Child bride in Yemen dies of internal bleeding on wedding night: activist

[Sunni Man]

No juden should leave home without one..........

 

[Hollie]

No juden should leave home without one..........

How convenient that islam has a built-in platform that allows social misfits / converts like Sunni an opportunity to promote their rabid Jew hatreds.

 

[Sunni Man]

No juden should leave home without one..........

How convenient that islam has a built-in platform that allows social misfits / converts like Sunni an opportunity to promote their rabid Jew hatreds.

You sound jealous........

 

[Hollie]

No juden should leave home without one..........

How convenient that islam has a built-in platform that allows social misfits / converts like Sunni an opportunity to promote their rabid Jew hatreds.

You sound jealous........

Jealous of a social misfit / goofy convert ?


You sound like you need to convert to a real religion.

.....

 

[Jos]

I hate rabid Jew's too

 

[Coyote]

I have a phobia. My hands start to sweat and I get all twitchy every time I see the idiot word 'islamophobia' being used. On the other hand my contempt for and hearty dislike of Islam is based on stark reality: periods of residence in two Islamic countries - Iran and Kuwait, since you ask.

What else would you call bigotry against Muslims? Or are you saying it doesn't exist? Does anti-semitism exist?

I have nothing against Muslims - I have known some very nice ones. It's Islam that I intensly dislike. That's no more 'bigotry' than is my hatred of Communism and Naziism, two other mind-dominating cultures.

You can't exactly seperate Islam from Muslims and how they choose to live and interpret Islam varies considerably around the world. What you are doing is applying one vision of Islam on all and making a comparison of that to Naziism is highly inaccurate and comtemptable.

Anti-semitism is hatred of Jews. It is not contempt for Judaism and the Old Testament.

You can not seperate the person from the religion and anti-semitism draws from the religion - or, more accurately - distorted views of that religion in order to fire up hate. It's no different from islamophobia.

 

[Coyote]

I know exactly what I wrote.

Review what you wrote, then. You were writing about American moslems with the inclusive “we”, description.

Please review what I wrote:

You do realize, that like with most religions, there is a difference between those in one country and in another? American Muslims, for example feel very strongly about the rights and freedoms that America grants, including freedom of religion.

American Muslims demand no more rights and freedoms than any other religious groups nor do they as a rule, deny those same rights to others.

In fact, at this time, unfortunately it is the Christian majority (not the Jews) in this country who are seeking to deny Muslims the same rights and freedoms they themselves enjoy whether it's burning mosques, intimidating individuals with hateful graffitti, attempting to deny the construction of new Mosques or attacking women for wearing headscarves.

It is pretty straight forward and requires no novel interpretations on your part.

Islam is a religion. Your failure to understand that does not constitute ignorance on my part.

Islam is not just a religion but a “complete way of life”™. Didn’t you get the email?

I do not rely on emails for information on religion.

It is an exhaustively complete and thorough way of life, covering everything from personal hygiene, sexual relations, to public legalities, sociality, a penal code, political matters, religious worship, and warfare. In a manner that one would not be amiss in describing as borderline obsessive-compulsive disorder, Islam has a prescription or proscription for anything that may happen in a person's life. And all with the weight of God's command. Politics, religion, personal relations, society, and war are all interwoven into the monolithic tapestry of Islam. It is the ultimate authoritarianism, with God as the supreme leader, and his people as the elite on Earth. There are provisions for monotheists (with a book, i.e., the Bible) to live under Islamic "protection" as second-class citizens called dhimmis, but it is a matter of subjugation, humiliation, privation, and sometimes elimination.

The degree to which Islam proscribes one's life is dependent on how an individual Muslim chooses to live Islam. All the Abrahamic faiths are very authoritarian and when followed in their most fundamentalist forms - brutal to outsiders and women. Christianity is the loosest in terms of rules because it broke away from most of the OT rules and regulations but the OT, which Judaism follows is full of rules covering everything from "personal hygiene, sexual relations, to public legalities". There is a very interesting, informative and humorous book that is well worth reading: A Year of Living Biblically that discuss much of this.

Islam kept most of its rules from the OT - same roots. None of the Abrahamic faiths are kind to non-believers and their holy books contain pretty nasty examples of what can happen or should be done to non-believers, particularly if removed from their historical contexts. The history of Christianity is chock full of "second class" citizenry and in fact, Jews were treated worse under Christianity then Islam (not that either religion is a paragon of virture). The one key difference is Christianity and Judaism have matured into largely secular societies and less literal interpretations of doctrine. That's a leap Islam is still struggling to make in many parts of the world but given the obvious differences between Muslims in westernized countries and those in developing countries, there is no reason to suspect that it's reformation won't eventually come about.

Polls are nice. What a shame that Tsarnaev brothers didn't read that poll.

What a shame you didn't either since they reflect what many American Muslims think rather than what people like you, think they think.

There is nothing bigoted about banning symbols of oppression and misogyny. In particular with the French ban on the burqa, I remember reading commentaries that addressed their reasons. What they saw were Moslems’ one sided claims to entitlements and demands for special treatment. They saw demands for the allowance of religious symbols in secular school systems.

Prior to the law, what was allowed? Could they wear jewelry with crosses? Yarmakas? Could orthodox Jews wear headscarves and wigs? Was it just when Muslims became a large enough population that people objected to their wearing symbals of religion?

They saw Moslems segregating themselves in communities to be isolated from the host nation so as to minimize exposure to the host nations “corruptive influences”.

Actually - there is a bit more to it. They segrated themselves but they were also segregated by traditional french society and choices of jobs available to them which perpetrated the ethnic isolation. It's a two-way street and a problem that France is struggling to deal with.

They saw moslems’ importing the societal norms of their nations of origin which are totally contrary to Western standards of equality, tolerance, personal freedoms and rule of law.

I agree that that is a problem with France. Unlike the US, France's immigrants come from very different backgrounds. I believe France's immigration law allows people from any of their former colonies to immigrate to France and they are getting a large number of very poor, rural, uneducated immigrants who bring with them the cultural values of their homelands. Immigrant communities vary a great deal.

Yet, the French saw themselves barraged with charges of bigotry and Racism™ when they reject such religiously inspired things as “honor” killings, misogynistic treatment of women and an all-consuming politico-religious ideology that Moslems believe must be imposed on all.

The French have never been charged with "bigotry" and "racism" for rejecting "honor killings". That right there is a lie.

In addition, "honor killings" are not religiously inspired. There is nothing in the religious texts of Islam that sanctifies them. They are a cultural remnant of a medievil society and should be rightfully condemned. They are also, in western countries rare, despite being sensationalized in the media.

Not at all. You do have this need to force your religious beliefs on others as though you have some entitlement.

*My* religious beliefs?

Talk about entitlement. Pot. Kettle. Black.

You don't have a clue lady.

The point is, nobody’s perfect and crimes happen.

I'll remember that when you bring up the Boston Bombing.

There is a criminal justice system that deals with crime. In the U.S., justice is overwhelming a matter of law, absent ones religious, ethnic and political leanings.

Sharia is already established in Islamic Lands™. The fact that every incarnation of sharia law being an abject failure in terms of providing justice and equality should tell you something.

Sharia is not "one law" - it's application and interpretation vary widely across Islam. For example, in many areas Sharia is used primarily in civil matters - marriage, divorce, inheritance, banking while the penal code is secular. In other areas - Saudi Arabia and Iran, it's far more extreme and obviously barbaric. In general it's application by Islamists has been a failure (Egypt and Tunisia) - rejected by it's people. If you are talking about Sharia in it's extreme - I totally agree with you. But I am also a proponant of secular systems of law being supreme.

The difference between a secular government and a theocracy like the numerous Moslem ones that are causing so much grief much to the suffering of people the world over is obvious:

Secular governments do not force or compel belief in one particular belief system to the exclusion of others as is the case with Islamic governments. That’s been the history of the Middle East as it applies to theocratic and despotic regimes. The constant warring amongst tribal / religious sects and subdivisions is endless, as is the obstructionism and petty rivalries.

We are in agreement here. I am 100% behind secular systems of law.

Conspiracy theories seem to be staples among the more islamist of the bunch.

They are also the staple fare of anti-semites and islamophobes.

Actually, it is the issue. What you demand is for your religious ideology to have a special place of unchallenged authority.

The only demand I make, is that we follow one of our most cherished rights: freedom of religion. And that it applies to all equally.

You require your religious “rights” supersede those of others.

I require nothing of the kind. Though I'm puzzled as to why you think you know what I "require" or "demand" in absence of any information on my part. Could it be your own bias' inserting themselves into my words?

The manifestation of this doctrine is exhibited in the Moslem revulsion of the infidel. It’s why we see the blatant double standards that so define Islam; the demands for exclusive rights and privileges with the attendant refusal to extend the same rights and privileges to the hated infidel. It’s why we see playwrights killed in the streets of their homeland, Churches burned, Dhimmi’s subjected to limited rights and the other atrocities that are endured by the non-Muslim in Moslem Lands™.'

All religions have their blatent double standards and hypocrosies. History is chock full of it.

Once again, protesting the building of mosques, protesting most anything is a hallmark of a free society. People can have legitimate concerns for protesting. With regularity, you demonstrate that you feel your rights are sacrosanct and not to be challenged.

At what point does religious protesting become religious bigotry?

Yet you can’t bring yourself to address the atrocities dealt out to non-moslems in every location where moslems and sharia law are in the majority

Not at all. I just refuse to let this conversation be derailed? Religion varies considerably across countries and cultures - something that your monolithic view of Islam is uncomfortable with. Supporting western religious values does not mean one must support barbaric religious practices elsewhere.

I'm sticking to America and American Muslims - that is what my discussion pertains to.

No doubt. Having to address the nightmare faced by the infidel in “moslem lands”™ tends to expose your rather obvious double standards.

If that is what you think. Personally, I simply don't want to listen to another bigoted anti-islamic rant that refuses to recognize that Islam varies around the world (speaking of double standards ). There are enough of them already without hijacking this conversation.

Wouldn’t it actually suggest that not addressing those issues is really avoidance? I can clearly make a case for the double standards that Muslims embrace regarding demands to religious freedom in the West, yet clearly suppressing (even violently), the religious freedoms of others in the Islamic Middle East. You exploit that Western held precept of freedom of religion, BTW.

No, it's not avoidance. There are many threads on this already. You speak of double standards but ignore your own.

All religions have double standards - they are human driven and it's human nature. Those same double standards, in a more muted fashion - are evident in protesting mosques but not churches. In labeling foul cartoons about Jews as "anti-semitic" while calling foul cartoons about Muslims "free speech". It's just that in the West, we are more civilized about our double standards - we clothe them in rights and excuse them. But they are there.

I think it's important to understand that the major world religions are not monolithic but multi-faceted and complex. As a result, I "taking sides" against an entire religion is, in my opinion, wrong. I would rather take each person individually - whether Christian, Jewish, or Muslim. There is a lot to learn from all of them and they share the same core values and historical roots.

That’s fine. Although your “shared values” comment is a bit silly.

Religion in Western cultures is largely a private and personal matter. For the most part it is not often dragged into the public arena or forced upon others as it is in many Islamic majority nations. In a democracy, you can believe (or not) as you wish, and you can expect that right to be honored (even if grudgingly) and protected by law. This is illustrative of the dynamic of religious freedom that simply doesn’t exist in much of the Islamic Middle East.

Yes, it is largely a private and personal matter because we have progressed into largely secular societies and, that applies to Muslims, Christians, Jews, Bhuddists etc etc in the West.

I absolutely agree with you on the role of religion in Middle Eastern and African and even Asian societies like India and Nepal. It's very Medievil. We are actually in agreement.

While you may have hoped to deflect the core argument of religious oppression performed by Moslems with your “I’m talking about American moslems”, It’s not just a little disingenuous to ignore the reality of islam globally.

By lumping Islam into a "global" entity your are yourself ignoring the realities.

At least as it applies to the double standards and overt discrimination that Moslems allow themselves, I do find that distasteful. It’s distasteful that many Islamic nations ban or restrict competing religions yet Moslems screech like petulant children, (citing Racism™, because as we all know, Islam is a “Race”™), when we in the West insist that no religion is garnered preferential treatment.

We insist but do we really follow that? Why do we have idiotic politicians insisting on anti-Muslim legislation in absence of any support from Muslim communities for "Sharia" and in absence of any evidence that Sharia is in use? Is this the kind of crap that our pluralistic religious society should support?

At the very least, we here in the Great Satan™ have no religious police who will arrest you for practicing your religion of choice.

Absolutely

What an audacious concept, don’t you think? I have my religion (or none), while you have yours. No one gets arrested and we can both mind our business without a (proceeding alphabetically), Ayatollah, Cleric, Emir or Imam rallying the faithful to burn our respective houses down because we dare to worship (or not) as we please.

Audacious? Not at all. It's what we fight for and stand for. And it applies to everyone equally.

 

[Peterf]

What else would you call bigotry against Muslims? Or are you saying it doesn't exist? Does anti-semitism exist?

I have nothing against Muslims - I have known some very nice ones. It's Islam that I intensly dislike. That's no more 'bigotry' than is my hatred of Communism and Naziism, two other mind-dominating cultures.

You can't exactly seperate Islam from Muslims and how they choose to live and interpret Islam varies considerably around the world. What you are doing is applying one vision of Islam on all and making a comparison of that to Naziism is highly inaccurate and comtemptable.

Anti-semitism is hatred of Jews. It is not contempt for Judaism and the Old Testament.

You can not seperate the person from the religion and anti-semitism draws from the religion - or, more accurately - distorted views of that religion in order to fire up hate. It's no different from islamophobia.

Both Naziism and Islam demand complete submission from their believers ('islam' means 'submission') who are forbidden to stray from the party line on pain of servere sanction. Neither Nazis or Muslims are permitted to think for themselves so the comparison is valid.

Of course one can separate the person from religioned. I loved my Catholic mother but hated the Catholic religion.

Btw the way anti-semites hate non-religious Jews just as much as the religiously observant. It's Jews they hate, not Judaism.

Finally. You say that interpretations of Islam vary. True in a very limited sense; but all declare that every word of the koran is the word of god and is the ultimate truth, not subject to any form of interpretation.

 

[Hollie]

I know exactly what I wrote.

Review what you wrote, then. You were writing about American moslems with the inclusive “we”, description.

Please review what I wrote:


It is pretty straight forward and requires no novel interpretations on your part.

I see no objective source for your claim: “American Muslims demand no more rights and freedoms…” other than your subjective opinion. So, it seems that you have decided that you are the spokes-moslem for what Americans want / don’t want.

I do not rely on emails for information on religion.

The above was huge, colossal dodge. With regularity, you hope to employ the “but…. but….. but …. but…. but what about the Christians” in order to avoid addressing the all-consuming proscriptions of Islamism.

The degree to which Islam proscribes one's life is dependent on how an individual Muslim chooses to live Islam. All the Abrahamic faiths are very authoritarian and when followed in their most fundamentalist forms - brutal to outsiders and women. Christianity is the loosest in terms of rules because it broke away from most of the OT rules and regulations but the OT, which Judaism follows is full of rules covering everything from "personal hygiene, sexual relations, to public legalities". There is a very interesting, informative and humorous book that is well worth reading: A Year of Living Biblically that discuss much of this.

Islam kept most of its rules from the OT - same roots. None of the Abrahamic faiths are kind to non-believers and their holy books contain pretty nasty examples of what can happen or should be done to non-believers, particularly if removed from their historical contexts. The history of Christianity is chock full of "second class" citizenry and in fact, Jews were treated worse under Christianity then Islam (not that either religion is a paragon of virture). The one key difference is Christianity and Judaism have matured into largely secular societies and less literal interpretations of doctrine. That's a leap Islam is still struggling to make in many parts of the world but given the obvious differences between Muslims in westernized countries and those in developing countries, there is no reason to suspect that it's reformation won't eventually come about.

The infidel should also be aware that there is no separation of mosque and state in Islam—every last detail of human experience and endeavor is administered under sharia law. This is why Moslems say that Islam is not just a religion, but ”a complete way of life”™.

That's what it is. How you go to the bathroom, make love to your spouse, punish those who transgress against God's will, give to charity (Islamic charity), go to war, eat, wash, borrow money, treat infidels—in short, anything you may do in the course of being alive—is strictly regulated by the sharia. Life for the Moslem is a complex series of bizarre rituals and habits that are commanded by God and His apostle. Islam is the obsessive-compulsive disorder of religions.

Thus, Islam is distinguished from one its parents, Christianity, which actually does allow for genuine freedom and tolerance.

Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar's, and unto God the things which be God's.

In contrast to the koran, sunnah, and sharia, there is no inherent conflict in the Gospels between living a devout life and living in equality and harmony under the rule of law alongside others who may believe differently. It should also be noted that nowhere in the New Testament are Christians enjoined to make war against non-Christians to establish the supremacy of the Christian faith. Christians who kill in Christ's name are acting against his teachings, while Muslims who kill in their God's name are dutifully following Muhammad's (swish) teachings (and example).

What a shame you didn't either since they reflect what many American Muslims think rather than what people like you, think they think.

That’s a rather poor attempt at excusing yet another act of Islamic terrorism.
But here again, why don’t you define for us what so many American moslems think.. as you feel a need to define what so many American moslems think.

Prior to the law, what was allowed? Could they wear jewelry with crosses? Yarmakas? Could orthodox Jews wear headscarves and wigs? Was it just when Muslims became a large enough population that people objected to their wearing symbals of religion?

What you won’t allow yourself to accept is that a growing population of moslems in France, for example, presented obstacles to the French idea of assimilation and respect for their culture. There were complaints from educators in the school systems about amorphous sacks which could not be identified as to an actual person underneath the sack. There are also myriad problems with this. What will be done in a lab (study lab) environment? How are students in study groups expected to interact with someone cloaked in a burqa? My college labs always involved a study team jointly producing research papers. These teams were always competitive and involved active participation by all. I take no issue with representing that a woman in a burqa can have negative connotations regarding team participation.

What’s unfortunate is a perception that a class of 30 or so people are all expected to make accommodation to one individual who is disruptive (and seemingly antagonistic) to the whole.
So no, Western culture is not obligated to accept islamist symbols of gender segregation and exclusion. Beyond the terror and gender apartheid factors of the burqa, I think the French proposal was just good news in general. I firmly believe that forcing a woman into making herself look like an amorphous, black mound of cloth is misogynistic and degrading.

Actually - there is a bit more to it. They segrated themselves but they were also segregated by traditional french society and choices of jobs available to them which perpetrated the ethnic isolation. It's a two-way street and a problem that France is struggling to deal with.

Yes, it was the fault of the French for not acquiescing to the arrogant demands of islamists.

I agree that that is a problem with France. Unlike the US, France's immigrants come from very different backgrounds. I believe France's immigration law allows people from any of their former colonies to immigrate to France and they are getting a large number of very poor, rural, uneducated immigrants who bring with them the cultural values of their homelands. Immigrant communities vary a great deal.

There is also an issue of islamist immigrants not wanting to assimilate or integrate.

The French have never been charged with "bigotry" and "racism" for rejecting "honor killings". That right there is a lie.

In addition, "honor killings" are not religiously inspired. There is nothing in the religious texts of Islam that sanctifies them. They are a cultural remnant of a medievil society and should be rightfully condemned. They are also, in western countries rare, despite being sensationalized in the media.

It’s remarkable how so many things which haunt moslem societies are not “Islamic”.

You will find that “What does the koran say” will not be sufficient to for your islamist rituals.

The sura’s are required in order to fill in the errors and omissions that the religions inventor left out, hence, omission of genital mutilation of women as noble is not surprising. For a further example, the Koran alone is not even enough to allow you to perform the salat “properly”. So I guess you’re right, we can add or subtract what is and is not “Islamic” as we need or as it’s convenient.

The above should in no way prevent you from supporting the positions of those Imams, Sheikhs, emirs, ayatollahs, religious rulers or scholars who profess the kind of islam you would like the islam to be. You just need to make a personal decision as to who’s islam you want to make your islam.

*My* religious beliefs?

Talk about entitlement. Pot. Kettle. Black.

You don't have a clue lady.

Your religion is unimportant to me.

You can be whatever religion you wish, here in the “Great Satan”.

I'll remember that when you bring up the Boston Bombing.

That’s a dangerous attitude. The Boston bombings were a calculated act designed to inflict maximum carnage. What apologists for Islamic terrorism choose not to understand is that they are also just as likely victims of Islamic inspired terrorism.

Sharia is not "one law" - it's application and interpretation vary widely across Islam. For example, in many areas Sharia is used primarily in civil matters - marriage, divorce, inheritance, banking while the penal code is secular. In other areas - Saudi Arabia and Iran, it's far more extreme and obviously barbaric. In general it's application by Islamists has been a failure (Egypt and Tunisia) - rejected by it's people. If you are talking about Sharia in it's extreme - I totally agree with you. But I am also a proponant of secular systems of law being supreme.

It’s a remarkable thing to see such that the wave of dictator displacements that gripped the islamist Middle East were little more than mechanisms to replace theocratic dictatorships with theocratic totalitarians screeching the islamist politburo party line. The Salafi Islamist replacements are likely going to be just as Dark Age addled as the Iranian mullahcrats.

Make no mistake – theocratic Crusades (of the Salafi kind), are on the march across the Middle East. That prospect should send a chill to the very core of any non-islamist in the Middle East unfortunate enough to be staring into the gaping maw of Muhammud’s (swish) 7th century islamism.

Unfortunately, what many Westerners are not taking away from these theocratic Crusades is that islamic social mores and sharia “law” are seen as the preferred (and legitimate), societal construct as opposed to Western values of equality under the law, rule of law, separation of church and state and principles whereby the rights of the few are not usurped by the will of the majority. To put a finer point on the matter, Moslems by and large want to be ruled by Islamist regimes, this, in spite of their propensity for economic malaise, social inequities, denigration of religious / secular minorities and gender apartheid!

We are in agreement here. I am 100% behind secular systems of law.

I’m tingling with excitement.

They are also the staple fare of anti-semites and islamophobes.

Slogans? That’s it?

The only demand I make, is that we follow one of our most cherished rights: freedom of religion. And that it applies to all equally.

Excepting that anyone who challenges the construction of a mosque is islamophobic™

I require nothing of the kind. Though I'm puzzled as to why you think you know what I "require" or "demand" in absence of any information on my part. Could it be your own bias' inserting themselves into my words?

Well, we know that the rights of other to protest legally makes them bigots and “islamophobes”™.

All religions have their blatent double standards and hypocrosies. History is chock full of it.

Yep – “they’re just as bad as we are”.

At what point does religious protesting become religious bigotry?

When protests are directed at moslems.

Not at all. I just refuse to let this conversation be derailed? Religion varies considerably across countries and cultures - something that your monolithic view of Islam is uncomfortable with. Supporting western religious values does not mean one must support barbaric religious practices elsewhere.

Our only external example of Islam is Moslems.

My view of Islamism is therefore connected to the actions of moslems. Aside from whatever chosen interpretation one wishes to take away from selected verses, we have only to look at the examples set by the moslem world in order to come to conclusions about islam. If one is going to come to conclusions about interpretations of such matters as forced religion, the moslem world provides those examples most everywhere.

As with most matters within the belief system, interpretation of the texts is selective and subjective. The greater truth is set by example.

If that is what you think. Personally, I simply don't want to listen to another bigoted anti-islamic rant that refuses to recognize that Islam varies around the world (speaking of double standards ). There are enough of them already without hijacking this conversation.

You confuse “anti-islamic rant” with your insistence on making apologies for islam’s atrocities.
I couldn’t help but notice that you often retreat to using clichés and slogans such as the “islamophobia” weasel. You confuse direct, sometimes blunt and uncompromising critical critique of your positions as 'rants'. While I understand that in your worldview, your politico-religious views are believed to be sacrosanct and authoritative beyond questioning, I don't believe that to be the case.

Uncompromising and unquestioning belief may define your worldview and in your orbit that's fine. When you bring those views and perceptions into a public forum, you should expect them to be scrutinized, sometimes harshly.

You embrace a politico-religious ideology that you believe carries with it entitlements to rights and privileges than others of "less worthy". ie: false beliefs. You arrogantly demand that you are entitled to rights and privileges that you have an entitlement to deny others. Sorry, but your demands to entitlements are meaningless to me.

No, it's not avoidance. There are many threads on this already. You speak of double standards but ignore your own.

Yet you don’t provide meaningful examples.

All religions have double standards - they are human driven and it's human nature. Those same double standards, in a more muted fashion - are evident in protesting mosques but not churches. In labeling foul cartoons about Jews as "anti-semitic" while calling foul cartoons about Muslims "free speech". It's just that in the West, we are more civilized about our double standards - we clothe them in rights and excuse them. But they are there.

Yes, it is largely a private and personal matter because we have progressed into largely secular societies and, that applies to Muslims, Christians, Jews, Bhuddists etc etc in the West.

I absolutely agree with you on the role of religion in Middle Eastern and African and even Asian societies like India and Nepal. It's very Medievil. We are actually in agreement.

I didn’t mean what I wrote.

By lumping Islam into a "global" entity your are yourself ignoring the realities.

Islamic terrorism is a global threat. Isn't it funny (in a mordant sort of way), how we see all these islamist "victims" running around with machine guns, complaining of discrimination, whining about being unfairly accused of terrorist bombings, and warning their enemies of the innocent civilians that would be killed in a military reprisal? They justify their murderous acts by claiming to be oppressed by non-Muslims. But if they were truly fighting oppression, they would surely lash out at their own oppressive governments first. On the contrary; they seem to be doing their oppressive government's bidding. When terrorists are given the chance to run their own governments, the first thing they do is lock down the society, remove all human rights, and oppress everyone within their borders with intolerable religious laws and vicious, cruel, and ruthless enforcement. It's no accident that these patterns are seen over and over again; it's a well-thought-out, effective strategy, and it will continue to succeed unless and until their lies are exposed. These are not random acts perpetrated by insane criminals; they are deliberately orchestrated by well-organized, deeply religious, petrol-funded terrorist organizations, many of whom operate under the guise of Islamic "charities" and receive direct aid from Arab governments and oil companies.

We insist but do we really follow that? Why do we have idiotic politicians insisting on anti-Muslim legislation in absence of any support from Muslim communities for "Sharia" and in absence of any evidence that Sharia is in use? Is this the kind of crap that our pluralistic religious society should support?

Well you’re on to something there. I’m much more concerned with those roving bands of heavily armed Lutherans.

Absolutely

The Great Satan™ rocks, dude.

Audacious? Not at all. It's what we fight for and stand for. And it applies to everyone equally.

Excepting moslems when we’re getting’ all islamophobic™

 

[Sunni Man]

......................................................... ^^^^ Hollie, you really are quite the moronic windbag ..

 

[MJB12741]

LMAO! Bless you for all the laughs you give us while your people massacre each other & kill us infidels as well all over the world. How can we get more here like Sunnui Man?

No juden should leave home without one..........

 

[Hollie]

......................................................... ^^^^ Hollie, you really are quite the moronic windbag ..

And as usual, you creepy stalker, your obsession with me causes you to stalk me through multiple threads.

 

[Sunni Man]

......................................................... ^^^^ Hollie, you really are quite the moronic windbag ..

And as usual, you creepy stalker, your obsession with me causes you to stalk me through multiple threads.

................................................. ................................

 

[Hollie]

......................................................... ^^^^ Hollie, you really are quite the moronic windbag ..

And as usual, you creepy stalker, your obsession with me causes you to stalk me through multiple threads.

................................................. ................................

How freaky. You humiliate yourself and you continue to stalk me.

 

[Sunni Man]

And as usual, you creepy stalker, your obsession with me causes you to stalk me through multiple threads.

................................................. ................................

How freaky. You humiliate yourself and you continue to stalk me.

................................................ ..........................................

 

[Hollie]

................................................. ................................

How freaky. You humiliate yourself and you continue to stalk me.

................................................ ..........................................

It's as though you're suffering from a pathology of self-hate.

Maybe you should go and play in traffic.

 

[Sunni Man]

How freaky. You humiliate yourself and you continue to stalk me.

................................................ ..........................................

It's as though you're suffering from a pathology of self-hate.

Maybe you should go and play in traffic.

.................................. ............................

 

[Coyote]

I have nothing against Muslims - I have known some very nice ones. It's Islam that I intensly dislike. That's no more 'bigotry' than is my hatred of Communism and Naziism, two other mind-dominating cultures.

You can't exactly seperate Islam from Muslims and how they choose to live and interpret Islam varies considerably around the world. What you are doing is applying one vision of Islam on all and making a comparison of that to Naziism is highly inaccurate and comtemptable.

Anti-semitism is hatred of Jews. It is not contempt for Judaism and the Old Testament.

You can not seperate the person from the religion and anti-semitism draws from the religion - or, more accurately - distorted views of that religion in order to fire up hate. It's no different from islamophobia.

Both Naziism and Islam demand complete submission from their believers ('islam' means 'submission') who are forbidden to stray from the party line on pain of servere sanction. Neither Nazis or Muslims are permitted to think for themselves so the comparison is valid.

That's actually not true. All three Abrahamic faiths demand submission to God - it's there in both the OT and NT - submission. They can think for themselves to the extent they are willing to deviate from fundamentalist principles. Islam is no different.

Naziism is a political ideology based on fascism and racial superiority and eugenics.

Of course one can separate the person from religioned. I loved my Catholic mother but hated the Catholic religion.

Btw the way anti-semites hate non-religious Jews just as much as the religiously observant. It's Jews they hate, not Judaism.

Because they don't seperate one from the other - it's all the same.

Finally. You say that interpretations of Islam vary. True in a very limited sense; but all declare that every word of the koran is the word of god and is the ultimate truth, not subject to any form of interpretation.

Yet they do interpret it. And it's not simply the Koran they go by - it's the many Hadiths and those are open to interpretation and division.

 

[Hollie]

................................................ ..........................................

It's as though you're suffering from a pathology of self-hate.

Maybe you should go and play in traffic.

.................................. ............................

What a sad, diseased, pathetic stalker.

 

[Coyote]

Our mutual replying to broken up quotes is getting long and difficult to follow - I'm going to reply to some and leave out others

I see no objective source for your claim: “American Muslims demand no more rights and freedoms…” other than your subjective opinion. So, it seems that you have decided that you are the spokes-moslem for what Americans want / don’t want.

We are both presenting our subjective opinions here. If you now require an objective source - I can only say that the evidence is in the lack of evidence showing they are demanding any "special" rights or freedoms than are had by other religions in this country.

It is *you* who have decided I'm some kind of spokesman based upon you odd interpretation of my words. I have never claimed such a distinction nor would I.

The above was huge, colossal dodge. With regularity, you hope to employ the “but…. but….. but …. but…. but what about the Christians” in order to avoid addressing the all-consuming proscriptions of Islamism.

No, it's a statement of fact. I do not rely on emails or hate sites on the internet for information on any religion. Most of your words could be regurgitated from Pamela Gellar's Atlas Shrugged - the equivalent of emails.

The infidel should also be aware that there is no separation of mosque and state in Islam—every last detail of human experience and endeavor is administered under sharia law. This is why Moslems say that Islam is not just a religion, but ”a complete way of life”™.

Yet Western Muslims seem to see this differently.

That's what it is. How you go to the bathroom, make love to your spouse, punish those who transgress against God's will, give to charity (Islamic charity), go to war, eat, wash, borrow money, treat infidels—in short, anything you may do in the course of being alive—is strictly regulated by the sharia. Life for the Moslem is a complex series of bizarre rituals and habits that are commanded by God and His apostle. Islam is the obsessive-compulsive disorder of religions.

Again - you find the same "obsessive-compulsive" disorder in Judaism. So what? Like Jews, not all Muslims follow it to the nth degree.

Thus, Islam is distinguished from one its parents, Christianity, which actually does allow for genuine freedom and tolerance.

Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar's, and unto God the things which be God's.

True. Sort of. It allows for interpretation that could lead to genuine freedom and tolerance - if one chooses that interpretation because there is plenty in the bible that does not allow for it.

I suspect, based on the Islamic faith in the west - a similar interpretation can be found.

In contrast to the koran, sunnah, and sharia, there is no inherent conflict in the Gospels between living a devout life and living in equality and harmony under the rule of law alongside others who may believe differently. It should also be noted that nowhere in the New Testament are Christians enjoined to make war against non-Christians to establish the supremacy of the Christian faith. Christians who kill in Christ's name are acting against his teachings, while Muslims who kill in their God's name are dutifully following Muhammad's (swish) teachings (and example).

There is much in the OT to support killing non believers and Christians have yet to reject the OT in it's entirety.

You are also grossly simplifying the teachings of Islam - Muslims who kill in "Gods name" are not necessarily following Muhammad's teachings and example. It very much depends on the circumstances, the particular sects etc. Your statement shows an ignorance of theology and history.

That’s a rather poor attempt at excusing yet another act of Islamic terrorism.
But here again, why don’t you define for us what so many American moslems think.. as you feel a need to define what so many American moslems think.

Bringing up a poll on what American Muslims think is "excusing yet another act of Islamic terrorism"? Seriously?

Hollie, you are pathetic. Your words are little more than a regurgitation of Islamophobic rhetoric. You want "objective sources" but when provided with such demand "subjective" responses. You claim not to be "interested" in (what you think) is my religion but brought it up in the first place.

I think it's clear it's a waste of time to engage in discussion because discussion is not what you are interested in. Sunni Man has by far the best response - he's not one to waste words