# Muslims are our friends but Islam is the enemy of Western Civilization?



## Foxfyre

During a panel discussion sponsored by the Hudson Institute last January, retired Army Lt. Colonel Allen West, who did combat duty in Iraq, responded to a Marine who asked the question, how do you answer people who say that terrorists are following a "warped" version of Islam?  I was quite impressed with Lt. Col Wests grasp of history and understanding of the problem we are up against.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gU5d30h1D_0"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gU5d30h1D_0[/ame]

This is not to say that every Muslim is our enemy.  They are not.

This is not to say that every Muslim is focused on following the more militant content of the Quran, the Hadith, or Sufi texts.  They arent.

This is not to say that many people of the Muslim faith have not been peace loving, model citizens, making significant contributions to society.  They have been.

But at the risk of attracting still more wrath and abuse from the PC crowd and apologists for Islam, we cannot ignore that the national debate continues to focus on the effect of growing Muslim populations around the world.  And that debate cotninues to include the broad intent of Islam to bring down western culture and values as most of us understand those.  The ultimate goal of Islam is to  place all cultures under total subjection to Allah and Shariah Law.

While some nations are less repressive than others, there is no country in the world in which Islam enjoys a majority that respects any understanding of unalienable rights, repects western culture, respects basic liberties, respects the free man's way of life.

It is the right of Islamic nations to order society as they want it.  But to not maintain and enforce due vigilance to protect all the rights, freedoms, and culture that we hold dear is to invite the destruction of all.


----------



## syrenn

I agree.


----------



## Ropey

Foxfyre said:


> It is the right of Islamic nations to order society as they want it.  But to not maintain and enforce due vigilance to protect all the rights, freedoms, and culture that we hold dear is to invite the destruction of all.



This is why we are here to vote.


----------



## Foxfyre

These kinds of discussions are always a sticky wicket for me.   I have Muslim friends in real life and here on USMB whom I hold in high regard.  It is increasingly difficult to draw the distinction between opposing an idea/ideal while not opposing those Muslim friends.

It isn't much different than respecting a person who advocates no restrictions on abortions while holding a pro life stance yourself.  Or wanting to provide needed protections for gay friends and associates without destroying the traditional definition of marriage.  Or embracing femininity while promoting equal opportunity in the work place.  Or deploring PC while respecting persons.

All these dichotomies are part and parcel of the national debate.

The difference in the debate re the encroachment of Islam onto western civilization, however, is that if Islam wins, discussion is over.  There will be no western civilization and no promotion of the culture and values within it that we hold dear.


----------



## TheTraveller

Foxfyre said:


> While some nations are less repressive than others, there is no country in the world in which Islam enjoys a majority that respects any understanding of unalienable rights, repects western culture, respects basic liberties, respects the free man's way of life.


The same was true of every Christian nation in the world 1000 years ago (even the idea of "western culture," whichis a modern notion). Christianity modernized. Why not Islam? Maybe you can think of a reason why Islam won't modernize; religions are different after all. Still, I wouldn't be surprised if contact with the Western world actually had the overall effect of moderating the extremism of Islam. It was much the same with the pagan Goths who overthrew Rome; before long they were all speaking Latin.


----------



## Foxfyre

TheTraveller said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> While some nations are less repressive than others, there is no country in the world in which Islam enjoys a majority that respects any understanding of unalienable rights, repects western culture, respects basic liberties, respects the free man's way of life.
> 
> 
> 
> The same was true of every Christian nation in the world 1000 years ago (even the idea of "western culture," whichis a modern notion). Christianity modernized. Why not Islam? Maybe you can think of a reason why Islam won't modernize; religions are different after all. Still, I wouldn't be surprised if contact with the Western world actually had the overall effect of moderating the extremism of Islam. It was much the same with the pagan Goths who overthrew Rome; before long they were all speaking Latin.
Click to expand...


It is true that the Christian leadership and the monarchs/feudal lords who exploited it were intolerant and at times militantly agreesive in enforcing their view of "Christian law" during Medieval times and even on a very small scale in the first decades of the New World.  Some bad acts were committed by religious fanatics that I in no way believe were "Christian" but rather they were fundamentalist tyrants in conflict with Biblical Christian teachings.  Most bad acts in Medieval times were committed for political purposes rather than religious ones.  By instilling fear of loss of property, physical punishment, and/or excommunications, corrupt popes and monarchs enhanced their own power and personal fortunes by teaming up to keep the people in line.  That worked for centuries.

The difference is that those popes and monarchs were not interested in conquering the entire world.  They were looking to their own interests and weren't operating under some fanatical religious edict.  The effect on the powerless was the same, but the scope of intent did not involved entire civilizations.

As for western civilization moderating the extremism of Islam, that isn't happening in the UK, in France, in Denmark et al where Muslims have achieved significant populations.  The more influence populations of Muslims have, the more extremist they seem to become.


----------



## TheTraveller

Assuming this is the case - and I dont' know whether the current crop of Muslim immigrants into Europe has had long enough to assimilate, but, assuming you are correct about Islam - what is it about Islam as a religion, or Muslims as people, that makes the notion of modernization and moderation less feasible than it was for Christian civilization?


----------



## Ropey

TheTraveller said:


> Assuming this is the case - and I dont' know whether the current crop of Muslim immigrants into Europe has had long enough to assimilate, but, assuming you are correct about Islam - what is it about Islam as a religion, or Muslims as people, that makes the notion of modernization and moderation less feasible than it was for Christian civilization?



To my view? Nothing. 

Islam is in the process of reformation. From without not within. It will be the Muslims outside of the Middle East who will reform Islam in the coming generations.

Just as it was outside of the Middle East where Judaism and Christianity found their reformative interpretations and they are also in a process of modernization.

They are just ahead of Islam at the moment and considering Islam is the youngest of the three Abraham religions, this makes sense.

We are simply a single generation in a multi-generational movement of humanity. We need to look at the historical perspective to gain a clearer view.

People are fearful that their way of life is going to change. Of course it is going to change.  That's life and humanity, and Islam is part of that life and humanity. Just as all the other world's beliefs and platforms are part and parcel of the human approach.

I believe it will come and will modernize and will help us also modify and change in acceptance.


----------



## AllieBaba

Ropey said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is the right of Islamic nations to order society as they want it.  But to not maintain and enforce due vigilance to protect all the rights, freedoms, and culture that we hold dear is to invite the destruction of all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is why we are here to vote.
Click to expand...


So long as you promote the destruction of the US, your votes will have little or no effect, and eventually you'll either be forcibly integrated or told to leave.


----------



## AllieBaba

Ropey said:


> TheTraveller said:
> 
> 
> 
> Assuming this is the case - and I dont' know whether the current crop of Muslim immigrants into Europe has had long enough to assimilate, but, assuming you are correct about Islam - what is it about Islam as a religion, or Muslims as people, that makes the notion of modernization and moderation less feasible than it was for Christian civilization?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To my view? Nothing.
> 
> Islam is in the process of reformation. From without not within. It will be the Muslims outside of the Middle East who will reform Islam in the coming generations.
> 
> Just as it was outside of the Middle East where Judaism and Christianity found their reformative interpretations and they are also in a process of modernization.
> 
> They are just ahead of Islam at the moment and considering Islam is the youngest of the three Abraham religions, this makes sense.
> 
> We are simply a single generation in a multi-generational movement of humanity. We need to look at the historical perspective to gain a clearer view.
> 
> People are fearful that their way of life is going to change. Of course it is going to change.  That's life and humanity, and Islam is part of that life and humanity. Just as all the other world's beliefs and platforms are part and parcel of the human approach.
> 
> I believe it will come and will modernize and will help us also modify and change in acceptance.
Click to expand...


Islam is not generally considered part and parcel of "modernization", lol.

People are not afraid of change. They are afraid of death, and torture, and oppression, which all Islamic nations enjoy as a way of life.


----------



## Ropey

AllieBaba said:


> Islam is not generally considered part and parcel of "modernization", lol.



Neither was Judaism when the Hittites, Canaanites, etc. were being dealt with. Neither was Christianity during the multi-generational Crusades. 



AllieBaba said:


> IPeople are not afraid of change. They are afraid of death, and torture, and oppression, which all Islamic nations enjoy as a way of life.



And well they should be for this is the strength that will bring about Islamic reformation from without, not within.

That's how change works and in the human regard, it is a multi and cross generational move...


----------



## AllieBaba

Unfortunately, history shows you to be putting out bullshit.

When countries become Islamized, they step backwards in time. As you know. 

Islamization is the antithesis to everything American, and the enemy of freedom, liberty and life.


----------



## AllieBaba

Check out how advanced all these lucky countries are. They're all so enlightened and modern!






List of Muslim majority countries - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## AllieBaba

Well Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nigeria and Egypt are at the top of the list, lol.

Great examples of advanced civilization, modernization, and all that is great and wonderful about the Muslim concept of the way life should be.


----------



## AllieBaba

Next 5 Muslim countries which exemplify how much we should not fear the "change" that is wrought by Islam upon rich cultures:

Turkey, Iran, Sudan, Algeria, Afghanistan.

Next 5:
Morocco, Iraq, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia and Uzbekistan.

Shining examples of all that we should mimic!


----------



## Foxfyre

Allie makes good points though I know Ropey isn't Muslim.  

Of course Islam may moderate and become more enlightened and inclusive of human liberties and freedoms just has Christianity has done that over the centures.  Even Buddism had its militant side in its distant past.

But I think to capitulate and acquiesce to Islams demands and goals on the theory that sometime in the next millenium or so it will become more moderate and will no longer force its edicts upon people is a rather dangerous view.  I for one don't want to wait a millenium or more to appreciate what I believe are unalienable rights and to exercise the freedoms that I enjoy.


----------



## Blagger

AllieBaba said:


> Unfortunately, history shows you to be putting out bullshit.
> 
> *When countries become Islamized, they step backwards in time. As you know. *
> 
> Islamization is the antithesis to everything American, and the enemy of freedom, liberty and life.



Whilst I've disagreed with Alliebaba in the past, this is something I know I can comment on with more authority than most here on USMB. 

As you know, the UK and the other rich nations the liberal European Union depends upon to fund their multi-cultural utopia, have all seen an undeniable influx of immigration from Islamic states. Unlike other immirants from other parts of the world, the muslim immigrants are largely peasants from the armpits of Asia and Africa who proceed to build a little Baghdad in the town they've settled in. They revert once respectable parts of town into what can only be described as a medieval reflection of what life was once like in the middle east. Whole extended families all move into a one bedroom apartment. Their lack of hygiene soon spreads disease through their community. They refuse to speak the mother tongue of their adoptive country. In short, they do exactly what Alliebaba has described, they take whole neighbourhood back in time; and they expect everyone else to adapt around them; and if they don't, they envoke their human rights. For example, are you familiar with the part of London, made famous by Jack the Ripper, called Whitechapel? Well, it's now so overun by Islamic peasants that it's now locally referred to as 'BrownMosque'.

Aside from that...

Another (often) overlooked (incase of causing offense among muslims) reason westerners oppose muslim immigrants after 9/11, into what are universally aknowledged as Christian lands i.e United States, United Kingdom and western Europe (I'm an Atheist, but you can't deny the majority Christian influence on western society), is that these lands are being threatened by a group of people who whorship Allah. True, these are a minority amongst muslims, but this minority have a track record of attacking from within, after exploiting otherwise well intended immigration policies; so one can sympathise with those angry or suspicious that these muslim immigrants are or maybe laughing at their hosts behind their backs.


----------



## AllieBaba

Ropey's a mole?

And what's with the "bodecca" vs. "boedicca" thing??? No wonder I get freaked out about the identity of posters.

And what's with "Strollingbones" aka "bones" and "Bones" the new guy who lives in a moldy trailer?


----------



## Foxfyre

AllieBaba said:


> Ropey's a mole?
> 
> And what's with the "bodecca" vs. "boedicca" thing??? No wonder I get freaked out about the identity of posters.
> 
> And what's with "Strollingbones" aka "bones" and "Bones" the new guy who lives in a moldy trailer?



Ropey has idetified himself as a Jew practicing the Jewish religion and I've judged him to be a reasonable and decent sort.

Bodecea is strongly leftwing/liberal - Boedicca is a well informed conservative.   No relation.

Also no relation between Strollingbones who is an institution at USMB and Bones, a relative newcomer.  Different sexes.  Different approach to things.  Different people.


----------



## Foxfyre

Swagger said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, history shows you to be putting out bullshit.
> 
> *When countries become Islamized, they step backwards in time. As you know. *
> 
> Islamization is the antithesis to everything American, and the enemy of freedom, liberty and life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whilst I've disagreed with Alliebaba in the past, this is something I know I can comment on with more authority than most here on USMB.
> 
> As you know, the UK and the other rich nations the liberal European Union depends upon to fund their multi-cultural utopia, have all seen an undeniable influx of immigration from Islamic states. Unlike other immirants from other parts of the world, the muslim immigrants are largely peasants from the armpits of Asia and Africa who proceed to build a little Baghdad in the town they've settled in. They revert once respectable parts of town into what can only be described as a medieval reflection of what life was once like in the middle east. Whole extended families all move into a one bedroom apartment. Their lack of hygiene soon spreads disease through their community. They refuse to speak the mother tongue of their adoptive country. In short, they do exactly what Alliebaba has described, they take whole neighbourhood back in time; and they expect everyone else to adapt around them; and if they don't, they envoke their human rights. For example, are you familiar with the part of London, made famous by Jack the Ripper, called Whitechapel? Well, it's now so overun by Islamic peasants that it's now locally referred to as 'BrownMosque'.
> 
> Aside from that...
> 
> Another (often) overlooked (incase of causing offense among muslims) reason westerners oppose muslim immigrants after 9/11, into what are universally aknowledged as Christian lands i.e United States, United Kingdom and western Europe (I'm an Atheist, but you can't deny the majority Christian influence on western society), is that these lands are being threatened by a group of people who whorship Allah. True, these are a minority amongst muslims, but this minority have a track record of attacking from within, after exploiting otherwise well intended immigration policies; so one can sympathise with those angry or suspicious that these muslim immigrants are or maybe laughing at their hosts behind their backs.
Click to expand...


I think Muslim's assault on Western Civilization is planned and is being at least in part orchestrated by those who intend the destruction of Western Civilization.  I mean the USA and most of Europe is really fertile ground with policy and laws in place that include everybody and that accommodate Islamic traditions and beliefs.  And it's so currently fashionably PC to be supportive and tolerant of Muslims and the Muslim religion even though some of the same people find it fashionable to be critical and scornful of Christians and Jews.

Didn't the UK more or less recently agree to allow the Muslims to circumvent some of the British court system and instead implement parts of Sharia law?

We see the pattern repeated again again.

Muslims in small numbers are respectable and lovable people.
As they become larger minority groups though, they invariably begin petitioning governments for more and more concessions to the Muslim faith--recognition of Muslim holy days, accommodations of the Muslim prayer schedule, accommodation for Muslim dietary taboos, etc. etc. etc.
And once they achieve a minority, in every place they have ever been, there is no acknoweldgement of unalienable rights, there is loss of at least some basic freedoms, and all the population is required to respect all or some of the edicts of Allah.

Non Muslim countries outside of Western Civilization are much less receptive and make it much more difficult for Islam to get a foothold to launch an attack from within.


----------



## Sunni Man

Foxfyre said:


> Didn't the UK more or less recently agree to allow the Muslims to circumvent some of the British court system and instead implement parts of Sharia law?


Foxfyre you use highly biased and inflammatory language all of the time.

Muslims haven't "circumvented" the court system in the UK or the US

The Jews have had Judaic courts call the Beth Din for many years.

And nobody said a word.

Muslims do the same thing and it's a huge deal.  

Creeping Sharia!!!   

London Beth Din - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Sunni Man

Foxfyre said:


> And once they achieve a minority, in every place they have ever been, there is no acknoweldgement of unalienable rights, there is loss of at least some basic freedoms, and all the population is required to respect all or some of the edicts of Allah.



Please provide an example of a country this has happened to in modern history?


----------



## Foxfyre

Sunni Man said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't the UK more or less recently agree to allow the Muslims to circumvent some of the British court system and instead implement parts of Sharia law?
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre you use highly biased and inflammatory language all of the time.
> 
> Muslims haven't "circumvented" the court system in the UK or the US
> 
> The Jews have had Judaic courts call the Beth Din for many years.
> 
> And nobody said a word.
> 
> Muslims do the same thing and it's a huge deal.
> 
> Creeping Sharia!!!
> 
> London Beth Din - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


I call it as I see it.  Sorry if you think my language is inflammatory.  I try to make what I say as precise and honest as possible.  Yes there is accommodation made for Jewish tradition but I have NEVER heard any Jew suggest that it is the intent of Judaism to put the whole world under Jewish Law or traditions.   There is also accommodation for Christian traditions in many countries but, with a few exceptions, most Christians have no intent of ever requiring you to live under any concept of "Christian" law or to obey Christian traditions or edicts.  We learned long ago that such produces far more unintended negative consequences than positive outcome.  Islam has yet to learn that I think.

 I suggest you read the entire thread so that you will better understand the concept that is being discussed here and get back to me on that.


----------



## Sunni Man

Foxfyre said:


> I think Muslim's assault on Western Civilization is planned and is being at least in part orchestrated by those who intend the destruction of Western Civilization.


Foxfyre you claim to have muslims that are personal friends.

How many of them are part of a "planned assault" on Western Civilization?


----------



## Blagger

Foxfyre said:


> Swagger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, history shows you to be putting out bullshit.
> 
> *When countries become Islamized, they step backwards in time. As you know. *
> 
> Islamization is the antithesis to everything American, and the enemy of freedom, liberty and life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whilst I've disagreed with Alliebaba in the past, this is something I know I can comment on with more authority than most here on USMB.
> 
> As you know, the UK and the other rich nations the liberal European Union depends upon to fund their multi-cultural utopia, have all seen an undeniable influx of immigration from Islamic states. Unlike other immirants from other parts of the world, the muslim immigrants are largely peasants from the armpits of Asia and Africa who proceed to build a little Baghdad in the town they've settled in. They revert once respectable parts of town into what can only be described as a medieval reflection of what life was once like in the middle east. Whole extended families all move into a one bedroom apartment. Their lack of hygiene soon spreads disease through their community. They refuse to speak the mother tongue of their adoptive country. In short, they do exactly what Alliebaba has described, they take whole neighbourhood back in time; and they expect everyone else to adapt around them; and if they don't, they envoke their human rights. For example, are you familiar with the part of London, made famous by Jack the Ripper, called Whitechapel? Well, it's now so overun by Islamic peasants that it's now locally referred to as 'BrownMosque'.
> 
> Aside from that...
> 
> Another (often) overlooked (incase of causing offense among muslims) reason westerners oppose muslim immigrants after 9/11, into what are universally aknowledged as Christian lands i.e United States, United Kingdom and western Europe (I'm an Atheist, but you can't deny the majority Christian influence on western society), is that these lands are being threatened by a group of people who whorship Allah. True, these are a minority amongst muslims, but this minority have a track record of attacking from within, after exploiting otherwise well intended immigration policies; so one can sympathise with those angry or suspicious that these muslim immigrants are or maybe laughing at their hosts behind their backs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think Muslim's assault on Western Civilization is planned and is being at least in part orchestrated by those who intend the destruction of Western Civilization.  I mean the USA and most of Europe is really fertile ground with policy and laws in place that include everybody and that accommodate Islamic traditions and beliefs.  And it's so PC to be supportive and tolerant of religion even though some of the same people find it fashionable to be critical and scornful of Christians and Jews.
> 
> *Didn't the UK more or less recently agree to allow the Muslims to circumvent some of the British court system and instead implement parts of Sharia law?*
> 
> We see the pattern repeated again again.
> 
> Muslims in small numbers are respectable and lovable people.
> As they become larger minority groups though, they invariably begin petitioning governments for more and more concessions to the Muslim faith--recognition of Muslim holy days, accommodations of the Muslim prayer schedule, accommodation for Muslim dietary taboos, etc. etc. etc.
> And once they achieve a minority, in every place they have ever been, there is no acknoweldgement of unalienable rights, there is loss of at least some basic freedoms, and all the population is required to respect all or some of the edicts of Allah.
> 
> Non Muslim countries outside of Western Civilization are much less receptive and make it much more difficult for Islam to get a foothold to launch an attack from within.
Click to expand...


Yes and no. In 2008 the British government quietly sanctioned the powers for sharia judges to rule on cases ranging from divorce and


----------



## Foxfyre

Sunni Man said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think Muslim's assault on Western Civilization is planned and is being at least in part orchestrated by those who intend the destruction of Western Civilization.
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre you claim to have muslims that are personal friends.
> 
> How many of them are part of a "planned assault" on Western Civilization?
Click to expand...


Again I encourage you to read the entire thread and all the comments I have made on this subject.  Then you won't be so likely to ask such a foolish question.


----------



## Sunni Man

Foxfyre said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think Muslim's assault on Western Civilization is planned and is being at least in part orchestrated by those who intend the destruction of Western Civilization.
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre you claim to have muslims that are personal friends.
> 
> How many of them are part of a "planned assault" on Western Civilization?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again I encourage you to read the entire thread and all the comments I have made on this subject.  Then you won't be so likely to ask such a foolish question.
Click to expand...

I already read the thread.

So how am I being foolish when I point out your own words and call you on it?

Did you write them or not??


----------



## Ropey

Foxfyre said:


> I think Muslim's assault on Western Civilization is planned and is being at least in part orchestrated by those who intend the destruction of Western Civilization.  I mean the USA and most of Europe is really fertile ground with policy and laws in place that include everybody and that accommodate Islamic traditions and beliefs.  And it's so currently fashionably PC to be supportive and tolerant of Muslims and the Muslim religion even though some of the same people find it fashionable to be critical and scornful of Christians and Jews.
> 
> Didn't the UK more or less recently agree to allow the Muslims to circumvent some of the British court system and instead implement parts of Sharia law?
> 
> We see the pattern repeated again again.
> 
> Muslims in small numbers are respectable and lovable people.
> As they become larger minority groups though, they invariably begin petitioning governments for more and more concessions to the Muslim faith--recognition of Muslim holy days, accommodations of the Muslim prayer schedule, accommodation for Muslim dietary taboos, etc. etc. etc.
> And once they achieve a minority, in every place they have ever been, there is no acknoweldgement of unalienable rights, there is loss of at least some basic freedoms, and all the population is required to respect all or some of the edicts of Allah.
> 
> Non Muslim countries outside of Western Civilization are much less receptive and make it much more difficult for Islam to get a foothold to launch an attack from within.



I do not believe there is "A" planned assault. There might be quite a few planned assaults from different sects of Islam. Certainly there is a Muslim Brotherhood movement into arenas that it can manipulate its power bases. 

This is not the only one. There is one going on in Gaza and has been going on for nigh on ten years, where Shia Arabians have been moving in and are now magically "Palestinians" and who are armed and trained by Shia Iran.  The Chechen conflict is damning proof of this MB connection.

Of course these things are happening. But a global Muslim conspiracy to enact these movements?

I don't think so.

And I believe that if the Western philosophy is unable to protect their laws from Islam, then they will go the way of the weak. 

So it has been for the survival of the species. I personally have faith that the Western philosophy is safe.

If America allows Muslims to leave America and marry their first cousins in their Muslim countries, and then travel back to America, then Americans deserve the results. If America allows fundamental Sharia implementation to be enacted, then they do this.  Look to Britain.  Canada understands. I think America does as well, they just need more time for American jurisprudence and legislation is a slow beast.  We ca 

I know we are looking at this revamping of laws and have already tossed out any attempts to introduce Sharia aspects in Canada. Canada went even further and outlawed ANY forms of extralegal community aspects except Native Indian Family laws. They tossed out Jewish law and even the Mennonite laws which has resulted in fourth, third, second and first generation Canadian Mennonites are leaving to Germany.  



> Attempts to set up Sharia courts in Canada in 2005 were abandoned after protests. The Jewish community and the Catholic community did not want Muslims introducing Sharia into Canada, so they accepted the decision to ban all religious arbitration in Ontario, including their own respective tribunals.



We are a nation of laws and our laws can deal with extralegal attempts to create a path of silent sedition. 

Canadian Muslims Abandon Hope of Sharia Law in Canada


----------



## Ropey

AllieBaba said:


> Ropey's a mole?



I've got a mole.  

I'm not, but even if I was, so what? These are simply words we are posting here. What is there to defend on an Internet Political Discussion Forum?

Really?


----------



## Foxfyre

Ropey said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think Muslim's assault on Western Civilization is planned and is being at least in part orchestrated by those who intend the destruction of Western Civilization.  I mean the USA and most of Europe is really fertile ground with policy and laws in place that include everybody and that accommodate Islamic traditions and beliefs.  And it's so currently fashionably PC to be supportive and tolerant of Muslims and the Muslim religion even though some of the same people find it fashionable to be critical and scornful of Christians and Jews.
> 
> Didn't the UK more or less recently agree to allow the Muslims to circumvent some of the British court system and instead implement parts of Sharia law?
> 
> We see the pattern repeated again again.
> 
> Muslims in small numbers are respectable and lovable people.
> As they become larger minority groups though, they invariably begin petitioning governments for more and more concessions to the Muslim faith--recognition of Muslim holy days, accommodations of the Muslim prayer schedule, accommodation for Muslim dietary taboos, etc. etc. etc.
> And once they achieve a minority, in every place they have ever been, there is no acknoweldgement of unalienable rights, there is loss of at least some basic freedoms, and all the population is required to respect all or some of the edicts of Allah.
> 
> Non Muslim countries outside of Western Civilization are much less receptive and make it much more difficult for Islam to get a foothold to launch an attack from within.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do not believe there is "A" planned assault. There might be quite a few planned assaults from different sects of Islam. Certainly there is a Muslim Brotherhood movement into arenas that it can manipulate its power bases.
> 
> This is not the only one. There is one going on in Gaza and has been going on for nigh on ten years, where Shia Arabians have been moving in and are now magically "Palestinians" and who are armed and trained by Shia Iran.  The Chechen conflict is damning proof of this MB connection.
> 
> Of course these things are happening. But a global Muslim conspiracy to enact these movements?
> 
> I don't think so.
> 
> And I believe that if the Western philosophy is unable to protect their laws from Islam, then they will go the way of the weak.
> 
> So it has been for the survival of the species. I personally have faith that the Western philosophy is safe.
> 
> If America allows Muslims to leave America and marry their first cousins in their Muslim countries, and then travel back to America, then Americans deserve the results. If America allows fundamental Sharia implementation to be enacted, then they do this.  Look to Britain.  Canada understands. I think America does as well, they just need more time for American jurisprudence and legislation is a slow beast.  We ca
> 
> I know we are looking at this revamping of laws and have already tossed out any attempts to introduce Sharia aspects in Canada. Canada went even further and outlawed ANY forms of extralegal community aspects except Native Indian Family laws. They tossed out Jewish law and even the Mennonite laws which has resulted in fourth, third, second and first generation Canadian Mennonites are leaving to Germany.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Attempts to set up Sharia courts in Canada in 2005 were abandoned after protests. The Jewish community and the Catholic community did not want Muslims introducing Sharia into Canada, so they accepted the decision to ban all religious arbitration in Ontario, including their own respective tribunals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are a nation of laws and our laws can deal with extralegal attempts to create a path of silent sedition.
> 
> Canadian Muslims Abandon Hope of Sharia Law in Canada
Click to expand...


No, I don't think it is a global conspiracy or a coordinated organized effort either.  But the ultimate goal of all Islam is that all should be under the authority of Allah.  It is commanded in their sacred writings.  And I think when Islam gains a substantial foothold in any accommodating place--and most places in the west are more accommodating than are many other places--the mosques and Islamic centers can be headed by strong, ambitious, powerful people.  And then the pressure begins and is relentless, gradually gaining here and there until it becomes a problem for the non-Muslim populations.   To deny that this has happened in the UK, France, Belgium, and other places in the west is just not supportable.

And when Islam achieves a majority and control of the government, you cannot point to ANY country ANYWHERE in which basic human unalienable rights are recognized or where people have not lost significant freedoms.

This does not impact good, honest, productive, peaceful Muslim people that probably all of us know.  Again this is not intended to suggest that ALL Muslims intend to destroy western civilization.   Sunniman should acknowledge that I have not only defended him when he has been unfairly attacked but I have also praised the peaceful Islamic groups in this country who I believe do not intend the destruction of western civilization.

To recognize and appreciate that all are not the problem is the honorable and right thing to do.  To recognize and appreciate that there is nevertheless a problem I think is going to be necessary to preserve western civilization.


----------



## Jroc

Ropey said:


> *They are just ahead of Islam at the moment and considering Islam is the youngest of the three Abraham religions, this makes sense.*
> We are simply a single generation in a multi-generational movement of humanity. We need to look at the historical perspective to gain a clearer view.
> 
> People are fearful that their way of life is going to change. Of course it is going to change.  That's life and humanity, and Islam is part of that life and humanity. Just as all the other world's beliefs and platforms are part and parcel of the human approach.
> 
> I believe it will come and will modernize and will help us also modify and change in acceptance.



Ropey don't you think Islam is behind in its modernization? If you consider that Christianity was not a major religion until it was accepted by Rome early in the 4th century and Islam conquered Mecca early in the 7th century  there is really only a 300 year difference between them, I seems to me that Islam is way behind in there modernization, why do you think that is?


----------



## Foxfyre

Jroc said:


> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> 
> *They are just ahead of Islam at the moment and considering Islam is the youngest of the three Abraham religions, this makes sense.*
> We are simply a single generation in a multi-generational movement of humanity. We need to look at the historical perspective to gain a clearer view.
> 
> People are fearful that their way of life is going to change. Of course it is going to change.  That's life and humanity, and Islam is part of that life and humanity. Just as all the other world's beliefs and platforms are part and parcel of the human approach.
> 
> I believe it will come and will modernize and will help us also modify and change in acceptance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ropey don't you think Islam is behind in its modernization? If you consider that Christianity was not a major religion until it was accepted by Rome early in the 4th century and Islam conquered Mecca early in the 7th century  there is really only a 300 year difference between them, I seems to me that Islam is way behind in there modernization, why do you think that is?
Click to expand...


I'm not Ropey, but in fairness to Islam, it was just something over 200 years ago (1620) that the first of the New World settlers arrived.  They came to escape the oppressive religious rules of the Old Country and then proceeded to set up equally repressive rules here.  The last of the Salem Witch trials was in 1692.

The one difference here is that the religious oppression was restricted to colonies in relatively small areas and one group did not presume to impose its beliefs on the next group a state away.  Then by the 18th Century, our Founders were wise enough to realize that enforced religious practices made it impossible to protect unalienable rights they wanted all people to have.    Therefore, the federal government was prohibited from establishing any form of religion or requiring religious activity or allegiance of any kind from anybody.  Nor could they interfere with anybody's religious beliefs.   And that has been the law of our land since 1791.

So we Christians haven't modernized much faster than has Islam.  I just don't want to lose our freedoms, culture, and way of life in the next three hundred years it may take them to catch up.


----------



## Ropey

If it is to modernize and does so in the way both Judaism and Christianity have, then history would point to an external reformation. 

If 'Nejad gets his way, there will be some serious reforming going on. It may well be that he was intended to 'get the ball rolling'.

And likely then people will wake up.  Like they did the last time. If they do. They most certainly are not waking up to Darfur, which is as monumental a program of systematic and generational genocide as this world has ever seen. A country.

Worse is to come to Darfur. So much worse and where is the outcry? Even with movie stars such as Richard Gere stomping about this systematic murder of a culture, people want to pretend it is not so. It is so! Entire tribes are having their men and boy children  murdered, the women raped to produce children of a different cultures tribes.

If nothing is done about that, what will it take? There is a fatalism when one looks around the globe.  It's a sad thing is global perspective. So, I find faith is my way to recognize that it's not that important considering my ability to change one iota of it. 

Then when I read some of the people here speaking about Gaza and Hamas and the cruel treatment, I say "Who Is Creating This Genocide?"  

The first thing they say is, "It's Complex."

If one is insane or an idiot it may be to complex, but it is not hard to recognize and see where the impetus is coming from. Take out a checker board and replace the black checkers with all red checkers.

What say you Sunni Man?


----------



## GHook93

If the man runs for President I will donate money to his cause (even for his next House Election) and vote for him.


----------



## AllieBaba

Foxfyre said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ropey's a mole?
> 
> And what's with the "bodecca" vs. "boedicca" thing??? No wonder I get freaked out about the identity of posters.
> 
> And what's with "Strollingbones" aka "bones" and "Bones" the new guy who lives in a moldy trailer?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ropey has idetified himself as a Jew practicing the Jewish religion and I've judged him to be a reasonable and decent sort.
> 
> Bodecea is strongly leftwing/liberal - Boedicca is a well informed conservative.   No relation.
> 
> Also no relation between Strollingbones who is an institution at USMB and Bones, a relative newcomer.  Different sexes.  Different approach to things.  Different people.
Click to expand...


I just realized the boe/bod thing. 

So is there a Del and a del?


----------



## Foxfyre

Sunni Man said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre you claim to have muslims that are personal friends.
> 
> How many of them are part of a "planned assault" on Western Civilization?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again I encourage you to read the entire thread and all the comments I have made on this subject.  Then you won't be so likely to ask such a foolish question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I already read the thread.
> 
> So how am I being foolish when I point out your own words and call you on it?
> 
> Did you write them or not??
Click to expand...


If you read the entire thread you would have known the answer to your questions before you asked them.  So I don't believe you when you say you read the entire thread before deciding to challenge my perspective on this.

I don't mind at all anybody challenging my perspective or opinions on anything.  If my perspective or opinion cannot be competently defended, then I need to change it.   You are free to believe that there is no such thing as an Islam like what the witness was describing in that video.  I believe there is.   It isn't at all like you, however, to be a numbnut and suggest that I am putting all Muslims into the same pot here.  I didn't and I went to some care to be very specific about that.

Read the thread.

Then we can discuss it.


----------



## Blagger

Swagger said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Swagger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whilst I've disagreed with Alliebaba in the past, this is something I know I can comment on with more authority than most here on USMB.
> 
> As you know, the UK and the other rich nations the liberal European Union depends upon to fund their multi-cultural utopia, have all seen an undeniable influx of immigration from Islamic states. Unlike other immirants from other parts of the world, the muslim immigrants are largely peasants from the armpits of Asia and Africa who proceed to build a little Baghdad in the town they've settled in. They revert once respectable parts of town into what can only be described as a medieval reflection of what life was once like in the middle east. Whole extended families all move into a one bedroom apartment. Their lack of hygiene soon spreads disease through their community. They refuse to speak the mother tongue of their adoptive country. In short, they do exactly what Alliebaba has described, they take whole neighbourhood back in time; and they expect everyone else to adapt around them; and if they don't, they envoke their human rights. For example, are you familiar with the part of London, made famous by Jack the Ripper, called Whitechapel? Well, it's now so overun by Islamic peasants that it's now locally referred to as 'BrownMosque'.
> 
> Aside from that...
> 
> Another (often) overlooked (incase of causing offense among muslims) reason westerners oppose muslim immigrants after 9/11, into what are universally aknowledged as Christian lands i.e United States, United Kingdom and western Europe (I'm an Atheist, but you can't deny the majority Christian influence on western society), is that these lands are being threatened by a group of people who whorship Allah. True, these are a minority amongst muslims, but this minority have a track record of attacking from within, after exploiting otherwise well intended immigration policies; so one can sympathise with those angry or suspicious that these muslim immigrants are or maybe laughing at their hosts behind their backs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think Muslim's assault on Western Civilization is planned and is being at least in part orchestrated by those who intend the destruction of Western Civilization.  I mean the USA and most of Europe is really fertile ground with policy and laws in place that include everybody and that accommodate Islamic traditions and beliefs.  And it's so PC to be supportive and tolerant of religion even though some of the same people find it fashionable to be critical and scornful of Christians and Jews.
> 
> *Didn't the UK more or less recently agree to allow the Muslims to circumvent some of the British court system and instead implement parts of Sharia law?*
> 
> We see the pattern repeated again again.
> 
> Muslims in small numbers are respectable and lovable people.
> As they become larger minority groups though, they invariably begin petitioning governments for more and more concessions to the Muslim faith--recognition of Muslim holy days, accommodations of the Muslim prayer schedule, accommodation for Muslim dietary taboos, etc. etc. etc.
> And once they achieve a minority, in every place they have ever been, there is no acknoweldgement of unalienable rights, there is loss of at least some basic freedoms, and all the population is required to respect all or some of the edicts of Allah.
> 
> Non Muslim countries outside of Western Civilization are much less receptive and make it much more difficult for Islam to get a foothold to launch an attack from within.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Yes and no. In 2008 the British government quietly sanctioned the powers for sharia judges to rule on cases ranging from divorce and*
Click to expand...


There was three more paragraphs in this reply when I went to bed last night. Was what I wrote too close to the bone for someone?


----------



## Foxfyre

Swagger said:


> Swagger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think Muslim's assault on Western Civilization is planned and is being at least in part orchestrated by those who intend the destruction of Western Civilization.  I mean the USA and most of Europe is really fertile ground with policy and laws in place that include everybody and that accommodate Islamic traditions and beliefs.  And it's so PC to be supportive and tolerant of religion even though some of the same people find it fashionable to be critical and scornful of Christians and Jews.
> 
> *Didn't the UK more or less recently agree to allow the Muslims to circumvent some of the British court system and instead implement parts of Sharia law?*
> 
> We see the pattern repeated again again.
> 
> Muslims in small numbers are respectable and lovable people.
> As they become larger minority groups though, they invariably begin petitioning governments for more and more concessions to the Muslim faith--recognition of Muslim holy days, accommodations of the Muslim prayer schedule, accommodation for Muslim dietary taboos, etc. etc. etc.
> And once they achieve a minority, in every place they have ever been, there is no acknoweldgement of unalienable rights, there is loss of at least some basic freedoms, and all the population is required to respect all or some of the edicts of Allah.
> 
> Non Muslim countries outside of Western Civilization are much less receptive and make it much more difficult for Islam to get a foothold to launch an attack from within.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Yes and no. In 2008 the British government quietly sanctioned the powers for sharia judges to rule on cases ranging from divorce and*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was three more paragraphs in this reply when I went to bed last night. Was what I wrote too close to the bone for someone?
Click to expand...


Not sure what you're fishing for here, but yes, always criticism of Islam (or any other religious group including Atheists) is too close to the bone for someone.  So is defense of religion to some people.  

I, as a Christian, do get tired of the ridiculous accusations launched against it by many anti-Christian types, the straw men builtnor red herrings or non sequiturs used to condemn Christianity as it is now,and the condemnation of it by reference to its sometimes less than commendable past.  I have always freely acknowledged the sins of the Church and the destructive policies in the name of religion that have been utilized over the last 2000 years.

And I will also defend Christianity when it is unfairly attacked.  I do so by setting the record straight.

It is undeniable that in modern times ALL places where Christianity has attained a majority, there are more freedoms and more prosperity and more quality of life than is enjoyed by many nations that are not predominantly Christians.  Some Christian nations are poorer than others.  Some are plagued by more lawlessness or by more totalitarian style governments.  But nowhere is anybody's unalienable rights, property, freedoms, or opportunities hindered or threatened by Christians.  The rare and tiny idiot groups like Westboro Baptist Church I don't even consider to be Christian.   They certainly don't behave like it.

The acknowledgment, respect for, and defense of our unalienable, legal, Constitutional, and civil rights in this country I believe are a direct result of the Christian roots from which most of our laws are derived.

And I also can appreciate Muslims who take exception when they feel Islam is unfairly attacked.  The difference is I can usually defend Christianity with logic, reason, and/or hard evidence and can do so without accusing the messenger.

Muslims seem to have much more difficulty defending Islam and do more often seem to accuse the messenger.


----------



## Sunni Man

Foxfyre said:


> But nowhere is anybody's unalienable rights, property, freedoms, or opportunities hindered or threatened by Christians.



You sure about that?

Lord's Resistance Army - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Modbert

Foxfyre said:


> ,and the condemnation of it by reference to its *sometimes less than commendable past. * I have always freely acknowledged the sins of the Church and the destructive policies in the name of religion that have been utilized over the last 2000 years.



That's a nice way to phrase it, sugar coating it. 



Foxfyre said:


> It is undeniable that in modern times ALL places where Christianity has attained a majority, there are more freedoms and more prosperity and more quality of life than is enjoyed by many nations that are not predominantly Christians.



I like how you try to phrase it in a very specific way. Four of the five most populous Muslim countries have elected female leaders (Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Turkey), how many female Presidents has the United States elected?

I would also like to point out that if our laws were on the basis of Christianity like some countries are with Islam then several of the freedoms you are talking about would disappear. I'm not out to bash Christianity, however, one should look at the full reality of the situation when trying to put one religion on a higher pedestal then another religion.


----------



## Foxfyre

Sunni Man said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> But nowhere is anybody's unalienable rights, property, freedoms, or opportunities hindered or threatened by Christians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You sure about that?
> 
> Lord's Resistance Army - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


Not all who call themselves Christians are Christian.  Not all who call themselves emmisaries of the Lord or the Holy Spirit are.  The most terrible sin cited in the New Testament is to attribute or commit evil in the name of the Holy Spirit.  And because I believe that it is by their fruit that we shall know them, I have no trouble saying that the LRA is not Christian and is anathema to all Christian teachings.


----------



## High_Gravity

Foxfyre said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> But nowhere is anybody's unalienable rights, property, freedoms, or opportunities hindered or threatened by Christians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You sure about that?
> 
> Lord's Resistance Army - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not all who call themselves Christians are Christian.  Not all who call themselves emmisaries of the Lord or the Holy Spirit are.  The most terrible sin cited in the New Testament is to attribute or commit sin in the name of the Holy Spirit.  And because I believe that it is by their fruit that we shall know them, I have no trouble saying that the LRA is not Christian and is anathema to all Christian teachings.
Click to expand...


Nobody outside of Uganda cares about the LRA or supports it cause, Al Qaeda, Hezbollah etc. get money and support from numerous supporters worldwide.


----------



## Foxfyre

Modbert said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> ,and the condemnation of it by reference to its *sometimes less than commendable past. * I have always freely acknowledged the sins of the Church and the destructive policies in the name of religion that have been utilized over the last 2000 years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a nice way to phrase it, sugar coating it.
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is undeniable that in modern times ALL places where Christianity has attained a majority, there are more freedoms and more prosperity and more quality of life than is enjoyed by many nations that are not predominantly Christians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I like how you try to phrase it in a very specific way. Four of the five most populous Muslim countries have elected female leaders (Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Turkey), how many female Presidents has the United States elected?
> 
> I would also like to point out that if our laws were on the basis of Christianity like some countries are with Islam then several of the freedoms you are talking about would disappear. I'm not out to bash Christianity, however, one should look at the full reality of the situation when trying to put one religion on a higher pedestal then another religion.
Click to expand...


Non sequitur much?  Please show the exact quotation or phrase in which I have EVER put Christianity on a higher plane than another religion.  And then explain how, since you seem to jump in to condemn or criticize Christianity or any defense of it you are not out to bash Christianity.

On the various threads throughout USMB related or commenting on Islam, you will find more of my comments defending unfair criticism of Islam and/or Muslims than you will find comments criticizing it.

I'm guessing we would have a really tough time finding ANY quotation of yours that defends or commends Christianity in any aspect.  I could be wrong of course.  But I've never seen one.


----------



## Ropey

High_Gravity said:


> Nobody outside of Uganda cares about the LRA or supports it cause, Al Qaeda, Hezbollah etc. get money and support from numerous supporters worldwide.



Darfur? Chinese support....


----------



## Sunni Man

High_Gravity said:


> Nobody outside of Uganda cares about the LRA or supports it cause, Al Qaeda, Hezbollah etc. get money and support from numerous supporters worldwide.



"As you will have noticed in our title we mention that the use of children as soldiers is an atrocity we fund. We call it this because, in fact, the international community, far from being ignorant to this terrible violation of child rights, in many cases actually funds it. For example, it is well known that the Lords Resistance Army raises money in countries such as Germany, the U.K., the U.S, Sudan and other countries." 

EarthFocus Magazine: Child Soldiers : The Atrocity we Fund


----------



## High_Gravity

Sunni Man said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody outside of Uganda cares about the LRA or supports it cause, Al Qaeda, Hezbollah etc. get money and support from numerous supporters worldwide.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "As you will have noticed in our title we mention that the use of children as soldiers is an atrocity we fund. We call it this because, in fact, the international community, far from being ignorant to this terrible violation of child rights, in many cases actually funds it. For example, it is well known that the Lords Resistance Army raises money in countries such as Germany, the U.K., the U.S, Sudan and other countries."
> 
> EarthFocus Magazine: Child Soldiers : The Atrocity we Fund
Click to expand...


This is very terrible, I read the article it says the LRA raises money from the West but how does it do so? I have never seen an LRA Rally with a spokesman demanding cash to support the war in Uganda.


----------



## High_Gravity

Ropey said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody outside of Uganda cares about the LRA or supports it cause, Al Qaeda, Hezbollah etc. get money and support from numerous supporters worldwide.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darfur? Chinese support....
Click to expand...


Alot of Arab countries have also funded the Sudanese in their massacre in Darfur as well as turning a blind eye and saying nothing.


----------



## Foxfyre

High_Gravity said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> You sure about that?
> 
> Lord's Resistance Army - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not all who call themselves Christians are Christian.  Not all who call themselves emmisaries of the Lord or the Holy Spirit are.  The most terrible sin cited in the New Testament is to attribute or commit sin in the name of the Holy Spirit.  And because I believe that it is by their fruit that we shall know them, I have no trouble saying that the LRA is not Christian and is anathema to all Christian teachings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody outside of Uganda cares about the LRA or supports it cause, Al Qaeda, Hezbollah etc. get money and support from numerous supporters worldwide.
Click to expand...


That's one of those really aggravating things in discussions like this.  The anti-Christian group looks to the Westboro Baptist Church or the LRA or Pedophile Priests or other isolated and uncommon incidents or groups and holds that up as evidence that Christianity is a terrible thing.  They refuse to acknowledge that hundreds of millions, even billions of Christians condemn the activity of these tiny rogue or corrupt or perverted groups.

When hundreds of millions, even billions of Muslims condemn the activity of tiny rogue groups committing evil within Islam, and recognize the unalienable rights of others, that is when we know that Islam has also come of age and is a positive influence in the world instead of being a problem for free peoples.


----------



## Modbert

Foxfyre said:


> That's one of those really aggravating things in discussions like this.  The anti-Christian group looks to the Westboro Baptist Church or the LRA or Pedophile Priests or other isolated and uncommon incidents or groups and holds that up as evidence that Christianity is a terrible thing.  They refuse to acknowledge that hundreds of millions, even billions of Christians condemn the activity of these tiny rogue or corrupt or perverted groups.
> 
> When hundreds of millions, even billions of Muslims condemn the activity of tiny rogue groups committing evil within Islam, and recognize the unalienable rights of others, that is when we know that Islam has also come of age and is a positive influence in the world instead of being a problem for free peoples.



Billions? 

Care to cite some sources? Where are the hundreds of millions, even billions condemning the activity of Westboro or of Christians who wish to oppress the rights of others? Also, where are the hundreds of millions, and "even billions" of Muslims supporting terrorism? 

Do you even begin to realize that millions of both Christians and Muslims barely know how to read, never mind know what's going on in the world outside the scope of their own towns? I doubt it.


----------



## Modbert

Foxfyre said:


> I'm guessing we would have a really tough time finding ANY quotation of yours that defends or commends Christianity in any aspect.  I could be wrong of course.  But I've never seen one.



I'm willing to commend Christians for their countless charity work throughout the world. I have done so on and off this board. However, I'm not going to commend a religion itself for that since not all Christians think or act the same. Rather, what is commendable is the behavior of the people who take the scripture in the Old and New Testament and try to become better people because of it. Not only for themselves but for those around them. I'm not going to commend the people who think women shouldn't have no rights because of what Paul said. I'm not going to commend the Catholic Church for their dropping of the ball with the pedophile priests. I'm not saying you don't expect me too either, but I'd like to know when in a thread I'm suppose to commend Christianity for and for what?

Am I suppose to commend Christianity for not killing people anymore for saying the earth is round and that everything doesn't revolve around it? Am I suppose to commend Christianity for getting rid of pedophile priests? Do tell me what I am suppose to commend the hierarchy for.


----------



## Foxfyre

Modbert said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm guessing we would have a really tough time finding ANY quotation of yours that defends or commends Christianity in any aspect.  I could be wrong of course.  But I've never seen one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm willing to commend Christians for their countless charity work throughout the world. I have done so on and off this board. However, I'm not going to commend a religion itself for that since not all Christians think or act the same. Rather, what is commendable is the behavior of the people who take the scripture in the Old and New Testament and try to become better people because of it. Not only for themselves but for those around them. I'm not going to commend the people who think women shouldn't have no rights because of what Paul said. I'm not going to commend the Catholic Church for their dropping of the ball with the pedophile priests. I'm not saying you don't expect me too either, but I'd like to know when in a thread I'm suppose to commend Christianity for and for what?
> 
> Am I suppose to commend Christianity for not killing people anymore for saying the earth is round and that everything doesn't revolve around it? Am I suppose to commend Christianity for getting rid of pedophile priests? Do tell me what I am suppose to commend the hierarchy for.
Click to expand...


LOL, I hold up Modbert's post here as a beautiful illustration of the points I was making in a previous post this morning.


----------



## Modbert

Foxfyre said:


> LOL, I hold up Modbert's post here as a beautiful illustration of the points I was making in a previous post this morning.



So instead of trying to have a debate, you rather avoid responding to my post.


----------



## Ropey

Modbert said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm guessing we would have a really tough time finding ANY quotation of yours that defends or commends Christianity in any aspect.  I could be wrong of course.  But I've never seen one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm willing to commend Christians for their countless charity work throughout the world. I have done so on and off this board. However, I'm not going to commend a religion itself for that since not all Christians think or act the same. Rather, what is commendable is the behavior of the people who take the scripture in the Old and New Testament and try to become better people because of it. Not only for themselves but for those around them. I'm not going to commend the people who think women shouldn't have no rights because of what Paul said. I'm not going to commend the Catholic Church for their dropping of the ball with the pedophile priests. I'm not saying you don't expect me too either, but I'd like to know when in a thread I'm suppose to commend Christianity for and for what?
> 
> Am I suppose to commend Christianity for not killing people anymore for saying the earth is round and that everything doesn't revolve around it? Am I suppose to commend Christianity for getting rid of pedophile priests? Do tell me what I am suppose to commend the hierarchy for.
Click to expand...


With all things there is good and bad. Does the good outweigh the bad? Does the good increase and the bad decrease?

So, if I look at all beliefs with this non denominational neutral eye I am able to take a historical perspective and judge then with now. 

Commend for good deeds and indict for bad deeds all the while looking at the times in which the deeds were accomplished. 

All books fail in a perfect eye. But we _NEED TO SEE ALL THAT HAS BEEN DONE_. It's understandable since man often fails.

But, do we increase in good or decrease?  Juries out on that one eh Modbert.  For all beliefs.


----------



## logical4u

TheTraveller said:


> Assuming this is the case - and I dont' know whether the current crop of Muslim immigrants into Europe has had long enough to assimilate, but, assuming you are correct about Islam - what is it about Islam as a religion, or Muslims as people, that makes the notion of modernization and moderation less feasible than it was for Christian civilization?



From all reports, the muslims going into Europe have no interest in "assimilating".  They want/will force the Europeans to "assimilate" with them.


----------



## High_Gravity

logical4u said:


> TheTraveller said:
> 
> 
> 
> Assuming this is the case - and I dont' know whether the current crop of Muslim immigrants into Europe has had long enough to assimilate, but, assuming you are correct about Islam - what is it about Islam as a religion, or Muslims as people, that makes the notion of modernization and moderation less feasible than it was for Christian civilization?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From all reports, the muslims going into Europe have no interest in "assimilating".  They want/will force the Europeans to "assimilate" with them.
Click to expand...


The Europeans need to stand up for themselves.


----------



## Foxfyre

Modbert said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, I hold up Modbert's post here as a beautiful illustration of the points I was making in a previous post this morning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So instead of trying to have a debate, you rather avoid responding to my post.
Click to expand...


I don't know what response you were expecting.  I think I had already made my case for why I think Christianity is not a threat to any civilization or culture and why I think Islam is.  And I think I had already stated my case for how anti-Christian types criticize it.  And you went right down the line to affirm my opinion in that previous post.  

So I will refer you to that previous post as my rebuttal.  

If you care to rebut anything I've said related to the topic, please do and then we can have a debate.  Bringing in non sequitur that does not change or even address what I've said isn't conducive to debate.

For instance, can you point to a single Islamic nation in which unalienable rights of the people are recognized or where the people enjoy more personal freedoms than they did before the nation was mostly controlled by Muslims?

Can you point to any nation in which Christianity is the predominant religion that enjoys fewer freedoms that was the case before Christians attained a majority?


----------



## High_Gravity

Christians aren't going to other countries and trying to force the host country to assimilate to their way of life.


----------



## Ropey

High_Gravity said:


> Christians aren't going to other countries and trying to force the host country to assimilate to their way of life.



Spreading the seed can be seen as doing this, so I disagree. In the past, the Crusades. Not all that long ago.


----------



## High_Gravity

Ropey said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> Christians aren't going to other countries and trying to force the host country to assimilate to their way of life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spreading the seed can be seen as doing this, so I disagree. In the past, the Crusades. Not all that long ago.
Click to expand...


Well I'm talking about now, are there any Christian communities in countries like Iran, Indonesia and Pakistan trying to force the people there to give them Christian courts and special treatments? No, they would be chased out on the streets and killed if they tried, Christians can't even show their faces on the streets anymore in Pakistan.


----------



## logical4u

Sunni Man said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> But nowhere is anybody's unalienable rights, property, freedoms, or opportunities hindered or threatened by Christians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You sure about that?
> 
> Lord's Resistance Army - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


Yes, the muslim reference was scrubbed from this site.  It "originally" stated that it made its beliefs from many different religions, islam and Christianity lumped in with the pagan religions of "old Africa".  This group is mainly "economical".  It was formed of homeless, crimminals and desperate peoples.  It is also not very "selective" about who it murders: Christians, muslims, pagans, etc.  Nice try.  Distraction over substance SM.


----------



## Foxfyre

logical4u said:


> TheTraveller said:
> 
> 
> 
> Assuming this is the case - and I dont' know whether the current crop of Muslim immigrants into Europe has had long enough to assimilate, but, assuming you are correct about Islam - what is it about Islam as a religion, or Muslims as people, that makes the notion of modernization and moderation less feasible than it was for Christian civilization?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From all reports, the muslims going into Europe have no interest in "assimilating".  They want/will force the Europeans to "assimilate" with them.
Click to expand...


At least, if they attain a large enough minority, the historical evidence is that they will try.  If they attain a majority, it is a near certainty.

There are a few western nations that are coming to their senses and starting to fight back now.  Belgium is especially taking measures to defend their culture.


----------



## logical4u

High_Gravity said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> You sure about that?
> 
> Lord's Resistance Army - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not all who call themselves Christians are Christian.  Not all who call themselves emmisaries of the Lord or the Holy Spirit are.  The most terrible sin cited in the New Testament is to attribute or commit sin in the name of the Holy Spirit.  And because I believe that it is by their fruit that we shall know them, I have no trouble saying that the LRA is not Christian and is anathema to all Christian teachings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody outside of Uganda cares about the LRA or supports it cause, Al Qaeda, Hezbollah etc. get money and support from numerous supporters worldwide.
Click to expand...


----------



## logical4u

Ropey said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> Christians aren't going to other countries and trying to force the host country to assimilate to their way of life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spreading the seed can be seen as doing this, so I disagree. In the past, the Crusades. Not all that long ago.
Click to expand...


Why isn't islam happy with just "spreading the seed"?
Why do islamic nations keep their people from reading about the "fathers of their faith" (that would Abraham and before him, according to islam)?

The crusades were started because muslims invaded Jerusalem and "stole" the cross that Yeshua was nailed upon.  It wasn't enough for them to do that, the murdering was terrible, and the Christians requested assistance (and got it).  Why do muslims always conveniently leave out the fact that they were on a murderous rampage until some Europeans had enough and made it really ugly for muslims to continue their murderous conquering of weaker or peaceful peoples (kind of like the LRA)?


----------



## Ropey

You keep telling yourself that about the Crusades.  Who entered the Middle East? Why? To respond to indigents who were from where? 

Certainly not Britain. Certainly not France. Certainly not Spain or Italy. A lot of converts from the Cross search...

Which Crusade was that? All of them? Do you know how many there were and that the Crusades were multi-generational and from many different countries throughout the years?

They were all for the Cross? 

It's not a simple thing to research for truth because there are a lot of lies out there.

For all the beliefs. They hide from their truths.


----------



## Foxfyre

High_Gravity said:


> Christians aren't going to other countries and trying to force the host country to assimilate to their way of life.



I think in most cases, that is correct.  Christians do see it as their duty to spread the gospel and introduce people to the Christ wherever that gospel is received.  And those who do receive it I believe God does change in positive ways, not from any government or religious edict or requirement.  But those who do not choose to receive it are not required to either hear it or respect it.

That has not been true in all of Christian history, however, as history testifies.  The Puritans in the New World, the Roman Catholic Church among the Indians in the Southwest, the Methodists in Hawaii, etc. all did attempt to impose western culture upon the indigenous populations with some serious unintended bad consequences resulting.  I would like to think the huge majority of Christians learned from those mistakes and would not presume to repeat such offenses.


----------



## Ropey

Foxfyre said:


> I would like to think the huge majority of Christians learned from those mistakes and would not presume to repeat such offenses.



I believe you would not be far off. Christianity is modernizing quickly in the grand scheme of things. 

From without, not from the Vatican. Oh, the commands and reformations come from the Vatican, but they do not birth from there.


----------



## Foxfyre

Ropey said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to think the huge majority of Christians learned from those mistakes and would not presume to repeat such offenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you would not be far off. Christianity is modernizing quickly in the grand scheme of things.
> 
> From without, not from the Vatican. Oh, the commands and reformations come from the Vatican, but they do not birth from there.
Click to expand...


I imagine among the billion or so Roman Catholics around the world, you will find as many differences of opinions about almost everything as you find among Protestants about almost everything.  There are a few key components that ALL Christians must agree on such as Jesus was divine, he died on the Cross, he rose again, and he is salvation, but even in these key points, Chrsitians hold many differing opinions about how or why this or that happened and what it means or how it is explained.  Even here on USMB we have seen examples of the most radical and legalistic Christian fundamentalism, examples of scholarly theological approach, and everything in between.  

When you consider that the Roman Catholic Church claims to trace its beginnings all the way back to the Apostle Peter in the First Century AD--(I personally place it in the 4th Century)--it has been around for a very long time.  But all those Popes across the centuries did not become infallible until July 18, 1870 when it was declared an official dogma by the Roman Catholic Church.  I'm pretty sure there are many Catholics who don't really accept that as something they HAVE to believe now.  

I think most Christians, even the Roman Catholics who once didn't, encourage people to study the Bible, the history of their faiths and traditions, and understand it as much as they possibly can.

I know the Jews certainly encourage people to study all Jewish history and beliefs including being thoroughly schooled in the Scriptures.

I wonder if Islam wants its people to know all its history and how much independent study of the Qu'ran and other religious texts are encouraged?


----------



## logical4u

Ropey said:


> You keep telling yourself that about the Crusades.  Who entered the Middle East? Why? To respond to indigents who were from where?
> 
> Certainly not Britain. Certainly not France. Certainly not Spain or Italy. A lot of converts from the Cross search...
> 
> Which Crusade was that? All of them? Do you know how many there were and that the Crusades were multi-generational and from many different countries throughout the years?
> 
> They were all for the Cross?
> 
> It's not a simple thing to research for truth because there are a lot of lies out there.
> 
> For all the beliefs. They hide from their truths.



Who was doing the invading, and has been since the invention of islam?  Can you name any islamic community today that can support itself?  Can you name any islamic community today that is not a rathole and a place where people want to emmigrate?
Yes the Crusades were multi-generational, how long will we have to "tolerate" "jihad".  How many generations will that claim?


----------



## High_Gravity

Ropey said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to think the huge majority of Christians learned from those mistakes and would not presume to repeat such offenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you would not be far off. Christianity is modernizing quickly in the grand scheme of things.
> 
> From without, not from the Vatican. Oh, the commands and reformations come from the Vatican, but they do not birth from there.
Click to expand...


Most Christians don't look to the Vatican for instruction on their daily lives, however alot of Muslims do look to Mecca for that.


----------



## High_Gravity

logical4u said:


> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep telling yourself that about the Crusades.  Who entered the Middle East? Why? To respond to indigents who were from where?
> 
> Certainly not Britain. Certainly not France. Certainly not Spain or Italy. A lot of converts from the Cross search...
> 
> Which Crusade was that? All of them? Do you know how many there were and that the Crusades were multi-generational and from many different countries throughout the years?
> 
> They were all for the Cross?
> 
> It's not a simple thing to research for truth because there are a lot of lies out there.
> 
> For all the beliefs. They hide from their truths.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who was doing the invading, and has been since the invention of islam?  Can you name any islamic community today that can support itself?  Can you name any islamic community today that is not a rathole and a place where people want to emmigrate?
> Yes the Crusades were multi-generational, how long will we have to "tolerate" "jihad".  How many generations will that claim?
Click to expand...


Dubai, Bahrain etc. are actually pretty nice however the rules for immigration are strict, they do not take in refugees and only let foreigners work there on strict visas. Turkey is alright too, although I would not want to live there.


----------



## logical4u

Ropey said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to think the huge majority of Christians learned from those mistakes and would not presume to repeat such offenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you would not be far off. Christianity is modernizing quickly in the grand scheme of things.
> 
> From without, not from the Vatican. Oh, the commands and reformations come from the Vatican, but they do not birth from there.
Click to expand...


How is islam "modernizing"?


----------



## Sunni Man

Foxfyre said:


> I wonder if Islam wants its people to know all its history and how much independent study of the Qu'ran and other religious texts are encouraged?



Study of religious texts in Islam is highly encouraged. 

In fact, most Mosques have an in house library and a book store.

The Quran mentions the Torah of the Jews and the Gospels of the Christians.

Which is an incentive for muslims to learn about the Bible.

Thus the average Muslim is fairly well versed in both Christian and Judaic theology.


Whereas, muslims who come to the U.S. are surprised that Americans know basically zero about Islam.

(except what they learn from Fox News)

And are equally surprised how little the average Christian knows about their own religion.


----------



## Foxfyre

Sunni Man said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if Islam wants its people to know all its history and how much independent study of the Qu'ran and other religious texts are encouraged?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Study of religious texts in Islam is highly encouraged.
> 
> In fact, most Mosques have an in house library and a book store.
> 
> The Quran mentions the Torah of the Jews and the Gospels of the Christians.
> 
> Which is an incentive for muslims to learn about the Bible.
> 
> Thus the average Muslim is fairly well versed in both Christian and Judaic theology.
> 
> 
> Whereas, muslims who come to the U.S. are surprised that Americans know basically zero about Islam.
> 
> (except what they learn from Fox News)
> 
> And are equally surprised how little the average Christian knows about their own religion.
Click to expand...


So this is why contracts are put out on those who dare to criticize or comment negatively on or make fun of Mohammed?   This is why western nations deemed 'disrespectful' to Islam are targeted for terrorist attacks?

How do you square that with the 'enlightenment' and 'intellectual encouragement' you report?


----------



## Ropey

logical4u said:


> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep telling yourself that about the Crusades.  Who entered the Middle East? Why? To respond to indigents who were from where?
> 
> Certainly not Britain. Certainly not France. Certainly not Spain or Italy. A lot of converts from the Cross search...
> 
> Which Crusade was that? All of them? Do you know how many there were and that the Crusades were multi-generational and from many different countries throughout the years?
> 
> They were all for the Cross?
> 
> It's not a simple thing to research for truth because there are a lot of lies out there.
> 
> For all the beliefs. They hide from their truths.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who was doing the invading, and has been since the invention of islam?  Can you name any islamic community today that can support itself?  Can you name any islamic community today that is not a rathole and a place where people want to emmigrate?
> Yes the Crusades were multi-generational, how long will we have to "tolerate" "jihad".  How many generations will that claim?
Click to expand...


When governments stand up, things get done. When they don't, what happens is understandable. If there is a vacuum.

It gets filled. 

Canada tossed off Sharia in an entirety and it didn't seem all that hard from here. 

From where you live??


----------



## Sunni Man

Foxfyre said:


> So this is why contracts are put out on those who dare to criticize or comment negatively on or make fun of Mohammed?   This is why western nations deemed 'disrespectful' to Islam are targeted for terrorist attacks?
> 
> How do you square that with the 'enlightenment' and 'intellectual encouragement' you report?



What does that have to do with what I posted?  

I never said anything about enlightenment or the other issues you are now bringing up?

All I said was that most muslims are aware of what the Torah and the Bible teaches.

And are encouraged to learn about Christianity and Judiasm; not just the Quran.


----------



## Foxfyre

Sunni Man said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> So this is why contracts are put out on those who dare to criticize or comment negatively on or make fun of Mohammed?   This is why western nations deemed 'disrespectful' to Islam are targeted for terrorist attacks?
> 
> How do you square that with the 'enlightenment' and 'intellectual encouragement' you report?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with what I posted?
> 
> I never said anything about enlightenment or the other issues you are now bringing up?
> 
> All I said was that most muslims are aware of what the Torah and the Bible teaches.
> 
> And are encouraged to learn about Christianity and Judiasm; not just the Quran.
Click to expand...


The premise however was how much are Muslims encouraged to look at the whole history of the figures upon which their religion is founded?   Many of us Christians and I imagine many Jews do read up on Islam and I know, as part of my religious education, I took an entire course on the Qu'ran as well as other Islamic religious documents.

Does Islam encourage individual and independent reading of the texts and allow the readers to interpret them as the 'spirit' guides?   Or is it generally guided study?  That part I'll admit I'm a bit fuzzy on.

Those of us who have studied some of your leaders are aware of the good they did, the right sounding things they came up with, and also the less commendable, even indefensible parts of the biographies.  We do the same with our own leaders.  Does Islam?

The reason I brought up the 'contracts' and terrorist attacks is that this is the more visible Islam that much of the world sees.  Insult or make fun of Mohammed at grave personal risk.  It isn't allowed.   Yet we Christians and Jews can have fun with ours with impunity.

So which group is more tolerant?  More enlightened?  Better educated?  I think it is all fodder for a good discussion.


----------



## Sunni Man

Foxfyre said:


> The reason I brought up the 'contracts' and terrorist attacks is that this is the more visible Islam that much of the world sees.  Insult or make fun of Mohammed at grave personal risk.  It isn't allowed.   Yet we Christians and Jews can have fun with ours with impunity.


We think Christians have become neutered wimps. 

You claim Jesus is God.

But you allow people to blaspheme Jesus and Mary with urine or manure by people who call it art.


We muslims are not going to stand by and have our religious figures mocked or abused.  

If this is was the West considers "enlightenment". 

We want No part of it.


----------



## Sunni Man

Foxfyre said:


> Does Islam encourage individual and independent reading of the texts and allow the readers to interpret them as the 'spirit' guides?   Or is it generally guided study?  That part I'll admit I'm a bit fuzzy on.


We take the Quran literally; it is very plain in what it says.


As for instruction, it's the same learning the Bible in Christianity.

You can go to a religious school and learn from scholars.

Or just stay at home and read the Quran when you have time.

There is No forced study program as many in the West believe.


----------



## Foxfyre

Sunni Man said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reason I brought up the 'contracts' and terrorist attacks is that this is the more visible Islam that much of the world sees.  Insult or make fun of Mohammed at grave personal risk.  It isn't allowed.   Yet we Christians and Jews can have fun with ours with impunity.
> 
> 
> 
> We think Christians have become neutered wimps.
> 
> You claim Jesus is God.
> 
> But you allow people to blaspheme Jesus and Mary with urine or manure by people who call it art.
> 
> 
> We muslims are not going to stand by and have our religious figures mocked or abused.
> 
> If this is was the West considers "enlightenment".
> 
> We want No part of it.
Click to expand...


We allow--do not make illegal--the trashing of our God because He needs no defense from us.  He is God and we are but mortals with no power in comparison to that he wields.  However allowing people their unalienable rights to express their opinion or express their artisitic impressions is not the same thing as condoning or approving.  Our God gave us the unalienable right to think and hold whatever opinions we think and hold.  And that is more important than religious laws made by men or our feelings when stupid or hateful people malign what we believe.  When people are not allowed to see it differently without being punished, they have no freedom at all.

So I consider it more enlightened to respect the freedoms our God allows us than I consider it enlightened to behead or bomb or stone or cane or shoot or otherwise punish those who think differently than we do.

And since you obviously think your way the more honorable one, it does call into question whether your 'literal' interpretation of the Qu-ran is allowed to be different from anybody else's 'literal' interpretation.


----------



## Ropey

Foxfyre said:


> I wonder if Islam wants its people to know all its history and how much independent study of the Qu'ran and other religious texts are encouraged?



I would say, at this time, no.


----------



## Sunni Man

Ropey said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if Islam wants its people to know all its history and how much independent study of the Qu'ran and other religious texts are encouraged?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would say, at this time, no.
Click to expand...

You are wrong.

Muslims are very aware of Islams history; failures and success.

And independent study is the norm; not the exception.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

Foxfyre said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> But nowhere is anybody's unalienable rights, property, freedoms, or opportunities hindered or threatened by Christians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You sure about that?
> 
> Lord's Resistance Army - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not all who call themselves Christians are Christian.  Not all who call themselves emmisaries of the Lord or the Holy Spirit are.  The most terrible sin cited in the New Testament is to attribute or commit evil in the name of the Holy Spirit.  And because I believe that it is by their fruit that we shall know them, I have no trouble saying that the LRA is not Christian and is anathema to all Christian teachings.
Click to expand...


LRA are animists and sometimes Islamist

The LRA's ideology is disputed amongst academics.[23][25] While most academics and media outlets regard LRA as primarily a Christian militia,[4][5][6][7][8][9][10] the LRA reportedly evokes Acholi nationalism on occasion,[26] but the sincerity of this behavior is considered dubious by some observers.[27][28] During its brief alliance with the Muslim country of Sudan it also claimed to be Islamic as well, an apparent contradiction.[29]


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

Foxfyre said:


> This is not to say that every Muslim is our enemy.  They are not.
> 
> This is not to say that every Muslim is focused on following the more militant content of the Quran, the Hadith, or Sufi texts.  They arent.
> 
> This is not to say that many people of the Muslim faith have not been peace loving, model citizens, making significant contributions to society.  They have been.
> 
> .



Al-Ghazali, a Sufi orthodox Muslim, and follower of the Shafii school of Islamic jurisprudence, wrote this about jihad war and the treatment of the vanquished non-Muslim dhimmi peoples, in the Wadjiz: [4]

[O]ne must go on jihad (i.e., warlike razzias or raids) at least once a yearone may use a catapult against them [non-Muslims] when they are in a fortress, even if among them are women and children. One may set fire to them and/or drown themIf a person of the Ahl al-Kitab [People of The Book  primarily Jews and Christians] is enslaved, his marriage is [automatically] revokedOne may cut down their treesOne must destroy their useless books. Jihadists may take as booty whatever they decidethey may steal as much food as they need 


[T]he dhimmi is obliged not to mention Allah or His ApostleJews, Christians, and Majians must pay the jizya [poll tax on non-Muslims]on offering up the jizya, the dhimmi must hang his head while the official takes hold of his beard and hits [thedhimmi] on the protruberant bone beneath his ear [i.e., the mandible] 

They are not permitted to ostentatiously display their wine or church bellstheir houses may not be higher than the Muslims, no matter how low that is. The dhimmi may not ride an elegant horse or mule; he may ride a donkey only if the saddle [-work] is of wood. He may not walk on the good part of the road. They [the dhimmis] have to wear [an identifying] patch [on their clothing], even women, and even in the [public] baths[dhimmis] must hold their tongue.


----------



## Sunni Man

Foxfyre said:


> And since you obviously think your way the more honorable one, it does call into question whether your 'literal' interpretation of the Qu-ran is allowed to be different from anybody else's 'literal' interpretation.



Unlike the Bible; which has many allegories, parables, and interpretations.

Which challenges the reader to figure out whether certain passages are to be taken literally or spiritually.

The Quran is very straight forward; in both language and content.


----------



## Ropey

Sunni Man said:


> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if Islam wants its people to know all its history and how much independent study of the Qu'ran and other religious texts are encouraged?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would say, at this time, no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are wrong.
> 
> Muslims are very aware of Islams history; failures and success.
> 
> And independent study is the norm; not the exception.
Click to expand...


So says the Muslim convert who thinks all Jews and Homosexuals need to be rounded up and taken out of society. An independent study where all agree. 

Your views  of Islams modernity notwithstanding.


----------



## gautama

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is not to say that every Muslim is our enemy.  They are not.
> 
> This is not to say that every Muslim is focused on following the more militant content of the Quran, the Hadith, or Sufi texts.  They arent.
> 
> This is not to say that many people of the Muslim faith have not been peace loving, model citizens, making significant contributions to society.  They have been.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al-Ghazali, a Sufi orthodox Muslim, and follower of the Shafii school of Islamic jurisprudence, wrote this about jihad war and the treatment of the vanquished non-Muslim dhimmi peoples, in the Wadjiz: [4]
> 
> [O]ne must go on jihad (i.e., warlike razzias or raids) at least once a yearone may use a catapult against them [non-Muslims] when they are in a fortress, even if among them are women and children. One may set fire to them and/or drown themIf a person of the Ahl al-Kitab [People of The Book  primarily Jews and Christians] is enslaved, his marriage is [automatically] revokedOne may cut down their treesOne must destroy their useless books. Jihadists may take as booty whatever they decidethey may steal as much food as they need
> 
> 
> [T]he dhimmi is obliged not to mention Allah or His ApostleJews, Christians, and Majians must pay the jizya [poll tax on non-Muslims]on offering up the jizya, the dhimmi must hang his head while the official takes hold of his beard and hits [thedhimmi] on the protruberant bone beneath his ear [i.e., the mandible]
> 
> They are not permitted to ostentatiously display their wine or church bellstheir houses may not be higher than the Muslims, no matter how low that is. The dhimmi may not ride an elegant horse or mule; he may ride a donkey only if the saddle [-work] is of wood. He may not walk on the good part of the road. They [the dhimmis] have to wear [an identifying] patch [on their clothing], even women, and even in the [public] baths[dhimmis] must hold their tongue.
Click to expand...


Fitnah,

Thanks for another expose of how the fucking Muslims treat people belonging to a religion other than their own.

I say these arseholes should be given the same treatment of them as they do of us.......beginning with no mosques in America since churches, synagogues or temples are not allowed in the shithole Saudi Arabia.

And, oh yes........we dhimmis should levy additional taxes on these Muslim arseholes, not let these shitheads drive cars of a later model than our benighted ghetto folk, etc.

And, as to where the dhimmis  have to hang their head, while they are grabbed by the beard and smacked around.....I say, we don't stoop down to their level, we should just bitch/slap 'em, and kick them in the arse......that's the American way.

By the way, Fitnah......didja know that Fitnah basically means "disbeliever, or, one who worships other than Allah ?


----------



## Sunni Man

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Al-Ghazali, a Sufi orthodox Muslim, and follower of the Shafii school of Islamic jurisprudence, wrote this about jihad war and the treatment of the vanquished non-Muslim dhimmi peoples, in the Wadjiz: [4]
> [O]ne must go on jihad (i.e., warlike razzias or raids) at least once a yearone may use a catapult against them [non-Muslims] when they are in a fortress, even if among them are women and children. One may set fire to them and/or drown themIf a person of the Ahl al-Kitab [People of The Book  primarily Jews and Christians] is enslaved, his marriage is [automatically] revokedOne may cut down their treesOne must destroy their useless books. Jihadists may take as booty whatever they decidethey may steal as much food as they need
> [T]he dhimmi is obliged not to mention Allah or His ApostleJews, Christians, and Majians must pay the jizya [poll tax on non-Muslims]on offering up the jizya, the dhimmi must hang his head while the official takes hold of his beard and hits [thedhimmi] on the protruberant bone beneath his ear [i.e., the mandible]
> They are not permitted to ostentatiously display their wine or church bellstheir houses may not be higher than the Muslims, no matter how low that is. The dhimmi may not ride an elegant horse or mule; he may ride a donkey only if the saddle [-work] is of wood. He may not walk on the good part of the road. They [the dhimmis] have to wear [an identifying] patch [on their clothing], even women, and even in the [public] baths[dhimmis] must hold their tongue.


Mr. Fitnuts why didn't you inform the readers here that the muslim man you are quoting, Al-Ghazali, lived almost a thousand years ago?

It was a different time and different culture in which he lived.

Heck, I can google up Jewish and Christian scholars from the same time period who basically wrote equally harsh things about each other.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

Sunni Man said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Al-Ghazali, a Sufi orthodox Muslim, and follower of the Shafii school of Islamic jurisprudence, wrote this about jihad war and the treatment of the vanquished non-Muslim dhimmi peoples, in the Wadjiz: [4]
> [O]ne must go on jihad (i.e., warlike razzias or raids) at least once a yearone may use a catapult against them [non-Muslims] when they are in a fortress, even if among them are women and children. One may set fire to them and/or drown themIf a person of the Ahl al-Kitab [People of The Book  primarily Jews and Christians] is enslaved, his marriage is [automatically] revokedOne may cut down their treesOne must destroy their useless books. Jihadists may take as booty whatever they decidethey may steal as much food as they need
> [T]he dhimmi is obliged not to mention Allah or His ApostleJews, Christians, and Majians must pay the jizya [poll tax on non-Muslims]on offering up the jizya, the dhimmi must hang his head while the official takes hold of his beard and hits [thedhimmi] on the protruberant bone beneath his ear [i.e., the mandible]
> They are not permitted to ostentatiously display their wine or church bellstheir houses may not be higher than the Muslims, no matter how low that is. The dhimmi may not ride an elegant horse or mule; he may ride a donkey only if the saddle [-work] is of wood. He may not walk on the good part of the road. They [the dhimmis] have to wear [an identifying] patch [on their clothing], even women, and even in the [public] baths[dhimmis] must hold their tongue.
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Fitnuts why didn't you inform the readers here that the muslim man you are quoting, Al-Ghazali, lived almost a thousand years ago?
> 
> It was a different time and different culture in which he lived.
> 
> Heck, I can google up Jewish and Christian scholars from the same time period who basically wrote equally harsh things about each other.
Click to expand...


Al-Ghazali, a Sufi orthodox Muslim died 900 years ago. His works still shape sufi thought to this day.


----------



## gautama

Sunni Man said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Al-Ghazali, a Sufi orthodox Muslim, and follower of the Shafii school of Islamic jurisprudence, wrote this about jihad war and the treatment of the vanquished non-Muslim dhimmi peoples, in the Wadjiz: [4]
> [O]ne must go on jihad (i.e., warlike razzias or raids) at least once a yearone may use a catapult against them [non-Muslims] when they are in a fortress, even if among them are women and children. One may set fire to them and/or drown themIf a person of the Ahl al-Kitab [People of The Book  primarily Jews and Christians] is enslaved, his marriage is [automatically] revokedOne may cut down their treesOne must destroy their useless books. Jihadists may take as booty whatever they decidethey may steal as much food as they need
> [T]he dhimmi is obliged not to mention Allah or His ApostleJews, Christians, and Majians must pay the jizya [poll tax on non-Muslims]on offering up the jizya, the dhimmi must hang his head while the official takes hold of his beard and hits [thedhimmi] on the protruberant bone beneath his ear [i.e., the mandible]
> They are not permitted to ostentatiously display their wine or church bellstheir houses may not be higher than the Muslims, no matter how low that is. The dhimmi may not ride an elegant horse or mule; he may ride a donkey only if the saddle [-work] is of wood. He may not walk on the good part of the road. They [the dhimmis] have to wear [an identifying] patch [on their clothing], even women, and even in the [public] baths[dhimmis] must hold their tongue.
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Fitnuts why didn't you inform the readers here that the muslim man you are quoting, Al-Ghazali, lived almost a thousand years ago?
> 
> It was a different time and different culture in which he lived.
> 
> Heck, I can google up Jewish and Christian scholars from the same time period who basically wrote equally harsh things about each other.
Click to expand...


Phoni-Baloni-Sunni,

The difference is that *IN THIS TIME PERIOD* you fucking Muslims are still exhibiting your *UNBRIDLED HATRED* promulgated by that Psycho "Prophet" of yours on the WHOLE WORLD from the NUMERO UNO Agenda of Obliterating the Nation of Israel, 9/11 and yapping about America being the GREAT SATAN, causing all sorts of Religious/Poltical Problems throughout the world with suicidal bombings.......and STILL in this seemingly Enlightened Age where *ALL* the Religions *WITHOUT EXCEPTION are benevolent*.......YOURS, you fucking Muslim.....*IS NOT !!!*

To this day, you Muslim fuckers do not allow a church, synagogue, or a temple built in Mecca or Medina.....or, for that matter in Saudi Arabia, and probably some other Muslim countries......or abuse the "dhimmis".....

*YET, you fucking Muslim Arseholes yowl, howl, and whine about how the Western Civilization is mistreating you !!!!*

*THE GALL OF YOU MUSLIM FUCKERS IS BEYOND DESCRIPTION !!!*


----------



## Sunni Man

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Al-Ghazali, a Sufi orthodox Muslim died 900 years ago. His works still shape sufi thought to this day.


Sufism represents a very small percentage of muslims in the world.

Plus, there are dozens of sects and branches within Sufism.

Both Sunni and Shia muslims for the most part.

View Sufi's as goofy at best; and mainly as misguided heretics.


----------



## gautama

Sunni Man said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Al-Ghazali, a Sufi orthodox Muslim died 900 years ago. His works still shape sufi thought to this day.
> 
> 
> 
> Sufism represents a very small percentage of muslims in the world.
> 
> Plus, there are dozens of sects and branches within Sufism.
> 
> Both Sunni and Shia muslims for the most part.
> 
> View Sufi's as goofy at best; and mainly as misguided heretics.
Click to expand...


Phoni-Baloni-Sunni......you are in denial. 

Sufi, Shmoofi ..... you fucking Muslims are beyond "delusional".

You may be functional.....but you are "religiously INSANE" !!!!


----------



## Ropey

Sunni Man said:


> Mr. Fitnuts



Somehow Sunni Man thinks that by calling you names he will create and environment conducive to discussion.

That's the same logic that has him removing the worlds Jewry and Homosexuals from the world of people.

Sunni_Man logic.


----------



## 007

Sunni Man said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think Muslim's assault on Western Civilization is planned and is being at least in part orchestrated by those who intend the destruction of Western Civilization.
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre you claim to have muslims that are personal friends.
> *
> How many of them are part of a "planned assault" on Western Civilization?*
Click to expand...


How many does it take? 

We've learned not many... to kill thousands of innocent people in barbarous, cowardly acts of cold blooded murder.

Why don't you be a good muslim and publicly condemn all muslims that kill, murder and maim in the name of islamic jihad?


----------



## 007

Ropey said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Fitnuts
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Somehow Sunni Man thinks that by calling you names he will create and environment conducive to discussion.
> 
> That's the same logic that has him removing the worlds Jewry and Homosexuals from the world of people.
> 
> *Sunni_Man logic*.
Click to expand...


*MUSLIM*  logic.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

Sunni Man said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Al-Ghazali, a Sufi orthodox Muslim died 900 years ago. His works still shape sufi thought to this day.
> 
> 
> 
> Sufism represents a very small percentage of muslims in the world.
> 
> Plus, there are dozens of sects and branches within Sufism.
> 
> Both Sunni and Shia muslims for the most part.
> 
> View Sufi's as goofy at best; and mainly as misguided heretics.
Click to expand...

The OP brought up sufism as a peaceful Islamic sect I clarified the picture  based on orthodox sufi thought.


----------



## Ropey

Pale Rider said:


> Why don't you be a good muslim and publicly condemn all muslims that kill, murder and maim in the name of islamic jihad?



Sunni Man is a self proclaimed moderate Muslim. The extremists are the ones that do those things.

The moderates seem to be the ones that minimize what the extremist does and uses moderate terms to soften the effect.

That's the only difference I see. When pushed to respond with what they think, it's the same thing that the extremists do.

He wants all Jews gone. So do they. He wants the worlds Jews moved to a patrolled (for their protection and so they do not 'get away'. (His words and links available) island. 

They want them gone too. 

So, I put forward that the difference between a Moderate and Convert to  Islam and an extremist Islamist seems very minor.


----------



## Foxfyre

Sunni Man said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Al-Ghazali, a Sufi orthodox Muslim, and follower of the Shafi&#8217;i school of Islamic jurisprudence, wrote this about jihad war and the treatment of the vanquished non-Muslim dhimmi peoples, in the Wadjiz: [4]
> [O]ne must go on jihad (i.e., warlike razzias or raids) at least once a year&#8230;one may use a catapult against them [non-Muslims] when they are in a fortress, even if among them are women and children. One may set fire to them and/or drown them&#8230;If a person of the Ahl al-Kitab [People of The Book &#8211; primarily Jews and Christians] is enslaved, his marriage is [automatically] revoked&#8230;One may cut down their trees&#8230;One must destroy their useless books. Jihadists may take as booty whatever they decide&#8230;they may steal as much food as they need&#8230;
> [T]he dhimmi is obliged not to mention Allah or His Apostle&#8230;Jews, Christians, and Majians must pay the jizya [poll tax on non-Muslims]&#8230;on offering up the jizya, the dhimmi must hang his head while the official takes hold of his beard and hits [thedhimmi] on the protruberant bone beneath his ear [i.e., the mandible]&#8230;
> They are not permitted to ostentatiously display their wine or church bells&#8230;their houses may not be higher than the Muslim&#8217;s, no matter how low that is. The dhimmi may not ride an elegant horse or mule; he may ride a donkey only if the saddle [-work] is of wood. He may not walk on the good part of the road. They [the dhimmis] have to wear [an identifying] patch [on their clothing], even women, and even in the [public] baths&#8230;[dhimmis] must hold their tongue&#8230;.
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Fitnuts why didn't you inform the readers here that the muslim man you are quoting, Al-Ghazali, lived almost a thousand years ago?
> 
> It was a different time and different culture in which he lived.
> 
> Heck, I can google up Jewish and Christian scholars from the same time period who basically wrote equally harsh things about each other.
Click to expand...


Well if the Qu'ran is read literally--i.e.all reading with the same interpretation--as you say, and it is perfectly obvious to all who read it, then would it not be the same Qu-ran written 1400 years ago?  And are there not passages in the same Qu-ran that support what that fellow 1000 years ago wrote?  If I can take the Qu'ran literally as you say, then is there not plenty of license there authorizing you to kill and/or take from me, an unbelieving infidel?  Will you not be rewarded by Allah if you do?


----------



## High_Gravity

You guys can get mad at me but I really don't think anyone should take the Bible or the Quran literally and look to it everyday for instruction.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

Foxfyre said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Al-Ghazali, a Sufi orthodox Muslim, and follower of the Shafii school of Islamic jurisprudence, wrote this about jihad war and the treatment of the vanquished non-Muslim dhimmi peoples, in the Wadjiz: [4]
> [O]ne must go on jihad (i.e., warlike razzias or raids) at least once a yearone may use a catapult against them [non-Muslims] when they are in a fortress, even if among them are women and children. One may set fire to them and/or drown themIf a person of the Ahl al-Kitab [People of The Book  primarily Jews and Christians] is enslaved, his marriage is [automatically] revokedOne may cut down their treesOne must destroy their useless books. Jihadists may take as booty whatever they decidethey may steal as much food as they need
> [T]he dhimmi is obliged not to mention Allah or His ApostleJews, Christians, and Majians must pay the jizya [poll tax on non-Muslims]on offering up the jizya, the dhimmi must hang his head while the official takes hold of his beard and hits [thedhimmi] on the protruberant bone beneath his ear [i.e., the mandible]
> They are not permitted to ostentatiously display their wine or church bellstheir houses may not be higher than the Muslims, no matter how low that is. The dhimmi may not ride an elegant horse or mule; he may ride a donkey only if the saddle [-work] is of wood. He may not walk on the good part of the road. They [the dhimmis] have to wear [an identifying] patch [on their clothing], even women, and even in the [public] baths[dhimmis] must hold their tongue.
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Fitnuts why didn't you inform the readers here that the muslim man you are quoting, Al-Ghazali, lived almost a thousand years ago?
> 
> It was a different time and different culture in which he lived.
> 
> Heck, I can google up Jewish and Christian scholars from the same time period who basically wrote equally harsh things about each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well if the Qu'ran is read literally--i.e.all reading with the same interpretation--as you say, and it is perfectly obvious to all who read it, then would it not be the same Qu-ran written 1400 years ago?  And are there not passages in the same Qu-ran that support what that fellow 1000 years ago wrote?  If I can take the Qu'ran literally as you say, then is there not plenty of license there authorizing you to kill and/or take from me, an unbelieving infidel?  Will you not be rewarded by Allah if you do?
Click to expand...


I always think it best to know the answer before asking the question interesting enough we revisit  Al Ghazali who was just mentioned.

Al-Ghazali doors ijtihad - Google Search


----------



## Ropey

High_Gravity said:


> You guys can get mad at me but I really don't think anyone should take the Bible or the Quran literally and look to it everyday for instruction.



I believe that deep down inside every one of us is the understanding of right and wrong. 

This is where our everyday instruction regarding our involvement with others is birthed. Culture and religions notwithstanding, it is our personal choice on how to treat other people. 

That's what we will be judged on. Our choices. I have fought for Israel. I have killed for Israel.

NO human being knows whether it was right or wrong for me personally. I do know this, it feels wrong to kill. 

I can put it no other way. Even if necessary, it feels wrong. I have tasted the odour of death. It is a sickening thing, whether Jew or Arab.

So, calling for the end of a people is a choice. A personal choice. Now others can put that personal choice as an attachment to other things, but the end result is that the personal choice remains.

And I will (I believe) be judged.  There are those who enjoy killing. I have met some of them. Jews and Arabs. 

They are separated (by choice) from their connection to G-d. It is not a thing to enjoy and those who call for the expulsion of a people are lost to humanity.

Why would I get mad at you for your view? It is arguable and understandable. Death in great numbers has been laid at the feet of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. 

Your stand is too arguable for me to disagree with as a personal choice.


----------



## Foxfyre

High_Gravity said:


> You guys can get mad at me but I really don't think anyone should take the Bible or the Quran literally and look to it everyday for instruction.



Not being Muslim I won't presume to speak for the Qu-ran as to its literal intent; however Sunniman has explicitly said that Muslims read it literally with the presumption that it has the same meaning for all.

I know of no Jewish or Christian scholars who would make that claim for all the manuscripts Christians now refer to as the Old and New Testaments--and for some the Apocrypha--that make up the Bible used by Christians.

Within those manuscripts are metaphor, allegory, parable, artistic imagery, poetry, creative explanations for this or that, history, teachings/instruction, law and prophecy.  Each can be taken literally for what it was then or as the perception of those who wrote down the words.  It is a look into the hearts, minds, thinking, culture, and experience of ancient peoples and there are few passages of the Bible that do not contain myriad concepts and imagery.

The ancient Jews who selected the Old Testament manuscripts to include; and the ancient Christians who selected the New Testament manuscripts to include did a brilliant job.  The process of editing it all together was possibly not as brilliant and sometimes contributes to confusion, but careful scholarship sorts most of that out.

I think the main thing to know about the Bible is that it was written through the prism of experience, language, and culture of the people who wrote down the words.  They weren't thinking about how different the experience, language, and culture of the people would be in the 21st century.  So to understand the Bible, you have to read it through the eyes of those who wrote it.  Try to interpret it only with 20th and 21st century experience and language, and I think most people will probably get a lot of it wrong.


----------



## High_Gravity

Ropey said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> You guys can get mad at me but I really don't think anyone should take the Bible or the Quran literally and look to it everyday for instruction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that deep down inside every one of us is the understanding of right and wrong.
> 
> This is where our everyday instruction regarding our involvement with others is birthed. Culture and religions notwithstanding, it is our personal choice on how to treat other people.
> 
> That's what we will be judged on. Our choices. I have fought for Israel. I have killed for Israel.
> 
> NO human being knows whether it was right or wrong for me personally. I do know this, it feels wrong to kill.
> 
> I can put it no other way. Even if necessary, it feels wrong. I have tasted the odour of death. It is a sickening thing, whether Jew or Arab.
> 
> So, calling for the end of a people is a choice. A personal choice. Now others can put that personal choice as an attachment to other things, but the end result is that the personal choice remains.
> 
> And I will (I believe) be judged.  There are those who enjoy killing. I have met some of them. Jews and Arabs.
> 
> They are separated (by choice) from their connection to G-d. It is not a thing to enjoy and those who call for the expulsion of a people are lost to humanity.
> 
> Why would I get mad at you for your view? It is arguable and understandable. Death in great numbers has been laid at the feet of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
> 
> Your stand is too arguable for me to disagree with as a personal choice.
Click to expand...


Thats the thing, I believe it should be a personal choice of how people interpret their beliefs however I don't think you can take the Bible too literally or the Quran. In the Bible I read somewhere where it says people who commit adultry should be stoned to death, which is ridiculous. If people were to follow the Bible like that we would end up with a country no different from Pakistan or Yemen.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

Model Behavior of the Prophet (Kitab Al-Sunnah)  
Dawud :: Book 40 : Hadith 4590 
Narrated Irbad ibn Sariyah: 

AbdurRahman ibn Amr as-Sulami and Hujr ibn Hujr said: We came to Irbad ibn Sariyah who was among those about whom the following verse was revealed: "Nor (is there blame) on those who come to thee to be provided with mounts, and when thou saidst: "I can find no mounts for you." 

We greeted him and said: We have come to see you to give healing and obtain benefit from you. 

Al-Irbad said: One day the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) led us in prayer, then faced us and gave us a lengthy exhortation at which the eyes shed tears and the hearts were afraid. 

A man said: Apostle of Allah! It seems as if it were a farewell exhortation, so what injunction do you give us? 

He then said: I enjoin you to fear Allah, and to hear and obey even if it be an Abyssinian slave, for those of you who live after me will see great disagreement. You must then follow my sunnah and that of the rightly-guided caliphs. Hold to it and stick fast to it. Avoid novelties, for every novelty is an innovation, and every innovation is an error.


----------



## Foxfyre

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Fitnuts why didn't you inform the readers here that the muslim man you are quoting, Al-Ghazali, lived almost a thousand years ago?
> 
> It was a different time and different culture in which he lived.
> 
> Heck, I can google up Jewish and Christian scholars from the same time period who basically wrote equally harsh things about each other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well if the Qu'ran is read literally--i.e.all reading with the same interpretation--as you say, and it is perfectly obvious to all who read it, then would it not be the same Qu-ran written 1400 years ago?  And are there not passages in the same Qu-ran that support what that fellow 1000 years ago wrote?  If I can take the Qu'ran literally as you say, then is there not plenty of license there authorizing you to kill and/or take from me, an unbelieving infidel?  Will you not be rewarded by Allah if you do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I always think it best to know the answer before asking the question interesting enough we revisit  Al Ghazali who was just mentioned.
> 
> Al-Ghazali doors ijtihad - Google Search
Click to expand...


Fascinating information in that link Mr. Fitnah, and if it is verifiable--it looks pretty well put together at first blush--it definitely added to my education re Islam.


----------



## High_Gravity

Foxfyre said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> You guys can get mad at me but I really don't think anyone should take the Bible or the Quran literally and look to it everyday for instruction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not being Muslim I won't presume to speak for the Qu-ran as to its literal intent; however Sunniman has explicitly said that Muslims read it literally with the presumption that it has the same meaning for all.
> 
> I know of no Jewish or Christian scholars who would make that claim for all the manuscripts Christians now refer to as the Old and New Testaments--and for some the Apocrypha--that make up the Bible used by Christians.
> 
> Within those manuscripts are metaphor, allegory, parable, artistic imagery, poetry, creative explanations for this or that, history, teachings/instruction, law and prophecy.  Each can be taken literally for what it was then or as the perception of those who wrote down the words.  It is a look into the hearts, minds, thinking, culture, and experience of ancient peoples and there are few passages of the Bible that do not contain myriad concepts and imagery.
> 
> The ancient Jews who selected the Old Testament manuscripts to include; and the ancient Christians who selected the New Testament manuscripts to include did a brilliant job.  The process of editing it all together was possibly not as brilliant and sometimes contributes to confusion, but careful scholarship sorts most of that out.
> 
> I think the main thing to know about the Bible is that it was written through the prism of experience, language, and culture of the people who wrote down the words.  They weren't thinking about how different the experience, language, and culture of the people would be in the 21st century.  So to understand the Bible, you have to read it through the eyes of those who wrote it.  Try to interpret it only with 20th and 21st century experience and language, and I think most people will probably get a lot of it wrong.
Click to expand...


I agree 100%, the Bible and Quran were written long ago and the way people interpret now will be different than the people who were actually around the time it was written. Its just when I see people in Pakistan getting slaughtered for blasphemy and a man who converted to Christianity in Afghanistan face the death penalty, it really shows me how bad things can get when people look to their Holy Book to deal with every situation.


----------



## Foxfyre

High_Gravity said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> You guys can get mad at me but I really don't think anyone should take the Bible or the Quran literally and look to it everyday for instruction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not being Muslim I won't presume to speak for the Qu-ran as to its literal intent; however Sunniman has explicitly said that Muslims read it literally with the presumption that it has the same meaning for all.
> 
> I know of no Jewish or Christian scholars who would make that claim for all the manuscripts Christians now refer to as the Old and New Testaments--and for some the Apocrypha--that make up the Bible used by Christians.
> 
> Within those manuscripts are metaphor, allegory, parable, artistic imagery, poetry, creative explanations for this or that, history, teachings/instruction, law and prophecy.  Each can be taken literally for what it was then or as the perception of those who wrote down the words.  It is a look into the hearts, minds, thinking, culture, and experience of ancient peoples and there are few passages of the Bible that do not contain myriad concepts and imagery.
> 
> The ancient Jews who selected the Old Testament manuscripts to include; and the ancient Christians who selected the New Testament manuscripts to include did a brilliant job.  The process of editing it all together was possibly not as brilliant and sometimes contributes to confusion, but careful scholarship sorts most of that out.
> 
> I think the main thing to know about the Bible is that it was written through the prism of experience, language, and culture of the people who wrote down the words.  They weren't thinking about how different the experience, language, and culture of the people would be in the 21st century.  So to understand the Bible, you have to read it through the eyes of those who wrote it.  Try to interpret it only with 20th and 21st century experience and language, and I think most people will probably get a lot of it wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree 100%, the Bible and Quran were written long ago and the way people interpret now will be different than the people who were actually around the time it was written. Its just when I see people in Pakistan getting slaughtered for blasphemy and a man who converted to Christianity in Afghanistan face the death penalty, it really shows me how bad things can get when people look to their Holy Book to deal with every situation.
Click to expand...


I can only say Amen to that.  I suppose even those idiots at Westboro Baptist Church think they are honoring God with their hateful and indefensible activities while most Christians denounce and condemn the same activities and see them as not at all Godly and not at all Christian.  Yet I'm sure the Westboro Baptists could find a passage or two somewhere in the Bible that would seem to support what they are doing.  They would have to ignore a wagon load of other scripture that would not support it however.

It all has to be taken within its full context, including the evolvement of understanding in the people of God over the centuries, and, as I said, be read through their eyes, in order for us to discern its usefulness for us here and now.  I personally think prophecy and leading of the Spirit is still happening, and were we to write down our perceptions of our experience with that it would look VERY mystical and religious.  But then who knows?  Maybe Scripture is still being written and four or five thousand years from now some visitors to Earth will happen upon those manuscripts and add them to the Book?????

Okay I'm really getting off in left field here.  But the bottom line for anybody these days is what do we really believe about God?  About Christ?   About Allah?   Or any other matters of faith?   I think Jews and Christians will fully articulate their modern perceptions and beliefs.   I am finding that most Muslims will not.


----------



## Sunni Man

It's very simple.

Christians and Jews don't follow what the Torah/Bible says about many issues.

Adhering to the verses they like; and ignoring those they personally disagree with.


Whereas, Muslims believe that every verse of the Quran is God's word and must be followed without exception.


----------



## Foxfyre

Sunni Man said:


> It's very simple.
> 
> Christians and Jews don't follow what the Torah/Bible says about many issues.
> 
> Adhering to the verses they like; and ignoring those they personally disagree with.
> 
> 
> Whereas, Muslims believe that every verse of the Quran is God's word and must be followed without exception.



Which brings me back to the question you ducked.  If you take every verse of the Qu'ran as God's word to be followed without exception, then you would be justified and even rewarded for killing Ropey, High Gravity, me, et al as infidels who do not subscribe to the teachings and edicts of Islam?

Or if we did not resist, you would be following the teachings of Islam by requiring us to respect and obey Allah?

That after all is the basic summation of the thesis of this thread.  That Islam, given opportunity to do so, is required to destroy Western civilization and put it under the authority of Allah.


----------



## Sunni Man

Foxfyre said:


> Which brings me back to the question you ducked.  If you take every verse of the Qu'ran as God's word to be followed without exception, then you would be justified and even rewarded for killing Ropey, High Gravity, me, et al as infidels who do not subscribe to the teachings and edicts of Islam?



I didn't duck any question that I am aware of.   


Pure nonsense.

We are not at war.

There is No scripture in the Quran that would reward me for killing any of you.

Where do you come up with this stuff??


----------



## High_Gravity

Foxfyre said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not being Muslim I won't presume to speak for the Qu-ran as to its literal intent; however Sunniman has explicitly said that Muslims read it literally with the presumption that it has the same meaning for all.
> 
> I know of no Jewish or Christian scholars who would make that claim for all the manuscripts Christians now refer to as the Old and New Testaments--and for some the Apocrypha--that make up the Bible used by Christians.
> 
> Within those manuscripts are metaphor, allegory, parable, artistic imagery, poetry, creative explanations for this or that, history, teachings/instruction, law and prophecy.  Each can be taken literally for what it was then or as the perception of those who wrote down the words.  It is a look into the hearts, minds, thinking, culture, and experience of ancient peoples and there are few passages of the Bible that do not contain myriad concepts and imagery.
> 
> The ancient Jews who selected the Old Testament manuscripts to include; and the ancient Christians who selected the New Testament manuscripts to include did a brilliant job.  The process of editing it all together was possibly not as brilliant and sometimes contributes to confusion, but careful scholarship sorts most of that out.
> 
> I think the main thing to know about the Bible is that it was written through the prism of experience, language, and culture of the people who wrote down the words.  They weren't thinking about how different the experience, language, and culture of the people would be in the 21st century.  So to understand the Bible, you have to read it through the eyes of those who wrote it.  Try to interpret it only with 20th and 21st century experience and language, and I think most people will probably get a lot of it wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree 100%, the Bible and Quran were written long ago and the way people interpret now will be different than the people who were actually around the time it was written. Its just when I see people in Pakistan getting slaughtered for blasphemy and a man who converted to Christianity in Afghanistan face the death penalty, it really shows me how bad things can get when people look to their Holy Book to deal with every situation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can only say Amen to that.  I suppose even those idiots at Westboro Baptist Church think they are honoring God with their hateful and indefensible activities while most Christians denounce and condemn the same activities and see them as not at all Godly and not at all Christian.  Yet I'm sure the Westboro Baptists could find a passage or two somewhere in the Bible that would seem to support what they are doing.  They would have to ignore a wagon load of other scripture that would not support it however.
> 
> It all has to be taken within its full context, including the evolvement of understanding in the people of God over the centuries, and, as I said, be read through their eyes, in order for us to discern its usefulness for us here and now.  I personally think prophecy and leading of the Spirit is still happening, and were we to write down our perceptions of our experience with that it would look VERY mystical and religious.  But then who knows?  Maybe Scripture is still being written and four or five thousand years from now some visitors to Earth will happen upon those manuscripts and add them to the Book?????
> 
> Okay I'm really getting off in left field here.  But the bottom line for anybody these days is what do we really believe about God?  About Christ?   About Allah?   Or any other matters of faith?   I think Jews and Christians will fully articulate their modern perceptions and beliefs.   I am finding that most Muslims will not.
Click to expand...


The Westboro Baptist Church is sick, how can any sane person tell me God is proud of them for protesting at the funerals of dead soldiers? Maybe I'm wrong but I think going to the Bible or to the Quran for everything in your daily life is too restrictive. I am not a perfect person I have sinned, I drink, I had sex with a married woman when I was single, and when I was married I also had an affair with another woman. Many Christians criticized me for my choices, am I going to hell for this? its gods choice, not theirs!


----------



## High_Gravity

Sunni Man said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which brings me back to the question you ducked.  If you take every verse of the Qu'ran as God's word to be followed without exception, then you would be justified and even rewarded for killing Ropey, High Gravity, me, et al as infidels who do not subscribe to the teachings and edicts of Islam?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't duck any question that I am aware of.
> 
> 
> Pure nonsense.
> 
> We are not at war.
> 
> *There is No scripture in the Quran that would reward me for killing any of you.*
> Where do you come up with this stuff??
Click to expand...


I hope not Sunni, I thought we got along ok here.


----------



## Sunni Man

Foxfyre said:


> That after all is the basic summation of the thesis of this thread.  That Islam, given opportunity to do so, is required to destroy Western civilization and put it under the authority of Allah.


Even if the population of America became Islamic.

Exactly how would that "destroy" Western civilization??


----------



## Foxfyre

Sunni Man said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which brings me back to the question you ducked.  If you take every verse of the Qu'ran as God's word to be followed without exception, then you would be justified and even rewarded for killing Ropey, High Gravity, me, et al as infidels who do not subscribe to the teachings and edicts of Islam?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't duck any question that I am aware of.
> 
> 
> Pure nonsense.
> 
> We are not at war.
> 
> There is No scripture in the Quran that would reward me for killing any of you.
> 
> Where do you come up with this stuff??
Click to expand...


From you just yesterday when you supported those who bomb, kill, behead, or punish somebody because he 'insulted' Mohammed or Allah.  I believe you referred to us Christians as 'wimps' because we did not do the same.

And you ignored the second part of the question which was:  "Or if we did not resist, you would be following the teachings of Islam by requiring us to respect and obey Allah?"

and

"That after all is the basic summation of the thesis of this thread. That Islam, given opportunity to do so, is required to destroy Western civilization and put it under the authority of Allah."

Please cite the specific passage of the Qu'ran, included among all the Qu'ran,  that would make that last statement in error.


----------



## High_Gravity

Foxfyre said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which brings me back to the question you ducked.  If you take every verse of the Qu'ran as God's word to be followed without exception, then you would be justified and even rewarded for killing Ropey, High Gravity, me, et al as infidels who do not subscribe to the teachings and edicts of Islam?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't duck any question that I am aware of.
> 
> 
> Pure nonsense.
> 
> We are not at war.
> 
> There is No scripture in the Quran that would reward me for killing any of you.
> 
> Where do you come up with this stuff??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From you just yesterday when you supported those who bomb, kill, behead, or punish somebody because he 'insulted' Mohammed or Allah.  I believe you referred to us Christians as 'wimps' because we did not do the same.
> 
> And you ignored the second part of the question which was:  "Or if we did not resist, you would be following the teachings of Islam by requiring us to respect and obey Allah?"
> 
> and
> 
> "That after all is the basic summation of the thesis of this thread. That Islam, given opportunity to do so, is required to destroy Western civilization and put it under the authority of Allah."
> 
> Please cite the specific passage of the Qu'ran, included among all the Qu'ran,  that would make that last statement in error.
Click to expand...


I guess this is where we are different, I won't kill someone who insults Christians or Jesus.


----------



## Foxfyre

High_Gravity said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't duck any question that I am aware of.
> 
> 
> Pure nonsense.
> 
> We are not at war.
> 
> There is No scripture in the Quran that would reward me for killing any of you.
> 
> Where do you come up with this stuff??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From you just yesterday when you supported those who bomb, kill, behead, or punish somebody because he 'insulted' Mohammed or Allah.  I believe you referred to us Christians as 'wimps' because we did not do the same.
> 
> And you ignored the second part of the question which was:  "Or if we did not resist, you would be following the teachings of Islam by requiring us to respect and obey Allah?"
> 
> and
> 
> "That after all is the basic summation of the thesis of this thread. That Islam, given opportunity to do so, is required to destroy Western civilization and put it under the authority of Allah."
> 
> Please cite the specific passage of the Qu'ran, included among all the Qu'ran,  that would make that last statement in error.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess this is where we are different, I won't kill someone who insults Christians or Jesus.
Click to expand...


And I believe you would not have any problem with Muslims displaying their crescent moon and star, displaying an Islamic name on a highly visible mosque, or distributing pamphlets or otherwise inviting folks to come to the mosque.   The Jewish synagogue would be a welcome addition to almost any community.  A Buddhist temple would be a-okay.  Live and let live.  That is the common Christian way almost everywhere. Also the usual Jewish way or Buddhist way. 

But in almost all Islamic countries you would not be able to display a Christian cross, put a Christian name on a church, or use ANY means to invite non-Christian folks to come to church.  The Star of David would likely be even more forbidden.

And it is difficult to think the same would not be the case if Muslims gained a significant majority in the UK or France or Belgium or the USA.

I'm still waiting for Sunniman or any of our Muslim friends to dispute that.

I feel no animosity for Sunniman nor any other Muslims, but nobody has given me ANY reason yet to think that Islam is not a threat to Western Civilization as we know it.


----------



## Sunni Man

Foxfyre said:


> And you ignored the second part of the question which was:  "Or if we did not resist, you would be following the teachings of Islam by requiring us to respect and obey Allah?"


Both Christians and Jews are called "People of the Book" (Bible) in the Quran.

We are to respect them as such; and expect them to do the same.

Verse 2:256 in the Quran says that no one is to be forced to change their religion.

So no, Christians and Jews are not expected to obey Allah.  

Qur'an 2:256"There is no compulsion in religion";


----------



## Foxfyre

Sunni Man said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you ignored the second part of the question which was:  "Or if we did not resist, you would be following the teachings of Islam by requiring us to respect and obey Allah?"
> 
> 
> 
> Both Christians and Jews are called "People of the Book" (Bible) in the Quran.
> 
> We are to respect them as such; and expect them to do the same.
> 
> Verse 2:256 in the Quran says that no one is to be forced to change their religion.
> 
> So no, Christians and Jews are not expected to obey Allah.
> 
> Qur'an 2:256"There is no compulsion in religion";
Click to expand...


So you are saying that in most predominantly Islamic countries I can open a church, put a cross and sign on it, and invite all the neighbors to come?


----------



## High_Gravity

Foxfyre said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> From you just yesterday when you supported those who bomb, kill, behead, or punish somebody because he 'insulted' Mohammed or Allah.  I believe you referred to us Christians as 'wimps' because we did not do the same.
> 
> And you ignored the second part of the question which was:  "Or if we did not resist, you would be following the teachings of Islam by requiring us to respect and obey Allah?"
> 
> and
> 
> "That after all is the basic summation of the thesis of this thread. That Islam, given opportunity to do so, is required to destroy Western civilization and put it under the authority of Allah."
> 
> Please cite the specific passage of the Qu'ran, included among all the Qu'ran,  that would make that last statement in error.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess this is where we are different, I won't kill someone who insults Christians or Jesus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I believe you would not have any problem with Muslims displaying their crescent moon and star, displaying an Islamic name on a highly visible mosque, or distributing pamphlets or otherwise inviting folks to come to the mosque.   The Jewish synagogue would be a welcome addition to almost any community.  A Buddhist temple would be a-okay.  Live and let live.  That is the common Christian way almost everywhere. Also the usual Jewish way or Buddhist way.
> 
> But in almost all Islamic countries you would not be able to display a Christian cross, put a Christian name on a church, or use ANY means to invite non-Christian folks to come to church.  The Star of David would likely be even more forbidden.
> 
> And it is difficult to think the same would not be the case if Muslims gained a significant majority in the UK or France or Belgium or the USA.
> 
> I'm still waiting for Sunniman or any of our Muslim friends to dispute that.
> 
> I feel no animosity for Sunniman nor any other Muslims, but nobody has given me ANY reason yet to think that Islam is not a threat to Western Civilization as we know it.
Click to expand...


Well it depends on what Islamic country you go to, in Syria and Lebanon they actually have large Christian populations and they have Churches, Lebanon used to be 80% Christian at 1 point. But in Saudi Arabia they have no Churches and it is illegal to display anything un Islamic, anyone caught practicing their faith in the presence of Muslims is arrested. Its that kind of intolerance that irks non Muslims and they don't want it. Christians definently have targets on their back in certain Muslim countries now, particularly in Iraq, Egypt, Nigeria and Pakistan. Too bad no high ranking Muslim scholar is speaking out against it. If Muslims were being slaughtered here in the States or in England all hell would be breaking loose.


----------



## Sunni Man

Foxfyre said:


> So you are saying that in most predominantly Islamic countries I can open a church, put a cross and sign on it, and invite all the neighbors to come?



Depends on the country.

Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, and others, have both Christian and Jewish houses of worship.


----------



## High_Gravity

Sunni Man said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are saying that in most predominantly Islamic countries I can open a church, put a cross and sign on it, and invite all the neighbors to come?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Depends on the country.
> 
> Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, and others, have both Christian and Jewish houses of worship.
Click to expand...


Yes but in Egypt, Iraq and Pakistan Christians are being chased out into the streets and murdered. I wouldn't feel too safe as a Christian in those countries right now.


----------



## Foxfyre

High_Gravity said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess this is where we are different, I won't kill someone who insults Christians or Jesus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I believe you would not have any problem with Muslims displaying their crescent moon and star, displaying an Islamic name on a highly visible mosque, or distributing pamphlets or otherwise inviting folks to come to the mosque.   The Jewish synagogue would be a welcome addition to almost any community.  A Buddhist temple would be a-okay.  Live and let live.  That is the common Christian way almost everywhere. Also the usual Jewish way or Buddhist way.
> 
> But in almost all Islamic countries you would not be able to display a Christian cross, put a Christian name on a church, or use ANY means to invite non-Christian folks to come to church.  The Star of David would likely be even more forbidden.
> 
> And it is difficult to think the same would not be the case if Muslims gained a significant majority in the UK or France or Belgium or the USA.
> 
> I'm still waiting for Sunniman or any of our Muslim friends to dispute that.
> 
> I feel no animosity for Sunniman nor any other Muslims, but nobody has given me ANY reason yet to think that Islam is not a threat to Western Civilization as we know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well it depends on what Islamic country you go to, in Syria and Lebanon they actually have large Christian populations and they have Churches, Lebanon used to be 80% Christian at 1 point. But in Saudi Arabia they have no Churches and it is illegal to display anything un Islamic, anyone caught practicing their faith in the presence of Muslims is arrested. Its that kind of intolerance that irks non Muslims and they don't want it. Christians definently have targets on their back in certain Muslim countries now, particularly in Iraq, Egypt, Nigeria and Pakistan. Too bad no high ranking Muslim scholar is speaking out against it. If Muslims were being slaughtered here in the States or in England all hell would be breaking loose.
Click to expand...


Yes, I have worked directly with missionaries in Indonesia, Turkey, Iraq, and the Sudan.  In all places Christianity is left pretty much alone UNLESS it becomes openly visible or Christians are caught distributing Bibles or 'proselyting'.  Then it isn't so friendly.  And in many (most?) Islamic nations, Christians are expected to respect Islamic traditions and customs - head scarfs and such.  They are not required to affirm devotion to Allah or anything like that but they also cannot openly testify to their own faith.

Even in modern Communist China--not that China is Islamc--the Church is tolerated in small quantities.  Congregations that become too large or too visible are broken up.

It's all in recognizing God given unalienable rights and freedom to think, speak, or affirm whatever you wish so long as you don't violate the rights of others.  It is that in Western Civilization that I think is most at risk.

And if I'm wrong about that, then I'm wrong.  But nobody yet has given me any reason to believe that I am.


----------



## High_Gravity

Foxfyre said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I believe you would not have any problem with Muslims displaying their crescent moon and star, displaying an Islamic name on a highly visible mosque, or distributing pamphlets or otherwise inviting folks to come to the mosque.   The Jewish synagogue would be a welcome addition to almost any community.  A Buddhist temple would be a-okay.  Live and let live.  That is the common Christian way almost everywhere. Also the usual Jewish way or Buddhist way.
> 
> But in almost all Islamic countries you would not be able to display a Christian cross, put a Christian name on a church, or use ANY means to invite non-Christian folks to come to church.  The Star of David would likely be even more forbidden.
> 
> And it is difficult to think the same would not be the case if Muslims gained a significant majority in the UK or France or Belgium or the USA.
> 
> I'm still waiting for Sunniman or any of our Muslim friends to dispute that.
> 
> I feel no animosity for Sunniman nor any other Muslims, but nobody has given me ANY reason yet to think that Islam is not a threat to Western Civilization as we know it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well it depends on what Islamic country you go to, in Syria and Lebanon they actually have large Christian populations and they have Churches, Lebanon used to be 80% Christian at 1 point. But in Saudi Arabia they have no Churches and it is illegal to display anything un Islamic, anyone caught practicing their faith in the presence of Muslims is arrested. Its that kind of intolerance that irks non Muslims and they don't want it. Christians definently have targets on their back in certain Muslim countries now, particularly in Iraq, Egypt, Nigeria and Pakistan. Too bad no high ranking Muslim scholar is speaking out against it. If Muslims were being slaughtered here in the States or in England all hell would be breaking loose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I have worked directly with missionaries in Indonesia, Turkey, Iraq, and the Sudan.  In all places Christianity is left pretty much alone UNLESS it becomes openly visible or Christians are caught distributing Bibles or 'proselyting'.  Then it isn't so friendly.  And in many (most?) Islamic nations, Christians are expected to respect Islamic traditions and customs - head scarfs and such.  They are not required to affirm devotion to Allah or anything like that but they also cannot openly testify to their own faith.
> 
> Even in modern Communist China--not that China is Islamc--the Church is tolerated in small quantities.  Congregations that become too large or too visible are broken up.
> 
> It's all in recognizing God given unalienable rights and freedom to think, speak, or affirm whatever you wish so long as you don't violate the rights of others.  It is that in Western Civilization that I think is most at risk.
> 
> And if I'm wrong about that, then I'm wrong.  But nobody yet has given me any reason to believe that I am.
Click to expand...


Well in China the state just doesn't tolerate religion that much, even the Muslim Chinese communities get a hard time for their beliefs. The wierd thing is decades ago most Muslims countries had Muslims, Jews, and Christians living side by side. Iraq, Iran, Yemen, Libya, Kuwait etc. most places had that, and now whenever you look on the news Christians are being killed in the streets and the Jews were chased out long ago.

You are right, if you go to a Muslim country, you are expected to respect the law of the land and obey it, if you try to question it and ask for special treatment you will be thrown in jail. Maybe we should take a page out of their book in regards to whats expected of our guests.


----------



## Foxfyre

High_Gravity said:


> Maybe we should take a page out of their book in regards to whats expected of our guests.



  Only in behavior that treads on the rights of others I think.

Well I think most polite people do respect the customs and protocol of the country they are visiting or move to.  But, unless it is a security concern or violates the law re public decency, we allow people to dress however they wish here.  Burkas, skullcaps, saris, or any other ethnic or religious garb is okay on the public streets.  I do have problems with those who come here expecting us to modify or give up our customs and traditions in favor of theirs though.

So while I respect an Islamic country's requirement for a certain dress code when I visit there, I don't want it imposed by law into in my own western civilization culture.  Our mode of dress here is dictated by fashion trends and what is appropriate for a particular place or event.  Ditto for dietary customs and requirements.  Ditto if I choose to have a glass of wine at dinner or a cold beer on a summer day.  Or any other freedoms that we 'westerners' cherish and hold dear.


----------



## Sunni Man

Foxfyre said:


> So while I respect an Islamic country's requirement for a certain dress code when I visit there, I don't want it imposed by law into in my own western civilization culture.  Our mode of dress here is dictated by fashion trends and what is appropriate for a particular place or event.  Ditto for dietary customs and requirements.  Ditto if I choose to have a glass of wine at dinner or a cold beer on a summer day.  Or any other freedoms that we 'westerners' cherish and hold dear.


In countries that have a large Christian populations; Turkey, Egypt, and Pakistan, for example.

Christians are allowed to drink, go to dance clubs, dress in western clothes, eat pork etc.


----------



## gautama

High_Gravity said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't duck any question that I am aware of.
> 
> 
> Pure nonsense.
> 
> We are not at war.
> 
> There is No scripture in the Quran that would reward me for killing any of you.
> 
> Where do you come up with this stuff??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From you just yesterday when you supported those who bomb, kill, behead, or punish somebody because he 'insulted' Mohammed or Allah.  I believe you referred to us Christians as 'wimps' because we did not do the same.
> 
> And you ignored the second part of the question which was:  "Or if we did not resist, you would be following the teachings of Islam by requiring us to respect and obey Allah?"
> 
> and
> 
> "That after all is the basic summation of the thesis of this thread. That Islam, given opportunity to do so, is required to destroy Western civilization and put it under the authority of Allah."
> 
> Please cite the specific passage of the Qu'ran, included among all the Qu'ran,  that would make that last statement in error.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess this is where we are different, I won't kill someone who insults Christians or Jesus.
Click to expand...


What you religious folk simply don't understand......and as long you are religious you never will.....is that the Organized Religions of the World (and probably all others) are *DELUSIONS !!!*

There isn't any ABSOLUTE PROOF that there is a "GOD". 

The Greatest Minds in the History of Mankind *UNANIMOUSLY* agree (by force of logic) that it is *IMPOSSIBLE to prove the existence or non-existence of "God".*

Call the Chairman of the Dept of Philosophy in any recognized University of the World, and regardless of the Religion held by that person.......he/she will reiterate the findings of the Greatest Minds in the History of Mankind which I have stated above.

*THE REALITY IS, RELIGION CAN ONLY BE ACCEPTED ON FAITH*......whether you personally think  your "god" can be proven or not.

Even the Catholic Church admits that Religion is *based on FAITH.*

*So, without the PROOF of the EXISTENCE of "GOD" (or the non-existence), this possibly NON-EXISTENT "GOD" IN ALL OF THE "Organized Religions of the Word"............REQUIRES ALL OF ITS FOLLOWERS TO BELIEVE IN THE MOST BIZARRE, UNREALISTIC THINGS.

You don't think so ? 

NAME ANY RELIGION, and the opponent of that Religion will find, what they will believe as RIDICULOUSLY IDIOTIC CONCEPTS THAT LIE AT THE CORE OF THE OTHER RELIGION.*

Example: the Non-Muslim may first question the concoction of a Religion by a HISTORICALLY DOCUMENTED blood-thirsty Psycho, Mohammed, who is a *MASS MURDERER, THIEF, and a PEDOPHILIC RAPIST !!!*

Not only that, the UNDISPUTABLE, CLEARLY ENUNCIATED FIRST AND MOST IMPORTANT GOAL OF THIS PSYCHO MOHAMMED'S INSTRUCTION IN THE QU'RAN IS (paraphrased, no doubt): *"MAKE THE WORLD THE CALIPHATE OF ISLAM, preferably by word......BY SWORD, IF NECESSARY."*

On the other hand, the Muslims, would consider the bizarre belief of the Catholics that "GOD" comes in "three parts in one": The Dad, the Son, & Gasper (the Holy Ghost). "How the hell can anyone prove this fantasy" they will correctly ask. Or, "a "Virgin" giving birth to a son, and STILL not be a "Virgin".......isn't that like saying A is not equal to A ...... a basic contradiction in logic ??? And, those much vaunted "miracles" ????? WTF kind of ridiculous crap is that.....how can anyone prove that arid nonsense without one *verifiable* miracle in the last ~2000 years......and so on.

And, my point to *ALL of you Delusional Religious joes is this: The prayers to your "GOD" have the same statistical positive result as praying to the nearest rock in your garden.......AND YET YOU STILL PRAY...... NOW WHY THE FUCK WOULD YOU DO THAT ?????  CAN'T YOU LEARN FROM EXPERIENCE THAT YOUR PRAYING TO YOUR GOD IS BULLSHIT ?!?!?*

But here is the CENTRAL POINT of MY POST: *ALL RELIGIONS ARE BIZARRE DELUSIONS INCULCATED INTO YOU, and YOUR ANCESTORS FOR MILLENIA TO DO "GOOD" (according to the formula concocted by your specific Religion) BECAUSE IF YOU FOLLOW THAT "FORMULA"  YOU WILL GO TO HEAVEN AND ENJOY ETERNAL ( pleasurable word in this case) JOY.....Mohammed spiced that up for his imagineless idiots with "humping 72 virgins and getting wasted on hash").....and if you piss off your "GOD" you will suffer UNIMAGINABLE PAIN.....ETERNALLY (very, very, fearful word in this case) !!!*

And so......It is crystal clear that you Religious folk....whether you admit it or not.....*ARE SCARED SHITLESS ABOUT NOT BELIEVING IN A "GOD"........ANY FUCKING "GOD" !!! Because, who the fuck wants to chance ETERNAL DAMNATION !!!*

THUS, YOU ARE,UNDERSTANDABLY, COMMITTED TO YOUR "GOD"......AND, DEPENDING ON HOW STRONG YOUR BELIEF...... YOU WOULD *PROTECT* YOUR "GOD".

WELL, the very Religious among you, the fucking fanatics, will *DO ANYTHING* to protect their "GOD". 

*NO SACRIFICE OR DEED IS TOO SMALL TO PROTECT AND/OR GLOIRIFY THEIR FUCKING "GOD" !!!*

And, so.... REALISTICALLY.......one can easily see the DILEMMA you folks in this thread are babbling about. 

*BUT.......IT AINT A "DILEMMA" !!!!*

*RELIGIONS ARE  DELUSIONS......OUT AND OUT FANTASIES GROUNDED IN MYTHOLOGICAL BULLSHIT AND REPLICATING THE SAME !!!!*

And, you Religious folks are splitting hairs wondering: "WhyTF do the Christians fuck up thisa & thata (and they sure did in Medieval Times)......and, the fucking Muslims wonder: "WhyTF doesn't *everyone believe like us ????*. And, *"what's wrong with us wanting to belittle you, treat our women like cattle, grab you by the beard and smack you around.....even kill you.....if you don't believe in the words of a MASS MURDERER, THIEF and a PEDOPHILIC RAPIST ?!?!? *

Some chap, apparently one of you delusional Christians, stated that he wouldn't kill anyone for insulting God, or Jesus......in response to Phoni-Baloni-Sunni's indication or implication that he would.

What both of you don't see is this: *RELIGIONS ARE DELUSIONS*

*DELUSIONS ARE DANGEROUS ..... THEY TAKE YOU INTO A DANGEROUS BIZARRE WORLD WHERE RATIONAL THINKING.....BY DEFINITION ....IS NON-EXISTENT !!!*

So all this *BULLSHIT* you religious folk are babbling about have the OBVIOUS  RATIONAL ANSWERS LIKE: you don't kill anyone for his beliefs....or non-beliefs. 

THIS IS AS PLAIN AS THE NOSE ON YOUR FACE if you just throw your  RELIGIOUS PRECONCEPTIONS INTO THE NEAREST GARBAGE CAN !!!!!

Consider the *HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF CHRISTIANS AND MUSLIMS THAT DIED HIDEOUSLY AT EACH OTHER'S HANDS AS THEY SLAUGHTERED EACH OTHER IN THE NAME OF RELIGION DURING THE CRUSADES.......OR THE OTTOMAN TURKS !!!!!!*

Consider the *HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF CHRISTIANS (both Catholics and Protestants) WHO TORTURED AND MURDERED EACH OTHER AND USUALLY DIED IN UNBELIEVABLE PAIN......IN THE NAME OF THEIR OWN "VERSION" OF RELIGION !!!!*

Consider the *THOUSANDS of so-called "HERETICS" That Savanarola and his Merry Bunch of Jesuits TORTURED TO DEATH WITH UNIMAGINABLE CRUELTY..... EACH OUTDOING EACH OTHER IN CREATING MORE PAINFUL DEATHS.......while Popey-Dopey looked the other way. And, don't for an instance think that the Popey-Dopey didn't give his tacit approval because that was his business.....and those psychos were his underlings !!!*

*BOTTOM LINE: DO YOU THINK ALL THESE TORTURED AND HEINOUSLY MURDERED PEOPLE WOULDN'T BE BETTER OFF WITHOUT YOUR RELIGIOUS BULLSHIT ?!?!? *

PS: Don't get me wrong, I think Religion does a helluva lot of good. *BUT RELIGION IS A DELUSION......AND IT DOES A LOT OF HARM AS WELL. There are probably millions of people who wished to hell there was never such a thing as RELIGION*


----------



## Sunni Man

Gautama, the State Hospital called.

They want their straight jacket back.


----------



## gautama

Sunni Man said:


> Gautama, the State Hospital called.
> 
> They want their straight jacket back.



Phoni-Baloni- Sunni,

Yeah, they did give me a strait jacket for you.....but I can't locate you...so I'm returning it ASAP.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

Sunni Man said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you ignored the second part of the question which was:  "Or if we did not resist, you would be following the teachings of Islam by requiring us to respect and obey Allah?"
> 
> 
> 
> Both Christians and Jews are called "People of the Book" (Bible) in the Quran.
> 
> We are to respect them as such; and expect them to do the same.
> 
> Verse 2:256 in the Quran says that no one is to be forced to change their religion.
> 
> So no, Christians and Jews are not expected to obey Allah.
> 
> Qur'an 2:256"There is no compulsion in religion";
Click to expand...


*I dont know why you persist on posting what you know not to be true when you know your deception will be exposed in rather short order*

[al-Tawbah 9:29] 

And it was proven that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) accepted the jizyah from the Magians, but it was not proven that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) or his companions (may Allaah be pleased with them) accepted the jizyah from anyone except the three groups mentioned above. 

The basic principle concerning that is the words of Allaah (interpretation of the meaning): 

And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism, i.e. worshipping others besides Allaah), and the religion (worship) will all be for Allaah Alone [in the whole of the world]

[al-Anfaal 8:39] 

Then when the Sacred Months (the 1st, 7th, 11th, and 12th months of the Islamic calendar) have passed, then kill the Mushrikoon (see V.2:105) wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush. But if they repent [by rejecting Shirk (polytheism) and accept Islamic Monotheism] and perform As-Salaah (Iqaamat-as-Salaah), and give Zakaah, then leave their way free. Verily, Allaah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful

[al-Tawbah 9:5] 

This verse is known as Ayat al-Sayf (the verse of the sword). 

*These and similar verses abrogate the verses which say that there is no compulsion to become Muslim. 
*
And Allaah is the Source of strength. 
Islam Question and Answer - There is no compulsion to accept Islam


----------



## Sunni Man

Fitnuts, you are the one practicing deception.

You know fully well that these verses were only for a specific time, during a specific war.

They only apply to then; and have no meaning once that particular war was over.

And certainly do not apply in any way, shape, or form, to the people of today.


Plus, as you know also, abrogation in the western way of thinking.

Is not the way it is ment to be understood Islamically.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

The Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia disagrees .


Sunni Man said:


> No, I am not an expert on Islam.


http://www.usmessageboard.com/2797867-post49.html


----------



## Ropey

I don't believe Sunni Man can be this lost. He must be trolling. I am starting to see what others are saying. 

Trolls don't even believe what they say. This is what I am learning. 

Islam means a different thing when they say peace also.

What is peace in Islamic terms Sunni Man.


----------



## gautama

Ropey said:


> I don't believe Sunni Man can be this lost. He must be trolling. I am starting to see what others are saying.
> 
> Trolls don't even believe what they say. This is what I am learning.
> 
> Islam means a different thing when they say peace also.
> 
> What is peace in Islamic terms Sunni Man.



The way Phoni-Balon--Sunni twists and turns justifies obvious lies then turns around and pours the "smoke & mirrors" on the issue as with the concept that "Islam is OK with other Religions existing alongside with it"  ....... is beyond belief.

This legitimately raises the question whether he literally believes that we must be stone cold STUPID and he can convince us of the righteousness of that RIDICULOUS ISLAM......or.....and I did raise the possibility in some other post .....that he is a very wise man with a fantastic sense of humour and that his OBVIOUS CRAPPOLA is a *HOAX !!!*


----------



## Sunni Man

Mr.Fitnah said:


> The Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia disagrees .
> 
> 
> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I am not an expert on Islam.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/2797867-post49.html
Click to expand...

How is what I said a lie?

And why do you just quote one sentence of my two sentence response?


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

Sunni Man said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia disagrees .
> 
> 
> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I am not an expert on Islam.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/2797867-post49.html
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is what I said a lie?
> 
> And why do you just quote one sentence of my two sentence response?
Click to expand...


I did not accuse you of lying. I just provided a link back to your statement.
The fact is, you are not an expert on Islam .
I can assure you  the grand mufti of Saudi Arabia is and he says you are wrong.


----------



## Sunni Man

Mr.Fitnah said:


> The fact is, you are not an expert on Islam .
> I can assure you  the grand mufti of Saudi Arabia is and he says you are wrong.



Then you agree with him when he says that Islam is a religion of Peace?

And also says;

* "Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia: Everybody&#8217;s Duty to Condemn Terrorist Organizations"*

Loading...


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

Sunni Man said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is, you are not an expert on Islam .
> I can assure you  the grand mufti of Saudi Arabia is and he says you are wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you agree with him when he says that Islam is a religion of Peace?
> 
> And also says;
> 
> * "Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia: Everybodys Duty to Condemn Terrorist Organizations"*
> 
> Loading...
Click to expand...


Where does he say Islam is a religion of peace?

As for the Conflict between Al Qeada and the Saudis Both  have a legitimate argument .


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

In anycase, as far as the abrogated verse 2:256  the Mufti provides the proof.


----------



## Sunni Man

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Where does he say Islam is a religion of peace?


*Grand mufti denounces terrorism*

"He said that Islam condemned an act that was aimed at creating anarchy in a society. *Being the religion of peace*, it calls for an end to cruelty and defiance. Allah has called Muslims the best Ummah on the face of the earth and he who kills a Muslim deliberately would be sent to hell, Mufti Abdullah said.

Grand mufti denounces terrorism &#8211; The Express Tribune


----------



## Sunni Man

Mr.Fitnah said:


> In anycase, as far as the abrogated verse 2:256  the Mufti provides the proof.


Nope.

The Oxford Dictionary is still western explanations based on western thought.

And is not Islamically correct; or has anything to do with the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia


----------



## José

> Originally posted by *Sunni Man*
> In countries that have a large Christian populations; Turkey, Egypt, and Pakistan, for example.
> 
> Christians are allowed to drink, go to dance clubs, dress in western clothes, eat pork etc.



Some theocratic governments are more oppressive than others, no doubt about it, but they all fail to treat their religious and secular citizens/religious minorities as equal before the law by favoring one religion over all the others (otherwise it would be a secular state not a theocracy).

"Theocracy" is just a fancy name political scientists made up to designate religious dictatorships.


----------



## gautama

Sunni Man said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is, you are not an expert on Islam .
> I can assure you  the grand mufti of Saudi Arabia is and he says you are wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you agree with him when he says that Islam is a religion of Peace?
> 
> And also says;
> 
> * "Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia: Everybodys Duty to Condemn Terrorist Organizations"*
> 
> Loading...
Click to expand...


Phoni-Baloni-Sunni,

Ever hear of the fucking Muslim *"TAQIYAH" straight out of Psycho Mohammed's orifice ?!?!?*


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

Sunni Man said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where does he say Islam is a religion of peace?
> 
> 
> 
> *Grand mufti denounces terrorism*
> 
> "He said that Islam condemned an act that was aimed at creating anarchy in a society. *Being the religion of peace*, it calls for an end to cruelty and defiance. Allah has called Muslims the best Ummah on the face of the earth and he who kills a Muslim deliberately would be sent to hell, Mufti Abdullah said.
> 
> Grand mufti denounces terrorism  The Express Tribune
Click to expand...


An end to cruelty and defiance is submission to Islam from an Islamic POV.
Mohammad was a terrorist,as are good muslims we have been over this before.

'Abdullah bin 'Umar, may Allah be pleased with them, reported: 
Allah's Messenger said: I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, perform the Prayer, and pay Zakah. If they do that, their blood and property are guaranteed protection on my behalf except when justified by law, and their affairs rest with Allah. 

*Mohammad abrogates 2:256*
Only muslims pay zakah ,only muslims believe Mohammad is a prophet.


33:21. Indeed in the Messenger of Allâh (Muhammad ) you have a good example to follow for him who hopes in (the Meeting with) Allâh and the Last Day and remembers Allâh much.

Bukhari :: Book 1 :: Volume 7 :: Hadith 331 
Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah: 

The Prophet said, "I have been given five things which were not given to any one else before me. 

1. Allah made me victorious by awe, (by His frightening my enemies) for a distance of one month's journey. 

2. The earth has been made for me (and for my followers) a place for praying and a thing to perform Tayammum, therefore anyone of my followers can pray wherever the time of a prayer is due. 

3. The booty has been made Halal (lawful) for me yet it was not lawful for anyone else before me. 

4. I have been given the right of intercession (on the Day of Resurrection). 

5. Every Prophet used to be sent to his nation only but I have been sent to all mankind.
__________________

Main Entry:	awe
Part of Speech:	noun
Definition:	amazement
Synonyms:	 admiration, apprehension, astonishment, consternation, dread, esteem, fear, fright, horror, regard, respect, reverence, shock, stupefaction, terror, veneration, wonder, wonderment, worship

Interpretation of Dreams 
Bukhari :: Book 9 :: Volume 87 :: Hadith 127 
Narrated Abu Huraira: 

The Prophet said, "I have been given the keys of eloquent speech and given victory with awe (cast into the hearts of the enemy), and while I was sleeping last night, the keys of the treasures of the earth were brought to me till they were put in my hand." Abu Huraira added: Allah's Apostle left (this world) and now you people are carrying those treasures from place to place. 



33:21. Indeed in the Messenger of Allâh (Muhammad ) you have a good example to follow for him who hopes in (the Meeting with) Allâh and the Last Day and remembers Allâh much.


----------



## Ropey

Sunni Man said:


> *Grand mufti*
> 
> "Allah has called Muslims the best Ummah on the face of the earth and he who kills a Muslim deliberately would be sent to hell," Mufti Abdullah said.
> 
> Grand mufti denounces terrorism &#8211; The Express Tribune



What about a Jew? Homosexual? Homosexual Jew? How about a Muslim woman who marries outside of Islam?

He also says (In your link)



			
				Grand Mufti said:
			
		

> Islam endorses moderation, _there is no room for materialism_,&#8221; he said.



No room for materialism? Now if that's not against the Western Philosophy, what is, may I ask?


----------



## gautama

Sunni Man said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> In anycase, as far as the abrogated verse 2:256  the Mufti provides the proof.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.
> 
> The Oxford Dictionary is still western explanations based on western thought.
> 
> And is not Islamically correct; or has anything to do with the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia
Click to expand...


OK.....let's see if we got this down correctly: Phoni- Baloni- Sunni, who *REPEATEDLY* claims that he is *NOT* an expert.....but merely a practitioner of Islam ....... *now claims that he * is MORE of an expert than the Oxford Dictionary which to all is known to use as it's base for definitions the practice of  invariably going to the source. In this case to the Qu'ran.

Seems to me that here we have another example of how Phoni-Baloni- Sunni is a ........*PHONEY BALONEY !!!! *


----------



## Sunni Man

I personally know several Islamic scholars.

Plus, I have attended numerous Islamic lectures and seminars.

And never once have I seen the speaker or Imam quote out of the western published Oxford Islamic Dictionary.


----------



## editec

Good fences make good neighbors, folks.

There are significant philosophical differences in mindset between the Western and the Islamic world, and frankly, I see no way to reconcile those except either by keeping each world at arms length (which I think is the raight path) or one dominating the other (which I think leads to armagadon)


----------



## High_Gravity

Foxfyre said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe we should take a page out of their book in regards to whats expected of our guests.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only in behavior that treads on the rights of others I think.
> 
> Well I think most polite people do respect the customs and protocol of the country they are visiting or move to.  But, unless it is a security concern or violates the law re public decency, we allow people to dress however they wish here.  Burkas, skullcaps, saris, or any other ethnic or religious garb is okay on the public streets.  I do have problems with those who come here expecting us to modify or give up our customs and traditions in favor of theirs though.
> 
> So while I respect an Islamic country's requirement for a certain dress code when I visit there, I don't want it imposed by law into in my own western civilization culture.  Our mode of dress here is dictated by fashion trends and what is appropriate for a particular place or event.  Ditto for dietary customs and requirements.  *Ditto if I choose to have a glass of wine at dinner or a cold beer on a summer day.  Or any other freedoms that we 'westerners' cherish and hold dear.*
Click to expand...


Absolutely, I just want the same respect back. When Westerners visit Muslim countries they are expected to follow the law of the land and be respectful to religious customs, for example during Ramadan if you are caughting eating, drinking or smoking in the presence of a fasting Muslim you can be arrested. They have zero tolerance when it comes to their laws, but Westerners are supposed to bend over backwards to accomodate Muslims? sorry I don't agree.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

Sunni Man said:


> I personally know several Islamic scholars.
> 
> Plus, I have attended numerous Islamic lectures and seminars.
> 
> And never once have I seen the speaker or Imam quote out of the western published Oxford Islamic Dictionary.



It is not Oxford Islamic Dictionary, its  the oxford Islamic studies  affiliated with oxford university,Georgetown University,Boston College,University of South Carolina,
About the Editors and Advisory Boards - Oxford Islamic Studies Online
It is run by apologist in chief John L. Esposito, snot nosed toadie of Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal .


----------



## Sunni Man

High_Gravity said:


> Absolutely, I just want the same respect back. When Westerners visit Muslim countries they are expected to follow the *law of the land*......


When muslims, or any other foreign person comes to the U.S.

They are expected to follow American "law of the land".

Asians cook and eat dogs legally in their countries.

But will be arrested for killing dog to eat in America.


So what's the problem??


Foreigners have to obey our laws.

We have to obey their laws when in their country.


----------



## High_Gravity

Sunni Man said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely, I just want the same respect back. When Westerners visit Muslim countries they are expected to follow the *law of the land*......
> 
> 
> 
> When muslims, or any other foreign person comes to the U.S.
> 
> They are expected to follow American "law of the land".
> 
> Asians cook and eat dogs legally in their countries.
> 
> But will be arrested for killing dog to eat in America.
> 
> 
> So what's the problem??
> 
> 
> Foreigners have to obey our laws.
> 
> We have to obey their laws when in their country.
Click to expand...


I understand that Sunni the thing I don't get is why some Muslims are trying to get Shariah courts set up in the US, they know the US is not a Muslim country when they came here, if they wanted to live under Shariah why come here? if I went to Iran and demanded to Christian courts would I be accomodated? probably not. And by the way I don't agree with any religious courts in the US no matter what religion.


----------



## gautama

Sunni Man said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely, I just want the same respect back. When Westerners visit Muslim countries they are expected to follow the *law of the land*......
> 
> 
> 
> When muslims, or any other foreign person comes to the U.S.
> 
> They are expected to follow American "law of the land".
> 
> Asians cook and eat dogs legally in their countries.
> 
> But will be arrested for killing dog to eat in America.
> 
> 
> So what's the problem??
> 
> 
> Foreigners have to obey our laws.
> 
> We have to obey their laws when in their country.
Click to expand...


Phoni-Sunni-Baloni,

The point is the law of the civilized countries in the West or East  are *CIVILIZED......and are NOT  "religion" discriminatory.* 

The laws in Muslim countries are not only discriminatory against other religions......they are *BARBARIC !!!*

And, the example of the *DE FACTO* laws in Muslim Pakistan.....in theory and in deed........are the topic of my thread in the category "RELIGION". Title: "Are the Muslims 'peaceful'.....Or...."


----------



## José

> Originally posted by *Sunni Man*
> Foreigners have to obey our laws.
> 
> We have to obey their laws when in their country.



Tell this to the thousands of iranian girls and women who are seen putting on the hijab as soon as they arrive in Teeran. Those women are forced to dress "in a modest way" by a medieval state authoritarian to the core that tries to regulate the private life of its citizens.

Your attempt to portray dictatorial, theocratic laws as if they were the most natural thing in the world is laughable.


----------



## Sunni Man

José;3173391 said:
			
		

> Your attempt to portray dictatorial, theocratic laws as if they were the most natural thing in the world is laughable.



Our country; our laws.

Their country; their laws.

Don't like it.

Don't visit.


----------



## Foxfyre

Well, it has been an interesting discussion and I'll look back in now and then.  My interest, however, is NOT in bashing any Muslim or Islam in general.  My interest is preserving and protecting Western Civilization which I see as preferable to reverting to mandatory religious laws of any kind.  I want the people to have their unalienable rights secured and do what is right in their hearts and order society based on that and not via edicts of any religious cleric or government.  I don't think I have much to add to that without repeating myself.

As I think most or perhaps all of Islam does not recognize nor respect unalienable rights of the people, I do not want it to have power in our country, nor do I want us to capitulate to any demands it might make.   I think it is a tragedy for those forced to submit, but those who choose to live under Islamic law should do that in some other country.  I don't want to lose our uniquely American culture and the basic appreciation for freedom and self governance that most Americans feel in their bones.

Sunniman rightly points to the peaceful Muslims and mosques in the U.S.  But Muslims in the U.S. are so far in a small minority.  He won't or hasn't addressed the issues addressed when those minorities become substantial ones and/or when Muslims achieve a majority.  He can't give me any assurance that our unalienable rights would still be recognized, respected, and protected.

So, I still think the OP is on target.  I do believe the ultimate dicates of the Qu'ran are that all live under the authority of Allah.   I choose not to do so.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEXWjlgJ83E[/ame]


----------



## Foxfyre

That presentation affirms what many around the world are now reporting, Mr. F.  I wonder if any will choose to rebut it with anything substantial?

One of our close family members was in France last year and inadvertently wandered into one of the Muslim "ghettos".   She definitely felt like she was being personally threatened and felt lucky to retreat and get out of the area unscathed.  She is reasonably certain that had she lingered, she would not have been so fortunate.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

She will be safe, the caped crusader  is there to save the day.
Paris 'Muslim Batman' angers right-wing U.S. bloggers


BY RORY MULHOLLAND, AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE JANUARY 7, 2011 BE THE FIRST TO POST A COMMENT


Batman has battled many enemies but now has to face the anger of right-wing U.S. bloggers furious that the comic book caped crusader has recruited a Muslim to run his crime-fighting franchise in Paris.

"The character's name is Bilal Asselah and he is an Algerian Sunni Muslim and an immigrant that is physically fit and adept at the gymnastic sport parkour," wrote Warner Todd Huston on his site Publius Forum. "Apparently Batman couldn't find any actual Frenchman to be the 'French saviour,' " wrote the right-winger, apparently discounting the millions of French citizens of North African descent from his definition of "actual" French.

In the December issues of DC Comics Detective Comics Annual and Batman Annual, the caped crusader has set up Batman Incorporated and wants to install superheroes in cities around the world to fight crime.

The hero he picks in France is called Nightrunner, the alter ego of Bilal Asselah, a 22-year-old from a tough Paris suburb who had been caught up in rioting, but decided to reject hate and fear.



Read more: Paris 'Muslim Batman' angers right-wing U.S. bloggers


----------



## Foxfyre

LOL.  Well "Batman" of whatever stripe can't be everywhere.  So I think common sense and a good practice of prudence is still in order in these things.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

The hero he picks in France is called Nightrunner, the alter ego of Bilal Asselah, a 22-year-old from a tough Paris suburb who had been caught up in rioting, but decided to reject hate and fear.

He concentrates on learning parkour, the form of acrobatics where practitioners jump from buildings and leap over walls and street furniture, as seen at the start of the 2006 James Bond film Casino Royale.

When riots threaten to engulf his neighbourhood, Bilal puts on a mask and, using his parkour skills, becomes Nightrunner and sets out to set things right again.

Nightrunner's integrity, athletic prowess, and triumph over adversity made him Bruce Wayne's obvious choice to represent Batman in Paris.

But right-wing bloggers in the United States are incensed that DC Comics chose to make their new superhero a Muslim. They see it as pandering to political correctness.

"In this age when Muslim youths are terrorizing (France), heck in this age of international Muslim terrorism assaulting the whole world, Batman's readers will be confused by what is really going on in the world," wrote Huston on Publius Forum.

The Angry White Dude blog, mocked that "Nightrunner the Muslim sidekick will have strange new powers to bury women to their waists and bash their heads in with large rocks."



Read more: Paris 'Muslim Batman' angers right-wing U.S. bloggers


----------



## Sunni Man

If the new Batman had been a Jew; nothing would be said.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

A superhero who blows himself up is news.


----------



## gautama

A good thread turned into shit by puerile humour. Actually, even more stupid than that.


----------



## Sunni Man

Foxfyre said:


> One of our close family members was in France last year and inadvertently wandered into one of the Muslim "ghettos".   She definitely felt like she was being personally threatened and felt lucky to retreat and get out of the area unscathed.  She is reasonably certain that had she lingered, she would not have been so fortunate.


Have her walk thru Harlem USA and see how long it is before she is shot and robbed.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

Have them walk through Mecca .


----------



## Sunni Man

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Have them walk through Mecca .


There wouldn't be any problem, because they would not be allowed into the city.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

Thanks for making my point.


----------



## Sunni Man

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Thanks for making my point.


What was your point??


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

Islam is a supremacy ideology where non muslims are not equal.


----------



## Sunni Man

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Islam is a supremacy ideology where non muslims are not equal.



So Islam is a supremacy ideology because it doesn't allow tourists into one small city called Mecca??


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

That is one element,
another being:
 Noble Qur&#8217;an 2:190 Footnote: &#8220;Jihad is holy fighting in Allah&#8217;s Cause with full force of numbers and weaponry. It is given the utmost importance in Islam and is one of its pillars. By Jihad Islam is established, Allah&#8217;s Word is made superior (which means only Allah has the right to be worshiped), and Islam is propagated. By abandoning Jihad Islam is destroyed and Muslims fall into an inferior position; their honor is lost, their lands are stolen, their rule and authority vanish. Jihad is an obligatory duty in Islam on every Muslim. He who tries to escape from this duty, or does not fulfill this duty, dies as a hypocrite.&#8221;


The passage itself can be found in two places. It is on page 39 of the Noble Qur&#8217;an translation by Muhammad Khan and distributed by &#8220;King Fahd Complex for the Printing of the Holy Qur&#8217;an&#8212;The Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques. It is a footnote to Qur&#8217;an 2.190 and is designed to explain Jihad according to Allah.
And it can be found on page 580 of the Islamic University of Medina&#8217;s translation of Sahih al-Bukhari&#8217;s Hadith. There it opens Bukhari&#8217;s Book of Jihad. 

 In both cases, the Islamic scholars are condensing Allah&#8217;s and Muhammad&#8217;s teachings on Jihad to a single paragraph.


----------



## Sunni Man

Mr.Fitnah said:


> That is one element,
> another being:
> Noble Quran 2:190 *Footnote*:


A footnote is just an opinion of a text; nothing more than that.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

And it can be found on page 580 of the Islamic University of Medina&#8217;s translation of Sahih al-Bukhari&#8217;s Hadith. There it opens Bukhari&#8217;s Book of Jihad.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

Sunni Man said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is one element,
> another being:
> Noble Quran 2:190 *Footnote*:
> 
> 
> 
> A footnote is just an opinion of a text; nothing more than that.
Click to expand...


Im sure if the grand mufti of Saudi Arabia or who ever runs the King Fahd Complex" for the Printing of the Holy QuranThe Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques did not agree with the opinion, they would have altered or removed the opinion perhaps they included it to make it clear.






What do you think?


----------



## Sunni Man

What you have is a footnote from the Wahhabi school of Sunni Islam.

It reflects the opinion of Wahhabi scholars in Saudi Arabia.

As you well know Mr Fitnuts; there are several schools of Islamic thought both in Sunni and Shia.

But you like to use the most radical school of Islamic thought because it backs up your Islamophobic agenda.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

I have already posted the orthodox Sufi opinion on jihad.

Ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani (d. 996), Maliki jurist 1



Jihad is a precept of Divine institution. Its performance by certain individuals may dispense others from it. We Malikis [one of the four schools of Muslim jurisprudence] maintain that it is preferable not to begin hostilities with the enemy before having invited the latter to embrace the religion of Allah except where the enemy attacks first. They have the alternative of either converting to Islam or paying the poll tax (jizya), short of which war will be declared against them.



Ibn Taymiyya (d. 1328), Hanbali jurist 2



Since lawful warfare is essentially jihad and since its aim is that the religion is God&#8217;s entirely and God&#8217;s word is uppermost, therefore according to all Muslims, those who stand in the way of this aim must be fought. As for those who cannot offer resistance or cannot fight, such as women, children, monks, old people, the blind, handicapped and their likes, they shall not be killed unless they actually fight with words (e.g. by propaganda) and acts (e.g. by spying or otherwise assisting in the warfare).



From (primarily) the Hanafi school (as given in the Hidayah) 3



It is not lawful to make war upon any people who have never before been called to the faith, without previously requiring them to embrace it, because the Prophet so instructed his commanders, directing them to call the infidels to the faith, and also because the people will hence perceive that they are attacked for the sake of religion, and not for the sake of taking their property, or making slaves of their children, and on this consideration it is possible that they may be induced to agree to the call, in order to save themselves from the troubles of war&#8230; If the infidels, upon receiving the call, neither consent to it nor agree to pay capitation tax, it is then incumbent on the Muslims to call upon God for assistance, and to make war upon them, because God is the assistant of those who serve Him, and the destroyer of His enemies, the infidels, and it is necessary to implore His aid upon every occasion; the Prophet, moreover, commands us so to do.



al-Mawardi (d. 1058 ), Shafi&#8217;i jurist 4



The mushrikun [infidels] of Dar al-Harb (the arena of battle) are of two types: First, those whom the call of Islam has reached, but they have refused it and have taken up arms. The amir of the army has the option of fighting them&#8230;in accordance with what he judges to be in the best interest of the Muslims and most harmful to the mushrikun&#8230; Second, those whom the invitation to Islam has not reached, although such persons are few nowadays since Allah has made manifest the call of his Messenger&#8230;_t is forbidden to&#8230;begin an attack before explaining the invitation to Islam to them, informing them of the miracles of the Prophet and making plain the proofs so as to encourage acceptance on their part; if they still refuse to accept after this, war is waged against them and they are treated as those whom the call has reached&#8230;.



In Khaldun (d. 1406), jurist (Maliki), renowned philosopher, historian, and sociologist, summarized these consensus opinions from five centuries of prior Muslim jurisprudence with regard to the uniquely Islamic institution of jihad:



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...The other religious groups did not have a universal mission, and the holy war was not a religious duty for them, save only for purposes of defense...Islam is under obligation to gain power over other nations._


----------



## Sunni Man

A footnote is still just a footnote; ie., an opinion.

What does the Quran specifically say about Jihad that applies to today?

And not to some past situation, time, or place.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

Here is the chatper on Jihad from the Classic manual of sacred Islamic law Umdat al-Salik certified by Al-Azhar University.
It has some commentary from the poster
Knowing Islam: Jihad and Islamic Peace as in Sharia law.
@O9.6
It is offensive to conduct a military expedition against hostile non-Muslims without the caliph's permission (A: though if there is no caliph (def: o25), no permission is required).

_(This at the best is obfuscation. Koran literally says Non Muslims are always enemies of Allah and Muslims. Non Muslims are the vilest of all creation. Any way who are hostile Non Muslims? The simple answer is: The ones who do not convert to Islam after Muslims tell them to embrace Islam; you will understand this as you read.)_


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

Sunni Man said:


> A footnote is still just a footnote; ie., an opinion.
> 
> What does the Quran specifically say about Jihad that applies to today?
> 
> And not to some past situation, time, or place.


Nothing has changed.
Fight until only muslims remain .


----------



## Sunni Man

What part of this do you not understand?

*The Quran is the one and only ultimate authority in Islam.*

Everything else is just opinions by various schools of thought and scholars.   

So again; what does the Quran say about Jihad as it applies to today?  

And not to some other situation, time or place.

Only to today.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

Sunni Man said:


> What part of this do you not understand?
> 
> *The Quran is the one and only ultimate authority in Islam.*
> 
> Everything else is just opinions by various schools of thought and scholars.
> 
> So again; what does the Quran say about Jihad as it applies to today?
> 
> And not to some other situation, time or place.
> 
> Only to today.


You not suggesting you disagree with this are you?

Noble Qur&#8217;an 2:190 Footnote: &#8220;Jihad is holy fighting in Allah&#8217;s Cause with full force of numbers and weaponry. It is given the utmost importance in Islam and is one of its pillars. By Jihad Islam is established, Allah&#8217;s Word is made superior (which means only Allah has the right to be worshiped), and Islam is propagated. By abandoning Jihad Islam is destroyed and Muslims fall into an inferior position; their honor is lost, their lands are stolen, their rule and authority vanish. Jihad is an obligatory duty in Islam on every Muslim. He who tries to escape from this duty, or does not fulfill this duty, dies as a hypocrite.&#8221;

And If so what  part, based on what scripture?


----------



## Sunni Man

Again, what does the Quran say about Jihad?


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

Sunni Man said:


> Again, what does the Quran say about Jihad?



I am not your employee.

Look it up yourself. 

You not suggesting you disagree with this are you?

Noble Quran 2:190 Footnote: Jihad is holy fighting in Allahs Cause with full force of numbers and weaponry. It is given the utmost importance in Islam and is one of its pillars. By Jihad Islam is established, Allahs Word is made superior (which means only Allah has the right to be worshiped), and Islam is propagated. By abandoning Jihad Islam is destroyed and Muslims fall into an inferior position; their honor is lost, their lands are stolen, their rule and authority vanish. Jihad is an obligatory duty in Islam on every Muslim. He who tries to escape from this duty, or does not fulfill this duty, dies as a hypocrite.

And If so what part, based on what scripture?


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

That's the worst thing about the interwebs, those sudden interweb outages, at the very moment, you were really going to  right some wrongs.


----------



## Ropey

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> What part of this do you not understand?
> 
> *The Quran is the one and only ultimate authority in Islam.*
> 
> Everything else is just opinions by various schools of thought and scholars.
> 
> So again; what does the Quran say about Jihad as it applies to today?
> 
> And not to some other situation, time or place.
> 
> Only to today.
> 
> 
> 
> You not suggesting you disagree with this are you?
> 
> Noble Qur&#8217;an 2:190 Footnote: &#8220;Jihad is holy fighting in Allah&#8217;s Cause with full force of numbers and weaponry. It is given the utmost importance in Islam and is one of its pillars. By Jihad Islam is established, Allah&#8217;s Word is made superior (which means only Allah has the right to be worshiped), and Islam is propagated. By abandoning Jihad Islam is destroyed and Muslims fall into an inferior position; their honor is lost, their lands are stolen, their rule and authority vanish. Jihad is an obligatory duty in Islam on every Muslim. He who tries to escape from this duty, or does not fulfill this duty, dies as a hypocrite.&#8221;
> 
> And If so what  part, based on what scripture?
Click to expand...



The truth only sets some free Mr. Fitnah. For many others it sets other factors into play which move to selective memory.

But that's another thing...


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

Id would say for those with an open mind , Mr Sunni is like a special ops for setting up muslims to look stupid.


----------



## Kalam

Ropey said:


> The truth only sets some free Mr. Fitnah.




Mr. Fitnah is not on speaking terms with the truth.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

The punk ass bitch cometh .
Did you want to tell those playing along @ home what part of

Noble Qur&#8217;an 2:190 Footnote: &#8220;Jihad is holy fighting in Allah&#8217;s Cause with full force of numbers and weaponry. It is given the utmost importance in Islam and is one of its pillars. By Jihad Islam is established, Allah&#8217;s Word is made superior (which means only Allah has the right to be worshiped), and Islam is propagated. By abandoning Jihad Islam is destroyed and Muslims fall into an inferior position; their honor is lost, their lands are stolen, their rule and authority vanish. Jihad is an obligatory duty in Islam on every Muslim. He who tries to escape from this duty, or does not fulfill this duty, dies as a hypocrite.&#8221;

You disagree with and why?


----------



## Kalam

Mr.Fitnah said:


> punk ass bitch



Pfffft. 



Mr.Fitnah said:


> Did you want to tell those playing along @ home what part of
> 
> Noble Qur&#8217;an 2:190 Footnote: &#8220;Jihad is holy fighting in Allah&#8217;s Cause with full force of numbers and weaponry. It is given the utmost importance in Islam and is one of its pillars. By Jihad Islam is established, Allah&#8217;s Word is made superior (which means only Allah has the right to be worshiped), and Islam is propagated. By abandoning Jihad Islam is destroyed and Muslims fall into an inferior position; their honor is lost, their lands are stolen, their rule and authority vanish. Jihad is an obligatory duty in Islam on every Muslim. He who tries to escape from this duty, or does not fulfill this duty, dies as a hypocrite.&#8221;
> 
> You disagree with and why?


No, because the onus of proof lies with the author of the footnote. There's no point in me discussing the passage until each claim within it has been substantiated according to Shari'i standards.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

Kalam said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> punk ass bitch
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pfffft.
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you want to tell those playing along @ home what part of
> 
> Noble Quran 2:190 Footnote: Jihad is holy fighting in Allahs Cause with full force of numbers and weaponry. It is given the utmost importance in Islam and is one of its pillars. By Jihad Islam is established, Allahs Word is made superior (which means only Allah has the right to be worshiped), and Islam is propagated. By abandoning Jihad Islam is destroyed and Muslims fall into an inferior position; their honor is lost, their lands are stolen, their rule and authority vanish. Jihad is an obligatory duty in Islam on every Muslim. He who tries to escape from this duty, or does not fulfill this duty, dies as a hypocrite.
> 
> You disagree with and why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, because the onus of proof lies with the author of the footnote. There's no point in me discussing the passage until each claim within it has been substantiated according to Shari'i standards.
Click to expand...


Im asking if you disagree in principle  and if so why based on what scripture.


----------



## Kalam

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> punk ass bitch
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pfffft.
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you want to tell those playing along @ home what part of
> 
> Noble Qur&#8217;an 2:190 Footnote: &#8220;Jihad is holy fighting in Allah&#8217;s Cause with full force of numbers and weaponry. It is given the utmost importance in Islam and is one of its pillars. By Jihad Islam is established, Allah&#8217;s Word is made superior (which means only Allah has the right to be worshiped), and Islam is propagated. By abandoning Jihad Islam is destroyed and Muslims fall into an inferior position; their honor is lost, their lands are stolen, their rule and authority vanish. Jihad is an obligatory duty in Islam on every Muslim. He who tries to escape from this duty, or does not fulfill this duty, dies as a hypocrite.&#8221;
> 
> You disagree with and why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, because the onus of proof lies with the author of the footnote. There's no point in me discussing the passage until each claim within it has been substantiated according to Shari'i standards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Im asking if you disagree in principle  and if so why based on what scripture.
Click to expand...


You don't understand. I'm under no obligation to disprove or even discuss something using "scripture" when "scripture" wasn't used to support it in the first place. The burden of proof lies with the person making the claims.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

If you are able to read , and render and opinion of the statement.
_Noble Qur&#8217;an 2:190 Footnote: &#8220;Jihad is holy fighting in Allah&#8217;s Cause with full force of numbers and weaponry. It is given the utmost importance in Islam and is one of its pillars. By Jihad Islam is established, Allah&#8217;s Word is made superior (which means only Allah has the right to be worshiped), and Islam is propagated. By abandoning Jihad Islam is destroyed and Muslims fall into an inferior position; their honor is lost, their lands are stolen, their rule and authority vanish. Jihad is an obligatory duty in Islam on every Muslim. He who tries to escape from this duty, or does not fulfill this duty, dies as a hypocrite.&#8221;_
I would like to know if you agree or disagree.
and should you disagree why.
It isn't all that complicated.


----------



## Kalam

Mr.Fitnah said:


> If you are able to read , and render and opinion of the statement.
> _Noble Quran 2:190 Footnote: Jihad is holy fighting in Allahs Cause with full force of numbers and weaponry. It is given the utmost importance in Islam and is one of its pillars. By Jihad Islam is established, Allahs Word is made superior (which means only Allah has the right to be worshiped), and Islam is propagated. By abandoning Jihad Islam is destroyed and Muslims fall into an inferior position; their honor is lost, their lands are stolen, their rule and authority vanish. Jihad is an obligatory duty in Islam on every Muslim. He who tries to escape from this duty, or does not fulfill this duty, dies as a hypocrite._
> I would like to know if you agree or disagree.
> and should you disagree why.
> It isn't all that complicated.



I'll be happy to share my opinion about the footnote once you have properly substantiated all of its constituent claims.


----------



## Ropey

Kalam said:


> I'll be happy to share my opinion about the footnote once you have properly substantiated all of its constituent claims.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

Kalam said:


> I'll be happy to share my opinion about the footnote once you have properly substantiated all of its constituent claims.



Thanks I dont care about your opinion on the matter.
I wanted to see you rebut it using scripture.
We both know that isnt going to happen.


----------



## Kalam

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll be happy to share my opinion about the footnote once you have properly substantiated all of its constituent claims.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks
Click to expand...

You're welcome.



Mr.Fitnah said:


> I dont care about your opinion on the matter.



You did a few minutes ago:



			
				Mr.Fitnah said:
			
		

> I would like to know if you agree or disagree.





Does that mean you were lying?



Mr.Fitnah said:


> I wanted to see you rebut it using scripture.
> We both know that isnt going to happen.


You have put forward an unsubstantiated claim and are asking me to disprove it. You are responsible for supporting your argument before it becomes my responsibility to disprove it. We both know you aren't going to provide that factual support.


----------



## Kalam

Ropey said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll be happy to share my opinion about the footnote once you have properly substantiated all of its constituent claims.
Click to expand...


Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat.


----------



## Ropey

Kalam

Mr. Fitnah said that he's not interested in your opinion on the scripture, but your rebut using scripture. That's what he's been asking for all along. 

Where you went, well that's an entirely different path.  Why? 

Obfuscation or simply not the understanding of the scripture to find the relevant passages?  Legal terms in Latin are obfuscatory as we are not in a court of law.

I want to read your response...


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

Remember how this works ?
Im the Pimp.
You work for me 
No matter what you say.
I show either your opinion  is contradicted  by scripture .
Or you end up running away for a week or so.
  It isn't a unsubstantiated claim .

Isnt the whole argument you have I know nothing about Islam?
 Prove the grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia and  &#8220;King Fahd Complex" for the Printing of the Holy Qur&#8217;an&#8212;The Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques knows nothing as well.

Agree or not ?

_Noble Qur&#8217;an 2:190 Footnote: &#8220;Jihad is holy fighting in Allah&#8217;s Cause with full force of numbers and weaponry. It is given the utmost importance in Islam and is one of its pillars. By Jihad Islam is established, Allah&#8217;s Word is made superior (which means only Allah has the right to be worshiped), and Islam is propagated. By abandoning Jihad Islam is destroyed and Muslims fall into an inferior position; their honor is lost, their lands are stolen, their rule and authority vanish. Jihad is an obligatory duty in Islam on every Muslim. He who tries to escape from this duty, or does not fulfill this duty, dies as a hypocrite.&#8221;_

If not why not.


----------



## Kalam

Ropey said:


> Kalam
> 
> Mr. Fitnah said that he's not interested in your opinion on the scripture, but your rebut using scripture.


Perhaps you would like to tell me why I should spend time rebutting something that has not been proven. Would it be fair for me to post any shoddy, baseless interpretation of Jewish scripture and ask that you rebut it lest I hold it to be correct? No, it wouldn't, because there would be no indication that the interpretation was valid in the first place. 



Ropey said:


> Obfuscation or simply not the understanding of the scripture to find the relevant passages?  Legal terms in Latin are obfuscatory.





Your failure to understand something or realize its pertinence to our present situation does not make it "obfuscatory."


----------



## Kalam

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Remember how this works ?
> Im the Pimp.
> You work for me
> No matter what you say.



Please keep your sexual fantasies about me to yourself in the future.



Mr.Fitnah said:


> It isn't a unsubstantiated claim .


Then show me where it has been substantiated.


----------



## Ropey

Kalam said:


> Your failure to understand something or realize its pertinence to our present situation does not make it "obfuscatory."



Not at all. You are not presumed innocent until proven guilty in a web discussion of scripture.

How could you be personally indicted for that?

And you laugh at me?

OK


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

It isnt scripture, its a distillation of scripture  a snap shot to make it clear.



Noble Qur&#8217;an 2:190 Footnote: &#8220;Jihad is holy fighting in Allah&#8217;s Cause with full force of numbers and weaponry. It is given the utmost importance in Islam and is one of its pillars. By Jihad Islam is established, Allah&#8217;s Word is made superior (which means only Allah has the right to be worshiped), and Islam is propagated. By abandoning Jihad Islam is destroyed and Muslims fall into an inferior position; their honor is lost, their lands are stolen, their rule and authority vanish. Jihad is an obligatory duty in Islam on every Muslim. He who tries to escape from this duty, or does not fulfill this duty, dies as a hypocrite.&#8221;


Agree or not ?
If not why not.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

Kalam said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember how this works ?
> Im the Pimp.
> You work for me
> No matter what you say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please keep your sexual fantasies about me to yourself in the future.
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't a unsubstantiated claim .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then show me where it has been substantiated.
Click to expand...


Dont be silly, you know how it works 
You give opinions .
I show they dont hold water.

Thanks why you wont give opinions , thats why Sunni bitch of having an interweb outage.


----------



## Kalam

Ropey said:


> Not at all. You are not presumed innocent until proven guilty in a web discussion of scripture.
> 
> How could you be personally indicted for that?


I see no reason to assume that the interpretation is valid in light of the author's failure to substantiate his claims. Do you?



Ropey said:


> And you laugh at me?
> 
> OK


Do you need a Kleenex?


----------



## Kalam

Mr.Fitnah said:


> It isnt scripture,


Precisely.



Mr.Fitnah said:


> its a distillation of scripture  a snap shot to make it clear.



Prove that it's accurate.


----------



## Kalam

Mr.Fitnah said:


> you know how it works
> You give opinions .
> I show they dont hold water.



We have always been at war with Eurasia.


----------



## Ropey

Mr.Fitnah said:


> It isnt scripture, its a distillation of scripture  a snap shot to make it clear.



Of course. That's why we still discuss the books. All of them. They are not clear and interpretation is everything in all the books. 

But that being said, this is a discussion on the books and their interpretations to see if Islam (via interpretation) [Sheesh, I have to modify that?] is in fact an enemy.

No interpretations allowed?  Innocent prior to presumption of guilt. This is a discussion, not a court of law. 

Those who want to enter as Muslims to support their view need to be strong enough to actually respond to the questions.

It would seem not.  So far both Sunni Man and Kalam came in here to deny there is any reason for the thread I guess.

Can't rightly say...


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

Im willing to trust the the grand mufti of Saudi Arabia or who ever runs the &#8220;King Fahd Complex" for the Printing of the Holy Qur&#8217;an&#8212;The Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques on the translation  and meaning of the Quran in this instance.





I made the scan myself.
All Im asking is do you agree or not?
And if not why?


----------



## gautama

Ropey said:


> Kalam
> 
> Mr. Fitnah said that he's not interested in your opinion on the scripture, but your rebut using scripture. That's what he's been asking for all along.
> 
> Where you went, well that's an entirely different path.  Why?
> 
> Obfuscation or simply not the understanding of the scripture to find the relevant passages?  Legal terms in Latin are obfuscatory as we are not in a court of law.
> 
> I want to read your response...



It's obvious, both of the two Muslim arseholes: Sunni Bitch and Kalam Shazam are dodging the question.

Fitnah is clobbering the two muslim jerks with their own Quran and Quaranic scholars.


----------



## Kalam

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Im willing to trust the the grand mufti of Saudi Arabia or who ever runs the King Fahd Complex" for the Printing of the Holy QuranThe Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques on the translation  and meaning of the Quran in this instance.


I'm not. 



Mr.Fitnah said:


> I made the scan myself.


Would you like a sticker?



Mr.Fitnah said:


> All Im asking is do you agree or not?
> And if not why?



Fine. If it will keep you and Ropey from whining any more, I'll overlook your logical fallacy. The Saudi footnote is characteristically misleading because "jihad" encompasses far more than physical conflict. That's the first problem.


----------



## Kalam

Ropey said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> It isnt scripture, its a distillation of scripture  a snap shot to make it clear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course. That's why we still discuss the books. All of them. They are not clear and interpretation is everything in all the books.
> 
> But that being said, this is a discussion on the books and their interpretations to see if Islam (via interpretation) [Sheesh, I have to modify that?] is in fact an enemy.
> 
> No interpretations allowed?  Innocent prior to presumption of guilt. This is a discussion, not a court of law.
> 
> Those who want to enter as Muslims to support their view need to be strong enough to actually respond to the questions.
> 
> It would seem not.  So far both Sunni Man and Kalam came in here to deny there is any reason for the thread I guess.
> 
> Can't rightly say...
Click to expand...


Do you agree with this interpretation of your religion? If not, please disprove it using scripture:



> The sole purpose of non-Jews is to serve Jews, according to Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, the head of Shass Council of Torah Sages and a senior Sephardi adjudicator.
> 
> Goyim were born only to serve us. Without that, they have no place in the world  only to serve the People of Israel, he said in his weekly Saturday night sermon on the laws regarding the actions non-Jews are permitted to perform on Shabbat.
> 
> According to Yosef, the lives of non-Jews in Israel are safeguarded by divinity, to prevent losses to Jews.
> 
> In Israel, death has no dominion over them... With gentiles, it will be like any person  they need to die, but [God] will give them longevity. Why? Imagine that ones donkey would die, theyd lose their money.
> 
> This is his servant... Thats why he gets a long life, to work well for this Jew, Yosef said.
> 
> Why are gentiles needed? They will work, they will plow, they will reap. We will sit like an effendi and eat.
> 
> That is why gentiles were created, he added.
> 
> Yosef: Gentiles exist only to serve Jews


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

Kalam said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Im willing to trust the the grand mufti of Saudi Arabia or who ever runs the King Fahd Complex" for the Printing of the Holy QuranThe Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques on the translation  and meaning of the Quran in this instance.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not.
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> I made the scan myself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Would you like a sticker?
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> All Im asking is do you agree or not?
> And if not why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fine. If it will keep you and Ropey from whining any more, I'll overlook your logical fallacy. The Saudi footnote is characteristically misleading because "jihad" encompasses far more than physical conflict. That's the first problem.
Click to expand...


The Quran is full of conditional and unconditional dictates concerning jihad.
the purpose is without question .To make Islam superior to  all laws and insure only  allah is worshiped yes or no .


----------



## Ropey

But that's just complicating an expression.  How about simplifying it. That's the reason for the interpretation Kalam. 

To make it easier to understand.  Why do you try to attach more complications? 

To obfuscate. To hide the simplistic which:

Can be taught to those who can not even read.

Those who say, "It is complicated"

Do not want to discuss. They seek to exclude. I put forward that this is what I see you doing. 

Call it whining when you are called to respond if you wish.

I call it obfuscation.


----------



## Kalam

Mr.Fitnah said:


> To make Islam superior to  all laws


Yes.



Mr.Fitnah said:


> and insure only  allah is worshiped


No.


----------



## Foxfyre

Kalam said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Im willing to trust the the grand mufti of Saudi Arabia or who ever runs the King Fahd Complex" for the Printing of the Holy QuranThe Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques on the translation  and meaning of the Quran in this instance.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not.
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> I made the scan myself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Would you like a sticker?
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> All Im asking is do you agree or not?
> And if not why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fine. If it will keep you and Ropey from whining any more, I'll overlook your logical fallacy. The Saudi footnote is characteristically misleading because "jihad" encompasses far more than physical conflict. That's the first problem.
Click to expand...


Okay, I've refused to bash either Muslims or Islam as that was not my intent for this thread.  The thread addresses my concern for Islam's intent to put western civilization under the authority of Allah and my objections to that.

So far nobody has come up with anything persuasive to reassure anybody that this is not the case.

But, as an aside, in the matter of _jihad_, Sunniman has insisted that the Qu'ran does not contain the nuances, metaphors, imagery, allegory etc. as is found the the Hebrew and Christian holy books, that it can be read literally with no translation or interpretation necessary.

So how does that square with there being multiple meanings for jihad?  And how does one discern which meaning applies in any given passage?


----------



## Ropey

Kalam said:


> Do you agree with this interpretation of your religion? If not, please disprove it using scripture:



Open up a thread about Judaism and its possibility of being an enemy and post in there. I will respond and I will do so far differently than you just did here.

Trying to shift the entire thread. Come on Kalam. You are better than that.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

Kalam said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> and insure only  allah is worshiped
> 
> 
> 
> No.
Click to expand...


So you believe allah was wrong .
according to all these Islamic scholars
OTay.

Shirk is worse than Killing

Since Jihad involves killing and shedding the blood of men, Allah indicated that these men are committing disbelief in Allah, associating with Him (in the worship) and hindering from His path, and this is a much greater evil and more disastrous than killing. Abu Malik commented about what Allah said:

[&#1608;&#1614;&#1575;&#1604;&#1618;&#1601;&#1616;&#1578;&#1618;&#1606;&#1614;&#1577;&#1615; &#1571;&#1614;&#1588;&#1614;&#1583;&#1615;&#1617; &#1605;&#1616;&#1606;&#1614; &#1575;&#1604;&#1618;&#1602;&#1614;&#1578;&#1618;&#1604;&#1616;]

(And Al-Fitnah is worse than killing.) Meaning what you (disbelievers) are committing is much worse than killing.'' Abu Al-`Aliyah, Mujahid, Sa`id bin Jubayr, `Ikrimah, Al-Hasan, Qatadah, Ad-Dahhak and Ar-Rabi` bin Anas said that what Allah said:

[&#1608;&#1614;&#1575;&#1604;&#1618;&#1601;&#1616;&#1578;&#1618;&#1606;&#1614;&#1577;&#1615; &#1571;&#1614;&#1588;&#1614;&#1583;&#1615;&#1617; &#1605;&#1616;&#1606;&#1614; &#1575;&#1604;&#1618;&#1602;&#1614;&#1578;&#1618;&#1604;&#1616;]

(And Al-Fitnah is worse than killing.) "Shirk (polytheism) is worse than killing.''

Tafsir.com Tafsir Ibn Kathir
The Order to fight until there is no more Fitnah

Allah then commanded fighting the disbelievers when He said:

[&#1581;&#1614;&#1578;&#1614;&#1617;&#1609; &#1604;&#1575;&#1614; &#1578;&#1614;&#1603;&#1615;&#1608;&#1606;&#1614; &#1601;&#1616;&#1578;&#1618;&#1606;&#1614;&#1577;&#1612;]

(...until there is no more Fitnah) meaning, Shirk. This is the opinion of Ibn `Abbas, Abu Al-`Aliyah, Mujahid, Al-Hasan, Qatadah, Ar-Rabi`, Muqatil bin Hayyan, As-Suddi and Zayd bin Aslam.

Allah's statement:

[&#1608;&#1614;&#1610;&#1614;&#1603;&#1615;&#1608;&#1606;&#1614; &#1575;&#1604;&#1583;&#1616;&#1617;&#1610;&#1606;&#1615; &#1604;&#1604;&#1614;&#1617;&#1607;&#1616;]

(...and the religion (all and every kind of worship) is for Allah (Alone).) means, `So that the religion of Allah becomes dominant above all other religions.' It is reported in the Two Sahihs that Abu Musa Al-Ash`ari said: "The Prophet was asked, `O Allah's Messenger! A man fights out of bravery, and another fights to show off, which of them fights in the cause of Allah' The Prophet said:

«&#1605;&#1614;&#1606;&#1618; &#1602;&#1614;&#1575;&#1578;&#1614;&#1604;&#1614; &#1604;&#1616;&#1578;&#1614;&#1603;&#1615;&#1608;&#1606;&#1614; &#1603;&#1614;&#1604;&#1616;&#1605;&#1614;&#1577;&#1615; &#1575;&#1604;&#1604;&#1607;&#1616; &#1607;&#1616;&#1610;&#1614; &#1575;&#1604;&#1618;&#1593;&#1615;&#1604;&#1618;&#1610;&#1575; &#1601;&#1614;&#1607;&#1615;&#1608;&#1614; &#1601;&#1616;&#1610; &#1587;&#1614;&#1576;&#1616;&#1610;&#1604;&#1616; &#1575;&#1604;&#1604;&#1607;»

(He who fights so that Allah's Word is superior, then he fights in Allah's cause.) In addition, it is reported in the Two Sahihs:

«&#1571;&#1615;&#1605;&#1616;&#1585;&#1618;&#1578;&#1615; &#1571;&#1614;&#1606;&#1618; &#1571;&#1615;&#1602;&#1614;&#1575;&#1578;&#1616;&#1604;&#1614; &#1575;&#1604;&#1606;&#1614;&#1617;&#1575;&#1587;&#1614; &#1581;&#1614;&#1578;&#1614;&#1617;&#1609; &#1610;&#1614;&#1602;&#1615;&#1608;&#1604;&#1615;&#1608;&#1575; &#1604;&#1614;&#1575; &#1573;&#1616;&#1604;&#1607;&#1614; &#1573;&#1604;&#1614;&#1617;&#1575; &#1575;&#1604;&#1604;&#1607;&#1615;&#1548; &#1601;&#1614;&#1573;&#1616;&#1584;&#1614;&#1575; &#1602;&#1614;&#1575;&#1604;&#1615;&#1608;&#1607;&#1614;&#1575; &#1593;&#1614;&#1589;&#1614;&#1605;&#1615;&#1608;&#1575; &#1605;&#1616;&#1606;&#1616;&#1617;&#1610; &#1583;&#1616;&#1605;&#1614;&#1575;&#1569;&#1614;&#1607;&#1615;&#1605; &#1608;&#1614;&#1571;&#1614;&#1605;&#1618;&#1608;&#1614;&#1575;&#1604;&#1614;&#1607;&#1615;&#1605;&#1618; &#1573;&#1604;&#1614;&#1617;&#1575; &#1576;&#1616;&#1581;&#1614;&#1602;&#1616;&#1617;&#1607;&#1614;&#1575; &#1608;&#1614;&#1581;&#1616;&#1587;&#1614;&#1575;&#1576;&#1615;&#1607;&#1615;&#1605;&#1618; &#1593;&#1614;&#1604;&#1614;&#1609; &#1575;&#1604;&#1604;&#1607;»

(I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight the people until they proclaim, `None has the right to be worshipped but Allah'. Whoever said it, then he will save his life and property from me, except for cases of the law, and their account will be with Allah.)

Allah's statement:

[&#1601;&#1614;&#1573;&#1616;&#1606;&#1616; &#1575;&#1606;&#1578;&#1614;&#1607;&#1614;&#1608;&#1575;&#1618; &#1601;&#1614;&#1604;&#1575;&#1614; &#1593;&#1615;&#1583;&#1618;&#1608;&#1614;&#1606;&#1614; &#1573;&#1616;&#1604;&#1575;&#1614;&#1617; &#1593;&#1614;&#1604;&#1614;&#1609; &#1575;&#1604;&#1592;&#1614;&#1617;&#1600;&#1604;&#1616;&#1605;&#1616;&#1610;&#1606;&#1614;]

(But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against the wrongdoers.) indicates that, `If they stop their Shirk and fighting the believers, then cease warfare against them. Whoever fights them afterwards will be committing an injustice. Verily aggression can only be started against the unjust.' This is the meaning of Mujahid's statement that only combatants should be fought. Or, the meaning of the Ayah indicates that, `If they abandon their injustice, which is Shirk in this case, then do not start aggression against them afterwards.' The aggression here means retaliating and fighting them, just as Allah said:

[&#1601;&#1614;&#1605;&#1614;&#1606;&#1616; &#1575;&#1593;&#1618;&#1578;&#1614;&#1583;&#1614;&#1609; &#1593;&#1614;&#1604;&#1614;&#1610;&#1618;&#1603;&#1615;&#1605;&#1618; &#1601;&#1614;&#1575;&#1593;&#1618;&#1578;&#1614;&#1583;&#1615;&#1608;&#1575;&#1618; &#1593;&#1614;&#1604;&#1614;&#1610;&#1618;&#1607;&#1616; &#1576;&#1616;&#1605;&#1616;&#1579;&#1618;&#1604;&#1616; &#1605;&#1614;&#1575; &#1575;&#1593;&#1618;&#1578;&#1614;&#1583;&#1614;&#1609; &#1593;&#1614;&#1604;&#1614;&#1610;&#1618;&#1603;&#1615;&#1605;&#1618;]

(Then whoever transgresses against you, you transgress likewise against him.) (2:194)

Similarly, Allah said:

[&#1608;&#1614;&#1580;&#1614;&#1586;&#1614;&#1570;&#1569;&#1615; &#1587;&#1614;&#1610;&#1616;&#1617;&#1574;&#1614;&#1577;&#1613; &#1587;&#1614;&#1610;&#1616;&#1617;&#1574;&#1614;&#1577;&#1612; &#1605;&#1616;&#1617;&#1579;&#1618;&#1604;&#1615;&#1607;&#1614;&#1575;]

(The recompense for an evil is an evil like thereof.) (42:40), and:

[&#1608;&#1614;&#1573;&#1616;&#1606;&#1618; &#1593;&#1614;&#1575;&#1602;&#1614;&#1576;&#1618;&#1578;&#1615;&#1605;&#1618; &#1601;&#1614;&#1593;&#1614;&#1575;&#1602;&#1616;&#1576;&#1615;&#1608;&#1575;&#1618; &#1576;&#1616;&#1605;&#1616;&#1579;&#1618;&#1604;&#1616; &#1605;&#1614;&#1575; &#1593;&#1615;&#1608;&#1602;&#1616;&#1576;&#1618;&#1578;&#1615;&#1605;&#1618; &#1576;&#1616;&#1607;&#1616;]

(And if you punish them, then punish them with the like of that with which you were afflicted. ) (16:126)

`Ikrimah and Qatadah stated, "The unjust person is he who refuses to proclaim, `There is no God worthy of worship except Allah'.''

Under Allah's statement:

[&#1608;&#1614;&#1602;&#1614;&#1600;&#1578;&#1616;&#1604;&#1615;&#1608;&#1607;&#1615;&#1605;&#1618; &#1581;&#1614;&#1578;&#1614;&#1617;&#1609; &#1604;&#1575;&#1614; &#1578;&#1614;&#1603;&#1615;&#1608;&#1606;&#1614; &#1601;&#1616;&#1578;&#1618;&#1606;&#1614;&#1577;&#1612;]

(And fight them until there is no more Fitnah) Al-Bukhari recorded that Nafi` said that two men came to Ibn `Umar during the conflict of Ibn Az-Zubayr and said to him, "The people have fallen into shortcomings and you are the son of `Umar and the Prophet's Companion. Hence, what prevents you from going out'' He said, "What prevents me is that Allah has for bidden shedding the blood of my (Muslim) brother.'' They said, "Did not Allah say:

[&#1608;&#1614;&#1602;&#1614;&#1600;&#1578;&#1616;&#1604;&#1615;&#1608;&#1607;&#1615;&#1605;&#1618; &#1581;&#1614;&#1578;&#1614;&#1617;&#1609; &#1604;&#1575;&#1614; &#1578;&#1614;&#1603;&#1615;&#1608;&#1606;&#1614; &#1601;&#1616;&#1578;&#1618;&#1606;&#1614;&#1577;&#1612;]

(And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah))'' He said, "We did fight until there was no more Fitnah and the religion became for Allah Alone. You want to fight until there is Fitnah and the religion becomes for other than Allah!''

`Uthman bin Salih added that a man came to Ibn `Umar and asked him, "O Abu `Abdur-Rahman! What made you perform Hajj one year and `Umrah another year and abandon Jihad in the cause of Allah, although you know how much He has encouraged performing it'' He said, "O my nephew! Islam is built on five (pillars): believing in Allah and His Messenger, the five daily prayers, fasting Ramadan, paying the Zakah and performing Hajj (pilgrimage) to the House.'' They said, "O Abu `Abdur-Rahman! Did you not hear what Allah said in His Book:

[&#1608;&#1614;&#1573;&#1616;&#1606; &#1591;&#1614;&#1570;&#1574;&#1616;&#1601;&#1614;&#1578;&#1614;&#1575;&#1606;&#1616; &#1605;&#1616;&#1606;&#1614; &#1575;&#1604;&#1618;&#1605;&#1615;&#1572;&#1618;&#1605;&#1616;&#1606;&#1616;&#1610;&#1606;&#1614; &#1575;&#1602;&#1618;&#1578;&#1614;&#1578;&#1614;&#1604;&#1615;&#1608;&#1575;&#1618; &#1601;&#1614;&#1571;&#1614;&#1589;&#1618;&#1604;&#1616;&#1581;&#1615;&#1608;&#1575;&#1618; &#1576;&#1614;&#1610;&#1618;&#1606;&#1614;&#1607;&#1615;&#1605;&#1614;&#1575; &#1601;&#1614;&#1573;&#1616;&#1606; &#1576;&#1614;&#1594;&#1614;&#1578;&#1618; &#1573;&#1616;&#1581;&#1618;&#1583;&#1614;&#1575;&#1607;&#1615;&#1605;&#1614;&#1575; &#1593;&#1614;&#1604;&#1614;&#1609; &#1575;&#1604;&#1571;&#1615;&#1582;&#1618;&#1585;&#1614;&#1609; &#1601;&#1614;&#1602;&#1614;&#1600;&#1578;&#1616;&#1604;&#1615;&#1608;&#1575;&#1618; &#1575;&#1604;&#1614;&#1617;&#1578;&#1616;&#1609; &#1578;&#1614;&#1576;&#1618;&#1594;&#1616;&#1609; &#1581;&#1614;&#1578;&#1614;&#1617;&#1609; &#1578;&#1614;&#1601;&#1616;&#1609;&#1569;&#1614; &#1573;&#1616;&#1604;&#1614;&#1609; &#1571;&#1614;&#1605;&#1618;&#1585;&#1616; &#1575;&#1604;&#1604;&#1614;&#1617;&#1607;&#1616;]

(And if two parties (or groups) among the believers fall to fighting, then make peace between them both. But if one of them outrages against the other, then fight you (all) against the one that which outrages till it complies with the command of Allah.) (49:9) and:

[&#1608;&#1614;&#1602;&#1614;&#1600;&#1578;&#1616;&#1604;&#1615;&#1608;&#1607;&#1615;&#1605;&#1618; &#1581;&#1614;&#1578;&#1614;&#1617;&#1609; &#1604;&#1575;&#1614; &#1578;&#1614;&#1603;&#1615;&#1608;&#1606;&#1614; &#1601;&#1616;&#1578;&#1618;&#1606;&#1614;&#1577;&#1612;]

(And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief))

He said, "That we did during the time of Allah's Messenger when Islam was still weak and (the Muslim) man used to face trials in his religion, such as killing or torture. When Islam became stronger (and apparent), there was no more Fitnah.'' He asked, "What do you say about `Ali and `Uthman'' He said, "As for `Uthman, Allah has forgiven him. However, you hated the fact that Allah had forgiven him! As for `Ali, he is the cousin of Allah's Messenger and his son-in-law.'' He then pointed with his hand, saying, "This is where his house is located (meaning, `so close to the Prophet's house just as `Ali was so close to the Prophet himself').''

[&#1575;&#1604;&#1588;&#1614;&#1617;&#1607;&#1618;&#1585;&#1615; &#1575;&#1604;&#1618;&#1581;&#1614;&#1585;&#1614;&#1575;&#1605;&#1615; &#1576;&#1616;&#1575;&#1604;&#1588;&#1614;&#1617;&#1607;&#1618;&#1585;&#1616; &#1575;&#1604;&#1618;&#1581;&#1614;&#1585;&#1614;&#1575;&#1605;&#1616; &#1608;&#1614;&#1575;&#1604;&#1618;&#1581;&#1615;&#1585;&#1615;&#1605;&#1614;&#1600;&#1578;&#1615; &#1602;&#1616;&#1589;&#1614;&#1575;&#1589;&#1612; &#1601;&#1614;&#1605;&#1614;&#1606;&#1616; &#1575;&#1593;&#1618;&#1578;&#1614;&#1583;&#1614;&#1609; &#1593;&#1614;&#1604;&#1614;&#1610;&#1618;&#1603;&#1615;&#1605;&#1618; &#1601;&#1614;&#1575;&#1593;&#1618;&#1578;&#1614;&#1583;&#1615;&#1608;&#1575;&#1618; &#1593;&#1614;&#1604;&#1614;&#1610;&#1618;&#1607;&#1616; &#1576;&#1616;&#1605;&#1616;&#1579;&#1618;&#1604;&#1616; &#1605;&#1614;&#1575; &#1575;&#1593;&#1618;&#1578;&#1614;&#1583;&#1614;&#1609; &#1593;&#1614;&#1604;&#1614;&#1610;&#1618;&#1603;&#1615;&#1605;&#1618; &#1608;&#1614;&#1575;&#1578;&#1614;&#1617;&#1602;&#1615;&#1608;&#1575;&#1618; &#1575;&#1604;&#1604;&#1614;&#1617;&#1607;&#1614; &#1608;&#1614;&#1575;&#1593;&#1618;&#1604;&#1614;&#1605;&#1615;&#1608;&#1575;&#1618; &#1571;&#1614;&#1606;&#1614;&#1617; &#1575;&#1604;&#1604;&#1614;&#1617;&#1607;&#1614; &#1605;&#1614;&#1593;&#1614; &#1575;&#1604;&#1618;&#1605;&#1615;&#1578;&#1614;&#1617;&#1602;&#1616;&#1610;&#1606;&#1614;]

(194. The sacred month is for the sacred month, and for the prohibited things, there is the Law of equality (Qisas). Then whoever transgresses against you, you transgress likewise against him. And fear Allah, and know that Allah is with Al-Muttaqin.)
Tafsir.com Tafsir Ibn Kathir

*IT IS A JOY WORKING WITH A PROFESSIONAL.*


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

Foxfyre said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Im willing to trust the the grand mufti of Saudi Arabia or who ever runs the King Fahd Complex" for the Printing of the Holy QuranThe Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques on the translation  and meaning of the Quran in this instance.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not.
> 
> 
> Would you like a sticker?
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> All Im asking is do you agree or not?
> And if not why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fine. If it will keep you and Ropey from whining any more, I'll overlook your logical fallacy. The Saudi footnote is characteristically misleading because "jihad" encompasses far more than physical conflict. That's the first problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, I've refused to bash either Muslims or Islam as that was not my intent for this thread.  The thread addresses my concern for Islam's intent to put western civilization under the authority of Allah and my objections to that.
> 
> So far nobody has come up with anything persuasive to reassure anybody that this is not the case.
> 
> But, as an aside, in the matter of _jihad_, Sunniman has insisted that the Qu'ran does not contain the nuances, metaphors, imagery, allegory etc. as is found the the Hebrew and Christian holy books, that it can be read literally with no translation or interpretation necessary.
> 
> So how does that square with there being multiple meanings for jihad?  And how does one discern which meaning applies in any given passage?
Click to expand...


----------



## Kalam

Foxfyre said:


> So how does that square with there being multiple meanings for jihad?  And how does one discern which meaning applies in any given passage?



The word doesn't have multiple meanings; it literally denotes _striving_ and refers in religious contexts to any effort made for the sake of Allah (SWT). My point was that this term includes a far broader range of actions than the posted interpretation implies. 



Foxfyre said:


> And how does one discern which meaning applies in any given passage?


By examining the scriptural and historical context of the passage in question. Did you have any in mind?


----------



## Ropey

Foxfyre said:


> So how does that square with there being multiple meanings for jihad?  And how does one discern which meaning applies in any given passage?





Kalam said:


> The word doesn't have multiple meanings; it literally denotes _striving_ and refers in religious contexts to any effort made for the sake of Allah (SWT). My point was that this term includes a far broader range of actions than the posted interpretation implies.





Foxfyre said:


> And how does one discern which meaning applies in any given passage?





Kalam said:


> By examining the scriptural and historical context of the passage in question. Did you have any in mind?



Where is the interpretation Kalam? There's circular logic at work here. It gets nothing done. That's why there needs to be interpretations and why we need to be able to discuss them singly, and _not _attach other significances until we move on to other significances.

I agree Foxfyre, to simply say it is more complicated than that considers we are far too simple to understand that which they can even teach the illiterate.


----------



## Kalam

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> and insure only  allah is worshiped
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you believe allah was wrong .
> according to all these Islamic scholars
> OTay.
Click to expand...


Where does Ibn Kathir or any scholar state that all non-Muslims must be killed?


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

Islamic Verdicts Regarding Those Who Mock Islm and Its Followers


----------



## Kalam

I'm sorry; that link does not lead to any scholar calling for the sort of genocide of nonbelievers that you insist is demanded by Islam.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

Kalam said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you believe allah was wrong .
> according to all these Islamic scholars
> OTay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where does Ibn Kathir or any scholar state that all non-Muslims must be killed?
Click to expand...


Well it doesn't, it just tells muslims to fight until only muslims remain.
So there is a difference, but no daylight.


----------



## Kalam

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Well it doesn't, it just tells muslims to fight until only muslims remain.



Does it?


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

Kalam said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well it doesn't, it just tells muslims to fight until only muslims remain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does it?
Click to expand...


Yes.


----------



## Kalam

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well it doesn't, it just tells muslims to fight until only muslims remain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.
Click to expand...


Go on...


----------



## Foxfyre

Kalam said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> So how does that square with there being multiple meanings for jihad?  And how does one discern which meaning applies in any given passage?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The word doesn't have multiple meanings; it literally denotes _striving_ and refers in religious contexts to any effort made for the sake of Allah (SWT). My point was that this term includes a far broader range of actions than the posted interpretation implies.
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> And how does one discern which meaning applies in any given passage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By examining the scriptural and historical context of the passage in question. Did you have any in mind?
Click to expand...


No, not any specific passage at this time.  We've looked a numerous ones over the course of this thread.  So what you are saying is that the Qu'ran is interpreted within its historical context just as Jews interpret the Torah within its historical context and the Christians interpret their Bible within its historical context.

And that would absolutely contradict Sunniman's explanation of that.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

My word on the topic of Islam is good enough .
If you disagree with me , you disagree with the "Prophet"


----------



## Kalam

Mr.Fitnah said:


> My word on the topic of Islam is good enough .
> If you disagree with me , you disagree with the "Prophet"





Too funny.


----------



## Ropey

Foxfyre said:


> And that would absolutely contradict Sunniman's explanation of that.



Don't be too sure that it doesn't Foxfyre. Kalam is pretty enlightened...


----------



## Kalam

Foxfyre said:


> No, not any specific passage at this time.  We've looked a numerous ones over the course of this thread.  So what you are saying is that the Qu'ran is interpreted within its historical context just as Jews interpret the Torah within its historical context and the Christians interpret their Bible within its historical context.
> 
> And that would absolutely contradict Sunniman's explanation of that.



Hmm... I didn't read Sunni Man's post myself, but I doubt we've completely contradicted each other. I'll browse the thread for it.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

Kalam said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> My word on the topic of Islam is good enough .
> If you disagree with me , you disagree with the "Prophet"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Too funny.
Click to expand...


Isn't it?
That is why  you are always quoting scripture... and linking to scripture and ..... and what?

What is it you do exactly ?

Oh yeah say....., I dont know anything about Islam.

Well lets say I dont know anything about Islam .Lets start there..




You explain what part of  this statement you disagree with 

_Jihad is holy fighting in Allahs Cause with full force of numbers and weaponry. It is given the utmost importance in Islam and is one of its pillars. By Jihad Islam is established, 

Allahs Word is made superior (which means only Allah has the right to be worshiped), and Islam is propagated. By abandoning Jihad Islam is destroyed and Muslims fall into an inferior position; their honor is lost, their lands are stolen, their rule and authority vanish.

 Jihad is an obligatory duty in Islam on every Muslim. He who tries to escape from this duty, or does not fulfill this duty, dies as a hypocrite._


----------



## gautama

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> My word on the topic of Islam is good enough .
> If you disagree with me , you disagree with the "Prophet"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Too funny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Isn't it?
> That is why  you are always quoting scripture... and linking to scripture and ..... and what?
> 
> What is it you do exactly ?
> 
> Oh yeah say....., I dont know anything about Islam.
> 
> Well lets say I dont know anything about Islam .Lets start there..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You explain what part of  this statement you disagree with
> 
> _&#8220;Jihad is holy fighting in Allah&#8217;s Cause with full force of numbers and weaponry. It is given the utmost importance in Islam and is one of its pillars. By Jihad Islam is established,
> 
> Allah&#8217;s Word is made superior (which means only Allah has the right to be worshiped), and Islam is propagated. By abandoning Jihad Islam is destroyed and Muslims fall into an inferior position; their honor is lost, their lands are stolen, their rule and authority vanish.
> 
> Jihad is an obligatory duty in Islam on every Muslim. He who tries to escape from this duty, or does not fulfill this duty, dies as a hypocrite.&#8221;_
Click to expand...


Bottom Line: Unquestionably, Fitnah is clobbering the crap outa the two Muslim arseholes Sunni Bitch and Kalam Shazam using their Ridiculous Qu'ran, and their own Muslim Scholars to do this.

And, in this process, Fitnah is proving beyond a nanogram of a doubt that the Historically Documented Psycho, the MASS MURDERER, THIEF, and PEDOPHILIC RAPIST Mohammed, and his Flawed concoction of SUPREMACIST BULLSHIT, THE LUDICROUS QU'RAN, are simply a GARGANTUAN Mt. EVEREST of UNMITIGATED  & UNADULTERATED......*CAMELSHIT !!!*


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

Im sure Mr Kalam Man and Mr Sunni bBitch are having the interwebnet outrage.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

Outage


----------



## Ropey

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> My word on the topic of Islam is good enough .
> If you disagree with me , you disagree with the "Prophet"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Too funny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Isn't it?
> That is why  you are always quoting scripture... and linking to scripture and ..... and what?
> 
> What is it you do exactly ?
> 
> Oh yeah say....., I dont know anything about Islam.
> 
> Well lets say I dont know anything about Islam .Lets start there..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You explain what part of  this statement you disagree with
> 
> _Jihad is holy fighting in Allahs Cause with full force of numbers and weaponry. It is given the utmost importance in Islam and is one of its pillars. By Jihad Islam is established,
> 
> Allahs Word is made superior (which means only Allah has the right to be worshiped), and Islam is propagated. By abandoning Jihad Islam is destroyed and Muslims fall into an inferior position; their honor is lost, their lands are stolen, their rule and authority vanish.
> 
> Jihad is an obligatory duty in Islam on every Muslim. He who tries to escape from this duty, or does not fulfill this duty, dies as a hypocrite._
Click to expand...


He's already told you Mr. Fitnah. 

Kalam's interpretation of Jihad is too complex to assign any single label of event to such a thing and claim that is all it means. I've talked with him before.  

Jihad to one interpretation is holy war in a physical sense. This is why so many die on Islam's holiest days. That interpretation predates any attack on Islam. 

But, there's no fighting Kalams extension logically Mr. Fitnah. It passes the logic tables for truth in that it can not be disproven and it can be broken down to a simple equation. 

Jihad, defined as a human struggle on a spiritual journey to bring peace to the human soul and which is [at this point in time] being interpreted (by some) as a physical journey in which a physical defeat of <insert ideological NOT spiritual path>.

I use the realities of what happens today to temper my own interpretations of what the hay is going on right now.

And this is where I believe the above interpretation on a spiritual level loses. It loses to the reality on the ground at this moment.

The word peace to Western philosophy is not that complicated. Islam has another meaning for peace. They are not the same. It is made complicated to disguise its real meaning. 

Islam is peace by Islamic terms.

Peace in Islam is to be free from war. Free from war is to submit to the natural will of Allah. 

To be at peace is to be under the will of Muslims who submit to the will of Allah. In other words, when the world is under the will of Allah and all Muslims submitting to Allah with all others under the will of those Muslims, then the world is under peace.

We won't get into what happens to those who are  under the will of those who are submitting to Allah.

Other than that, the definitions change due to ideologies, and you could argue with Kalam all night and day, but you could not do more than counter with the reality of today which is countered by the view is that the interpretation is at fault, not the book. 

There's no win here. Not in the sense of the ebb and flow in multi generational movements of man. It has its own life and we are simply holding on. Every once and a while an anomaly pops up and the quick catch it. 

Which is what I said at the beginning of this thread. There's no master plan. Yes, there's a militant side to Islam. There was to Judaism. There was (and in some places is) to Christianity. 

But that doesn't discount that the problem is the interpretation. One must needs visit the side that is prominent at this time and not the enlightened interpretation which is belied by all the Islamic violence in the world. 

So, that's why I stay in the reality of the moment. It's all we have until we are gone. 

We can see what is happening in the moment. If I move into my head and focus on spiritual enlightenment.  

*Then I want my ass protected.* 

That has much meaning to me!


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

*Then I want my ass protected.*

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvTElEQICeI[/ame]


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

I just realized Ive talked to thatr guy on the phone.

Im much better looking.


----------



## gautama

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Outage



Actually...... *both.*


----------



## gautama

Ropey said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Too funny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't it?
> That is why  you are always quoting scripture... and linking to scripture and ..... and what?
> 
> What is it you do exactly ?
> 
> Oh yeah say....., I dont know anything about Islam.
> 
> Well lets say I dont know anything about Islam .Lets start there..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You explain what part of  this statement you disagree with
> 
> _Jihad is holy fighting in Allahs Cause with full force of numbers and weaponry. It is given the utmost importance in Islam and is one of its pillars. By Jihad Islam is established,
> 
> Allahs Word is made superior (which means only Allah has the right to be worshiped), and Islam is propagated. By abandoning Jihad Islam is destroyed and Muslims fall into an inferior position; their honor is lost, their lands are stolen, their rule and authority vanish.
> 
> Jihad is an obligatory duty in Islam on every Muslim. He who tries to escape from this duty, or does not fulfill this duty, dies as a hypocrite._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's already told you Mr. Fitnah.
> 
> Kalam's interpretation of Jihad is too complex to assign any single label of event to such a thing and claim that is all it means. I've talked with him before.
> 
> Jihad to one interpretation is holy war in a physical sense. This is why so many die on Islam's holiest days. That interpretation predates any attack on Islam.
> 
> But, there's no fighting Kalams extension logically Mr. Fitnah. It passes the logic tables for truth in that it can not be disproven and it can be broken down to a simple equation.
> 
> Jihad, defined as a human struggle on a spiritual journey to bring peace to the human soul and which is [at this point in time] being interpreted (by some) as a physical journey in which a physical defeat of <insert ideological NOT spiritual path>.
> 
> I use the realities of what happens today to temper my own interpretations of what the hay is going on right now.
> 
> And this is where I believe the above interpretation on a spiritual level loses. It loses to the reality on the ground at this moment.
> 
> The word peace to Western philosophy is not that complicated. Islam has another meaning for peace. They are not the same. It is made complicated to disguise its real meaning.
> 
> Islam is peace by Islamic terms.
> 
> Peace in Islam is to be free from war. Free from war is to submit to the natural will of Allah.
> 
> To be at peace is to be under the will of Muslims who submit to the will of Allah. In other words, when the world is under the will of Allah and all Muslims submitting to Allah with all others under the will of those Muslims, then the world is under peace.
> 
> We won't get into what happens to those who are  under the will of those who are submitting to Allah.
> 
> Other than that, the definitions change due to ideologies, and you could argue with Kalam all night and day, but you could not do more than counter with the reality of today which is countered by the view is that the interpretation is at fault, not the book.
> 
> There's no win here. Not in the sense of the ebb and flow in multi generational movements of man. It has its own life and we are simply holding on. Every once and a while an anomaly pops up and the quick catch it.
> 
> Which is what I said at the beginning of this thread. There's no master plan. Yes, there's a militant side to Islam. There was to Judaism. There was (and in some places is) to Christianity.
> 
> But that doesn't discount that the problem is the interpretation. One must needs visit the side that is prominent at this time and not the enlightened interpretation which is belied by all the Islamic violence in the world.
> 
> So, that's why I stay in the reality of the moment. It's all we have until we are gone.
> 
> We can see what is happening in the moment. If I move into my head and focus on spiritual enlightenment.
> 
> *Then I want my ass protected.*
> 
> That has much meaning to me!
Click to expand...


Ropey states:

"To be at peace is to be under the will of Muslims who submit to the will of Allah. In other words, when the world is under the will of Allah and all Muslims submitting to Allah with all others under the will of those Muslims, then the world is under peace."

Ropey is exactly correct.

Obamarrhoidal Libturds never miss a chance to apologize to the fucking Muslims, or interpret murky Muslim activities, including blatant travesties with ready pro-Muslim type "interpretations.

Gaggles of LIEberrhoids were/are known to join the MuslimArseLicking chorus of singing praise to Islam.....Islam being the "Religion of Peace".

This the Libtards did by adoring one of the most Jihadist Arseholes the Muslims had, i.e., quoting Sayyid Qutb (1906 - 1966) because this shithead was known to declare in the media that "Islam is the Religion of Peace."

I suppose that the usual slipshod attitude towards confirming "facts" by the LibTURDS is underlined by the fact that Sayyid Qutb's idea of "peace", when researched, was exactly what Ropey stated. This arsehole Sayyid Qutb was a proponent of extreme violence in order to achieve Quran's Primary Instruction (paraphrased): Make the World he Caliphate of Islam preferably by word.....by SWORD if necessary.

To Sayyid Qutb "Islam as a Religion of Peace" meant that *when* Islam became established as the World's only or dominating Religion, *then* there would be peace.


----------



## Kalam

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Isn't it?



It's more sad than anything.



Mr.Fitnah said:


> You explain what part of  this statement you disagree with


Alright.



Mr.Fitnah said:


> &#8220;Jihad is holy fighting in Allah&#8217;s Cause with full force of numbers and weaponry.



This is incorrect. "Jihad" in Islam is used to denote _striving_ in the broadest sense, which may include but isn't limited to fighting. For example:

_And We have enjoined on man goodness to his parents, but if they both strive against you (jahadaka) to make you associate with Me that of which you have no knowledge, do not obey either of them... _- 29:8

_It is related that 'A'isha, Umm al-Mu'minin, said, "Messenger of Allah, may we go on ghazawat (battles) and do jihad with you?" He said, "But the best and most excellent jihad is hajj (pilgrimage to Makkah) - an accepted hajj." 'A'isha said, "I will not abandon hajj after hearing this from the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace."_ - Bukhari​


Mr.Fitnah said:


> It is given the utmost importance in Islam and is one of its pillars.



_It is related from Ibn 'Umar, may Allah be pleased with him, that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, "Islam is based on five [principles]: (1) the testifying that there is no god except Allah and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah; (2) establishing prayer; (3) paying the zakah; (4) the Hajj; (5) and the fast of Ramadan._ - Bukhari​
I have not seen fighting mentioned as one of the principles of the faith in sahih ahadith. Fighting in Allah's cause when necessary is a duty of central importance, but not to the extent that the so-called "pillars" of the faith are.



Mr.Fitnah said:


> Allah&#8217;s Word is made superior (which means only Allah has the right to be worshiped),



Non-Muslims under Shari'ah may continue worshiping other, false deities with the protection of the Islamic state provided that the jizyah is paid by all males of fighting age:

_And insult not those whom they invoke other than Allah, lest they insult Allah in enmity without knowledge. Thus We have made fair-seeming to every community their deed. Then to their Lord is their return, then he will inform them about what they used to do._ - 6:108

Anas reported: _"The Messenger of Allah (SAWS) wrote to the people of Yemen, 'Whoever is adamant upon Judaism or Christianity will not be tormented for it, and he is obliged to pay the jizya.'"_ - Bukhari​
The pact of protection today can be extended to all non-Muslims rather than only to Jews and Christians; this is evidenced by the fact that the dhimma was extended by Muhammad (SAWS) and the successors (RA) to Zoroastrians and polytheists in places like Bahrain and Persia. Only the polytheistic Arabs of the peninsula were not allowed to enter the pact due to their history of relentless oppression and betrayal of the early Ummah.

The rights of the people of the dhimma are safeguarded by the Muslims in accordance with the words and actions of Muhammad (SAWS) and the rightly-guided successors (RA):

'Ali (RA) said: _"They (the people of the dhimma) have accepted our protection only so their lives can be like our lives and their properties like our properties_ - Abu Dawud

The Messenger of Allah (SAWS) said: _"He who harms a person under covenant (dhimma), or charges him more than he can [afford] -- I will argue against him on the Day of Judgement."_ - Reported by Yahya ibn Adam, Kitab al-Kharaj

The Messenger of Allah (SAWS) said: _"He who hurts a dhimmi hurts me, and he who hurts me annoys Allah."_ - Reported by At-Tabarani


The Messenger of Allah (SAWS) said:_ "The diyyah (blood money) of the Jews and Christians is like (equal to) the Muslim&#8217;s diyyah."_ - Reported by Amru ibn Shuaib

Al-Bayhaqi reported that _"the Messenger of Allah killed a Muslim for [killing] a mu'ahid (a disbeliever living outside of the Islamic State) and said, 'I am the most noble of those who fulfill their dhimma.'"_ - from the hadith of 'Abd ur-Rahman al-Bailimani​
The state also provides for their economic well-being:

_'Umar ibn al-Khattab (RA) once passed by an old dhimmi begging at doors and said, "We have not done justice to you if we have taken jizyah from you in the prime of your youth and neglected you in your old age." He then ordered from the treasury what was suitable for him._ - Reported by Abu 'Ubayd in the Kitab al-Amwal​
Regarding the jizyah, I mentioned previously that it is paid only by mature males from among the people of the dhimma and is not taken from women, children, the elderly, or the poor. The rate of taxation depends on the prosperity of the taxpayer and nobody can be overburdened financially. The process of taxpaying must also not be a humiliating affair for the people of the dhimma, contrary to what some people seem to believe.

Narrated Abu Najeeh: _"I said to Mujahid: 'What is the matter with the people of Ash-Sham, who pay 4 Dinars (in taxation while) the people of Yemen pay 1 Dinar?' He said, 'This was decided based on prosperity.'"_ - Bukhari

_"I saw 'Umar four nights before he was assassinated sitting on top a camel, saying to Hudhayfa ibn al-Yaman and 'Uthman ibn al-Hunayf, 'Review the affairs under your charge. Do you think that you have burdened the tenants with what they cannot bear?' 'Uthman replied, 'I have levied on them an amount that I could double and they would still have the ability to pay.' Hudhayfa said: 'I have imposed on them an amount that leaves a large surplus.'"_ - Reported by 'Amr ibn Maymun

_"'Umar ibn al-Khattab was brought a huge amount of wealth &#8211; I believe, he said, 'Of jizya' &#8211; and he said, 'I think you must have placed the people in hardship (for such wealth).' They (his subordinates) said, 'No, by Allah, we did not collect anything that was not given voluntarily and of their own free will.' He said, 'Without using a stick [to hit them] and without stringing [them up]?' They said, 'Yes.' He said, 'Praise be to Allah, who has not caused this to happen at my hands or during my authority.'"_ - Reported by Abu 'Ubayd in the Kitab al-Amwal​


Mr.Fitnah said:


> Jihad is an obligatory duty in Islam on every Muslim. He who tries to escape from this duty, or does not fulfill this duty, dies as a hypocrite.&#8221;



Assuming the author is still using _jihad_ to refer solely to "holy war", this is incorrect. The Qur'an states explicitly that the infirm are in no way expected to participate in fighting, and various ahadith make it clear that women are exempted as well, along with children and the elderly (obviously.) Women may participate in armed conflict if they so wish, however, following the example of those such as Nusaybah bint Ka'ab, who fought alongside the Prophet (SAWS).

This Hizb ut-Tahrir affiliated website provides more information about the dhimma and the Caliphate in general:

http://khilafah.com/index.php/the-khilafah/non-muslims/499-dhimmi-non-muslims-living-in-the-khilafah


----------



## gautama

Sunni Man said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are saying that in most predominantly Islamic countries I can open a church, put a cross and sign on it, and invite all the neighbors to come?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Depends on the country.
> 
> Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, and others, have both Christian and Jewish houses of worship.
Click to expand...


Phoni-Baloni-Sunni,

But not in Saudi Arabia....and probably a few other Muslim countries. And Saudi Arabia with its Mecca & Medina are supposedly the SHOWCASES for your Religion of Supremacy and Camelshit.


----------



## Sunni Man

gautama said:


> And Saudi Arabia with its Mecca & Medina are supposedly the SHOWCASES for your Religion


Who told you that?


----------



## gautama

Sunni Man said:


> gautama said:
> 
> 
> 
> And Saudi Arabia with its Mecca & Medina are supposedly the SHOWCASES for your Religion
> 
> 
> 
> Who told you that?
Click to expand...


 Fucking Allah.


----------



## Ropey




----------



## Sunni Man

Ropey said:


>



So what?

Christians say that if you don't believe in Jesus as God.

You will not go to heaven.


----------



## Ropey

Sunni Man said:


> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what?
> 
> Christians say that if you don't believe in Jesus as God.
> 
> You will not go to heaven.
Click to expand...


They must submit to the will of those Muslims who submit to the will of Allah.

Where is that in Christianity Sunni Man?

Where are Christians requiring Muslims to submit to them because they are superior since they submit to Jesus and his father?


----------



## Sunni Man

Read the verses you posted Ropey.

As your hatred has forced you to read things that the text doesn't say.


They say nothing about Christian or anyone else submitting to muslims.

The verses only say that if a person rejects Allah; they will be denied heaven when they die.

Which is exactly what Christians say about Jesus and heaven.


----------



## Ropey

> Some Muslim scholars reject the claim that Islam was spread by the sword, on the grounds that the 'third choice' was offered to conquered peoples.  Here Major Hasan also cites the famous verse which states that there is no compulsion in religion.  The main interpretation of this verse, in the light of 9:29 discussed above, is that it is not right to compel Jews and Christians (and others) who have taken the 'third choice' to convert to Islam.



Click



> The Meaning of Mu'min, or Believer
> 
> `Ali bin Abi Talhah narrated from Ibn `Abbas, about,
> 
> [&#1573;&#1616;&#1606;&#1617;&#1614; &#1575;&#1604;&#1617;&#1614;&#1584;&#1616;&#1610;&#1606;&#1614; &#1569;&#1614;&#1575;&#1605;&#1614;&#1606;&#1615;&#1608;&#1575;&#1618; &#1608;&#1614;&#1575;&#1604;&#1617;&#1614;&#1584;&#1616;&#1610;&#1606;&#1614; &#1607;&#1614;&#1575;&#1583;&#1615;&#1608;&#1575;&#1618; &#1608;&#1614;&#1575;&#1604;&#1606;&#1617;&#1614;&#1589;&#1614;&#1600;&#1585;&#1614;&#1609; &#1608;&#1614;&#1575;&#1604;&#1589;&#1617;&#1614;&#1600;&#1576;&#1616;&#1574;&#1616;&#1610;&#1606;&#1614; &#1605;&#1614;&#1606;&#1618; &#1569;&#1614;&#1575;&#1605;&#1614;&#1606;&#1614; &#1576;&#1616;&#1575;&#1604;&#1604;&#1617;&#1614;&#1607;&#1616; &#1608;&#1614;&#1575;&#1604;&#1618;&#1610;&#1614;&#1608;&#1618;&#1605;&#1616; &#1575;&#1604;&#1575;&#1617;&#1612;&#1582;&#1616;&#1585;&#1616;]
> 
> (Verily, those who believe and those who are Jews and Christians, and Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day) that Allah revealed the following Ayah afterwards,
> 
> [&#1608;&#1614;&#1605;&#1614;&#1606; &#1610;&#1614;&#1576;&#1618;&#1578;&#1614;&#1594;&#1616; &#1594;&#1614;&#1610;&#1618;&#1585;&#1614; &#1575;&#1604;&#1573;&#1616;&#1587;&#1618;&#1604;&#1614;&#1600;&#1605;&#1616; &#1583;&#1616;&#1610;&#1606;&#1611;&#1575; &#1601;&#1614;&#1604;&#1614;&#1606; &#1610;&#1615;&#1602;&#1618;&#1576;&#1614;&#1604;&#1614; &#1605;&#1616;&#1606;&#1618;&#1607;&#1615; &#1608;&#1614;&#1607;&#1615;&#1608;&#1614; &#1601;&#1616;&#1609; &#1575;&#1604;&#1575;&#1617;&#1612;&#1582;&#1616;&#1585;&#1614;&#1577;&#1616; &#1605;&#1616;&#1606;&#1614; &#1575;&#1604;&#1618;&#1582;&#1614;&#1600;&#1587;&#1616;&#1585;&#1616;&#1610;&#1606;&#1614; ]
> 
> (And whoever seeks religion other than Islam, it will never be accepted of him, and in the Hereafter he will be one of the losers) (3:85).
> 
> This statement by Ibn `Abbas indicates that Allah does not accept any deed or work from anyone, unless it conforms to the Law of Muhammad that is, after Allah sent Muhammad . Before that, every person who followed the guidance of his own Prophet was on the correct path, following the correct guidance and was saved.



Click


----------



## Kalam

You're treating Nidal Malik Hassan as an authority on the Islamic religion? Now you're just embarrassing yourself.


----------



## Sunni Man

Typical Zionist response to getting caught in a blatant lie.

Ignore that you were busted and change the subject.


----------



## Ropey

He believes....

You say he does not?


----------



## Ropey

Kalam said:


> You're treating Nidal Malik Hassan as an authority on the Islamic religion? Now you're just embarrassing yourself.



And you run from every Muslim that kills innocents in the name of Allah pretending that they are not an authority, so what they do can not be attached to Muslim extremism. 

Because you state there's no such thing as personal liability to religious choice in Islam?


----------



## Kalam

Ropey said:


> And you run from every Muslim that kills innocents in the name of Allah pretending that they are not an authority, so what they do can not be attached to Muslim extremism.


"Pretending they are not an authority..."

From which teacher or institution did he receive his ijaazah?


----------



## Ropey

Kalam said:


> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you run from every Muslim that kills innocents in the name of Allah pretending that they are not an authority, so what they do can not be attached to Muslim extremism.
> 
> 
> 
> "Pretending they are not an authority..."
> 
> From which teacher or institution did he receive his ijaazah?
Click to expand...


Squirm all you want. In the West we have something called personal authority, and Major Hassan was a citizen under that personal authority as well as a Military man under the authority of the American military.

He killed American innocents, the ones he was under oath to protect under that personal authority.

You know the one. The one you say does not exist so he is simply acting alone and Islam is the religion of Western Peace?

Yeah, right.


----------



## Sunni Man

Ropey said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're treating Nidal Malik Hassan as an authority on the Islamic religion? Now you're just embarrassing yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you run from every Muslim that kills innocents in the name of Allah pretending that they are not an authority, so what they do can not be attached to Muslim extremism.
Click to expand...


So by your logic Ropey. 

This man was an authority on Judiasm.

"The Cave of the Patriarchs massacre occurred when *Baruch Goldstein* opened fire on unarmed Palestinian Muslims praying inside the Ibrahim Mosque (or Mosque of Abraham) at the Cave of the Patriarchs site in Hebron in the West Bank. It took place on February 25, 1994, during the overlapping religious holidays of Purim and Ramadan. 29 worshippers were killed and 125 wounded. The attack ended when Goldstein had expended his ammunition."

Cave of the Patriarchs massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Kalam

Ropey said:


> Squirm all you want.




"Squirm?" You're acting as if a man with zero religious credentials is some sort of religious authority, so expect to be called out for making such laughable insinuations. Bringing attention to the silliness of your argument can't accurately be described as "squirming" on my part, but you know that.



Ropey said:


> In the West we have something called personal authority, and Major Hassan was a citizen under that personal authority.
> 
> He killed innocents, under that personal authority.


And you maintain (baselessly, of course) that his actions and words must reflect the teachings of the religion of Islam. It's becoming clear that your goal is to spout venom and propaganda -- not to engage in any sort of discourse. 



Ropey said:


> You know the one. The one you say does not exist so he is simply acting alone and Islam is the religion of Western Peace?


I haven't a clue what you're referring to with "Western Peace" and have never made such a statement. Keep being dishonest, though; it really highlights the ridiculousness of your posts.


----------



## Ropey

Sunni Man said:


> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're treating Nidal Malik Hassan as an authority on the Islamic religion? Now you're just embarrassing yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you run from every Muslim that kills innocents in the name of Allah pretending that they are not an authority, so what they do can not be attached to Muslim extremism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So by your logic Ropey.
> 
> This man was an authority on Judiasm.
> 
> "The Cave of the Patriarchs massacre occurred when *Baruch Goldstein* opened fire on unarmed Palestinian Muslims praying inside the Ibrahim Mosque (or Mosque of Abraham) at the Cave of the Patriarchs site in Hebron in the West Bank. It took place on February 25, 1994, during the overlapping religious holidays of Purim and Ramadan. 29 worshippers were killed and 125 wounded. The attack ended when Goldstein had expended his ammunition."
> 
> Cave of the Patriarchs massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


An authority enough to take the personal responsibility that he says all Muslims have.

No more.

*You run to attack Jews in a thread about Muslims and Islam? *

LOL - Always the Jews. All thirteen million of us. LOL

Is that all you have?  

It's not much. All these Islamic events killing innocents worldwide is simply just 'happening'.

No connection and no attachment to Islam.

You can say that. I don't believe you.



Ropey said:


> *You run to attack Jews in a thread about Muslims and Islam? *



Because you and Kalam have lost the discussion when you move off the topic onto something that has no connection to the discussio,n Kalam and Sunni Man.

*Muslims are our friends but Islam is the enemy of Western Civilization?*

Remember?

Time to take my flight back to Canada. 

Later...


----------



## Sunni Man

Ropey said:


> Because you and Kalam have lost the discussion when you move off the topic onto something that has no connection to the discussio,



Which is exactly what you did when you wrecked the thread *"Besa: Muslims Who Saved Jews in World War II" *

By going off topic with personal attacks and posting all kind of nonsense to derail the thread.  

You are a liar and a joke Ropey.

And every one here can easily see it.


----------



## Ropey

Sunni Man said:


> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because you and Kalam have lost the discussion when you move off the topic onto something that has no connection to the discussio,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is exactly what you did when you wrecked the thread *"Besa: Muslims Who Saved Jews in World War II" *
> 
> By going off topic with personal attacks and posting all kind of nonsense to derail the thread.
> 
> You are a liar and a joke Ropey.
> 
> And every one here can easily see it.
Click to expand...


That thread was about Muslims and Jews. 

I attacked your views of Muslims and Jews.

However, this thread is about Muslims and Christians.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

Kalam said:


> _It is related from Ibn 'Umar, may Allah be pleased with him, that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, "Islam is based on five [principles]: (1) the testifying that there is no god except Allah and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah; (2) establishing prayer; (3) paying the zakah; (4) the Hajj; (5) and the fast of Ramadan._ - Bukhari​
> I have not seen fighting mentioned as one of the principles of the faith in sahih ahadith. Fighting in Allah's cause when necessary is a duty of central importance, but not to the extent that the so-called "pillars" of the faith are.


Sixth Pillar of Islam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Pillars_of_Islam_(Ismaili)

Fighting for the Cause of Allah (Jihaad)  
Bukhari :: Book 4 :: Volume 52 :: Hadith 44 
Narrated Abu Huraira: 

A man came to Allah's Apostle and said, "Instruct me as to such a deed as equals Jihad (in reward)." He replied, "I do not find such a deed." Then he added, "Can you, while the Muslim fighter is in the battle-field, enter your mosque to perform prayers without cease and fast and never break your fast?" The man said, "But who can do that?" Abu- Huraira added, "The Mujahid (i.e. Muslim fighter) is rewarded even for the footsteps of his horse while it wanders bout (for grazing) tied in a long rope." 

Clearly fighting is giving higher religious value in Islam  then at least 2 of its pillars. 
Kalam  





> Yak Yak  yak



The Book of Faith (Kitab Al-Iman)  
Muslim :: Book 1 : Hadith 33 
It has been narrated on the authority of Abdullah b. 'Umar that the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah, and they establish prayer, and pay Zakat and if they do it, their blood and property are guaranteed protection on my behalf except when justified by law, and their affairs rest with Allah.


----------



## Sunni Man

Ropey said:


> However, this thread is about Muslims and Christians.



Then what are you doing here??


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

I forgot to add Mohammad is an example for all muslims to follow.

The Book of Faith (Kitab Al-Iman) 
Muslim :: Book 1 : Hadith 33 
It has been narrated on the authority of Abdullah b. 'Umar that the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah, and they establish prayer, and pay Zakat and if they do it, their blood and property are guaranteed protection on my behalf except when justified by law, and their affairs rest with Allah.


----------



## Sunni Man

Mr, Fitnuts, until you brought it up.

I had never heard of a 6th Pillar of Islam.

Every Imam I have ever heard speak only says that there are only 5 Pillars of Islam.

And very book I have ever see in the Mosque library says that there are only 5 Pillars of Islam.

Even the site you posted starts off with:

"Most Sunni Muslims believe there are precisely five Pillars of Islam, and the idea of there being more than five pillars is not a mainstream idea; Sunni leaders have taught that there are only five major pillars of the faith. Traditionalists say that no 6th pillar should be added, because changing the pillars would be altering the religion and its beliefs, and so one who believes that there is a sixth is committing a sin."

Sixth Pillar of Islam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

Sunni Man said:


> Mr, Fitnuts, until you brought it up.
> 
> I had never heard of a 6th Pillar of Islam.
> 
> Every Imam I have ever heard speak only says that there are only 5 Pillars of Islam.
> 
> And very book I have ever see in the Mosque library says that there are only 5 Pillars of Islam.
> 
> Even the site you posted starts off with:
> 
> "Most Sunni Muslims believe there are precisely five Pillars of Islam, and the idea of there being more than five pillars is not a mainstream idea; Sunni leaders have taught that there are only five major pillars of the faith. Traditionalists say that no 6th pillar should be added, because changing the pillars would be altering the religion and its beliefs, and so one who believes that there is a sixth is committing a sin."
> 
> Sixth Pillar of Islam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



I understand that , there are more enlightened views on Islam .


----------



## Sunni Man

Mr.Fitnah said:


> I understand that , there are more enlightened views on Islam .



So you are saying that posting nonsense about Islam is somehow an enlightened view?


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

Sunni Man said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand that , there are more enlightened views on Islam .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are saying that posting nonsense about Islam is somehow an enlightened view?
Click to expand...


Not in your case.


----------



## Sunni Man

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand that , there are more enlightened views on Islam .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are saying that posting nonsense about Islam is somehow an enlightened view?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not in your case.
Click to expand...

I am overwhelmed; Thank you for the compliment.


----------



## gautama

Sunni Man said:


> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because you and Kalam have lost the discussion when you move off the topic onto something that has no connection to the discussio,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is exactly what you did when you wrecked the thread *"Besa: Muslims Who Saved Jews in World War II" *
> 
> By going off topic with personal attacks and posting all kind of nonsense to derail the thread.
> 
> You are a liar and a joke Ropey.
> 
> And every one here can easily see it.
Click to expand...


I am not a Jew, or even a Christian.

I see the opposite,  you Muslim Piece of Shit......and I would bet everything I have (and that's quite a bit) that the overwhelming number of posters who are not Muslim Arseholes......would vote against you fucking Muslims. Especially after reading this thread.


----------



## Sunni Man

gautama said:


> ......and I would bet everything I have (and that's quite a bit)


Seriously gautama, your half full bottle of MD 20/20 and a shopping cart full of aluminum cans you push around isn't alot by most people's standards.


----------



## Kalam

Mr.Fitnah said:


> A man came to Allah's Apostle and said, "Instruct me as to such a deed as equals Jihad (in reward)." He replied, "I do not find such a deed." Then he added, "Can you, while the Muslim fighter is in the battle-field, enter your mosque to perform prayers without cease and fast and never break your fast?" The man said, "But who can do that?" Abu- Huraira added, "The Mujahid (i.e. Muslim fighter) is rewarded even for the footsteps of his horse while it wanders bout (for grazing) tied in a long rope."
> 
> Clearly fighting is giving higher religious value in Islam  then at least 2 of its pillars.
> Kalam
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yak Yak  yak
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Book of Faith (Kitab Al-Iman)
> Muslim :: Book 1 : Hadith 33
> It has been narrated on the authority of Abdullah b. 'Umar that the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah, and they establish prayer, and pay Zakat and if they do it, their blood and property are guaranteed protection on my behalf except when justified by law, and their affairs rest with Allah.
Click to expand...


I understand that you're not intelligent enough to realize this, but your genocide fantasies are wholly inconsistent with the concept of the dhimma, which (as we've now seen) is a universally recognized institution supported by volumes of evidence from the Prophet (SAWS) and the Successors (RA). I am not surprised that you attempted to draw attention away from this fact by making no mention of the evidences in your post. You fail again.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

Kalam said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> A man came to Allah's Apostle and said, "Instruct me as to such a deed as equals Jihad (in reward)." He replied, "I do not find such a deed." Then he added, "Can you, while the Muslim fighter is in the battle-field, enter your mosque to perform prayers without cease and fast and never break your fast?" The man said, "But who can do that?" Abu- Huraira added, "The Mujahid (i.e. Muslim fighter) is rewarded even for the footsteps of his horse while it wanders bout (for grazing) tied in a long rope."
> 
> Clearly fighting is giving higher religious value in Islam  then at least 2 of its pillars.
> Kalam
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yak Yak  yak
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Book of Faith (Kitab Al-Iman)
> Muslim :: Book 1 : Hadith 33
> It has been narrated on the authority of Abdullah b. 'Umar that the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah, and they establish prayer, and pay Zakat and if they do it, their blood and property are guaranteed protection on my behalf except when justified by law, and their affairs rest with Allah.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand that you're not intelligent enough to realize this, but your genocide fantasies are wholly inconsistent with the concept of the dhimma, which (as we've now seen) is a universally recognized institution supported by volumes of evidence from the Prophet (SAWS) and the Successors (RA). I am not surprised that you attempted to draw attention away from this fact by making no mention of the evidences in your post. You fail again.
Click to expand...

Please tell ,who pays zakat?
Who claims Mohammad is a messenger of god.

Only muslims.
Dont blame me for Islam inconsistencies.


----------



## Kalam

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Please tell ,who pays zakat?
> Who claims Mohammad is a messenger of god.
> 
> Only muslims.
> Dont blame me for Islam inconsistencies.



I blame you for nothing but your own stupidity and presumptuousness.

Your rendering does not account for the definite article which makes it clear that "the people" doesn't refer to people in general. 

Ibn Taymiyyah:

_It refers to fighting those who are waging war, whom Allah has permitted us to fight. It does not refer to those who have a covenant with us with whom Allah commands us to fulfill our covenant._ - Majmu al-Fatawa, 19/20​
Don't blame Islam for your failure to understand it.


----------



## gautama

Sunni Man said:


> gautama said:
> 
> 
> 
> ......and I would bet everything I have (and that's quite a bit)
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously gautama, your half full bottle of MD 20/20 and a shopping cart full of aluminum cans you push around isn't alot by most people's standards.
Click to expand...


Let's consider the source of that inane remark, which is definitely below par on all levels: The source is Phoni-Baloni- Sunni who is a certified PHONEY BALONEY. The thread irrefutably proves that assertion. 

This Fanatical Muslim Arsehole fancies himself a "MODERATE" when in REALITY he is "Religiously insane".


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

Kalam said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please tell ,who pays zakat?
> Who claims Mohammad is a messenger of god.
> 
> Only muslims.
> Dont blame me for Islam inconsistencies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I blame you for nothing but your own stupidity and presumptuousness.
> 
> Your rendering does not account for the definite article which makes it clear that "the people" doesn't refer to people in general.
> 
> Ibn Taymiyyah:
> 
> _It refers to fighting those who are waging war, whom Allah has permitted us to fight. It does not refer to those who have a covenant with us with whom Allah commands us to fulfill our covenant._ - Majmu al-Fatawa, 19/20​
> Don't blame Islam for your failure to understand it.
Click to expand...


Since you are in such a chatty mood would you explain the part in bold.

And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allâh) *and the religion (worship) will all be for Allâh Alone [in the whole of the world[]]*. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allâh), then certainly, Allâh is All-Seer of what they do. (Al-Anfal 8:39)


----------



## Kalam

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Since you are in such a chatty mood would you explain the part in bold.
> 
> And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allâh) *and the religion (worship) will all be for Allâh Alone [in the whole of the world[]]*. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allâh), then certainly, Allâh is All-Seer of what they do. (Al-Anfal 8:39)



The word used is _deen_, which can be rendered more accurately as "way" and refers in this context to to the entire Islamic system. In other words, it should be the goal of Muslims to fight those with whom fighting is permissible until the Islamic system alone is established entirely. I have already discussed how it is possible to live within this system as a non-Muslim.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

Kalam said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since you are in such a chatty mood would you explain the part in bold.
> 
> And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allâh) *and the religion (worship) will all be for Allâh Alone [in the whole of the world[]]*. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allâh), then certainly, Allâh is All-Seer of what they do. (Al-Anfal 8:39)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The word used is _deen_, which can be rendered more accurately as "way" and refers in this context to to the entire Islamic system. In other words, it should be the goal of Muslims to fight those with whom fighting is permissible until the Islamic system alone is established entirely. I have already discussed how it is possible to live within this system as a non-Muslim.
Click to expand...


And if people do not wish to submit to living under and Islamic system?


----------



## Kalam

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since you are in such a chatty mood would you explain the part in bold.
> 
> And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allâh) *and the religion (worship) will all be for Allâh Alone [in the whole of the world[]]*. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allâh), then certainly, Allâh is All-Seer of what they do. (Al-Anfal 8:39)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The word used is _deen_, which can be rendered more accurately as "way" and refers in this context to to the entire Islamic system. In other words, it should be the goal of Muslims to fight those with whom fighting is permissible until the Islamic system alone is established entirely. I have already discussed how it is possible to live within this system as a non-Muslim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And if people do not wish to submit to living under and Islamic system?
Click to expand...


That depends. If a person is within the Khilafah as a mu'ahid (non-Muslim citizen of a country that shares a treaty with the khilafah) or a must'amin (passport/visa-bearing citizen of a country with no treaty) then they are only required to observe the laws for the duration of their visit. If they stay for more than a year, however, it is assumed that they will remain there permanently and they enter into the dhimma unless there are extenuating circumstances. Foreign dignitaries have diplomatic immunity. If a person is part of a defeated population with which the Muslims had been at war, they will be expected to abide by the laws like everyone else. Obviously, then, they will be punished like everyone else if they break those laws.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

DHIMMI - Non-Muslims living in the Khilafah


----------



## Ozmar

Kalam said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since you are in such a chatty mood would you explain the part in bold.
> 
> And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allâh) *and the religion (worship) will all be for Allâh Alone [in the whole of the world[]]*. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allâh), then certainly, Allâh is All-Seer of what they do. (Al-Anfal 8:39)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The word used is _deen_, which can be rendered more accurately as "way" and refers in this context to to the entire Islamic system. In other words, it should be the goal of Muslims to fight those with whom fighting is permissible until the Islamic system alone is established entirely. I have already discussed how it is possible to live within this system as a non-Muslim.
Click to expand...


As a slave. Fuck your presumptive ass.


----------



## Kalam

Ozmar said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since you are in such a chatty mood would you explain the part in bold.
> 
> And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allâh) *and the religion (worship) will all be for Allâh Alone [in the whole of the world[]]*. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allâh), then certainly, Allâh is All-Seer of what they do. (Al-Anfal 8:39)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The word used is _deen_, which can be rendered more accurately as "way" and refers in this context to to the entire Islamic system. In other words, it should be the goal of Muslims to fight those with whom fighting is permissible until the Islamic system alone is established entirely. I have already discussed how it is possible to live within this system as a non-Muslim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As a slave. Fuck your presumptive ass.
Click to expand...


I'm not sure why some people so desperately want that to be the case. Martyr complex?


----------



## Kalam

Mr.Fitnah said:


> DHIMMI - Non-Muslims living in the Khilafah



Read through it.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

Kalam said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> The word used is _deen_, which can be rendered more accurately as "way" and refers in this context to to the entire Islamic system. In other words, it should be the goal of Muslims to fight those with whom fighting is permissible until the Islamic system alone is established entirely. I have already discussed how it is possible to live within this system as a non-Muslim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if people do not wish to submit to living under and Islamic system?
Click to expand...

Kalam


> Blah Blah Blah


Praise be to Allaah.  
Islam is the religion of mercy and justice; it commands us to call others to the religion of Allaah in a kind and good manner, and to encourage people to enter this great religion. If some people persist in rejecting the religion of Allaah and stand in the way of ruling by that which Allaah has revealed on earth, or they fight against the call to Allaah, then we give them the choice of three things: 

Either they become Muslim; or if they refuse they pay the jizyah (whereby they pay a specified amount to the Muslims in return for being allowed to remain their land, and the Muslims undertake to protect them); 

or, if they refuse that, there is nothing left but the way which they themselves have chosen, which is fighting and dealing violently with those who have persecuted the Muslims and put obstacles in the path of the Islamic dawah. 

In this way the Muslims will gain the upper hand and the enemies will be humiliated; then when we have killed and wounded many of them and gained the upper hand over them,

Islam Question and Answer - Treatment of prisoners-of-war in Islam


----------



## Ozmar

Kalam said:


> Ozmar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> The word used is _deen_, which can be rendered more accurately as "way" and refers in this context to to the entire Islamic system. In other words, it should be the goal of Muslims to fight those with whom fighting is permissible until the Islamic system alone is established entirely. I have already discussed how it is possible to live within this system as a non-Muslim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As a slave. Fuck your presumptive ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure why some people so desperately want that to be the case. Martyr complex?
Click to expand...


Want is irrelevant. What is at hand is the case. Fuck be to allah and his pedophile prophet may he be raped in hell, muhammed.


----------



## Kalam

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> The word used is _deen_, which can be rendered more accurately as "way" and refers in this context to to the entire Islamic system. In other words, it should be the goal of Muslims to fight those with whom fighting is permissible until the Islamic system alone is established entirely. I have already discussed how it is possible to live within this system as a non-Muslim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if people do not wish to submit to living under and Islamic system?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Kalam
> 
> 
> 
> Blah Blah Blah
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

So childish.



Mr.Fitnah said:


> Praise be to Allaah.
> Islam is the religion of mercy and justice; it commands us to call others to the religion of Allaah in a kind and good manner, and to encourage people to enter this great religion. If some people persist in rejecting the religion of Allaah and stand in the way of ruling by that which Allaah has revealed on earth, or they fight against the call to Allaah, then we give them the choice of three things:
> 
> Either they become Muslim; or if they refuse they pay the jizyah (whereby they pay a specified amount to the Muslims in return for being allowed to remain their land, and the Muslims undertake to protect them);
> 
> or, if they refuse that, there is nothing left but the way which they themselves have chosen, which is fighting and dealing violently with those who have persecuted the Muslims and put obstacles in the path of the Islamic dawah.
> 
> In this way the Muslims will gain the upper hand and the enemies will be humiliated; then when we have killed and wounded many of them and gained the upper hand over them,
> 
> Islam Question and Answer - Treatment of prisoners-of-war in Islam


Misleading. Simply not paying a tax does not constitute an offense with a fard punishment, much less a capital offense. They would be killed if they continued fighting.


----------



## Kalam

Ozmar said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ozmar said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a slave. Fuck your presumptive ass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure why some people so desperately want that to be the case. Martyr complex?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Want is irrelevant. What is at hand is the case. Fuck be to allah and his pedophile prophet may he be raped in hell, muhammed.
Click to expand...


You sound a little cranky.


----------



## Ozmar

Kalam said:


> Ozmar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure why some people so desperately want that to be the case. Martyr complex?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Want is irrelevant. What is at hand is the case. Fuck be to allah and his pedophile prophet may he be raped in hell, muhammed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You sound a little cranky.
Click to expand...


One of your buddies?

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbUQvs8gqk0&feature=related[/ame]

Oh no! Someone asked for bacon! Is this what we infidels will continually have to contend with, you sacks of shit?


----------



## Kalam

Ozmar said:


> Oh no! Someone asked for bacon! Is this what we infidels will continually have to contend with, you sacks of shit?



It's funny because that's pretty much how you're acting right now.


----------



## Ozmar

Kalam said:


> Ozmar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh no! Someone asked for bacon! Is this what we infidels will continually have to contend with, you sacks of shit?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's funny because that's pretty much how you're acting right now.
Click to expand...


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wm8t6l973g[/ame]


----------



## Rat in the Hat

Ozmar said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ozmar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh no! Someone asked for bacon! Is this what we infidels will continually have to contend with, you sacks of shit?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's funny because that's pretty much how you're acting right now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wm8t6l973g[/ame]
Click to expand...


Baby Muhammed (PB&J) cries about dogs without booties.


----------



## Kalam

Every time a Muslim whines, several of you whine about him whining. True story.


----------



## Rat in the Hat

Kalam said:


> Every time a Muslim whines, several of you whine about him whining. True story.



Baby Muhammed (BYOB) cries about your whining.


----------



## gautama

Kalam said:


> Ozmar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> The word used is _deen_, which can be rendered more accurately as "way" and refers in this context to to the entire Islamic system. In other words, it should be the goal of Muslims to fight those with whom fighting is permissible until the Islamic system alone is established entirely. I have already discussed how it is possible to live within this system as a non-Muslim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As a slave. Fuck your presumptive ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure why some people so desperately want that to be the case. Martyr complex?
Click to expand...


Kalam-Shazam,

You are just bloated with CAMELSHIT !!!!

Doncha think we are all aware of that ????

C'mon get real .


----------



## Ozmar

Kalam said:


> Every time a Muslim whines, several of you whine about him whining. True story.




The end case is the muslim (lower case intended) is still whining.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

Kalam said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> And if people do not wish to submit to living under and Islamic system?
> 
> 
> 
> Kalam
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So childish.
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Praise be to Allaah.
> Islam is the religion of mercy and justice; it commands us to call others to the religion of Allaah in a kind and good manner, and to encourage people to enter this great religion. If some people persist in rejecting the religion of Allaah and stand in the way of ruling by that which Allaah has revealed on earth, or they fight against the call to Allaah, then we give them the choice of three things:
> 
> Either they become Muslim; or if they refuse they pay the jizyah (whereby they pay a specified amount to the Muslims in return for being allowed to remain their land, and the Muslims undertake to protect them);
> 
> or, if they refuse that, there is nothing left but the way which they themselves have chosen, which is fighting and dealing violently with those who have persecuted the Muslims and put obstacles in the path of the Islamic dawah.
> 
> In this way the Muslims will gain the upper hand and the enemies will be humiliated; then when we have killed and wounded many of them and gained the upper hand over them,
> 
> Islam Question and Answer - Treatment of prisoners-of-war in Islam
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Misleading. Simply not paying a tax does not constitute an offense with a fard punishment, much less a capital offense. They would be killed if they continued fighting.
Click to expand...


Im sure you have some authoritative source to  back up your opinion you would like to link to.


----------



## Ropey

Sunni Man said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand that , there are more enlightened views on Islam .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are saying that posting nonsense about Islam is somehow an enlightened view?
Click to expand...


That's what you do when you say Islam is a Religion of Peace. Peace in Islam is enlightened when you move to the spiritual.

While your Muslim extremists do otherwise all over the world.


----------



## Ropey

Kalam said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> And if people do not wish to submit to living under and Islamic system?
> 
> 
> 
> Kalam
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So childish.
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Praise be to Allaah.
> Islam is the religion of mercy and justice; it commands us to call others to the religion of Allaah in a kind and good manner, and to encourage people to enter this great religion. If some people persist in rejecting the religion of Allaah and stand in the way of ruling by that which Allaah has revealed on earth, or they fight against the call to Allaah, then we give them the choice of three things:
> 
> Either they become Muslim; or if they refuse they pay the jizyah (whereby they pay a specified amount to the Muslims in return for being allowed to remain their land, and the Muslims undertake to protect them);
> 
> or, if they refuse that, there is nothing left but the way which they themselves have chosen, which is fighting and dealing violently with those who have persecuted the Muslims and put obstacles in the path of the Islamic da&#8217;wah.
> 
> In this way the Muslims will gain the upper hand and the enemies will be humiliated; then when we have killed and wounded many of them and gained the upper hand over them,
> 
> Islam Question and Answer - Treatment of prisoners-of-war in Islam
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Misleading. Simply not paying a tax does not constitute an offense with a fard punishment, much less a capital offense. They would be killed if they continued fighting.
Click to expand...


Obfuscation, minimization and a complete disregard for the extreme acts of those Muslims who are killing all over the world.

Is this is the true face of Moderate Islam?


----------



## Sunni Man

Ropey said:


> Is this is the true face of Moderate Islam?


At least there is a moderate Islam.

There is No such thing as moderate Zionism.


----------



## Ropey

Sunni Man said:


> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this is the true face of Moderate Islam?
> 
> 
> 
> At least there is a moderate Islam.
Click to expand...


Where? I asked if your view is the moderate one.

Is it?


----------



## Foxfyre

Again, my intent with this thread was not to bash Islam, Muslims, the Qu'ran or any other aspect of that particular religion/ideology and/or ethnic group.

My intent was to highlight any threat that Islam intends for western civilization as we know it.

I would be thrilled if we could set any food fights aside and focus on that.

I would be thrilled if Sunni Man or Kalam or any other of our Muslim friends could give me assurance that Islam does not intend to put western civilization under the authority of Islam.

And if they cannot provide such assurance, I would like discussion on how free people should address an intent that all of us will be under the authority of Allah?


----------



## Ropey

Foxfyre said:


> Again, my intent with this thread was not to bash Islam, Muslims, the Qu'ran or any other aspect of that particular religion/ideology and/or ethnic group.
> 
> My intent was to highlight any threat that Islam intends for western civilization as we know it.
> 
> I would be thrilled if we could set any food fights aside and focus on that.
> 
> I would be thrilled if Sunni Man or Kalam or any other of our Muslim friends could give me assurance that Islam does not intend to put western civilization under the authority of Islam.
> 
> And if they cannot provide such assurance, I would like discussion on how free people should address an intent that all of us will be under the authority of Allah?



Still looking for the moderate ones Foxfyre?  The ones who allow you to think and act the way you do? They are here now. Major Nidal Hassan was one of those self proclaimed "Moderates."

America's Muslims are such a tiny population, but look at what is being attempted at Ground Zero. That should tell you something about moderate Islam. How they want to create an understanding at Ground Zero? Or...

Until the extreme ones come in and force the moderate view on all. 

The views are the same.  _The methods are different._  My view is that Islamic moderation is simply a blanket to warm the cold Islamic drive to bring the world to Islamic Peace.

I await the same thing you do Foxfyre. It is yet to be proffered by either Kalam and Sunni Man.


----------



## Sunni Man

Ropey said:


> The views are the same.  The methods are different.  My view is that Islamic moderation is simply a blanket to warm the cold Islamic drive to bring the world to Islamic Peace.
> 
> I await the same thing you do Foxfyre. It is yet to be proffered by either Kalam and Sunni Man.


So now we have Ropey; a self avowed Zionist Jew with radical views and an enemy of muslims and Islam.

Attempting to speak for muslims and their point of view.


----------



## Foxfyre

Ropey said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, my intent with this thread was not to bash Islam, Muslims, the Qu'ran or any other aspect of that particular religion/ideology and/or ethnic group.
> 
> My intent was to highlight any threat that Islam intends for western civilization as we know it.
> 
> I would be thrilled if we could set any food fights aside and focus on that.
> 
> I would be thrilled if Sunni Man or Kalam or any other of our Muslim friends could give me assurance that Islam does not intend to put western civilization under the authority of Islam.
> 
> And if they cannot provide such assurance, I would like discussion on how free people should address an intent that all of us will be under the authority of Allah?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still looking for the moderate ones Foxfyre?  The ones who allow you to think and act the way you do? They are here now. Major Nidal Hassan was one of those self proclaimed "Moderates."
> 
> America's Muslims are such a tiny population, but look at what is being attempted at Ground Zero. That should tell you something about moderate Islam. How they want to create an understanding at Ground Zero? Or...
> 
> Until the extreme ones come in and force the moderate view on all.
> 
> The views are the same.  _The methods are different._  My view is that Islamic moderation is simply a blanket to warm the cold Islamic drive to bring the world to Islamic Peace.
> 
> I await the same thing you do Foxfyre. It is yet to be proffered by either Kalam and Sunni Man.
Click to expand...


Well without competent or informed or authoritative assurance that it is not the intent of Islam to to put the whole world under the authority of Islam, and it is western civilization that now seems to be the primary focus for that, I tend to choose to err, if it is error, on the side of caution.

What does western civilization do, pass as law, choose as policy, adopt as a mindset, to stave off such Islamic intent without violating the rights of those intending it?

It is unalienable rights that I intend to protect.  And again, neither Kalam nor SunniMan have given any argument or assurance that Islam acknowledges and/or respects our unalienable rights.


----------



## Sunni Man

Ropey said:


> Still looking for the moderate ones Foxfyre?  The ones who allow you to think and act the way you do? They are here now. *Major Nidal Hassan was one of those self proclaimed "Moderates."*



btw Ropey, Please provide evidence or link to your statement: 

" Major Nidal Hassan was one of those self proclaimed "Moderates."

When or where did he proclaim this??  

Or else, just admit it's another one of your made up zionist lies.


----------



## Ropey

Sunni Man said:


> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still looking for the moderate ones Foxfyre?  The ones who allow you to think and act the way you do? They are here now. *Major Nidal Hassan was one of those self proclaimed "Moderates."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> btw Ropey, Please provide evidence or link to your statement:
> 
> " Major Nidal Hassan was one of those self proclaimed "Moderates."
> 
> When or where did he proclaim this??
> 
> Or else, just admit it's another one of your made up zionist lies.
Click to expand...


That's a problem with you Sunni Man. Contempt prior to investigation. Then, when you do not research you simply call lies anything you do not want to believe.  

That's not the way it works Sunni Man.



			
				Mohammad Hasan said:
			
		

> Nidal&#8217;s character does not fit with this, he&#8217;s a very calm, quiet person. We are bewildered.&#8221;



Hasan's family said that he was moderate when he joined the American Military.   His family say he was moderate as a young man. 

*Click*

Moderate when he entered the Army and they say that this is before he began to log onto extremist Muslim websites.

This is where he became radicalized by extremist Muslims. 

*Lecture Series "Constants on The Path of jihad"*
*
Muslim Brothers and Sisters, in the name of Allah, you are called to jihad.*


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

Foxfyre said:


> Again, my intent with this thread was not to bash Islam, Muslims, the Qu'ran or any other aspect of that particular religion/ideology and/or ethnic group.
> 
> My intent was to highlight any threat that Islam intends for western civilization as we know it.
> 
> I would be thrilled if we could set any food fights aside and focus on that.
> 
> I would be thrilled if Sunni Man or Kalam or any other of our Muslim friends could give me assurance that Islam does not intend to put western civilization under the authority of Islam.
> 
> And if they cannot provide such assurance, I would like discussion on how free people should address an intent that all of us will be under the authority of Allah?



Im sure Mt Sunni and Mr Kalam would like to add some obfuscation to this information




Islam Question and Answer - Judging by that which Allaah has revealed

Islam Question and Answer - Should he turn to the human rights organizations to get his rights?
Islam Question and Answer - The kufr of one who rules according to other than what Allaah revealed

*Allaah has commanded us to refer matters to His judgement and to establish Shareeah*, and He has forbidden us to rule with anything else, as is clear from a number of aayaat in the Quraan, such as the aayaat in Soorat al-Maaidah (5) which discuss ruling according to what Allaah has revealed, and mention the following topics:

The command to rule according to what Allaah has revealed: And so judge between them by what Allaah has revealed . . . [aayah 49]

Warning against ruling by other than what Allaah has revealed: . . . and follow not their vain desires . . . [aayah 49]

Warning against compromising on any detail of Shareeah, no matter how small: . . . but beware of them lest they turn you far away from some of that which Allaah has sent down to you . . . [aayah 49]

Forbidding seeking the ruling of jaahiliyyah, as is expressed in the rhetorical question Do they then seek the judgement of (the Days of) Ignorance? [aayah 50]

The statement that nobody is better than Allaah to judge: . . . and who is better in judgement than Allaah for a people who have firm Faith? [aayah 50]

The statement that whoever does not judge according to what Allaah revealed is a kaafir, a zaalim (oppressor or wrongdoer) and a faasiq (sinner), as Allaah says: . . . And whoever does not judge by what Allaah has revealed, such are the kaafiroon. [aayah 44]; . . . And whoever does not judge by that which Allaah has revealed, such are the zaalimoon (polytheists and wrongdoers) [aayah 45]; . . . And whoever does not judge by what Allaah has revealed (then) such (people) are the faasiqoon (rebellious or disobedient). [aayah 47].

The statement that it is obligatory for the Muslims to judge according to what Allaah has revealed, even if those who seek their judgement are not Muslim, as Allaah says: . . . And if you judge, judge with justice between them. . . [aayah 42]


----------



## Sunni Man

Ropey said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still looking for the moderate ones Foxfyre?  The ones who allow you to think and act the way you do? They are here now. *Major Nidal Hassan was one of those self proclaimed "Moderates."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> btw Ropey, Please provide evidence or link to your statement:
> 
> " Major Nidal Hassan was one of those self proclaimed "Moderates."
> 
> When or where did he proclaim this??
> 
> Or else, just admit it's another one of your made up zionist lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a problem with you Sunni Man. Contempt prior to investigation. Then, when you do not research you simply call lies anything you do not want to believe.
> 
> That's not the way it works Sunni Man.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mohammad Hasan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nidals character does not fit with this, hes a very calm, quiet person. We are bewildered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hasan's family said that he was moderate when he joined the American Military.   His family say he was moderate as a young man.
> 
> *Click*
> 
> Moderate when he entered the Army and they say that this is before he began to log onto extremist Muslim websites.
> 
> This is where he became radicalized by extremist Muslims.
Click to expand...

So in other words Ropey.

You have ZERO evidence that Major Nidal Hassan himself ever proclaimed he was a "Moderate."

Just as I thought; another Ropey the Zionist Jew made up lie.


----------



## Foxfyre

Ah well I tried.  When ya'll get tired of the food fight and attacking/accusing each other, I'll hope somebody will deal with the topic.

Ya'll have a good day though.


----------



## Kalam

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kalam
> 
> 
> 
> So childish.
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Praise be to Allaah.
> Islam is the religion of mercy and justice; it commands us to call others to the religion of Allaah in a kind and good manner, and to encourage people to enter this great religion. If some people persist in rejecting the religion of Allaah and stand in the way of ruling by that which Allaah has revealed on earth, or they fight against the call to Allaah, then we give them the choice of three things:
> 
> Either they become Muslim; or if they refuse they pay the jizyah (whereby they pay a specified amount to the Muslims in return for being allowed to remain their land, and the Muslims undertake to protect them);
> 
> or, if they refuse that, there is nothing left but the way which they themselves have chosen, which is fighting and dealing violently with those who have persecuted the Muslims and put obstacles in the path of the Islamic dawah.
> 
> In this way the Muslims will gain the upper hand and the enemies will be humiliated; then when we have killed and wounded many of them and gained the upper hand over them,
> 
> Islam Question and Answer - Treatment of prisoners-of-war in Islam
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Misleading. Simply not paying a tax does not constitute an offense with a fard punishment, much less a capital offense. They would be killed if they continued fighting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Im sure you have some authoritative source to  back up your opinion you would like to link to.
Click to expand...


The Hanafi school does not regard the refusal or failure to pay jizyah per se as a breach of the dhimma contract. I believe Abu Yusuf wrote that this sort of tax evasion should be punished with imprisonment until the evader agrees to pay the tax; this can probably be found in the Kitab al-Kharaj.


----------



## Kalam

Ropey said:


> Obfuscation, minimization and a complete disregard for the extreme acts of those Muslims who are killing all over the world.
> 
> Is this is the true face of Moderate Islam?



Did you want to add something to the discussion, or are you content with trolling?


----------



## Ropey

Kalam said:


> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obfuscation, minimization and a complete disregard for the extreme acts of those Muslims who are killing all over the world.
> 
> Is this is the true face of Moderate Islam?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you want to add something to the discussion, or are you content with trolling?
Click to expand...


One of four schools of law. While Muslims are fighting and exploding themselves all over the world. Remember our talk on the Chechen conflict?  I still have my answer that you did not respond to and left unanswered.

I know why. You run from the extremist acts with a moderate face. That's not really Islam you say. This is not really happening you say.

And anyone who challenges you on those grounds receives your double talk. You break down a simple question into degrees of interpretation in the four schools and you jump between them all the whilst bobbing and weaving and never answering the true simple questions.

And I troll when I hold you to answer simply...

OK, that I can accept.


----------



## Kalam

Ropey said:


> One of four schools of law. While Muslims are fighting and exploding themselves all over the world.


Your point? The Hanafi school is the oldest and most widely followed. As far as I can tell, it is also the school whose rulings seem to be favored by Hizb ut-Tahrir, at least as far as the dhimma is concerned.



Ropey said:


> Remember our talk on the Chechen conflict?  I still have my answer that you did not respond to and left unanswered.


When was this? Feel free to link me to it and I'll respond. 



Ropey said:


> I know why


Because I was away for a few weeks?



Ropey said:


> And anyone who challenges you on those grounds receives your double talk. You break down a simple question into degrees of interpretation in the four schools and you jump between them all the whilst bobbing and weaking and never answering the true simple questions.



Feel free to challenge the validity of any dictate of Islam that I've posted with evidence from the Qur'an, the Sunnah, or the Successors. Alternatively, I suppose you could continue to whine loquaciously about my posts without actually showing them to be incorrect.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

Kalam said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> So childish.
> 
> 
> Misleading. Simply not paying a tax does not constitute an offense with a fard punishment, much less a capital offense. They would be killed if they continued fighting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Im sure you have some authoritative source to  back up your opinion you would like to link to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Hanafi school does not regard the refusal or failure to pay jizyah per se as a breach of the dhimma contract. I believe Abu Yusuf wrote that this sort of tax evasion should be punished with imprisonment until the evader agrees to pay the tax; this can probably be found in the Kitab al-Kharaj.
Click to expand...


You should learn how to make and use links.


----------



## Kalam

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Im sure you have some authoritative source to  back up your opinion you would like to link to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Hanafi school does not regard the refusal or failure to pay jizyah per se as a breach of the dhimma contract. I believe Abu Yusuf wrote that this sort of tax evasion should be punished with imprisonment until the evader agrees to pay the tax; this can probably be found in the Kitab al-Kharaj.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should learn how to make and use links.
Click to expand...


You should understand that not everything can be found on the internet. Or can it?


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

Kalam said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Hanafi school does not regard the refusal or failure to pay jizyah per se as a breach of the dhimma contract. I believe Abu Yusuf wrote that this sort of tax evasion should be punished with imprisonment until the evader agrees to pay the tax; this can probably be found in the Kitab al-Kharaj.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should learn how to make and use links.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should understand that not everything can be found on the internet. Or can it?
Click to expand...


I see no reason to assume that the interpretation is valid in light of the author's failure to substantiate his claims. Do you?


----------



## Kalam

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> You should learn how to make and use links.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should understand that not everything can be found on the internet. Or can it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see no reason to assume that the interpretation is valid in light of the author's failure to substantiate his claims. Do you?
Click to expand...


In the absence of a hadd penalty ("fard" earlier should also read "hadd"; typo), punishments are largely left to a judge's discretion. As a student of Abu Hanifa himself and an early qadi al-qudat, Abu Yusuf's rulings set precedents that are worthy of consideration. Do you disagree?


----------



## Ropey

Kalam said:


> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of four schools of law. While Muslims are fighting and exploding themselves all over the world.
> 
> 
> 
> Your point? The Hanafi school is the oldest and most widely followed. As far as I can tell, it is also the school whose rulings seem to be favored by Hizb ut-Tahrir, at least as far as the dhimma is concerned.
Click to expand...


You easily bypassed the Muslim extremism worldwide and what the MB and others are following to move to a school of law that is one of four and is the most intellectual interpretations.

What is being taught by extremists is different. What is being taught to the illiterates and young is not this.

Where are the militaristic schools of thought? 

Where can they be found?  Same place as your links?


----------



## Kalam

Ropey said:


> You easily bypassed the Muslim extremism worldwide and what the MB and others are following to move to a school of law that is one of four.


The existence of the MB should be something you consider a necessary evil. They and their proxies are what prevent al-Qa'idah and similar groups from acquiring footholds in Palestine. 



Ropey said:


> Where can they be found?  Same place as your links?
> 
> Which are, not on the Internet?
> 
> OK



The current stream of garbage seems to be an incredibly bastardized version of the theories and teachings of Qutb and 'Abdullah Azzam, among others. This is how they began, more or less:

Milestones - Sayyid Qutb

Noble ideas that have been corrupted into grabasstic nonsense:

Ansar Al-Mujahideen In support of the struggle by pen and sword

(visiting that forum may earn you a place on a government list -- be warned.)


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

It might be if it were substantive to what I posted  at which time you decided to start in  on the jizyah.
You have a lot of killing to do before the jizyah is paid  by the subdues captives

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3185591-post286.html

O9.8: The Objectives of Jihad
The caliph (o25) makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians (N: provided he has first invited them to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya, def: o11.4) -which is the significance of their paying it, not the money itself-while remaining in their ancestral religions) (O: and the war continues) until they become Muslim or else pay the non-Muslim poll tax (O: in accordance with the word of Allah Most High,

"Fight those who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day and who forbid not what Allah and His messenger have forbidden-who do not practice the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book-until they pay the poll tax out of hand and are humbled" (Koran 9.29),

the time and place for which is before the final descent of Jesus (upon whom be peace).  After his final coming, nothing but Islam will be accepted from them, for taking the poll tax is only effective until Jesus' descent (upon him and our Prophet be peace), which is the divinely revealed law of Muhammad. The coming of Jesus does not entail a separate divinely revealed law, for he will rule by the law of Muhammad. As for the Prophet's saying (Allah bless him and give him peace),
"I am the last, there will be no prophet after me,"
this does not contradict the final coming of Jesus (upon whom be peace), since he will not rule according to the Evangel, but as a follower of our Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) ). 
@O9.9
The caliph fights all other peoples until they become Muslim (O: because they are not a people with a Book, nor honored as such, and are not permitted to settle with paying the poll tax (jizya) ) (n: though according to the Hanafi school, peoples of all other religions, even idol worshippers, are permitted to live under the protection of the Islamic state if they either become Muslim or agree to pay the poll tax, the sole exceptions to which are apostates from Islam and idol worshippers who are Arabs, neither of whom has any choice but becoming Muslim (al-Hidaya sharh Bidaya al-mubtadi' (y21), 6.48-49) ).


----------



## Ropey

Ropey said:


> You easily bypassed the Muslim extremism worldwide and what the MB and others are following to move to a school of law that is one of four.





Kalam said:


> The existence of the MB should be something you consider a necessary evil. They and their proxies are what prevent al-Qa'idah and similar groups from acquiring footholds in Palestine.



Consider the MB a necessary evil?  Well, at least you called them what they are. They are all evils and none of them are necessary. Do you consider them a necessary evil in the Chechen conflict Kalam?  



Ropey said:


> Where can they be found?  Same place as your links?
> 
> Which are, not on the Internet?
> 
> OK





Kalam said:


> The current stream of garbage seems to be an incredibly bastardized version of the theories and teachings of Qutb and 'Abdullah Azzam, among others. This is how they began, more or less:
> 
> Milestones - Sayyid Qutb
> 
> Noble ideas that have been corrupted into grabasstic nonsense:
> 
> Ansar Al-Mujahideen In support of the struggle by pen and sword
> 
> (visiting that forum may earn you a place on a government list -- be warned.)



The first link is to a Canadian site and you call it more or less nonsense and then pass it on for research purposes? 

So, the second link is closed to non members and is Arabic.  I can make my way through classic Aramaic from my studies in Proto-Hebraic and Assyrian language. I was initially taught in cursive, but a moot point because I am not a member. It does not look all that welcoming.


----------



## Kalam

Ropey said:


> Consider the MB a necessary evil?  Well, at least you called them what they are.


_I_ called them nothing.



Ropey said:


> They are all evils and none of them are necessary. Do you consider them a necessary evil in the Chechen conflict Kalam?


They aren't involved in the Chechen conflict.



Ropey said:


> The first link is to a Canadian site and you call it more or less nonsense and then pass it on for research purposes?


You read my post incorrectly. The first link is to a famous book that is key to the modern revivalist movement and, unfortunately, its heretical offshoots. You asked if there were relevant resources on the internet, so I provided you with a few links. I'm not sure why you're whining again.



Ropey said:


> So, the second link is closed to non members and is Arabic.


The forum is in English. I'm not a member, either; you can still read their posts.


----------



## Kalam

Mr.Fitnah said:


> It might be if it were substantive to what I posted  at which time you decided to start in  on the jizyah.
> You have a lot of killing to do before the jizyah is paid  by the subdues captives



Maybe. Your point?


----------



## Ropey

Kalam said:


> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Consider the MB a necessary evil?  Well, at least you called them what they are.
> 
> 
> 
> _I_ called them nothing.
Click to expand...




Kalam said:


> The existence of the MB should be something you consider a necessary evil.



You said Israel "should consider them a necessary evil".

No one on this page used that word but you.

And now you say you called them nothing. Kalalm, if you have that level of discernment, then there's not much we can discuss.

If you run away from your own words, then what's the use of me standing to mine in discussion with you?

That is simply useless.


----------



## Kalam

Ropey said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Consider the MB a necessary evil?  Well, at least you called them what they are.
> 
> 
> 
> _I_ called them nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> The existence of the MB should be something you consider a necessary evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said Israel "should consider them a necessary evil".
> 
> No one on this page used that word but you.
> 
> And now you say you called them nothing. Kalalm, if you have that level of discernment, then there's not much we can discuss.
> 
> If you run away from your own words, then what's the use of me standing to mine in discussion with you?
> 
> That is simply useless.
Click to expand...


I said that _you_ should consider them a necessary evil, not that I consider them to be that or anything else. Are you having trouble understanding what I assume is your native language?


----------



## Ropey

Kalam said:


> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> _I_ called them nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> The existence of the MB should be something you consider a necessary evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said Israel "should consider them a necessary evil".
> 
> No one on this page used that word but you.
> 
> And now you say you called them nothing. Kalalm, if you have that level of discernment, then there's not much we can discuss.
> 
> If you run away from your own words, then what's the use of me standing to mine in discussion with you?
> 
> That is simply useless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said that _you_ should consider them a necessary evil, not that I consider them to be that or anything else. Are you having trouble understanding what I assume is your native language?
Click to expand...


I did not qualify the MB as a necessary evil. You said I should. For you to say I should means that you attach a meaning to the "MB" and them being "A Necessary Evil", not me even though you are attempting to put the onus on my interpretation. 

Your terms. Not mine. 

I never stated them. You did, and now you run from the attachment you made and which I would never have merged the name and the concept together in a discussion with you. Yet, there it is.  

You did that Kalam. Own it. 

Or not...


----------



## Kalam

Ropey said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You said Israel "should consider them a necessary evil".
> 
> No one on this page used that word but you.
> 
> And now you say you called them nothing. Kalalm, if you have that level of discernment, then there's not much we can discuss.
> 
> If you run away from your own words, then what's the use of me standing to mine in discussion with you?
> 
> That is simply useless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I said that _you_ should consider them a necessary evil, not that I consider them to be that or anything else. Are you having trouble understanding what I assume is your native language?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did not qualify the MB as a necessary evil. You said I should. For you to say I should means that you attach a meaning to the "MB" and them being "A Necessary Evil", not me even though you are attempting to put the onus on my interpretation.
> 
> Your terms. Not mine.
> 
> I never stated them. You did, and now you run from the attachment you made and which I would never have merged the name and the concept together in a discussion with you. Yet, there it is.
> 
> You did that Kalam. Own it.
> 
> Or not...
Click to expand...


No person can really be this dense, so please cut the crap. As a supporter of Israel, you should consider the Muslim Brotherhood to be a necessary evil. I have not expressed my own opinion of the organization in this thread. Now you're attempting to avoid an actual discussion by playing silly word games. The meaning of my post was clear; I'm not interested in playing.


----------



## Ropey

Ropey said:


> Or not...



Or not then it is.

Onward to other threads.


----------



## Kalam

Good luck finding someone who will tolerate your relentless attempts to derail threads.


----------



## Ropey

And luck to you finding others who will, in discussion, accept your refusal to stand to your own words and the connections you attach to them.

It won't be me.


----------



## Kalam

Ropey said:


> And luck to you finding others who will, in discussion, accept your refusal to stand to your own words and the connections you attach to them.
> 
> It won't be me.



If I considered the Muslim brotherhood a "necessary evil", I would have said as much. As it stands, they aren't particularly evil and they certainly aren't necessary, yet you'd have me believe that I think the opposite because you've failed to comprehend something I typed even after I corrected you.

Now you claim to be leaving the discussion because I won't admit to believing something that I don't believe.

"OK."


----------



## Ropey

Kalam said:


> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> 
> And luck to you finding others who will, in discussion, accept your refusal to stand to your own words and the connections you attach to them.
> 
> It won't be me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I considered the Muslim brotherhood a "necessary evil", I would have said as much. As it stands, they aren't particularly evil and they certainly aren't necessary, yet you'd have me believe that I think the opposite because you've failed to comprehend something I typed even after I corrected you.
> 
> Now you claim to be leaving the discussion because I won't admit to believing something that I don't believe.
> 
> "OK."
Click to expand...


You don't have to admit believing it, but you said it and applied it to me.  Then it became something else Kalam. Own it. 

It is a failing of mine, a foible if you will, when another thinks they know my mind.

Why didn't you ask me if I considered them a necessary evil?

I put forward that this is because your mind on my thinking is already made up and you want no input.


----------



## Kalam

Ropey said:


> You don't have to admit believing it, but you said it and applied it to me.  Then it became something else Kalam. Own it.
> 
> It is a failing of mine, a foible if you will, when another thinks they know my mind.
> 
> Why didn't you ask me if I considered them a necessary evil?
> 
> I put forward that this is because your mind on my thinking is already made up and you want no input.



I never said that you did; I said that you should. Why this has you so offended I'm not sure.


----------



## Sunni Man

Kalam said:


> Good luck finding someone who will tolerate your relentless attempts to derail threads.


Ropey's "reason for existence" is to attack other posters and derail threads.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

Kalam said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> It might be if it were substantive to what I posted  at which time you decided to start in  on the jizyah.
> You have a lot of killing to do before the jizyah is paid  by the subdues captives
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe. Your point?
Click to expand...


Just so  there is no misunderstanding people who pay the jizyah are captives ,free range but captives never the  less..


----------



## Ropey

Kalam said:


> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have to admit believing it, but you said it and applied it to me.  Then it became something else Kalam. Own it.
> 
> It is a failing of mine, a foible if you will, when another thinks they know my mind.
> 
> Why didn't you ask me if I considered them a necessary evil?
> 
> I put forward that this is because your mind on my thinking is already made up and you want no input.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never said that you did; I said that you should. Why this has you so offended I'm not sure.
Click to expand...


You said that I should. If you don't understand the politics of ownership when in discussion then I doubt if conversation with you and I will ever reach a point of simple acceptance.

For you seem to know my mind better than I?

Sunni Man simply indicts my entire people to an island surfeit of man. You just indict my mind. You know what I should want better than I. Clearly you don't need to ask me what I think of the MB. You know. 

And this you don't understand Kalam? Then clearly I was wrong. You are not enlightened if you don't get this simple human concept.

Sunni Man has absolutely no understanding of enlightenment. Have you read this entire thread Kalam?

From beginning to end?


----------



## Sunni Man

Ropey said:


> Sunni Man has absolutely no understanding of enlightenment.



Ropey's zionist definition of "enlightenment" is that you must believe;

Jews are always the "victims" and never guilty of anything wrong.


----------



## Ropey

Sunni Man said:


> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sunni Man has absolutely no understanding of enlightenment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ropey's zionist definition of "enlightenment" is that you must believe;
> 
> Jews are always the "victims" and never guilty of anything wrong.
Click to expand...


No Sunni Man. When you call for all Jews worldwide to be moved to an Island surfeit of man and kept there by armed means, you lose any ability to call yourself enlightened.

How many Jews who are elderly will die in this mass Pogrom of your mind?  

Enlightened? I think not.



Sunni Man said:


> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sunni Man has absolutely no understanding of enlightenment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ropey's zionist definition of "enlightenment" is that you must believe;
> 
> Jews are always the "victims" and never guilty of anything wrong.
Click to expand...


Jews are not always the "victims".  I never said that. They are sometimes guilty of crimes. 

Jews are human Sunni Man. Try and see that they have every foible that humanity carries. 

Including Arabians.


----------



## Sunni Man

Ropey said:


> Enlightened? I think not.



Your Zionist leaders already decided to strand the Jews on a stolen island called Israel.

Surrounded not by water, but by enemies.

Not a smart move.


----------



## Ropey

Sunni Man said:


> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Enlightened? I think not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your Zionist leaders already decided to strand the Jews on a stolen island called Israel.
> 
> Surrounded not by water, but by enemies.
> 
> Not a smart move.
Click to expand...


Israel is there for more than one reason. The reason for the Crusades was to put a bastion of proof in the arena. 

If that proof were attacked, then the move was flow, not ebb.  That is a main Western reason for supporting Israel.  They say it in this way. "As goes Israel, so goes the rest of the world".

They say this because the war is on when Israel is attacked. They have done this with Arabs for a long time. The Crusades were not about the cross.  They were about stopping a flow and this flow ebbed and flowed more than a few times which was the reason for the castles being built in the arena.

Israel is considered that castle to the West.

Israel to the Jews is another thing entirely. We continue....

And I put forward that this is what really burns your back side Sunni Man. We continue.

You want Israel ended and all Jews moved to an island where they would be guarded.

That's where your lack of enlightenment comes. Not far off from Hitler and I put forward that if Sunni Man did have the power.

There would be no Jews around.  

But you don't have that power, so  you run around here, blaming the Jews for everything and supporting premises that remove them from the rest of mankind.

But you are a self-proclaimed moderate Muslim. This must mean that this is what moderates think. 

So, the extremists go further than your moderate views.






Is this where your moderate views came from?


----------



## Foxfyre

Sunni Man said:


> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Enlightened? I think not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your Zionist leaders already decided to strand the Jews on a stolen island called Israel.
> 
> Surrounded not by water, but by enemies.
> 
> Not a smart move.
Click to expand...


And why would people on a tiny strip of land not even as large as one of our largest counties in New Mexico be surrounded by enemies?  They did not choose the Arabs/Iranians as enemies.  The Arabs/Iranians declared them to be enemies.  Because they were Jews.

And as yet you nor any other person of the Muslim faith has given me ANY reason to believe that Israel is hated for ANY reason other than they are Jews.


----------



## Sunni Man

Always with the pictures of the nazis Ropey.

Just another Zionist smoke and mirrors show.

The Jews had been driven out of many countries well before Muhammad was born and there was a religion called Islam.

And many more nations had carried out pogroms on the Jews before Hitler was born or the rise of the Nazi Party.

So it's a joke to blame either Muslims or Nazis for the plight of the Chosen People.


Question: Ropey why do you chose to be so dishonest and misleading about the facts?   

Or is it a basic tenant of Judiasm to slander and lie in such an obvious manner?


----------



## Ropey

Sunni Man said:


> Or is it a basic tenant of Judiasm to slander and lie in such an obvious manner?


Sunni Man. The word is "Tenet".



Sunni Man said:


> I am not anti-semitic at all.
> 
> And actually worry that people will finally get fed up with the Jews and cause them harm.
> 
> History has shown this to be the case over and over;
> 
> as Jews have been killed and driven out of countless countries throughout history.
> 
> My solution to the Jewish problem.
> 
> Would be to round them up world wide and find and island to quarantine them on.
> 
> There are several islands in the world that could easily contain the 13 million Jews that currently reside in various nations and Israel.
> 
> This way the Jews could build the ultimate Hebrew society they have always dreamed of.
> 
> Several gun boats would patrol the waters around the island to prevent any Jews from trying to escape.
> 
> This way the Jews could be protected from harm; and the world could finally have peace and security.
> 
> Thus a  Win = Win for both Jews and Gentiles



And the Jews slander the poor Arabs?


----------



## Sunni Man

Foxfyre said:


> And as yet you nor any other person of the Muslim faith has given me ANY reason to believe that Israel is hated for ANY reason other than they are Jews.



No, they are in No way hated because they are Jews.

That is a lie spread by zionist Israeli's and RW Americans.


Read your history books. 

The Jews would seek out Muslims lands to settle in because they wanted their protection.

From the Christians who were always murdering and driving the Jews from their lands.


----------



## Sunni Man

Ropey said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or is it a basic tenant of Judiasm to slander and lie in such an obvious manner?
> 
> 
> 
> Sunni Man. The word is "Tenet".
Click to expand...

I see you can't refute the obvious Truth that I posted.

Basically only finding a one letter grammatical error.


----------



## Ropey

Sunni Man said:


> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or is it a basic tenant of Judiasm to slander and lie in such an obvious manner?
> 
> 
> 
> Sunni Man. The word is "Tenet".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see you can't refute the obvious Truth that I posted.
> 
> Basically only finding a one letter grammatical error.
Click to expand...


There's no need to debate your view that Jews are not human. You call for their removal worldwide.

And Jews hate Arabs? Where is the Jew call for the end of Arabians?

You say "All Jews"

And we hate?


----------



## Sunni Man

Ropey said:


> There's no need to debate your view that Jews are not human.



Ropey you are a blatant liar.

I have never one said or insinuated that Jews are not human.


----------



## Ropey

Sunni Man said:


> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's no need to debate your view that Jews are not human.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ropey you are a blatant liar.
> 
> I have never one said or insinuated that Jews are not human.
Click to expand...


Removing Jews (worldwide) from humanity is the same thing as saying they don't belong with humanity Sunni Man.

You don't see this?  Seriously?  Games aside, you do not see this extension you make?

You are not at all enlightened. You are not a child. You are married and are teaching this to ...


----------



## Foxfyre

Sunni Man said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> And as yet you nor any other person of the Muslim faith has given me ANY reason to believe that Israel is hated for ANY reason other than they are Jews.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they are in No way hated because they are Jews.
> 
> That is a lie spread by zionist Israeli's and RW Americans.
> 
> 
> Read your history books.
> 
> The Jews would seek out Muslims lands to settle in because they wanted their protection.
> 
> From the Christians who were always murdering and driving the Jews from their lands.
Click to expand...


Son, I write history on this stuff.  At the time the Jews settled in Canaan/Palestine, they were thousands of years ahead of the first Christians.   And Islam arrived 700 years after Christianity.  So what Muslims have the Jews ever petitioned to protect them?


----------



## Sunni Man

Foxfyre said:


> *Son*, I write history on this stuff.  At the time the Jews settled in Canaan/Palestine, we were thousands of years ahead of the first Christians.   And Islam arrived 700 years after Christianity.  So what Muslims have the Jews ever petitioned to protect them?



If I am your son; that you are a very old lady indeed.  


For 400 years Jews fled several European countries to find safety in Muslim controlled Al Andalus (Spain).

Jews like the great scholar Maimonides resided there and trained Jewish students. 

This "Golden Age" ended when the Christians defeated the Muslims.

And expelled the Jews under threat of death as part of the Spanish Inquisition.


----------



## High_Gravity

Sunni Man said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Son*, I write history on this stuff.  At the time the Jews settled in Canaan/Palestine, we were thousands of years ahead of the first Christians.   And Islam arrived 700 years after Christianity.  So what Muslims have the Jews ever petitioned to protect them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I am your son; that you are a very old lady indeed.
> 
> 
> For 400 years Jews fled several European countries to find safety in Muslim controlled Al Andalus (Spain).
> 
> Jews like the great scholar Maimonides resided there and trained Jewish students.
> 
> This "Golden Age" ended when the Christians defeated the Muslims.
> 
> And expelled the Jews under threat of death as part of the Spanish Inquisition.
Click to expand...



Plus there were Jewish communities in pretty much every Muslim country until the creation of Israel when they got forced out.


----------



## Sunni Man

High_Gravity said:


> Plus there were Jewish communities in pretty much every Muslim country until the creation of Israel when they got forced out.


Correct.

The creation of Israel in 1948 and the driving out of the Palestinians ushered in the the modern conflict between the Muslims and the Jews.

Before that, historically the Jews found that they were much safer in Muslim lands.

Because Christians were always trying to kill them.


----------



## Sunni Man

And this proves what Rpoey?

Islam was only about 20 years old at the time and very weak when they expelled the Jews out of Arabia.

The stronger Jews had waged war against the Muslims and lost.

Ancient history by anyone's standards.


What I posted about  Al Andalus (Spain) is considered modern history.

But, I guess you hate the idea that Jews and Muslims could live and work together in peace.

And are always looking for the negative.


----------



## Ropey

> There had been, for some long but uncertain period, a significant number of Jews in Arabia. historians claim that very large numbers of Jews &#8211; as high as 80,000 &#8211; arrived after the destruction of the First Temple, to join others already long established in places such as the oasis of Khaybar as well as the trading colonies in Medina and Mecca (where they even had their own cemetery). Another theory posits that these Jews were refugees from Byzantine persecutions. Regardless, Arab historians mention some 20 Jewish tribes, including two tribes of Kohanim.[3]
> 
> The Constitution of Medina, written shortly after hijra, addressed some points regarding the civil and religious situation for the Jewish communities living within the city from an Islamic perspective. For example, the constitution stated that the Jews "will profess their religion, and the Muslims theirs", and they "shall be responsible for their expenditure, and the Muslims for theirs". Rarely did Jews live with such freedom. *After the Battle of Badr, the Jewish tribe of Banu Qaynuqa allegedly breached treaties and agreements with Muhammad. Islam's Prophet regarded this as casus belli and besieged the Banu Qaynuqa. Upon surrender the tribe was expelled.[4] The following year saw the expulsion of the second tribe, the Banu Nadir, accused of planning to kill the prophet Muhammad. The third major Jewish tribe in Medina, Banu Qurayza was eliminated when the Muslims besieged their fortifications not long after the fall of the Banu Nadir, an event reported in Surah 33:25-27 of the Qur'an.[5]*
> 
> In year 20 of the Muslim era, or the year 641 AD, Muhammad's successor the Caliph 'Umar decreed that Jews and Christians should be removed from all but the southern and eastern fringes of Arabia&#8212;a decree based on the (sometimes disputed) uttering of the Prophet: "*Let there not be two religions in Arabia*". *The two populations in question were the Jews of the Khaybar oasis in the north and the Christians of Najran*.[6] Other sources report the forced deportation of Jews and Christians occurring in 634 AD, with the last remnants of these two monotheistic religions being removed from the Arabian peninsula by the year 650.[7] From this point onwards the Holy Land of the Hijaz was forbidden to non-Muslims.[8] Only the Red Sea port of Jedda was permitted as a "religious quarantine area" and continued to have a small complement of Jewish merchants.





> Since the 11th century, there have been instances of pogroms against Jews.[12] Examples include the 1066 Granada massacre, the razing of the entire Jewish quarter in the Andalucian city of Granada.[13] In North Africa, there were cases of violence against Jews in the Middle Ages,[14] and in other Arab lands including Egypt,[15] Syria.[16] and Yemen[17] Jewish population was confined to segregated quarters, or mellahs, in Morocco beginning from the 15th century. In cities, a mellah was surrounded by a wall with a fortified gateway. In contrast, rural mellahs were separate villages inhabited solely by the Jews.[18]
> 
> The Almohads, who had taken control of much of Islamic Iberia by 1172, were far more fundamentalist in outlook than the Almoravides, and they treated the dhimmis harshly. Jews and Christians were expelled from Morocco and Islamic Spain.[19] Faced with the choice of either death or conversion, some Jews, such as the family of Maimonides, fled south and east to the more tolerant Muslim lands, while others went northward to settle in the growing Christian kingdoms.[20][21]
> 
> In 1400, the Jews of Aleppo were herded into their synagogues and slaughtered to the last man by soldiers of Central Asian Islamic conqueror Tamerlane; the young women were raped.[22] In 1465, Arab mobs in Fez slaughtered thousands of Jews, leaving only 11 alive, after a Jewish deputy vizier treated a Muslim woman in "an offensive manner." The killings touched off a wave of similar massacres throughout Morocco.[23][24]
> 
> In 1492, Askia Mohammad I came to power in the previously tolerant region of Timbuktu and decreed that Jews must convert to Islam or leave; Judaism became illegal in Mali, as it did in Catholic Spain that same year.[25]


History of the Jews under Muslim rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> There was a massacre of Jews in Baghdad in 1828.[28] In 1839, in the eastern Persian city of Meshed, a mob burst into the Jewish Quarter, burned the synagogue, and destroyed the Torah scrolls. *It was only by forcible conversion that a massacre was averted*.[29] There was another massacre in Barfurush in 1867.[30][31] In 1839, the Allahdad incident, the Jews of Mashhad, Iran, now known as the Mashhadi Jews, were coerced into converting to Islam.[32]





> In the middle of the 19th century, J. J. Benjamin wrote about the life of Persian Jews:
> 
> "&#8230;*they are obliged to live in a separate part of town&#8230;; for they are considered as unclean creatures&#8230; Under the pretext of their being unclean, they are treated with the greatest severity and should they enter a street, inhabited by Mussulmans, they are pelted by the boys and mobs with stones and dirt&#8230; For the same reason, they are prohibited to go out when it rains; for it is said the rain would wash dirt off them, which would sully the feet of the Mussulmans&#8230; If a Jew is recognized as such in the streets, he is subjected to the greatest insults. The passers-by spit in his face, and sometimes beat him&#8230; unmercifully&#8230; If a Jew enters a shop for anything, he is forbidden to inspect the goods&#8230; Should his hand incautiously touch the goods, he must take them at any price the seller chooses to ask for them... Sometimes the Persians intrude into the dwellings of the Jews and take possession of whatever please them. Should the owner make the least opposition in defense of his property, he incurs the danger of atoning for it with his life... If... a Jew shows himself in the street during the three days of the Katel (Muharram)&#8230;, he is sure to be murdered.*"



There were times of peace for Jews in the Arabian Peninsula. There were times of peace with Germany and their Jews. Russia and their Jews, Italy and their Jews, etc. 

There were also times where new leaders came in and who had different views and who worked to exterminate the Jews. Arabs were no different. 

This is history...


----------



## Ropey

Sunni Man said:


> But, I guess you hate the idea that Jews and Muslims could live and work together in peace.
> 
> And are always looking for the negative.



And you are the one who wants to remove ALL THE WORLDS JEWRY and transport them to an island to remove them from the rest of mankind. 

And I am  negative?

LMAO


----------



## Sunni Man

I am always searching for an fair, equitable and non violent solution to the world's Jewish problem.

How can that be seen as negative?


----------



## Ropey

Sunni Man said:


> I am always searching for an fair, equitable and non violent solution to the world's* Jewish problem*.
> 
> How can that be seen as negative?





Sunni Man said:


> I am not anti-semitic at all.
> 
> And actually worry that people will finally get fed up with the Jews and cause them harm.
> 
> History has shown this to be the case over and over;
> 
> as Jews have been killed and driven out of countless countries throughout history.
> 
> My solution to the Jewish problem.
> 
> Would be to round them up world wide and find and island to quarantine them on.
> 
> There are several islands in the world that could easily contain the 13 million Jews that currently reside in various nations and Israel.
> 
> This way the Jews could build the ultimate Hebrew society they have always dreamed of.
> 
> Several gun boats would patrol the waters around the island to prevent any Jews from trying to escape.
> 
> This way the Jews could be protected from harm; and the world could finally have peace and security.
> 
> Thus a  Win = Win for both Jews and Gentiles



*Jewish Problem*

A final solution to the Jewish Problem eh Sunni Man?



> For years Hitler and his men had discussed what to do about "The Jewish Problem". While the Jews were no more a problem in the 20th century than they had ever been, they are the one people who have remained a nation within nations, and having never lost their national identity, many monarchs and rulers throughout the centuries have felt uneasy at their presence, often scapegoating them for the sins of a nation. At the turn of the 20th century, the same attitudes existed, only now in the light of the new world view of the National Socialists, the Jews in the Reich's eyes, were the stumbling block to a 'New European Order', and to the possibility of Herrenvolk or a racial type of a 'superior' people. The Judenrein of Germany and Europe, or the cleansing of all Jewish bloodlines,culture and influence, was the determinant solution to the 'Jewish Question' which became known as "Endlosung" or "The Final Solution to the Jewish Question". At the beginning of the war, only the methods remained undecided.



"The Jewish Problem and It's Final Solution"



			
				Adolf Hitler said:
			
		

> Speech by Adolf Hitler, January 31, 1939.
> Trials of War Criminals Before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals - Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1949-1953, Vol XIII, p. 131:
> 
> Today I will once more be a prophet: If the international Jewish financiers in and outside Europe should succeed in plunging the nations once more into a world war, then the result will not be the bolshevization of the earth, and thus the victory of Jewry, but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe!



Yes, we know your solution to the Jewish Problem Sunni Man. It is not much different than the beginnings of Trotsky and Hitler. 

They had power. You don't.  You both seem to want the same things though. A removal of every Jew in the world and expulsion from humanity.


----------



## Foxfyre

High_Gravity said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Son*, I write history on this stuff.  At the time the Jews settled in Canaan/Palestine, we were thousands of years ahead of the first Christians.   And Islam arrived 700 years after Christianity.  So what Muslims have the Jews ever petitioned to protect them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I am your son; that you are a very old lady indeed.
> 
> 
> For 400 years Jews fled several European countries to find safety in Muslim controlled Al Andalus (Spain).
> 
> Jews like the great scholar Maimonides resided there and trained Jewish students.
> 
> This "Golden Age" ended when the Christians defeated the Muslims.
> 
> And expelled the Jews under threat of death as part of the Spanish Inquisition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Plus there were Jewish communities in pretty much every Muslim country until the creation of Israel when they got forced out.
Click to expand...


But Sunni Man seems to have learned a very different history than I have been taught.  \

While it is true that in the Middle Ages the Roman Church's  treatment of Jews was deplorable, most persecuted Jews did not flee to the Muslim countries but rather more accommodating European and North African countries.  That is why there were so many Jewis in Germany and Poland for Hitler to round up for massacre; and why there were so many in Russia until Lenin and Stalin launched their viscious pograms to drive them out.

Muhammed himself marshalled forces that drove the Jews from Medina and in the late 19th and 20th Centuries, they have fared little better in the Muslim lands in which they have settled.  I think it was the 11th Century that more than 1500 Jewish families were massacred in the Granada Massacre in Spain--not by Christians but by Muslims.  In the Middle Ages Jews were allowed to live in Muslim lands but were considered inferior and were required to pay the jizya to the Muslims and later poll taxes and sometimes identify themselves with certain garb or whatever.  Intermittant massacres and confiscation of property and expulsions went on with some regularity.

In WWII Muslim were divided with some uninvolved, a few Muslim countries allied with the Allies, others with the Axis and participating fully the ultimate massacre that we know as the Holocaust.

Though Egypt and Jordan now have uneasy peace treaties with Israel, I don't recall ANY time in history that any Muslim nation has been allied with or even friendly to Jews in any conflict.


----------



## Sunni Man

Ropey, why do you insist on trying to link what I say to the nazis?

I have no connection to them or their ideology.

I am repulsed at many of their actions and do not condone them.

So why can't you hold a debate without dragging in Hitler and his group?

Or is that the only debating position you can muster up?


----------



## Ropey

Sunni Man said:
			
		

> This way the Jews could be protected from harm; and the world could finally have peace and security.



So, if you were to remove all the Jews from the rest of the world, all wars would stop and peace would rein?


----------



## Ropey

Sunni Man said:


> Ropey, why do you insist on trying to link what I say to the nazis?
> 
> I have no connection to them or their ideology.
> 
> I am repulsed at many of their actions and do not condone them.
> 
> So why can't you hold a debate without dragging in Hitler and his group?
> 
> Or is that the only debating position you can muster up?





Sunni Man said:


> I am not anti-semitic at all.
> 
> And actually worry that people will finally get fed up with the Jews and cause them harm.
> 
> History has shown this to be the case over and over;
> 
> as Jews have been killed and driven out of countless countries throughout history.
> 
> My solution to the Jewish problem.
> 
> Would be to round them up world wide and find and island to quarantine them on.
> 
> There are several islands in the world that could easily contain the 13 million Jews that currently reside in various nations and Israel.
> 
> This way the Jews could build the ultimate Hebrew society they have always dreamed of.
> 
> Several gun boats would patrol the waters around the island to prevent any Jews from trying to escape.
> 
> This way the Jews could be protected from harm; and the world could finally have peace and security.
> 
> Thus a  Win = Win for both Jews and Gentiles



Because your solution is not much different than Hitlers beginning solution that led to the final solution.


----------



## Ropey

All my people gone...

And you are a self-proclaimed moderate Sunni.


----------



## Sunni Man

Foxfyre said:


> While it is true that in the Middle Ages the Roman Church's  treatment of Jews was deplorable, most persecuted Jews did not flee to the Muslim countries but rather more accommodating European and North African countries.  That is why there were so many Jewis in Germany and Poland for Hitler to round up for massacre; and why there were so many in Russia until Lenin and Stalin launched their viscious pograms to drive them out.


And where did all of the Jews come from that went to European and North African countries Foxfyer?

Oh, that's right, they came from previously Muslim controlled Spain where they had been kicked out by the Christians who wanted to kill them.


----------



## Sunni Man

Ropey said:


> All my people gone...


Well don't blame the Muslims.

It was the Christian nations of Germany and Italy that killed your people.


----------



## Foxfyre

Sunni Man said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> While it is true that in the Middle Ages the Roman Church's  treatment of Jews was deplorable, most persecuted Jews did not flee to the Muslim countries but rather more accommodating European and North African countries.  That is why there were so many Jewis in Germany and Poland for Hitler to round up for massacre; and why there were so many in Russia until Lenin and Stalin launched their viscious pograms to drive them out.
> 
> 
> 
> And where did all of the Jews come from that went to European and North African countries Foxfyer?
> 
> Oh, that's right, they came from previously Muslim controlled Spain where they had been kicked out by the Christians who wanted to kill them.
Click to expand...


No sir, the Granada Massacre and similar events in Spain was committed by Muslims, not Christians.  Jews were treated every bit as badly by Muslims as they were by the Medieval Church/Monarchy collaborations.  Trying to pretend otherwise simply cannot be backed up by any reliable historical source.

Again, you will be unable to find anywhere in history that Jews were protected or defended by Muslims anywhere.  Tolerated with prejudice yes.  But invited?  No.  Protected?  No.  Defended?   No.

Muslims have fare much MUCH better in Israel.

Again there is simply no way to justify Muslim hatred for Jews.  It is what it is.  And what it is looks like bigotry and prejudice to me.


----------



## Ropey

Sunni Man said:


> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> 
> All my people gone...
> 
> 
> 
> Well don't blame the Muslims.
> 
> It was the Christian nations of Germany and Italy that killed your people.
Click to expand...


Muslims are innocent of killing Jews?

And Sunni Man who wants to take EVERY JEW IN THE WORLD and forcibly move them to an Island where they will be guarded from escape.

What do you call that Sunni Man?

What is your name for that?


----------



## Sunni Man

Foxfyre said:


> Muslims have fare much MUCH better in Israel.


Best joke I have heard so far this year!!


----------



## Kalam

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Just so  there is no misunderstanding people who pay the jizyah are captives ,free range but captives never the  less..



Incorrect. People of the dhimma are citizens. Captives form an entirely different class in Islamic jurisprudence; captive status is also temporary.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

It is a distinction without a difference.
Fight until you defeat the Jews and Christians 
and they are conquer and subjugated and pay the jizyah



9:29
Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allâh, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allâh and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islâm) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah[] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. (At-Tawbah 9:29)



Sounds like  captives to me.
You can delude yourself as much as you wish, the language is plain and in present tense .


----------



## Kalam

Ropey said:


> You said that I should. If you don't understand the politics of ownership when in discussion then I doubt if conversation with you and I will ever reach a point of simple acceptance.
> 
> For you seem to know my mind better than I?
> 
> Sunni Man simply indicts my entire people to an island surfeit of man. You just indict my mind. You know what I should want better than I. Clearly you don't need to ask me what I think of the MB. You know.
> 
> And this you don't understand Kalam? Then clearly I was wrong. You are not enlightened if you don't get this simple human concept.



Can we please drop this? Clearly, I phrased something in a way that doesn't sit well with you -- I apologize. I'm not particularly interested in hearing any more about it, to tell you the truth, so let's just move on. This isn't going anywhere.



Ropey said:


> Sunni Man has absolutely no understanding of enlightenment.


Is our conversation now about Sunni Man? 



Ropey said:


> Have you read this entire thread Kalam?
> 
> From beginning to end?



Yes, but I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be noticing apart from the same non-Muslims using the same pseudo-scholarship and tortured logic to propagate the same false claims about my religion that they've always attempted to propagate.


----------



## Kalam

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Sounds like  captives to me.


I'm sure it does. I've noticed that your ignorance rather frequently prevents you from seeing clear distinctions such as this. A captive is a prisoner of war who is generally ransomed or let go freely; a person of the dhimma is a rights-bearing citizen of the khilafah who, under Hizb ut-Tahrir's model, may vote for or a serve as a representative in the Majlis al-Ummah and local legislative councils, petition the government for redress of grievances, and hold office in other non-judicial and non-ruling government positions if he or she so desires. 



Mr.Fitnah said:


> You can delude yourself as much as you wish,


No, thanks; your own self-delusion is quite enough for the both of us.



Mr.Fitnah said:


> the language is plain and in present tense


You say, having no knowledge of Arabic whatsoever.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

Captives, no ifs, ands or buts.

9:29
Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allâh, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allâh and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islâm) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah[] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. (At-Tawbah 9:29)


----------



## Ropey

Kalam said:


> Can we please drop this? Clearly, I phrased something in a way that doesn't sit well with you -- I apologize. I'm not particularly interested in hearing any more about it, to tell you the truth, so let's just move on. This isn't going anywhere.



I agree.

I can see that you lacked intent. You have my apology back.


----------



## Sunni Man

Ropey said:


> And Sunni Man who wants to take EVERY JEW IN THE WORLD and forcibly move them to an Island where they will be guarded from escape.
> 
> What do you call that Sunni Man?
> 
> What is your name for that?



I would name the island Gaza #2


----------



## Ropey

Sunni Man said:


> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> 
> And Sunni Man who wants to take EVERY JEW IN THE WORLD and forcibly move them to an Island where they will be guarded from escape.
> 
> What do you call that Sunni Man?
> 
> What is your name for that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would name the island Gaza #2
Click to expand...


We will add Gaza #2 to Israel as well as Gaza #1.  

Thanks.


----------



## Ropey

I have come to the conclusion that the reason I can't get you to see your inhumanity to man is because you are uncaring of human lives other than those that matter to you.

You call for the expulsion of my people worldwide and see that as a moderate permanent solution to the Jewish Problem. (Your Words)


----------



## Sunni Man

Ropey said:


> I have come to the conclusion that the reason I can't get you to see your inhumanity to man is because you are uncaring of human lives other than those that matter to you.


You say that to me.

Yet you defend the racist, fascist, apartheid state of Israel.


----------



## Ropey

Sunni Man said:


> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have come to the conclusion that the reason I can't get you to see your inhumanity to man is because you are uncaring of human lives other than those that matter to you.
> 
> 
> 
> You say that to me.
> 
> Yet you defend the racist, fascist, apartheid state of Israel.
Click to expand...


*Israel: A Tolerant, Not Racist State*



			
				1948 said:
			
		

> Even before the land of Israel was declared a state in the year 1948 the idea of such a land has been called racist. To this day there remains a belief by some that the country is inherently racist. This belief is
> mostly unfounded as Israel is not a racist state and was created for the main purpose of giving the Jewish people an escape from the racism and anti-Semitism in Europe during the early to mid 19th century. Israeli nationalism has been under fire for quite some time. Many consider Israel's Law of Return as racist. The Law of Return allows for Jews from across the globe to become citizens of the country while not allowing others to do so in the same manner. The Jewish National Fund has also been called racist. This fund allows for property to be purchased for Jewish landowners, but not for non-Jews in the state of Israel. These contentions all have some merit, but are for the most part wrong and do not validate the claim that Israel is a racist state, let me tell you why.
> 
> Firstly, Israel gives all citizens equal rights. For example, Israeli Arabs, who have at times felt they are being treated unfairly within the state of Israel do receive like any other Israeli citizen, full voting rights as well as a seat on the Knesset, which serves as Israel's legislative body. All citizens of Israel that are at least 18 years of age are granted suffrage. This is extremely important as the Knesset can pass any law with a majority vote and Israel's government must be approved also by a majority vote of the Knesset. In addition, there are no racist policies segregating Israeli Jews from Israeli Arabs.



I look at Muslim countries and I see the true state of intolerance.

Israel is a bastion of proof with regards to the flow.


----------



## logical4u

If you want to see how islam treats "un-believers", look at how Christians are being systematically slaughtered in the ME.


----------



## Sunni Man

Ropey said:


> Israel is a bastion of proof with regards to the flow.



Yea, the flow of Zionist BS


----------



## Ropey

And we continue...

The ebb, it comes....

And you don't even understand what the term "Last Bastion Against the Horde" means do you?


----------



## Sunni Man

*"Bastion against the Horde"*

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VF1fvMv7DnU[/ame]


----------



## Kalam




----------



## Ropey

Yes, but the last bastion against the Muslim horde...



Look to History for that and accept that Israel holds this distinction with the West. Which is why the attack by Islam is on the West.

You won't find it on Youtube Sunni Man.  

You will find it in the Middle East though.


----------



## Foxfyre

Ropey said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have come to the conclusion that the reason I can't get you to see your inhumanity to man is because you are uncaring of human lives other than those that matter to you.
> 
> 
> 
> You say that to me.
> 
> Yet you defend the racist, fascist, apartheid state of Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Israel: A Tolerant, Not Racist State*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1948 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even before the land of Israel was declared a state in the year 1948 the idea of such a land has been called racist. To this day there remains a belief by some that the country is inherently racist. This belief is
> mostly unfounded as Israel is not a racist state and was created for the main purpose of giving the Jewish people an escape from the racism and anti-Semitism in Europe during the early to mid 19th century. Israeli nationalism has been under fire for quite some time. Many consider Israel's Law of Return as racist. The Law of Return allows for Jews from across the globe to become citizens of the country while not allowing others to do so in the same manner. The Jewish National Fund has also been called racist. This fund allows for property to be purchased for Jewish landowners, but not for non-Jews in the state of Israel. These contentions all have some merit, but are for the most part wrong and do not validate the claim that Israel is a racist state, let me tell you why.
> 
> Firstly, Israel gives all citizens equal rights. For example, Israeli Arabs, who have at times felt they are being treated unfairly within the state of Israel do receive like any other Israeli citizen, full voting rights as well as a seat on the Knesset, which serves as Israel's legislative body. All citizens of Israel that are at least 18 years of age are granted suffrage. This is extremely important as the Knesset can pass any law with a majority vote and Israel's government must be approved also by a majority vote of the Knesset. In addition, there are no racist policies segregating Israeli Jews from Israeli Arabs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I look at Muslim countries and I see the true state of intolerance.
> 
> Israel is a bastion of proof with regards to the flow.
Click to expand...


The point is that Jews, for the thousands of years that there have been Hebrews or Israelites or Jews, have defended their beliefs and cultural rites and traditions against overwhelming odds and have been hated by many different people for that.  The Jews, as have ALL peoples in the course of history, got it wrong sometimes, did bad things sometimes, overreacted sometimes, and thought wrongly sometimes.

But I think we would be hard put to find any other ethnic group that is in such a tiny minority that have contributed as much to the betterment of society and the world than the Jews can also claim.

But because they have been so oppressed, so hated, so universally discriminated against by EVERYBODY else at one time or another, Israel was intended to be a place where Jews could at last be free and call their own shots without interference from any other religious or political power.  It was to be a place of refuge for all Jews everywhere who wanted that kind of freedom to be who they wanted to be without fear of retaliation or punishment.  Evenso, with Israel being among the tinest of nations they have included more than a million Arabs who choose to live in Israel as full citizens and that includes representation on the Knesset.  Israeli Arabs are not required to participate in mandatory military service because all of Israel's enemies right now are Muslim, mostly Arabs, and Israel reasonably concluded that Arab citizens will not be expected to fire upon possibly their own families.  It is sufficient that Arab Israeli citizens will not interfere when it is necessary for Israel to defend itself from Arab aggression.

It is essential for Israel to maintain a substantial majority of Jews within Israel, however, for as soon as there is an Arab majority, Israel will cease to exist.  The antisemite, anti-Israel people of the world call that racist.

I call it common sense.


----------



## Sunni Man

Foxfyre said:


> But I think we would be hard put to find any other ethnic group that is in such a tiny minority that have contributed as much to the betterment of society and the world than the Jews can also claim.


We would be hard put to find any other tiny minority ethnic group has caused more havoc, chaos, wars, and conflict in the world than the Jews.


----------



## Ropey

Foxfyre said:


> I call it common sense.



The Jews have been stewed in attempts to render us dissolute. Islamic methods will not work for if history has shown us anything, it has shown that Jews continue regardless, and because they continue, they rebuild Israel also regardless.

Israel could be destroyed and be rebuilt again after the Muslim horde attacks Israel and is vanquished by the Western world.  It could happen again. Just because I believe that the restoration is over and now we are moving to the end of times does not make it so. 

Islam notwithstanding, I am not worried. I have faith.


----------



## Foxfyre

Sunni Man said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> But I think we would be hard put to find any other ethnic group that is in such a tiny minority that have contributed as much to the betterment of society and the world than the Jews can also claim.
> 
> 
> 
> We would be hard put to find any other tiny minority ethnic group has caused more havoc, chaos, wars, and conflict in the world than the Jews.
Click to expand...


I can.  The Christians, relative to their much shorter history, are more guilty of creating havoc, chaos, and conflict in the world than are the Jews.

And I believe Islam, with its even shorter history, outclasses Christians and Jews combined in that department and there are segments that are actively continuing to do so.


----------



## Jroc

Ropey said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I call it common sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Jews have been stewed in attempts to render us dissolute. Islamic methods will not work for if history has shown us anything, it has shown that Jews continue regardless, and because they continue, they rebuild Israel also regardless.
> 
> Israel could be destroyed and be rebuilt again after the Muslim horde attacks Israel and is vanquished by the Western world.  It could happen again. Just because I believe that the restoration is over and now we are moving to the end of times does not make it so.
> 
> Islam notwithstanding, I am not worried. I have faith.
Click to expand...


I agree with you Ropey, "restoration is over" we are strong now..any attempt at the destruction of Israel, is an attempt to destroy western civilization as a whole, and we know were we go from there


----------



## Sunni Man

Jroc said:


> I agree with you Ropey, "restoration is over" we are strong now..any attempt at the destruction of Israel, is an attempt to destroy western civilization as a whole,


You guys are hilarious  

Since when did a nation of bagel benders become the center piece of western civilization.


----------



## Ropey

Sunni Man said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with you Ropey, "restoration is over" we are strong now..any attempt at the destruction of Israel, is an attempt to destroy western civilization as a whole,
> 
> 
> 
> You guys are hilarious
> 
> Since when did a nation of bagel benders become the center piece of western civilization.
Click to expand...


Not center piece. Who said that? There was a reason the castles of Britain, France and Spain were created in the Islamic world.

It was to create a barrier that if overthrown would tell the world that it was time to go back in and fight.

Israel is now that barrier. Israel will be attacked from without. 

And the fight?

It comes....


----------



## Jroc

Sunni Man said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with you Ropey, "restoration is over" we are strong now..any attempt at the destruction of Israel, is an attempt to destroy western civilization as a whole,
> 
> 
> 
> You guys are hilarious
> 
> Since when did a nation of bagel benders become the center piece of western civilization.
Click to expand...


Modern Civilization started when  G-d's law was offered to, accepted by, and given to the Jewish people. The law is the basis, the building blocks. Of western civilization, always has been.


----------



## Sunni Man

Jroc said:


> Modern Civilization started when  G-d's law was offered to, accepted by, and given to the Jewish people. The law is the basis, the building blocks. Of western civilization, always has been.


Incorrect Hiram,

Western civilization was built on the backs of the Greeks and Romans.  

Who by the way, drove out their Jews like everyone else has in history.


----------



## Ropey

Sunni Man said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Modern Civilization started when  G-d's law was offered to, accepted by, and given to the Jewish people. The law is the basis, the building blocks. Of western civilization, always has been.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Western civilization was built on the backs of the Greeks and Romans.
> 
> Who by the way, drove out their Jews like everyone else has in history.
Click to expand...


The Law of G-d is the Ten Commandments Sunni Man. That did not come from the Greeks or Romans. 

But they took it in and it became theirs as G-d gave it to the Jews who He had chosen for the purpose of messenger boy. The Greeks translated it for the Jews and we went worldwide with it. Chosen for a purpose, no more is given to us other than our laws of culture.



Sunni Man said:


> Incorrect Hiram,



Sunni Man. You say you are a believer. As a believer, do you believe that what you know is to come to pass? You have faith that this that you know will come to pass regardless?

So, do you believe then that Islam is where it is supposed to be, and will go where it is supposed to go regardless?

I am not one of those who believe any tripe that Islam is of Evil/Satan. Satan would never work towards the creation of a book against himself. It is  non sequitir. It is why Christianity could not be of Evil/Satan and it is why Judaism is not as well.

So, with that premise put aside. I then look and ask myself.

Is this G-d's World?

If this is G-d's world, then things will happen on the time of G-d, for G-d is not on our time.

G-d preordains the end, but He does not inform the time. This is so for Islam and Judaism and Christianity. 

For our book, we do not know when. We know the maximum of six thousand years and we are at 5772 now, so according to our book, between now and 238 years, but when? 

Can't rightly say. 

I know that hate does not work in your book either. It works in your mind. 

We Jews, however, are hated in paradoxes:

Jews are hated for being a lazy and inferior race - but also for dominating the economy and taking over the world. 

Jews are hated for stubbornly maintaining our separateness - and, when we do assimilate - for posing a threat to racial purity through intermarriages. 

Jews are seen as pacifists and as warmongers; as capitalist exploiters and as revolutionary communists; possessed of a chosen People mentality, as well as of an inferiority complex.

Nevertheless and regardless, we continue...

Israel is recreated and we continue...


----------



## hipeter924

Ropey said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with you Ropey, "restoration is over" we are strong now..any attempt at the destruction of Israel, is an attempt to destroy western civilization as a whole,
> 
> 
> 
> You guys are hilarious
> 
> Since when did a nation of bagel benders become the center piece of western civilization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not center piece. Who said that? There was a reason the castles of Britain, France and Spain were created in the Islamic world.
> 
> It was to create a barrier that if overthrown would tell the world that it was time to go back in and fight.
> 
> Israel is now that barrier. Israel will be attacked from without.
> 
> And the fight?
> 
> It comes....
Click to expand...

Europe has been the center of intolerance for centuries, if it wasn't the Jews (virtually all European nations persecuted them and Germany and Italy finished with the holocaust, only to start left/right wing hate groups today), the Cathars (Europe wiped them out, men, women, children and all), or the Gyspies (France and other nations still persecute them) and now it is the Muslims, they have a big nasty cesspool to live in. 

The Muslims wouldn't be waging a war on them if they:
a) Treated them with a little dignity (that means not housing them in ghettos).
b) Stopped letting in Muslims they couldn't afford to give jobs and a good standing of living, or otherwise only let the kinds of Muslims into Europe that integrate well into society.
c) Woke up to the reality that true 'freedom of religion' is sharia law, and that saying that Muslims have 'free religion' is lying.
d) Understood their high held human rights principles are nothing but falsehood's and pathetic attempts to hide the genocides and mass exploitation they were/are involved in Middle East, Africa and Asia i.e. Algeria, Rwanda, Congo, Vietnam, Armenia, Turkey ...
e) Realize that they are a region of double standards like supporting military dictatorships, denying genocides and all the while proclaiming they are some how 'morally superior' to the US, Russia, China and other nations.

PS: Glad to be living in New Zealand, antisemitism, radical Islam, and extreme nationalism/racism is virtually inexistent here.


----------



## Foxfyre

The distortions spewed by the anti-Jewish anti-Israel group never cease to amaze me.

Arab/Muslim citizens of Israel are free to live anywhere they wish.  The fact that some do concentrate themselves into mostly Arab neighborhoods is a cultural choice, not via any mandate of Israeli policy or law.

Of the 22 Arab countries, not a single one has a Jew in its government or in any position of power.  A number of Arabs have been elected to and sit on the Israeli Knesset.

When the Arab population in East Jerusalem was polled as to whether they would choose to be Palestinian citizens or Israeli citizens should an agreement be reached to establish a separate nation of Palestine, only 30% chose to be Palestinian citizens.  The fact that an Islamic mosque still sits on the Dome of the Rock speaks to Israeli tolerance for Islam.

A majority of the Jews who have been forcibly expelled from countries around the world have been expelled from Arab/Islamic countries.

As for non-Israeli Arabs living on the perimeters of Israel, how friendly would you be and how likely to accommodate people subject to a government sworn to destroy you and which is repeatedly and with great regularity committed terrorist attacks intended to maim, injure, kill as many Israeili men, women, and children as possible?  And this has happened EVERY time they have been given opportunity to do so?

And as yet nobody has given me ANY justification for continued hatred of Israel and the Jews.  The Jews bother nobody who is willing to leave them alone.


----------



## Sunni Man

Foxfyre said:


> Of the 22 Arab countries, not a single one has a Jew in its government or in any position of power.


You are the one spewing the misinformation and hate Foxfyre.


"Tehran has 11 functioning synagogues, many of them with Hebrew schools. It has two kosher restaurants, and a Jewish hospital, an old-age home and a cemetery. *There is a Jewish representative in the Iranian parliament.* There is a Jewish library with 20,000 titles, its reading room decorated with a photograph of the Ayatolltah 

Iran remains home to Jewish enclave


----------



## Sunni Man

Foxfyre said:


> When the Arab population in East Jerusalem was polled as to whether they would choose to be Palestinian citizens or Israeli citizens should an agreement be reached to establish a separate nation of Palestine, only 30% chose to be Palestinian citizens.  The fact that an Islamic mosque still sits on the Dome of the Rock speaks to Israeli tolerance for Islam.



Most of the so called muslims who responded that they wanted to stay Israeli citizens are "Druze".

Druze are muslims in name only. 

And are Not accepted as muslims by either Shia or Sunni muslims.

They have always sided with Israel in exchange for protection.

Druze are the "sell outs" and "Uncle Toms" of the Middle East. 

So to use them in any poll about Muslims is totally misleading and disingenuous.


----------



## High_Gravity

Arabs For Israel


----------



## Kalam

Foxfyre said:


> And as yet nobody has given me ANY justification for continued hatred of Israel and the Jews.  The Jews bother nobody who is willing to leave them alone.



By saying this, you imply that they aren't squatting on stolen land. What I find funny is that many of the same Americans who complain about the "failure" of Muslim immigrants to "assimilate" to life in various European countries also support Israel, an entity created by immigrants who refused to assimilate to the culture of their destination to such an extent that they violently imposed their own way of life on the non-Jews living there. I can't help but suspect that these people would be less supportive of a revived Andalusian caliphate.


----------



## Kalam

"Several letters have been received by me, asking me to declare my views
about the Arab-Jew question in Palestine and the persecution of the Jews in
Germany. It is not without hesitation that I venture to offer my views on
this very difficult question.

My sympathies are all with the Jews. I have known them intimately in South
Africa. Some of them became lifelong companions. Through these friends I
came to learn much of their age long persecution. They have been the
untouchables of Christianity. The parallel between their treatment by
Christians and the treatment of untouchables by Hindus is very close.

Religious sanction has been invoked in both cases for the justification of
the inhuman treatment meted out to them. Apart from the friendships,
therefore, there is the more common universal reason for my sympathy for
the Jews. But my sympathy does not blind me to the requirements of justice.

The cry for the national home for the Jews does not make much appeal to me.
The sanction for it is sought in the Bible and the tenacity with which the Jews
have hankered after return to Palestine.

Why should they not, like other peoples of the earth, make that country
their home where they are born and where they earn their livelihood?
Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French. It is wrong and inhuman to impose the Jews on the Arabs. What is going on in Palestine today cannot be justified by any moral code of conduct. The mandates have no sanction but that of the last war. Surely it would be a crime against humanity to reduce the proud Arabs so that Palestine can be restored to the Jews partly or wholly as their national home. The nobler course would be to insist on a just treatment of the Jews wherever they are born and bred. The Jews born in France are French in precisely the same sense that Christians born in France are French.

If the Jews have no home but Palestine, will they relish the idea of being
forced to leave the other parts of the world in which they are settled?
Or do they want a double home where they can remain at will? This cry for the
national home affords a colorable justification for the German expulsion of
the Jews. But the German persecution of the Jews seems to have no parallel
in history. The tyrants of old never went so mad as Hitler seems to have
gone. And he is doing it with religious zeal. For, he is propounding a new
religion of exclusive and militant nationalism in the name of which any
inhumanity becomes an act of humanity to be rewarded here and hereafter."

- Mohandas K. Gandhi, Harijan, Nov. 26 1938


----------



## Jroc

Sunni Man said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the Arab population in East Jerusalem was polled as to whether they would choose to be Palestinian citizens or Israeli citizens should an agreement be reached to establish a separate nation of Palestine, only 30% chose to be Palestinian citizens.  The fact that an Islamic mosque still sits on the Dome of the Rock speaks to Israeli tolerance for Islam.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most of the so called muslims who responded that they wanted to stay Israeli citizens are "Druze".
> 
> Druze are muslims in name only.
> 
> And are Not accepted as muslims by either Shia or Sunni muslims.
> 
> They have always sided with Israel in exchange for protection.
> 
> Druze are the "sell outs" and "Uncle Toms" of the Middle East.
> 
> So to use them in any poll about Muslims is totally misleading and disingenuous.
Click to expand...


Are Druze considered Arabs?

*In new survey, 35% say they are willing to relocate if their neighborhoods become part of a future Palestinian state; only 30% say they would prefer Palestinian citizenship over Israeli.*

Arab residents of East Jerusalem are divided on whether they would want Israeli or Palestinian citizenship should a future Palestinian state be created, suggests a new poll released on Wednesday in Washington. 

  East Jerusalem neighborhood Issawiya



The survey, conducted by Pechter Middle East Polls in partnership with the Council on Foreign Relations, asked a simple question that the leaders both in Israel and the Palestinian authority seem to ignore all too often: What do the people themselves want? And the people seem confused. 

When asked if they preferred to become a citizen of Palestine, with all of the rights and privileges of other citizens of Palestine, or a citizen of Israel, only 30 percent chose Palestinian citizenship &#8211; as compared to 35 percent that chose Israeli citizenship. Another 35 percent either had no answer or declined to provide it. 

A follow up question asked respondents if &#8220;most people in your neighborhood&#8221; would prefer to become citizens of Palestine or of Israel: 31percent thought that most people prefer Palestinian citizenship; 39 percent - Israeli citizenship; and 30 percent, once again, declined to answer or said they didn&#8217;t know.

Would East Jerusalem Arabs rather be citizens of Israel or Palestine? - Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News


----------



## Jroc

Kalam said:


> "Several letters have been received by me, asking me to declare my views
> about the Arab-Jew question in Palestine and the persecution of the Jews in
> Germany.
> 
> - Mohandas K. Gandhi, Harijan, Nov. 26 1938






[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuq3GnOXXjg"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuq3GnOXXjg[/ame]


----------



## Foxfyre

Sunni Man said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of the 22 Arab countries, not a single one has a Jew in its government or in any position of power.
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one spewing the misinformation and hate Foxfyre.
> 
> 
> "Tehran has 11 functioning synagogues, many of them with Hebrew schools. It has two kosher restaurants, and a Jewish hospital, an old-age home and a cemetery. *There is a Jewish representative in the Iranian parliament.* There is a Jewish library with 20,000 titles, its reading room decorated with a photograph of the Ayatolltah
> 
> Iran remains home to Jewish enclave
Click to expand...


There has been a seat reserved for a Jew on the Iranian parliament since 1906 and, until the Constitution is amended, Jews are protected by the Iranian Constitution.  However, Jews do not fare all that well in Iran since 1948 and most especially since the Shah was overthrown and radical clerics have been in control.  I have acquaintances here in Albuquerque who were formerly Iranian Jews and they do not relate a good condition for Jews in Iran.

Evenso, even you should know that the Iranians are not Arab, Sunni Man.


----------



## Kalam

(@JRoc) Is there something you want to say?


----------



## High_Gravity

So basically everyone has to pack their bags and move back to the land of their ancestors? what if my father is black and my mother is white, do I keep a home in Africa and another in Ireland?


----------



## Kalam

High_Gravity said:


> So basically everyone has to pack their bags and move back to the land of their ancestors?



Who said that?


----------



## Sunni Man

King Hamad of Bahrain on Thursday (25 Nov) appointed 
a Jew and a Christian among four women to the 40-member upper chamber, 
following a parliamentary election last month, state media reported. 

Excerpts: Bahrains king appoints a Jew and a Christian to parliament. Lebanese - TRCB


----------



## Sunni Man

High_Gravity said:


> So basically everyone has to pack their bags and move back to the land of their ancestors? what if my father is black and my mother is white, do I keep a home in Africa and another in Ireland?


You would have to go back to Africa.

Because you are considered black.

Just the same as Obama.


----------



## High_Gravity

Kalam said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> So basically everyone has to pack their bags and move back to the land of their ancestors?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who said that?
Click to expand...


Well people are saying the Jews have no right to be there and should go back where they came from, correct?


----------



## High_Gravity

Sunni Man said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> So basically everyone has to pack their bags and move back to the land of their ancestors? what if my father is black and my mother is white, do I keep a home in Africa and another in Ireland?
> 
> 
> 
> You would have to go back to Africa.
> 
> Because you are considered black.
> 
> Just the same as Obama.
Click to expand...


So my Irish ancestry means nothing?


----------



## Kalam

High_Gravity said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> So basically everyone has to pack their bags and move back to the land of their ancestors?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who said that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well people are saying the Jews have no right to be there and should go back where they came from, correct?
Click to expand...


Not at this point, but shouldn't have "imposed themselves" on Palestine in the manner that they did in the first place. They are non-Muslim inhabitants of a Muslim territory and, as such, have no right to impose their system of government on Muslims.

At the time Gandhi wrote the piece, Israel hadn't been formed and Jewish immigration to the territory was an ongoing issue. These were people whose ancestors had lived in Europe for hundreds of years or more.


----------



## High_Gravity

Kalam said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who said that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well people are saying the Jews have no right to be there and should go back where they came from, correct?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not at this point, but shouldn't have "imposed themselves" on Palestine in the manner that they did in the first place. They are non-Muslim inhabitants of a Muslim territory and, as such, have no right to impose their system of government on Muslims.
Click to expand...


Well alot of countries are composed mainly of people who were not the original inhabitants, North America, South America and Australia come to mind. Where should the Israelis go now?


----------



## High_Gravity

Plus I thought the Palestinians were ok with sharing the land with Jews and Christians, but your telling me this land is just for Muslims?


----------



## Kalam

High_Gravity said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well people are saying the Jews have no right to be there and should go back where they came from, correct?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at this point, but shouldn't have "imposed themselves" on Palestine in the manner that they did in the first place. They are non-Muslim inhabitants of a Muslim territory and, as such, have no right to impose their system of government on Muslims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well alot of countries are composed mainly of people who were not the original inhabitants, North America, South America and Australia come to mind. Where should the Israelis go now?
Click to expand...


Wherever they want, or nowhere. Their state is another story.


----------



## Ropey

Kalam said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> And as yet nobody has given me ANY justification for continued hatred of Israel and the Jews.  The Jews bother nobody who is willing to leave them alone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By saying this, you imply that they aren't squatting on stolen land. What I find funny is that many of the same Americans who complain about the "failure" of Muslim immigrants to "assimilate" to life in various European countries also support Israel, an entity created by immigrants who refused to assimilate to the culture of their destination to such an extent that they violently imposed their own way of life on the non-Jews living there. I can't help but suspect that these people would be less supportive of a revived Andalusian caliphate.
Click to expand...


The fact remains that The UN partition of Palestine (the second one after they got Jordan, aka "Palestine I") 

Had the Arabs won- there would have been no Jews TO 'Return'.



> As a Palestinian, I ask the world to please stop exploiting our issue. If you want a do a good deed, find your own. To the singers romanticizing Palestinian suffering, it is not romantic. There is nothing dreamy about it. Where is the heroism in a small child throwing rocks at a tank? Either warn the child to stay away or just shut up! How dare you do this to our children? Does our suffering give you such good video footage and high ratings?








Stolen Land?



> Much of the world buys the line  peddled by the Palestinians and the Arab Muslim world and, indeed, many Western countries  that paints Israel as the bad "Goliath" that "stole" the land from the "Palestinians."
> 
> Israel gave Gaza self-rule in 1994, unilaterally withdrawing the last of its citizens and soldiers from Gaza in 2005. Hamas, voted into power via free elections in 2006, fought and defeated their political and military rival, Fatah, to seize de facto control of Gaza in 2007. In the past eight years, Hamas has fired more than 10,000 rockets and mortars into Israel  7,000 of them after Israel's 2005 withdrawal. With improved technology  reportedly assisted by Iran  Hamas' rockets can now fly 24 miles before impact and explosion, thereby threatening, injuring and killing more and more Israelis living in southern Israel.
> 
> But why the "disproportionate" response by Israel? Reportedly, more than 600 Palestinians have been killed, some civilians. Set aside for the moment that Hamas' charter specifically calls for the "obliteration" of the state of Israel. And set aside the fact that the Palestinian "militants" fight in heavily populated areas, assuring, indeed encouraging (for PR purposes) civilian casualties.
> 
> We turn our attention to the "stolen" allegation.


*
The truth about Israel's 'stolen' land
*



> fter four centuries of Ottoman rule, Britain took the land in 1917 and pledged in the Balfour Declaration to support a Jewish national homeland there. In 1920, the British Palestine Mandate was recognized. A declaration passed by the League of Nations in 1922 effectively divided the mandated territory into two parts. The eastern portion, called Transjordan, would later become the Arab Kingdom of Jordan in 1946. The other portion, comprising the territory west of the Jordan River, was administered as Palestine under provisions that called for the establishment of a Jewish homeland.
> 
> The United Nations, in 1947, partitioned the area into separate Jewish and Arab states along meandering and indefensible boundaries. The Arab world, insisting that any Jewish claim to Palestine was invalid, staunchly refused to compromise or even discuss the subject.
> 
> When Israel's independence was declared in 1948, Arab forces from Egypt, Transjordan, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq combined to crush the one-day-old country. They lost. Still, Egypt occupied most of the Gaza Strip, and Transjordan (calling itself "Jordan") held most of the West Bank and half of Jerusalem. Neither Arab country gave the "Palestinians" a state.
> 
> The word "Palestinian," as employed today, is a relatively recent term. Until the end of the British mandate over Palestine, in 1948, all inhabitants of the area west of the Jordan River were known as "Palestinians." A Jewish person living in what is now Israel was a "Palestinian Jew." An Arab living in the area was a "Palestinian Arab." Likewise, a Christian was known as a "Palestinian Christian."



Israel won more land after a series of Arab initiated wars with almost all the land taken when Israel handed the Arabians their back sides in every war that the Arabians started and since has returned or offered for return in exchange for peace. 

The Jews "stole" nothing.


----------



## Sunni Man

High_Gravity said:


> So my Irish ancestry means nothing?


Not in the American system of race/status hierarchy.


----------



## Jroc

Kalam said:


> (@JRoc) Is there something you want to say?





"





> Several letters have been received by me, asking me to declare my views
> about the Arab-Jew question in Palestine and the persecution of the Jews in
> *Germany.* It is not without hesitation that I venture to offer my views on
> this very difficult question.



I pointed out that there were over a million Jews driven out of Arab countries, they are not only from Europe. It seem to me that you think there should be no Jew living in any Arab or muslim land. Well... the so called "Palestinians think so" when areas are turned over to them all the Jews must be removed so why is that?


----------



## Ropey

High_Gravity said:


> your telling me this land is just for Muslims?



Yes, that is what he is telling you.


----------



## Kalam

High_Gravity said:


> Plus I thought the Palestinians were ok with sharing the land with Jews and Christians, but your telling me this land is just for Muslims?



The only territory that should be restricted to Muslim residents is the Hijaz in Saudi Arabia. Jews and Christians and members of other religious groups are welcome to live as citizens in an Islamic society if they recognize that they are living in an Islamic society.


----------



## High_Gravity

Kalam said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> Plus I thought the Palestinians were ok with sharing the land with Jews and Christians, but your telling me this land is just for Muslims?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, the only territory that should be restricted to Muslim residents is the Hijaz in Saudi Arabia. Jews and Christians and members of other religious groups are welcome to live as citizens in an Islamic society.
Click to expand...


Somehow I get a feeling people in Egypt, Pakistan and Afghanistan disagree with you.


----------



## High_Gravity

Sunni Man said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> So my Irish ancestry means nothing?
> 
> 
> 
> Not in the American system of race/status hierarchy.
Click to expand...


This is true however in Africa if you are not 100% black you are considered mixed and not fully black, in South Africa they have a separate ethnicity called mixed and black and white are separate.


----------



## Kalam

Jroc said:


> I pointed out that there were over a million Jews driven out of Arab countries, they are not only from Europe. It seem to me that you think there should be no Jew living in any Arab or muslim land.


Then you got the wrong impression.



Jroc said:


> Well... the so called "Palestinians think so" when areas are turned over to them all the Jews must be removed so why is that?



Which Palestinians believe that?

_Hamas is a humane movement, which cares for human rights and is committed to the tolerance inherent in Islam as regards attitudes towards other religions. It is only hostile to those who are hostile towards it, or stand in its way in order to disturb its moves or to frustrate its efforts. Under the shadow of Islam it is possible for the members of the three religions: Islam, Christianity and Judaism to coexist in safety and security._ - Charter of Hamas, Article 31​


----------



## High_Gravity

There are many Jews from Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, Yemen, Sudan and Morocco living in Israel.


----------



## High_Gravity

> Hamas is a humane movement, which cares for human rights and is committed to the tolerance inherent in Islam as regards attitudes towards other religions. It is only hostile to those who are hostile towards it, or stand in its way in order to disturb its moves or to frustrate its efforts. Under the shadow of Islam it is possible for the members of the three religions: Islam, Christianity and Judaism to coexist in safety and security. - Charter of Hamas, Article 31



The Ku Klux Klan also said they don't hate black people or wish violence upon them, but just wish to live separate.


----------



## Sunni Man

High_Gravity said:


> This is true however in Africa if you are not 100% black you are considered mixed and not fully black, in South Africa they have a separate ethnicity called mixed and black and white are separate.



Blacks in Africa are just as racist as any southern redneck.


----------



## High_Gravity

Sunni Man said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is true however in Africa if you are not 100% black you are considered mixed and not fully black, in South Africa they have a separate ethnicity called mixed and black and white are separate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blacks in Africa are just as racist as any southern redneck.
Click to expand...


I hate to say it but their even worse depending where you go, even being black but being from a different part of Africa or different tribe will get you chopped up with machetes.


----------



## Kalam

High_Gravity said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> Plus I thought the Palestinians were ok with sharing the land with Jews and Christians, but your telling me this land is just for Muslims?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, the only territory that should be restricted to Muslim residents is the Hijaz in Saudi Arabia. Jews and Christians and members of other religious groups are welcome to live as citizens in an Islamic society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Somehow I get a feeling people in Egypt, Pakistan and Afghanistan disagree with you.
Click to expand...


Those are authoritarian countries that either manipulate Islam in a manner that benefits the ruler or forsake it entirely. An Islamic society is a caliphate modeled entirely and exclusively on the Qur'an and the actions of Muhammad (SAWS) and the Successors (RA).


----------



## Jroc

Kalam said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> I pointed out that there were over a million Jews driven out of Arab countries, they are not only from Europe. It seem to me that you think there should be no Jew living in any Arab or muslim land.
> 
> 
> 
> Then you got the wrong impression.
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well... the so called "Palestinians think so" when areas are turned over to them all the Jews must be removed so why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which Palestinians believe that?
> 
> _Hamas is a humane movement, which cares for human rights and is committed to the tolerance inherent in Islam as regards attitudes towards other religions. It is only hostile to those who are hostile towards it, or stand in its way in order to disturb its moves or to frustrate its efforts. Under the shadow of Islam it is possible for the members of the three religions: Islam, Christianity and Judaism to coexist in safety and security._ - Charter of Hamas, Article 31​
Click to expand...



That post totally discredited you, if you really believe that? 


"The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslims, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree,  would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews." (related by al-Bukhari and Muslim).

The implication is clear: Allah promised that the Jews will be murdered, and the Hamas "aspires to the realisation of Allah's promise, no matter how long that should take."

Hamas Charter


----------



## Sunni Man

High_Gravity said:


> Hamas is a humane movement, which cares for human rights and is committed to the tolerance inherent in Islam as regards attitudes towards other religions. It is only hostile to those who are hostile towards it, or stand in its way in order to disturb its moves or to frustrate its efforts. Under the shadow of Islam it is possible for the members of the three religions: Islam, Christianity and Judaism to coexist in safety and security. - Charter of Hamas, Article 31
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Ku Klux Klan also said they don't hate black people or wish violence upon them, but just wish to live separate.
Click to expand...

Big difference HG

Muslims are not racist and will marry Jews and Christians of any color.


----------



## Kalam

High_Gravity said:


> Hamas is a humane movement, which cares for human rights and is committed to the tolerance inherent in Islam as regards attitudes towards other religions. It is only hostile to those who are hostile towards it, or stand in its way in order to disturb its moves or to frustrate its efforts. Under the shadow of Islam it is possible for the members of the three religions: Islam, Christianity and Judaism to coexist in safety and security. - Charter of Hamas, Article 31
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Ku Klux Klan also said they don't hate black people or wish violence upon them, but just wish to live separate.
Click to expand...


A number of different racist/white nationalist organizations operate under the name "Ku Klux Klan" and I imagine each group works toward different goals and conducts itself according to different principles. Hamas is a single group and that is one of the articles of the movement's central document.


----------



## Ropey

Kalam said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> Plus I thought the Palestinians were ok with sharing the land with Jews and Christians, but your telling me this land is just for Muslims?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only territory that should be restricted to Muslim residents is the Hijaz in Saudi Arabia. Jews and Christians and members of other religious groups are welcome to live as citizens in an Islamic society if they recognize that they are living in an Islamic society.
Click to expand...


Under the control of Kasam. Is there any part of the Middle East that can be under non Islamic Muslim control Kasam?


----------



## High_Gravity

Kalam said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hamas is a humane movement, which cares for human rights and is committed to the tolerance inherent in Islam as regards attitudes towards other religions. It is only hostile to those who are hostile towards it, or stand in its way in order to disturb its moves or to frustrate its efforts. Under the shadow of Islam it is possible for the members of the three religions: Islam, Christianity and Judaism to coexist in safety and security. - Charter of Hamas, Article 31
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Ku Klux Klan also said they don't hate black people or wish violence upon them, but just wish to live separate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A number of different racist/white nationalist organizations operate under the name "Ku Klux Klan" and I imagine each group works toward different goals and conducts itself according to different principles. Hamas is a single group and that is one of the articles of the movement's central document.
Click to expand...


To me it seems like they say one thing and do another.


----------



## Kalam

Jroc said:


> "The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslims, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree,  would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews." (related by al-Bukhari and Muslim).


"Killing the Jews" is a parenthetical addition by the author and the site you link to makes no attempt to hide its bias. Nonetheless, you can find the quote I posted if you bother to scroll down.

"Discredited."


----------



## High_Gravity

Kalam said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the only territory that should be restricted to Muslim residents is the Hijaz in Saudi Arabia. Jews and Christians and members of other religious groups are welcome to live as citizens in an Islamic society.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Somehow I get a feeling people in Egypt, Pakistan and Afghanistan disagree with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those are authoritarian countries that either manipulate Islam in a manner that benefits the ruler or forsake it entirely. An Islamic society is a caliphate modeled entirely and exclusively on the Qur'an and the actions of Muhammad (SAWS) and the Successors (RA).
Click to expand...


So your telling me an Islamic society exclusively following the Quran will embrace Jews and Christians as equals?


----------



## Ropey

High_Gravity said:


> So your telling me an Islamic society exclusively following the Quran will embrace Jews and Christians as equals?



LOL


----------



## Kalam

High_Gravity said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Ku Klux Klan also said they don't hate black people or wish violence upon them, but just wish to live separate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A number of different racist/white nationalist organizations operate under the name "Ku Klux Klan" and I imagine each group works toward different goals and conducts itself according to different principles. Hamas is a single group and that is one of the articles of the movement's central document.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To me it seems like they say one thing and do another.
Click to expand...


That could be. I'm not an unconditional or enthusiastic supporter of them anyway.


----------



## Kalam

High_Gravity said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> Somehow I get a feeling people in Egypt, Pakistan and Afghanistan disagree with you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those are authoritarian countries that either manipulate Islam in a manner that benefits the ruler or forsake it entirely. An Islamic society is a caliphate modeled entirely and exclusively on the Qur'an and the actions of Muhammad (SAWS) and the Successors (RA).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So your telling me an Islamic society exclusively following the Quran will embrace Jews and Christians as *equals*?
Click to expand...


In what sense?


----------



## Ropey

Kalam said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those are authoritarian countries that either manipulate Islam in a manner that benefits the ruler or forsake it entirely. An Islamic society is a caliphate modeled entirely and exclusively on the Qur'an and the actions of Muhammad (SAWS) and the Successors (RA).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So your telling me an Islamic society exclusively following the Quran will embrace Jews and Christians as *equals*?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In what sense?
Click to expand...


This is what you get when you attempt to get a straight simple answer from Kalam. An attempt to confuse and complicate. 

It simply is not forthcoming.

Kalam.

Can any non Muslim country be in control of even one inch of the Muslim world?


----------



## logical4u

Sunni Man said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Modern Civilization started when  G-d's law was offered to, accepted by, and given to the Jewish people. The law is the basis, the building blocks. Of western civilization, always has been.
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect Hiram,
> 
> Western civilization was built on the backs of the Greeks and Romans.
> 
> Who by the way, drove out their Jews like everyone else has in history.
Click to expand...


If you don't like history, just make it up!  Which came first?


----------



## High_Gravity

Kalam said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those are authoritarian countries that either manipulate Islam in a manner that benefits the ruler or forsake it entirely. An Islamic society is a caliphate modeled entirely and exclusively on the Qur'an and the actions of Muhammad (SAWS) and the Successors (RA).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So your telling me an Islamic society exclusively following the Quran will embrace Jews and Christians as *equals*?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In what sense?
Click to expand...


Christians and Jews should have the exact same rights as Muslims in a Muslim country, is that possible?


----------



## Jroc

Kalam said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslims, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree,  would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews." (related by al-Bukhari and Muslim).
> 
> 
> 
> "Killing the Jews" is a parenthetical addition by the author and the site you link to makes no attempt to hide its bias. Nonetheless, you can find the quote I posted if you bother to scroll down.
> 
> "Discredited."
Click to expand...




[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zjxm3OSy4EE"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zjxm3OSy4EE[/ame]


----------



## logical4u

High_Gravity said:


> Hamas is a humane movement, which cares for human rights and is committed to the tolerance inherent in Islam as regards attitudes towards other religions. It is only hostile to those who are hostile towards it, or stand in its way in order to disturb its moves or to frustrate its efforts. Under the shadow of Islam it is possible for the members of the three religions: Islam, Christianity and Judaism to coexist in safety and security. - Charter of Hamas, Article 31
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Ku Klux Klan also said they don't hate black people or wish violence upon them, but just wish to live separate.
Click to expand...


That is a good comparison.


----------



## logical4u

Kalam said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the only territory that should be restricted to Muslim residents is the Hijaz in Saudi Arabia. Jews and Christians and members of other religious groups are welcome to live as citizens in an Islamic society.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Somehow I get a feeling people in Egypt, Pakistan and Afghanistan disagree with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those are authoritarian countries that either manipulate Islam in a manner that benefits the ruler or forsake it entirely. An Islamic society is a caliphate modeled entirely and exclusively on the Qur'an and the actions of Muhammad (SAWS) and the Successors (RA).
Click to expand...


Somewhere over the rainbow, skies are blue.....


----------



## logical4u

Sunni Man said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hamas is a humane movement, which cares for human rights and is committed to the tolerance inherent in Islam as regards attitudes towards other religions. It is only hostile to those who are hostile towards it, or stand in its way in order to disturb its moves or to frustrate its efforts. Under the shadow of Islam it is possible for the members of the three religions: Islam, Christianity and Judaism to coexist in safety and security. - Charter of Hamas, Article 31
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Ku Klux Klan also said they don't hate black people or wish violence upon them, but just wish to live separate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Big difference HG
> 
> Muslims are not racist and will marry Jews and Christians of any color.
Click to expand...


Some of the KKK guys had/have black lovers/mistresses.  Your point?


----------



## Foxfyre

Sunni Man said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the Arab population in East Jerusalem was polled as to whether they would choose to be Palestinian citizens or Israeli citizens should an agreement be reached to establish a separate nation of Palestine, only 30% chose to be Palestinian citizens.  The fact that an Islamic mosque still sits on the Dome of the Rock speaks to Israeli tolerance for Islam.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most of the so called muslims who responded that they wanted to stay Israeli citizens are "Druze".
> 
> Druze are muslims in name only.
> 
> And are Not accepted as muslims by either Shia or Sunni muslims.
> 
> They have always sided with Israel in exchange for protection.
> 
> Druze are the "sell outs" and "Uncle Toms" of the Middle East.
> 
> So to use them in any poll about Muslims is totally misleading and disingenuous.
Click to expand...




> The awkward fact is that the 270,000 Arabs who live in East Jerusalem may not be very enthusiastic about joining Palestine. The survey, which was designed and supervised by former State Department Middle East researcher David Pollock, found that only 30 percent said they would prefer to be citizens of Palestine in a two-state solution, while 35 percent said they would choose Israeli citizenship. (The rest said they didn't know or refused to answer.) Forty percent said they would consider moving to another neighborhood in order to become a citizen of Israel rather than Palestine, and 54 percent said that if their neighborhood were assigned to Israel, they would not move to Palestine.
> 
> 
> The reasons for these attitudes are pretty understandable, even healthy. Arabs say they prefer Israel's jobs, schools, health care and welfare benefits to those of a Palestinian state -- and their nationalism is not strong enough for them to set aside these advantages in order to live in an Arab country. The East Jerusalemites don't much love Israel -- they say they suffer from discrimination. But they seem to like what it has to offer. Remarkably, 56 percent said they traveled inside Israel at least once a week; 60 percent said access to its Mediterranean beaches was "very important" or "moderately important" to them.
> 
> "Quite clearly there is a discrepancy between people's attitudes and the assumption that Palestinian neighborhoods should be part of Palestine," said Pollock, whose work was sponsored by Pechter Middle East polls and the Council on Foreign Relations. "That's not actually what the people want."
> 
> It's important to note that East Jerusalem Palestinians are different from West Bank or Gaza Palestinians -- they live on Israel's side of its West Bank barrier and hold "blue cards" that allow them access to Israeli jobs, health care, and welfare payments. Many are middle class by Middle Eastern standards -- 44 percent of those surveyed had household incomes of more than $1,300 per month. Broadly, they resemble Israel's Arab citizens, who have also been shown in polls to prefer remaining in Israel to joining a Palestinian state.
> PostPartisan - Why Palestinians want to be Israeli citizens


I can find no authoritative source that says there is a concentration of Druze in East Jerusalem.  Demographics of East Jerusalem show a large Arab Muslim majority, a small Jewish minority, a handful of Christians.  No Druze.

However (apologies for a Wiki source but I believe this to be correct and didn't want to take time to locate a better one):



> Following the 1967 war, Israel conducted a census in East Jerusalem and granted permanent Israeli residency to those Arab Jerusalemites present at the time of the census. Those not present lost the right to reside in Jerusalem. Jerusalem Palestinians were permitted to apply for Israeli citizenship, provided they met the requirements for naturalization&#8212;such as swearing allegiance to Israel and renouncing all other citizenships&#8212;which most of them refused to do. At the end of 2005, 93% of the Arab population of East Jerusalem had permanent residency and 5% had Israeli citizenship.[30]
> 
> As residents, East Jerusalemites rejecting Israeli citizenship have the right to vote in municipal elections and play a role in the administration of the city. Residents pay taxes, and following a 1988 Israeli Supreme Court ruling, East Jerusalem residents are guaranteed the right to social security benefits and state health care.
> East Jerusalem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



The status of those non-Israeli East Jerusalem residents would change, however, should East Jerusalem officially become part of a recognized state of Palestine.  All of the Jews and a plurality of the Arabs would choose Israeli citizenship rather than Palestinian citizenship.   A somewhat smaller group would choose Palestinian citizenship.  A sizable group wouldn't say one way or the other which is also interesting.


----------



## Ropey

Sunni Man said:


> Not really.
> 
> Apples to oranges.



Not so Sunni Man. 

Both are humans.  Regardless of what you may think.


----------



## High_Gravity

logical4u said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Ku Klux Klan also said they don't hate black people or wish violence upon them, but just wish to live separate.
> 
> 
> 
> Big difference HG
> 
> Muslims are not racist and will marry Jews and Christians of any color.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some of the KKK guys had/have black lovers/mistresses.  Your point?
Click to expand...


Thats a good point, plus alot of Nazis didn't mind using Jewish women as sex slaves.


----------



## Kalam

High_Gravity said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> So your telling me an Islamic society exclusively following the Quran will embrace Jews and Christians as *equals*?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In what sense?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Christians and Jews should have the exact same rights as Muslims in a Muslim country, is that possible?
Click to expand...


Their legal rights are the same and they, like Muslims, may vote for candidates and run for office in representative councils and be appointed to other local and national government positions. It goes without saying that they serve as judges at every level of their respective religious courts.

The Khalifah, his delegated assistant, governers, and provincial mayors are considered "ruling" positions and as such must be filled by Muslims, since Islam is the guiding ideology of the state and no country can expect to last long if it allows itself to be ruled by people who don't believe in its fundamental philosophy.


----------



## Ropey

One question though, to be completely clear Kalam. 

Is there any room for Israel in the ME?  If so, what is that room?


----------



## Kalam

logical4u said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Ku Klux Klan also said they don't hate black people or wish violence upon them, but just wish to live separate.
> 
> 
> 
> Big difference HG
> 
> Muslims are not racist and will marry Jews and Christians of any color.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some of the KKK guys had/have black lovers/mistresses.  Your point?
Click to expand...


The KKK and the modern groups that succeeded it were founded on racial discrimination; Islam forbids it. Yours?


----------



## Ropey

Kalam said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Big difference HG
> 
> Muslims are not racist and will marry Jews and Christians of any color.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some of the KKK guys had/have black lovers/mistresses.  Your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The KKK and the modern groups that succeeded it were founded on racial discrimination; Islam forbids it. Yours?
Click to expand...


Islam demands all Muslims to submit to Allah *AND *all others to be subordinate to the will of those Muslims who submit to Allah. If they do not subordinate themselves to the will of those Muslims who submit to Allah, then comes the military jihad.

Where is the inclusion of choice in Islam?


----------



## Foxfyre

Kalam said:


> *. . . .no country can expect to last long if it allows itself to be ruled by people who don't believe in its fundamental philosophy.*



And ladies and gentlemen, Kalam, in this one short but extremely important phrase, has nailed the basic thesis of this thread.


----------



## Sunni Man

High_Gravity said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Big difference HG
> 
> Muslims are not racist and will marry Jews and Christians of any color.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some of the KKK guys had/have black lovers/mistresses.  Your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thats a good point, plus alot of Nazis didn't mind using Jewish women as sex slaves.
Click to expand...


The difference is that KKK or Nazis were with these women in secret and didn't dare marry them.


Muslims marry Jewish or Christians out in the open with the approval of their families, society, and religion.

Then start a family and raise children like anyone else.


----------



## Kalam

Ropey said:


> One question though, to be completely clear Kalam.
> 
> Is there any room for *Israel *in the ME?  If so, what is that room?



If you're referring to the Jewish people of Palestine and their social and religious institutions, yes. If you're referring to the system of government in place there, no. In that sense my outlook toward Israel is no different than my outlook toward every other nation in the region.


----------



## Kalam

Foxfyre said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> *. . . .no country can expect to last long if it allows itself to be ruled by people who don't believe in its fundamental philosophy.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And ladies and gentlemen, Kalam, in this one short but extremely important phrase, has nailed the basic thesis of this thread.
Click to expand...


I'm glad that we agree on that point.


----------



## logical4u

Kalam said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> In what sense?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christians and Jews should have the exact same rights as Muslims in a Muslim country, is that possible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their legal rights are the same and they, like Muslims, may vote for candidates and run for office in representative councils and be appointed to other local and national government positions. It goes without saying that they serve as judges at every level of their respective religious courts.
> 
> The Khalifah, his delegated assistant, governers, and provincial mayors are considered "ruling" positions and as such must be filled by Muslims, since Islam is the guiding ideology of the state and no country can expect to last long if it allows itself to be ruled by people who don't believe in its fundamental philosophy.
Click to expand...


That looks like: ABSOLUTELY NOT, THERE IS NO WAY CHRISTIAN OR JEWS WOULD BE TOLERATED AS EQUALS.  We will throw in little statements on paper that can be taken away with one muslim "bearing false witness" and falsely accusing the unbelievers as blasphemers.  But we muslims will lie, cheat and break any other commandment when it comes to dealing with someone that does not believe as we believe.  Honor and integrity are ideas to control other people, not how mulims live.

Disclaimer: this does not pertain to ALL muslims, just the ones that refuse to see Sharia as destructive to any society.


----------



## Kalam

Ropey said:


> Islam demands all Muslims to submit to Allah *AND **all others to be subordinate to the will of those Muslims who submit to Allah.*



The emboldened part of your statement is incorrect unless it has a meaning other than that which seems apparent.


----------



## Foxfyre

Kalam said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Big difference HG
> 
> Muslims are not racist and will marry Jews and Christians of any color.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some of the KKK guys had/have black lovers/mistresses.  Your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The KKK and the modern groups that succeeded it were founded on racial discrimination; Islam forbids it. Yours?
Click to expand...


Here you are in an area that I am really not familiar with.  I know Islam is not limited to any particular race, yet I do know that there is and has been racial discrimination in some Arab states that are predominantly Muslim.

This site for instance is certainly not one I would say was objective or without a specific agenda, but is the information re racial discrimination cited--most especially in the video--incorrect?

LEBANON: MUSLIM &#8216;apartheid&#8217; policies forbid blacks from entering swimming pools  Bare Naked Islam's Weblog

Christianity does not advocate any racial discrimination either but there are no doubt Christians who are prejudiced.  The U.S. Constitution forbids racial discrimination but the KKK nevertheless exists.  Policy and reality are not always the same thing.


----------



## logical4u

Sunni Man said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some of the KKK guys had/have black lovers/mistresses.  Your point?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thats a good point, plus alot of Nazis didn't mind using Jewish women as sex slaves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The difference is that KKK or Nazis were with these women in secret and didn't dare marry them.
> 
> 
> Muslims marry Jewish or Christians out in the open with the approval of their families, society, and religion.
> 
> Then start a family and raise children like anyone else.
Click to expand...


You mean the muslim men that treat muslim women like pigs and dogs (and then breed them) are willing to treat Christian and Jewish women the same, wow!  Is there no end to the consideration you show?


----------



## Kalam

logical4u said:


> That looks like: ABSOLUTELY NOT, THERE IS NO WAY CHRISTIAN OR JEWS WOULD BE TOLERATED AS EQUALS.


You're welcome to believe whatever you'd like.



logical4u said:


> We will throw in little statements on paper that can be taken away with one muslim "bearing false witness" and falsely accusing the unbelievers as blasphemers. But we muslims will lie, cheat and break any other commandment when it comes to dealing with someone that does not believe as we believe.  Honor and integrity are ideas to control other people, not how mulims live.


None of these things have any place in a Shari'i society and are imagined fears that stem from your failure to understand Islam and your desire to misrepresent it.


----------



## High_Gravity

Foxfyre said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some of the KKK guys had/have black lovers/mistresses.  Your point?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The KKK and the modern groups that succeeded it were founded on racial discrimination; Islam forbids it. Yours?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here you are in an area that I am really not familiar with.  I know Islam is not limited to any particular race, yet I do know that there is and has been racial discrimination in some Arab states that are predominantly Muslim.
> 
> This site for instance is certainly not one I would say was objective or without a specific agenda, but is the information re racial discrimination cited--most especially in the video--incorrect?
> 
> LEBANON: MUSLIM &#8216;apartheid&#8217; policies forbid blacks from entering swimming pools  Bare Naked Islam's Weblog
> 
> Christianity does not advocate any racial discrimination either but there are no doubt Christians who are prejudiced.  The U.S. Constitution forbids racial discrimination but the KKK nevertheless exists.  Policy and reality are not always the same thing.
Click to expand...


Did this whole swimming pool thing in Lebanon really happen?


----------



## Ropey

Kalam said:


> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Islam demands all Muslims to submit to Allah *AND **all others to be subordinate to the will of those Muslims who submit to Allah.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The emboldened part of your statement is incorrect unless it has a meaning other than that which seems apparent.
Click to expand...


Then correct it for me please.


----------



## Kalam

logical4u said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thats a good point, plus alot of Nazis didn't mind using Jewish women as sex slaves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The difference is that KKK or Nazis were with these women in secret and didn't dare marry them.
> 
> 
> Muslims marry Jewish or Christians out in the open with the approval of their families, society, and religion.
> 
> Then start a family and raise children like anyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean the muslim men that treat muslim women like pigs and dogs (and then breed them) are willing to treat Christian and Jewish women the same, wow!  Is there no end to the consideration you show?
Click to expand...


As per usual, those on the other side of the discussion have chosen to reduce themselves to making hysterical arguments based on unfounded assumptions and puerile stereotypes.


----------



## High_Gravity

Kalam said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> In what sense?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christians and Jews should have the exact same rights as Muslims in a Muslim country, is that possible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their legal rights are the same and they, like Muslims, may vote for candidates and run for office in representative councils and be appointed to other local and national government positions. It goes without saying that they serve as judges at every level of their respective religious courts.
> 
> The Khalifah, his delegated assistant, governers, and provincial mayors are considered "ruling" positions and as such must be filled by Muslims, since Islam is the guiding ideology of the state and no country can expect to last long if it allows itself to be ruled by people who don't believe in its fundamental philosophy.
Click to expand...


My concern is what happens if a Muslim woman marries a Christian or Jewish man, would they be stoned to death in this Islamic society?


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

Sunni Man said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some of the KKK guys had/have black lovers/mistresses.  Your point?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thats a good point, plus alot of Nazis didn't mind using Jewish women as sex slaves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The difference is that KKK or Nazis were with these women in secret and didn't dare marry them.
> 
> 
> Muslims marry Jewish or Christians out in the open with the approval of their families, society, and religion.
> 
> Then start a family and raise children like anyone else.
Click to expand...


But a muslim women faces penalties if she wishes to marry and  raise enemies of Islam.


----------



## Sunni Man

Foxfyre said:


> Christianity does not advocate any racial discrimination either but there are no doubt Christians who are prejudiced.  The U.S. Constitution forbids racial discrimination but the KKK nevertheless exists.  Policy and reality are not always the same thing.



Racism is 100% forbidden in Islam.

Which the Prophet addressed in his last speech in front of thousands of muslims.   


*Farewell Address of Prophet Muhammad*

........."All mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no
superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any
superiority over an Arab; also a white has no superiority
over a black nor a black has any superiority over a white
- except by piety and good action".........

http://www.internetmosque.net/read/profit/farewell.pdf


----------



## Foxfyre

Kalam said:


> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> 
> One question though, to be completely clear Kalam.
> 
> Is there any room for *Israel *in the ME?  If so, what is that room?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you're referring to the Jewish people of Palestine and their social and religious institutions, yes. If you're referring to the system of government in place there, no. In that sense my outlook toward Israel is no different than my outlook toward every other nation in the region.
Click to expand...


But why?

How is the Israeli system of government a threat to any other Arab nation?  Israel has made no effort to export their philosophy of government anywhere else.  Israel has not threatened any other government ever.  Israel has allowed peaceful Arab Muslims full citizenship in Israel complete with all social services and has not expelled any Arab or Muslim willing to live under Israeli law.

So you would tolerate the strict fundamental Wahhabism of Saudi Arabia or the crazi nutcases currently controlling Iran or the deviousness of a Syria or a developing republic in Iraq and find Israel unacceptable?

That simply makes no sense to me.


----------



## logical4u

Kalam said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> 
> That looks like: ABSOLUTELY NOT, THERE IS NO WAY CHRISTIAN OR JEWS WOULD BE TOLERATED AS EQUALS.
> 
> 
> 
> You're welcome to believe whatever you'd like.
> 
> 
> 
> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> 
> We will throw in little statements on paper that can be taken away with one muslim "bearing false witness" and falsely accusing the unbelievers as blasphemers. But we muslims will lie, cheat and break any other commandment when it comes to dealing with someone that does not believe as we believe.  Honor and integrity are ideas to control other people, not how mulims live.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> None of these things have any place in a Shari'i society and are imagined fears that stem from your failure to understand Islam and your desire to misrepresent it.
Click to expand...


Yet, when asked for evidence of such a society, you can list no place that it works.  You will list places hundreds, even thousands of years ago that cannot be verified, but no society that uses Shariah law today that is a "shangrala" or even a place where people would choose to move their families because the culture and lifestyle were conducive to family life.  
You have every opportunity to "educate" us about islam.  When you list "your vision" of islam, it is easily disproved in many muslim societies.  
Are you now telling me that Christians and Jews are not being targeted for murder in muslim societies?


----------



## Ropey

Foxfyre said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> 
> One question though, to be completely clear Kalam.
> 
> Is there any room for *Israel *in the ME?  If so, what is that room?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you're referring to the Jewish people of Palestine and their social and religious institutions, yes.* If you're referring to the system of government in place there, no. In that sense my outlook toward Israel is no different than my outlook toward every other nation in the region*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But why?
> 
> How is the Israeli system of government a threat to any other Arab nation?  Israel has made no effort to export their philosophy of government anywhere else.  Israel has not threatened any other government ever.  Israel has allowed peaceful Arab Muslims full citizenship in Israel complete with all social services and has not expelled any Arab or Muslim willing to live under Israeli law.
> 
> So you would tolerate the strict fundamental Wahhabism of Saudi Arabia or the crazi nutcases currently controlling Iran or the deviousness of a Syria or a developing republic in Iraq and find Israel unacceptable?
> 
> That simply makes no sense to me.
Click to expand...


And I put forward this kind of intractable thinking is what is coming to America.


----------



## High_Gravity

From my understanding a true nation built on Shariah law will not tolerate unbelievers within their borders, or am I incorrect?


----------



## Ropey

logical4u said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> 
> That looks like: ABSOLUTELY NOT, THERE IS NO WAY CHRISTIAN OR JEWS WOULD BE TOLERATED AS EQUALS.
> 
> 
> 
> You're welcome to believe whatever you'd like.
> 
> 
> 
> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> 
> We will throw in little statements on paper that can be taken away with one muslim "bearing false witness" and falsely accusing the unbelievers as blasphemers. But we muslims will lie, cheat and break any other commandment when it comes to dealing with someone that does not believe as we believe.  Honor and integrity are ideas to control other people, not how mulims live.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> None of these things have any place in a Shari'i society and are imagined fears that stem from your failure to understand Islam and your desire to misrepresent it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet, when asked for evidence of such a society, you can list no place that it works.  You will list places hundreds, even thousands of years ago that cannot be verified, but no society that uses Shariah law today that is a "shangrala" or even a place where people would choose to move their families because the culture and lifestyle were conducive to family life.
> You have every opportunity to "educate" us about islam.  When you list "your vision" of islam, it is easily disproved in many muslim societies.
> Are you now telling me that Christians and Jews are not being targeted for murder in muslim societies?
Click to expand...


He is looking on one track only. The spiritual track which he uses to pretend there is no real militaristic jihad.

There is and it is happening  now. The spiritual jihad that Kalam speaks of is nowhere to be seen in action.


----------



## logical4u

Sunni Man said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Christianity does not advocate any racial discrimination either but there are no doubt Christians who are prejudiced.  The U.S. Constitution forbids racial discrimination but the KKK nevertheless exists.  Policy and reality are not always the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Racism is 100% forbidden in Islam.
> 
> Which the Prophet addressed in his last speech in front of thousands of muslims.
> 
> 
> *Farewell Address of Prophet Muhammad*
> 
> ........."All mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no
> superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any
> superiority over an Arab; also a white has no superiority
> over a black nor a black has any superiority over a white
> - except by piety and good action".........
> 
> http://www.internetmosque.net/read/profit/farewell.pdf
Click to expand...


A lot of things that are forbidden in islam are practiced by muslims.   The 9/11 bombers were here partying and using women (without marrying them).  "Dancing boys" are used for "love" (is pedophilia banned in islam?).  Surely, if it is forbidden, that means muslims, ALL muslims will do as directed by islam....NOT.


----------



## Ropey

High_Gravity said:


> From my understanding a true nation built on Shariah law will not tolerate unbelievers within their borders, or am I incorrect?



You are incorrect. Islam will tolerate those who submit to the will of those Muslims who submit to the will of Allah.

Until they don't....

History shows what happens then.


----------



## High_Gravity

Ropey said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> From my understanding a true nation built on Shariah law will not tolerate unbelievers within their borders, or am I incorrect?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are incorrect. Islam will tolerate those who submit to the will of those Muslims who submit to the will of Allah.
> 
> Until they don't....
> 
> History shows what happens then.
Click to expand...


The Christians in Pakistan and Egypt aren't bothering the Islamic rule and they are being slaughtered, whats up with that?


----------



## Ropey

Until they don't High Gravity.

Until they don't....

History shows this as well and is the reason for the creation of Last Bastions Against the Muslim Horde and many times.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

High_Gravity said:


> From my understanding a true nation built on Shariah law will not tolerate unbelievers within their borders, or am I incorrect?



Ask-Imam.com [5115] Plz tell me about Osama bin ladin and Taliban


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

Ropey said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're welcome to believe whatever you'd like.
> 
> 
> None of these things have any place in a Shari'i society and are imagined fears that stem from your failure to understand Islam and your desire to misrepresent it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet, when asked for evidence of such a society, you can list no place that it works.  You will list places hundreds, even thousands of years ago that cannot be verified, but no society that uses Shariah law today that is a "shangrala" or even a place where people would choose to move their families because the culture and lifestyle were conducive to family life.
> You have every opportunity to "educate" us about islam.  When you list "your vision" of islam, it is easily disproved in many muslim societies.
> Are you now telling me that Christians and Jews are not being targeted for murder in muslim societies?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He is looking on one track only. The spiritual track which he uses to pretend there is no real militaristic jihad.
> 
> There is and it is happening  now. The spiritual jihad that Kalam speaks of is nowhere to be seen in action.
Click to expand...


Oh Now he will pop off about how Islam will fight ya yak yak 
He has a very narrow non traditional view of Islam .
Im not saying he is wrong,  it is just narrow  and non traditional .
You may notice how he doesnt support his opinions  with links   or sources ever wonder why  ?


----------



## Ropey

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Ask-Imam.com [5115] Plz tell me about Osama bin ladin and Taliban





> Taliban was a valid Shar'ee government. The methods adopted by the Taliban
> were in accordance to the Shari'ah. In the Shari'ah. The Imaam (Islamic
> ruler) has the right and duty to enforce the external laws of the Shari'ah.
> This had been the practice of the four rightly guided Khulafaa Raashideen.
> 
> *Usama ibn Laadin is an upright Muslim and a devoted Mujaahid of Islam.* The
> allegations made against him were malicious, and designed to justify the
> west's war against Islam. He, himself, has vehemently denied these
> allegations. In Islam, the ideal system of appointment of the Ameer is that
> of Shura (consultation) with the Ulama. The Ulama or the senior and
> responsible members of the society should appoint the Ameer, who will then
> appoint his government. This is the most preferred method. However, should a
> proper Islamic government be established by other methods, e.g. monarchy,
> then as long as they rule in accordance with the Shari'ah, they will be a
> valid Islamic government.
> 
> and Allah Ta'ala Knows Best
> 
> Moulana Imraan Vawda
> FATWA DEPT.
> 
> CHECKED AND APPROVED: Mufti Muhammad Kadwa



This after bin Laden posted the video explaining how and why he orchestrated 9-11.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiKyWJRRjnU"]bin Laden Speaks[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KhctMpvszqQ"]bin Laden's own words[/ame]

More Islamic obfuscation.


----------



## Foxfyre

High_Gravity said:


> From my understanding a true nation built on Shariah law will not tolerate unbelievers within their borders, or am I incorrect?



You are incorrect.  Unbelievers are tolerated very well.  Unlike the Christian fanatics of old, Islam does not punish people for what they believe.  Islam punishes people for not following the Islamic law and customs.  Non compliance with Islamic culture, traditions, religious requirements, including Shariah law is not tolerated very well.  In several Muslim countries non Muslims will be pretty well left alone as long as they remain essentially invisible.  Let them be too obvious about who they are or too demonstative with their own culture and traditions, however, and in many places they will be in trouble.


----------



## Foxfyre

Ropey said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you're referring to the Jewish people of Palestine and their social and religious institutions, yes.* If you're referring to the system of government in place there, no. In that sense my outlook toward Israel is no different than my outlook toward every other nation in the region*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But why?
> 
> How is the Israeli system of government a threat to any other Arab nation?  Israel has made no effort to export their philosophy of government anywhere else.  Israel has not threatened any other government ever.  Israel has allowed peaceful Arab Muslims full citizenship in Israel complete with all social services and has not expelled any Arab or Muslim willing to live under Israeli law.
> 
> So you would tolerate the strict fundamental Wahhabism of Saudi Arabia or the crazi nutcases currently controlling Iran or the deviousness of a Syria or a developing republic in Iraq and find Israel unacceptable?
> 
> That simply makes no sense to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I put forward this kind of intractable thinking is what is coming to America.
Click to expand...


Yes.  And that is precisely why I started this thread.


----------



## Ropey

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet, when asked for evidence of such a society, you can list no place that it works.  You will list places hundreds, even thousands of years ago that cannot be verified, but no society that uses Shariah law today that is a "shangrala" or even a place where people would choose to move their families because the culture and lifestyle were conducive to family life.
> You have every opportunity to "educate" us about islam.  When you list "your vision" of islam, it is easily disproved in many muslim societies.
> Are you now telling me that Christians and Jews are not being targeted for murder in muslim societies?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He is looking on one track only. The spiritual track which he uses to pretend there is no real militaristic jihad.
> 
> There is and it is happening  now. The spiritual jihad that Kalam speaks of is nowhere to be seen in action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh Now he will pop off about how Islam will fight ya yak yak
> He has a very narrow non traditional view of Islam .
> Im not saying he is wrong,  it is just narrow  and non traditional .
> You may notice how he doesnt support his opinions  with links   or sources ever wonder why  ?
Click to expand...


Because he pretends to being above all that. And we are below him for asking proofs. 

I put forward that we are no more than intellectual Dhimmi to him. Which is seen by his arrogance and methods.

Kalam presumes to tell me how I should think. He sees nothing wrong with this, so I let him off that.

But it is proof of his pathology which tells him that not only is Islam superior as a belief, it is necessary for all to be below Islam.

Dhimmi who are subservient to those Muslims who submit to the will of Allah.

That's all there is and there 'ain't' no more. It's a simply belief system. Kalam seeks to confuse, obfuscate and deny.

But, there it is....


----------



## Ropey

Foxfyre said:


> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> But why?
> 
> How is the Israeli system of government a threat to any other Arab nation?  Israel has made no effort to export their philosophy of government anywhere else.  Israel has not threatened any other government ever.  Israel has allowed peaceful Arab Muslims full citizenship in Israel complete with all social services and has not expelled any Arab or Muslim willing to live under Israeli law.
> 
> So you would tolerate the strict fundamental Wahhabism of Saudi Arabia or the crazi nutcases currently controlling Iran or the deviousness of a Syria or a developing republic in Iraq and find Israel unacceptable?
> 
> That simply makes no sense to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I put forward this kind of intractable thinking is what is coming to America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.  And that is precisely why I started this thread.
Click to expand...


This is why it needs to be fought there. That's why the Crusades went there and that is why the attack will be there again.

That's where it comes from ...


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

Ropey said:


> Islamic obfuscation.


----------



## Ropey

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Islamic obfuscation.
Click to expand...


This is where a question about a military jihad act is fought by an interjected response to the spiritual (not seemingly existent) jihad.

It is one word in the Quiran, but "many meanings' to Islam interpretation which supposedly has a softer gentler spiritual way than the heavily militaristic one that is occurring now. 

The issue with this Islamic obfuscation is that it is a two phased approach. As Islam enters America, it does so with the spiritual method. 

When there is enough of a population, then they will move to a different jihad. 

I think you know that one. It happens all over the world where the spiritual jihad is told, "thank you, but no."


----------



## Kalam

Foxfyre said:


> Here you are in an area that I am really not familiar with.  I know Islam is not limited to any particular race, yet I do know that there is and has been racial discrimination in some Arab states that are predominantly Muslim.
> 
> This site for instance is certainly not one I would say was objective or without a specific agenda, but is the information re racial discrimination cited--most especially in the video--incorrect?
> 
> LEBANON: MUSLIM apartheid policies forbid blacks from entering swimming pools  Bare Naked Islam's Weblog



Well, I noticed that the discrimination is taking place in places such as pools where members of the two sexes are dressed scantily and nightclubs where I assume alcohol is served, so I'm unsure how the blog is attempting to connect this issue to Islam. I'm sure I don't need to point out that Arab racism and "Islamic racism" (a contradiction in terms) are two different things entirely and can't be conflated. As I said, race is not considered a thing of significance of Islam and a person is judged according to their piety and righteousness:

_Abu Huraira reported that Allah's Messenger said, "Verily, Allah does not look to your faces and your wealth but He looks to your heart and to your deeds."_ - Sahih Muslim

_O mankind: Indeed, We created you from a male and a female and we made you nations and tribes that you may know one another. Indeed, the most noble of you near Allah is the most righteous of you._ - 49:13



Foxfyre said:


> Christianity does not advocate any racial discrimination either but there are no doubt Christians who are prejudiced.  The U.S. Constitution forbids racial discrimination but the KKK nevertheless exists.  Policy and reality are not always the same thing.


I suppose I'm discussing "policy." Obviously, Muslims are not immune to sin.


----------



## Kalam

High_Gravity said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> Christians and Jews should have the exact same rights as Muslims in a Muslim country, is that possible?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Their legal rights are the same and they, like Muslims, may vote for candidates and run for office in representative councils and be appointed to other local and national government positions. It goes without saying that they serve as judges at every level of their respective religious courts.
> 
> The Khalifah, his delegated assistant, governers, and provincial mayors are considered "ruling" positions and as such must be filled by Muslims, since Islam is the guiding ideology of the state and no country can expect to last long if it allows itself to be ruled by people who don't believe in its fundamental philosophy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My concern is what happens if a Muslim woman marries a Christian or Jewish man, would they be stoned to death in this Islamic society?
Click to expand...


The marriage wouldn't be performed.


----------



## Kalam

Foxfyre said:


> But why?
> 
> How is the Israeli system of government a threat to any other Arab nation?  Israel has made no effort to export their philosophy of government anywhere else.  Israel has not threatened any other government ever.  Israel has allowed peaceful Arab Muslims full citizenship in Israel complete with all social services and has not expelled any Arab or Muslim willing to live under Israeli law.



Palestinian issues aside, the only government that can return the Muslim world to prosperity is the khilafah. As far as I'm concerned, all of the regimes that currently rule over us can be categorized either as pseudo-Islamic dictatorships/monarchies with religious institutions in place that serve the interests of the political elite (Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc.), or authoritarian governments that violently oppress their respective populations without even attempting to seek religious justification (Israel, Turkey, loyalist regime in Chechnya, etc.) Neither sort creates an environment conducive to our progress. 



Foxfyre said:


> So you would tolerate the strict fundamental Wahhabism of Saudi Arabia or the crazi nutcases currently controlling Iran or the deviousness of a Syria or a developing republic in Iraq


Not at all...


----------



## Kalam

logical4u said:


> Yet, when asked for evidence of such a society, you can list no place that it works.



Not when your criteria for a society that "works" are completely out of any country's reach, no.


----------



## Kalam

High_Gravity said:


> From my understanding a true nation built on Shariah law will not tolerate unbelievers within their borders, or am I incorrect?



See my previous posts. The only borders within which disbelievers cannot reside are those of the Hijaz.


----------



## Kalam

High_Gravity said:


> The Christians in Pakistan and Egypt aren't bothering the Islamic rule and they are being slaughtered, whats up with that?



"Islamic rule" does not exist in either of those countries.


----------



## Kalam

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Oh Now he will pop off about how Islam will fight ya yak yak
> He has a very narrow non traditional view of Islam .
> Im not saying he is wrong,  it is just narrow  and non traditional .


According to whose judgment? Yours? Feel free to present any relevant credentials.



Mr.Fitnah said:


> You may notice how *he doesnt support his opinions  with links   or sources *ever wonder why  ?


----------



## Kalam

Ropey said:


> He is looking on one track only. The spiritual track which he uses to pretend there is no real militaristic jihad.
> 
> There is and it is happening  now. The spiritual jihad that Kalam speaks of is nowhere to be seen in action.



You're referring to me, yes? Are you unfamiliar with my stance on Israel, Chechnya, etc.?


----------



## Ropey

Kalam said:


> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> 
> He is looking on one track only. The spiritual track which he uses to pretend there is no real militaristic jihad.
> 
> There is and it is happening  now. The spiritual jihad that *Kalam *speaks of is nowhere to be seen in action.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're referring to me, yes? Are you unfamiliar with my stance on Israel, Chechnya, etc.?
Click to expand...


I did use your name. 

So, military might against Israel, Russia and China are proof of a militaristic jihad Kalam? 

Any others happening? 

Where is the spiritual one.  Not Major Nidal Hassan?


----------



## Kalam

Ropey said:


> Because he pretends to being above all that. And we are below him for asking proofs.


Please feel free to provide me with an example of any instance in which I refused to document a contentious claim after being asked to do so. 



Ropey said:


> I put forward that we are no more than intellectual Dhimmi to him. Which is seen by his arrogance and methods.


I see you've made the assumption that I consider you an intellectual. 

As for "dhimmi", I'm not aware of any dhimma currently in effect. If you post something that I recognize as a falsehood, I will attempt to correct you if I can. Go ahead and interpret that as arrogance on my part if it makes you happy.


----------



## Kalam

Ropey said:


> I did use your name.
> 
> So, military might against Israel, Russia and China are proof of a militaristic jihad Kalam?
> 
> Any others happening?
> 
> Where is *the spiritual one.*  Not Major Nidal Hassan?



Any effort -- minor, major, internal, external, or otherwise -- undertaken for the sake of Islam is "jihad." I don't know what you're asking.


----------



## Ropey

Kalam said:


> Any effort -- minor, major, internal, external, or otherwise -- undertaken for the sake of Islam is "jihad."



That makes it clear. Disregard any of my previous posts. 

You clarified it all. Anything goes for the sake of Islamic jihad...


----------



## Kalam

For some reason, I suspect that I didn't.


----------



## Ropey

> In 'Schmoozing with Terrorists,' Aaron Klein obtains unprecedented access to bring readers into the viper's den of some of the most dangerous terrorist organizations in the world, traveling into hazardous terrorist zones and talking directly to the militants themselves about some of the most pressing issues today
> 
> Klein, WND's Jerusalem bureau chief, confronts terrorists whose stated goal is the annihilation of the United States and Israel, and narrates his interviews from the unique perspective of a Jew meeting with his enemy.
> 
> Klein schmoozes with the terrorists on a number of topics--asking them who they want to see in the White House, their thoughts on big name American celebrities, what day-to-day life would be like if the global jihad took over the U.S., and why terrorists kill and maim.
> 
> This book affords readers the unique opportunity to understand how the terrorists think and why they believe they are in a war to the finish&#8230;ours!
> 
> Among the highlights&#8230;
> # Madonna, Britney Spears stoned to death? What the U.S. would be like under sharia law.
> # Why is Hillary Clinton the jihadists choice for president?
> # Terrorists dish on anti-war celebrities, US radio hosts, politicians
> # A shocking expose on how YOUR tax dollars fund terrorism.
> # Bibles used as toilet paper? Synagogues as rocket launching zones? Meet the leaders of the most notorious holy site desecrations in history.
> # A face-to-face meeting with a recruited Palestinian suicide bomber
> # The under-reported story of Christian persecution in the Middle East as told by the victims and antagonists.



Schmoozing With Terrorists (Autographed) (Hardcover)


----------



## Kalam

Ropey said:


> Anything goes for the sake of Islamic jihad...


----------



## Ropey

Kalam said:


> *Any effort -- minor, major, internal, external, or otherwise* -- undertaken for the sake of Islam is "jihad." I don't know what you're asking.





Ropey said:


> Anything goes for the sake of Islamic jihad...


----------



## Kalam

Ropey said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Any effort -- minor, major, internal, external, or otherwise* -- undertaken for the sake of Islam is "jihad." I don't know what you're asking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anything goes for the sake of Islamic jihad...
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


"...undertaken for the sake of Islam," precluding acts that violate its tenets from being considered "jihad".

I'm not sure why some of you seem to delight in making Islam seem as diabolical as you possibly can.


----------



## Ropey

Kalam said:


> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Any effort -- minor, major, internal, external, or otherwise* -- undertaken for the sake of Islam is "jihad." I don't know what you're asking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anything goes for the sake of Islamic jihad...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "...undertaken for the sake of Islam," precluding acts that violate its tenets from being considered "jihad".
> 
> I'm not sure why some of you seem to delight in making Islam seem as diabolical as you possibly can.
Click to expand...


It's tenets seem rather open ended to interpretation. And I do not see the world in terms of Muslims and Dhimmi.

Sorry if that is diabolical to you.


----------



## Kalam

Ropey said:


> It's tenets seem rather open ended to interpretation.


And some of you seem to be insistent that the most "radical" interpretation by your standards is automatically the most valid...



Ropey said:


> And I do not see the world in terms of Muslims and Dhimmi.
> 
> Sorry if that is diabolical to you.


Muslims and dhimmiyeen, Jews and goyim...

Diabolical? Not at all.


----------



## Ropey

Kalam said:


> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's tenets seem rather open ended to interpretation.
> 
> 
> 
> And some of you seem to be insistent that the most "radical" interpretation by your standards is automatically the most valid...
> 
> 
> 
> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I do not see the world in terms of Muslims and Dhimmi.
> 
> Sorry if that is diabolical to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Muslims and dhimmiyeen, Jews and goyim...
> 
> Diabolical? Not at all.
Click to expand...


Some of you? You are posting to me. Remember when you demanded that I stand up to Marc and his methods? I said stand to your own first. I stood to him when it was him attacking me. You ran and hid from him and asked me to attack him.

Stand on your own views Kalam.

You can't just post to me personally as a human being. Can you? 

I have already said that Islam can not be from the Devil. The Devil would never work towards a book that would delimit his power. 

But you try to put me there when you say "some of you"

Let me try that Kalam.

Some of you killed my brother in a suicide attack in Tel-Aviv. Would you like some more "Some of You?"

See? That's why I don't do it. But you can't help yourself. 

So, Jews and Goyim. Islam says that Dhimmi must be under the will of Muslims who are under the submission to Allah. This is the requirement for the Muslim world.

Now Muslims are all over the world, so this by extension, must mean that the world must submit to  a world within which Allah reigns and in which Muslims must submit to Allah and all others must be subservient or below the Muslims who submit to Allah.

The Islamic pecking order is quite clear. I don't see the 13 million Jews worldwide looking to subjugate anyone or demanding all Gentiles to be subservient to our G-d. 

Where does it say that for the Jews and the Gentiles? Please show me proof.


----------



## Kalam

Ropey said:


> Some of you? You are posting to me. Remember when you demanded that I stand up to Marc and his methods? I said stand to your own first. I stood to him when it was him attacking me. You ran and hid from him and asked me to attack him.
> 
> Stand on your own views Kalam.


Marc as in Marc39 the troll? I remember saying something to the effect of "you might want to tell Marc that I scroll past all of his BS." It was mostly away of indirectly telling him to f off since I try to avoid direct exchanges with posters who contribute nothing but insults and nonsense. I'm sorry if I gave you the impression that I was trying to rally your assistance or something. I do remember being frustrated about never seeing a Zionist poster call him out, but none of that matters now anyway.



Ropey said:


> You can't just post to me personally as a human being. Can you?



Sure. Here's something I've noticed about your posts, so consider it or ignore it as you will. It is not a criticism. I think you ascribe significance to my choice of words when I don't intend for there to be any, because I'm apparently giving you the impression that I think I'm "superior" etc. when that isn't the case. If there's something I can do to avoid this, let me know. Nobody benefits when discussions like this turn personal.



Ropey said:


> I have already said that Islam can not be from the Devil. The Devil would never work towards a book that would delimit his power.
> 
> But you try to put me there when you say "some of you"
> 
> Let me try that Kalam.
> 
> Some of you killed my brother in a suicide attack in Tel-Aviv. Would you like some more "Some of You?"
> 
> See? That's why I don't do it. But you can't help yourself.
> 
> So, Jews and Goyim. Islam says that Dhimmi must be under the will of Muslims who are under the submission to Allah. This is the requirement for the Muslim world.
> 
> Now Muslims are all over the world, so this by extension, must mean that the world must submit to  a world within which Allah reigns and in which Muslims must submit to Allah and *all others must be subservient or below the Muslims who submit to Allah.*


As I said, this isn't the case. It fails to account for the Jewish delegates in the Majlis who may represent Muslim-majority constituencies, or Christians who start a successful business, etc. Non-Muslims aren't untermenschen who live and ghettos and respond to the whims of any Muslim who happens to pass by, they're the neighbors and compatriots of the Muslim citizens. 



Ropey said:


> The Islamic pecking order is quite clear. I don't see the 13 million Jews worldwide looking to subjugate anyone or demanding all Gentiles to be subservient to our G-d.
> 
> Where does it say that for the Jews and the Gentiles? Please show me proof.


I never said that it did. I don't presume to know more about your religion than you do, so I'll take your word on these sorts of things unless I find something very hard to believe for some reason.


----------



## Kalam

Ropey said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some of you? You are posting to me. Remember when you demanded that I stand up to Marc and his methods? I said stand to your own first. I stood to him when it was him attacking me. You ran and hid from him and asked me to attack him.
> 
> Stand on your own views Kalam.
> 
> 
> 
> Marc as in Marc39 the troll? I remember saying something to the effect of "you might want to tell Marc that I scroll past all of his BS." It was mostly away of indirectly telling him to f off since I try to avoid direct exchanges with posters who contribute nothing but insults and nonsense. I'm sorry if I gave you the impression that I was trying to rally your assistance or something. I do remember being frustrated about never seeing a Zionist poster call him out, but none of that matters now anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it does. It shows your pathology in asking another Jew to attack (in discussion) another Jew.
> 
> Do you do so with Sunni Man? Do you stand for me when he calls for my entire people to be removed from humanity and put to an island and kept there by force of arms? Does this mean you agree with him?
> 
> You blamed me for Marcs stuff. You do that here and say you don't understand. You don't understand when you put words in my mouth that you are being presumptuous and presumption is a part of arrogance?
> 
> 
> 
> You can do it in attack though, can't you.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yes, you are clear Kalam. Even if you don't think others can see it.
> 
> See above
Click to expand...

_"I think you ascribe significance to my choice of words when I don't intend for there to be any, because I'm apparently giving you the impression that I think I'm "superior" etc. when that isn't the case. *If there's something I can do to avoid this, let me know. Nobody benefits when discussions like this turn personal."*_​


Ropey said:


> Who is in control of the arenas Kalam?  Yes it is the case. Even if you say the Jews here are treated pretty well. They are still  not equals to Muslims. They MUST be under Muslim control. Say no to that. Tell me that they have equality.


First, please answer me this: do you consider Muslims under the authority of Israel to be equals to the Jews there? 



Ropey said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never said that it did. I don't presume to know more about your religion than you do, so I'll take your word on these sorts of things unless I find something very hard to believe for some reason.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Muslims and dhimmiyeen, Jews and goyim...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh yes you did Kalam. You attached the comparison, not me.
Click to expand...


And you, not I, implied that it was a master-slave relationship.


----------



## Ropey

Kalam said:


> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some of you? You are posting to me. Remember when you demanded that I stand up to Marc and his methods? I said stand to your own first. I stood to him when it was him attacking me. You ran and hid from him and asked me to attack him.
> 
> Stand on your own views Kalam.
> 
> 
> 
> Marc as in Marc39 the troll? I remember saying something to the effect of "you might want to tell Marc that I scroll past all of his BS." It was mostly away of indirectly telling him to f off since I try to avoid direct exchanges with posters who contribute nothing but insults and nonsense. I'm sorry if I gave you the impression that I was trying to rally your assistance or something. I do remember being frustrated about never seeing a Zionist poster call him out, but none of that matters now anyway.
Click to expand...


Yes it does. It shows your pathology in asking another Jew to attack (in discussion) another Jew. 

Do you do so with Sunni Man? Do you stand for me when he calls for my entire people to be removed from humanity and put to an island and kept there by force of arms? Does this mean you agree with him?  You asked me that with Marc.

You blamed me for Marcs stuff. You do that here and say you don't understand. You don't understand when you put words in my mouth that you are being presumptuous and presumption is a part of arrogance?



Ropey said:


> It's hard for you to just post to me personally as a human being. Isn't it?



You can do it in attack though, can't you.




Ropey said:


> I put forward that we are no more than intellectual Dhimmi to him.





			
				Kalam said:
			
		

> I see you've made the assumption that I consider you an intellectual.  (your emoticon,not mine)



Oh yes, you are clear Kalam. Even if you don't think others can see it. I put forward is not the same as saying you are Kalam. You know this, of course.

See above



			
				Kalam said:
			
		

> Sure. Here's something I've noticed about your posts, so consider it or ignore it as you will. It is not a criticism. I think you ascribe significance to my choice of words when I don't intend for there to be any, because I'm apparently giving you the impression that I think I'm "superior" etc. when that isn't the case. If there's something I can do to avoid this, let me know. Nobody benefits when discussions like this turn personal.





			
				Kalam said:
			
		

> I see you've made the assumption that I consider you an intellectual.  (your (Kalam's) emoticon,not mine)



See above although I can't believe you don't see this. 



Ropey said:


> I have already said that Islam can not be from the Devil. The Devil would never work towards a book that would delimit his power.
> 
> But you try to put me there when you say "some of you"
> 
> Let me try that Kalam.
> 
> Some of you killed my brother in a suicide attack in Tel-Aviv. Would you like some more "Some of You?"
> 
> See? That's why I don't do it. But you can't help yourself.
> 
> So, Jews and Goyim. Islam says that Dhimmi must be under the will of Muslims who are under the submission to Allah. This is the requirement for the Muslim world.
> 
> Now Muslims are all over the world, so this by extension, must mean that the world must submit to  a world within which Allah reigns and in which Muslims must submit to Allah and *all others must be subservient or below the Muslims who submit to Allah.*





			
				Kalam said:
			
		

> As I said, this isn't the case. It fails to account for the Jewish delegates in the Majlis who may represent Muslim-majority constituencies, or Christians who start a successful business, etc. Non-Muslims aren't untermenschen who live and ghettos and respond to the whims of any Muslim who happens to pass by, they're the neighbors and compatriots of the Muslim citizens.



Who is in control of the arenas Kalam?  Yes it is the case. Even if you say the Jews here are treated pretty well. They are still  not equals to Muslims. They MUST be under Muslim control. Say no to that. Tell me that they have equality. 



Ropey said:


> The Islamic pecking order is quite clear. I don't see the 13 million Jews worldwide looking to subjugate anyone or demanding all Gentiles to be subservient to our G-d.
> 
> Where does it say that for the Jews and the Gentiles? Please show me proof.





			
				Kalam said:
			
		

> I never said that it did. I don't presume to know more about your religion than you do, so I'll take your word on these sorts of things unless I find something very hard to believe for some reason.





			
				Kalam said:
			
		

> Muslims and dhimmiyeen, Jews and goyim...



Oh yes you did Kalam. You attached the comparison, not me.


----------



## Ropey

Kalam said:


> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marc as in Marc39 the troll? I remember saying something to the effect of "you might want to tell Marc that I scroll past all of his BS." It was mostly away of indirectly telling him to f off since I try to avoid direct exchanges with posters who contribute nothing but insults and nonsense. I'm sorry if I gave you the impression that I was trying to rally your assistance or something. I do remember being frustrated about never seeing a Zionist poster call him out, but none of that matters now anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it does. It shows your pathology in asking another Jew to attack (in discussion) another Jew.
> 
> Do you do so with Sunni Man? Do you stand for me when he calls for my entire people to be removed from humanity and put to an island and kept there by force of arms? Does this mean you agree with him?
> 
> You blamed me for Marcs stuff. You do that here and say you don't understand. You don't understand when you put words in my mouth that you are being presumptuous and presumption is a part of arrogance?
> 
> You can do it in attack though, can't you.
> 
> Oh yes, you are clear Kalam. Even if you don't think others can see it.
> 
> See above
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _"I think you ascribe significance to my choice of words when I don't intend for there to be any, because I'm apparently giving you the impression that I think I'm "superior" etc. when that isn't the case. *If there's something I can do to avoid this, let me know. Nobody benefits when discussions like this turn personal."*_​
Click to expand...





			
				Kalam said:
			
		

> First, please answer me this: do you consider Muslims under the authority of Israel to be equals to the Jews there?



No Kalam. You first. Answer my post and I will answer yours. Please.



Ropey said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Muslims and dhimmiyeen, Jews and goyim...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yes you did Kalam. You attached the comparison, not me.
Click to expand...




> And you, not I, implied that it was a master-slave relationship.



Not at all. Not a Master-Slave relationship. I never said or implied that relationship. You must ask me if I mean such a thing rather than arrogantly thinking that is what I mean. DOUBLY so when it is SUCH an important concept Kalam.  

Maybe someday, then we can get to actually discussing. Not like in the diatribe posts where NOTHING is learned of each other.

I do not know you and I wonder if I will ever even get the chance if you continually tell me what the  I think.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

Kalam said:


> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Any effort -- minor, major, internal, external, or otherwise* -- undertaken for the sake of Islam is "jihad." I don't know what you're asking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anything goes for the sake of Islamic jihad...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "...undertaken for the sake of Islam," precluding acts that violate its tenets from being considered "jihad".
> 
> I'm not sure why some of you seem to delight in making Islam seem as diabolical as you possibly can.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what would the Quran  call an precluded act ?
Click to expand...


----------



## José

Theocracies arose and flourished during the agrarian, prescientific stage of human civilization. It doesn't pose any greater threat to the industrial, scientific stage of modern day societies than the monarchical system.

You just have to look at how many human beings presently live under theocratic states and how many live under non religious states (more than 95% of the world's population) to have a clear notion of where mankind is heading to.

Humanity does not progress uniformly, at the same time. The existence of muslim theocracies in the 21th century is just a harmless anachronic curiosity waiting to be swept away from the face of the Earth by the advance of the techno-scientific industrial civilization *JUST LIKE THE STONE AGE HUNTER-GATHERERS THAT STILL INHABIT REMOTE PARTS OF THE AMAZON BASIN*.

I shake my head in disbelief when I see a group of supposedly adult individuals concerned about the possibility that a fossil political system, created in the Neolithic Age and based on religious superstition may take over the the world.


----------



## José

It boggles my mind to no end that mentally sane people around the world can seriously entertain the thought that the extremely advanced techno-scientific societies that will exist 200, 500 years in the future, based entirely on scientific rationality, on reason and experimentation may be in any way compatible with nearly prehistoric forms of government based on religious obscurantism that was already discarded by the overwhelming majority of the human race, from the US to China.

Those individuals let their brains fall out of their heads a long time ago and didn't even notice it.


----------



## José

*As always, José jumps into the conversation like a tank, like a bulldozer mercilessly pulverising everyone and everything unluck enought to find themselves in front of him.

The moderators would do well to close this thread now...

After the last two posts there isn't anything else of value to be added.*


----------



## gautama

José;3206815 said:
			
		

> Theocracies arose and flourished during the agrarian, prescientific stage of human civilization. It doesn't pose any greater threat to the industrial, scientific stage of modern day societies than the monarchical system.
> 
> You just have to look at how many human beings presently live under theocratic states and how many live under non religious states (more than 95% of the world's population) to have a clear notion of where mankind is heading to.
> 
> Humanity does not progress uniformly, at the same time. The existence of muslim theocracies in the 21th century is just a harmless anachronic curiosity waiting to be swept away from the face of the Earth by the advance of the techno-scientific industrial civilization *JUST LIKE THE STONE AGE HUNTER-GATHERERS THAT STILL INHABIT REMOTE PARTS OF THE AMAZON BASIN*.
> 
> I shake my head in disbelief when I see a group of supposedly adult individuals concerned about the possibility that a fossil political system, created in the Neolithic Age and based on religious superstition may take over the the world.




What Jose is spewing is *UNMITIGATED & UNADULTERATED GARBAGE !!!*

Islamofascism is taking over Europe, and the rate of the takeover is clearly documented in the video:

*youtube: How Islam is Taking Over the World: Islamization Explained.*

Or, select practically any of Pat Condell's youtube 1/2 dozen videos where he exposes the bogus  idea of "peaceful" Muslims.

Even England.....the historical bastion of our basic freedoms.....now has installed Sharia law.

Sweden....one of the most tranquil, peaceful countries in Europe ..... probably the World....... has its Constitution amended to give special privileges to the fucking Muslims to guard against any *DISCRIMINATION, specifically against them* .......the other religions non-mentioned. In other words, these Muslim fuckers can interpret any Swedish law to *THEIR liking* and agree or not agree if it can be enforced against them.

Not only that, the Muslim Amendment logically, can now be used to establish *THEIR OWN LAWS* and object to other Swedish laws under the excuse of *DISCRIMINATION.*

Yep, Sweden being a peaceful, tranquil  country for centuries is NOW the country with the *MOST RAPES * in Europe. The rapes being conducted *EXCLUSIVELY....or, almost EXCLUSIVELY by Muslim arseholes.*

So, Jose is *FULL OF SHIT.*


----------



## José

> Originally posted by *gautama*
> Islamofascism is *taking over* Europe



*List of countries by Muslim population*​
Country/Region--------------------Muslim percentage (%) of total population

*United Kingdom*:---------------------------------2.7

*Sweden*:------------------------------------------2

*United States*:-----------------------------------0.8

This numbers include secular muslims, muslims in name only.

List of countries by Muslim population - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## José

*SOME* takeover you have there, gautama.


----------



## José

The so called "growing muslim population" in Europe will not continue to grow for much longer. Europe and the rest of the free world is already awakening to the dangers of allowing mass immigration of people who may be in principle sympathetic to totalitarian, medieval ideologies.

So to make a long story short:

Muslim theocratic dictatorships pose absolutely no *LONG TERM THREAT* to secularism. As I said, theocracy is already a dying political system and in a few centuries they will be replaced by secular, democratic states even in their last bastion, the Middle East.

The *SHORT TERM THREAT* to the free world is already being addressed with more and more europeans demanding severe limitations on immigration from muslim majority countries.


----------



## editec

Consider that radical islam did not exist 40 years ago.

Consider that our allies are mostly the places where radical islam is practiced.

If we were really concerned about radical islam, IRAN would be our ally.

Because the radical Wahhabists hate the Shia even more than they hate the Jews and Christians.

Wahhabists HATE secular governments, modernity and want to impose Sharia on the entire world.

Where are they from?

Saudi Arabia.

Wake up and smell the conspiracy, folks.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

editec said:


> Consider that radical islam did not exist 40 years ago.
> .



Please explain the continuous violence from the earliest days of Islam too Mohammads  immediate successors and throughout the 13 centuries of recoded history.
Thank you in advance.


----------



## High_Gravity

editec said:


> Consider that radical islam did not exist 40 years ago.
> 
> Consider that our allies are mostly the places where radical islam is practiced.
> 
> If we were really concerned about radical islam, IRAN would be our ally.
> 
> Because the radical Wahhabists hate the Shia even more than they hate the Jews and Christians.
> 
> Wahhabists HATE secular governments, modernity and want to impose Sharia on the entire world.
> 
> Where are they from?
> 
> Saudi Arabia.
> 
> Wake up and smell the conspiracy, folks.



This has got to be a huge joke.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

High_Gravity said:


> This has got to be a huge joke.


Fact free posting is Eds style.


----------



## High_Gravity

Kalam said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Their legal rights are the same and they, like Muslims, may vote for candidates and run for office in representative councils and be appointed to other local and national government positions. It goes without saying that they serve as judges at every level of their respective religious courts.
> 
> The Khalifah, his delegated assistant, governers, and provincial mayors are considered "ruling" positions and as such must be filled by Muslims, since Islam is the guiding ideology of the state and no country can expect to last long if it allows itself to be ruled by people who don't believe in its fundamental philosophy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My concern is what happens if a Muslim woman marries a Christian or Jewish man, would they be stoned to death in this Islamic society?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The marriage wouldn't be performed.
Click to expand...


Why is it ok for a Muslim man to marry a non believer but not for a Muslim woman?


----------



## Sunni Man

High_Gravity said:


> Why is it ok for a Muslim man to marry a non believer but not for a Muslim woman?



Because in most countries the children are raised to follow the Father's religion.

So that's why there is a prohibition on Muslim women marrying a non muslim. 

Because the children wouldn't be raised as muslims.


----------



## High_Gravity

Kalam said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Christians in Pakistan and Egypt aren't bothering the Islamic rule and they are being slaughtered, whats up with that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Islamic rule" does not exist in either of those countries.
Click to expand...


Egypt and Pakistan are both Muslim majority countries where Islam is the official state religion.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

Sunni Man said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it ok for a Muslim man to marry a non believer but not for a Muslim woman?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because in most countries the children are raised to follow the Father's religion.
> 
> So that's why there is a prohibition on Muslim women marrying a non muslim.
> 
> Because the children wouldn't be raised as muslims.
Click to expand...


Demographic jihad.


----------



## Foxfyre

High_Gravity said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Christians in Pakistan and Egypt aren't bothering the Islamic rule and they are being slaughtered, whats up with that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Islamic rule" does not exist in either of those countries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Egypt and Pakistan are both Muslim majority countries where Islam is the official state religion.
Click to expand...


In fact Pakistan was created to provide a safe haven for Muslims in that area--a place where Muslims would not be corrupted or hassled by a government favoring a different religion.  Not the exact reason Israel was created, but close.  Once that was established, fearing for their lives and property, most or all of the numerous Sikhs living in Pakistan fled to india or other neighboring areas leaving Pakistan predominantly Muslim.

The tiny minorities of other religions aren't faring any better there:

More and more Hindus are leaving Pakistan or converting to Islam to save their future, official records and media reports suggest.\



> &#8220;The Hindus, like other minorities, feel insecure and are leaving for other countries, mainly India. They are also becoming Muslims to make sure they are given equal rights,&#8221; a human rights activist told this newspaper citing survey reports. He said even the government has not been able to assure the minorities, at least in their statements, that their rights will be protected.
> 
> &#8220;Hindus and other minorities feel the government is also not sincere in bringing them at par with other citizens and they also consider them second-rate citizens,&#8221; he added. Hindus make up about 1.8 per cent of Pakistan&#8217;s predominantly Muslim population of 165 million, according to official figures. The largest number, about 95 per cent, is concentrated in the southern province of Sindh. The Hindu population has declined over the years as they opt to leave the country or become Muslim to avoid discrimination.
> 
> The bias against all minority communities has expanded rapidly. Early in November, Aasia Bibi, a young Christian mother of five, was sentenced to death by a court under controversial blasphemy laws. She became the first woman to be condemned to hang under the law. The case against her seemed to have been triggered by a minor dispute with other female farm labourers on the land she worked on after they said she, as a non-Muslim, was &#8220;impure&#8221; and could not fetch water from a well.
> Fear forces Hindus to leave Pak, or convert | The Asian Age>



And this of course is the problem as I see it.  Wherever Islam has taken substantial control of any place, all non-Muslims do become second class citizens with minimal rights if they are allowed to live at all.

No one is saying that Muslims should not live their lives, order their government, and conduct their affairs as they choose.  It is those who are not given the right to choose, even when it affects nobody but themselves, that is of concern.

Western civilization, most espeically America, recognizes and respect unalienable rights meaning people can live, think, speak, write, or conduct their affairs in any way they choose that does not violate or infringe on rights of any other.  Islam does not respect such rights.  And for that reason I do not want Islam to have any say or control anywhere in Western civilization.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

This cannot be said to often

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEXWjlgJ83E[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-3X5hIFXYU[/ame]


----------



## High_Gravity

From what I have read it seems like dogs have more rights in Pakistan than Hindus or Christians.


----------



## Sunni Man

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Demographic jihad.


I am doing the best I can in populating the earth with muslim children.

Especially enjoy the process of creating them........


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

And we are  working as hard as we can to support them.


----------



## Sunni Man

Mr.Fitnah said:


> And we are  working as hard as we can to support them.


How could you support anyone Mr. Fitnuts ?

You can barely make it with your current unemployment checks!!


----------



## Ropey

Sunni Man said:


> I am doing the best I can in populating the earth with muslim children.
> 
> Especially enjoy the process of creating them........



And may they find good and happy lives Sunni Man. Excuse my removal of the other quote. In my eyes, it does not belong.

I also have enjoyed the process, but the end result is our creations. 

They are truly our 'works'.


----------



## GHook93

There are two types of Jihads. The violent takeover of countries and the MORE dangerous one the Silent Jihad. This is what is happening in Europe and Russia. Muslims immigrant in record numbers to these Western countries. They reproduce like rabbits and take full advantage of the welfare system. The welfare burdens get pushed onto the Native European population. When the Muslim population is low (like in the USA), then they are most a non-violent quit group. Once they grow in number they complain about everything, demand more and then seek to overthrow the host country.



> As Muslim population grows, what can happen to a society? - National Homeland Security | Examiner.com
> 
> What happens to society's as the Muslim population grows in percentage of the total?
> 
> In the book, Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat, written by Dr. Peter Hammond, he explores the topic of the impact that an increasing Muslim population has on that society. The lists below illustrate the Muslim population status of countries around the world, and exactly what changes to the societies can be expected according to Hammond.
> 
> The book as well as the author are controversial, but the topic is definitely something that needs to be explored and understood. From the book:



*< 2%:*


> As long as the Muslim population remains around or under 2% in any given country, they will be for the most part be regarded as a peace-loving minority, and not as a threat to other citizens. This is the case in:
> 
> United States -- Muslim 0.6%
> Australia -- Muslim 1.5%
> Canada -- Muslim 1.9%
> China -- Muslim 1.8%
> Italy -- Muslim 1.5%
> Norway -- Muslim 1.8%



*2% - 5%:* ==> Issues state at as small as 2%


> At 2% to 5%, they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs.
> 
> This is happening in:
> 
> Denmark -- Muslim 2%
> Germany -- Muslim 3.7%
> United Kingdom -- Muslim 2.7%
> Spain -- Muslim 4%
> Thailand -- Muslim 4.6%




*5% - 10%:* 


> They exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the
> population. For example, they will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for
> 
> At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves (within their ghettos) under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish Sharia law over the entire world.
> 
> Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves -- along with threats for failure to comply.
> 
> This is occurring in:
> France -- Muslim 8%
> Philippines -- 5%
> Sweden -- Muslim 5%
> Switzerland -- Muslim 4.3%
> The Netherlands -- Muslim 5.5%
> Trinidad & Tobago -- Muslim 5.8%



*10% - 20%:*


> When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions. In Paris , we are already seeing car-burnings. Any non-Muslim action offends Islam, and results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam , with opposition to Mohammed cartoons and films about Islam.
> 
> Such tensions are seen daily, particularly in Muslim sections, in:
> Guyana -- Muslim 10%
> India -- Muslim 13.4%
> Israel -- Muslim 16%
> Kenya -- Muslim 10%
> Russia -- Muslim 15%



*20% - 30%:*


> After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues, such as in:
> 
> Ethiopia -- Muslim 32.8%



*40% - 60%:* 


> nations experience widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks, and ongoing militia warfare, such as in:
> Bosnia -- Muslim 40%
> Chad -- Muslim 53.1%



*From 60%-80%:*


> nations experience unfettered persecution of non-believers of all other religions(including non-conforming Muslims), sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon, and ***ya, the tax placed on infidels, such as in:
> 
> Albania -- Muslim 70%
> Malaysia -- Muslim 60.4%
> Qatar -- Muslim 77.5%
> Sudan -- Muslim 70%
> Lebanon -- Muslim 75%



*After 80% - 99%*: 


> expect daily intimidation and violent jihad, some State-run ethnic cleansing, and even some genocide, as these nations drive out the infidels, and move toward 100% Muslim, such as has been experienced and in some ways is on-going in:
> 
> Bangladesh -- Muslim 83%
> Egypt -- Muslim 90%
> Gaza -- Muslim 99.7%
> Indonesia -- Muslim 86.1%
> Iran -- Muslim 98%
> Iraq -- Muslim 97%
> Jordan -- Muslim 92%
> Morocco -- Muslim 98.7%
> Pakistan -- Muslim 97%
> Palestine -- Muslim 99%
> Syria -- Muslim 90%
> Tajikistan -- Muslim 90%
> Turkey -- Muslim 99.8%
> United Arab Emirates -- Muslim 96%



*Finally at 100%:*


> 100% will usher in the peace of 'Dar-es-Salaam' -- the Islamic House of Peace. Here there's supposed to be peace, because everybody is a Muslim, the Madrasses are the only schools, and the Koran is the only word, such as in:
> 
> Afghanistan -- Muslim 100%
> Saudi Arabia -- Muslim 100%
> Somalia -- Muslim 100%
> Yemen -- Muslim 100%
> 
> Unfortunately, peace is never achieved, as in these 100% states the most radical Muslims intimidate and spew hatred, and satisfy their blood lust by killing less radical Muslims, for a variety of reasons.




Continue reading on Examiner.com: As Muslim population grows, what can happen to a society? - National Homeland Security | Examiner.com As Muslim population grows, what can happen to a society? - National Homeland Security | Examiner.com


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> 
> "...undertaken for the sake of Islam," precluding acts that violate its tenets from being considered "jihad".
> 
> I'm not sure why some of you seem to delight in making Islam seem as diabolical as you possibly can.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what would the Quran  call an precluded act ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still hoping for an answer.
Click to expand...


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

High_Gravity said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> Consider that radical islam did not exist 40 years ago.
> 
> Consider that our allies are mostly the places where radical islam is practiced.
> 
> If we were really concerned about radical islam, IRAN would be our ally.
> 
> Because the radical Wahhabists hate the Shia even more than they hate the Jews and Christians.
> 
> Wahhabists HATE secular governments, modernity and want to impose Sharia on the entire world.
> 
> Where are they from?
> 
> Saudi Arabia.
> 
> Wake up and smell the conspiracy, folks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This has got to be a huge joke.
Click to expand...

I have said many times, what was common knowledge 100 years ago is lost in the sea of history and political correctness.

  These things being so, the recrudescence of Islam, the possibility
of that terror under which we lived for centuries reappearing, and of our
civilization again fighting for its life against what was its chief enemy
for a thousand years, seems fantastic. Who in the Mohammedan world today
can manufacture and maintain the complicated instruments of modern war?
Where is the political machinery whereby the religion of Islam can play an
equal part in the modern world?

        I say the suggestion that Islam may re-arise sounds fantastic_but
this is only because men are always powerfully affected by the immediate
past:_one might say that they are blinded by it.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/HOMELIBR/HERESY4.TXT
The Great Heresies

By Hilaire Belloc
1938

The Great Heresies, by Hilaire Belloc


----------



## LibocalypseNow

Islam is not compatible with Western Democracy. I have been saying this for a long time. Some in the West are still living in denial over this. Many are waking up though. It's a real dilemma for those Western European Nations who took so many Muslims in with their wide open Immigration policies. There will be a reckoning for these countries at some point. They can't ignore this real problem forever.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

High_Gravity said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> Consider that radical islam did not exist 40 years ago.
> 
> Consider that our allies are mostly the places where radical islam is practiced.
> 
> If we were really concerned about radical islam, IRAN would be our ally.
> 
> Because the radical Wahhabists hate the Shia even more than they hate the Jews and Christians.
> 
> Wahhabists HATE secular governments, modernity and want to impose Sharia on the entire world.
> 
> Where are they from?
> 
> Saudi Arabia.
> 
> Wake up and smell the conspiracy, folks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This has got to be a huge joke.
Click to expand...

I have said many times, what was common knowledge 100 years ago is lost in the sea of history and political correctness.

  These things being so, the recrudescence of Islam, the possibility
of that terror under which we lived for centuries reappearing, and of our
civilization again fighting for its life against what was its chief enemy
for a thousand years, seems fantastic. Who in the Mohammedan world today
can manufacture and maintain the complicated instruments of modern war?
Where is the political machinery whereby the religion of Islam can play an
equal part in the modern world?

        I say the suggestion that Islam may re-arise sounds fantastic_but
this is only because men are always powerfully affected by the immediate
past:_one might say that they are blinded by it.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/HOMELIBR/HERESY4.TXT
The Great Heresies

By Hilaire Belloc
1938

The Great Heresies, by Hilaire Belloc


----------



## gautama

Sunni Man said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Demographic jihad.
> 
> 
> 
> I am doing the best I can in populating the earth with muslim children.
> 
> Especially enjoy the process of creating them........
Click to expand...


Phoni-Baloni-Sunni,

And a MONUMENTAL *FUCK YOU* to you for perpetrating ISLAM, an ABOMINATION unto Mankind.

Shame on you, you Muslim Farthead.


----------



## Sunni Man

......................................


----------



## Ropey

For a bit of levity because attacking someones children is simply a sickness.


----------



## José

> Originally posted by *Mr. Fitnah*
> Still hoping for an answer.



Wake up and smell the coffe, Fitnah. This debate ended the moment I posted my two devastating, earth-shattering messages (511 and 512).

In the long term, theocracies of any stripe *DO NOT POSE THE SLIGHTEST THREAT* to the secular, democratic world because this political system is just a anachronic, jurassic relic of the agrarian civilisations of the Neolitic Age that already went the way of the Dodo in the overwhelming majority of human societies.

For the historically challenged: Agrarian societies were societies whose wealthy depended primarily on agriculture (Examples: Mesopotamia, Ancient Egypt and China, Roman Empire, Medieval Europe, etc, etc...).

The mere idea of the modern techno-scientific industrial civilisation turning back the clock to the 12th century and adopting political systems based on religious superstition is as absurd as a return to the way of life of prehistoric hunter-gatherer societies. Only illiterate simpletons can seriously entertain this thought.

*IN THE LONG TERM*, muslim theocracies have an unavoidable rendezvous with the dustbin of History and there's nothing muslim theocrats can do about it.

But as Foxfyre and Ghook rightly pointed out, this does not mean in any way that the free word should let its guard down and ignore *the short term threat* this totalitarian ideology poses to specific countries around the world.


----------



## Ropey

José;3214149 said:
			
		

> But as Foxfyre and Ghook rightly pointed out, this does not mean in any way that the free word should let its guard down and ignore *the short term threat* this totalitarian ideology poses to specific countries around the world.



I tend to agree in the long term Jose, even though I find your posts a bit narcissistic your premise is basically mine when talking with enlightened people who see further.

Otherwise I just stay in the present and discuss short term because that's where wars start.  

Those who learn to use utensils will not go back to using their hands. Once people get the taste of knowledge and freedom (and this desire can not be stopped, only held back in the short term) they will demand.

The Dark Ages were not really dark. We have only the moment to deal with.  The people will demand ....


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

José;3214149 said:
			
		

> Originally posted by *Mr. Fitnah*
> Still hoping for an answer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wake up and smell the coffe, Fitnah. This debate ended the moment I posted my two devastating, earth-shattering messages (511 and 512).
> 
> In the long term, theocracies of any stripe *DO NOT POSE THE SLIGHTEST THREAT* to the secular, democratic world because this political system is just a anachronic, jurassic relic of the agrarian civilisations of the Neolitic Age that already went the way of the Dodo in the overwhelming majority of human societies.
> 
> For the historically challenged: Agrarian societies were societies whose wealthy depended primarily on agriculture (Examples: Mesopotamia, Ancient Egypt and China, Roman Empire, Medieval Europe, etc, etc...).
> 
> The mere idea of the modern techno-scientific industrial civilisation turning back the clock to the 12th century and adopting political systems based on religious superstition is as absurd as a return to the way of life of prehistoric hunter-gatherer societies. Only illiterate simpletons can seriously entertain this thought.
> 
> *IN THE LONG TERM*, muslim theocracies have an unavoidable rendezvous with the dustbin of History and there's nothing muslim theocrats can do about it.
> 
> But as Foxfyre and Ghook rightly pointed out, this does not mean in any way that the free word should let its guard down and ignore *the short term threat* this totalitarian ideology poses to specific countries around the world.
Click to expand...


I like wish full thinking as much as the next guy.
You are of course wrong.
When it comes to policy I dont want the government to act as if some  big guy in the sky is going to rescue US from people who do not care  for technology  or western culture.
Im sure your future  would be affected by one EMP device.
I know Islamic  fundamentalist  would not notice the difference  other then  our general sudden lack of superior firepower.


----------



## José

> Originally posted by *Mr. Fitnah*
> I like wish full thinking as much as the next guy.
> You are of course wrong.
> When it comes to policy I dont want the government to act as if some big guy in the sky is going to rescue US from people who do not care for technology or western culture.
> Im sure your future would be affected by one EMP device.
> I know Islamic fundamentalist would not notice the difference other then our general sudden lack of superior firepower.



Where in hell have I said we should sit on our asses and hope the bearded one up in the sky will protect the free world? I said the exact opposite: keep a close eye on islamic fundamentalism, fight it when and where it is necessary and wait for History to run its course... 

The West could never convince the soviets and the chinese that comunism was a totalitarian ideology that stifled human freedom and creativity being therefore at odds with the modern industrial society. All the free world could do was keep the communist advance in check.

The course of human history (materialised in the growing inadequacy of the soviet and chinese economy to generate vibrant, inventive industrial societies) eventually did the trick.

Similarly, the most brilliant sociologists, historians and political scientists cannot convince the governments as well as millions of individuals in Saudi Arabia, Iran etc... that theocracy is an equally totalitarian and archaic political ideology totally incompatible with the modern industrial civilisation.

Once again all the West can do is recognise the threat, do all it can to shield itself from it and wait for History to do the convincing.  

Ultimately, this authoritarian ideology will be defeated not by the US army but by the sheer passage of time just like the one that preceded it.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

The west will not recognize the threat,
 the economy is  collapsing world wide and most people 
 could not feed themselves with out a microwave.
When the lights go out, so does your dream.


----------



## José

> Originally posted by *Ropey*
> I tend to agree in the long term Jose, even though I find your posts a bit narcissistic your premise is basically mine when talking with enlightened people who see further.



Ropey, my man, truer words were never spoken. I urgently need to get a hold of this giant, inflated ego of mine. 

But I'm glad to see you agree with the gist of my post.

You see... Many people say: "Well José, theocracies are still going strong with around half a dozens countries following strict interpretations of Sharia."

To them I say: 

So what?? Millions of people lived under comunism just a few decades ago and you still have a fully fledged stalinist state in the korean peninsula threatening world peace but no one in their right mind will say that stalinist states will shape the future of world history.

The course of the evolution of human societies does not occur uniformly, in tandem. I can point to dozens of stone age societies still surviving in some remote areas of the Amazon Basin and New Guinea. Does this mean that makind is heading towards hunter-gatherer socities of the Paleolithic Age?

All those human societies based on hunting and gathering, comunism and theocracy are just decaying leftovers from an age and ideology whose time has long passed.

OK, now back to discussing the here and now.


----------



## José

> Originally posted by *Mr. Fitnah*
> The west will not recognize the threat,
> the economy is collapsing world wide and most people
> could not feed themselves with out a microwave.
> When the lights go out, so does your dream.



LOL

Why so pessimistic, Mr.?? You and I are old enough to remember the pessimists ranting and raving about the "imminent comunist takeover'.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

I have said many times, what was common knowledge 100 years ago is lost in the sea of history and political correctness.

  These things being so, the recrudescence of Islam, the possibility
of that terror under which we lived for centuries reappearing, and of our
civilization again fighting for its life against what was its chief enemy
for a thousand years, seems fantastic. Who in the Mohammedan world today
can manufacture and maintain the complicated instruments of modern war?
Where is the political machinery whereby the religion of Islam can play an
equal part in the modern world?

        I say the suggestion that Islam may re-arise sounds fantastic_but
this is only because men are always powerfully affected by the immediate
past:_one might say that they are blinded by it.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/HOMELIBR/HERESY4.TXT
The Great Heresies

By Hilaire Belloc
1938

The Great Heresies, by Hilaire Belloc


----------



## Ropey

José;3215519 said:
			
		

> But I'm glad to see you agree with the gist of my post.



It's not as though a generation will change multiple generation's movements anyway Jose . The modernization of Islam will come from without, not within. 

Just as Christianity is not being modernized from within. Oh the Vatican makes the changes, but it is the external demands that force these changes.  Just as Judiasm reforms from without, not within.  

The incumbent wish the status quo as do the radical Islamic ones. 

Multiple generations will see the Chinese demand freedom and Democracy (Tienanmen Square).

We see the beginning of this with Islam already. Look how long it took for the Vatican to begin to listen to external reason.

One can not hold back the tide. It is relentless and comes...

But I've held this view for over thirty years. It has not changed even with Fanatic and Radical interpretations of Islam coming from arenas where there is no freedom and who see their downfall, so choose to fight a losing battle.

So, maybe you agree with me. 



			
				José;3215457 said:
			
		

> The West could never convince the soviets and the chinese that comunism was a totalitarian ideology that stifled human freedom and creativity being therefore at odds with the modern industrial society. All the free world could do was keep the communist advance in check.



And look at Vietnam. The Khmer Rouge. Vietnam ended that genocide. Vietnam did not turn out anything like it was purported to become. Cambodia's Khmer Rouge and the response of Vietnam proved this clearly.

The deaths in an attempt to change Vietnam's path? Their path seems rather fine to me.  No, it isn't formed on Western values, but all the deaths to stop Vietnam from becoming ...

Change comes from within, but is demanded from without. That's what changes the political  perspectives of countries and ideologies.

Let's face it, Democracy is not about voting people in as much as it is about "Throwing The Bums Out."


----------



## Ropey

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-l1y0gnSnI]All Things Must Pass[/ame]


----------



## José

> Originally posted by *Ropey*
> And look at Vietnam. The Khmer Rouge. Vietnam ended that genocide. Vietnam did not turn out anything like it was purported to become. Cambodia's Khmer Rouge and the response of Vietnam proved this clearly.
> 
> The deaths in an attempt to change Vietnam's path? Their path seems rather fine to me. No, it isn't formed on Western values, but all the deaths to stop Vietnam from becoming ...
> 
> Change comes from within, but is demanded from without. That's what changes the political perspectives of countries and ideologies.
> 
> Let's face it, Democracy is not about voting people in as much as it is about "Throwing The Bums Out."



I also have strong moral reservations about the Vietnam War, Ropey. I mean I wish the vietnamese people as a whole had chosen the path of an open modern society but I don't think the defence of this kind of free society was worth the price of turning a small civil war that would be over in a few months into a wholesale massacre that lasted for decades and slaughtered up to a million vietnamese specially when we take into consideration that nothing was achieved in the end.

I have the same feelings about the soviets fighting islamic fundamentalism in Afghanistan. not worth the death of hundreds of thousands of Afghans (and the soviets weren't even fighting for a modern open society). 

With the evolution of the modern industrial civilisations towards greater and greater levels of complexity,  hunter-gatherer societies, comunist states like NK, and theocracies like Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia and Iran will gradualy become so impoverished, outdated and isolated that that they'll willingly reform themselves in order to catch up with the rest of the human family. So you are right. They do the reform themselves but the pressure comes from the outside.

*Unimportant aside*: we all feel sorry for the future demise of hunter-gatherer societies because, unlike comunist or theocratic societies, they are no threat to anyone. I feel sorry to but on the other hand I'm not a *TOTAL IDIOT* to believe there will always be paleolithic societies, aka, Indians in the world.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

Im glad you two think Islamic fundamentalism is no real concern, perhaps you can find another thread to enjoy.


----------



## Ropey

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Im glad you two think Islamic fundamentalism is no real concern, perhaps you can find another thread to enjoy.



At the risk of being redundant to an already posted statement...



			
				José;3215457 said:
			
		

> Where in hell have I said we should sit on our asses and hope the bearded one up in the sky will protect the free world? I said the exact opposite: keep a close eye on islamic fundamentalism, fight it when and where it is necessary and wait for History to run its course..



I think what is being said is that there is no worry for the great future as long as we keep our eyes in the present.

That's all Mr. Fitnah.  We can stop Major Nidal Hassan clones. We can not stop the time and tide of humanity and it looks rather good for us is what is being said.

I tend to believe that and agree with Jose with regards to the future.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

Well unfortunately before you are proven wrong by events,  these types of hatesites will be closed down.


----------

