam from new recruits, it is more a matter of him making it up as he went along. Do you think that distinguishes Muhammed's band of merry head hackers from cults?


Quote:

Feel free to clear this mess up with your old posts, FD.

I am happy to give you the relevant wikipedia article Karnal, unless you are completely dedicated to your state of wilfull ignorance.

Do you still insist Muhammed's rapid raise from cult leader to militant empire leader was all an act of self defense and that he was really the victim every step of the way? Do you think this Islamic victimhood industry is a key strategy used by terrorist cults to seduce new members? Why are you so keen to help them out?

Keen to help who  out, FD? Historians?

Make sure to keep putting little disclaimers into your posts. You can wriggle out of them later when G proves your claims wrong.

freediver wrote on Apr 12^th, 2016 at 5:01am:

Why should I retract it?

Because you are clearly wrong. Muhammad was attacked and forced to flee Mecca - before he attacked any caravan.

Before you launch another 'I'm right because muslims are such hypocrits' rant - can you at least address the basic facts here? Is physical harassment and attacks on his followers and attempted murder on Muhammad himself so as to force them to flee Mecca constitute an "attack"? If not, why not?

By the way, you are also wrong to claim he attacked caravans "years" before the Meccans responded. The first post-exile attack on the muslims was the same year as the caravan raids started.

Anyway, please do carry on lecturing Mothra for her "ignorance" of basic Islamic history.

freediver wrote on Apr 12^th, 2016 at 5:01am:

unless you are completely dedicated to your state of wilfull ignorance.

Ah.

Quote:

Because you are clearly wrong. Muhammad was attacked and forced to flee Mecca - before he attacked any caravan.

Are you refering to the incident where the children bit him? Or the one where the dog spat on him? Why are Muslims always so vague on the details about this?


Quote:

Before you launch another 'I'm right because muslims are such hypocrits' rant - can you at least address the basic facts here? Is physical harassment and attacks on his followers and attempted murder on Muhammad himself so as to force them to flee Mecca constitute an "attack"? If not, why not?

Who tried to murder him? The city of Mecca? If soemone attempts to murder you, that does not justify becoming a career criminal, and only the most dedicated us-vs-them cultist would turn this into "they attacked me first".


Quote:

By the way, you are also wrong to claim he attacked caravans "years" before the Meccans responded. The first post-exile attack on the muslims was the same year as the caravan raids started.

What attack was that?

freediver wrote on Apr 12^th, 2016 at 4:38pm:

Quote: Because you are clearly wrong. Muhammad was attacked and forced to flee Mecca - before he attacked any caravan. Are you refering to the incident where the children bit him? Or the one where the dog spat on him? Why are Muslims always so vague on the details about this? [quote]Before you launch another 'I'm right because muslims are such hypocrits' rant - can you at least address the basic facts here? Is physical harassment and attacks on his followers and attempted murder on Muhammad himself so as to force them to flee Mecca constitute an "attack"? If not, why not?

Who tried to murder him? The city of Mecca? If soemone attempts to murder you, that does not justify becoming a career criminal, and only the most dedicated us-vs-them cultist would turn this into "they attacked me first".


Quote:

By the way, you are also wrong to claim he attacked caravans "years" before the Meccans responded. The first post-exile attack on the muslims was the same year as the caravan raids started.

What attack was that?
[/quote]

Are you really that petty minded FD? Why not just concede such an obvious mistake instead of dragging us all down with endless obfuscating questions? The Quraysh physically attacked muslims (well documented), dispossessed them of their possessions, and finally attempted to murder Muhammad. This all before any muslim raised a finger against them.

Muslims were attacked before they started raiding Quraysh caravans. Its just a simple fact of history. Whether or not that justified the caravan raids is completely irrelevant to this fact.

Quote:

Are you really that petty minded FD? Why not just concede such an obvious mistake instead of dragging us all down with endless obfuscating questions?

Because Muhammed spent a significant part of his career robbing caravans travelling in to and out of Mecca. This was not self defense, as Karnal attempted to claim, even if a child bit him back when he was in Mecca. Or a dog spat on him. Or even if someone tried to kill him. Attempting to pass off Muhammeds criminal career as "they attacked him first" just reinforces the cult-like attitude of Muslims.

The reason I ask about these things is because I have never gotten a straight answer on this one. It looks like another case of made-up Islamic victimhood propaganda to me. I will ask about it every time you cough up this excuse, just in case anyone takes it seriously.


Quote:

The Quraysh physically attacked muslims (well documented), dispossessed them of their possessions, and finally attempted to murder Muhammad. This all before any muslim raised a finger against them.

This was Muhammed's own tribe, right? So he gets chased out of Mecca by his own tribe, which justifies his career robbing Meccan caravans?


Quote:

The Quraysh physically attacked muslims (well documented)

When I googled this, the first response was on discover-the-truth.com, the second was loonwatch.com, and the third was the wikipedia article on the tribe that does not mention any of the attacks by the Quraysh on Muhammed (but plenty by Muhammed on the Quraysh). Perhaps it is not as "well documented" as you thought?

FD, you’re the only poster I’ve ever seen who uses his lack of research as proof. Have you ever thought of writing to all those historians and writers you didn’t bother reading and demanding they post evidence?

It almost worked with Greggery.

It is Gandalf's claim. He can back it up, seeing as you are running away from taking any kind of position on this.

Do you still think Muhammed went from cult leader to imperialist warmonger merely through self defense?

freediver wrote on Apr 12^th, 2016 at 6:23pm:

It is Gandalf's claim.

Alas, it was your claim. That’s another FD trick.

Now that you’ve got no evidence to keep going, would you like to return to our discussion on cults?

Or would you prefer to ask G all those questions you asked Abu?

Karnal wrote on Apr 11^th, 2016 at 5:19pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 11th, 2016 at 5:00pm: Karnal wrote on Apr 11th, 2016 at 2:23pm: Sprintcyclist wrote on Apr 11th, 2016 at 11:37am: imho, many organisations could be termed a cult. As long as they do not harm and conform to the greater society, that's ok. eg, the Star Wars group do no harm. The Buddhists and Hare Krishnas do not harm. Alas, Sprint, that's not the definition of a cult. It is, however, the definition of liberalism: "do whatever you like as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else". A cult is a hierarchical organization, built around a strong, usually charismatic, leader. Cults encourage members to see outsiders as dangerous and/or evil. They encourage members to proselytize and bring more members into the cult. Cults enforce obedience and involve themselves in all areas of their members lives. There are no secrets in a cult - the leadership must know everything about its members. Leaders of cults are usually paranoid about potential rivals, and hunt down powerful members. The Hare Krishnas are indeed a cult, although they've softened over the last 2 decades. Their leader, Prabhubada, who died in the early 1970s, is immortalized in lifelike wax statues placed in every Krishna temple. This is common in a cult - leaders do not lose their power after death. The most seemingly trivial details of members' lives are controlled, particularly around sex and family life. In the Krishnas, couples can only have sex a few times a year, and only then after chanting thousands of rounds of mantras. Only the missionary position is allowed, and only vaginal intercourse. Couples must be married, and those marriages must be approved. In the early days, members weren't allowed to get married at all. Chastity was crucial. After that, marriage partners were chosen for them. Today, they're given a bit more rope, but not a lot. Islam is not a cult. There are certainly cults within Islam, and I believe ISIS is probably one. Islam lacks the central leadership, the insider/outsider group-think, and the restrictive practices. There are a few cult-like practices within Islam - the prayer times, the fasting, the rules around certain routines and rituals, but Islam is not organized like a cult. It is way too diverse to function as a cult, and there are too many competing groups, beliefs and practices. The Hare Krishnas are a cult. Islam - in itself - is not. Modern Islam is what happens when a cult goes imperialistic, gets too big, then collapses in on itself. Had Muhammed not had the chance, his cult would have been similar to the others you describe. People talk about the "peaceful Islam", which is what it was before Muhammed started murdering people en masse. He flipped Islam on its head when he got the chance to be the oppressor, and the rest is history. The Mormons could have gone the same way, but John Smith was not a psychopath. You could argue that Muhammed started a cult - I'd definitely say Joseph Smith did. I'd need to know more about early Islam before I'd make this claim. Muhammed and his followers were at war. If you can prove Muhammed started this war as a mission to proselytize, then yes, I think you can prove Islam started out as a cult.  Muslims (along with historians) believe, however, that Muhammed and his followers were attacked and chose to defend themselves. This self-defense is one of the main themes of the Koran, so it's pretty hard to miss. I believe you've argued before that this is one of the earliest examples of taqiyya; the Koran itself being based on a lie. Personally, I'd need to know more about this to believe it, but even if its true, the religion of Islam is based on this principle. You don't need to be a psychopath to start a cult. St Paul, for example, preached with words, not the sword.

Can you back this one up Karnal? You made this claim on page 4 of this thread and have been running away from it ever since.

freediver wrote on Apr 12^th, 2016 at 5:27pm:

This was Muhammed's own tribe, right?

Oh God...

https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/491612325/facebook_facepalm_400x400.jpg

Yes folks, this really is the same guy who condescendingly lectures Mothra and Karnal about their ignorance of basic Islamic history.

Do you think he robbed caravans in an act of self defense Gandalf?

No.

Do you actually think thats a valid defense of your claim that he was never attacked before he started the raids?

I do not think that children biting him, dogs spitting on him, and "well documented" cases of someone trying to kill him that even google struggles with count as an attack in this context. 70 Meccans died in one of his caravan raids.

Of course if you are all part of a lunatic cult and someone commits a crime against one of your members and you all go apeshit and go on a years long crime spree to get back at "them," in that context he was attacked first. But if we are limiting it to sane people, I would not link the two. Using the same logic we could nuke any country in existence today and dig up some trivial BS and say they "attacked" us first. I am sure it would not be trivial to the few people directly affected by it, but you could only link the two by losing all sense of proportion. Rational people would rightly say we launched an unprovoked attack.

This is no different from your "hive mind" excuse for Muhammed slaughtering one tribe of Jews and evicting the other two. You must first accept the extreme cult-like irrational "us-vs-them" view of the world before any of it makes sense.

freediver wrote on Apr 12^th, 2016 at 8:10pm:

cases of someone trying to kill him that even google struggles with

No, you are the one struggling FD.

google: "muhammad assassination attempt quraysh"

tell me what is the very first hit FD.

Pretty tricky this google thing eh?

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 12^th, 2016 at 8:17pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 12th, 2016 at 8:10pm: cases of someone trying to kill him that even google struggles with No, you are the one struggling FD. google: "muhammad assassination attempt quraysh" tell me what is the very first hit FD. Pretty tricky this google thing eh?

Have you lost your ability to cut and paste?

What’s the matter - cat got your tongue?

Are you a standard bearer?

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 12^th, 2016 at 8:17pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 12th, 2016 at 8:10pm: cases of someone trying to kill him that even google struggles with No, you are the one struggling FD. google: "muhammad assassination attempt quraysh" tell me what is the very first hit FD. Pretty tricky this google thing eh?

Even trickier is when the reader assumes they are reading facts when in fact they are just reading a story that has absolutely no basis in fact. Its only basis is one book written by someone. NO external facts at all on REAL historical events. Just muslims screaming its all true.

Whether it be mohammed poking a blind man in the eye before he went to medina or he did 5 handstands, raped a mule and bashed an old lady before he went.

The only books telling this tale aren't historical books they are just muslim story books not based on any facts at all as there are NO HISTORICAL FACTS.

So long as the reader realizes they are just discussing fiction sure we can nit pic the texts of the story book but NOT REAL history. We can google our asses off till the muslim god HUBAL shines bright.

The assassination attempt sounds riveting, did it happen in reality probably not as there is not one shred of evidence to indicate it did.

Cool story to argue over tho.

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 12^th, 2016 at 8:17pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 12th, 2016 at 8:10pm: cases of someone trying to kill him that even google struggles with No, you are the one struggling FD. google: "muhammad assassination attempt quraysh" tell me what is the very first hit FD. Pretty tricky this google thing eh?

I have already done this once Gandalf, and gave you a very detailed description of the results I got.

It is your claim. You back it up. Otherwise people might think you have been taking debating lessons from Gweg.

Given that Muhammed getting booted from Mecca is such a critical part of the birth of Islam, don't you think it is strange that all the details are lost to history? This is the one chance the Muslims have of painting Muhammed as a real victim rather than merely trying to excuse his various atrocities with "they attacked first, about a decade ago, on a completely different scale and in a completely different context, just take our word for it."

Its my claim that there was an assassination attempt on Muhammad?

Really?

Are you asking me what your opinion is?

freediver wrote on Apr 13^th, 2016 at 7:28am:

Given that Muhammed getting booted from Mecca is such a critical part of the birth of Islam, don't you think it is strange that all the details are lost to history?

They are not lost to history. The only thing lost here is you.

Suggest you take the effort to read some actual history, rather than play this pathetic "nuffin to see here" game. Islamic doctrine itself has a huge amount of detail about the persecution in Mecca including the exodus - both Quranic and Hadeethic. So where you get this idea that the "details are lost to history" is anyone's guess.

freediver wrote on Apr 13^th, 2016 at 7:39am:

Are you asking me what your opinion is?

I'm asking what you are saying is my claim - because its definitely not the assassination claim.

Quote:

I'm asking what you are saying is my claim - because its definitely not the assassination claim.

Was this the other Gandalf?


polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 12^th, 2016 at 12:27pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 12th, 2016 at 5:01am: Why should I retract it? Because you are clearly wrong. Muhammad was attacked and forced to flee Mecca - before he attacked any caravan. Before you launch another 'I'm right because muslims are such hypocrits' rant - can you at least address the basic facts here? Is physical harassment and attacks on his followers and attempted murder on Muhammad himself so as to force them to flee Mecca constitute an "attack"? If not, why not? By the way, you are also wrong to claim he attacked caravans "years" before the Meccans responded. The first post-exile attack on the muslims was the same year as the caravan raids started. Anyway, please do carry on lecturing Mothra for her "ignorance" of basic Islamic history.

Who tried to murder him Gandalf?

Its not my claim FD - its common knowledge.... to everyone it seems except you.

The Quraysh leaders tried to kill Muhammad - a representative of each of the main clans would perform the stabbing to prevent Muhammad's clan exacting revenge (since they would be at war with everyone). When the assassins arrived at Muhammad's house, he had already fled, and found only his companion Ali.

This is just basic Islamic tradition - all in great detail through the ahadith, biographies and Quran.

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 13^th, 2016 at 10:07am:

Its not my claim FD - its common knowledge.... to everyone it seems except you. The Quraysh leaders tried to kill Muhammad - a representative of each of the main clans would perform the stabbing to prevent Muhammad's clan exacting revenge (since they would be at war with everyone). When the assassins arrived at Muhammad's house, he had already fled, and found only his companion Ali. This is just basic Islamic tradition - all in great detail through the ahadith, biographies and Quran.

True, G, but that's just Muslim victim mentality. Muhammed should have agreed to be murdered and shut up shop. No Islam, no problems. If he'd done that, we wouldn't be in the position we're in now.

This is the version of history FD's going with. He can't provide a source because Google doesn't have anything (in its first three search results), so we need to go with FD on this one.

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 13^th, 2016 at 7:45am:

freediver wrote on Apr 13th, 2016 at 7:28am: Given that Muhammed getting booted from Mecca is such a critical part of the birth of Islam, don't you think it is strange that all the details are lost to history? They are not lost to history. The only thing lost here is you. Suggest you take the effort to read some actual history, rather than play this pathetic "nuffin to see here" game. Islamic doctrine itself has a huge amount of detail about the persecution in Mecca including the exodus - both Quranic and Hadeethic. So where you get this idea that the "details are lost to history" is anyone's guess.

The Quran and Hadeeth are both story books not history.

I suggest you post some actual history instead of quoting muslim story books yet again that history does NOT support.

Surely it can't be that hard.

Sir James wrote on Apr 13^th, 2016 at 1:35pm:

The Quran and Hadeeth are both story books not history.

I was responding to FD's claim there was no details within Islam about the persecution,  attempted assassination and exile.

But if you really are interested in more objective sources matty, try Montgommery Watt or Karren Armstrong. They've written a fair bit about it.

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 13^th, 2016 at 3:02pm:

Sir James wrote on Apr 13th, 2016 at 1:35pm: The Quran and Hadeeth are both story books not history. I was responding to FD's claim there was no details within Islam about the persecution,  attempted assassination and exile. But if you really are interested in more objective sources matty, try Montgommery Watt or Karren Armstrong. They've written a fair bit about it.

You mean the islam story. They can write all they like there is no REAL historical evidence of any of the mohammed tale at all period.

I am not matty are you kamal ?

You seem to mattsurbate like he does.

Sir James wrote on Apr 13^th, 2016 at 3:07pm:

[quote author=gandalf link=1460334257/130#130 date=1460523732] I am not matty are you kamal ?

Matty always says this.

Karnal wrote on Apr 13^th, 2016 at 4:28pm:

Sir James wrote on Apr 13th, 2016 at 3:07pm: [quote author=gandalf link=1460334257/130#130 date=1460523732] I am not matty are you kamal ? Matty always says this.

Mattsurbating again dear ? ;D :D ;D :D

You come across as a typical muslim loon who lashes out when made a fool of..

;D

The thread has been lost in a plethora of insults and misdirection.

The question was
Is Islam a Cult or Religion?

Too many times the real question is lost in rhetoric and tautology.


Every single day, there is another report about people killing, raping, murdering and terrorism in the name of Islam.

These poor deluded souls no longer think for themselves, they simply repeat the same mantra, undertake obsessive religious practices so that they loose themselves to the doctrine that is the cult of Islam.
Continual forced repetition of a mantra, over and over, numbs the mind and sets it up for coercion and manipulation.This mind numbing, repetitive and inhumane doctrine is nothing but a sick and twisted cult.
To claim it is anything else is deluded PC and an unwillingness to accept logic in its purest form.

It borders on Stockholm syndrome taken to a new global extreme.
By holding off the beatings, the punishments for even the slightest misdemeanor, followers feel acceptance and will willingly undertake activities that would, for normal human beings with an intelligent mind, find repugnant, and unthinkable.

Why else would a woman willingly submit to beatings, forced confinement, seeing her own daughter mutilated so that sexual pleasure is impossible and then selling off this same child to a man 3,4 even 5 times the child's age?

I don't see Muslim men undertaking genital mutilation to reduce their sex drive.
Oh that's right, they have no control, they have to cover their women to try and control themselves.
Perhaps they should undergo genital mutilation, it may save them from the obvious feeling of inadequacy that they feel which makes them destroy a woman's enjoyment, just in case she meets a real man who can actually satisfy her.
Yes, my Muslim friends, a woman can actually enjoy sex, without being beaten into submission and held down by several men.
Or is it impossible to get it up without the violent foreplay

Bobby. wrote on Apr 11^th, 2016 at 8:28pm:

Dear Gandalf - do you honestly believe that Mohammad went up to heaven on a horse with wings? I'm curious namaste

GordyL wrote on Apr 11^th, 2016 at 8:31pm:

Yes Gandy..  https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bHvxiQbQ37I

Talking to Gandalf is like talking to a brick wall -

he never answers.

Its clearly not a real religion, its clearly not a cult as it is debatible whether mohammed even existed or not. There is no evidence for the story until decades after his supposed death.

But clearly it is an ideology the proof is all over the net explaining it and islams structure, have a google.

Don't ask a muslim they will get the chits.

Bobby. wrote on Apr 13^th, 2016 at 5:53pm:

Talking to Gandalf is like talking to a brick wall -

Only when the only purpose of the question is to ridicule.

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 13^th, 2016 at 8:14pm:

Bobby. wrote on Apr 13th, 2016 at 5:53pm: Talking to Gandalf is like talking to a brick wall - Only when the only purpose of the question is to ridicule.

Aren't muslims allowed to be ridiculed ?

Sir James wrote on Apr 13^th, 2016 at 8:28pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 13th, 2016 at 8:14pm: Bobby. wrote on Apr 13th, 2016 at 5:53pm: Talking to Gandalf is like talking to a brick wall - Only when the only purpose of the question is to ridicule. Aren't muslims allowed to be ridiculed ?

Exactly. G, are you saying that you’d like to take away our Freeeedom to ridicule ourselves?

Please explain.

Bobby. wrote on Apr 13^th, 2016 at 5:53pm:

Bobby. wrote on Apr 11th, 2016 at 8:28pm: Dear Gandalf - do you honestly believe that Mohammad went up to heaven on a horse with wings? I'm curious namaste GordyL wrote on Apr 11th, 2016 at 8:31pm: Yes Gandy..  https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bHvxiQbQ37I Talking to Gandalf is like talking to a brick wall - he never answers.

Horse with wings my goodness ;D , didn't mohamed also fly around at one stage on a magic carpet. I understand no one saw him of course. Funny that. Literally funny ;D ;D ;D

Sir James wrote on Apr 13^th, 2016 at 8:28pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 13th, 2016 at 8:14pm: Bobby. wrote on Apr 13th, 2016 at 5:53pm: Talking to Gandalf is like talking to a brick wall - Only when the only purpose of the question is to ridicule. Aren't muslims allowed to be ridiculed ?

Muslims don't do self depricating humour so well.
They tend to self defecate  8-)

Question for people with reasonable Koran/Bible knowledge.

Do they have about the same amount of supernatural stories?

Dustwun wrote on Apr 13^th, 2016 at 8:47pm:

Question for people with reasonable Koran/Bible knowledge. Do they have about the same amount of supernatural stories?

Yeah islam changes the bible stories to have their own super hero's however. In total the bible has more supernatural stories. No flying horses or magic carpets however or people being turned into monkeys ;D. More miracles from God. Cripples, prophecies, blind seeing, demons driven out etc. Basically the opposite to islams slaughter one and all we are right ideology.

Sir James wrote on Apr 13^th, 2016 at 8:54pm:

Dustwun wrote on Apr 13th, 2016 at 8:47pm: Question for people with reasonable Koran/Bible knowledge. Do they have about the same amount of supernatural stories? Yeah islam changes the bible stories to have their own super hero's however. In total the bible has more supernatural stories. No flying horses or magic carpets however or people being turned into monkeys ;D. More miracles from God. Cripples, prophecies, blind seeing, demons driven out etc. Basically the opposite to islams slaughter one and all we are right ideology.

Someone needs to take to the Koran with a razor like Jefferson did with the bible.

I can't post a link but search this on youtube.
Bill Maher interviews Senior Vatican Priest

Dustwun wrote on Apr 13^th, 2016 at 9:17pm:

Someone needs to take to the Koran with a razor like Jefferson did with the bible. I can't post a link but search this on youtube. Bill Maher interviews Senior Vatican Priest

Yeah gotta love the Catholic Pty Ltd haven't ya.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y75ETGRUU40

I like this guy.

Good to see the both of you getting on so well, Matty.

You gotta have friends, no?

Hey matty hows it hanging still on the mats I see. Sorry dear I'm not a muslim , never will be, no matter how much you call me one.

Does your muslim mat fly like mohammereds ? ;D

"The difference between a cult and a religion.
In a cult, there is a person at the top who knows it's a scam.
In a religion, that person is dead."

---

boxy wrote on Apr 13^th, 2016 at 10:03pm:

"The difference between a cult and a religion. In a cult, there is a person at the top who knows it's a scam. In a religion, that person is dead."

Incorrect.

boxy wrote on Apr 13^th, 2016 at 10:03pm:

"The difference between a cult and a religion. In a cult, there is a person at the top who knows it's a scam. In a religion, that person is dead."

Ah.

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 13^th, 2016 at 8:14pm:

Bobby. wrote on Apr 13th, 2016 at 5:53pm: Talking to Gandalf is like talking to a brick wall - Only when the only purpose of the question is to ridicule.

OK then - do you believe in the virgin Mary?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYxEIyNA_mk

Valkie wrote on Apr 13^th, 2016 at 5:52pm:

The thread has been lost in a plethora of insults and misdirection. The question was Is Islam a Cult or Religion? Too many times the real question is lost in rhetoric and tautology.

Do you think so?

Funny, I would have said that the very question "is [religion x] a cult or religion" itself is meaningless rhetoric and tautology.

Bobby. wrote on Apr 14^th, 2016 at 7:17am:

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 13th, 2016 at 8:14pm: Bobby. wrote on Apr 13th, 2016 at 5:53pm: Talking to Gandalf is like talking to a brick wall - Only when the only purpose of the question is to ridicule. OK then - do you believe in the virgin Mary? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYxEIyNA_mk

What is the point of this question bobby? Try and be honest.

All religions are cults. Cult comes from the same root as "culture". It has only been in recent times that cult in English was used in a pejorative way. Historians still speak about the Cult of Juno, Hermes or whatever. It just means religion. 

Et Voila! Le culte de Jésus:

http://www.mariedenazareth.com/qui-est-marie/le-culte-de-jesus

Le culte Musulman:

http://www.lecfcm.fr/

That's how the word used to be used in English (and still is to some extent)

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 14^th, 2016 at 10:11am:

Bobby. wrote on Apr 14th, 2016 at 7:17am: polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 13th, 2016 at 8:14pm: Bobby. wrote on Apr 13th, 2016 at 5:53pm: Talking to Gandalf is like talking to a brick wall - Only when the only purpose of the question is to ridicule. OK then - do you believe in the virgin Mary? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYxEIyNA_mk What is the point of this question bobby? Try and be honest.

Bobbie likes the bit about having the decency to jerk off the person you're cornholing.

Bobbie is wondering what the cult members response will be.

The cult members seem scared of his questions.

John_Taverner wrote on Apr 14^th, 2016 at 10:51am:

All religions are cults. Cult comes from the same root as "culture". It has only been in recent times that cult in English was used in a pejorative way. Historians still speak about the Cult of Juno, Hermes or whatever. It just means religion.  Et Voila! Le culte de Jésus: http://www.mariedenazareth.com/qui-est-marie/le-culte-de-jesus Le culte Musulman: http://www.lecfcm.fr/ That's how the word used to be used in English (and still is to some extent)

Good point, JT, but things changed in the 1970s after a spate of cult atrocities. The end of the peace and love era of the 1960s is generally put down to the murders of the Manson gang, a hippie/LSD cult.

The focus on cults came about after the Jonestown massacre, a mass suicide orchestrated by Jim Jones, the leader of a Christian cult that had received government funds and favours.

Cults became popular in the 1970s as new recruiting processes and cold war "mind control" techniques were used to exploit people interested in religion. As the established churches lost their hold over the population, new movements arose. The 1960s saw a new interest in alternative religion. The post-war baby boom provided plenty of young, well-educated spiritual seekers, and these were rich pickings for charismatic cult leaders.

The Hare Krishnas, the Moonies, the Children of God and others used fanatical fundraising techniques. It was common to be approached by the Krishnas or the Moonies in airports and car parks. They both became multi-million dollar organizations with centres all over the world.

Initially, governments and law enforcement saw these movements as benign. After all, it's an individual's right to sell their souls or "swallow the Kool Aid", a reference to the cyanide-spiked cordial used at Jonestown in its mass-suicide.

This changed with Jonestown. Jim Jones' guards killed a US senator who had gone down to investigate rumours of people being held against their liberty. Cults like the Krishnas and Moonies were instantly held to account and started ramping up their own propaganda. The Krishnas wrote a pamphlet and press release saying "don't lump us in". Political favours granted to the Krishnas, the Moonies and the Church of Scientology (in the US) started to wane. Suddenly, politicians wanted nothing to do with organizations that could be seen to be cults.

These cults were a defining feature of the 1970s. They represented the dearth of organized religion and the paranoia associated with the height of the cold war. So this was where the counter-culture had ended up: intelligent young people from good families dropping out to join movements where they became little more than brainwashed drones.

And what about the worldly power of these cults? Think how obsessive the Chinese government is about eradicating the Falun Gong movement. Strangely, US politicians cultivated the cults of the 1970s, and why not? The Moonies, for example, could be told how to vote and bussed to the local polling station. Political donations came thick and fast - in cash. The Reverend Sun Myung Moon had connections to US politicians and high profile business leaders until his death in 2012. Scientology guru, Ron L Hubbard, left an organization to his protégé, David Miscavige, that is now a global, multi-billion dollar business.

Modern communications, tax laws, even modern transport has allowed cults to prosper. We're not talking about religion here - we're talking about hierarchical systems of fundraising and mass human control. We're talking about the dearth of organized religion and the sort of organizations that have arisen to fill the void.

The cult of mohammed, islam's  violence and abuse makes Jonestown look like a nice weekend away.

Maybe a big wall of text may nullify that FACT.

Quote:

Re: When is a religion a cult? Reply #153 - Today at 10:10am Quote  Valkie wrote Yesterday at 5:52pm: The thread has been lost in a plethora of insults and misdirection. The question was Is Islam a Cult or Religion? Too many times the real question is lost in rhetoric and tautology. Do you think so? Funny, I would have said that the very question "is [religion x] a cult or religion" itself is meaningless rhetoric and tautology.

Perhaps somewhere in your confused mind, you have hit the nail on the head.
What I should have said was.
Is Islam an "Evil" Cult or a true Religion.

There, does that make it easier for you? ;)

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 14^th, 2016 at 10:11am:

Bobby. wrote on Apr 14th, 2016 at 7:17am: polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 13th, 2016 at 8:14pm: Bobby. wrote on Apr 13th, 2016 at 5:53pm: Talking to Gandalf is like talking to a brick wall - Only when the only purpose of the question is to ridicule. OK then - do you believe in the virgin Mary? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYxEIyNA_mk What is the point of this question bobby? Try and be honest.

The virgin Mary is another myth from religion.
Since you believe in Mohammad flying
to heaven on a horse with wings
I just wondered if you believed in the virgin Mary too?

Thanks Bobby, at least its clear now:

people who believe in religion are idiots - please prove to me you are an idiot Gandalf

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 14^th, 2016 at 5:42pm:

Thanks Bobby, at least its clear now: people who believe in religion are idiots - please prove to me you are an idiot Gandalf

master Light believes in the virgin Mary -

are you calling him an idiot?

I was paraphrasing you Bobby, not me.

It's a valid question, and I suspect that the answer is "yes".  In Islam I understand that you believe that Maryam, mother of Isa was a virgin. Correct me if I'm wrong.

People do have different beliefs, There is nothing wrong with that.  I know somebody who holds the very irrational belief that an Ice Age is upon us. 

..

John_Taverner wrote on Apr 14^th, 2016 at 6:28pm:

It's a valid question, and I suspect that the answer is "yes".  In Islam I understand that you believe that Maryam, mother of Isa was a virgin. Correct me if I'm wrong. People do have different beliefs, There is nothing wrong with that.  I know somebody who holds the very irrational belief that an Ice Age is upon us.

Longy?

Karnal wrote on Apr 14^th, 2016 at 12:15pm:

John_Taverner wrote on Apr 14th, 2016 at 10:51am: All religions are cults. Cult comes from the same root as "culture". It has only been in recent times that cult in English was used in a pejorative way. Historians still speak about the Cult of Juno, Hermes or whatever. It just means religion.  Et Voila! Le culte de Jésus: http://www.mariedenazareth.com/qui-est-marie/le-culte-de-jesus Le culte Musulman: http://www.lecfcm.fr/ That's how the word used to be used in English (and still is to some extent) Good point, JT, but things changed in the 1970s after a spate of cult atrocities. The end of the peace and love era of the 1960s is generally put down to the murders of the Manson gang, a hippie/LSD cult. The focus on cults came about after the Jonestown massacre, a mass suicide orchestrated by Jim Jones, the leader of a Christian cult that had received government funds and favours. Cults became popular in the 1970s as new recruiting processes and cold war "mind control" techniques were used to exploit people interested in religion. As the established churches lost their hold over the population, new movements arose. The 1960s saw a new interest in alternative religion. The post-war baby boom provided plenty of young, well-educated spiritual seekers, and these were rich pickings for charismatic cult leaders. The Hare Krishnas, the Moonies, the Children of God and others used fanatical fundraising techniques. It was common to be approached by the Krishnas or the Moonies in airports and car parks. They both became multi-million dollar organizations with centres all over the world. Initially, governments and law enforcement saw these movements as benign. After all, it's an individual's right to sell their souls or "swallow the Kool Aid", a reference to the cyanide-spiked cordial used at Jonestown in its mass-suicide. This changed with Jonestown. Jim Jones' guards killed a US senator who had gone down to investigate rumours of people being held against their liberty. Cults like the Krishnas and Moonies were instantly held to account and started ramping up their own propaganda. The Krishnas wrote a pamphlet and press release saying "don't lump us in". Political favours granted to the Krishnas, the Moonies and the Church of Scientology (in the US) started to wane. Suddenly, politicians wanted nothing to do with organizations that could be seen to be cults. These cults were a defining feature of the 1970s. They represented the dearth of organized religion and the paranoia associated with the height of the cold war. So this was where the counter-culture had ended up: intelligent young people from good families dropping out to join movements where they became little more than brainwashed drones. And what about the worldly power of these cults? Think how obsessive the Chinese government is about eradicating the Falun Gong movement. Strangely, US politicians cultivated the cults of the 1970s, and why not? The Moonies, for example, could be told how to vote and bussed to the local polling station. Political donations came thick and fast - in cash. The Reverend Sun Myung Moon had connections to US politicians and high profile business leaders until his death in 2012. Scientology guru, Ron L Hubbard, left an organization to his protégé, David Miscavige, that is now a global, multi-billion dollar business. Modern communications, tax laws, even modern transport has allowed cults to prosper. We're not talking about religion here - we're talking about hierarchical systems of fundraising and mass human control. We're talking about the dearth of organized religion and the sort of organizations that have arisen to fill the void.

You are talking about the Homintern, the green network, the whole lefty progressive marching through the institutions! Who whole doublespeak, agitprop activist progressivism of the last 50 years!

Karnal wrote on Apr 14^th, 2016 at 9:30pm:

John_Taverner wrote on Apr 14th, 2016 at 6:28pm: It's a valid question, and I suspect that the answer is "yes".  In Islam I understand that you believe that Maryam, mother of Isa was a virgin. Correct me if I'm wrong. People do have different beliefs, There is nothing wrong with that.  I know somebody who holds the very irrational belief that an Ice Age is upon us.  Longy?

Karnal -

do you believe in the virgin Mary?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYxEIyNA_mk

Frank wrote on Apr 14^th, 2016 at 9:42pm:

Karnal wrote on Apr 14th, 2016 at 12:15pm: John_Taverner wrote on Apr 14th, 2016 at 10:51am: All religions are cults. Cult comes from the same root as "culture". It has only been in recent times that cult in English was used in a pejorative way. Historians still speak about the Cult of Juno, Hermes or whatever. It just means religion.  Et Voila! Le culte de Jésus: http://www.mariedenazareth.com/qui-est-marie/le-culte-de-jesus Le culte Musulman: http://www.lecfcm.fr/ That's how the word used to be used in English (and still is to some extent) Good point, JT, but things changed in the 1970s after a spate of cult atrocities. The end of the peace and love era of the 1960s is generally put down to the murders of the Manson gang, a hippie/LSD cult. The focus on cults came about after the Jonestown massacre, a mass suicide orchestrated by Jim Jones, the leader of a Christian cult that had received government funds and favours. Cults became popular in the 1970s as new recruiting processes and cold war "mind control" techniques were used to exploit people interested in religion. As the established churches lost their hold over the population, new movements arose. The 1960s saw a new interest in alternative religion. The post-war baby boom provided plenty of young, well-educated spiritual seekers, and these were rich pickings for charismatic cult leaders. The Hare Krishnas, the Moonies, the Children of God and others used fanatical fundraising techniques. It was common to be approached by the Krishnas or the Moonies in airports and car parks. They both became multi-million dollar organizations with centres all over the world. Initially, governments and law enforcement saw these movements as benign. After all, it's an individual's right to sell their souls or "swallow the Kool Aid", a reference to the cyanide-spiked cordial used at Jonestown in its mass-suicide. This changed with Jonestown. Jim Jones' guards killed a US senator who had gone down to investigate rumours of people being held against their liberty. Cults like the Krishnas and Moonies were instantly held to account and started ramping up their own propaganda. The Krishnas wrote a pamphlet and press release saying "don't lump us in". Political favours granted to the Krishnas, the Moonies and the Church of Scientology (in the US) started to wane. Suddenly, politicians wanted nothing to do with organizations that could be seen to be cults. These cults were a defining feature of the 1970s. They represented the dearth of organized religion and the paranoia associated with the height of the cold war. So this was where the counter-culture had ended up: intelligent young people from good families dropping out to join movements where they became little more than brainwashed drones. And what about the worldly power of these cults? Think how obsessive the Chinese government is about eradicating the Falun Gong movement. Strangely, US politicians cultivated the cults of the 1970s, and why not? The Moonies, for example, could be told how to vote and bussed to the local polling station. Political donations came thick and fast - in cash. The Reverend Sun Myung Moon had connections to US politicians and high profile business leaders until his death in 2012. Scientology guru, Ron L Hubbard, left an organization to his protégé, David Miscavige, that is now a global, multi-billion dollar business. Modern communications, tax laws, even modern transport has allowed cults to prosper. We're not talking about religion here - we're talking about hierarchical systems of fundraising and mass human control. We're talking about the dearth of organized religion and the sort of organizations that have arisen to fill the void. You are talking about the Homintern, the green network, the whole lefty progressive marching through the institutions! Who whole doublespeak, agitprop activist progressivism of the last 50 years!

No, Frank, I’d say the opposite. The parties and organizations of the left have gone in the other direction.

Take the communist parties of the 1950s/60s. They were militant.and hierarchical , with strong charismatic leaders. They conducted their business and their operations in secret. The Maoist communist party wasn’t officially in existence at all. They had printing presses, arms and firing ranges, money in the bank, all vertically controlled. When Lance Sharkey or Ted Hill spoke, it was a decree. Their orders were published weekly in the Tribune and the Vanguard, and all over the country,, fellow travellers scoured these publications to learn the correct party dogma. The party line was absolute - far more important than the feelings of a few atomised individuals.

These parties were indeed cults. They said who you could marry, where you could live, and where you could work. You were given orders, and expected to follow them. They saw the outside world as evil or insane, and the punishment for disobedience was expulsion.

These parties don’t have an equivalent today. Can you imagine Get Up being run along these lines?

This is why so many cults emerged in the 1970s - people missed this sense of discipline and existential control. Conscription ended, institutions like the church lost their importance, and even the revolutionary parties died out.

Bobby. wrote on Apr 15^th, 2016 at 6:49am:

Karnal wrote on Apr 14th, 2016 at 9:30pm: John_Taverner wrote on Apr 14th, 2016 at 6:28pm: It's a valid question, and I suspect that the answer is "yes".  In Islam I understand that you believe that Maryam, mother of Isa was a virgin. Correct me if I'm wrong. People do have different beliefs, There is nothing wrong with that.  I know somebody who holds the very irrational belief that an Ice Age is upon us.  Longy? Karnal - do you believe in the virgin Mary? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYxEIyNA_mk

That would depend on whether you mean as a manifestation of the Divine Feminine or an historical person, sir!

Karnal wrote on Apr 15^th, 2016 at 8:47am:

Frank wrote on Apr 14th, 2016 at 9:42pm: Karnal wrote on Apr 14th, 2016 at 12:15pm: Modern communications, tax laws, even modern transport has allowed cults to prosper. We're not talking about religion here - we're talking about hierarchical systems of fundraising and mass human control. We're talking about the dearth of organized religion and the sort of organizations that have arisen to fill the void. You are talking about the Homintern, the green network, the whole lefty progressive marching through the institutions! Who whole doublespeak, agitprop activist progressivism of the last 50 years! No, Frank, I’d say the opposite. The parties and organizations of the left have gone in the other direction.

Well, it looks to me that you ARE talking about the march through the institutions, the Gramsci/Marcuse project now realised, and contrast it with the previous mode of operation where the 'vanguard' had strong cult-like organisations and codes of behaviour.

Marching through the institutions has meant that all the Marxist ideals have been internalised and strong organisational control has become unnecessary: schools, universities, public broadcasting, the public service, NGOs - all very politicised and consequently very lefty.

When someone is prohibited from thinking their own thoughts......its a cult
When prohibitions are placed on everyday activities without a logical reason.....its a cult
When your activities are prescribed regardless of your differing needs......Its a cult
When You are afraid to do other than what the leader says.....its a cult
When you are worth less than the group....its a cult
When reading material is banned because it conflicts with the cults doctrines....its a cult

Most importantly.
When the cult is afraid to allow its followers to explore other possibilities or research other ways of living life, because they know once the questions are asked, the cult will fail......its a cult

Islam is a cult.
Islam is an evil devil worshiping cult and a disease that is gradually destroying life and freedom as we know it.
Like a cancer it moves into the host and gradually eats the host away until it is a putrid decaying mess, just like every country where the Muslim religion propagates.

It is a dangerous and highly contagious parasitic disease.
What we need is a cure, a simple is cure where logic, honesty, compassion and altruistic behavior is commonplace.
Unfortunately, governments of the world know not these qualities, therefore the disease will spread and its our own fault for allowing the governments to prosper.

Unfortunately the whole world will suffer until it is eradicated.

Muslims are just a real sad bunch not content to leave other people that are happy alone.

Frank wrote on Apr 15^th, 2016 at 10:57am:

Karnal wrote on Apr 15th, 2016 at 8:47am: Frank wrote on Apr 14th, 2016 at 9:42pm: Karnal wrote on Apr 14th, 2016 at 12:15pm: Modern communications, tax laws, even modern transport has allowed cults to prosper. We're not talking about religion here - we're talking about hierarchical systems of fundraising and mass human control. We're talking about the dearth of organized religion and the sort of organizations that have arisen to fill the void. You are talking about the Homintern, the green network, the whole lefty progressive marching through the institutions! Who whole doublespeak, agitprop activist progressivism of the last 50 years! No, Frank, I’d say the opposite. The parties and organizations of the left have gone in the other direction. Well, it looks to me that you ARE talking about the march through the institutions, the Gramsci/Marcuse project now realised, and contrast it with the previous mode of operation where the 'vanguard' had strong cult-like organisations and codes of behaviour. Marching through the institutions has meant that all the Marxist ideals have been internalised and strong organisational control has become unnecessary: schools, universities, public broadcasting, the public service, NGOs - all very politicised and consequently very lefty.

Good points, Frank. Do you want to give a bit more info on the "march through the institutions"?

I'd differ a bit on the project of the 1960s Western European communist parties now being realized. What's been realized is the social democratic project - the model of the Labour parties and Fabian socialists.

Gramsci and Marcuse were far more socialist. Remember, they were communists. Gramsci was the head of the Italian Community Party. They might have held off revolution, but their project was about overturning capitalism.

Ban them.

Karnal wrote on Apr 15^th, 2016 at 3:34pm:

Frank wrote on Apr 15th, 2016 at 10:57am: Karnal wrote on Apr 15th, 2016 at 8:47am: Frank wrote on Apr 14th, 2016 at 9:42pm: Karnal wrote on Apr 14th, 2016 at 12:15pm: Modern communications, tax laws, even modern transport has allowed cults to prosper. We're not talking about religion here - we're talking about hierarchical systems of fundraising and mass human control. We're talking about the dearth of organized religion and the sort of organizations that have arisen to fill the void. You are talking about the Homintern, the green network, the whole lefty progressive marching through the institutions! Who whole doublespeak, agitprop activist progressivism of the last 50 years! No, Frank, I’d say the opposite. The parties and organizations of the left have gone in the other direction. Well, it looks to me that you ARE talking about the march through the institutions, the Gramsci/Marcuse project now realised, and contrast it with the previous mode of operation where the 'vanguard' had strong cult-like organisations and codes of behaviour. Marching through the institutions has meant that all the Marxist ideals have been internalised and strong organisational control has become unnecessary: schools, universities, public broadcasting, the public service, NGOs - all very politicised and consequently very lefty. Good points, Frank. Do you want to give a bit more info on the "march through the institutions"?

Sure.  Here's a very good article on this march of folly: http://www.newcriterion.com/articles.cfm/A-march-of-folly-7453


And here is another excellent article on the treason of the intellectuals: http://www.newcriterion.com/articles.cfm/The-treason-of-the-intellectuals----ldquo-The-Undoing-of-Thought-rdquo--4648


Bonus offer: Morals & the servile mind

Quote:

We now know that this liberation was part of what some Marxists call “the slow march through the institutions.” The technique exploits small, apparently liberal, changes that become, as they develop, devices for transforming society. Liberations that had the appearance of merely advancing opportunity turned out not to be matters of choice at all. Everyone, meaning especially all women, had to fall in with this new line.

Karnal wrote on Apr 15^th, 2016 at 8:49am:

Bobby. wrote on Apr 15th, 2016 at 6:49am: Karnal wrote on Apr 14th, 2016 at 9:30pm: John_Taverner wrote on Apr 14th, 2016 at 6:28pm: It's a valid question, and I suspect that the answer is "yes".  In Islam I understand that you believe that Maryam, mother of Isa was a virgin. Correct me if I'm wrong. People do have different beliefs, There is nothing wrong with that.  I know somebody who holds the very irrational belief that an Ice Age is upon us.  Longy? Karnal - do you believe in the virgin Mary? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYxEIyNA_mk That would depend on whether you mean as a manifestation of the Divine Feminine or an historical person, sir!

No tricks - no poetry - just a simple answer will do.

Finger them.

Karnal wrote on Apr 15^th, 2016 at 8:49am:

Bobby. wrote on Apr 15th, 2016 at 6:49am: Karnal wrote on Apr 14th, 2016 at 9:30pm: John_Taverner wrote on Apr 14th, 2016 at 6:28pm: It's a valid question, and I suspect that the answer is "yes".  In Islam I understand that you believe that Maryam, mother of Isa was a virgin. Correct me if I'm wrong. People do have different beliefs, There is nothing wrong with that.  I know somebody who holds the very irrational belief that an Ice Age is upon us.  Longy? Karnal - do you believe in the virgin Mary? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYxEIyNA_mk That would depend on whether you mean as a manifestation of the Divine Feminine or an historical person, sir!

No tricks - no poetry - just a simple answer will do.

Mary-Lou must be very happy, no?

Bobby. wrote on Apr 16^th, 2016 at 7:25am:

Karnal wrote on Apr 15th, 2016 at 8:49am: Bobby. wrote on Apr 15th, 2016 at 6:49am: Karnal wrote on Apr 14th, 2016 at 9:30pm: John_Taverner wrote on Apr 14th, 2016 at 6:28pm: It's a valid question, and I suspect that the answer is "yes".  In Islam I understand that you believe that Maryam, mother of Isa was a virgin. Correct me if I'm wrong. People do have different beliefs, There is nothing wrong with that.  I know somebody who holds the very irrational belief that an Ice Age is upon us.  Longy? Karnal - do you believe in the virgin Mary? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYxEIyNA_mk That would depend on whether you mean as a manifestation of the Divine Feminine or an historical person, sir! No tricks - no poetry - just a simple answer will do.

But of course. She is a manifestation of divine, MuLtIdImEnTiOnAl  ReAlITy.

Some men like to eat meat. Some like chicken or fish.

It is a jolly world, no?

<= 81 ;D

Karnal wrote on Apr 16^th, 2016 at 9:51am:

Bobby. wrote on Apr 16th, 2016 at 7:25am: Karnal wrote on Apr 15th, 2016 at 8:49am: Bobby. wrote on Apr 15th, 2016 at 6:49am: Karnal wrote on Apr 14th, 2016 at 9:30pm: John_Taverner wrote on Apr 14th, 2016 at 6:28pm: It's a valid question, and I suspect that the answer is "yes".  In Islam I understand that you believe that Maryam, mother of Isa was a virgin. Correct me if I'm wrong. People do have different beliefs, There is nothing wrong with that.  I know somebody who holds the very irrational belief that an Ice Age is upon us.  Longy? Karnal - do you believe in the virgin Mary? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYxEIyNA_mk That would depend on whether you mean as a manifestation of the Divine Feminine or an historical person, sir! No tricks - no poetry - just a simple answer will do. But of course. She is a manifestation of divine, MuLtIdImEnTiOnAl  ReAlITy. Some men like to eat meat. Some like chicken or fish. It is a jolly world, no?

Karnal,
I'm giving you 3 seconds to tell me you believe in the virgin Mary or I'm gunna .....

Just reminding you the average Muslim IQ is < = 81 Bobby .

You might need to dumb it down a bit.

Sir James wrote on Apr 16^th, 2016 at 10:35am:

Just reminding you the average Muslim IQ is < = 81 Bobby . You might need to dumb it down a bit.

81?

Is that because of inbreeding?

Sir James wrote on Apr 16^th, 2016 at 10:35am:

Just reminding you the average Muslim IQ is < = 81 Bobby . You might need to dumb it down a bit.

"81%"      ;D

Bobby. wrote on Apr 16^th, 2016 at 10:29am:

Karnal wrote on Apr 16th, 2016 at 9:51am: Bobby. wrote on Apr 16th, 2016 at 7:25am: Karnal wrote on Apr 15th, 2016 at 8:49am: Bobby. wrote on Apr 15th, 2016 at 6:49am: Karnal wrote on Apr 14th, 2016 at 9:30pm: John_Taverner wrote on Apr 14th, 2016 at 6:28pm: It's a valid question, and I suspect that the answer is "yes".  In Islam I understand that you believe that Maryam, mother of Isa was a virgin. Correct me if I'm wrong. People do have different beliefs, There is nothing wrong with that.  I know somebody who holds the very irrational belief that an Ice Age is upon us.  Longy? Karnal - do you believe in the virgin Mary? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYxEIyNA_mk That would depend on whether you mean as a manifestation of the Divine Feminine or an historical person, sir! No tricks - no poetry - just a simple answer will do. But of course. She is a manifestation of divine, MuLtIdImEnTiOnAl  ReAlITy. Some men like to eat meat. Some like chicken or fish. It is a jolly world, no? Karnal, I'm giving you 3 seconds to tell me you believe in the virgin Mary or I'm gunna .....

Fingerfvck me through my panties?