Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

"FEAR INC" Explore the $57 million network fueling Islamophobia in the United States

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Hida Akechi
    replied
    Wouldn't the true islamist "radicals" be the ones that claim to want to coexist peacefully with the rest of the world?

    Leave a comment:


  • G David Bock
    replied
    Originally posted by The Exorcist View Post
    That link leads to some very revealing information about Salafism, and traditional literalist Islam.
    "Radical" is the wrong word, I would cal it Fundamentalism.
    "Radical" is used mostly by the "political correct" secularists (and "progressives") of the West. I agree that since the "perps" call themselves Fundamentalists and their agenda is literal and historical Islam, makes "Sun Tzu" sense to call them what they call themselves.

    Leave a comment:


  • Massena
    replied
    Originally posted by Bwaha View Post
    Yeah I wish we'd all blackball him. He'd go away...
    I suggest that we appoint him the unofficial Imam of the forums so that when he begins to preach the faithful can appreciate him and the rest of us can ignore his nonsense.

    What do you guys think?

    By the way, excellent work Michele-very well done.

    Sincerely,
    M

    Leave a comment:


  • The Exorcist
    replied
    Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
    [*]The New Testament teaches monogamy, one husband and one wife, thereby dignifying the woman. The Koran allows polygamy—up to four wives—and the possession of concubines, or sex-slaves. More literalist readings treat all women as possessions.[*]The New Testament discourages lying (e.g., Col. 3:9). The Koran permits it; the prophet himself often deceived others, and permitted lying to one’s wife, to reconcile quarreling parties, and to the “infidel” during war.[/LIST]

    That link leads to some very revealing information about Salafism, and traditional literalist Islam.
    "Radical" is the wrong word, I would cal it Fundamentalism.
    Justifying egoism is not limited to preserving the self but also gratifying it—especially in the context of jihad. One can go on and on about the other Salafi fatwas permitting rape, incest, and prostitution for those fighting to empower Islam. Even renowned heroes like Khalid bin al-Walid—the “Sword of Allah”—celebrated in the Muslim world for his jihadi conquests, was, from a less hagiographic perspective, little more than a mass murdering, sadistic rapist.

    More generally, Salafi-minded Muslims believe that all non-Muslims can be deceived, cheated, robbed, exploited, enslaved and/or killed—all in the self-interest of the Muslim, seen as one with the self-interest of Islam.

    Why do they believe this? Because from a Salafi point of view, all free non-Muslim “infidels” who do not submit to Islamic law, or Sharia—Americans and Europeans for example—are natural born enemies, or harbis, and thus free game.

    Leave a comment:


  • Michele
    replied
    Originally posted by Taieb el-Okbi View Post
    From the MEF source,

    14 centuries of Islamic history this increasingly unbearable, fanatical aggression against critics of Islam was almost unknown. It is new.
    There is the small problem that that is wrong, as already demonstrated with a few actual facts quoted in my previous post.

    A few more examples.

    - in 850, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, nobody less than a founder of the Muslim law, was tortured under accusation of blasphemy.
    - in 852, St. Isaac of Cordoba openly criticized the Muslim religion before Muslim authorities. Tortured, refused to recant. He is a martyr of the Catholic religion that some here claim to be members of.
    - in 922, a Sufi mystic, Al Hallaj, was hanged in Baghdad after a long imprisonment, for blasphemous and/or heretical statements in poetry.
    - in 1048, the Egyptian Coptic Patriarch Christodoulos was accused of blasphemy by Muslims because of a writing above his church's gate mentioning that the Christian Trinity was the one God.
    Fast forward...
    - in 1882, the police of Alexandria brough charges against a man named Mohammad Ramadan (duh), for "insulting the Mohammedan religion".
    Last edited by Michele; 11 May 15, 04:40.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bwaha
    replied
    Yeah I wish we'd all blackball him. He'd go away...

    Leave a comment:


  • frisco17
    replied
    Originally posted by Taieb el-Okbi View Post
    Im not sure if thats meant to be a compliment or not Ill take it as a complement because there are both Muslim and Christin "holy warriors" of the past and present whom were good noble people. Jihad is not what ISIL is doing, Jihad is what Muslims like Noor Inyat Khan did during WW2.
    Not according to the Koran and Mohammad's definition and I feel like they're better judges of what is and isn't "Jihad."

    Leave a comment:


  • Hida Akechi
    replied
    Originally posted by Bwaha View Post
    Trolls gotta troll. Best to ignore them.
    You know I do that. But so many others quote him.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bwaha
    replied
    Originally posted by sebfrench76 View Post
    "Jihad is not what Isis is doing"

    You're playing a role,aren't you ?
    Or are you that dumb?.
    Seriously?
    Liberalism is a mental disorder.

    Leave a comment:


  • sebfrench76
    replied
    "Jihad is not what Isis is doing"

    You're playing a role,aren't you ?
    Or are you that dumb?.
    Seriously?

    Leave a comment:


  • Taieb el-Okbi
    replied
    Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
    ^ Thank you Jihad John
    Im not sure if thats meant to be a compliment or not Ill take it as a complement because there are both Muslim and Christin "holy warriors" of the past and present whom were good noble people. Jihad is not what ISIL is doing, Jihad is what Muslims like Noor Inyat Khan did during WW2.



    I took it upon myself to do further research on the MEF, and I'm pleasantly surprised at what I saw from folks like Steven Schwartz., there ought to be more of that from the MEF.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bwaha
    replied
    Originally posted by Hida Akechi View Post
    TOLERANT HISTORY OF THE MUSLIMS?

    Ok, this BS and lying has gone on long enough, hasn't it. Someone needs to stop pretending that they are anything else other than a pro-islamist schill.
    Trolls gotta troll. Best to ignore them.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hida Akechi
    replied
    That is Muslims and non Muslims coming forth to talk about the tolerant history of the Muslims.
    TOLERANT HISTORY OF THE MUSLIMS?

    Ok, this BS and lying has gone on long enough, hasn't it. Someone needs to stop pretending that they are anything else other than a pro-islamist schill.

    Leave a comment:


  • G David Bock
    replied
    ^ Thank you Jihad John

    Leave a comment:


  • Taieb el-Okbi
    replied
    Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
    I recommend reading the full article, especially to put the following excerpt into context. The author makes a case that this is more than semantics involved. The following excerpt relates to topics and posts (poster) of this thread
    How Islam’s ‘Reformation’ Created ISIS

    EXCERPT:
    ...
    How Christianity and Islam can follow similar patterns of reform but with antithetical results rests in the fact that their scriptures are often antithetical to one another. This is the key point, and one admittedly unintelligible to postmodern, secular sensibilities, which tend to lump all religious scriptures together in a melting pot of relativism without bothering to evaluate the significance of their respective words and teachings.

    >>> Sounds like a few of the persons whom post here on this topic <<<

    Obviously a point by point comparison of the scriptures of Islam and Christianity is inappropriate for an article of this length (see my “Are Judaism and Christianity as Violent as Islam” for a more comprehensive treatment).

    Suffice it to note some contradictions (which naturally will be rejected as a matter of course by the relativistic mindset):
    • The New Testament preaches peace, brotherly love, tolerance, and forgiveness—for all humans, believers and non-believers alike. Instead of combatting and converting “infidels,” Christians are called to pray for those who persecute them and turn the other cheek (which is not the same thing as passivity, for Christians are also called to be bold and unapologetic). Conversely, the Koran and Hadith call for war, or jihad, against all non-believers, until they either convert, accept subjugation and discrimination, or die.
    • The New Testament has no punishment for the apostate from Christianity. Conversely, Islam’s prophet himself decreed that “Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.”
    • The New Testament teaches monogamy, one husband and one wife, thereby dignifying the woman. The Koran allows polygamy—up to four wives—and the possession of concubines, or sex-slaves. More literalist readings treat all women as possessions.
    • The New Testament discourages lying (e.g., Col. 3:9). The Koran permits it; the prophet himself often deceived others, and permitted lying to one’s wife, to reconcile quarreling parties, and to the “infidel” during war.

    It is precisely because Christian scriptural literalism lends itself to religious freedom, tolerance, and the dignity of women, that Western civilization developed the way it did—despite the nonstop propaganda campaign emanating from academia, Hollywood, and other major media that says otherwise.

    And it is precisely because Islamic scriptural literalism is at odds with religious freedom, tolerance, and the dignity of women, that Islamic civilization is the way it is—despite the nonstop propaganda campaign emanating from academia, Hollywood, and other major media that says otherwise.
    ...
    http://humanevents.com/2015/05/07/ho...tm_campaign=nl
    Islamic scripture is not at odds with religious freedom. What we are dealing with irt the folks who shot up the Anti Muhammad cartoon contest, is a new thing.

    From the MEF source,

    14 centuries of Islamic history this increasingly unbearable, fanatical aggression against critics of Islam was almost unknown. It is new.

    This is the type of stuff folks should praise. That is Muslims and non Muslims coming forth to talk about the tolerant history of the Muslims.

    Have you ever linked to Mr Stephen Schwartz in any of your GWOT threads? I'm glad I took some extra time to explore the MEF for myself, and to see that there are at least some pro Muslim voices over in the MEF.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X