About TheReligionofPeace.com

[logical4u]

You need to stop confusing dictatorship with Islamic. Democratic elections were suspended under a state of emergency in 1992 because the ISLAMICISTS were winning. The protestors are MUSLIM.

What the west can't stand is if these countries CHOOSE Islamic leaders.

I'm for democracy, how about you? Let the people CHOOSE. No one wants a dictatorship.

That is one of the point here... the "people" are not getting to choose. They riot and want "liberty", but what they get is another muslim leader promising to listen to the people that some how turns out to be, yet, another dictator, that uses ruthless methods to hold onto power. With Shariah law, you cannot criticize your religious leader (your current dictator) without punishment under Shariah law. It is a very sad cycle. It has been repeating itself in the ME since islam took hold. If you lived for another fourteen hundred years, it would still be the same. Islam = abuse, corruption, misery and poverty for as long as the Shariah is part of the religion.

Predominantly Muslim nations will choose Muslim leaders just as predominantly Christian nations will choose Christians. Choosing Shariah Law is another issue.

I hope you aren't one of those people that thinks our President Obama is a secret Muslim.

I don't think our President respects ANY diety. IMHO he thinks he is one, and he is in for a very rude awakening.

 

[logical4u]

I don't consider a 19 year 'emergency' suspension of democratic elections to meet the test for democracy, no.

Just as we couldn't elect a non-christian to the White House in America today, you're not going to see a non-muslim elected President in a predominantly Muslim country.

You forget the US was once friends with the Shah of Iran and Saddam Hussein. Do you want me to start naming all the dictators the US has supported?

The USA has done what countries will always do: pick the lesser evil over the greater evil to oppose the greater evil. It is not the same thing as "support".

Why do you think we couldn't elect a non-Christian to the White House?

At this time, we wouldn't elect a non-Christian as President. An atheist could not be elected as POTUS. Christians have enormous political power, especially in the GOP. It took Americans 232 years to elect a non-white president. We haven't elected a woman yet. I doubt we'd elect a gay or lesbian.

We don't care if we support dictators as long as it in our 'strategic interests'.

You didn't answer: why wouldn't we elect a non-Christian president? The GOP did not put the current President in the white house. Theoretically, without the GOP you could, but WHY wouldn't we?

If there are approximately 135 other countries in the world and they are all angry at your country, what chance does your country have? It is an ugly fact that you must try to get along with many of those nations. You cannot fight them all. A huge percentage of them have corrupt governments, how do you choose?

 

[Sky Dancer]

It has a majority of muslims, but is not a 'muslim nation'.

Wikipedia

"The Malaysian constitution guarantees freedom of religion and makes Islam the official religion. According to the Population and Housing Census 2000 figures, approximately 60.4% of the population practiced Islam of which only the Sunni branch is allowed;[158] 19.2% Buddhism; 9.1% Christianity; 6.3% Hinduism; and 2.6% practice Confucianism, Taoism and other traditional Chinese religions. The remainder was accounted for by other faiths, including animism, folk religion, and Sikhism while 0.8% either reported having no religion or did not provide any information."

I didn't say Malaysia was a Muslim theocracy. It's a Muslim nation in the same way that people say the US is a Christian nation.

I'm completely opposed to theocracy of any kind, Muslim or Christian. Did you know the Queen is the official head of the Church of England?

9 Roman Catholic nations in Europe and South America
4 Eastern Orthodox in Europe
4 Lutheran in Europe
1 Anglican....in England, of course!
State religion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Fourteen Dalai Lamas ruled over Tibet before it was lost to the Chinese invasion.

I don't care about those religions. Their leaders are not calling for the destruction of our nation and the SLAUGHTER of our people. The islamic national leaders are. Those nations are run by muslims for muslims. They are arguably the worst nations on the face of the earth as far as .... your term human rights goes. You keep claiming how great this religion is, and some of keep asking you: where is the proof? Ideally, a country that is populated by a huge percentage of muslims where the the leader is muslim would theoretically be the best place on earth to live, where others would look to and beg to join that 'religion of peace'. That has not happened and is not happening. There is a serious problem. You don't want to discuss the problem.

You are like someone that is told, if we don't clean this mess up, it will destroy everything we own, and you, focus on a clean area and say, lets just stay here, it is clean. You are told, it will not stay that way, and you are needed to help the destruction. You go sit in your clean area while other people are working frantically trying to stop the mess. When it reaches you, you exclaim: why didn't you tell me it was this bad! Please stop being politically correct and look at the facts. Shariah law and islamic extremists are a mess, and it is getting very close. Will you help stop it, or will you sit back and allow it to destroy everything?

No. I make no such claims that Islam is 'great'. Please stop misrepresenting my views.
I say that Sufi Muslims are peaceful. I say that the entire religion of Islam is NOT inherently violent or evil. That is NOT being 'polically correct', it is speaking the truth, of my experience.

What is it you want me to do? Blow up the Middle East? Wipe Islam off the face of the earth?

I oppose Shariah Law as it is currently practiced in the Middle East. I oppose dictatorships and theocracies. I oppose oppression. I oppose violence.

What more do you want? I'm not going to join an anti-islamic hate campaign. OK?

 

[Sky Dancer]

The USA has done what countries will always do: pick the lesser evil over the greater evil to oppose the greater evil. It is not the same thing as "support".

Why do you think we couldn't elect a non-Christian to the White House?

At this time, we wouldn't elect a non-Christian as President. An atheist could not be elected as POTUS. Christians have enormous political power, especially in the GOP. It took Americans 232 years to elect a non-white president. We haven't elected a woman yet. I doubt we'd elect a gay or lesbian.

We don't care if we support dictators as long as it in our 'strategic interests'.

You didn't answer: why wouldn't we elect a non-Christian president? The GOP did not put the current President in the white house. Theoretically, without the GOP you could, but WHY wouldn't we?

If there are approximately 135 other countries in the world and they are all angry at your country, what chance does your country have? It is an ugly fact that you must try to get along with many of those nations. You cannot fight them all. A huge percentage of them have corrupt governments, how do you choose?

The Christians put Bush in the WH for eight years. Christians would NOT allow an atheist to be President. HW Bush said they shouldn't get to serve in the government OR EVEN BE US CITIZENS at all.

 

[Ropey]

The Taliban is wretched. There is nothing defensible about it.

And you are a qualified Imam to make that pronouncement ?

Mr, Fitnuts you make all kinds of pronouncements about Islam and you are definitely not an Imam.

And you do not see the ironic sarcasm. Look in a mirror with your Muslim pronouncements. That's what he's talking about. How you say the same thing to anyone who speaks about Islam negatively with regards to your book.

 

[Ropey]

I say that Sufi Muslims are peaceful.

Sufi in Kashmir have killed hundreds of thousands Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists in the past and are still killing them. Kashmiri have been driven out of the valley and you speak of Sufis being peaceful. Islam was spread by sword in India.

You must be reading the revisionistic history where Islam has never spread by sword in any part of the world. Let me remind you Muslims have killed more than 80 million Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, Jains, etc in India since beginning of Muslim invasions. World wide Muslims have managed to kill close to 300 millin non-Muslims.

Sufis are not peaceful, they are just as of killers like sunnis, shias, and other followers of Islam!

The Sufis of present day Chechnya and sufis of Serbia are just as barbarous killers as the Shias and Sunnis and the rest of the gang as shown by their actions. Did the ancestors of present day Iran, convert peacefully to Islam or succumb to the hoards of invaders from Arabia??? If you don't know, the latter is the answer.

Here's the true kicker though.

"Does all that mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim.” ~ The peaceful Sufi, Ayatollah Khomeini

​

Sufism is more "mystical" than other forms of Islam, but there is nothing intrinsic to it that denies the violence and intolerance that is a hallmark of orthodox Islam. The greatest Sufi of all time, Abu Hamid al-Ghazali (d.1111), was an avid proponent of the same offensive, expansionist jihad favoured by the majority of orthodox Islamic jurists of his era:

“One must go on jihad (i.e. warlike razzias or raids) at least once a year...one may use catapults 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, that is 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...”

He also promoted the oppressive subjugation of non-Muslims as dhimmis under Islamic rule:

“The dhimmi is obliged not to mention Allah or his Apostle...Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians must pay the poll tax...on offering up the jizya, the dhimmi must hang his head while the official takes hold of his head and hits the dhimmi on the protuberant bone beneath his ear...They are not permitted to ostentatiously exhibit 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 is of wood. He may not walk on the good part of the road. The dhimmis have to wear an identifying patch on their clothing, even women, and even in the public baths...dhimmis must hold their tongue.”

Eye On Islam: The "Peaceful Tableau" of Sufism?

 

[Sky Dancer]

I say that Sufi Muslims are peaceful.

Sufi in Kashmir have killed hundreds of thousands Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists in the past and are still killing them. Kashmiri have been driven out of the valley and you speak of Sufis being peaceful. Islam was spread by sword in India.

You must be reading the revisionistic history where Islam has never spread by sword in any part of the world. Let me remind you Muslims have killed more than 80 million Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, Jains, etc in India since beginning of Muslim invasions. World wide Muslims have managed to kill close to 300 millin non-Muslims.

Sufis are not peaceful, they are just as of killers like sunnis, shias, and other followers of Islam!



Here's the true kicker though.

"Does all that mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim.” ~ The peaceful Sufi, Ayatollah Khomeini

​

Sufism is more "mystical" than other forms of Islam, but there is nothing intrinsic to it that denies the violence and intolerance that is a hallmark of orthodox Islam. The greatest Sufi of all time, Abu Hamid al-Ghazali (d.1111), was an avid proponent of the same offensive, expansionist jihad favoured by the majority of orthodox Islamic jurists of his era:

“One must go on jihad (i.e. warlike razzias or raids) at least once a year...one may use catapults 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, that is 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...”

He also promoted the oppressive subjugation of non-Muslims as dhimmis under Islamic rule:

“The dhimmi is obliged not to mention Allah or his Apostle...Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians must pay the poll tax...on offering up the jizya, the dhimmi must hang his head while the official takes hold of his head and hits the dhimmi on the protuberant bone beneath his ear...They are not permitted to ostentatiously exhibit 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 is of wood. He may not walk on the good part of the road. The dhimmis have to wear an identifying patch on their clothing, even women, and even in the public baths...dhimmis must hold their tongue.”

Eye On Islam: The "Peaceful Tableau" of Sufism?

Hi Ropey,

How are you today? Looks like you're busy trying to get me to hate Sufi Muslim and all Muslims as much as you do.

I'm reading your sources. None of it takes away from my experience with the Sufi's I've met and loved. I'm drinking hate koolaid. The Sufi's I met were like this:

"Sufism is an attitude of inner sympathy towards all beliefs. All religions are Sufi religions as long as they recognize the limits inherent in any speculative interpretation of Truth. One might say that Sufism is a process leading to the widening of the horizon of the heart, so that Truth may shine within as a brilliant sun, illuminating all that is receptive of its rays of light.

Through the ages there has been one religion after another, but each one came as a confirmation of the previous one. Now, in our century and with the development of science and communication, it has become clear that each religion had a special purpose to fulfill at a particular period of human evolution. For the wise, one can only be really attuned to any religion if one's heart is open to all religious beliefs with the same love and understanding for each.

A Sufi is a religious soul whose nature is to refuse to submit to imposed beliefs, and who is conscious that life is not necessarily just what one might think it to be, nor what one is told it to be. Life is not only lived at the level of physical experience, nor only at the level of thought, nor only at the level of feeling, but also, and most importantly, at a still higher level of consciousness, where the self is no more the barrier separating reality from illusion."
http://www.sufiwisdom.com/

 

[Sky Dancer]

What is Sufism?
Inayat Khan says: "If one asks what Sufism is, what kind of 'religion' it is, the answer is that Sufism is the religion of the heart, the religion in which the thing of primary importance is to seek God in the heart of humanity.

There are three ways of seeking God in the human heart. The first way is to recognize the divine in everyone and to be considerate toward every person with whom we come in contact, in our thought, speech and action. Human personality is very delicate. The more living the heart, the more sensitive it is; but that which causes sensitiveness is the love element in the heart, and love is God. The person whose heart is not sensitive is without feeling. Their heart is not living; it is dead. In that case the Divine Spirit is buried in their heart. The one who takes notice of the feeling of another person with whom s/he comes in contact practices the first essential moral of Sufism.

The next way of practicing this religion is to think of the feeling of someone who is not with one at the moment. One may feel for those who are present, but one often neglects to feel for someone who is out of sight. One speaks well of someone to his face, but it is better to speak well of him/her when s/he is absent. One sympathizes with the trouble of someone who is with one at the moment, but it is more praiseworthy to sympathize with one who is far away.

The third way of realizing the Sufi principle is to recognize in one's own feeling the feeling of God, to realize every impulse of love that rises in one's heart as a direction from God, to realize that love is a divine spark in one's heart, to blow that spark until a flame may rise to illuminate the path of one's life." – Hazrat Inayat Khan

 

[Ropey]

I don't care if you see the entire truth or just a portion.

Others will read these pages and make their own minds up.

 

[Sky Dancer]

I don't care if you see the entire truth or just a portion.

Others will read these pages and make their own minds up.

What's the truth as you see it? Sufi's are INHERENTLY VIOLENT AND EVIL AND I should HATE THEM ALL?

 

[Intense]

You need to stop confusing dictatorship with Islamic. Democratic elections were suspended under a state of emergency in 1992 because the ISLAMICISTS were winning. The protestors are MUSLIM.

What the west can't stand is if these countries CHOOSE Islamic leaders.

I'm for democracy, how about you? Let the people CHOOSE. No one wants a dictatorship.

That is one of the point here... the "people" are not getting to choose. They riot and want "liberty", but what they get is another muslim leader promising to listen to the people that some how turns out to be, yet, another dictator, that uses ruthless methods to hold onto power. With Shariah law, you cannot criticize your religious leader (your current dictator) without punishment under Shariah law. It is a very sad cycle. It has been repeating itself in the ME since islam took hold. If you lived for another fourteen hundred years, it would still be the same. Islam = abuse, corruption, misery and poverty for as long as the Shariah is part of the religion.

Predominantly Muslim nations will choose Muslim leaders just as predominantly Christian nations will choose Christians. Choosing Shariah Law is another issue.

I hope you aren't one of those people that thinks our President Obama is a secret Muslim.

By Muslim Law Obama is a Muslim.

 

[Intense]

I don't consider a 19 year 'emergency' suspension of democratic elections to meet the test for democracy, no.

Just as we couldn't elect a non-christian to the White House in America today, you're not going to see a non-muslim elected President in a predominantly Muslim country.

You forget the US was once friends with the Shah of Iran and Saddam Hussein. Do you want me to start naming all the dictators the US has supported?

The USA has done what countries will always do: pick the lesser evil over the greater evil to oppose the greater evil. It is not the same thing as "support".

Why do you think we couldn't elect a non-Christian to the White House?

At this time, we wouldn't elect a non-Christian as President. An atheist could not be elected as POTUS. Christians have enormous political power, especially in the GOP. It took Americans 232 years to elect a non-white president. We haven't elected a woman yet. I doubt we'd elect a gay or lesbian.

We don't care if we support dictators as long as it in our 'strategic interests'.

We have already had a Gay President.

 

[Sky Dancer]

That is one of the point here... the "people" are not getting to choose. They riot and want "liberty", but what they get is another muslim leader promising to listen to the people that some how turns out to be, yet, another dictator, that uses ruthless methods to hold onto power. With Shariah law, you cannot criticize your religious leader (your current dictator) without punishment under Shariah law. It is a very sad cycle. It has been repeating itself in the ME since islam took hold. If you lived for another fourteen hundred years, it would still be the same. Islam = abuse, corruption, misery and poverty for as long as the Shariah is part of the religion.

Predominantly Muslim nations will choose Muslim leaders just as predominantly Christian nations will choose Christians. Choosing Shariah Law is another issue.

I hope you aren't one of those people that thinks our President Obama is a secret Muslim.

By Muslim Law Obama is a Muslim.

By Catholic Law, once a Catholic, always a Catholic. I am NOT a Catholic. I chose Buddhism.

Obama is NOT a Muslim. He chose Christianity.

 

[Sky Dancer]

The USA has done what countries will always do: pick the lesser evil over the greater evil to oppose the greater evil. It is not the same thing as "support".

Why do you think we couldn't elect a non-Christian to the White House?

At this time, we wouldn't elect a non-Christian as President. An atheist could not be elected as POTUS. Christians have enormous political power, especially in the GOP. It took Americans 232 years to elect a non-white president. We haven't elected a woman yet. I doubt we'd elect a gay or lesbian.

We don't care if we support dictators as long as it in our 'strategic interests'.

We have already had a Gay President.

News to me. Proof? NO OPENLY GAY LESBIAN OR GAY can be elected POTUS.

Since Buchanan was lifelong bachelor he must have been queer. What a joke. Gay revisionism.

 

[Intense]

Predominantly Muslim nations will choose Muslim leaders just as predominantly Christian nations will choose Christians. Choosing Shariah Law is another issue.

I hope you aren't one of those people that thinks our President Obama is a secret Muslim.

By Muslim Law Obama is a Muslim.

By Catholic Law, once a Catholic, always a Catholic. I am NOT a Catholic. I chose Buddhism.

Obama is NOT a Muslim. He chose Christianity.

By Muslim Law, that makes him an Apostate. Punishable by death. WTFU. You are living in a bubble. Yo have no clue as to what you are talking about. Grow up.

 

[Sky Dancer]

By Muslim Law Obama is a Muslim.

By Catholic Law, once a Catholic, always a Catholic. I am NOT a Catholic. I chose Buddhism.

Obama is NOT a Muslim. He chose Christianity.

By Muslim Law, that makes him an Apostate. Punishable by death. WTFU. You are living in a bubble. Yo have no clue as to what you are talking about. Grow up.

And you are back to your nasty language and insults. Too bad. Are you a birther too?

 

[amrchaos]

A Buddhist pointing out the error of over-generalization and Christians demonizing someone elses religion.

Yep, it is another boring day on the old religion and ethics board!!

 

[Sky Dancer]

A Buddhist pointing out the error of over-generalization and Christians demonizing someone elses religion.

Yep, it is another boring day on the old religion and ethics board!!

Yep, and you adding nothing. Boring.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Malaysia

CHARLES HECTOR: Malaysia: Dictatorship or real Democracy?

Turkey, Pakistan, Algeria, Phillipines

 

[Intense]

At this time, we wouldn't elect a non-Christian as President. An atheist could not be elected as POTUS. Christians have enormous political power, especially in the GOP. It took Americans 232 years to elect a non-white president. We haven't elected a woman yet. I doubt we'd elect a gay or lesbian.

We don't care if we support dictators as long as it in our 'strategic interests'.

We have already had a Gay President.

News to me. Proof? NO OPENLY GAY LESBIAN OR GAY can be elected POTUS.

Since Buchanan was lifelong bachelor he must have been queer. What a joke. Gay revisionism.

After Buchanan paid a visit to the wife of a friend, Ann broke off the engagement. She died soon afterward, on December 9, 1819. The records of a Dr. Chapman, who looked after her in her final hours, and who said just after her death that this was "the first instance he ever knew of hysteria producing death", reveal that he theorized, despite the absence of any valid evidence, the woman's demise was caused by an overdose of laudanum, a concentrated tincture of opium.[44]

His fiancée's death struck Buchanan a terrible blow. In a letter to her father, which was returned to him unopened, Buchanan wrote "It is now no time for explanation, but the time will come when you will discover that she, as well as I, have been much abused. God forgive the authors of it [...] . I may sustain the shock of her death, but I feel that happiness has fled from me forever."[44] The Coleman family became bitter towards Buchanan and denied him a place at Ann's funeral.[45] Buchanan vowed he would never marry, though he continued to be flirtatious. Some pressed him to seek a wife; in response, Buchanan said, "Marry I could not, for my affections were buried in the grave." He preserved Ann Coleman's letters, keeping them with him throughout his life; at his request, they were burned upon his death.[44]


Hand-colored lithograph of Buchanan by Nathaniel CurrierFor fifteen years in Washington, D.C., before his presidency, Buchanan lived with his close friend, Alabama Senator William Rufus King.[46][47] King became Vice President under Franklin Pierce. He became ill and died shortly after Pierce's inauguration, four years before Buchanan became President. Buchanan's and King's close relationship prompted Andrew Jackson to call King "Miss Nancy" and "Aunt Fancy", while Aaron V. Brown spoke of the two as "Buchanan and his wife."[48] Some of the contemporary press also speculated about Buchanan's and King's relationship. The two men's nieces destroyed their uncles' correspondence, leaving some questions about their relationship; but the length and intimacy of surviving letters illustrate "the affection of a special friendship",[48] and Buchanan wrote of his "communion" with his housemate.[49] In May 1844, during one of King's absences that resulted from King's appointment as minister to France, Buchanan wrote to a Mrs. Roosevelt, "I am now 'solitary and alone', having no companion in the house with me. I have gone a wooing to several gentlemen, but have not succeeded with any one of them. I feel that it is not good for man to be alone, and should not be astonished to find myself married to some old maid who can nurse me when I am sick, provide good dinners for me when I am well, and not expect from me any very ardent or romantic affection."[50][51][52]

Circumstances surrounding Buchanan's and King's close emotional ties have led to speculation that Buchanan was homosexual.[48] Buchanan's correspondence during this period with Thomas Kittera, however, mentions his romance with Mary K. Snyder. In Buchanan's letter to Mrs. Francis Preston Blair, he declines an invitation and expresses an expectation of marriage.[53] The only President to remain a bachelor, Buchanan turned to Harriet Lane, an orphaned niece, whom he had earlier adopted, to act as his official hostess.

James Buchanan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia