Sappho wrote on Sep 11^th, 2011 at 2:53am:

abu_rashid wrote on Sep 11th, 2011 at 12:24am: Sappho, Quote: Do you understand that such behaviour could be construed as a declaration of war? I don't know where you've been, but the Zionists declared war on the entire Muslim world back in the 1920's when they began their little project to swipe a Muslim country, and make it their own. Bit late to realise a state of war exists isn't it? So what you are saying is that Britain and by default the Commonwealth and the US are at war with all Arab nations and have been since Israel's inception? You see it was the British that secured Israel for the Jews. It started with the Balfour Declaration and then went on to the British Mandate of Palestine which the US also signed off on; separately of course, since they were not a part of the League of Nations.

abu_rashid wrote on Sep 11^th, 2011 at 4:49am:

Sappho, not just the Arab world, the entire Muslim world, yes. Again, where have you been?

Question for Abu: have you chosen a side in this war?

Muslims neither decided to be at war, nor to have their side... it was chosen for us wasn't it?

We did not instigate this war, it was thrust upon us.

Are you seriously unaware that if you take over someone's country, bring in millions of illegal refugees, boot out millions of the original inhabitants, that it's going to be understood as a declaration of war????

I can't believe anyone could be so indifferent to that.

I ask, as I've asked numerous times, how you'd construe it, were you the one on the receiving end of such an act?

I did not say we have been at war since the 1920's with the Muslim world. You did. Hence the question.

Which side do you see yourself as being on?

abu_rashid wrote on Sep 11^th, 2011 at 10:29am:

Muslims neither decided to be at war, nor to have their side... it was chosen for us wasn't it? We did not instigate this war, it was thrust upon us.....

Abu,

Isn't it true that ISLAM, from its very inception has been at war with ALL of 'unbelieving' mankind ???

Didn't Allah inform Mohammed, that Allah [and therefore ALL moslems!], are engaged in never-ending warfare with ALL of 'unbelieving' mankind ???




Abu, there has never been peace between moslems and non-moslems.

Because ISLAM mandates, that moslems ARE NEVER ALLOWED TO EXTEND PEACEFUL RELATIONS, TO NON-MOSLEMS, NOR TO NON-MOSLEM NATIONS.
....but only a hudna [truce].

But THAT truce MUST only be extended, until moslems feel themselves strong enough to engage in a 'hot' war [Jihad] with 'unbelievers'.


+++


"......the curse of Allah is on those without Faith."
Koran 2.089

"....Lo! Allah is an enemy to those who reject Faith."
Koran 2.98
[i.e. 'Unbelief' is a crime.]

"...And why should ye not fight in the cause of Allah...Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah, and those who reject Faith Fight in the cause of Evil: So fight ye against the friends of Satan:.."
Koran 4.74-76
[i.e. Fighting against 'unbelievers' is sanctified, fighting against 'unbelievers' is 'good works'. Because 'unbelievers' [of Allah] are in league with SATAN. So those who are indeed, good moslems will fight against the 'unbelievers'.]

"....those who reject Allah have no protector."
Koran 47.008
v. 8-11

"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. "
Koran 9.29

"Let not the believers take for friends or helpers unbelievers rather than believers. If any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah; except by way of precaution, that ye may guard yourselves from them."
Koran 3.28

"O ye who believe! Take not my enemies and yours as friends (or protectors),- offering them (your) love,..."
Koran 60.1

"O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty (unto Him)."
Koran 9.123

"Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain:...."
Koran 9.111

"Allah 's Apostle said, " I have been ordered to fight with the people till they say, 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,' ...."
hadithsunnah/bukhari #004.052.196

+++




Quote:

Cleric preaches that violence is part of Islam 01/05/2007 In documents seen by The Daily Telegraph, al-Muhajiroun claimed: "Terrorism is a part of Islam" and "Allah made it obligatory to prepare and to terrify the enemy of Allah". The article advised: "The kuffar of USA and UK are without doubt our enemy. There is no such thing as an innocent kafir, innocence is only applicable for the Muslims. Not only is it obligatory to fight them, it is haram [forbidden] to feel sorry for them."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1550211/Cleric-preaches-that-violence-is-part-of-Islam.html


AND,



Quote:

Live in peace till strong enough to wage jihad, says UK Deoband scholar to Muslims London, Sept.8 [2007] A Deobandi scholar believes Muslims should preach peace till they are strong enough to undertake a jihad, or a holy war. Justice Muhammad Taqi Usmani was quoted by the BBC as saying that Muslims should live peacefully in countries such as Britain, where they have the freedom to practise Islam, only until they gain enough power to engage in battle.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article2409833.ece




So you are just lying to us, aren't you Abu.

You know, very well, that ISLAM mandates, that a state of enmity and warfare MUST ALWAYS EXIST towards ALL non-moslems.





Quote:

Here, for example, are two very illuminating passages from the canonical Life of Mohammed by Ibn Ishaq, as translated by A. Guillaume, and a third passage, from the earliest known Muslim historian. Ishaq: 204 - "'Men, do you know what you are pledging yourselves to in swearing allegiance to this man [Muhammad]?' 'Yes. In swearing allegiance to him we are pledging to wage war against all mankind.'" Ishaq:231 - "Muslims are one ummah (community) to the exclusion of all men. Believers are friends of one another to the exclusion of all outsiders." And here is Al-Tabari, a very early Muslim historian, in book 9, chapter or section 69, reporting words that Muslims believe to have been said by Mohammed himself - "Killing infidels is a small matter to us". These texts are not fossils from a distant past. They are not dead letters. They are still 'live' and carry tremendous weight in the imagination and practice of many Muslims around the world. ...DDA

Google it.


n.b.
"Killing infidels is a small matter to us"

The Quran teaches that Muslims must fight those who attack Muslims, but can have peace with those who are friendly:


"...So if they withdraw from you, and fight not against you, and offer you peace, then God has opened no way for you (to fight) against them."(The Quran, an-Nisaa, verse 90)



"And fight in the Way of God those who fight you, but transgress not the limits (of warfare). Truly, God likes not the transgressors... And fight them until there is no more tribulation. But if they cease fighting, let there be no transgression (of the ceasfire) except against oppressors. (The Quran, al-Baqarah, 190-193)


"But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in God: for He is One that heareth and knoweth (all things).  (The Quran, al-Anfal, 61)"


God does not forbid you from showing kindness and dealing justly with those who have not fought you about religion and have not driven you out of your homes. God loves just dealers.  (The Quran, Al-Mumtahinah, 8)



Now, let see what the Bible says:


"Now kill all the boys [innocent kids]. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man. (Numbers 31:17-18)"


However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes.(Deuteronomy 20:16)


3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. (1 Samuel 15:3)

falah wrote on Sep 12^th, 2011 at 9:32am:

The Quran teaches that Muslims must fight those who attack Muslims, but can have peace with those who are friendly:

falah,

You are a deceitful person.

You are a moslem.






falah wrote on Sep 12^th, 2011 at 9:32am:

"...So if they withdraw from you, and fight not against you, and offer you peace, then God has opened no way for you (to fight) against them."(The Quran, an-Nisaa, verse 90)

Moslems, and the Koran, often use 'WEASEL WORDS'.

'Peace' does NOT mean the peace which you understand.

Moslems, deceitfully, do not reveal that the only definition of 'peace' which moslems accept, is;

"Peace, is submission to Allah's will."








falah wrote on Sep 12^th, 2011 at 9:32am:

"And fight in the Way of God those who fight you, but transgress not the limits (of warfare). Truly, God likes not the transgressors... And fight them until there is no more tribulation. But if they cease fighting, let there be no transgression (of the ceasfire) except against oppressors. (The Quran, al-Baqarah, 190-193)

Moslems, and the Koran, often use 'WEASEL WORDS'.

'Oppression' is when people live without Sharia law.

So if you object to the oppression [upon yourself, as a non-moslem] of Sharia law, YOU will be deemed to be an OPPRESSOR of moslems!

And, if you are within [under] their power, the moslems will kill you, for 'insulting' their 'religion'.








falah wrote on Sep 12^th, 2011 at 9:32am:

"But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in God: for He is One that heareth and knoweth (all things).  (The Quran, al-Anfal, 61)"

Moslems, and the Koran, often use 'WEASEL WORDS'.

'Peace' does NOT mean the peace which you understand.

Moslems, deceitfully, do not reveal that the only definition of 'peace' which moslems accept, is;

"Peace, is submission to Allah's will."







falah wrote on Sep 12^th, 2011 at 9:32am:

God does not forbid you from showing kindness and dealing justly with those who have not fought you about religion and have not driven you out of your homes. God loves just dealers.  (The Quran, Al-Mumtahinah, 8)

Moslems, and the Koran, often use 'WEASEL WORDS'.

Moslems will 'forgive you' if;
1/ you surrender your lives to them,
2/ will live as their slaves, as 3rd class citizens serfs,
3/ do not try to oppose ISLAMIC oppression [i.e. Sharia law].






+++


BEWARE;
Moslems always engage in deceit and sophistry, when describing ISLAM to non-moslems [....those non-moslems who are not YET within their political control].

Dictionary;
sophistry = = the use of fallacious arguments, especially to deceive.


If a moslem told me that, that bright thing in the sky was the sun,
....i would seek a second opinion.




See moslem SOPHISTRY EXAMPLE's 1, 2, 3......

Muslims are destroying our country.
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1314069846/179#179

fd,


Quote:

I did not say we have been at war since the 1920's with the Muslim world. You did. Hence the question. Which side do you see yourself as being on?

As I said, my side was chosen for me, by those who declared war against the entire Muslim world. You are the one who should be asking yourself which side you're on. Are you on the side of the aggressors, who go around waging war on innocent people in order to swipe their resources and dominate them, or are you on the side of those who resist and reject this?

ie. are you a supporter of tyranny and oppression? Or a supporter of ending those things?

Just out of curiosity fd, who do you root for in the Arab world at the moment? Gunning for the West's dictator buddies to stay in power are we? Which side are you on? When Dubya asked the people to choose, which one did you choose? Oil company monopolies? Or resistance and freedom fighting?

---

Yadda, you are the most deceitful person here. You consistently lie and slander Islam due to your delusional fantasies of persecution at the hands of Muslims.

Islam commands the Muslims to fight to establish peace, not to fight to steal other peoples resources, nor to merely dominate over others to exert your influence on them as the Western ideology does.

The Qur'an clearly says to fight those who fight you, but not to transgress bounds and be the aggressor. You can make all the cut and paste rants you like, but those are the facts.

abu_rashid wrote on Sep 12^th, 2011 at 8:17pm:

As I said, my side was chosen for me, by those who declared war against the entire Muslim world.

LOL... you speak in favour of a mono culture and against the multi cultures. Where as I speak in favour of the multi cultures with tolerance of the mono cultures.

Seems to me Abu... although you don't really see it for yourself yet... that your real beef is with the abuse of power that is found in super powers and corporations.  

Quote:

As I said, my side was chosen for me, by those who declared war against the entire Muslim world. You are the one who should be asking yourself which side you're on.

No Abu, that would not make sense, as you are the only one here who believes we have been at war with the Muslim world for nearly a centruy. Given your insistance that the historical Islamic empire grew peacefully rather than through war, you must have a very flexible definition of war.


Quote:

Just out of curiosity fd, who do you root for in the Arab world at the moment? Gunning for the West's dictator buddies to stay in power are we? Which side are you on? When Dubya asked the people to choose, which one did you choose? Oil company monopolies? Or resistance and freedom fighting?

I root for the people who are defending the newly established democracies.

Abu, do you offer financial support to the people you are at war with?

How about you Falah, do you think we have been at war with the Muslim world since the 20s?

Sappho wrote on Sep 12^th, 2011 at 8:48pm:

abu_rashid wrote on Sep 12th, 2011 at 8:17pm: As I said, my side was chosen for me, by those who declared war against the entire Muslim world. LOL... you speak in favour of a mono culture and against the multi cultures. Where as I speak in favour of the multi cultures with tolerance of the mono cultures. Seems to me Abu... although you don't really see it for yourself yet... that your real beef is with the abuse of power that is found in super powers and corporations.

Sappho,

What you said, what you described, is exactly correct imo.

ISLAM is a 'corporation' which seeks to eliminate all 'corporate' competition.

ISLAM only pretends to promote 'multiculturalism', AND, only in those jurisdictions where it is itself, seeking 'cultural' entry, so as to elicit tolerance for ISLAM, from others.

But with ISLAM tolerance is always expressed as a one way street.

Everyone must tolerate ISLAM, while ISLAM is intolerant of all other cultural influences.

The truth is that ISLAM is absolutely incompatible with all other human cultures.

Whenever ISLAM has the power to do so, ISLAM will assert itself as a mono-culture [if it is able, eventually expunge the influence of all other cultural influences in a society].



Further, imo ISLAM is totally incompatible with Western ideals of democracy, freedom, justice.


e.g.
Look at how non-moslems are systematically oppressed and persecuted within all moslem majority nations.

Just do some Google-ing....

TRUTH...
Google;
christians persecuted "muslim world"

Google;
christians persecuted muslim nations





"If you want to know a man's character, give him power."
Abraham Lincoln

You gotta be kidding. The Muslims were the first to establish a multicultural society, and the only to ever successfully hold one together for anything more than a few decades (so far).

The entire concept of a multicultural society is borrowed from the Islamic societal model, most specifically the Ottoman one.

I'd suggest you people broaden your horizons a little and do some reading on this topic.

abu_rashid wrote on Sep 12^th, 2011 at 8:17pm:

#1, Yadda, you are the most deceitful person here. You consistently lie and slander Islam due to your delusional fantasies of persecution at the hands of Muslims. #2, Islam commands the Muslims to fight to establish peace, not to fight to steal other peoples resources, nor to merely dominate over others to exert your influence on them as the Western ideology does. #3, The Qur'an clearly says to fight those who fight you, but not to transgress bounds and be the aggressor. You can make all the cut and paste rants you like, but those are the facts.

No.

The Koran to tells moslems to fight, those who are,        ....'unbelievers'.



Abu,

Why do you wilfully ignore the contents of, and the arguments made within ISLAMIC texts ???

ISLAMIC 'religious' texts are replete with encouragement and exhortations to moslems to bring moslem oppression down upon non-moslems.

In response to #3....

"If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah), never will it be accepted of him;...."
Koran 3.85

In response to #3....

"Allah 's Apostle said, " I have been ordered to fight with the people till they say, 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,' ...."
hadithsunnah/bukhari #004.052.196

In response to #3....

"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. "
Koran 9.29



Abu,

It is irrefutable that the use of violence, by moslems, to IMPOSE ISLAM upon mankind, is promoted, encouraged and exhorted to moslems, as 'good works'
....within ISLAMIC 'religious' texts.

Why do you deny it ?

"Islam commands the Muslims to fight to establish peace,..."

In response to #2....

Three references in the Hadith, show that 'religious fighting' in Allah's cause [so as to IMPOSE ISLAMIC hegemony upon others, using violence], is an obligation for moslems...

#1,
"Allah's Apostle was asked, "What is the best deed?" He replied, "To believe in Allah and His Apostle (Muhammad). The questioner then asked, "What is the next (in goodness)? He replied, "To participate in Jihad (religious fighting) in Allah's Cause." "
hadithsunnah/bukhari/ #001.002.025


#2,
"A man came to the Prophet and asked, "A man fights for war booty; another fights for fame and a third fights for showing off; which of them fights in Allah's Cause?" The Prophet said, "He who fights that Allah's Word (i.e. Islam) should be superior, fights in Allah's Cause." "
hadithsunnah/bukhari/ #004.052.065
#3,
hadithsunnah/bukhari/ #004.052.080i

n.b.
"He who fights that Allah's Word (i.e. Islam) should be superior, fights in Allah's Cause."



+++

There is no persuasion.

No debate in reason.

e.g.
There is no nation, or nations, anywhere in the world today, which moslems wish to proffer, as a demonstration of how ISLAM is a meritorious philosophy.

No.

Rather it is;
"We moslems will lie to you 'unbelievers' about ISLAM, until we can IMPOSE ISLAM upon you using the tyranny of absolute political power."


And why so ??

Because moslems do not recognise a right of advancement in life based upon merit.

Rather, we are told [by moslems themselves!] that all moslems, have achieved 'merit' in this life, because they have embraced ISLAM.

Even Allah declares it, in the Koran!

"Ye [moslems] are the best of peoples, evolved for mankind, enjoining what is right, forbidding what is wrong, and believing in Allah. If only the People of the Book had faith, it were best for them: among them are some who have faith, but most of them are perverted transgressors."
Koran 3.110




AND, THE WHOLE WORLD BELONGS TO MOSLEMS

According to Allah, as per ISLAM's foundation texts, the Koran, and the Hadith, the whole world belongs to moslems [as war booty]....

"Or have they gods that can guard them from Us? They have no power to aid themselves, nor can they be defended from Us.
...See they not that We gradually reduce the land (in their control) from its outlying borders? Is it then they who will win?"
Koran 21:43-44

"And He made you [moslems] heirs to their [non-moslem] land and their dwellings and their property, and (to) a land which you have not yet trodden, and Allah has power over all things."
Koran 33:27



The violent supremacism which is being expressed in the actions of moslems around the world today, is sourced from within, is encouraged within, and is motivated by, ISLAM's own foundation texts, the Koran, and the Hadith.

And this attitude of domineering moslem supremacy, coupled with a sense of automatic unearned entitlement and merit ["BECAUSE WE ARE MOSLEMS."] is taught to every moslem [from childhood], by ISLAM.

i.e.
Again, all moslems are taught from childhood, that THEY have achieved the highest merit in this life, because they have embraced ISLAM.

Yadda, you are all about attacking the muslims, but it is not shifting the gaze from


Quote:

Now, let see what the Bible says: "Now kill all the boys [innocent kids]. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man. (Numbers 31:17-18)" However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes.(Deuteronomy 20:16) 3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. (1 Samuel 15:3)

and this is just the tip of the iceburg.
this is humans at their worse, at least as bad as you say the muslims are.

abu_rashid wrote on Sep 13^th, 2011 at 12:10am:

You gotta be kidding.

No, sadly I am not. It really is the case that only Western Nations have an official policy of Multiculturalism.


Quote:

The Muslims were the first to establish a multicultural society, and the only to ever successfully hold one together for anything more than a few decades (so far). The entire concept of a multicultural society is borrowed from the Islamic societal model, most specifically the Ottoman one.

Yes, the Ottoman Empire had much to be said for it, including it's fusion of Eastern and Western culture and lifestyle as well as embracing multiculturalism through the Millets.

It is a shame that Islam cannot return to such ideals. It is a shame that only The West is leading the way in Multiculturalism in our Brave New World.


Quote:

I'd suggest you people broaden your horizons a little and do some reading on this topic.

Thanks. But I don't need too. I am quite well versed in History. My discussion however was not towards an argument about historical societies, rather, I was, and you were, discussing contemporary societies.

Deborahmac09 wrote on Sep 13^th, 2011 at 2:08pm:

Yadda, you are all about attacking the muslims, but it is not shifting the gaze from Quote: Now, let see what the Bible says: "Now kill all the boys [innocent kids]. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man. (Numbers 31:17-18)" However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes.(Deuteronomy 20:16) 3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. (1 Samuel 15:3)     and this is just the tip of the iceburg. this is humans at their worse, at least as bad as you say the muslims are.

deb,

See my reply here....

Norway Killer Attacked Multiculturalism
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1312181179/6#6

Quote:

But what, you say, about the massacring of the original inhabitants of the land [of Israel], which is recorded in the OT bible ??? The God of Israel wanted those persons dead, ALL OF THEM. Why so ??? Because in the sight of God, the original inhabitants of the land [of Israel] were very wicked people. How so ??? Because, for example, the original inhabitants of the land [of Israel] would take their children to 'barbecues', and then slay and 'barbecue' and then eat, their own children. And the God of Israel said that such a people, didn't deserve to live.

AND;
Christians haven't read their own Bible
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1284014298/87#87

Quote:

[quote]Before bagging other religions and burning other Bibles, Christians should read their own Bible properly and objectively to see how much religious intolerance that their own Bible promotes. For example:-

Kill the Entire Town if One Person Worships Another God
- - YOU ARE MAKING A FALSE AND ERRONEOUS CONCLUSION FROM THAT BIBLE TEXT

Kill Followers of Other Religions.
- - YOU ARE MAKING A FALSE AND ERRONEOUS CONCLUSION FROM THAT BIBLE TEXT

Kill False Prophets
- - TRUE.........


.....The obligations of the covenant people...

'...And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.
And Moses came and called for the elders of the people, and laid before their faces all these words which the LORD commanded him.
And all the people answered together, and said, All that the LORD hath spoken we will do....'
Exodus 19:5-8

Leviticus 20:22
Ye shall therefore keep all my statutes, and all my judgments, and do them: that the land, whither I bring you to dwell therein, spue you not out.
23  And ye shall not walk in the manners of the nation, which I cast out before you: for they committed all these things, and therefore I abhorred them.
24  But I have said unto you, Ye shall inherit their land, and I will give it unto you to possess it, a land that floweth with milk and honey: I am the LORD your God, which have separated you from other people.

Leviticus 20:26
And ye shall be holy unto me: for I the LORD am holy, and have severed you from other people, that ye should be mine.



The God of Israel also commanded the Hebrew people to kill the inhabitants of the land [they were given, in possession, by their God].
To cleanse the land of their [the inhabitants] wickedness.
Harsh?
Yes.

Wicked?
The bible reveals that among other things, the original inhabitants of the land roasted their own children, in fires, in sacrifice to their false gods.

Leviticus 18:21
Leviticus 20:1-5
Deuteronomy 12:28-31

[/quote]

Sappho wrote on Sep 13^th, 2011 at 8:01pm:

Quote: The Muslims were the first to establish a multicultural society, and the only to ever successfully hold one together for anything more than a few decades (so far). The entire concept of a multicultural society is borrowed from the Islamic societal model, most specifically the Ottoman one. Yes, the Ottoman Empire had much to be said for it, including it's fusion of Eastern and Western culture and lifestyle as well as embracing multiculturalism through the Millets. It is a shame that Islam cannot return to such ideals. It is a shame that only The West is leading the way in Multiculturalism in our Brave New World. [quote]I'd suggest you people broaden your horizons a little and do some reading on this topic.

Thanks. But I don't need too.

I am quite well versed in History.

My discussion however was not towards an argument about historical societies, rather, I was, and you were, discussing contemporary societies.

[/quote]



Sappho,

Aren't you overlooking some history relating to the 'multicultural' Ottoman empire ???



e.g.

Quote:

....During the last years of the Ottoman Empire in the late 1800s and early 1900s, Turkish Muslims repeatedly massacred Bulgarians, Serbs and other Christian subject peoples who were perceived to be disobedient dhimmis, culminating in the outright Jihad genocide of Armenian Christians. To this day, Turkish authorities flatly deny that there was any systematic effort at forcing Armenians out of eastern Anatolia. Turkey instead claims that hundreds of thousands of Turks were killed by Armenians. Talking about the Armenian Genocide is literally banned by law.

http://www.think-israel.org/fjordman.moderatemuslimillusion.html



And Sappho, do not forget, that moslems [have a history  >:(  ] are renowned revisionists of their own moslem history, erasing everything from their own record of history, which would show them as oppressors, but always recording their own history as being the benevolent overlords, of subjugated peoples.

In other words ISLAMIC 'history' has often been shown to be a false, self aggrandising, record.

Abu, how does Islam's stance on religious tolerance fit in with multiculturalism? Does genuine multiculturalism require a rejection of Islamic principles?

freediver wrote on Sep 13^th, 2011 at 10:12pm:

Abu, how does Islam's stance on religious tolerance fit in with multiculturalism? Does genuine multiculturalism require a rejection of Islamic principles?

Abu, how does Islam's stance on religious tolerance fit in with multiculturalism? Does genuine +moslem+ multiculturalism require a +tolerance, by moslems and ISLAM, of the+ rejection of Islamic principles +of other peoples+?

Quote:

It is a shame that Islam cannot return to such ideals. It is a shame that only The West is leading the way in Multiculturalism in our Brave New World.

Agreed 100%. But I think the return is already underway. The temporary state of affairs in the Muslim world is coming to an end as 1) The Muslims wake up and realise they can actually control their own destiny, and 2) The West lose their neo-colonialist grip on the region.

abu_rashid wrote on Sep 14^th, 2011 at 6:21am:

Quote: It is a shame that Islam cannot return to such ideals. It is a shame that only The West is leading the way in Multiculturalism in our Brave New World. Agreed 100%. But I think the return is already underway. The temporary state of affairs in the Muslim world is coming to an end as 1) The Muslims wake up and realise they can actually control their own destiny, and 2) The West lose their neo-colonialist grip on the region.

Well, that's the thing. You seem convinced that The West is at War with 'the region' what ever that 'region' is, since you denied that it was the Arabian region and declared it to be the Muslim world. Nonetheless, it would be unwise for The West to remove their grip whilst in a state of war as that could loose us the war and losers do not fair well so it is not a desirable outcome.

Moreover, not only is The West officially multicultural, it is equally multitheistic, recognising the right of all to practice their faith as they wish it. This is not so common in the Muslim World.

Yadda wrote on Sep 13^th, 2011 at 9:27pm:

Sappho, Aren't you overlooking some history relating to the 'multicultural' Ottoman empire ???

Is it reasonable to judge an Empire by it's decline Yadda? Is that how we treat ancient Roman and Greek history?

Quote:

Well, that's the thing. You seem convinced that The West is at War with 'the region' what ever that 'region' is, since you denied that it was the Arabian region and declared it to be the Muslim world..

It's got nothing to do with geography. They are not at war with the "region" at all, I said with the Muslim world, meaning those people who seek to live by the Islamic way of life, as opposed to the secular way of life.


Quote:

Nonetheless, it would be unwise for The West to remove their grip whilst in a state of war as that could loose us the war and losers do not fair well so it is not a desirable outcome.

Obviously... but no point shutting the gate after the horse has bolted.

The West no longer has any control of the situation, and that is what has caused all this panic and hysteria about Islam.

All that can be done now is to try and go into damage control. The Muslim world is on the path to freedom (freedom from tyranny and hegemony), and that cannot be reversed. But the West can still make up for the past century or so of hostility that it has engaged in.


Quote:

Moreover, not only is The West officially multicultural, it is equally multitheistic, recognising the right of all to practice their faith as they wish it

As was the Ottoman Caliphate.

abu_rashid wrote on Sep 14^th, 2011 at 6:21am:

Quote: It is a shame that Islam cannot return to such ideals. It is a shame that only The West is leading the way in Multiculturalism in our Brave New World. Agreed 100%. But I think the return is already underway. The temporary state of affairs in the Muslim world is coming to an end as 1) The Muslims wake up and realise they can actually control their own destiny, and 2) The West lose their neo-colonialist grip on the region.

Sappho and Abu, would you like to see a return to the practice of exterminating non-Abrahamic religions? What about stoning apostates to death? What about denying justice to all non-Muslims by disregarding any testimony from them in court as being untrustworthy? Is that what passes for multiculturalism these days? Just because Muhammed stopped the tribes from slaughtering each other as a matter of course does not mean he achieved anything like multiculturalism.

err... not sure how much history you've read fd, but Muhammad (pbuh) was not alive up till the Ottoman period... Perhaps you'd better go back and a do a little study on that one?

So Muhammed was not into the whole multiculturalism thing? Did the Ottomans reject Islamic principles in accepting multiculturalism? Did they reject principles you esouse, like denying basic justic to non-Muslims or stoning apostates to death?

Actually now you mention it, some of Muhammad's (pbuh) closest companions were Bilal al-Habashi (Abyssinian), Suhayb ar-Rumi (Roman/Byzantine) & Salman al-Farisi (Persian).

So he would let people of any race bow down to him? Generous.

Do I need to copy and paste the question again for you Abu?

Anyone who bowed to Muhammad (pbuh) was a disbeliever, and I think you know that. I also think you know that when you have to lie to prop up your pathetic arguments, they aren't worth making.

I also think you know that Aussie such as myself, along with black Africans, Arabs, Indonesians, Chinese, Hebrew, Aboriginals and many other ethnic background make up the body of Muslims today, and that's what scares you isn't it? Not so easy to single us out, and profile us, because we could be from any race, ethnicity or colour.

Quote:

and I think you know that

I think you know that I have been asking about how Islam's stance on other religions affects multiculturalism, and are only pretending to not know the difference between racism and religious discrimination.

Why the absurd pretense?

I can single you out by asking a simple question and watching you fumble a non-answer.

The case of the Ottoman state has already been presented for you. Islam has a very long and staunch record of multiculturalism, most of it during periods when such a thing was unthinkable in all other cultures.

In fact Islam was far more multicultural 1400 years ago, than the west was only 40 years ago.

freediver wrote on Sep 16^th, 2011 at 10:51pm:

abu_rashid wrote on Sep 14th, 2011 at 6:21am: Quote: It is a shame that Islam cannot return to such ideals. It is a shame that only The West is leading the way in Multiculturalism in our Brave New World. Agreed 100%. But I think the return is already underway. The temporary state of affairs in the Muslim world is coming to an end as 1) The Muslims wake up and realise they can actually control their own destiny, and 2) The West lose their neo-colonialist grip on the region. Sappho and Abu, would you like to see a return to the practice of exterminating non-Abrahamic religions?

I'm the wrong person to ask Freediver. I have already made the point that multiculturalism is not the same thing as multi theism which is another defining element of The West and not Islam.

Sappho wrote on Sep 17^th, 2011 at 6:13pm:

freediver wrote on Sep 16th, 2011 at 10:51pm: abu_rashid wrote on Sep 14th, 2011 at 6:21am: Quote: It is a shame that Islam cannot return to such ideals. It is a shame that only The West is leading the way in Multiculturalism in our Brave New World. Agreed 100%. But I think the return is already underway. The temporary state of affairs in the Muslim world is coming to an end as 1) The Muslims wake up and realise they can actually control their own destiny, and 2) The West lose their neo-colonialist grip on the region. Sappho and Abu, would you like to see a return to the practice of exterminating non-Abrahamic religions? I'm the wrong person to ask Freediver. I have already made the point that multiculturalism is not the same thing as multi theism which is another defining element of The West and not Islam.

You made a refernce to a 'return' to certain values in Islam. Did you have anything in mind, or were you just referring to a movement away from the 'durka durka jihad jihad' type of Islam?

How can you have multiculturalism without multitheism? I direct the same question at Abu.


Quote:

In fact Islam was far more multicultural 1400 years ago, than the west was only 40 years ago.

Was the west stoning apostates to death and wiping out non-Christians 40 years ago?

Sappho,


Quote:

I have already made the point that multiculturalism is not the same thing as multi theism which is another defining element of The West and not Islam.

But Islam also afforded multi-theistic rights to its citizens, again, at a time when the surrounding domains did not. In a time when Christian Europe would not permit a single Muslim to live on its soil, Christians lived peacefully with their Muslim & Jewish neighbours all throughout the Caliphate.

fd,


Quote:

Was the west stoning apostates to death and wiping out non-Christians 40 years ago?

I think the preferred method was hanging from a tree:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d5/Lynching2.jpg/250px-Lynching2.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/26/Lynching-of-woman-1911.jpg/220px-Lynching-of-woman-1911.jpg


Although setting their houses on fire with them inside, so you get the whole family in one foul swoop was also popular, as was tying them to the back of yer automobile and seeing how long they can keep up.

Quote:

But Islam also afforded multi-theistic rights to its citizens

Can you explain how disregarding evidence in court from non-Muslims fits into this, or stoning apostates to death, or the treatment of non-Abrahamic religions? Are these the tenets of Islam that people had to reject in order to adopt multiculturalism? Or do you not see any conflict between these practices and multiculturalism?

It is a simple question Abu. I hope I don't have repeat it over ten pages to get a striaght answer from you.

freediver wrote on Sep 17^th, 2011 at 7:33pm:

Quote: But Islam also afforded multi-theistic rights to its citizens Can you explain how disregarding evidence in court from non-Muslims fits into this, or stoning apostates to death, or the treatment of non-Abrahamic religions? Are these the tenets of Islam that people had to reject in order to adopt multiculturalism? Or do you not see any conflict between these practices and multiculturalism? It is a simple question Abu. I hope I don't have repeat it over ten pages to get a striaght answer from you.

1) Testimony from non-Muslims is accepted, this is covered in the misconceptions sticky thread, please read it before posting here thanks.

2) Apostasy (or treason as it's called when not trying to make propaganda) has also been dealt with on numerous occasions, please change the record.

3) There's plenty of examples of non-Abrahamic religions under Islam, like Buddhism, Hinduism etc. Please do some rudimentary reading of history before posing these nonsensical questions.

I'll take your lack of pursuing the other lines of questioning as you conceding you have no ground to stand on. As usual no need to actually admit you are full of it, we can all see it for ourselves.

Quote:

1) Testimony from non-Muslims is accepted, this is covered in the misconceptions sticky thread, please read it before posting here thanks.

Yes Abu I have read it, but it does not address the issue I raise. I did not suggest that non-Muslims are forbidden from giving evidence. We have gone over this before, but it is you who feigns stupidity.


Quote:

2) Apostasy (or treason as it's called when not trying to make propaganda) has also been dealt with on numerous occasions, please change the record.

By 'dealt with' you mean deflected right?


Quote:

3) There's plenty of examples of non-Abrahamic religions under Islam, like Buddhism, Hinduism etc.

Hence my question about whether this involves a rejection of Islamic principles. You seem to switch very conveniently between the actual Islamic stance and examples of what has happened occasionally over a 1400 year period of history, like in your misonceptions thread.

abu_rashid wrote on Sep 17^th, 2011 at 6:56pm:

Sappho, Quote: I have already made the point that multiculturalism is not the same thing as multi theism which is another defining element of The West and not Islam. But Islam also afforded multi-theistic rights to its citizens, again, at a time when the surrounding domains did not. In a time when Christian Europe would not permit a single Muslim to live on its soil, Christians lived peacefully with their Muslim & Jewish neighbours all throughout the Caliphate. fd, [quote]Was the west stoning apostates to death and wiping out non-Christians 40 years ago?

I think the preferred method was hanging from a tree:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d5/Lynching2.jpg/250px-Lynching2.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/26/Lynching-of-woman-1911.jpg/220px-Lynching-of-woman-1911.jpg


Although setting their houses on fire with them inside, so you get the whole family in one foul swoop was also popular, as was tying them to the back of yer automobile and seeing how long they can keep up.

[/quote]

I think they call them strange fruits, my friend.

Quote:

West at war with Muslim world since 1920s?

The Muslim world has a pretty good record for being at war with itself.

freediver wrote on Sep 17^th, 2011 at 9:29pm:

By 'dealt with' you mean deflected right?

Whats this FD. Didn't you state that Abu disagrees with my assertion that apostasy has to do with treason?

Wouldn't be caught telling 'another lie' would you now FD.

Only one that has been found 'deflecting' here, time and time again, is your good self, deflecting from the truth.

And you wonder why no one takes you seriously.

Grey wrote on Sep 17^th, 2011 at 11:17pm:

Quote: West at war with Muslim world since 1920s? The Muslim world has a pretty good record for being at war with itself.

As opposed to the west?

Try as we may have, we cannot even begin to compare with WW1 and WW2.

Lestat wrote on Sep 19^th, 2011 at 9:28am:

Grey wrote on Sep 17th, 2011 at 11:17pm: Quote: West at war with Muslim world since 1920s? The Muslim world has a pretty good record for being at war with itself. As opposed to the west? Try as we may have, we cannot even begin to compare with WW1 and WW2.

Exactly. Too backward and tinted.

Quote:

Whats this FD. Didn't you state that Abu disagrees with my assertion that apostasy has to do with treason?

He said that a year or two back, but has refused to talk about it since then. Apparently I am using it against him. I have several follow up questions I am interested in discussing. For example, he also said Shites were apostates, which leads to the obvious question of whether this would justify stoning shites to death.

fd, the issue was dealt with quite clearly.

You need to learn to stop mistaking boredom with your repetitive questioning and unwillingness to answer.

freediver wrote on Sep 19^th, 2011 at 9:50pm:

Quote: Whats this FD. Didn't you state that Abu disagrees with my assertion that apostasy has to do with treason? He said that a year or two back, but has refused to talk about it since then. Apparently I am using it against him. I have several follow up questions I am interested in discussing. For example, he also said Shites were apostates, which leads to the obvious question of whether this would justify stoning shites to death.

Actually he didn't, but it is well known you have a long history of lying. Why stop now.

And we both know you have no interest in the topic, in fact who have shown your ignorance and bigotry time and time again.

And you wonder why we laugh at you.

abu_rashid wrote on Oct 9^th, 2008 at 7:12pm:

Quote: but you especially object to them talking in a gay way, having their own culture, and riding round on floats with their arse cheeks hanging out? Islamically, someone who'd taken it this far would've apostasised and the Islamic ruling for apostasy would now apply to him. Talking is not part of this though, as some people have lisps and other speech impediments which cause them to talk like that. Whether it's hormone related or not, the speech in itself is not forbidden. However, if it's done intentionally to emulate women, then yes it's forbidden. Hope that clears it all up. Please don't keep going on with this nonsense, it's really a distasteful topic to keep discussing. You might find it pleasant, I personally don't.

freediver wrote on Oct 9^th, 2008 at 7:32pm:

and the Islamic ruling for apostasy would now apply to him What is that again? I think there was some abiguity last time we touched on that.

abu_rashid wrote on Oct 9^th, 2008 at 7:44pm:

Quote: What is that again? I think there was some abiguity last time we touched on that. Not from me, perhaps with Malik. Apostasy is a capital offense.

Do you still think I am lying Les? I believe we have gone over this before, but as soon as it got to me posting that quote, you suddenly got all shy on me. Do you think that Abu has posted any further clarification on who he wants to stone to death for being the wrong type of Muslim?

Do you think being gay is plotting against the state and we are 'misrepresenting' what Abu posted?

freediver wrote on Sep 20^th, 2011 at 9:20pm:

abu_rashid wrote on Oct 9th, 2008 at 7:12pm: Quote: but you especially object to them talking in a gay way, having their own culture, and riding round on floats with their arse cheeks hanging out? Islamically, someone who'd taken it this far would've apostasised and the Islamic ruling for apostasy would now apply to him. Talking is not part of this though, as some people have lisps and other speech impediments which cause them to talk like that. Whether it's hormone related or not, the speech in itself is not forbidden. However, if it's done intentionally to emulate women, then yes it's forbidden. Hope that clears it all up. Please don't keep going on with this nonsense, it's really a distasteful topic to keep discussing. You might find it pleasant, I personally don't. freediver wrote on Oct 9th, 2008 at 7:32pm: and the Islamic ruling for apostasy would now apply to him What is that again? I think there was some abiguity last time we touched on that. abu_rashid wrote on Oct 9th, 2008 at 7:44pm: [quote]What is that again? I think there was some abiguity last time we touched on that. Not from me, perhaps with Malik. Apostasy is a capital offense.

Do you still think I am lying Les? I believe we have gone over this before, but as soon as it got to me posting that quote, you suddenly got all shy on me. Do you think that Abu has posted any further clarification on who he wants to stone to death for being the wrong type of Muslim?

Do you think being gay is plotting against the state and we are 'misrepresenting' what Abu posted?[/quote]

Yes, you are lying..or least of all, being deliberately misleading.

No one has debated that the punishment for apostasy isn't death. I never said it wasn't.

What I, and Abu have stated time and time again, is that 'apostacy' laws have more to do with treason, then they do with leaving Islam par se.

Just as treason is punishable by death in many western countries (including the US).....treason is also punishable by death under Islamic law.


You know this, we have told you this a number of times, yet you still insist with the same lies and ignorance.

Your getting rather boring FD....

I think he still needs it said a little slower... be patient with him, he's not the sharpest tool in the shed.

OK then, let be clear on this. What is the Islamic punishment for apostasy, where apostasy means the English word apostasy, not the Islamic/English word treason? I do not want to hear about the links between apostasy and treason, I just want to know what the punishment is for apostasy. Given that Abu also though it would apply to a gay Muslims obviously rejecting Islam, it seems to me that the death penalty applies to apostasy even in a context with no relevance to treason.

It seems to me that both of you are desperately trying to deflect by refusing to acknowledge the penalty for apostasy.

Please see your other pointless time wasting thread.

freediver wrote on Sep 21^st, 2011 at 8:27pm:

OK then, let be clear on this. What is the Islamic punishment for apostasy, where apostasy means the English word apostasy, not the Islamic/English word treason? I do not want to hear about the links between apostasy and treason, I just want to know what the punishment is for apostasy. Given that Abu also though it would apply to a gay Muslims obviously rejecting Islam, it seems to me that the death penalty applies to apostasy even in a context with no relevance to treason. It seems to me that both of you are desperately trying to deflect by refusing to acknowledge... the penalty for apostasy.

Yes, apostasy is regarded as a heinous crime by ISLAM.




But apostasy or not, unbelief in itself, is a crime against Allah.

The Koran confirms it, and moslems [in unguarded moments] say it.



"....Lo! Allah is an enemy to those who reject Faith."
Koran 2.98
COMMENT; Promoting to moslems that 'unbelief' in Allah, is a crime.


"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. "
Koran 9.29
COMMENT; The Koran is exhorting moslems to violence against non-moslems. i.e. FOR THEIR UNBELIEF.
Because, 'unbelief' in Allah, is a crime.


Moslems also sometimes will say this, outright....

KILLING OF NON-MUSLIMS IS LEGITIMATE
"...when we say innocent people, we mean moslems."
"....[not accepting ISLAM] is a crime against God."
"...If you are a non-moslem, then you are guilty of not believing in God."
"...as a moslem....i must have hatred towards everything which is non-ISLAM."
"...[moslems] allegiance is always with the moslems, so i will never condemn a moslem for what he does."
"...Britain has always been Dar al Harb [the Land of War]"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maHSOB2RFm4

Abu, can you explain how your world view of being at war with your own and other western countries fits in with your views on war and deception. Is it a free pass to decieve people regarding the nature of Islam whenever you think you can get away with it? Does Islam place any restrictions on what you can lie about once you get it into your head that you are at war? Does lying become insignificant in the broader context of this war you think we are in?

I hope you can appreciate the genuine interest people might have in this, given the many discussions we have had here about Islam and deception and your insistence that we have nothing to worry about because taqiya only applies in certain contexts like war.

Also, how does your view on apostasy and treason fit in with your claims about Islam and multiculturalism? Surely if you think a person is committing treason by rejecting Islam (and thus should be stoned to death) that is going to make multiculturalism rather difficult. If rejecting Islam is treason, does that mean non-Muslims are at best second class citizens?

Would it be fair to compare the 'protection' offered to Christians and Jews under Islam with the protection offered to Aborigines in our society? And the protection offfered to other relgions with the protection given to Tasmanian Aborigines? Can you make Islam's version of multiculturalism look good in comparison to the darkest chapters of our history?

The US treats treason seriously:

Bradley Manning is being tortured somewhere on a US warship.

U.S. Intelligence Analyst Arrested in Wikileaks Video Probe
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/leak/


Christopher Boyce was, sentenced to 40 years prison and was sent to one of US's most notorious prisons. Authorities then spread rumours amongst prisoners that he was an informant. (the night after a 60 Minutes interview, Boyce was sent to a prison hospital with broken ribs, blackened eyes and missing teeth)*

http://www.serendipity.li/cia/cia_oz/60min.htm

Do you criticise the US?





*according to Ray Martin who wrote about a 60 Minutes interview he conducted with Boyce in 1982, 60 Minutes, The Book, Angus & Robertson, 1986.

Look at how Israel has treated jewish convert to Christianity, Mordechai Vanunu. He has spent most of the last 25 years in prison.



"I have sacrificed my freedom and risked my life in order to expose the danger of nuclear weapons which threatens this whole region." --- Mordechai Vanunu



In fall 1986 Mordechai Vanunu, an Israeli citizen who had been employed at the Dimona Nuclear Power Plant in the Negrev Desert, gave evidence to the London Sunday Times newspaper that Israel was developing nuclear weapons. He wanted to inform the world.  It was an act of conscience. He was convicted of treason and sentenced to 18 years in Israeli prison. He spent the first eleven and a half years in solitary confinement.

http://www.peaceheroes.com/MordecaiVanunu/mvanunu.htm




He says he suffered "cruel and barbaric treatment" at the hands of Israeli authorities while imprisoned, and suggests that his treatment would have been different if he were Jewish (Vanunu is a Christian convert from Judaism)



"Visibly angry, Vanunu said he suffered "cruel and barbaric treatment" at the hands of Israel's security services during his detention.

"I suffered here 18 years because I am a Christian ... if I was Jewish I wouldn't have this suffering and isolation."

The first stop for Vanunu, a 50-year-old Moroccan Jew who converted to Christianity, was to a nearby Anglican church where he was greeted by dozens of supporters."
http://articles.cnn.com/2004-04-21/world/israel.vanunu_1_sixth-largest-nuclear-arsenal-mordechai-vanunu-shikma-prison?_s=PM:WORLD



Israel keeps imprisoning Vanunu.

On 11 November 2004, Vanunu was arrested by the International Investigations Unit of the Israeli police at around 9am while eating breakfast. The arrest stemmed from an ongoing probe examining suspicions of leaking national secrets and violating legal rulings since his release from prison. Police officers wearing bulletproof vests and carrying machine guns entered the walled compound of St. George's Anglican Church in East Jerusalem, where Vanunu had been renting a room since his release. Police removed papers and a computer from his room. After a few hours' detention, Vanunu was put under house arrest, which was to last seven days.

On 24 December 2004 in a vehicle marked as belonging to the foreign press, Vanunu was apprehended by Israeli Police while he was attempting to enter the West Bank in violation of his release restrictions (see above), allegedly to attend mass at the Church of the Nativity. After posting bail of 50,000 NIS, he was released into five-day house arrest.

On 17 March 2005 Vanunu was charged with 21 counts of "contravening a lawful direction" (maximum penalty two years' imprisonment per count) and one count of "attempting to contravene a lawful direction."

In 2007, Vanunu was sentenced to six months in prison for violating terms of his parole. The sentence was considered unusual even by the prosecution who expected a suspended sentence. In response, Amnesty International issued a press release on 2 July 2007, stating that "The organisation considers Mordechai Vanunu to be a prisoner of conscience and calls for his immediate and unconditional release."

On 7 January 2008, the day before his appeal against the above sentence was to begin, Israel instead re-sentenced him to six months of community service.

On 28 December 2009, Mr. Vanunu was once again arrested "by Jerusalem Police in a hotel in the capital following an alleged meeting with his girlfriend, a Norwegian national. He remained in jail on Tuesday, though was set to be transferred to house arrest.

In May 2010, Vanunu was arrested and sentenced to three months in jail on suspicion that he met foreigners in violation of conditions of his 2004 release from jail.

Vanunu has been characterized internationally as a whistleblower and by Israel as a traitor.

Quote:

Do you criticise the US?

Falah, you may not have noticed this, but my problem is with stoning people to death for apostasy, not with treason. You, Abu and Les may equate the two (I am not actually sure on this as you seem to avoid answering any simple questions), but that does not mean treason and apostasy are the same thing. It just means muslims try to pretend they don't want to kill apostates.

Falah, do you think people should be stoned to death for apostasy under Islamic law?

Abu, is it true that this crazy idea you have about being at war gives you and other Muslims free reign to tell all the lies you think you can get away with? Would it be reasonable for people to distrust anything a Muslim says regarding political Islam because of this?

fd, its been well over 2 years now, that you've continually asked these same questions, over and over and over and over again.... Do you not remember? Or are you just incapable of coming up with new ideas? You've asked if Islam tells Muslims to lie to you, and you've also clearly stated you'd never believe any answer you got from a Muslim (as we're all supposedly liars in your estimation) to the question anyway.... Yet you still waste your time asking.

You're nothing but a fool.

Quote:

fd, its been well over 2 years now, that you've continually asked these same questions

Not exactly Abu. I am pretty sure this was the first I heard of your view about being at war with Australia. Hence the new question:

Abu, is it true that this crazy idea you have about being at war gives you and other Muslims free reign to tell all the lies you think you can get away with? Would it be reasonable for people to distrust anything a Muslim says regarding political Islam because of this?

Seems like a very reasonable question to me, given the circumstances.


Quote:

You've asked if Islam tells Muslims to lie to you

To which you responded that Taqiyya only applies under certain circumstances, like war. Which I was gullible enough to accept as a 'no' from you, even though you had not given a straight answer. Hence the new question.


Quote:

and you've also clearly stated you'd never believe any answer you got from a Muslim

Quote me Abu.


Quote:

as we're all supposedly liars in your estimation

I am asking you exactly that right now Abu. It is your response, not mine, that paints you as a habitual liar.


Quote:

Yet you still waste your time asking.

I see no harm in drawing further attention to your deflections. I think your non-answers speak for themselves. But I do hope you will one day grow tired of the convoluted excuses you have to make up, rather than just complaining about how tiresome it is.

abu_rashid wrote on Oct 8^th, 2011 at 6:38am:

Actually it's the West that declared and is engaging in war against the Muslim world.

Can you elaborate please Abu? George Bush for example was very explicit in declaring that the US is not at war with Islam.

Maybe he was practising a bit of this taqiyya nonsense you dreamed up, so he could keep the Arab puppet states on side. What he claimed and what he did contradict, don't they?

I doubt anyone who believes we have been at war with the Muslim world since the 1920's would be able to see the difference, even if it is subtle as a brick.

freediver, do you deny the West has been engaging in some kind of hostility against one part of the Muslim world or another for at least the past century or two? Whether they were fully occupying, or just bombing, or sending billions of dollars of sophisticated weaponry to slaughter innocents, they've been constantly engaging in some kind of warfare or another for a very long time.

Can you see why most Muslims might consider that "being at war" with the Muslim world? Or are you just completely devoid of any concept of empathy whatsoever?

How about we start with what you think before we get onto what 'most muslims' think?

What side are you on in this war? Do you see yourself as being at war with Australia? Am I being hostile right now?

What implications does your view on this war have for your moral obligations regarding honesty?

freediver wrote on Oct 9^th, 2011 at 8:54am:

What side are you on in this war?

Sounds a bit like George Bush Junior; "Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists" said the brain-damaged former alcoholic.

Falah, do you share Abu's view that the west has been at war with the Muslim world? Are you not taking a side? Do you not see yourself as part of the Muslim world?

I don't think many Muslims would feel comfortable answering that.

You are very perceptive Annie.

::)

So why are you badgering him?

Because he appears to think he is at war with us.

Do you think that is the sort of thing we should politely ignore?

freediver wrote on Oct 9^th, 2011 at 5:16pm:

Falah, do you share Abu's view that the west has been at war with the Muslim world?

Of course the West is at war with the Muslim world. Why did the US invade the only Islamic state in the world - Afghanistan?

When Somalia developed another Islamic state, why did the US bribe Ethiopia to invade Somalia?

When Somalia again established an Islamic government after driving the Ethiopians out, why did the US then bribe Uganda and Burundi to attack Somalia?

Why did the US attack Iraq?

Why is the US attacking Muslims in Mindanao?

Why did the US bomb a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan?

Why is the US funding anti-Islam groups in Egypt to spread their propaganda?



freediver wrote on Oct 9^th, 2011 at 5:16pm:

Are you not taking a side?

 
I utmost and foremost align myself with God Almighty.



freediver wrote on Oct 9^th, 2011 at 5:16pm:

Do you not see yourself as part of the Muslim world?

Depends what you mean by "Muslim world". I was born in Australia, not an Islamic state. Therefore, i am restricted by the laws enforced in the country. I do, however, advocate that Australian people convert to Islam, as Abu Rashid and myself have done, as well as many thousands of others.

I suggest you ask Jews whether their allegiance is to Australia or Judaism/Israel. How many Australian Jews receive terrorist training in israel?

Does he? Or does he believe the West have made it a policy to invade the countries of Muslims and slaughter them? Look at the last 100 years and tell me how you'd feel if you were a Muslim.

We've been butting our noses in, installing dicators, setting them up and tearing them down. We turn a blind eye when those same dicators commit atrocites on a horrifying scale then invade or take other measures to destabilise them, starting the whole process over again.


Read this:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/the-shameful-islamophobia-at-the-heart-of-britains-press-861096.html

Watch ACA or Today Tonight (painful as it may be) and have a look at how Muslims are portrayed in the media.

So maybe it's not war, but it still sucks.

lol. Well, he obviously does.

Annie Anthrax wrote on Oct 9^th, 2011 at 6:52pm:

lol. Well, he obviously does.

As a citizen of Australia, the only war I am engaged in is a war of ideas - against those who oppose God Almighty. Australia hasn't reached the stage of Nazi Germany in terms of prosecuting people for their ideas, but I imagine people like Freediver would have liked John Howard to go further down that path.

As for actual war, that should only be undertaken between opposing states. Obviously, I am not a state, and as I said I am restricted by the laws enforced in the land that I live in.

I am not an agressor against anyone. But will defend myself if attacked.

The West attacks Islam and Muslims because it is dishonourable, and does not follow high standards of ethical behaviour.[/quote]

Perhaps freediver can tell us who his allegiance is to? Nationalism, secularism, Christianism, judaism, hedonism, etc.?

NYPD Even Spied on the Muslim Leaders Who Were Helping Them
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/10/nypd_even_spied_on_the_muslim.html


FBI trainer caught on video warning agents to forget Al Qaeda and 'go after the Death Star' of Islam instead

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2039918/FBI-trainer-caught-video-warning-agents-forget-Al-Qaeda-Death-Star-Islam-instead.html?ito=feeds-newsxml


Haneef probe cost Aussie taxpayers $6.5mn

The bungled investigation of Indian doctor Mohammed Haneef has cost Australian taxpayers a whopping Australian $7.5 million (US $6.5 million), according to official estimates that were made public on Monday.
http://www.sify.com/news/haneef-probe-cost-aussie-taxpayers-6-5mn-news-national-jegmGmgifbc.html



Howard: Hicks, Habib have no right to return home
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/11/12/1068329596931.html


Terror checks at Heathrow were racist, claims officer
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/8814582/Terror-checks-at-Heathrow-were-racist-claims-officer.html



Seattle FBI Class Handout Linked Arabs, Islam to Nazism
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/cair-seattle-fbi-class-handout-linked-arabs-islam-to-nazism-2011-10-02


US Empire foments Islamophobia
http://www.netmuslims.com/




Muslim Republican heckled as "terrorist"
http://politics.salon.com/2011/09/27/florida_gop_rejects_muslim/



GI admits sport killing in Afghanistan
http://www.presstv.com/detail/200694.html



Abu Ghraib photos show rape of prisoners
http://www.smh.com.au/world/abu-ghraib-photos-show-rape-of-prisoners-20090528-boxp.html



Body of 'US soldiers' rape victim' made medic ill
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1525807/Body-of-US-soldiers-rape-victim-made-medic-ill.html



U.S. Aid to Israel: $77 Billion Since '67
http://www.nytimes.com/1991/09/23/world/us-aid-to-israel-77-billion-since-67.html



Israel to Get $30 Billion in Military Aid From U.S.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/17/world/middleeast/17israel.html



US Senate panel approves $53B foreign aid bill
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jgdKLdus375T1PmC4mHkqUOndn1Q?docId=5776d942174547deaf0316c9b531112a



Foreign Aid Slashed To All But Israel
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/10/04/ny_times_foreign_aid_slashed_to_all_but_israel/



Israel Said to Have 10-20 Nuclear Arms
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=jNQzAAAAIBAJ&sjid=hOoFAAAAIBAJ&pg=4206,1639080&dq=israel+nuclear&hl=en



Death toll rises as Israel bombs Gaza in 2nd day
http://www.worldbulletin.net/index.php?aType=haberArchive&ArticleID=33959



UN report calls Guantanamo a torture camp
http://news.scotsman.com/world/UN-report-calls-Guantanamo-a.2751577.jp




The 'War on Terror' rages in the Philippines
http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/inpictures/2011/10/2011104145947651645.html



‘Drones killing more civilians than admitted by US’
http://www.dawn.com/2010/12/11/%E2%80%98drones-killing-more-civilians-than-admitted-by-us%E2%80%99.html

Could go on...but sure you get the idea by now.

freediver wrote on Oct 9^th, 2011 at 8:54am:

How about we start with what you think before we get onto what 'most muslims' think? What side are you on in this war? Do you see yourself as being at war with Australia? Am I being hostile right now? What implications does your view on this war have for your moral obligations regarding honesty?

This line of questioning is all part of the whole ludicrous position that the West continually tries to impose on the rest of the world. Whilst the armies of the West occupy Baghdad, Kabul and through proxy Mogadishu, al-Quds etc. you have the gaul to come to Muslims and ask "why are you at war with us".

Freediver you're an idiot, plain and simple. You don't even seem to possess the basic intelligence to understand how nonsensical your position is.

Quote:

As a citizen of Australia, the only war I am engaged in is a war of ideas - against those who oppose God Almighty.

Falah how does your view that the west has been at war with the Muslim world since the 1920's influence your moral obligation to be honest in this 'war of ideas'?


Quote:

This line of questioning is all part of the whole ludicrous position that the West continually tries to impose on the rest of the world. Whilst the armies of the West occupy Baghdad, Kabul and through proxy Mogadishu, al-Quds etc. you have the gaul to come to Muslims and ask "why are you at war with us".

No Abu. I asked "are you at war with us?".

Are you at war with us?


Quote:

Look at the last 100 years and tell me how you'd feel if you were a Muslim.

There are a lot of people who have a right to be pissed off at things that have happened over the last century. However to claim that 'the west' has been at war with you since the 1920's is nothing short of myopic, like a child who wants to make everything about themself. It turns into blatant hypocrisy when it comes from the same people who claim that the Islamic empire spread through self defence and peaceful 'acquisition'.

freediver wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 2:23pm:

Falah how does your view that the west has been at war with the Muslim world since the 1920's influence your moral obligation to be honest in this 'war of ideas'?

As I said Freediver, I do not consider myself at war with anyone. If you equate a "war of ideas" or a "war of words" with actual warfare, then you have lost the plot.

Lying in regards to warfare relates to military tactics - as I am not involved in a war, I have nothing to do with military tactics.

In warfare, all sides try to deceive their enemies in miltary strategy. For example, they will try to make their enemy think that their troops are approaching from one place while they are actually approaching from another.

This kind of deception has been carried out by nations throughout history, and nobody seems to have ever thought it strange.


That is deception related directly to military strategy.

Lying about other things is expressly forbidden in Islam, and lying about religion is considered an especially evil thing that must be avoided.

The Quran tells us:

“Say: ‘Verily, those who invent a lie against God will never be successful’”
[Yoonus 10:69]

and

‘O you who believe! Stand out firmly for God as just witnesses; and let not the enmity and hatred of others make you avoid justice. Be just: that is nearer to piety’
[al-Maa’idah 5:8].”



Prophet Muhammed warned people not to lie about himself:
“Whoever tells lies about me, let him take his place in Hell.”
(narrated by al-Bukhaari, 110; Muslim, 3)


"‘Truthfulness is righteousness, and righteousness leads to Heaven. A person will continue to tell the truth until he is written with God as one who tells the truth. Lying is evildoing, and evildoing leads to Hell. A person will keep on telling lies until he is written as a liar.’”
(Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 5743; Muslim, 2607)


Those who lived with Prophet Muhammed in City of Enlightenment in what is now Saudi Arabia condemned lying:

Abdullah ibn Masood:
It is not correct to tell lies whether in jest or in seriousness,” then Abdullah recited the verse from the Quran:

“O you who believe! Be afraid of God, and be with those who are true (in words and deeds)”
[al-Tawbah 9:119]  


Abu Bakr al-Siddeeq said:
“Beware of lying, for it has nothing to do with faith.”

Sa’d ibn Abi Waqqas said: “The believer may acquire all sorts of characteristics except treachery and lying.”


Umar said: “True faith is not achieved until one gives up lying in jest.”


One of the greatest scholars of Islam, "Sheikh of Islam" Ibn Taymiyyah, said:

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah said:

“God has enjoined truthfulness and honesty, and He has forbidden lies and concealment with regard to matters which should be known and revealed to people (religion, business transactions, etc.)"



Lying is permissible in three cases only: war; reconciling between two disputing parties; and a husband lying to his wife or vice versa for the sake of love and harmony (eg. your cooking tastes great, that dress does not make you look fat, etc.).

It was narrated that Asmaa’ bint Yazeed said: “The Messenger of God (peace and blessings of God be upon him) said: ‘It is not permissible to tell lies except in three (cases): when a man speaks to his wife in a way to please her; lying in war; and lying in order to reconcile between people.’”
(Narrated by al-Tirmidhi, 1939)

Quote:

Lying is permissible in three cases only: war; reconciling between two disputing parties

That is interesting. Are we disputing now?

freediver wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 5:10pm:

Quote: Lying is permissible in three cases only: war; reconciling between two disputing parties That is interesting. Are we disputing now?

It refers to a 3rd person reconciling between two Muslims who have feeling enmity towards each other. (eg "so-and-so wants to reconcile with you" or "so-and-so would like to be friends with you again). This is due to the importance of harmony in the Muslim community.

The translation is perhaps inadequate. The 'dispute' referred to is actually more like a feud, than say a rational discussion based on facts.

This does not apply between you and me because

a) you are not a Muslim

b) I do not know you, so it would be a bit difficult for us to have a feud.

Why is it not equally important to promote harmony between Muslims and non-Mulims?

freediver wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 6:04pm:

Why is it not equally important to promote harmony between Muslims and non-Mulims?

Depends what you mean by harmony.

There is greater bond between Muslims because they are obedient to God Almighty. The non-Muslim is disobedient to God Almighty, therefore it is disrespectful to God to have intimate relations with the non-Muslim community.

The difference is the intimacy. Muslims can have a lesser degree of intimacy with the non-Muslim community, and Muslims can give charity to their poor, give sanctuary to their oppressed, treat them if they are sick.

Muslims are allowed to be kind to non-Muslims, but they are not allowed have the same level of intimacy with the non-Muslim community that they have with their own community.

Does this mean a Muslim man has less of a bond with his non-Muslim wives than his Muslim wives?

freediver wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 6:25pm:

Does this mean a Muslim man has less of a bond with his non-Muslim wives than his Muslim wives?

I don't know. I don't personally know of any Muslim man married to a non-Muslim wife.

If I meet one who is I will ask him.

fd, what you basically want to communicate is that you think Muslims have no right to be upset that the West has invaded, occupied, bombed, overthrown countless Muslim lands, instead we should sit down, shut up, and just be grateful we are "tolerated"?

And anyone who doesn't do this, must be your enemy within, a "fifth column" just waiting to take over and boot you out (ie. the kind of thing the West did in Palestine).

The fact is you're just paranoid, knowing that what the West does to the Muslim world is bound to have strong reactions. You're just like the guilty man that can never sleep well or turn his back, always worrying what is going on behind him. This is more about your own unease than it is about our supposed lack of loyalty to the nation we are citizens of.

Quote:

fd, what you basically want to communicate is that you think Muslims have no right to be upset

You mean wheb I say things like this?


Quote:

There are a lot of people who have a right to be pissed off

You really should stick to what I actually say Abu rather than trying to tell me what I want to say.


Quote:

And anyone who doesn't do this, must be your enemy within, a "fifth column"

You are the one who thinks we have been in a 90 year war, not me. You are a fith column in an imaginary war. It is your delusions that interest me.

But that does remind me of something:


Quote:

Why did the US invade the only Islamic state in the world - Afghanistan?

Falah, if you believe Afghanistan to be the only Islamic state (I don't think Abu does), doesn't this put an Islamic obligation on you to go and defend it, seeing as that war is real, and Australia is involved?

freediver wrote on Oct 11^th, 2011 at 6:59am:

Falah, if you believe Afghanistan to be the only Islamic state (I don't think Abu does), doesn't this put an Islamic obligation on you to go and defend it, seeing as that war is real, and Australia is involved?

According to scholarly opinion, defence of a Muslim country is obligatory for Muslims who live in the Muslim country that is invaded by those who reject God.

The case is different for Muslims who live in far away non-Muslim lands.

That's fine. But I never heard Bush and Obama reject God. You could never git to be president if you rejected God.

Quote:

The non-Muslim is disobedient to God Almighty, therefore it is disrespectful to God to have intimate relations with the non-Muslim community.

That's not true. I'm a Muslim and I have a very close relationship with my family, who are not. That's not disrespectful to God. My husband also has a close relationship with them.

And if that's not good enough, look at the Prophet's relationship with Abu Talib.

falah wrote on Oct 11^th, 2011 at 11:49am:

freediver wrote on Oct 11th, 2011 at 6:59am: Falah, if you believe Afghanistan to be the only Islamic state (I don't think Abu does), doesn't this put an Islamic obligation on you to go and defend it, seeing as that war is real, and Australia is involved? According to scholarly opinion, defence of a Muslim country is obligatory for Muslims who live in the Muslim country that is invaded by those who reject God. The case is different for Muslims who live in far away non-Muslim lands.

What if the Muslim is in the country that is doing the invading? Perhaps Muhammed didn't think of that scenario. It certainly seems strange that you and Abu are giving financial support to the invasion and destruction of a proper Islamic state and its replacement with democracy, and you don't seem at all bothered by that.

In any case I though military service was an obligation under the Caliphate, so they are obligued to join up whatever the circumstance.

Quote:

That's not true. I'm a Muslim and I have a very close relationship with my family, who are not

Annie I think he just meant on a community level, not on an individual level. Obviously a Muslim individual will have close and intimate ties with their non-Muslim family. But on a community level it will not be as strong, because on a community level Muslims and non-Muslims have differing priorities in life. And this can even cause trouble on a personal level, if for instance a non-Muslim relative tries to make you do something haram, then it will cause friction.

Quote:

destruction of a proper Islamic state and its replacement with democracy

FD, Khalid Mishal believes that democracy is compatible with Islam. Even after most of the big democratic governments refused to recognise his organisation's victory in the Palestinian elections.



Quote:

But on a community level it will not be as strong, because on a community level Muslims and non-Muslims have differing priorities in life.

Did the strength of your ties to your community change when you converted?

Quote:

FD, Khalid Mishal believes that democracy is compatible with Islam.

What do you believe? Abu does not believe this. I don't think any of the other Muslims here do either, and they are the ones living under the benefits of a stable democracy. perhaps Muslims who have experienced the alternative firsthand might value it a bit more.

Of course they're compatible.

Quote:

Did the strength of your ties to your community change when you converted?

Of course!

Given that the non-Muslim community is largely bound together by things like drinking, flirtatious behaviour, gambling and so on, obviously I would distance myself from them.

falah wrote on Feb 17^th, 2012 at 5:49pm:

Lie about what? The justification for deception in war relates to deceptive military strategies - not lying about religion.

Are you suggesting that propaganda is not part of war? That's kind of naive don't you think? Does Islam forbid propaganda, even in war?


falah wrote on Feb 17^th, 2012 at 5:49pm:

The deception is between two states not between individuals who are not involved in the war.

So the 'west' and 'the muslim world' are states? That is who Abu believes the war to be between.

How do you propose that Islam permits states to decieve each other without the individuals in those states committing any deceptions?


falah wrote on Feb 17^th, 2012 at 5:49pm:

Even if Abu Rashid believed that he was at war with you, he still would not be permitted to lie about Islam.

Can you explain his self contradictions, for example the dhimmy evidence one, or his absurd attempts at deflection, like with apostasy?

fd.. can you not see the folly of trying to equate lying about Islam with deceiving an enemy about your movements in battle?

You are under some juvenile delusion that Islam permits Muslims to "hide" some aspect of Islam from you, on the basis it will do a "jihad by stealth" (or so the jihadwatch crap would have us believe), and you then try to equate this to a Muslim army being given license to lie about its strategies in a war, or a man to twist the truth when answering his wife regarding her qualities.

You're a tool, seriously. I can't believe you don't have the basic shame to realise how ridiculous your "arguments" appear.

Quote:

fd.. can you not see the folly of trying to equate lying about Islam with deceiving an enemy about your movements in battle?

Of course it is folly - just like it is folly to claim that the west has been at war with the Muslim world for a century. But it is a folly I am interested in.


Quote:

You are under some juvenile delusion that Islam permits Muslims to "hide" some aspect of Islam from you

Yet you happily make this claim about Shites.


Quote:

on the basis it will do a "jihad by stealth" (or so the jihadwatch crap would have us believe), and you then try to equate this to a Muslim army being given license to lie about its strategies in a war, or a man to twist the truth when answering his wife regarding her qualities

I am asking you a simple question, that is all. A question you cannot bring yourself to answer.

What implications does your view on this war have for your moral obligations regarding honesty?


Quote:

I can't believe you don't have the basic shame to realise how ridiculous your "arguments" appear.

It is a question Abu, one of many unanswered ones. I have no need to compose an argument from them. You are doing that well enough for me.

Mattyfisk wrote on May 30^th, 2017 at 5:44pm:

freediver wrote on May 30th, 2017 at 5:40pm: Mattyfisk wrote on May 30th, 2017 at 5:04pm: freediver wrote on May 30th, 2017 at 5:00pm: Quote: That is indeed correct, FD. Even dear old Abu saw the Koranic injunctions to slay them, etc, as defensive measures to be used in a time of war. This has all been explained to you, and most eloquently by G. No mass slaughters in times of peace eh? You are a genius Karnal. Not at all, FD, I'm just reminding you what Muslims have told you. Remember? After all, we need to listen to what Muslims themselves actually say. Remember? Perhaps you forgot. Wasn't it Abu who told me that the west had been at war with the Muslim word for the last 100 years? It must have been, FD. You'd never make something like that up.

Here you go Karnal. Thanks again for just reminding me what Muslims actually say. If it weren't for the apologists people might be tricked into thinking Abu used Islam to promote violence.....


Sappho wrote on Sep 11^th, 2011 at 2:53am:

So what you are saying is that Britain and by default the Commonwealth and the US are at war with all Arab nations and have been since Israel's inception?

abu_rashid wrote on Sep 11^th, 2011 at 4:49am:

Sappho, not just the Arab world, the entire Muslim world, yes. Again, where have you been?

abu_rashid wrote on Sep 12^th, 2011 at 8:17pm:

fd, Quote: I did not say we have been at war since the 1920's with the Muslim world. You did. Hence the question. Which side do you see yourself as being on? As I said, my side was chosen for me, by those who declared war against the entire Muslim world. You are the one who should be asking yourself which side you're on. Are you on the side of the aggressors, who go around waging war on innocent people in order to swipe their resources and dominate them, or are you on the side of those who resist and reject this? ie. are you a supporter of tyranny and oppression? Or a supporter of ending those things? Just out of curiosity fd, who do you root for in the Arab world at the moment? Gunning for the West's dictator buddies to stay in power are we? Which side are you on? When Dubya asked the people to choose, which one did you choose? Oil company monopolies? Or resistance and freedom fighting? Yadda, you are the most deceitful person here. You consistently lie and slander Islam due to your delusional fantasies of persecution at the hands of Muslims. Islam commands the Muslims to fight to establish peace, not to fight to steal other peoples resources, nor to merely dominate over others to exert your influence on them as the Western ideology does. The Qur'an clearly says to fight those who fight you, but not to transgress bounds and be the aggressor. You can make all the cut and paste rants you like, but those are the facts.

FD, Abu has walked all over you in this thread.  Do you not notice that?

Mattyfisk wrote on May 31^st, 2017 at 12:20am:

FD, Abu has walked all over you in this thread.  Do you not notice that?

Does he usually notice that?

mothra wrote on May 31^st, 2017 at 12:31am:

Mattyfisk wrote on May 31st, 2017 at 12:20am: FD, Abu has walked all over you in this thread.  Do you not notice that? Does he usually notice that?

That's a question.

Mattyfisk wrote on May 31^st, 2017 at 1:19am:

mothra wrote on May 31st, 2017 at 12:31am: Mattyfisk wrote on May 31st, 2017 at 12:20am: FD, Abu has walked all over you in this thread.  Do you not notice that? Does he usually notice that? That's a question.

Sometimes a question is just a question.