Well Ephestion, while you may take personal comfort in the idea that your position is noble, in fact it merely means that you have decided to stop fighting about whose invisible friend is the best, and that is a very sensible approach to take, as neither can prove the real worth of their god of choice.

To think that all criticism of Islam, or Christianity is based on this personal competitiveness is not always true, for very often it is an individual act or specific interpretation which comes into question, and these can be examined and argued from the more objective perspective of how they fit in with our standards of decency and morality.

For people like myself who believe gods and religions to be man made concepts, then obviously all the inherent flaws and weaknesses we see mankind party to are reflected in the beliefs of religious people.

As a favourite writer of mine once wrote;

"Men rarely (if ever) manage to dream up a God superior to themselves. Most Gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child." ---
Robert A. Heinlein

So if we could see a god invented who was not supposed to be omniscient, or omnipotent, then we could see the chance of finding a god who could grow, and learn from his mistakes, rather than having them enshrined in sacred text.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Dec 15^th, 2009 at 8:17am:



lmao, (replies in a very thick cockney accent,) "noddalot"

Ephestion, a noble gesture indeed. I accept your apology and I also apologise for any hurt I may have caused to you or your beliefs during the course of our arguments.

In other words FD, "Dont' give up your bigotry just yet, there's still much more about Islam for which you should keep your blind hatred about them, here's a link to my little anti-Islamic hateblog".

Nice one mate. Very proud of yourself I'm sure.

Not necessarily helian.

Islamic law for instance has provision for co-existence with political entities that do not oppress or hinder Muslims from their religion. So I can't see it becoming a problem, if Australia and other Western nations remain true to their secular values. However if they become consumed by the nutcases as we see plenty of examples of here (eg. Yadda, Sprint, FD), then yes there is a possibility of a conflict. The peddlers of the self-fulfilling prophecy that will give them the opportunity to attack Islam and Muslims.

Ephestion wrote on Dec 15^th, 2009 at 1:37am:

abu_rashid wrote on Dec 15^th, 2009 at 10:01pm:

Abu, as you know, ultimately Islam will tolerate no political or religious rivals... Hence the precarious religio-political schizophrenia of Turkish society.

helian,

Quote:


Not true. Throughout all it's existence the Islamic Caliphate lived amongst rivals. Islam doesn't accept to be subservient to them, of course not. What proud and self-respecting ideology would??

Quote:


Post-Ottoman Turkish society has absolutely nothing to do with Islam. Not sure what on earth you're on about there. Do tell..

FD,

Quote:


The common misconceptions thread is there in the Islamic forum for anyone to gain insight into those kinds of issues. Where authentic Islamic positions are detailed. Unlike your little wiki, where nothing but out of context hatred is posted. Honestly I don't know why you bother, I doubt anyone besides Sprint, Yadda et al. would take it seriously.

mozzaok wrote on Dec 15^th, 2009 at 6:33am:


Well Mozzaok at first I thought not to say anything but you definitely deserve an answer.
First of all this man belongs to the greatest civilisation that ever existed in Europe it is Ancient Greek Civilisation and that’s enough to make him nobleman in compression with you. His civilisation also supposed to make you civilised because your barbaric ancestors took everything for granted from them.
Probably Ephepstion wanted to explain to your limited rational materialistic mind that there is also something beyond pleasure of happiness.

Yadda, you're a nutcase. The vast majority of Muslims have no problem living in secular societies, and have done for years. What you seem to have a problem with is Muslims exercising their rights within those societies. So if Jews for instance lobby to have an entire suburb surrounded with a fence, so they can carry out their Sabbath duties, that's fine, no problem there. Yet if Muslims for instance lobbied for a permit to build a school... oh no, that's Muslims trying to enforce Shari'ah on us. Your words and your claims stand out as a testament to your irrational beliefs.

I think you'll find Yadda considers it quite kosher.

Also according to Australia's secular and democratic principles there should be no problem with it. If they lobby for it, and it's approved, then more power to them.

The only people I can imagine who'd have a problem with it are xenophobic hate filled bigots that want to strip everyone of their culture/beliefs/morals and turn them into hedonistic aimless cultureless zombies who just roam around wasting their lives on drugs, alcohol or sex addictions.

sure, yaddas a nutcase. 

but abus an islamic nutcase. The sort that are intolerant, violent to their own ends and find our society unacceptable.

Did you feel all dirty saying that abu? You may have to go wash the westerner off yourself now.

abu_rashid wrote on Dec 16^th, 2009 at 11:18am:



No i am not abu.

But you are a liar, when you know that you are speaking to the uninformed, about ISLAM.




You are full of fear abu.

That is why you feel the need for lies, and deception.

Because you feel, you know, that your god, Allah, cannot protect you from the TRUTH.         

Humanists don't respect Islam. They respect the right of those to believe in Islam. But not in Islam itself.

there is nothing here to respect.
far from it and islamics will not say a word against it, will they islamabu ??

Quote:


[url][http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,26493292-5012761,00.html/url]

ephestion - read the koran, research mohammads life.

"make islam th edominant religion over all"

it's not just a religion, it is everything. law, policing, thought, the lot.

its the worlds biggest cult.

Ephestion wrote on Dec 16^th, 2009 at 4:00pm:



No.

ISLAM is at war with us.


Q.
Why?

A.
Because they can.


Q.
Why?

A.
Because they hate us.


Q.
Why?

A.
Because we do not believe, as they believe.




http://mirror-uk-rb1.gallery.hd.org/_exhibits/places-and-sights/_more2001/_more09/US-NY-NYC-World-Trade-Center-attack-20010911-1303GMT-moment-of-collision-of-flight-UA175-Boeing-767-jet-with-south-tower-causing-huge-explosion-seen-from-side-of-entry-1-ANON.jpg





http://911truth.tripod.com/wtc2.jpg





http://www.propagandamatrix.com/images/august2006/170806fireball.jpg



Please read the title of this thread again!

Sure you do.

And you are a Christian too.

Right?

[quote author=Ephestion link=1260805065/30#32 date=1260943248

the general consensus achieved by the media is that Islam is our enemy. By coincidence we also happen to be involved in a war against a series of Muslim nations.

[/quote]

You mean

"the general consensus achieved by the Muslims is that the West is Islam's enemy, therefore (and not by coincidence) we also happen to be involved in a war against a series of Muslim nations.

Now it makes sense.

Islam rated below Buddhism as far as Western care or awareness was concerned before 2001.

Right, we 'preach' freedom, democracy and humanity because we desire conflict...

And Islam preaches stoning, lashings, war, intolerance and apartheid because it desires peace....

that's why every informed nonmuslim is so against islam.

Paella wrote on Dec 16^th, 2009 at 11:41pm:

Islam is a rival to secular democracy.

As Abu has already implied, ultimately it will not tolerate its own subordination... That is the fundamental nature of proselytising religions and political systems.

Yadda wrote on Dec 16^th, 2009 at 1:50pm:


I think Yadda you more sound like humanist.

Humanism is a religion that puts human being in the center of universe instead God.
Consequently it’s perfect for humanists to judge who is an evil in the name of a human that’s how they get an illusion of being “gods”. The problem is that they don't recognize their imperfection and the world of relativity in which they live.
Religious Muslims' and Western Christianity Fanatics are more shrewd by judging an evil in the name of their interpretations of  God.

Is Ephestion a nobleman or just a naive full? Well that’s also relative rising the question what we all are..

Strictly speaking, in accordance with Orthodox Christianity, only our creator God is allowed to judge humans.

As an Orthodox Christian Ephestion did right thing, with his post, by rejecting to be arrogant and judge others, either in the name of human or in the name of God.
And, more importantly, from spiritual point of view, he rejected a feeling of hatred towards other human beings.

On the other hand in accordance with strictly rational materialistic corporate Anglo-Saxon pragmatism he is  just another irresponsible irrational retard.

In his famous book "Idiot" F.M. Dostoevsky proved that, if Christ appear on earth second time, he definitely will be considered as an Idiot by majority of humans.

In the word of universal deceit, being honest and admit your human imperfection is a revolutionary act.

abu_rashid wrote on Dec 17^th, 2009 at 7:05am:

But subordination is what Islam demands of all other faiths and political systems.

The difference between Islam's claim of legitimacy and those of western-style secular democracy, is that secularism guarantees equality under the law, Islam does not.

Islam and secularism are destined to confront each other... who starts it is irrelevant... Until Muslims accede to the fact that Islam has less claim to legitimacy as a political system than secularism, there is guaranteed to be confrontation...

This is a battle that Islam is fundamentally ill-prepared to fight and one which it will lose... If its rival was a religion, then Muslims would understand the terms of the battle (hence the reason Muslims often define the struggle as that between Islam and Christianity)... but it is not. And this is the most obvious reason why an unchangeable, absolutist religio-socio-political doctrine of the 7th century cannot even remotely hope to have the wherewithal to deal with the modern world... Tha fact is secularism delivers to its citizens what the religious have only ever dreamed of and almost never achieved... Moderation in governance, compassion in administration, equal suffrage, universal justice and liberty of conscience.

helian - Quote:


Excellent - 10/10

secular societies are world leaders, given a choice I will only ever live in a secular society

abu_rashid wrote on Dec 17^th, 2009 at 9:53am:

That's true. And western secular democracy has the greatest legitimate claim to its hegemony in that it guarantees equality... Islam guarantees the same only among Muslims. As a political system, it is therefore fatally flawed.

abu_rashid wrote on Dec 17^th, 2009 at 9:53am:

I would bet the farm that you personally would not tolerate a political system that constitutionally makes you a second class citizen, or imposes on you draconian penalties for petty transgressions... Or submits your family members to physical injury for not wearing approved clothes, or orders your execution for dissent. Islam is a hopelessly inferior political system.

abu_rashid wrote on Dec 17^th, 2009 at 9:53am:

When Islam is blind to creed, you will have a point...

abu_rashid wrote on Dec 17^th, 2009 at 9:53am:

Not sure if I agree with you that Christianity as a religion really plays a part in the current struggle... It's merely a label some apply to the west as a means to define a common history... I would seriously doubt that many would return to Christian religiosity because Muslims define the confrontation in terms they can understand and believe they have more hope in fighting.

The fact is everybody values equality under the law, Muslim and non-Muslim alike and the only way to guarantee this is to exclude by constitution any sect that denies this fundamental human aspiration.

abu_rashid wrote on Dec 17^th, 2009 at 10:22am:

You know that it doesn't, Abu.

abu_rashid wrote on Dec 17^th, 2009 at 10:22am:

Are you actually saying"if you don't like it you can piss off" ?

abu_rashid wrote on Dec 17^th, 2009 at 10:22am:

Yes, Christianity determining the constitution of the political system is pernicious as well... No argument about that. Islam is happy with the existence of non-Muslims only to a point and never as political equal partners.

abu_rashid wrote on Dec 17^th, 2009 at 10:22am:

You know that it does, Abu.

mozza,

Not surprised to find another mindless post from you. At least invest the activity of a few neurons in what you write...

Quote:


Implementing a punishment for a crime which didn't exist when the crime was committed, and also in the absence of all the other Islamic systems which complement the punishment system would be nothing but unjust. Only a very simple mind would propose such a thought exercise.

Quote:


No Islamic State has existed since the early part of the 20th. century, been mentioned before, and nothing a good history lesson wouldn't fix for you. Just to reiterate, the Western secular state of Australia is 1 million times better than any state that exists in the Muslim world today. That's hardly got anything to do with Islam though, since the Islamic systems were removed from all those countries. And replaced with Western style monarchies, republics and 'democracies'.

abu_rashid wrote on Dec 17^th, 2009 at 11:11am:

I'm referring to equality under the law regardless of race/creed/gender/ethnicity. I think you're trying to employ rhetorical sophistry.

abu_rashid wrote on Dec 17^th, 2009 at 11:11am:

More sophistry, Abu... Absolutely no guarantee of equality under the law... While it may be an advantage to have one, the world can happily exist without an Einstein... No one values assurances of equality that are not guaranteed by political constitution... Any other assurances is just the empty rhetoric of an amateur politician.

abu_rashid wrote on Dec 17^th, 2009 at 11:11am:

There have historically been far more restrictions on non-Muslims than tax, Abu. You would know this. The same is true under Christian dominated society towards Muslims.

Also who would trust a politician to guarantee equality when it can always be argued by better rhetoricians and stronger leaders that the imposition of inequality is "god's will"... That it has "god's imprimatur"?

Quote:


I've done no such thing mozza. In fact if you look at the thread where a guy named 'fakir' came on claiming Australia is inherently racist, I refuted him. Australia isn't inherently racist, but there are racists, in fact quite a few of them haunt this board.

Quote:


With the dissolution of the Ottoman Caliphate, no new Caliphate was formed. Therefore there is today no actual Islamic state. Since Islam has it's own form of government, then states that do not observe that form of government (ie. Caliphate) cannot really be called Islamic states. If Islam was silent on the issue of how government should be organised, then you might have a point, but it was not silent on this issue.

Also it's a well known fact that pretty much all of the modern states in the Muslim lands were drawn up in the Sykes-picot agreement. Their borders, their laws, their ruling clans etc. were all decided by the Western powers, a few had revolutions, afterwards, which again were all crafted by the CIA, in order to represent their transfer from British influence to American influence. To try and claim they represent the interests of Islam is just ludicrous. They were in fact specifically crafted in order to replace and demolish Islam from those lands.

You have some serious reading to do mozza. Your knowledge of the history and situation of the Muslim world is severely lacking. Perhaps you're not interested, and I don't blame you, but don't embaress yourself by professing to speak on something about which you obvious have a deficient amount of knowledge.

abu_rashid wrote on Dec 17^th, 2009 at 1:28pm:



Are there, or are there not, states/lands that adhere to Islam?


You can't have it both ways all the time, Mohammedan though you are.

Quote:


Finally, one of thos inconvenient details. No it doesn't Abu, and if you seriously believe this after what you have admitted about Islam, you are deluded. Islam imposes apartheid. Special 'protection' for Christians and Jews, and no protection for others, is not equality. It is oppression wrapped up in condescension. And you accuse us of arrogance...

Quote:


Abu, this merely demonstrates your miscomprehension of what freedom is. We do not mean the delusion of freedom that Islam imposes, but genuine freedom, where you won't be stoned to death or forced out of the country for saying the wrong thing. Tell me Abu, if a Muslim stood up in a proper Muslim state and said "I reject Islam" would he be free to go? Or would he merely be free to reject Islam all he wants while he is being stoned to death? Can you tell which one is the genuine freedom, and which one is the delusion? I hate to sound arrogant about it, but I can't find a nicer way of putting it.

Quote:


Oh, you mean they were free to stone people to death for saying or doing the 'wrong thing'?

Quote:


Again Abu, you leave out the critical detail. Choosing to live under a militant Islamic empire because the only alternative is being slaughtered or enslaved by overwhelming forces is not really a 'choice' in the context of freedom of choice, as most westerners understand it. And speeking of equality etc, how does Islamic slavery fit into that?

Quote:


Unless of course their contribution was to point out the horrible flaws of Islam. You see, us westerners consider valid criticism of our system of government a contribution, not something we should stamp out. Or indeed even the invalid criticism such as yours, as at the very least it is an exercise in freedom of speech.

Quote:


Abu, no-one would tolerate it, unless of course the only other option was death. Which to you means they would tolerate it, right? Maybe you are right, in a strict literal sense. Though many people would choose death. but they don;t count, do they?

Quote:


So Abu are you now saying that death by stoning is a fair punishment for exercising basic freedoms, so long as people are forwarned?

Quote:


No Abu, we just don't see the difference. Nor do we understand why you think your argument would sway anyone. You appear to think that wrapping evil up in beuracracy makes it benign. It doesn't.

Quote:


It has a lot to do with Islam. You cannot seriously expect us to believe that Islam has nothing to do with the shitholes most Muslim dominated countries are, merely because Muslims cannot manage to establish a 'proper' Muslim state. You won't even tell us whether you consider malik an apostate. Imagine what would happen if we had three different flavours of Muslim on this site.

Quote:


Abu, taking away a woman's right to be a woman is not equality. Equal is not about focing people to be the same, but giving them equal opportunities and choices. Women are not given equal opportunity and choices under Islam. They are given given whatever opportunities their male owners decide to grant them.

Quote:


No Abu, you are. You claim that making it hard to tell if a woman is a woman or a man in a burqa somehow makes her equal to a man.

Quote:


That would be kind of difficult, given what Islam forces the state to impose on them. I guess the strategy is to not make it truly gruesome for them until they have nowhere else to go.

Quote:


So what happens if a brilliant mind rejects Islam? Would you still stone them to death?

Quote:


Again Abu, we are talking about true equality, not the apartheid that Islam imposes.

Quote:


Thought I was pretty clear on that. There is none.

or listening to music, or flying kites, or drawing cartoons of moh.........

Muslim lands and implementing Islam are two completely different things.

Just because the people are Muslims doesn't necessarily mean the government implements Islam.

I'm pretty astounded by the simplistic thinking here...

abu_rashid wrote on Dec 18^th, 2009 at 12:02am:


If a place is not governed by Muslim principles - what makes it still  'muslim land'?

athos wrote on Dec 17^th, 2009 at 8:55am:



That is a nice quote athos.

I think the original goes....

"In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act."

George Orwell

Old George O, has been dead for many, many years.

But his words, those words, seem particularly appropriate for today.

Yes?      

abu_rashid wrote on Dec 17^th, 2009 at 11:11am:


Another naked lie abu.

In making your statement, you totally ignore the the words of your own supreme authority, ALLAH, vis-vis the way to treat 'unbelievers'.

"....those who reject Allah have no protector."

Koran 47.8-11
This verse from the Koran, is an open invitation to 'good' moslems, to kill apostates and 'unbelievers'.


It is clear, that whenever it is expedient for ISLAMIC regimes to do so [i.e. if 'unbelievers' complain about injustices that their community suffers under moslem rule], 'unbelievers' are people who can be deemed to outside of the protection of the law, with predictable 'consequences' for 'unbelievers', at the hands of unrestrained moslem citizens.

Dictionary,






Everywhere in the moslem world there is an unending litany of the persecution of those who are NOT moslem,


http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/12/iraqi-archbishop-a-policy-of-ethnic-cleansing-...


http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/12/pakistan-muslim-employers-poison-and-kill-chri...

Egypt
Hundreds of Muslim villagers in southern Egypt recently burned and looted scores of Christian-owned shops. Christians in Egypt live in a constant state of fear and thousands are being forced to relocate. In fact, the forced deportation of Egyptian Christians from their homes by the government in order to "protect" them is rapidly increasing.

http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSLL61043


http://persecution.org/suffering/pdfs/ICC_Hall_of_Shame_2009.pdf



http://thereligionofpeace.com/




Google,

http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=persecution+of+non-muslims&btnG=Search&m...



Yet abu, poo-hoo's such examples,

"These things are not representative of ISLAM / moslems."

abu's dismissals, are typical of every moslems' dismissal of TRUTH, when moslems are confronted by it.

If TRUTH does not portray ISLAM well, then TRUTH is a lie,
OR, better still,
just look the other way, and deny that these TRUTH's about ISLAM exist.

soren I really can't see where you're going with this, except round in circles.

The land is the land Muslims live in. It just happens to be governed by foreign imposed rulers, that's all, that do not implement Islam. Therefore calling it an Islamic state is not really correct, since the state does not implement Islam as its system. But calling it Muslim land is quite fine, since it is the land of the Muslims.

Why you must insist on mixing up what ruling system is implemented, with who the people are is just beyond me. Nothing else better to pick at?

abu_rashid wrote on Dec 18^th, 2009 at 11:29am:



soren, the problem is, that you just don't understand moslem thought process.      




You really need to 'get with the program' soren!    

Google,

http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=the+whole+world+belongs+to+allah+muslims...





in relation to Australia,

Australia a Muslim nation
October 08, 2006
AUSTRALIA is a Muslim nation, the head of Prime Minister John Howard's Muslim advisory board says.
Dr Ameer Ali says most Australians practise Muslim values but the Muslim community is being alienated and disadvantaged by Islamophobia.
Dr Ali said multiculturalism was Australia's destiny but Muslims, as latecomers, were being disadvantaged.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20545617-1702,00.html
link is now dead.

try,

Google,

http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=%22Australia+a+Muslim+nation%2...

It's interesting, since Islam is the youngest major religion, that muslims can claim any land at all, since it "belonged" to others before Islam was even made up.

It seems once a Muslim has lived somewhere, it becomes a "muslim land" and can never be returned to a non-muslim land. This is how they take over the world, they claim land is theirs that never was, and demand land back that wasn't theirs to begin with. Revolting cult religion.

Quote:


But of course the Christian lands didn't belong to anyone before they became Christian. Our only mistake it seems was not eradicating all traces of any pre-existing people, like Christians did. Guess our mercy and sense of justice was our own downfall wasn't it??

Quote:


Why not? Isn't it just to re-establish a nation over 2000 years after it existed?? Millions of Palestinians in refugee camps are testament to the fact you guys think it's fine.

I don't see any Muslim occupying al-Andalus and pushing Spaniards into refugee camps, so perhaps you better start practising what you preach.

Quote:

I'm not a Christian. What the hell do Christians have have to do with this? Why do you always insist on using Christians to defend Islam's revolting behaviour?

abu_rashid wrote on Dec 18^th, 2009 at 2:55pm:




It's high time for some de-colonisation.

abu_rashid wrote on Dec 18^th, 2009 at 2:58pm:

typical diversion islamabu

jordan484 wrote on Dec 18^th, 2009 at 3:46pm:


Who else can he defend the Mohammedans' revolting behaviour?

Everything revolting done by the Mohamedans is the fault of the joos, christians, pagan or atheists (and that covers all non-Mohammedans). Mohammedans are not responsible for anything bad, only the good. All good, of course.

Didn't you know that?

freediver wrote on Dec 19^th, 2009 at 2:44pm:



He will remain silent if he can't pin the outrages on non-Muslims.

Quote:


So you mean they made them feign conversion to catholicism before being executed? Oh in that case it's alright then..

muso wrote on Jan 6^th, 2010 at 1:50pm:


I wasn't aware of the portugese inquisition, interesting.

Quote:


Sprint, if someone came to Australia from another country and got caught taking ecstasy or some other intoxicant which is illegal in Australia, what would be your position towards that?

Quote:


Just because she's a victim of one crime doesn't mean she's not guilty of these others. Again if someone came to Australia and committed illegal drug and sexual offenses here, would you support letting them off?? Just because one of them claimed they'd also been the victim of a sexual offense??

Quote:


Well if you take intoxicants/drugs until you're completely inebriated and passing out in public toilets, one would have to conclude you're not really respecting or looking after yourself, are you?? Doesn't detract from what the Syrian guy supposedly did, but really...

Quote:


If they had been raped, the rape would come first. It would not bother me particularly if they got let off for the drug use. A bit of common sense goes a long way.

abu_rashid wrote on Jan 8^th, 2010 at 10:29pm:



Which is, ironically, what Mohammedans have been doing for a long time know. "We only burnt down your embassies because we was wronged, man. You drew cartoons! That's worse than rape!! "

Quote:


There are several reasons. One, it is extremely difficult to get a rape conviction at the best of times. Yet it is a high priority. Or at least, it should be. The police often let the minor charges go to secure the more important conviction. The alternative would prevent people from reporting crimes, or bearing witness to a crime, because they may be implicated in something petty that in this case has a draconian punishment. You claim that Islam magically 'prevents' this sort of crime. Yet all I see is it covering up the crime and making it easier to get away with. You say that muslims take rape seriously, but that is obviously not the case if they would so readily undermine their ability to secure a conviction. Maybe they take it seriously, but just not as seriously as more petty offences like consuming alcohol outside of a licensed premises.

Quote:


You seem to have it backwards Abu. She did not get charged then cry rape. She came forward to report the rape, then freely admitted to the minor offences. She could probably have lied about the alcohol if necessary. She probably could not comprehend the pettiness of the local police. If what you say were true, people would cry rape in the west all the time to get around charges. It does not happen. The police are not idiots. At least, not here.