It seems Iran can't do anything right can they. Even if they make great achievements like launching their own satellites, it's automatically misconstrued as being a hostile act. Just another example of how clear it's becoming  who is behind the push for clash between Islam and the West.

-----

Iran has launched its first domestically made satellite into orbit, state media reports.

TV commentary said Monday's night-time launch from a Safir-2 rocket was "another achievement for Iranian scientists under sanctions".

The satellite was designed for research and telecommunications purposes, the television report said.

Iran is subject to UN sanctions as some Western powers think it is trying to build a nuclear bomb, which it denies.

Tehran says its nuclear ambitions are limited to the production of energy.

The launch of the Omid (Hope) satellite had been expected and was clearly timed to coincide with the 30th anniversary of the Iranian revolution, says the BBC's Jon Leyne in Tehran.

Space centre

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said the satellite was launched to spread "monotheism, peace and justice" in the world.

But the launch could cause alarm in the West because of fears the technology could be used to make a long-range missile, possibly with a nuclear warhead, our correspondent says.
     
IRAN SPACE AMBITIONS

• Aug 2008: Iran launches rocket 'capable of carrying satellite'
  
• Feb 2008: Iran launches research rocket as part of satellite launch preparations, Tehran says
  
• Feb 2007: Iran says it launches rocket capable of reaching space, which makes parachute-assisted descent to Earth
  
• Oct 2005: Russian rocket launches Iran's first satellite, Sina-1

Iran will no doubt reply that it is once again being judged by double standards for using a technology that is commonplace in many other parts of the world, he adds.

Last August, Iran said it had successfully launched a rocket capable of carrying its first domestically built satellite, having in February launched a low-orbit research rocket as part of preparations for the satellite launch.

That launch marked the inauguration of a new space centre, at an unidentified desert location, which included an underground control station and satellite launch pad.

The White House called the 2008 launch "unfortunate", warning it would further isolate Iran from the global community.

In February 2007, Iran said it had launched a rocket capable of reaching space - before it made a parachute-assisted descent to Earth.

In October 2005, a Russian rocket launched Iran's first satellite, the Sina-1, which carried photographic and telecommunications equipment.

Source: BBC

http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/5705/iranbunnyzd1.jpg

Good job there Photoshop man.

http://img509.imageshack.us/img509/6549/iranpicmj3.jpg

Why is it that you go to such great lengths to point out that the actions of middle eastern nations are not a reflection of Islam because they are not proper Islamic dictatorships, but when the west criticises these governments you claim it is an attack on Islam?

It seems that you pick and choose what is Islam and what isn't at your convenience, depending on whatever spin you wish to place on something. You place greater restrictions on what others may attribute to Islam than what you do.

Quote:

but when the west criticises these governments you claim it is an attack on Islam?

Their citizens are Muslims. The attacks by the West on Muslim nations are an attack against Muslims. Likewise, since the West always paints it as a clash between Islam and the West, then it has taken on such a hue. That's irrelevant to whether those nations correctly implement Shari'ah or not.

When they wage their relentless wars on the Muslim lands, it's innocent Muslim civilians who die.

Quote:

Their citizens are Muslims. The attacks by the West on Muslim nations are an attack against Muslims.

So likewise we can blame the actions of these countries with Muslims citizens on Islam? It is a blatant double standard Abu. The country represents Islam when it suits you, but it represents the evil imperialist west interfering in the middle east whenever the situation is reversed.


Quote:

Likewise, since the West always paints it as a clash between Islam and the West

The west went to great lengths to paint it as a war on terrorism, not a war on Islam. Are you saying they the same thing? Every time you here 'war on terrorism' do you think 'oh no they are onto us again'?

Quote:

So likewise we can blame the actions of these countries with Muslims citizens on Islam? It is a blatant double standard Abu.

If they were popularly elected governments, and their citizens had any input whatsoever into how they actually functioned, then I might be inclined to agree with you. But they are not, they are all dictatorships in which the citizens are just helpless bystanders.


Quote:

The country represents Islam when it suits you, but it represents the evil imperialist west interfering in the middle east whenever the situation is reversed.

The state does not represent Islam, the people however are Muslims. For instance, when the U.S toppled the Baathist state, I couldn't care less, and don't consider it an act against Muslims, if anything it's an act in favour of Muslims, removing a tyrant who'd oppressed and slaughtered them for so long (never mind that they put him there to begin with and supported him  the whole time and gave him very nasty weapons with which to do it all).


Quote:

The west went to great lengths to paint it as a war on terrorism, not a war on Islam.

That's the outward meaning we've been given. But we both know it's been painted constantly as a clash between Islam and the West, by the media and by the political analysts and in reality on the ground, it's been a battle between Muslims and non-Muslims. Bush actually slipped up and announced it as a crusade, and even you yourself have been arguing this as a clash between a civilised Western ideology, and a barbaric Islamic ideology.

Quote:

The state does not represent Islam, the people however are Muslims. For instance, when the U.S toppled the Baathist state, I couldn't care less, and don't consider it an act against Muslims, if anything it's an act in favour of Muslims, removing a tyrant who'd oppressed and slaughtered them for so long

But didn't you say elsewhere that you would have rpeferred Saddam to stay in power and the west not to intervene, and that Muslims were doing the right thing by fighting against the change?


Quote:

That's the outward meaning we've been given. But we both know it's been painted constantly as a clash between Islam and the West

Is this paint on the inside?


Quote:

even you yourself have been arguing this as a clash between a civilised Western ideology, and a barbaric Islamic ideology

Where did I do that?

Quote:

But didn't you say elsewhere that you would have rpeferred Saddam to stay in power

No.


Quote:

and the west not to intervene

Yes.


Quote:

and that Muslims were doing the right thing by fighting against the change?

Very few Iraqi's were fighting against the removal of Saddam, they are fighting against the occupation by the U.S. You need to learn to distinguish between the two. I'm aware the propaganda in the Western media continiously claims them to be inseperable, but they are not the same thing.

And in fact, Saddam and the U.S are one in the same anyway, as he was their servant in Iraq, until they decided he had outlived his usefulness.


Quote:

Where did I do that?

You constantly claim that Islam is  a backwards barbaric ideology, and this claim has been put forward as part of the wider "war on terrorism". Remember Bush's speeches about this being a war between the civilised world and the uncivilised world. He doesn't mean the uncivilised dictators who rule Muslim countries (they're in fact the West's trusted friends), as many Westerners sheepishly thinks, he means Islam as an ideology, civilisational construct and belief system.

Quote:

Very few Iraqi's were fighting against the removal of Saddam, they are fighting against the occupation by the U.S. You need to learn to distinguish between the two. I'm aware the propaganda in the Western media continiously claims them to be inseperable, but they are not the same thing.

So your ideal scenario would be the US rolling in, toppling Saddam, then pulling out and leaving a power vaccuum, rather than a democracy? How do you think that would have worked out?


Quote:

You constantly claim that Islam is  a backwards barbaric ideology, and this claim has been put forward as part of the wider "war on terrorism".

I may claim that islam is backwards, but I have conceded that the terrorism we see today is not part of it. Or at least, not part of mainstream Islam. I don't think they are totally unrelated. I think Islam sets the ball rolling and expects it to stop when it says stop, but the ball keeps rolling. In that sense it is naive, but you'd expect that from a 1400 year old law. That is why I kept trying to get you to concede that Muslims should be doing more to actively fight Islamic terrorism. I don't want the west to have to deal with it any more than you do. Muslims could do it with a scalpel, the west has to use a bomb. I would prefer Muslims to deal with it. But they cannot expect to place conditions on their dealing with it. They cannot use terrorism as a negotiating tool to get what they want, no matter how aggrieved they feel. They cannot make fighting terrorism secondary to geopolitical goals.


Quote:

Remember Bush's speeches about this being a war between the civilised world and the uncivilised world. He doesn't mean the uncivilised dictators who rule Muslim countries (they're in fact the West's trusted friends), as many Westerners sheepishly thinks, he means Islam as an ideology, civilisational construct and belief system.

No, he means Islamic terrorism, that which you do not consider to be a real part of Islam either. He was extraordinarily careful, given his limited capacities, not to make this into a war between Islam and the west.

Quote:

So your ideal scenario would be the US rolling in, toppling Saddam, then pulling out and leaving a power vaccuum, rather than a democracy? How do you think that would have worked out?

I think the only thing Muslims have ever asked of the U.S is not to actually support the dictators, with money, weapons etc. After that, they could be removed much easier. It is mostly this support that keeps them in place. The U.S has long recognised that this is what causes a lot of hatred for the U.S in the Middle East.


Quote:

but I have conceded that the terrorism we see today is not part of it

Could've fooled me.


Quote:

That is why I kept trying to get you to concede that Muslims should be doing more to actively fight Islamic terrorism

Well, if you're referring to people like Bin Laden, or insurgents in Iraq, then as I've mentioned to you before, those people around them have usually been the victim of years of Western oppression and attacks, so it's very unlikely they'd turn against those who are merely defending them. I really can't understand why you find this so hard to fathom, other than the fact that you have this inability to look beyond them being "the most evil people on earth". The idea that they're just defending themselves is beyond your reach.

If you're referring to people amongst the Australian Muslim community, as I've pointed out enough times lately with the Ben Brika case, Abu Hamza was a prosecution witness, and also was instrumental in trying to prevent Ben Brika from doing anything. Other members of the Muslim community have been prosecution witnesses as well. As i've said though, people like this generally don't widely advertise their militant tendancies.


Quote:

No, he means Islamic terrorism, that which you do not consider to be a real part of Islam either

No, Rumsfeld has spoken at length about this referring to anyone who believes in the concept of A Caliphate. It's quite clear it refers to Islam as a civilisation.


Quote:

He was extraordinarily careful, given his limited capacities, not to make this into a war between Islam and the west.

Well he didn't do a very good job, he alienated pretty much the entire Islamic world. Even former allies of the U.S have turned more towards militant attitudes. If anything, he did more for the cause of the militants than he did against them.

Quote:

I think the only thing Muslims have ever asked of the U.S is not to actually support the dictators, with money, weapons etc. After that, they could be removed much easier. It is mostly this support that keeps them in place.

You mean like the embargo on Iraq? Weren;t you complaining elsewhere that embargoes are acts of war?


Quote:

Well, if you're referring to people like Bin Laden, or insurgents in Iraq, then as I've mentioned to you before, those people around them have usually been the victim of years of Western oppression and attacks, so it's very unlikely they'd turn against those who are merely defending them.

So 9/11 was 'merely defending them'?


Quote:

The idea that they're just defending themselves is beyond your reach.

I don't think the terrorist attacks were 'just defending themselves'. The London bombers were locals and had never experienced the oppression you complain about. Same with Benbrika.


Quote:

No, Rumsfeld has spoken at length about this referring to anyone who believes in the concept of A Caliphate.

Would you mind quoting him?

Quote:

You mean like the embargo on Iraq? Weren;t you complaining elsewhere that embargoes are acts of war?

They supported him during his most brutal years. Just because they finally decided to dispose of him doesn't mean a thing.


Quote:

So 9/11 was 'merely defending them'?

As I've stated before, no evidence, no trial, no conviction...
We don't know who done it, how can we claim it was defence for anyone?


Quote:

Would you mind quoting him?

Sure..
Rumsfeld: Violent Extremists Aim to Establish a Caliphate
White House Letter: Watchword of the day - Beware the caliphate
Bush Administration Misuses the Word 'Caliphate'
Muslim Conspiracy to Rule World Just Nonsense

Abu, when you say the understanding, that so many westerners have, of the Islamic ideal of uniting the world under a new caliphate is just nonsense, when it appears to be what is stated, pretty clearly in the Koran, leads us once more to the subject of Taqiyya.

If you wanted to take over the world, and convert all the infidels to Islam, and create a worldwide Islamic Caliphate, you would naturally wish to play down that fact, because of the natural resistance, to be expected, from those who have no wish to convert, or die for refusing to convert.

So when you say it is nonsense, can you explain how you interpret the bits of the Koran, that seem to instruct muslims to pursue that goal, and why actually pursuing it would be nonsense?

This is a very crucial question, as so many people, that you would describe as Islamophobic, believe that the whole 'New Caliphate" issue is a real, and irrevocable tenet of the Koran, and if you were able to honestly, and effectively, dispel that idea, then you could expect much less suspicion, and mistrust of Islam, to be displayed.

A Caliphate is merely a state ruled by Islam, the fact Muslims desire to live under it says nothing about conspiracy theories that Muslims are trying to take over the world.

You know very well that is not the whole story Abu, and your reluctance to answer frankly, and fully, just deepens peoples' mistrust of Islam.

Would you care to try and answer more fully please?

mozzaok,

Your post seemed to insinuate Muslims don't believe in a Caliphate, we do.

I'm saying it quite clearly and frankly for you.

However taking over the world is a bit of a different issue. Of course Islam is a proselytising religion, so we do seek to expand, no doubt. But that's a little different from world domination.

If you look seriously at which civilisation/nation/country is vying for world domination today, you'll find it across the other side of the Pacific, not north west in the Middle East.

It seems the debate is about which civilisation you suspect of holding some dream of world domination, and which civilisation is actually carrying it out...

Quote:

A Caliphate is merely a state ruled by Islam

It is a bit more than that, as the last empire showed. You also tried to make out that crossing the mediterranean to conquer Spain was a defensive move.


Quote:

the fact Muslims desire to live under it says nothing about conspiracy theories that Muslims are trying to take over the world

Yes it does. It's like The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, except that it is real.


Quote:

Of course Islam is a proselytising religion, so we do seek to expand, no doubt. But that's a little different from world domination.

It was not Islamic doctrine that stopped the last Caliphate from taking over the world. It was merely their practical inability to do so. It is not the fact that Islam is a prselytising religion that is the problem. It is the fact that Islam is an expansionist military empire. It spreads by denying people freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of dress.


Quote:

If you look seriously at which civilisation/nation/country is vying for world domination today, you'll find it across the other side of the Pacific, not north west in the Middle East.

Crap. They are the ones that are currently in a position to be able to do so. But they aren't, are they? It is democracy that is spreading to Iraq and Afghanistan, not America. The US army is going to pull out. It has no interest in expanding in the way the Caliphate did. It is a good thing the last Caliphate was crushed. I'd much rather have the US in a position of power than than Osama.

Quote:

It is a bit more than that, as the last empire showed

Well that was the 'age of empires', any state that didn't behave as an empire simply didn't exist... Are Muslims to be blamed for holding their own in the times in which they lived?

Like most of your arguments against Islam, bollocks.


Quote:

You also tried to make out that crossing the mediterranean to conquer Spain was a defensive move.

I did? I think your recollection is a little tainted.


Quote:

Yes it does. It's like The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, except that it is real

Like with those who harp on about the protocols, you are an irrational Islamophobic conspiracy theorist, when it comes to Muslims.


Quote:

It was not Islamic doctrine that stopped the last Caliphate from taking over the world. It was merely their practical inability to do so.

Or perhaps the possibility that Islam isn't out to dominate the world?

One could also say the reason the Austro-Hungarian empire or the Napoleonic empire or the Prussian etc. etc. empires didn't take over the world, was not because they didn't want to, but because of their practical inability to do so... and the point of that would be?


Quote:

It is not the fact that Islam is a prselytising religion that is the problem

No, it *is* the problem and you know it. The number of Aussies converting to Islam each year is of far more concern to you and most other islamophobes than al-Qaeda or JI are. And you know it.


Quote:

It is the fact that Islam is an expansionist military empire

Again, you constantly refer to historical implementations of Islam, and then claim that you're not comparing Islam of old to today. You *must* come to the realisation that in those days, inter-state relations dictated the way in which states structured themselves, as it does today. Today is not the 'age of empires', and so the future implementation of a Caliphate would not resemble an empire. The most likely structure would be a union of member states, something like the EU. Not that it's relevant to this conversation anyway, as you're speaking about hysterical fantasy, not reality.


Quote:

It spreads by denying people freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of dress.

Nope, it spreads by people recognising the truth of it, and embracing it.


Quote:

They are the ones that are currently in a position to be able to do so. But they aren't, are they?

Sure coulda fooled me.


Quote:

It is democracy that is spreading to Iraq and Afghanistan, not America.

As states are not organised into empires today, neither is colonialism carried out through direct rule (not permanently anyway). It's you who needs to get with the times fd, not Islam. Modernise your view of the way the world works.


Quote:

It has no interest in expanding in the way the Caliphate did

When will you cease comparing the West of today with Islam of old?


Quote:

It is a good thing the last Caliphate was crushed.

I'm well aware of your hostility to Islamic civilisation, no need to so bluntly express it.


Quote:

I'd much rather have the US in a position of power than than Osama.

Since you share their ideology, that's not surprising.

Osama has just been placed in a difficult time and set of circumstances that's all, even his former hunter Michael Scheuer claims him to be a great leader. I'm sure if he was born under a Caliphate, he would've been more famous than infamous.

Quote:

Well that was the 'age of empires', any state that didn't behave as an empire simply didn't exist... Are Muslims to be blamed for holding their own in the times in which they lived?

They are to blame to trying to bring the same barabaric standards into the 21st century. Democracy was not unheard of back then. Yet Islam saw fit to forbid it in favour of dictatorship.

Why is it that you are so afraid to explain islamic concepts on spoils of war?


Quote:

Like with those who harp on about the protocols, you are an irrational Islamophobic conspiracy theorist, when it comes to Muslims.

what is irrational about my opposition to Islamism? Surely if it was irrational, you would be able to explain Islamic law, rather than creating as many barriers as possible to the truth about Islam.


Quote:

Or perhaps the possibility that Islam isn't out to dominate the world?

All proselytising religions are out to dominate the world. It's the methods of Islam that make it unconscionable.


Quote:

One could also say the reason the Austro-Hungarian empire or the Napoleonic empire or the Prussian etc. etc. empires didn't take over the world, was not because they didn't want to, but because of their practical inability to do so... and the point of that would be?

The point would be that turning these empires into a religion and trying to apply their standards today would be absurd. Yes they were all nasty empires that went round slaughtering people. But Islam is the only one you try to make excuses for and try to misrepresent.


Quote:

No, it *is* the problem and you know it.

No it isn't. I don't have a problem with other proselytising religions. I don't even ahve a problem with non-proselytising ones like Judaism. It's the methods Islam uses that makes it barbaric.


Quote:

Again, you constantly refer to historical implementations of Islam, and then claim that you're not comparing Islam of old to today.

Abu, perhaps if you didn't try so hard to conceal the truth about Islamic concepts on spoils of war etc then I could take you seriously, but I would be naive to simply take your word that an Islamic dictatorship would be all lovey dovey today, or next century. Islam as an empire would not adapt, it would drag the world back to the age of empires.


Quote:

Nope, it spreads by people recognising the truth of it, and embracing it.

Crap Abu. If what you say is true, Islam would not call for the death of Apostates, it would not call for military conquest and the imposition of second class citizenship on captured non-Muslims. It would not deny people freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of choice. It would allow freedom. Instead it puts up with freedom when it has no choice, then takes freedom away and imposes Islam by force as soon as it is capable. Islam claims to support freedom of religion, but it has no concept of what freedom is, other than freedom to die.


Quote:

Sure coulda fooled me.

The US is not going to make Iraq and Afghanistan part of it's empire. To claim so i simply a denial of reality. They are giving the local people democracy and self determination. This is nothing at all like what the barbaric Islamic empire of the past did.


Quote:

It's you who needs to get with the times fd, not Islam. Modernise your view of the way the world works.

It is the way Islam works that cocnerns me. It is your attempts to conceal the truth about it that cocnerns me. If you want me to 'adapt' my view of Islam, try giving straight answers to simple questions. Otherwise I can only conclude that you ahve something to hide and a good reason for hiding it. If Islam won't drop stoning women to death, killing apostates, denying free speech, what chance does it have of dropping militant expansionism? By your own words and the actions of Muslims around the world we have seen how Islam would twist reality and respond inappropriately so as to make military conflict inevitable. A new Caliphate would either be crushed or expand.


Quote:

Osama has just been placed in a difficult time and set of circumstances that's all

;D poor old Osama. Is this supposed to make me less concerned about your beloved Islamic dictatorship?


Quote:

even his former hunter Michael Scheuer claims him to be a great leader. I'm sure if he was born under a Caliphate, he would've been more famous than infamous.

People call Hitler a great leader. Newsflash Abu, it does not mean 'good'. Though I can understand how Islam would fail to make that distinction.

Quote:

They are to blame to trying to bring the same barabaric standards into the 21st century.

The Islamic empire was not the last empire to be dismantled...


Quote:

Democracy was not unheard of back then. Yet Islam saw fit to forbid it in favour of dictatorship.

Islam was unfortunately caught up in a hereditary system of government. However, it was for most of it's history a more advanced one than it's European counterparts. It was more like the monarchies of today, where the monarch was an official head of state, but the government was mostly run by a cabinet of ministers (wazirs). Unfortunately it didn't play catch up in the end, we can agree on that. The difference between democracy and dictatorship is a false dichotomy. Islam is neither of those systems.


Quote:

Why is it that you are so afraid to explain islamic concepts on spoils of war?

I'm not afraid of explaining anything fd. I've explained it already, and have posted a very lengthy scholarly article about it in the common misconceptions thread, just because it doesn't particularly take your fancy doesn't mean the information hasn't been presented.

Besides Islam is more than honest about it's texts, you can find them across thousands of sites (Islamic sites, not jihadwatch), translated into English.


Quote:

All proselytising religions are out to dominate the world. It's the methods of Islam that make it unconscionable.

Both Islam and Christianity did it in the past by forming empires.. yet you only believe Islam is like that... Ok.


Quote:

Yes they were all nasty empires that went round slaughtering people

I disagree, I don't think they were necessarily nasty, just a product of their times. That's just the way things were back then.

Have you seen the PBS documentary called "Empire of Faith"? If not, I'd advise watching it. They capture this quite well when they say "In a time when even prophets bore arms", or something along those lines.


Quote:

No it isn't. I don't have a problem with other proselytising religions.

That would be because you're a bigot.


Quote:

It's the methods Islam uses that makes it barbaric.

*used* in a time when the rest of the world was far more barbaric.


Quote:

Islam as an empire would not adapt, it would drag the world back to the age of empires.

It wouldn't be able to. It simply wouldn't even be able to eventuate back into the old paradigm. By necessity it must adapt to the new geo-political climate.


Quote:

Nope, it spreads by people recognising the truth of it, and embracing it. [quote]Crap Abu. If what you say is true, Islam would not call for the death of Apostates

[/quote]

That's the equivalent of saying American freedom isn't embraced by the people themselves, otherwise they wouldn't need the death penalty for treason... Someone's peddling crap here, but it ain't me.


Quote:

The US is not going to make Iraq and Afghanistan part of it's empire

As we discussed the 'age of empires' has indeed passed. That doesn't mean colonialism doesn't still exist in another form. As I said, it's no longer carried out by direct rule, not permanently anyway.


Quote:

They are giving the local people democracy and self determination.

Yeh the U.S is purely there for altruistic and benevolent reasons...

Dreamer.


Quote:

This is nothing at all like what the barbaric Islamic empire of the past did.

The Islamic empire was not imperialistic in the sense all European powers were. Lands that came under Islam were given the exact same status as any other land. The citizens given the same status as all other citizens. They weren't just slaves of the monarch as they were in European empires, with no ability to benefit from the empire's resources and systems. The only way an Indian for instance had any hope of travelling around the empire they were supposedly part of, was by being convicted of a petty crime, then being transported as a convict.


Quote:

It is your attempts to conceal the truth about it that cocnerns me.

As has been repeatedly stated, I've not concealed anything from you. *ALL* aspects of Islam are openly available all over the place. Unlike some other religions, namely Judaism, the teachings of Islam are open and welcome for all to peruse. The fact I was unable to answer some more detailed or loaded questions about Islam, doesn't mean I've concealed anything. Just means I recognise I'm not qualified to answer them.


Quote:

Otherwise I can only conclude that you ahve something to hide and a good reason for hiding it

Conclude as you like, most of your current views on Islam are based on your wayward conclusions anyway. Even when you find the answers you want, you're still going to draw your own conclusions from them anyway..


Quote:

If Islam won't drop stoning women to death, killing apostates, denying free speech, what chance does it have of dropping militant expansionism?

Capital punishment is prescribed in the Islamic texts, militant expansionism is not, that's why.


Quote:

A new Caliphate would either be crushed or expand.

With fanatical attitudes from non-Muslims like this, perhaps.

Abu, you have done and are doing more damage to the cause of islam than everyone else here, combined.

And you are blind to this.

Sometimes I wonder whether you are a numbnut or Mossad.

Soren wrote on Feb 12^th, 2009 at 8:34pm:

Abu, you have done and are doing more damage to the cause of islam than everyone else here, combined. And you are blind to this. Sometimes I wonder whether you are a numbnut or Mossad.

Actually, he's doing us proud, and making you lot look foolish at the same time.

Though making you look foolish really isn't that hard to do. :)

Lestat wrote on Feb 12^th, 2009 at 8:51pm:

Soren wrote on Feb 12th, 2009 at 8:34pm: Abu, you have done and are doing more damage to the cause of islam than everyone else here, combined. And you are blind to this. Sometimes I wonder whether you are a numbnut or Mossad. Actually, he's doing us proud, and making you lot look foolish at the same time. Though making you look foolish really isn't that hard to do. :)

Numbnut, then. With you Lizzie in his corner, no question.

Unless you are Mossad too.  Very cunning. This is why you guys are winning everywhere. The intellect.

Soren wrote on Feb 12^th, 2009 at 10:00pm:

Lestat wrote on Feb 12th, 2009 at 8:51pm: Soren wrote on Feb 12th, 2009 at 8:34pm: Abu, you have done and are doing more damage to the cause of islam than everyone else here, combined. And you are blind to this. Sometimes I wonder whether you are a numbnut or Mossad. Actually, he's doing us proud, and making you lot look foolish at the same time. Though making you look foolish really isn't that hard to do. :) Numbnut, then. With you Lizzie in his corner, no question. Unless you are Mossad too.  Very cunning. This is why you guys are winning everywhere. The intellect.

lol...Lizzie. Is this the best you can come up. Reflects actually on how stupid you are.

And the sad thing you actually think its clever.

BWAHAHAHAHA

No, we're winning because we have morons like you to contend with. Small play really, we just let you continously shoot yourself in the foot.

:D

Quote:

Abu, you have done and are doing more damage to the cause of islam than everyone else here, combined

soren, coming from you, a dedicated Islamophobe from the first time we ever interacted, that doesn't really mean much to me.

If however it came from an objective observer, who could've been swayed either way, then I might take it a little more seriously. Still, it wouldn't cause me to sway from the truth anyway. The truth is the truth, those who are turned away from it, are those who are hardened against the truth.

Quote:

The Islamic empire was not the last empire to be dismantled...

So what?


Quote:

Islam was unfortunately caught up in a hereditary system of government. However, it was for most of it's history a more advanced one than it's European counterparts.

So Islam is backwards now?


Quote:

Unfortunately it didn't play catch up in the end, we can agree on that.

Why do you expect it to play catch-up in the future?


Quote:

The difference between democracy and dictatorship is a false dichotomy. Islam is neither of those systems.

It is not a democracy. Just because the clerics try to pull the strings from behind the scenes does not mean it isn't a dictatorship.


Quote:

I'm not afraid of explaining anything fd. I've explained it already

No you didn't. If you had, I wouldn't have such basic questions going unanswered. The value of an explanation is whether it answers the audience's questions. You seem to have a completely different standard - stuff the audience, they will hear what I want them to hear and nothing more.


Quote:

and have posted a very lengthy scholarly article about it in the common misconceptions thread

You mean a link? Or did you manage to copy and paste a 'lengthy article'?


Quote:

just because it doesn't particularly take your fancy doesn't mean the information hasn't been presented

I want straight answers to simple questions Abu, that is all. Not lengthy answers to convenient made up questions that avoid the issue.


Quote:

Besides Islam is more than honest about it's texts, you can find them across thousands of sites (Islamic sites, not jihadwatch), translated into English.

Like on Answering Islam? Islam is not a person. Muslims seem far from honest about the texts. I don't want to spend ten years studying Islam to get some basic facts. I am trying to bridge the gap between what Muslims want people to know about Islam and what critics fear about Islam. I cannot do that if Muslims won't give honest answers. Is it any wonder that so many wild accusations about Islam get taken seriously when Muslims themselves fear to broach certain topics?


Quote:

Both Islam and Christianity did it in the past by forming empires.. yet you only believe Islam is like that... Ok.

I believe that only Islam makes a doctrine out of building an expansionist military empire. This is not just a comparison with Christianity. It is a comparison with all religions. Islam is unique in commanding its spread by the sword. That is not the same as saying only Muslims actually did that, but it is true that Islam is the only religion that creates a doctrinal barrier to the end of such barbarity. It is the only religion intent on dragging that barbarity into the modern world.


Quote:

I disagree, I don't think they were necessarily nasty, just a product of their times. That's just the way things were back then.

The fact that they were a product of their times does not mean it wasn't nasty.


Quote:

They capture this quite well when they say "In a time when even prophets bore arms", or something along those lines.

Did Jesus go round killing people? Did Moses? Did Budda?


Quote:

[quote]No it isn't. I don't have a problem with other proselytising religions.

That would be because you're a bigot.[/quote]

I am a bigot because I don't have a rpoblem with proselytising religions? Can you explain that please?


Quote:

*used* in a time when the rest of the world was far more barbaric

Abu, you yourself say you support stoning women to death. Our world is not that barbaric. So quit this stupid cop-out about Islam only being barbaric because of it's time. Remember, that argument only makes sense if you want to leave Islam in its barbaric past, not inflict it upon the modern world.


Quote:

It wouldn't be able to. It simply wouldn't even be able to eventuate back into the old paradigm.

Why not? Are you saying another 'evil empire' could never arise again? It's been less than a century since the Nazis tried to take over the world. That's a bit naive don't you think?


Quote:

That's the equivalent of saying American freedom isn't embraced by the people themselves, otherwise they wouldn't need the death penalty for treason... Someone's peddling crap here, but it ain't me.

Crap Abu. The US does not call for the death penalty of those who think freedom and democracy is a bad idea. Islam does call for the death penalty of those who reject Islam. It is not the same thing. Only Islam turns apostasy into a crime and punishes it with death. Like I said, Apostasy is not treason. The fact that Islam refuses to recognise the difference does not mean that Islam's death penalty for apostasy can be equated with America's penalty for treasoin.


Quote:

The Islamic empire was not imperialistic in the sense all European powers were.

Yes it was.


Quote:

Lands that came under Islam were given the exact same status as any other land. The citizens given the same status as all other citizens.

EXcept it never actually happened that way in practice did it? And Dhimmis are given second class status, not the 'exact same' status. Islam creates an Apartheid regime.

Quote:

The fact I was unable to answer some more detailed or loaded questions about Islam

They were not loaded questions Abu. I ahve pointed out to you before what the term loaded question actually means. It does not mean controversial. It does not mean a question whose answer you don't want to give. They are very simple questions. You even said you'd answer one if I played your silly game with you, but you never kept your word.


Quote:

Capital punishment is prescribed in the Islamic texts, militant expansionism is not, that's why

.

So the 'liberation' of Spain was not military expansionism? Or is this just another example of you changing the English language to make Islam seem more politically correct? Why did you keep bringing up Spain as an example of how 'nicely' Islam slaughtered people?

Quote:

No, it *is* the problem and you know it. The number of Aussies converting to Islam each year is of far more concern to you and most other islamophobes than al-Qaeda or JI are. And you know it.

That's not a concern to me at all. If the proverbial hits the fan, I'll have no trouble rounding up and dealing appropriately with you traitor Islamic fanboys.

What is of greater concern to me are the Islamic nations of Malaysia and Indonesia on our doorsteps, who could get fundie governments at some stage and decide that they need to bring the great aloha snackbar jihad down here.

If that happens, we can count on all of the muslims living in our community to be loyal to the Malaysian and Indonesian troops invading, meaning that they will need to be interned, and those who actually have helped - be shot.

Will happen one day. Just a question of when.

The US only has the death penalty lawfully for the following crimes:

- certain crimes in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, applicable to the military;

- crimes involving death (various, murder, terrorism etc);

- espionage involving nuclear secrets and treason.

- penalty of death for rape in Louisiana recently ruled unconstitutional. Pity.

None of the above is remotely comparable in terms of moral culpability to killing someone for 'blasphemy the prophet' or changing your religion.

abu_rashid wrote on Feb 13^th, 2009 at 8:26am:

Quote: Abu, you have done and are doing more damage to the cause of islam than everyone else here, combined soren, coming from you, a dedicated Islamophobe from the first time we ever interacted

As I said then and sadly need to repeat it now:


Soren wrote on Aug 14^th, 2008 at 10:10pm:

abu_rashid wrote on Aug 13th, 2008 at 10:04am: to incite hatred towards Islam The next guy who says this is a rotten egg. No-one does more to stoke this particular sentiment then muslims.  Enough of this empty, shop-soiled, double-talk cliche. With the greatest respect.

Lestat wrote on Feb 12^th, 2009 at 10:21pm:

lol...Lizzie. Is this the best you can come up. Reflects actually on how stupid you are. And the sad thing you actually think its clever. BWAHAHAHAHA No, we're winning because we have morons like you to contend with. Small play really, we just let you continously shoot yourself in the foot. :D

'winning', girl, 'winning'.

freediver,

Quote:

The Islamic empire was not the last empire to be dismantled... [quote]So what?

[/quote]

Come on fd, surely you get the relevance of that? you implied it's a uniquely Islamic trait that caused the Ottomans to try and cling onto the age of empires. I merely pointed out Muslims weren't the only ones.


Quote:

So Islam is backwards now?

Completely irrelevant question. Islam isn't even implemented now, for it to be considered backwards or not.


Quote:

Why do you expect it to play catch-up in the future?

Again, completely irrelevant question. A state only really plays catch up when it's already in the game, and is lagging behind. When entering the game, it must do so at the current "stage" of the game, and therefore wouldn't be playing catch up, would it?


Quote:

It is not a democracy. Just because the clerics try to pull the strings from behind the scenes does not mean it isn't a dictatorship

As I've tried to inform you enough times already, there's no such thing as a position called "cleric" in Islam, neither by that name, nor by an Arabic equivalent, nor even by the meaning. Such a position simply doesn't exist in the structure of the Caliphate. This is just a poor attempt to translate Christianity's structure onto your view of Islam, sorry but it doesn't always work out so neat and even.

Try judging Islam within it's own context, not just translating your ideas of Christianity onto it. "If Christianity is a religion and has clerics, and Islam is a religion, then it must also have clerics", this is a logical fallacy, and you well know it.


Quote:

No you didn't. If you had, I wouldn't have such basic questions going unanswered

You asked the question about where slaves and war booty can be taken, the answer is in the common misconceptions thread. End of story.

Not to mention the fact I've already stated several times in many threads you're involved in, that it relates to the Pagan Arab custom of taking women and riches into battle... Anyway when you wanna accept my answer, it's been given. If you choose not to,  good for you.


Quote:

Like on Answering Islam?

Yeh... anti-Islamic websites, sure... that's exactly what I meant. Is it that hard for you to actually look up Islamic websites, and see what they have to say? Are you incapable of browsing to anything other than jihadwatch or answering-islam.com? But you don't want pre-fab answers, you want me to be your personal answer-bot, as I said previously, sorry I'm not your lackey.

I answer what I like, when I like. I've answered probably 10 times more questions for you, than you've ever done for me. I've asked you so many things that you've just passed over... ever see me whinging and carrying on like this? in some lame attempt to claim victory because the other side doesn't answer? Grow up fd.


Quote:

Is it any wonder that so many wild accusations about Islam get taken seriously

They get taken seriously because Islamophobes wanna believe them, not because of lack of access to Islamic sources.

I remember back when I was searching about different religions. I found Islam to be the most forthcoming. Try digging up detailed information, like you can find about Islam, on any other religions beliefs, you simply won't find it. It's difficult to come by.

Islam is honest, you are not.


Quote:

I believe that only Islam makes a doctrine out of building an expansionist military empire.

Good for you. As I said, nothing in Islam that states "build an expansionist empire" sorry.


Quote:

Islam is unique in commanding its spread by the sword.

Strawman, Islam doesn't command it's spread by the sword.


Quote:

The fact that they were a product of their times does not mean it wasn't nasty.

Well no more than states are nasty today, as a product of their own times. The problem is fd, you view them in a vaccum, and you do use today's standards as your yardstick, by which to measure them. By today's standards, yes they would be considered nastier. I agree.


Quote:

Did Jesus go round killing people? Did Moses? Did Budda?

I can't seriously believe you put Moses (pbuh) in there!! Didn't you say you read the Bible before??? Did you just skip over the parts where God supposedly commanded Moses (pbuh) to kill men, women, children, old young, maidens, pregnant women etc. ???

You truly are a goose. Did you think slipping that in between two known pacifists might pass undetected??? Or are you just really ignorant about such things? Besides, there are a few passages of the Bible, which indicate Jesus (pbuh) was not necessarily a pacifist. Likewise, assuming his entire life is documented in the Bible, would be a little more than naive.

No doubt now you're going to flip flop and claim "But they don't follow the doctrines in the Bible anymore". So when it suits you to judge Islam based on what's in it's texts rather than their actions, you'll do so, then when it comes to Christianity/Judaism you judge them on their actions, not their text.. Make up your mind. Do you judge a religion based on it's texts or it's actions?


Quote:

I am a bigot because I don't have a rpoblem with proselytising religions other than Islam? Can you explain that please?

Exactly.

(note: your statement has been modified to reflect truthfully what it was in response to. ie. that you don't have a problem with proselytising religions other than Islam, please be honest from now on fd)

Quote:

Abu, you yourself say you support stoning women to death

I do? Really? Can you provide a link/quote? Perhaps it's in that thread where I said I support stoning people to death who have bad penmanship?

Sensationalist lines like this "you support stoning women to death" really do nothing more than take any impact, that might've been in your argument, out of it. Nowhere did I specifically state I support stoning women to death any more than I support stoning red haired people to death or people who own an odd pair of socks or people who live north of the tropic of capricorn and you well know it. So why do you insist with this nonsense?

It leads me to believe you just want your arguments to be dismissed.. or you're just a bit dense.


Quote:

Why not? Are you saying another 'evil empire' could never arise again? It's been less than a century since the Nazis tried to take over the world. That's a bit naive don't you think?

It's highly unlikely any more empires will be arising again, as we know them. Look at the world's response to the Nazi empire. It wouldn't have been all that much different even if they didn't kill lots of people, the world simply isn't a place for empires anymore. They simply don't fit into the geo-political landscape anymore.


Quote:

Crap Abu. The US does not call for the death penalty of those who think freedom and democracy is a bad idea... ...does not mean that Islam's death penalty for apostasy can be equated with America's penalty for treasoin.

US citizens who reject US freedom and democracy, and embrace Communism, can and have been executed for doing so. And if Senator Joe had had his way, it would not have had to have involved a conviction for spying.

Anyway, this was a comparative analogy, I wasn't claiming the two death penalties are exactly alike, they are not. Although I do consider it to be treason, and that's what's mentioned in the hadiths about it, quite clearly.

You claimed that it's "crap" that Islam spreads by people recognising the truth of it  and embracing it, BECAUSE of the fact the death penalty exists for apostates. Now that's no more correct than the assertion that the US doesn't believe in freedom and democracy, BECAUSE of the fact it calls for the death penalty for those who reject those things, and embrace another ideology, committing treason against the state. Nowhere does that analogy maintain that the two death penalties are identical in their details.

I really shouldn't need to explain this kind of stuff for you. Stop *digging* for points... it does nothing but indicate desperation.


Quote:

The Islamic empire was not imperialistic in the sense all European powers were. [quote]Yes it was.

[/quote]

No it was not. I did explain some of the reasons why, it would've been better if you addressed them, rather than just saying "Yes it is".


Quote:

EXcept it never actually happened that way in practice did it? And Dhimmis are given second class status, not the 'exact same' status. Islam creates an Apartheid regime.

And you claim you don't ask loaded questions.

Even if we accept the loaded component of your question, that dhimmis are relegated to second class status (which they most certainly are not), that wouldn't refute my claim that the Caliphate made the peoples of conquered lands full and equal citizens, because any Muslims in those lands would be full and equal citizens, unlike the European empires, who did not. But who held the lands as a possession to pillage and plunder, whilst the people just remained like slaves, subjects who could only be transported to other colonies to perform labour. Even if the subjects of a colony embraced Christianity, as many foolishly did, they were still much worse off than a dhimmi in the Caliphate (according to your second class citizen claim). But hey, at least they'd be equal with all the non-Christian 'subjects' of the colony right?? None of this second class slaves business here!!


Quote:

Capital punishment is prescribed in the Islamic texts, militant expansionism is not, that's why [quote]So the 'liberation' of Spain was not military expansionism? Or is this just another example of you changing the English language to make Islam seem more politically correct?

[/quote]

No, it's another case of you trying to change the context of the argument.

You responded to my assertion that military expansionism is not in the Islamic texts, by questioning if the 'liberation' of Spain was military expansionism. Whether it was or wasn't, doesn't tell us anything about what's in the Islamic texts, does it fd?


Quote:

Why did you keep bringing up Spain as an example of how 'nicely' Islam slaughtered people?

Spain is an example of how Islam spread at the request of the Christians themselves, nothing more, nor have I claimed it as anything else. Another loaded question from the person who claims he doesn't load questions.

Quote:

Come on fd, surely you get the relevance of that? you implied it's a uniquely Islamic trait that caused the Ottomans to try and cling onto the age of empires. I merely pointed out Muslims weren't the only ones.

Muslims are the only ones who are still clinging to it. Everyone else has come to their senses.


Quote:

Completely irrelevant question. Islam isn't even implemented now, for it to be considered backwards or not.

Haven't we been over this before? Islam can be backwards even if it is not implimented. We can still talk about Islamic doctrine even if there is no Caliphate. Get it?


Quote:

Again, completely irrelevant question. A state only really plays catch up when it's already in the game, and is lagging behind. When entering the game, it must do so at the current "stage" of the game, and therefore wouldn't be playing catch up, would it?

Again, it is a very relevant question. Quit the silly games Abu. You can't deflect to 'Islam doesn't exist' every time you get a difficult question.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Deception_of_Non-Muslims#Islam_doesn.27t_exist


Quote:

As I've tried to inform you enough times already, there's no such thing as a position called "cleric" in Islam, neither by that name, nor by an Arabic equivalent, nor even by the meaning. Such a position simply doesn't exist in the structure of the Caliphate. This is just a poor attempt to translate Christianity's structure onto your view of Islam, sorry but it doesn't always work out so neat and even.

We've been over this too Abu. No it isn't Abu. As I have told you, cleric is the common English term used to describe a Muslim in a religious leadership position. Until Muslims can offer up a single generic word, rather than insisting people learn the dozen or so specific ones before they will even discuss an issue, they will have to put up with the inevitable. If you have the specific word, supply it. If you don't know what the specific word is, don;t criticis others for not knowing, and don;'t use it as yet another excuse to worm your way out of a difficult point.


Quote:

Try judging Islam within it's own context, not just translating your ideas of Christianity onto it. "If Christianity is a religion and has clerics, and Islam is a religion, then it must also have clerics", this is a logical fallacy, and you well know it.

I'm not doing that Abu. As I have pointed out countless times, in this context Islamic cleric does not imply an equivalent to the Christian position. So get over it already. It is you who is unnecessarily projecting the Christian context onto the Islamic one. No-one else here is confused about it, only you. I have told you what I mean. I have told you what the word means. All that is left is for you to understand it.


Quote:

You asked the question about where slaves and war booty can be taken, the answer is in the common misconceptions thread. End of story.

There are no answers in the common misconceptions thread. Only deflections. For example, I did not ask about where slaves and war booty can be taken. This is judst another example of you making up a question you can answer to avoid the one you don;t want to answer. Let me be the judge of whether it clarifies anything to me. You may think it is wonderful. I think it is completely useless. I suggest you use it to answer your questions instead of pretending it answers mine.


Quote:

Yeh... anti-Islamic websites, sure... that's exactly what I meant. Is it that hard for you to actually look up Islamic websites, and see what they have to say?

I wnat an answer to a specific question, not another fluff piece. Sure, I could find a dozen different answers to my question, all saying something different. Then I would have a dozen more questions that you are unwilling to answer. So stop rpetending that 'google it' is a useful answer. If you are ashamed of your religion, why pretend to be open and honest about it?


Quote:

Are you incapable of browsing to anything other than jihadwatch or answering-islam.com?

I have never browsed either. I don't pretend to be able to judge what is a real Muslim belief and what isn't. That is whole point of asking a Muslim. Get it?


Quote:

I answer what I like, when I like. I've answered probably 10 times more questions for you, than you've ever done for me. I've asked you so many things that you've just passed over... ever see me whinging and carrying on like this? in some lame attempt to claim victory because the other side doesn't answer? Grow up fd.

;D ;D Like when you told me I was a zionist and I had to answer questions about Zionism?


Quote:

They get taken seriously because Islamophobes wanna believe them, not because of lack of access to Islamic sources.

But I clearly didn't believe them when Lestat and sprint were posting them. I only believed Islam was barbaric when you confirmed some of the nastier aspects. Yet you still insist on the tired old line of us all being Islamophobes for no valid reason who never listen to what Muslims actually think. Here's you chance Abu. Answer some questions and dispel some myths.

Quote:

I remember back when I was searching about different religions. I found Islam to be the most forthcoming. Try digging up detailed information, like you can find about Islam, on any other religions beliefs, you simply won't find it. It's difficult to come by.

It's the same with Islam. If I want to know what Christians believe, i will ask one. If I want to know what Muslims believe, I will ask one. That's why I'm asking you. That's why it's absurd for you to tell me to 'google it' because you don't want me to use your words against you.


Quote:

Islam is honest, you are not.

Islam is an ideology. Muslims are dishonest.


Quote:

Good for you. As I said, nothing in Islam that states "build an expansionist empire" sorry.

Yes it does. Why else would you be so afraid to answer the questions about Islamic concepts on spoils of war? Why do you go to so much effort to deflect, but never actually answer questions?


Quote:

Strawman, Islam doesn't command it's spread by the sword.

Yes it does Abu. It just words it slightly differently. The outcome is the same. It's like when you tried to tell me Islam supports freedom of religion. It is a lie. It supports it only technically. Then it gives detailed instructions on how to deny people freedom of religion.


Quote:

Sensationalist lines like this "you support stoning women to death" really do nothing more than take any impact, that might've been in your argument, out of it. Nowhere did I specifically state I support stoning women to death any more than I support stoning red haired people to death or people who own an odd pair of socks or people who live north of the tropic of capricorn and you well know it. So why do you insist with this nonsense?

Because you support stoning women to death. Men too. Happy now?


Quote:

Anyway, this was a comparative analogy

Yes, and Islam came out much worse. America defends freedom of religion. Islam opposes it.


Quote:

You claimed that it's "crap" that Islam spreads by people recognising the truth of it  and embracing it, BECAUSE of the fact the death penalty exists for apostates

.

Not just that. There is the treatment of non-Muslims as second class citizens, or worse. There are all the repulsive laws that the Caliphates imposed on non-Muslims. There is the union of church and state. There is the military-polygamy-concubine complex. Islam is designed to create a society that denies people freedom of religion on every level. It is a virulent ideology. It spread by denying people choice.


Quote:

I really shouldn't need to explain this kind of stuff for you. Stop *digging* for points... it does nothing but indicate desperation.

I am not diggiing for points. I am trying to get you to understand that freedom of religion means more than just saying freedom of religion. It must happen in practice. Islam denies people freedom of religion. No objective consideration of Islamic law could conclude anything else. Any claim that Islam allows freedom of religion is a bald faced lie.


Quote:

Even if we accept the loaded component of your question, that dhimmis are relegated to second class status (which they most certainly are not)

But they are Abu. We have an entire thread devoted to it.


Quote:

that wouldn't refute my claim that the Caliphate made the peoples of conquered lands full and equal citizens, because any Muslims in those lands would be full and equal citizens

It would refute your claim, because only the Muslims would be full and equal citizens. Unless you imagine that the people magically converted straight away before they were systematically subjected to all the ways in which Islam denies them freedom of religion.


Quote:

You responded to my assertion that military expansionism is not in the Islamic texts, by questioning if the 'liberation' of Spain was military expansionism. Whether it was or wasn't, doesn't tell us anything about what's in the Islamic texts, does it fd?

Well I've asked you that exact question before, and you refused to answer it, on the grounds that I might use you answer against you. In fact, you instroduced Spain repeatedly of how 'nicely' Islam expands.


Quote:

Spain is an example of how Islam spread at the request of the Christians themselves

No it is not Abu. This is another bald faced lie. Divide and conquer is not liberation, so quit pretending that it is. How can you complain when people say Muslims lie when you turn around and sprout crap like that?