Intolerance shows ignorance of Islam

Religion is probably the biggest divider in world history, but for those that believe in God it is central to our existence. Share your views.
Brown Street
Straw Weight
Straw Weight
Posts: 94
Joined: October 10th, 2006, 1:34 am
Location: NW Illinois

MUSLIM RAPE

Unread post by Brown Street » December 12th, 2006, 9:21 pm

From the Website:
http://kenlydell.typepad.com/islamic_ev ... index.html
see website for more



MUSLIM RAPE

"I got some comments, among others from Norwegian blogger Bjørn Stærk, to my posts about the Norwegian government covering up the number of rapes committed by immigrants. The Swedish government is probably even worse, but Sweden is in many ways collapsing. Although he agreed that the statistics should be published, he questioned whether these rapes have anything to do with Islam. It is true that mass rapes of "the enemy's women", in part to humiliate the enemy's men, is not unique to Islam. It has been done at times of war by the Vikings, the Mongols, the Germans and the Russians during WW2, and all the way up to the Balkans in the 1990s. That's also my point. The number of rapes committed by Muslim immigrants in Western nations are so extremely high that it is difficult to view them only as random acts of individuals. It resembles warfare. This happens in most Western European countries, as well as in other infidels countries such as India. In Bradford, England, Channel 4 pulled a documentary about Pakistani and other Muslim men sexually abusing white English girls, some as young as 11. Writer Theodore Dalrymple thinks that "thanks to their cultural inheritance, (Muslim) abuse of women is systematic rather than unsystematic as it is with the whites and blacks." In France, grotesque reports about systematic gang rapes of French or "too Western" Muslim girls keep coming in. At the same time, European jails are getting filled up with Muslims imprisoned for robberies and all kinds of violent crimes, and Muslims bomb European civilians. You can see the mainstream media are struggling to make sense of all of this. That's because they can't, or don't want to, see the obvious: This is exactly how an invading army would behave. Rape, pillage and bomb.


I disagree that this has nothing to do with Islam. Muhammad himself had forced sex (rape) with several of his slave girls/concubines. This is perfectly allowed, both in the sunna and in the Koran. If you postulate that many of the Muslims in Europe view themselves as a conquering army and that European women are simply war booty, it all makes perfect sense and is in full accordance with Islamic law. And Muslims do follow their medieval religious laws, even today:


Robert Spencer on rape and jihad 


What does rape, then, have to do with these religious conflicts? Unfortunately, everything. The Islamic legal manual ‘Umdat al-Salik, which carries the endorsement of Al-Azhar University, the most respected authority in Sunni Islam, stipulates: “When a child or a woman is taken captive, they become slaves by the fact of capture, and the woman’s previous marriage is immediately annulled.” Why? So that they are free to become the concubines of their captors. The Qur’an permits Muslim men to have intercourse with their wives and their slave girls: “Forbidden to you are ... married women, except those whom you own as slaves” (Sura 4:23-24).

After one successful battle, Muhammad tells his men, “Go and take any slave girl.” He took one for himself also. After the notorious massacre of the Jewish Qurayzah tribe, he did it again. According to his earliest biographer, Ibn Ishaq, Muhammad “went out to the market of Medina (which is still its market today) and dug trenches in it. Then he sent for [the men of Banu Qurayza] and struck off their heads in those trenches as they were brought out to him in batches.” After killing “600 or 700 in all, though some put the figure as high as 800 or 900,” the Prophet of Islam took one of the widows he had just made, Rayhana bint Amr, as another concubine.

Emerging victorious in another battle, according to a generally accepted Islamic tradition, Muhammad’s men present him with an ethical question: “We took women captives, and we wanted to do ‘azl [coitus interruptus] with them.” Muhammad told them: “It is better that you should not do it, for Allah has written whom He is going to create till the Day of Resurrection.’” When Muhammad says “it is better that you should not do it,” he’s referring to coitus interruptus, not to raping their captives. He takes that for granted.


Here's what Vice Director of Jihad Watch, Hugh Fitzgerald, whom I rate in league with Ali Sina and Ibn Warraq as among the best commentators of Islam in this age, has to say about the issue (scroll down):


'For her to be absolved from guilt, a raped woman must have shown good conduct'


For non-Muslim women, they are in every respect -- the way they walk, the way they talk, those bedroom eyes we all know so well -- simply asking for it, and Muslim men have every right to do what they wish.

It is not understood that Western women are not so much regarded by most Muslims as individuals, but as "their women," the women who "belong" to hostile Infidels. They are booty, to be taken, just as the land of the Infidels someday will drop, it is believed, into Muslim hands -- by demographic conquest rather than military conquest. It has worked in many parts of Africa; and if Muslims fail to reproduce even faster than they do, there is always the expedient of killing the remaining Infidels.

All over France there are cases of rapes, by MUslim gangs, of French girls. In Australia, in 2000, Bankstown and Greenacre (in Sydney) had a succession of gang-rapes, in which the victims testified to the particularly gruesome details of being assaulted by a dozen or more men at a time, screaming at them for being "Aussies" or "Christians." It made a big splash in Sydney, when the cases came to trial in 2002. Alan Jones, an Australian commentator, noted: "Let's not mince words here -- these are racist attacks against ordinary Australian girls carried out by out of control Muslim Lebanese...." The girls themselves all testified to the fact that the attacks were full of observations about, not race, but religion -- and the confusion of Jones here is understandable. The Western world is still groping to understand something of which it had been so remarkably and indeed, in some ways so fortunately unaware; it is the attitudes engendered toward Infidels -- a Frenchman who is beaten to death for trying to retrieve his daughter's stolen bicycle, a mother and her year-old-child assaulted on an RER train near Louvres, the thousands of assaults which are a modern version of the rape and pillage that Muslim conquerors were permitted whenever they conquered Infidel lands. This is not mere crime, but ideologically-justified crime or rather, in Muslim eyes, attacks on Infidels scarcely qualify as crime.

Have we forgotten the mass rapes, at the hands of Muslims (Turks, Kurds, and in the Syrian Desert, Arabs) of the Armenian women, those helpless "giavours," in the first full-scale massacres in modern times, those of 1894-1895, and then the genocidal campaign that began in 1915 and went on for years? Have we all forgotten what happened to the Assyrian Christian women during the Assyrian massacres of 1933, when -- just a few months after the British left -- Muslim Iraqis had a high old time with their helpless Christian population? What about the rapes of the Christian women, kidnapped in Ramadi, Iraq last year -- never to be returned to their husbands, and now the permanent property of the Muslims who kidnapped them? Shall one recall what happened to the Christian Maronites in Damur, at the hands of the PLO? What about the Copts, in Egypt? Or, during the Algerian War the mass rape of Christian and Jewish women by the FLN (scarcely given enough attention in Alastair Horne's reticent "A Savage War of Peace" but given much more by such writers as Jacques Soustelle, the great ethnographer of Mexican culture, and a perceptive analyst of the Algerian situation and the real nature of Islam -- akin, in his way, to Andre Servier).

The figures on Muslim rape of Western women in Europe are astounding. In Denmark and Norway, between 65% and 70% of all rapes are committed by Muslims, who as yet still less than 5% of the population. One local judge in Norway actually exonerated one rapist by accepting his defense that the victim's dress was taken by him to mean that she was egging him on. Her dress was nothing special to Norwegians, but the judge found it to be unbearably provocative to this poor Muslim immigrant. A curious argument, is it not? Even if she had been dressed a la Gisele Bundchen doing a shoot for Victoria's Secret -- and she of course was not -- rape is not an acceptable response.

The argument now seems to be: Western mores are offensive. Western women are cheap and offensive. We Muslims are here, here to stay, and we have a right to take advantage of this situation. It is our view of the matter that should prevail. Western goods, like the land on which we now live, belong to Allah and to the best of men -- his Believers. Western women, too, essentially belong to us -- our future booty. Western laws may "apply" but not in any sense that really counts or that we reocgnize. We recognize Islamic law, the sharia, and according to that we are simply exhibiting the attiudes toward Infidels that are drummed into us, that are right and according to the laws of Allah. Why should we act differently? Oh, and if we happen to act, as some of the Islamic websites tell us we can act, in accordance with the local laws -- but only insofar as they do not contradict Islam -- that is only because of darura, the doctrine of necessity -- and that necessity, that darura, is of course only temporary.

In other words, when in Rome, if you are Muslim, do any damn thing you please and justify it by saying you didn't realize you were in Rome, or what the Romans did, and anyway, the Romans are Infidels so who cares what they do, or expect. A fascinating attitude. The sooner this is fully grasped by Infidels, the fewer victims, ultimately, there will be."

It appears that the sexuality of many Muslim men resembles that of pigs, monkies and dogs more than that of civilized males. I may be being unkind to dogs in saying so. Dogs do not shout "Allahu Akhbar" while humping your leg.


A female family member who has been raped is a candidate for Muslim "honor" killing. Her continued existence is a living advertisement for her family's shame. That practice will be dealt with at length in the section devoted to "honor" killing. But what is the fate of a Muslim woman who violently resists being raped by Muslim males? Death, of course. The following story from Iran makes that clear. It is excerpted from the Web page of Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Sexually mutilated as a young girl in Somalia she is now a Dutch parliamentarian who is protected by armed bodyguards because of threats to her life by other Muslims.


Source: www.faithfreedom.org


"Iran : A 17 year old girl is sentenced to death by hanging.


Amnesty International calls for end to death penalty for child offenders.
Thank you Amnesty International and thanks to all the friends who wrote to Amnesty International. Please keep writing to the Office of High Commissioner of Human Rights: tb-petitions@ohchr.org


Although AI calls Nazanin a "child offender", Nazanin is guilty of no offense. Self defense cannot be considered offense.


Nazanin, 17,  was sentenced to death by hanging for defending herself against three rapists.


A young girl who defended herself and her chastity against three male assailants who intended to kidnap and rape her causing injury to one of them who later died in hospital was condemned to death by hanging in an Islamic court in Iran. Nazanin who has seen no more than 17 Springs, all of which under the tyrannical rule of the Mullahs is now facing execution for trying to defend herself and her honor.


No where in the world and under no law self defense is considered to be a crime, but in the tyrannical mullacracy of Iran if a woman does not resist rape she will be stoned as adulterer and if she does she will be hanged.


Nazanin, this young innocent girl, was assaulted by three criminal men in the West of Tehran while strolling with her niece in a park last March (2005). To defend herself she pulled out a knife and stabbed one of her assailants. The knife penetrated the ribs of her attacker who later died in the hospital. The attacks on women in Iran is so frequent that many are forced to carry a concealed weapon for self defense. Unfortunately the Islamic law does not even allow women that right.


Despite the fact that she had been acting in self defense, as shown by the evidences presented and the testimony of eyewitnesses, Nazanin was sentenced to death by hanging. In the last court hearing she repeatedly said “I only defended myself and the honor of my family”. Her words fell of deaf ears and the all male jury who like their misogynist prophet thought it is outrageous for a woman to stand for her rights and defend her dignity and honor, swiftly ordered her execution.


The travesty of justice in Islamic Republic of Iran is beyond description. Please send this news to all the newspapers big and small. Please do not allow this crime go unnoticed. This girl is an innocent flower in the hands of ferocious beasts. Do not allow them to nip her young life in the bud. Let us together provoke an outcry so loud that the ruling thugs in Iran can’t ignore."


Nazanin was hanged by her neck until dead. Her death scene very likely resembled that of another public hanging of an Iranian woman shown in the photographs below. The victim resembles a crude rag doll. Women are little more than that in the evil domain of Islam.

Brown Street
Straw Weight
Straw Weight
Posts: 94
Joined: October 10th, 2006, 1:34 am
Location: NW Illinois

MUSLIM SLAVERY

Unread post by Brown Street » December 12th, 2006, 9:25 pm

From the Website:
http://kenlydell.typepad.com/islamic_ev ... index.html
see website for more

MUSLIM SLAVERY
Slavery is acknowledged and regulated by Islamic law. Islamic rules governing the treatment of slaves are more lenient than those that once prevailed in the Roman and Byzantine empires. Furthermore, Muhammed, a slave owner and slave trader, encouraged his followers to treat their slaves well.


Apologists for Muslim slavery attempt to make the case that Islam is, in fact, opposed to slavery and that the traditional institution of Muslim slavery was humane. However, Muslims like those of other faiths, often ignore those elements of their religion they find inconvenient. There is as a consequence an enormous gulf between the theory and practice of Muslim slavery. Apologists take refuge in theory while critics rely on facts and the facts about Muslim slavery are truly horrible.


A general overview of the Muslim enslavement of black Africans can be found here. It deals not only with the Muslim slave trade in Africa but the European slave trade as well.


Muslim and Arab Turks have always been partial to European slaves and value them more than black slaves. European slaves were acquired through conquest, raids and piracy. As many as a million Christians were enslaved through piracy alone during the 1,200 or so years that Muslims preyed on merchant ships in the Mediterranean Sea and Atlantic Ocean. Muslims in one raid on Iceland took 800 slaves while Muslim pirates ranged as far as Newfoundland. Nearly the entire population of the village of Baltimore in Ireland was enslaved during a Muslim raid in 1631 and other Muslim slave raids were launched against coastal villages in Devon and Cornwall. Many more Christians were enslaved through raids and military conquest. An article about Britains enslaved by Muslim raiders can be found here.


To this enormous number we must add countless Hindus, Sikhs and Buddhists enslaved during the Muslim rape of India. In the end the European and American slave trades are dwarfed by that of the Muslim world.


British and French colonialism ultimately put an end to slavery in much of Africa by seizing and controlling territory and interdicting the trade at sea. America and European powers finally put an end to Muslim piracy in the 19th century. External political, economic and military pressure, largely British, over time forced Muslim nations to ban slavery. Saudi Arabia and Yemen banned it in 1962 while Mauritania has banned it three times, the last one being in 1980. However, the covert practice of slavery continues in Saudi Arabia to this day. Some Saudis living in America have also practiced slavery on American soil.


While Islamic scripture may encourage the good treatment of slaves this guidance has been generally ignored by Muslims. The truth of the matter can be found in the written testimony of those who have been the slaves of Muslims or observed how Muslims treated slaves. There is no shortage of this material. Two reviews of books that touch on the matter can be found here. An excellent article on the subject can be found at The American Thinker.


Winston Churchill in 1899 described what is most deplorable about Islam more concisely than anyone who has written on the subject since.

"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity.


The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities – but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.”


-Sir Winston Churchill (The River War, first edition, Vol. II, pages248-50 (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1899).


An article written by a Muslim published in the Bangladeshi newspaper Daily Star provides an enlightened perspective on Muslim slavery past and present. Civilized voices can be found in the Muslim world and this is one of them.


Ask-Imam.com answers the question of whether Muslims can have sex with slave girls today. Today's Muslim slavers and slave owners ignore the Islamic formalities described. Practice in no way resembles theory.

Brown Street
Straw Weight
Straw Weight
Posts: 94
Joined: October 10th, 2006, 1:34 am
Location: NW Illinois

Questions for Siddiqi

Unread post by Brown Street » December 13th, 2006, 10:35 pm

Mr. Siddiqi,
You have made the accusation that the things I have posted previously concerning historical actions of Moslems are "nonsense" and "lies." I posted several items yesterday that speak of actions by Moslems, both historical and contemporary, that are, indeed, in the least, suspect, and at the worst, horrible. One of the postings that I made noted that Moslem apologists tend to "take refuge in theory" when the facts are quite something else. I would like to ask you some questions concerning these postings, to better understand youir outlook, and see if you, too, retreat solely to the area of "theory", or can look truthfully at historical and contemporary occurrences in the Moslem world. The answers to these questions should also clear many things up for anyone else interested in this site.

1. Is there or is there not a conference in Teheran that seeks to "question the authenticity of the Holocaust," that is, the murder of 6,000,000 Jews by the Nazi regime during World War II?

2. Do you yourself believe that the Holocaust actually took place?

3. Are there or are there not delegates to this conference, such as the KKK associated David Duke, who spread racist propaganda, such as that blacks are an "inferior race"?

4. Do you or do you not agree with the invitation of those holding such beliefs to this conference?

5. While the Koran may, as you insist, allow "no compulsion in matters of religion," do you agree that there have been instances of exactly that in Moslem history, as well as persecutions of Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Bahais, Zoroastrians, animists, etc.?

6. Do you acknowledge that the Moslem institution of "Dhimmitude" in some Islamic countries has resulted in the persecution and relegation of those who practice religions other than Islam to the status of second class citizens?

7. Do you agree or not that the instructions concerning sex with children and animals appeared in the writings of the Ayatollah Khomeini?

8. Are you familiar with any or all of the writings of the Ayatollah Khomeini?

9. Do you acknowledge the Moslem practice of "Honor Killing"?

10. Do you agree with this practice, that is, is it justified in any circumstance?

11. Do you agree with the practices concerning women and girls who have been raped in some Moslem countries-such as Saudi Arabia and Iran-that is, that these victims should be charged with a crime and subsequently executed?

12. Do you agree that women are treated extremely badly in some Moslem countries, especially in light of the information about rape in the preceeding question?

13. Do you agree that, in the past, Moslems have engaged in the slave trade and held slaves themselves?

14. Do you agree that some Moslem countries did not outlaw slavery until the late 20th century?

15. Do you agree that slavery is still practiced today in some Moslem countries?

16. Do you see any justification whatsoever for the current practice of Moslems holding slaves (if, indeed, you agree this does happen)?

I think a lot of things can be cleared up if you can possibly answer these questions. Thank you for your time, if you decide to answer the questions.

Brown Street
Straw Weight
Straw Weight
Posts: 94
Joined: October 10th, 2006, 1:34 am
Location: NW Illinois

one more . . .

Unread post by Brown Street » December 13th, 2006, 11:54 pm

one more thing I wanted to ask . . .

Christianity (and I presumne ALL religions other than Islam) is outlawed in Saudi Arabia; do you feel the Saudis have the right to do that?

If so, would the Unites States have the right to outlaw Islam?

Tacomahilltop
Straw Weight
Straw Weight
Posts: 63
Joined: February 14th, 2005, 5:49 am

okok

Unread post by Tacomahilltop » December 14th, 2006, 3:46 am

ok ok some ppl here are saying some annoying things "muslim boys will be muslim boys" i know you didnt say that. Thats offensive, just becuase ppl are allowed to doesnt mean they do. you think all muslims are getting married with 9 yr old girls thats the past nobody does that anymore and ive read that the crusaders when pillaging towns they raped little boys when they couldnt find girls now please explain. now the slavery part i couldnt even be bothered to read its probably about how 1000 years ago we took some africans and made then slaves if im not wrong america had slaves just 100 years ago or so and dont try tpo say arab americans did then to cuz there were none in america then and im ready to bet that if the slave traders had made it to the arab gulf they would have made us their slaves too!! now about the thing in tehran yes thats offensive and yes its truthfully a bunch of shit of course it happened this conference is beeing held by the biggest anti jew in the world what do you excpect.

frozen fire
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 615
Joined: November 4th, 2006, 4:44 am

Unread post by frozen fire » December 14th, 2006, 6:17 am

First, it is important to know that thousands of years ago life was different than today. Today, people wouldn't accept slavery for any reason. The reason for this is because people are a lot more independent both financially, education wise, mentally, etc... But people back then were different. When a tribe or a group of people lose a major battle and their money is mostly, if not all, is taken as war booty by the other side, then people could and would accept being slaves for the following reasons:

- Both financial and social security. When their country or tribe lost the war, they also lost most or all of their money as war booty. Being out of money and food, it becomes necessary for an individual to find the means for basic survival in life. Living as a slave would provide this.

2- Protection from hostile individuals. Even under the Islamic rule, you can still find hostile individuals who violate the Law and take matters into their own hands. An enemy family can be sometime in danger if they don't have a "protector".

3- Widows, Orphans, and the extremely poor of the enemy side need the financial and social protection from a Master. Back then, there were no governments with good social system that protects everyone. Slavery back then was that social system in special cases.

There are probably more points I can add, but I think these are sufficient enough. Let us now see the Islamic System toward Slaves:

Yes slaves were taken from the blood-thirsty and hostile enemies, but they were also given the right to get their freedom when ever they want. The Noble Quran not only allows slaves to request their freedom from their Muslim masters, but also orders the Muslim masters to pay the slaves money to help them stand on their feet and to be able to face life with a good jump start.


Let us look at Noble Verse 24:33 "Let those who find not the wherewithal for marriage keep themselves chaste, until God gives them means out of His grace. And if any of your slaves ask for a deed in writing (to enable them to earn their freedom for a certain sum), give them such a deed if ye know any good in them: yea, give them something yourselves out of the means which God has given to you. But force not your maids to prostitution when they desire chastity, in order that ye may make a gain in the goods of this life. But if anyone compels them, yet, after such compulsion, is God, Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful (to them)," In this Noble Verse, we see that if a slave requests his freedom from his Muslim master, then his master not only must help him earn his freedom if there is good in the Slave, but also pay him money so the slave can have a good start in his free life.

"The law of slavery in the legal sense of the term is now obsolete. While it had any meaning, Islam made the slave's lot as easy as possible. A slave, male or female, could ask for conditional manumission by a written deed fixing the amount required for manumission and allowing the slave meanwhile to earn money by lawful means and perhaps marry and bring up a family. Such a deed was not to be refused if the request was genuine and the slave had character. Not only that, but the master is directed to help with money out of his own resources in order to enable the slave to earn his or her own liberty." [3]

Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him said:

Narrated Abu Musa Al-Ash'ari: "The Prophet said, "Give food to the hungry, pay a visit to the sick and release (set free) the one in captivity (by paying his ransom)."
The Bottom line is:

The bottom line is that in order for the Muslims to remain as a purified and GOD Almighty-fearing and obeying society, one of the requirements that they had to accomplish was to gradually and completely eliminate slavery - the same slavery that was at its peak during the Jews', Christians' and Pagans' times.
you can neither beat your slave

frozen fire
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 615
Joined: November 4th, 2006, 4:44 am

Unread post by frozen fire » December 14th, 2006, 6:23 am

Prophet Muhammad divided the food between the slaves and the free:

Let us look at the following narration:

Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu'minin: "The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) was brought a pouch containing bread and divided it among free women and slave women. Aisha said: My father used to divide things between free men and slave. (Translation of Sunan Abu-Dawud, Tribute, Spoils, and Rulership (Kitab Al-Kharaj, Wal-Fai' Wal-Imarah), Book 19, Number 2946)"

As we clearly see from this saying, our beloved Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him did honor slaves and their human dignity and value. Islam is a religion that honors humans. If it wasn't for the Judeo-Christian and Pagan slavery that was brutally practiced in the Middle East, then Islam would not have dealt at all with slavery.

Islam is a religion that did not come to enslave people, but to free slaves!

Let us look at Leviticus 25:44-46 "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly."

What kind of a human value does the Bible give to slaves? If slaves and their children must be inherited and passed down to newer generations as slaves, then how in the world will they ever gain their freedom?? Does the Bible believe in Freedom? Does the Bible believe in liberating human beings from slavery? Apparently it does not !!!.

Matthew 10:24 "A student is not greater than the teacher. A slave is not greater than the master."

Let us look at 1 Peter 2:18 "Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh."

Let us look at Colossians 3:22 "Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord."

Sentenza
Super Heavy Weight
Super Heavy Weight
Posts: 6525
Joined: January 17th, 2005, 10:48 am
Country: Germany
If in the United States: American Samoa
What city do you live in now?: WestBerlin
Location: Overseas

Unread post by Sentenza » December 14th, 2006, 6:24 am

Not that i want to interrupt this discussion, but i would like to throw my 2 cents in on the islam issue (i try to keep it short):

Yes, Islam these days is a vehicle, that certain groups (Taliban, Hizb'Allah etc.)use as legitimation for violence and war.
And yes, todays Islam is moving in a very conservative and radical direction.
But the reason for this does not lie within Islam itself but in the political constellation of the Islamic world.
In the 19th century until the beginning to the 20th century, there have been serious discussions in the islamic about why, the islamic world is politically inferior to Europeans superpowers of that time. England and France ran amok in the islamic world as it pleased them and the islamic world had nothing to set against that.
There were two major groups, who offered two different solutions (unfortunately i forgot the names of those). One claimed, that Islam has to liberalize and modernize itself in order to reform islamic countries in order to bring Islam back to its past glory it had in the "golden muslim age".
The other one was claiming, that the Muslim world fell away from the original pure belief and the inferiority of Islam is a punishment by god, owed to lack of belief and heresy in the islamic world. In order to regain strength people have to belief more and Allah will reward them.
The conservative fraction prevailed and thus the islamic version of modernization was understood as having to go back to the roots in order to prevail in the modern world. --->if your country is occupied by a foreign superpower it is because you have a lack of belief and you have to become more radical.
That was the foundation on which groups like the Wahhabits and the Deobandi school in northern India developed their philosophy.
If you know about them, you will know, that they are amongst the most radical and conservative islamic movements of all time.
Due to this fact, and the fact, that even though the english and french withdrew from that region, only to be replaced by other superpowers like the Soviet Union and the USA, who indirectly colonized the Islamic world again you can observe strong reactionary reflexes in those countries.
Since the political situation is desastrous in all of these countries, people try to find their salvation in hardcore islam,
because the promised democracy turned out to be a nightmare for them, cause in the language of the contemporary superpowers democracy means having a dictator in power who serves the purposes of e.g. the USA. Saddam, Mubarak, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, Najibullah (who was installed by the SU) etc. the list goes on.
This made millions of people turn their back to democracy and made them join forces with radical islamic forces, because they are the only ones that seem to not join forces with the corrupt elite and the foreign powers.
They seem to be the only ones that do not "sell out".
Example: The Afghans strongly supported the Taliban against the Soviets
because they hoped they d improve the situation in Afghanistan (until they found out that this was not the case).
The Palestinians support Hizb'Allah and Hamas, because who else is there that is standing for them? The USA? Europe? No, not even the other islamc countries.

I mean lets be honest, Europe and the US have not brought many good things to the middle east.

To come to the point, i think that the radicalisation of islam is owed to the bad political and economical situation in the middle east, which is caused by many factors, but the interference of Europe and the US is one of the biggest of them.

Islam would need a reformation, like Europe went through in the 16th century, but that will only happen when you leave the islamic world to itself solving their problems for themselves. Without the US interfering and wothout Europe interfering, because all we do is fucking the region up and make things worse.
Right now the extremists are considered martyrs, heros and freedom fighters. But let them into power and people will quickly realize that with empty phrases you cant feed people and solve political everyday problems. All in all i think Islam is a very respectable religion and has potential to turn the region into a prospering place.

Peace

frozen fire
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 615
Joined: November 4th, 2006, 4:44 am

Unread post by frozen fire » December 14th, 2006, 6:24 am

In 1457, the Council of Cardinals met in Holland where they sanctioned, as a righteous and progressive idea, the enslavement of Africans for the purpose of their conversion to Christianity and exploitation in the labor market as chattel property. This satanic scheme speedily gained the sanctimonious blessing of the Pharaoh (Pope) and became a standard policy of the Catholic Church, and later of the Protestant churches, enduring for three centuries: thus the ghastly traffic in human misery was anointed with the oil of pontifical righteousness in Jesus' name.

A bull of Pharaoh Nicholas 5th instructed his followers to `attack, subject, and reduce to perpetual slavery the Saracens, Pagans and other enemies of Christ, southward from Cape Bojador and including all the coast of Guinea'.

In fact, most of the Africans who were caught up in the Atlantic slave trade came from West Africa, an area roughly from Senegal River in the north to the Congo River in the South.

But why were West Africans specifically targeted ? Because they were Muslim.
We also find that during the Scramble for Africa / colonization of Africa, two countries were totally unaffected - Liberia and Ethiopia. In fact Ethiopia doubled the size of its empire during European colonization. Why ? They were CHRISTIAN countries!

Sentenza
Super Heavy Weight
Super Heavy Weight
Posts: 6525
Joined: January 17th, 2005, 10:48 am
Country: Germany
If in the United States: American Samoa
What city do you live in now?: WestBerlin
Location: Overseas

Unread post by Sentenza » December 14th, 2006, 6:31 am

frozen fire wrote: In fact, most of the Africans who were caught up in the Atlantic slave trade came from West Africa, an area roughly from Senegal River in the north to the Congo River in the South.

But why were West Africans specifically targeted ? Because they were Muslim.
We also find that during the Scramble for Africa / colonization of Africa, two countries were totally unaffected - Liberia and Ethiopia. In fact Ethiopia doubled the size of its empire during European colonization. Why ? They were CHRISTIAN countries!
I have to disagree with you here. Liberia was founded sometime in the 19th century, and became christian at first at that time.
And i think Ethiopia was already in the hands of the Arab slave trade.
The arabs controlled the whole east coast of africa. Did you know that Zanzibar meant "Island of the black slaves" in arabic. Matter of fact, 60% of the words in Kiswahili are of arabian origin i heard.
I think the west coast of africa was targeted the most by slave traders, because it was technically too difficult to travel further into the african continent. The west coast of africa was easier to reach for european slave traders.

frozen fire
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 615
Joined: November 4th, 2006, 4:44 am

Unread post by frozen fire » December 14th, 2006, 6:57 am

RAPE

Christians follow the laws of the Bible only. All of their religious sources, laws and verdicts come straight from the Bible (if we were to have true Christian countries where Church would rule over the State), except for Roman Catholics where they have other Volumes written by Church Fathers and Popes. But most Christians in the world have no religious resources other than the Bible.

Therefore, let us look at what the Bible says regarding this issue:

Rape is a big crime that could actually take the woman's or the victim's life away. Let us examine how Christianity deals with the rapist: "If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives. (From the NIV Bible, Deuteronomy 22:28)" Although this Verse from the Bible only talks about virgins, but its the only verse in the entire Bible that talks about raping single women. Not to be biased or anything, but the Bible seems to have quite weird things in it that are quite irrational and quite ridiculous. Deuteronomy 22:28 forces the raped woman to marry her rapist. My question to the writers of the Bible is why in the world would any raped female victim want to be in the same town, not the same bedroom !! with her rapist?.

Also, the Bible seems to promote raping of single women: "But if out in the country a man happens to meet a girl pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. (From the NIV Bible, Deuteronomy 22:25)" This is quite an interesting verse. We see in Deuteronomy 22:28 that if a man rapes a single woman then she will be forced to be his wife, while if a man rapes a married woman or a woman who is spoken for, in Deuteronomy 22:25, then he shall be put to death. There is absolutely no punishment for the rapist of a single woman in the Bible. For those Christians who think that they don't have to follow the Old Testament, well my answer to them is this: The Old Testament prohibits for the brother to marry his sister, or for the son to marry his mother. The New Testament doesn't even talk about it. Does that mean that a Christian brother can marry his sister? or a Christian son can marry his mother? Jesus himself anyway ordered his followers to follow the Old Testament, so their argument is totally invalid.

Question to Jews and Christians: How is the Bible supposed to prevent some loser from stalking the most beautiful single woman in town, rape her, and then sue her in court to become his wife so he can continue raping her for the rest of her life?!


When a woman went out in the time of the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) for prayer, a man attacked her and overpowered (raped) her. She shouted and he went off, and when a man came by, she said: That (man) did such and such to me. And when a company of the Emigrants came by, she said: That man did such and such to me. They went and seized the man whom they thought had had intercourse with her and brought him to her.

She said: Yes, this is he. Then they brought him to the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him). When he (the Prophet) was about to pass sentence, the man who (actually) had assaulted her stood up and said: Apostle of Allah, I am the man who did it to her.

He (the Prophet) said to the woman: Go away, for Allah has forgiven you. And about the man who had intercourse with her, he said: Stone him to death.

He also said: He has repented to such an extent that if the people of Medina had repented similarly, it would have been accepted from them. (Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 38, Number 4366)"

AUGUST 21 2001

In the capital Riyadh, Saudi citizen Dowaihi bin Mohammed al-Qahtani was executed after he was convicted of armed robbery and kidnapping and raping boys, the ministry said in a statement carried by the official Saudi Press Agency.

Saudi Arabia follows a strict interpretation of Islam that demands the death penalty for murder, rape, drug trafficking and armed robbery."


THE UNITED STATES AMERICA is supposed to be one of the most advanced country in the world, it is also has the highest rates of rape in the world. according to the FBI report in 1990, EVERYDAY on the average 1756 cases of RAPE in the u.s.a alone. it later on moved upto an average of 1900 cases of rape aday.

frozen fire
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 615
Joined: November 4th, 2006, 4:44 am

Unread post by frozen fire » December 14th, 2006, 7:15 am

Little wonder why we hear from the media about Priests that are in involved with Pedophilic acts. However, from where these Priests inspire to do such acts? The answer is that they inspire from Bible. Actually, Pedophilia was born from this book of perversion. Let us see some passages that clearly support Pedophilia and Rape of preteen girls

Numbers 31: 17-18

17. Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

18. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.



The Jewish soldiers were commanded by “God” in the bible to keep the woman children (little girls) for themselves! In addition, they commanded to kill every woman that hath know a man by lying with him. How these soldiers in those days know if the girls are virgin or not? Simply they verify it by raping them and if the Jews discovered that they are non-virgins then they kill them as they commanded by “God”.



25. And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,

26. Take the sum of the prey that was taken, both of man and of beast, thou, and Eleazar the priest, and the chief fathers of the congregation:

27. And divide the prey into two parts; between them that took the war upon them, who went out to battle, and between all the congregation:

28. And levy a tribute unto the LORD of the men of war which went out to battle: one soul of five hundred, both of the persons,(including the little girls) and of the beeves, and of the asses, and of the sheep:

29. Take it of their half, and give it unto Eleazar the priest, for an heave offering of the LORD.

30. And of the children of Israel's half, thou shalt take one portion of fifty, of the persons(including the little girls), of the beeves, of the asses, and of the flocks, of all manner of beasts, and give them unto the Levites, which keep the charge of the tabernacle of the LORD.

31. And Moses and Eleazar the priest did as the LORD commanded Moses.

32. And the booty, being the rest of the prey which the men of war had caught, was six hundred thousand and seventy thousand and five thousand sheep,

33. And threescore and twelve thousand beeves,

34. And threescore and one thousand asses,

35. And thirty and two thousand persons in all, of women that had not known man by lying with him.

36. And the half, which was the portion of them that went out to war, was in number three hundred thousand and seven and thirty thousand and five hundred sheep:

37. And the LORD'S tribute of the sheep was six hundred and threescore and fifteen.

38. And the beeves were thirty and six thousand; of which the LORD'S tribute was threescore and twelve.

39. And the asses were thirty thousand and five hundred; of which the LORD'S tribute was threescore and one.

40. And the persons(including little girls) were sixteen thousand; of which the LORD'S tribute was thirty and two persons.(preteen girls)

In the verse 35 we are told that Jews caught as booty 32.000 preteen girls for themselves.
So when we hear from the media, Priests(Christians and Jews-majority of Christians) that rape and molest young preteen boys and girls, we must not be surprised because these are the teachings from their “Holy Book” the Bible, as clearly demonstrated from the Verses : Numbers 31: 25-40.


- The Pedophilic Verses against 3-year old girls:

While Christians are not obligated to follow the laws of the Talmud in their social lives, but the historical FACTS that exist in the Talmud about the Biblical verses Numbers 31:17-18 and Numbers 31:35-40 below, and how the "BIBLE FOLLOWERS" during those days were mostly pedophiles who literally forced sex on 3-year old girls after Moses' supposed 'Divine' order is clear indication that the Bible condones pedophilia


Also, in Exodus 21:7-11 as further elaborated on below, girls were sold off as slave girls by their own fathers to other men

Exodus 21:7-11
7. "If a man sells his daughter as a female slave, she is not to go free as the male slaves do.
8. "If she is displeasing in the eyes of her master who designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He does not have authority to sell her to a foreign people because of his unfairness to her.
9. "If he designates her for his son [Note: "his son" means that the master is either her father's age or even much older!], he shall deal with her according to the custom of daughters.
10. "If he takes to himself another woman, he may not reduce her food, her clothing, or her conjugal rights.
11. "If he will not do these three things for her, then she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money.

First of all, did the daughter have any choice to be sold off by her father, married off by her master to either himself or his son? No!

Also, the fact that the master can either marry her or marry her off to his son, means that MOST LIKELY, SHE IS HIS DAUGHTER'S AGE and younger than his son!! So he's probably at least 30+ years older than her. Yet, he himself (her father's age or even MUCH older) can marry her.

frozen fire
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 615
Joined: November 4th, 2006, 4:44 am

Unread post by frozen fire » December 14th, 2006, 7:19 am

1- Homosexuality is forbidden in the Noble Quran:

Let us read the following Noble Verses from the Noble Quran:

Noble Verses 26:165-166, 27:55, 29:28-29 were sent to me by brother Bassam Zawadi, may Allah Almighty always be pleased with him:

"Of all the creatures in the world, will ye approach males, "And leave those whom God has created for you to be your mates? Nay, ye are a people transgressing (all limits)!" (The Noble Quran, 26:165-166)"

"Would ye really approach men in your lusts rather than women? Nay, ye are a people (grossly) ignorant! (The Noble Quran, 27:55)"

"And (remember) Lut: behold, he said to his people: "Ye do commit lewdness, such as no people in Creation (ever) committed before you. "Do ye indeed approach men, and cut off the highway?- and practise wickedness (even) in your councils?" But his people gave no answer but this: they said: "Bring us the Wrath of God if thou tellest the truth." (The Noble Quran, 29:28-29)"




Also, Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, said:

'Abd al-Rahman, the son of Abu Sa'id al-Khudri, reported from his father: The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: "A man should not see the private parts of another man, and a woman should not see the private parts of another woman, and a man should not lie with another man under one covering, and a woman should not lie with another woman under one covering. (Translation of Sahih Muslim, The Book of Menstruation (Kitab Al-Haid), Book 003, Number 0667)"


This Hadith (Saying of the Prophet) is clearly saying:

1- A man can not see another man's private parts (butt and groin).

2- A woman also can not see another woman's private parts, including breasts except perhaps during the time of suckling a baby.

3- A man can not sleep with another stranger man in the same room.

4- A woman can not sleep with another stranger woman in the same room.

Note: Even bringing suspicion of being a homosexual, fornicator, adulterer or adulterous against yourself is forbidden in Islam.

"If two men among you are guilty of lewdness, punish them both. If they repent and amend, Leave them alone; for God is Oft-returning, Most Merciful. (The Noble Quran, 4:16)" The punishment is 100 stripes. See proof.

"We also (sent) Lut: He said to his people: "Do ye commit lewdness such as no people in creation (ever) committed before you? (The Noble Quran, 7:80)"

"For ye practise your lusts on men in preference to women: Ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds. (The Noble Quran, 7:81)"

"(We also sent) Lut (as an apostle): behold, He said to his people, "Do ye do what is shameful though ye see (its iniquity)? (The Noble Quran, 27:54)"

"Would ye really approach men in your lusts rather than women? Nay, ye are a people (grossly) ignorant! (The Noble Quran, 27:55)"

Homosexual marriage being allowed in Islam is nothing but a false claim that has absolutely no truth in it.

frozen fire
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 615
Joined: November 4th, 2006, 4:44 am

Unread post by frozen fire » December 14th, 2006, 7:25 am

Let me begin with a quote from a fatwa by the late and unlamented Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran.
If there is no such saying or belief in the HOLY QURAN AND THE SUNNAH OF THE HOLY PROPHET.
THEN IT IS NOT IN ISLAM!

furthermore please do not call ISLAM Muhammaden or Muhammadism, it is a wrong title the non-muslims have been using for quite some time now.

peace out!

frozen fire
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 615
Joined: November 4th, 2006, 4:44 am

Unread post by frozen fire » December 14th, 2006, 7:35 am

In 316 AD, a Christian philosopher from Tyre, Meropius, embarked on a voyage of exploration along the coast of Africa. He was accompanied by, among others, two Syro-Greeks, Frumentius and his brother Aedesius. The vessel was stranded on the coast, and the natives killed all the travelers excepte the two brothers, who were taken to the court and given positions of trust by the monarch. They both practiced the Christian faith in private, and soon converted the queen and several other members of the royal court. Upon the king's death, Frumentius was appointed regent of the realm by the queen, and instructor of her young son, Prince Ezana. A few years later, upon Ezana's coming of age, Aedesius and Frumentius left the kingdom, the former returning to Tyre where he was ordained, and the latter journeying to Alexandria. Here, he consulted Athanasius, who ordained him and appointed him Bishop of Axum. He returned to the court and baptized the King Ezana, together with many of his subjects, and in short order Christianity was proclaimed the official state religion.[8] For this accomplishment, he received the title "Abba Selama" ("Father of peace").

in short order Christianity was proclaimed the official state religion.

User avatar
Mahmoud Siddiqi
Straw Weight
Straw Weight
Posts: 74
Joined: June 20th, 2006, 10:38 am

Re: Questions for Siddiqi

Unread post by Mahmoud Siddiqi » December 14th, 2006, 12:26 pm

As Salam Alaikum,

I will answer all the questions I am able to, but I want to tell you that you are making a couple mistakes with your "research". One of them is that your referring to everybody's works except the ones that matter, and you haven't referred to the Qur'an or sunnah once, which are the only sources that matter or hold any value. The second one is that you are judging and basing Islam (as a doctrine) on the actions and words of Muslims instead of referring the doctrine itself. This is a mistake for many reasons, most notably that Muslims are not perfect and make many mistakes, even if they are following the Qur'an and sunnah. This is because of te Muslim's ownself. When studying something, you do not go everywhere to find answers except the subject of your study. Ally ou will get is misconceptions and lies.
Brown Street wrote: 1. Is there or is there not a conference in Teheran that seeks to "question the authenticity of the Holocaust," that is, the murder of 6,000,000 Jews by the Nazi regime during World War II?
I believe so.
Brown Street wrote:2. Do you yourself believe that the Holocaust actually took place?
Yes, it is a proven historical fact.

Brown Street wrote:5. While the Koran may, as you insist, allow "no compulsion in matters of religion," do you agree that there have been instances of exactly that in Moslem history, as well as persecutions of Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Bahais, Zoroastrians, animists, etc.?
Yes, carried out by people claiming to be following Islam, but not.

Brown Street wrote:7. Do you agree or not that the instructions concerning sex with children and animals appeared in the writings of the Ayatollah Khomeini?

8. Are you familiar with any or all of the writings of the Ayatollah Khomeini?
Khomeini was not following true Islam. He had many distorted, twisted, and some simply made up beliefs. I do not accept any of his opinions except those agreeing with the Qur'an and sunnah.
Brown Street wrote:9. Do you acknowledge the Moslem practice of "Honor Killing"?

10. Do you agree with this practice, that is, is it justified in any circumstance?
No. This practice is 100% opposite of the teachings of Islam.
Brown Street wrote:11. Do you agree with the practices concerning women and girls who have been raped in some Moslem countries-such as Saudi Arabia and Iran-that is, that these victims should be charged with a crime and subsequently executed?
No.
Brown Street wrote:12. Do you agree that women are treated extremely badly in some Moslem countries, especially in light of the information about rape in the preceeding question?
Women are treated bad in every country, even Muslim countries due to the fact that Muslims aren't following their religion. This is in no way justifiable.

But even if you compare the situation and treatment of women in America to those in Arabia, any woman in her right mind who knows the facts wouldn't hesitate to live in Arabia.
Brown Street wrote:13. Do you agree that, in the past, Moslems have engaged in the slave trade and held slaves themselves?

14. Do you agree that some Moslem countries did not outlaw slavery until the late 20th century?
The meaning that Islam gives to slavery (the type of slavery practiced in the times of Prophet Muhammad) and the slavery that you are thinking of, that was created and practiced by Western and European governments, are completely different.
Brown Street wrote:15. Do you agree that slavery is still practiced today in some Moslem countries?
Yes. The Western and European form of slavery in still practiced in Sudan and other parts of Afrika and the Middle East. This to, is 100% contrary to the teachings of Islam.
Brown Street wrote:16. Do you see any justification whatsoever for the current practice of Moslems holding slaves (if, indeed, you agree this does happen)?
No.

Tacomahilltop
Straw Weight
Straw Weight
Posts: 63
Joined: February 14th, 2005, 5:49 am

Unread post by Tacomahilltop » December 16th, 2006, 5:27 am

brownstreet do you fail to aknowledge there was slavery in america until the 20th century to and man some muslim countries still practice slavery so what so do asians countries and so on.

Brown Street
Straw Weight
Straw Weight
Posts: 94
Joined: October 10th, 2006, 1:34 am
Location: NW Illinois

questions on slavery

Unread post by Brown Street » January 2nd, 2007, 10:05 pm

Tacomahilltop wrote: "brownstreet do you fail to aknowledge there was slavery in america until the 20th century to and man some muslim countries still practice slavery so what so do asians countries and so on."

Slavery in America until the 20th century?

All that I am aware of in that respect is that the Emancipation Proclamation supposedly abolishing slavery was promulgated by Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War-possibly in 1863, I dont remember the exact date. If there was, indeed, slavery in America (meaning the United States of America-I know wnothing about South America in this respect . . .)-enlighten me!

That Moslem countries still practice slavery is known to me-"so what"-in other words, you mean that this is ok, right? If that is so, then it was ok for slavery to be practiced in this country, correct?

I do not know anything about slavery being practiced in some Asian countries, but if it was, it would not surprise me. There was basically a form of slavery practiced in the USSR, eastern Europe, People's Republic of China, North Korea, North Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, etc., etc., under hardcore communist regimes-this would obviously STILL include North Korea.

Brown Street
Straw Weight
Straw Weight
Posts: 94
Joined: October 10th, 2006, 1:34 am
Location: NW Illinois

answers . . .

Unread post by Brown Street » January 2nd, 2007, 10:20 pm

Mr. Siddiqi,
Thank you for your answers. I apologize in that I judged you as one who would either NOT answer these questions or simply IGNORE them. For that I ask your forgiveness!

Your exclusion of the Shia from the ranks of Islam is one that, of course, the great numbers of Shia in Iraq, Iran, and elsewhere would obviously vociferously disagree with. I am no expert on that dispute, and do not know if the Shia extend the Sunnis the same favor and exclude them from Islam also.

The current troubles between the Shia and Sunnis in Iraq is a sad situation, but an interesting one in the fact that the Sunnis, under the regime of Saddam Hussein, persecuted the Shia to a great extent-as everyone probably knows, the reason that Saddam Hussein was hanged was his murder of 150 Shia. Of course, under his regime, many more than 150 met their deaths at the hands of his lackeys.

Although it may not be what is considered "fair," or "democratic" in the eyes of George Bush, but, I find it intereesting that the Sunnis in Iraq seem to have completely forgotten about that chapter in their history, and cannot understand why the Shia -the great majority in Iraq, by the way-feel that as the majority, they should rule the country!

I also find it intersting that the Saudis do not want the Americans tro lo leave Iraq, lest the Sunnis there meet a terrible fate at the hands of the Shia. At any rate, I doubt that the Shia will ever agreee to the Sunnis receiving a 1/3 share! No wonder the Kurds want out of the whole mess! Which two countries who have no love for each other-Turkey and Iran-wholeheartedly agree that the Kurds whould NOT be let out of the mess! Lest the Kurds in Turjey and Iran seek to join their brothers in Iraq and proclaim a Greater Kurdistan! Middle eastern politics are very inrteresting, no matter what else one may say about the situation.

I understand your mention of those who do not practice Islam properly although they claim to be Moslems . . . how would you characterize the Sunni Moslems, such as AlQaida, who practice terrorism by murdering innocents? Bad Moslems? Not worthy of the name?

User avatar
Mahmoud Siddiqi
Straw Weight
Straw Weight
Posts: 74
Joined: June 20th, 2006, 10:38 am

Re: answers . . .

Unread post by Mahmoud Siddiqi » January 6th, 2007, 1:32 pm

Brown Street wrote: Your exclusion of the Shia from the ranks of Islam is one that, of course, the great numbers of Shia in Iraq, Iran, and elsewhere would obviously vociferously disagree with. I am no expert on that dispute, and do not know if the Shia extend the Sunnis the same favor and exclude them from Islam also.
I did/do not exclude the Shi'ite from the fold of Islam because anybody who says "la ilaha illa Allah wa anna Muhammadur Rasulullah" is my brother even if he has corrupted beliefs or wrong understandings of something. I have no right to tell anybody what they are or aren't. Allah is the only judge.

Brown Street wrote: I understand your mention of those who do not practice Islam properly although they claim to be Moslems . . . how would you characterize the Sunni Moslems, such as AlQaida, who practice terrorism by murdering innocents? Bad Moslems? Not worthy of the name?
Again, it is not my right to judge. I can only hope that anybody who has any misunderstandings, wrong ideas, corrupted beliefs, etc will realize their wrong doings and come to the whole Truth and repent for any wrong they did. I cannot see the intentions of anybody but my own.

Sentenza
Super Heavy Weight
Super Heavy Weight
Posts: 6525
Joined: January 17th, 2005, 10:48 am
Country: Germany
If in the United States: American Samoa
What city do you live in now?: WestBerlin
Location: Overseas

Re: answers . . .

Unread post by Sentenza » January 6th, 2007, 6:25 pm

Brown Street wrote: Your exclusion of the Shia from the ranks of Islam is one that, of course, the great numbers of Shia in Iraq, Iran, and elsewhere would obviously vociferously disagree with. I am no expert on that dispute, and do not know if the Shia extend the Sunnis the same favor and exclude them from Islam also.
Yes they do. At least the radical ones.

User avatar
casalem
Straw Weight
Straw Weight
Posts: 79
Joined: January 2nd, 2007, 9:06 am
Location: In culo alla Madonna

Unread post by casalem » January 6th, 2007, 8:49 pm

INTOLERANCE SHOWS FEAR OF ISLAM(a justified fear).
i don't want to offend muslim ppl but islamic culture is often uncivilized n undemocratic(compared with western culture).Wait;im not talkin about the islamic religion,im talkin about his culture,the way islamic ppl behave in the foreign countries where lifestyles,rules n freedoms r different from islamic states.The problem started cuz islamic ppl(Of course not every1) often prefer respectin their culture's laws instead respectin the laws n the citizens of the foreign country which host them.
I don't like islamic culture for some reasons ,for example the woman's role,but i don't want to accuse any1.I just wanna say that i can understand fully ppl who don't like muslims as i can understand the muslims who just follows the rules they were taught in their home places.

frozen fire
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 615
Joined: November 4th, 2006, 4:44 am

Unread post by frozen fire » January 7th, 2007, 1:56 am

^^^...a justified fear? muslims should be afraid of the west, its the west thats on a crusade to wipe islam out!
The problem started because islamic ppl(Of course not every1) often prefer respectin their culture's laws instead respectin the laws n the citizens of the foreign country which host them.
in what? the way we dress (modestly), what we eat (healthy)? How we choose to spend out weekends (not clubbing and getting wasted).
isn't the west all about freedom of expression? you saying we shouldnt be allowed to do all that? if you say yes, what makes you different from *the taliban*? (controlling)
I just wanna say that i can understand fully ppl who don't like muslims
and i can understand why some muslims dont like the west.

User avatar
casalem
Straw Weight
Straw Weight
Posts: 79
Joined: January 2nd, 2007, 9:06 am
Location: In culo alla Madonna

Unread post by casalem » January 7th, 2007, 6:29 am

Im answerin to frozen fire:
It seems u r muslim so i can explain the meanin of my words.
First of all i don't know in which way muslims behave in the united states but i know how they behave in italy n in europe n trust me if i told u that they often demand too much compared with they give us.In italy for example that is not a catholic country but it has a catholic culture,many muslims has asked to take the cross off the public buildings like schools.Do u think that ppl who r just host in my country can ask things like this?If i went to a islamic country askin dis i would get beaten up.
In some nursery schools italian teachers didn't let kids celebratin X-mas not to offend islamic kids.Those teachers made kids celebratin "The snow day".Do u think this is a good behaviour?
Islamic ppl in italy n in the rest of europe give a lot of problems,trust me.

frozen fire
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 615
Joined: November 4th, 2006, 4:44 am

Unread post by frozen fire » January 7th, 2007, 6:48 am

many muslims has asked to take the cross off the public buildings like schools.
asking is not bad, you either say no or a yes, they aint demanding.....(btw i was in a catholic school for some time)
In some nursery schools italian teachers didn't let kids celebratin X-mas not to offend islamic kids
never heard of that before? i used to go to public schools, in england, and noone did anything like that?
anywayz its more the teachers fault then the kid...they could have easly found another solution, like letting the kids stay at home or have them do something else at school, instead of stopping X-mas altogether.
a little commen sense....
Islamic ppl in italy n in the rest of europe give a lot of problems,trust me.

and the west gives muslims a hard time.

Sentenza
Super Heavy Weight
Super Heavy Weight
Posts: 6525
Joined: January 17th, 2005, 10:48 am
Country: Germany
If in the United States: American Samoa
What city do you live in now?: WestBerlin
Location: Overseas

Unread post by Sentenza » January 7th, 2007, 8:09 am

casalem wrote: In some nursery schools italian teachers didn't let kids celebratin X-mas not to offend islamic kids.Those teachers made kids celebratin "The snow day".Do u think this is a good behaviour?
Islamic ppl in italy n in the rest of europe give a lot of problems,trust me.
I have read about that story aswell, seems like there are a few versions around. Matter of fact it turned out not to be true. It was in a nursery in Vienna in which they didnt want to celebrate Christmas. Since there were muslims in it, some people blamed it on them.

User avatar
Mahmoud Siddiqi
Straw Weight
Straw Weight
Posts: 74
Joined: June 20th, 2006, 10:38 am

Unread post by Mahmoud Siddiqi » January 7th, 2007, 1:24 pm

casalem wrote:INTOLERANCE SHOWS FEAR OF ISLAM(a justified fear).
i don't want to offend muslim ppl but islamic culture is often uncivilized n undemocratic(compared with western culture).Wait;im not talkin about the islamic religion,im talkin about his culture,the way islamic ppl behave in the foreign countries where lifestyles,rules n freedoms r different from islamic states.The problem started because islamic ppl(Of course not every1) often prefer respectin their culture's laws instead respectin the laws n the citizens of the foreign country which host them.
I don't like islamic culture for some reasons ,for example the woman's role,but i don't want to accuse any1.I just wanna say that i can understand fully ppl who don't like muslims as i can understand the muslims who just follows the rules they were taught in their home places.
As Salam Alaikum,

For a Muslim who knows and follows the teachings of the Qur'an and the way of the Prophet Muhammad (peace, blessings, and mercy of Allah be upon him), Islam overrules culture, ethnicity, nationalism, and everything else. Muslims believe that Islam is a complete way of life.

Unfortunately, some Muslims, due to ego and nationalism, respect and follow the customs of their culture over the ways of Islam.

Compared to Islamic "culture", western culture is ALWAYS uncivlized, undemocratic, and barbaric.

The problem is that you haven't studied Islam's doctrine and are judging exclusively of what you've seen. This is wrong with any religion or way of living.

You should not comment on a Muslim woman's role if you don't know what it is, correct? And I know you don't.

User avatar
'X'
Super Heavy Weight
Super Heavy Weight
Posts: 3127
Joined: May 31st, 2004, 10:36 am
Country: Hong Kong, China
If in the United States: North Dakota
What city do you live in now?: ........

Unread post by 'X' » January 7th, 2007, 1:40 pm

Mahmoud Siddiqi wrote:

The problem is that you haven't studied Islam's doctrine and are judging exclusively of what you've seen.
Yes sir, and what "they heard"...

User avatar
casalem
Straw Weight
Straw Weight
Posts: 79
Joined: January 2nd, 2007, 9:06 am
Location: In culo alla Madonna

Unread post by casalem » January 7th, 2007, 1:50 pm

Mahmoud Siddiqi wrote:
casalem wrote:INTOLERANCE SHOWS FEAR OF ISLAM(a justified fear).
i don't want to offend muslim ppl but islamic culture is often uncivilized n undemocratic(compared with western culture).Wait;im not talkin about the islamic religion,im talkin about his culture,the way islamic ppl behave in the foreign countries where lifestyles,rules n freedoms r different from islamic states.The problem started because islamic ppl(Of course not every1) often prefer respectin their culture's laws instead respectin the laws n the citizens of the foreign country which host them.
I don't like islamic culture for some reasons ,for example the woman's role,but i don't want to accuse any1.I just wanna say that i can understand fully ppl who don't like muslims as i can understand the muslims who just follows the rules they were taught in their home places.
As Salam Alaikum,

For a Muslim who knows and follows the teachings of the Qur'an and the way of the Prophet Muhammad (peace, blessings, and mercy of Allah be upon him), Islam overrules culture, ethnicity, nationalism, and everything else. Muslims believe that Islam is a complete way of life.

Unfortunately, some Muslims, due to ego and nationalism, respect and follow the customs of their culture over the ways of Islam.

Compared to Islamic "culture", western culture is ALWAYS uncivlized, undemocratic, and barbaric.

The problem is that you haven't studied Islam's doctrine and are judging exclusively of what you've seen. This is wrong with any religion or way of living.

You should not comment on a Muslim woman's role if you don't know what it is, correct? And I know you don't.
Man try to reason logically.Do u think islamic culture is more democratic of western culture?

User avatar
Mahmoud Siddiqi
Straw Weight
Straw Weight
Posts: 74
Joined: June 20th, 2006, 10:38 am

Unread post by Mahmoud Siddiqi » January 7th, 2007, 2:12 pm

casalem wrote:
Mahmoud Siddiqi wrote:
casalem wrote:INTOLERANCE SHOWS FEAR OF ISLAM(a justified fear).
i don't want to offend muslim ppl but islamic culture is often uncivilized n undemocratic(compared with western culture).Wait;im not talkin about the islamic religion,im talkin about his culture,the way islamic ppl behave in the foreign countries where lifestyles,rules n freedoms r different from islamic states.The problem started because islamic ppl(Of course not every1) often prefer respectin their culture's laws instead respectin the laws n the citizens of the foreign country which host them.
I don't like islamic culture for some reasons ,for example the woman's role,but i don't want to accuse any1.I just wanna say that i can understand fully ppl who don't like muslims as i can understand the muslims who just follows the rules they were taught in their home places.
As Salam Alaikum,

For a Muslim who knows and follows the teachings of the Qur'an and the way of the Prophet Muhammad (peace, blessings, and mercy of Allah be upon him), Islam overrules culture, ethnicity, nationalism, and everything else. Muslims believe that Islam is a complete way of life.

Unfortunately, some Muslims, due to ego and nationalism, respect and follow the customs of their culture over the ways of Islam.

Compared to Islamic "culture", western culture is ALWAYS uncivlized, undemocratic, and barbaric.

The problem is that you haven't studied Islam's doctrine and are judging exclusively of what you've seen. This is wrong with any religion or way of living.

You should not comment on a Muslim woman's role if you don't know what it is, correct? And I know you don't.
Man try to reason logically.Do u think islamic culture is more democratic of western culture?
Not only do I THINK so, I KNOW so. I have studied both Islamic governmental laws (ash shari'ah) and Western "democracy".

Although no Islamic government is currently in place anywhere in the world today, there are remenants of one in a couple places and in those places, when compared to the Western idea of "democracy", there is no really no comparison.

I encourage you to study, from a reliable source, with an open mind.

frozen fire
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 615
Joined: November 4th, 2006, 4:44 am

Unread post by frozen fire » January 7th, 2007, 2:59 pm

I encourage you to study, from a reliable source, with an open mind.
yep :idea:

Sentenza
Super Heavy Weight
Super Heavy Weight
Posts: 6525
Joined: January 17th, 2005, 10:48 am
Country: Germany
If in the United States: American Samoa
What city do you live in now?: WestBerlin
Location: Overseas

Unread post by Sentenza » January 7th, 2007, 4:00 pm

Mahmoud Siddiqi wrote:
casalem wrote:INTOLERANCE SHOWS FEAR OF ISLAM(a justified fear).
i don't want to offend muslim ppl but islamic culture is often uncivilized n undemocratic(compared with western culture).Wait;im not talkin about the islamic religion,im talkin about his culture,the way islamic ppl behave in the foreign countries where lifestyles,rules n freedoms r different from islamic states.The problem started because islamic ppl(Of course not every1) often prefer respectin their culture's laws instead respectin the laws n the citizens of the foreign country which host them.
I don't like islamic culture for some reasons ,for example the woman's role,but i don't want to accuse any1.I just wanna say that i can understand fully ppl who don't like muslims as i can understand the muslims who just follows the rules they were taught in their home places.
As Salam Alaikum,

For a Muslim who knows and follows the teachings of the Qur'an and the way of the Prophet Muhammad (peace, blessings, and mercy of Allah be upon him), Islam overrules culture, ethnicity, nationalism, and everything else. Muslims believe that Islam is a complete way of life.

Unfortunately, some Muslims, due to ego and nationalism, respect and follow the customs of their culture over the ways of Islam.
Politically, what kind of conclusions do you draw out of that?

Coming from a whole different background i am strongly of the opinion, that religion and politics have to be separated. In Europe, too much damage has been done in the name of religion when it was the predominant factor and i strongly doubt, that people that are in charge of political decisions would ever act according to the true virtues of religion.
They would rather twist its teachings to increase their own power.
This counts for Islam & Christianity. History has already proven that.

Post Reply

Return to “Religious Thought”