Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Are they really predisposed to world domination$

Originally posted by hardwoodman
Are they really predisposed to world domination$

Awwww man. Dont get some of us started!!

*sigh* One of these days, somebody's gotta consider the 100-post minimum before starting new threads.

Originally posted by hardwoodman
Are they really predisposed to world domination$ well looky here, suh. yous wants ma opinion? see, i looks at it dis way crazy now dat's when ma nutz are caught inna vise.

sorry if I've broken some rule. I just feel like this may be the question of our time and was wondering what was the general mood on this as muslims seem to have no problem whatsoever in voicing their opinon of the west. Are we worried that someone will attack the site or look us up somehow or is my newness to this board leaving me ignorant of what one SHOULD post about? Please enlighten me.

religion forum

No offense for your effort, but the only reason I suggest the 100-post minimum for noobs is that 99 times out of 100, the thread they start has been done before. And before. And here we go again. If you hang around awhile, you'd see there have been about 1,000 threads about islam. Believe it or not, this wasn't the first!

Originally posted by PVS
religion forum

PVS, Carl from Aqua Team Hunger Force...brilliant!

actually didnt mean from a religous point of veiw. meant more from political pov. sorry to repeat.

but...islam is a religion

if it were only a religion, we wouldnt be having the problems we are today. Thats like say cathalicism was just a religion in the 1500's. Anyway, this must be an old story to most here so I'll just close down. bye!

Actually i'm pretty both are and were religions...

Some just dominate the government in ways that they really shouldn't. Christianity is no different in many western nations we are far to dependant on the bible... Granted most of the time not as bad as some Muslims but still....

Originally posted by hardwoodman
Are they really predisposed to world domination$
Islam fundamentalisets...

Regular Muslims are fine and dandy.

Islam is funny, their clothes are different from my clothes...look at what they're wearing! Teeheeteehee!

They are a bunch of nut jobs still living in the middle ages. Better off without that religion and all its people, imo.

Originally posted by Alfheim
Awwww man. Dont get some of us started!!

Yeah. What he said.

Originally posted by hardwoodman
Are they really predisposed to world domination$

Yes. Ulmate goal of Islam. Only then is Islam a religion of peace.

Here is my short version of Islamic history -

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Please people, READ what I write next, and pay CLOSE attention. Short lecture on history of Islam -




What a lot of westerners do not understand is that the Qur'an, does not have an equal in the western civilisation. The way Qur'an is seen by Muslims, nothing in the west has its parallel. Bible is WAY off.

Qur'an is believed by Muslims and Islamic theologies, to have been dictated WORD for WORD by Alah himself, through Angel Gabriel to Muhammad.

The problem is that now, every word of the Qur'an, every single one, unless it is canceled by another section (which would mean, there are no contradictions in the Qur'an) is valid for all time and it cannot be questioned, reformed or changed.

This means that moderate muslims, if they are sincere, they have to reject entirely Qur'anic literalism, BUT to do this, it puts them outside of the sphere of orthodox, or TRUE Islam throughout history.

Because to do so, it is to reject the very basic core of Islam, that this is a book dictated by God, the perfect copy of a perfect book, the Umm al-kitab (The mother of the book) that has existed forever with Allah in Heaven. Forever.
Every word of this book is the word of the God.

Thus, going back to my many Qur'anic quotes about violence and killing of the Infidels, would mean that those are the exact, untranslatable, words of god, which are to be carried out.

NOW PAY ATTENTION -

Therefore, people who are killing in the name of Allah, infidels and Jews, are practicing the true Islam. The Islam which Prophet Muhammad practiced himself.

Muhammad beheaded between 600 and 800 men, himself, personally. That is not counting tribes he sacked and expelled and the killings he ordered to be done.

Now, Muhammad is considered the al-insan al-kamil, which means ''The Perfect Man''.
He is the model, to be imitated.
He is the person, the more Muslim is like him, the better off he is.
He is revealed as the example to be followed by all Muslims.

Therefore, taking all this BACK to the Pope comment - what the Emperor in Pope's quote said was TRUE.

Anything which is peaceful in the Quran is not NEW. Muhammad lived with Jewish and Christian tribes, and thus while he has, the verses in the Quran are identical to those in the Bible.
What Muhammad brought that was new are the sword spread religion, and religious dominance through government.

Technically thus, the Byzantine emperor was absolutely correct.

Furthermore, if you would like to check what I have said, please read the Qur'an, the Haidths (because you cannot understand Qur'an without reading the Hadiths), Islamic tradition, Islamic theology and Islamic history.

I promise you, you will be all that wiser.

Furthermore, moving to religion forum.

Islam is no worse nor better than any of the other major religions roaming around this globe, it is with islam as it is with the others religions, it is the idiots who craves attention for their ways and f*uckig it up for the rest of the followers that get the attention they dont deserve..............but still getting it.
When man grow up man understand that man dont need religion

Yeah bigotry against Islam!

Yeah people who can't understand that not every Muslim is osama!

Originally posted by hardwoodman
Are they really predisposed to world domination$

No more or less than christians.

Originally posted by KidRock
They are a bunch of nut jobs still living in the middle ages.

No more or less than christians.

It is sort of a messed up religion but i say its fine as long as they seperate church from state which they DON'T in the middle east. That's the most ****ed up part of it. Guys getting stoned for cheating on their wives no matter how many they might have.

Originally posted by KidRock
They are a bunch of nut jobs still living in the middle ages. Better off without that religion and all its people, imo.

Well, oh foolish one, thats rather funny, because Baghdad was the capitol of the intellectual wold during the Middle ages and the Islamic empire was the most advanced and scholarly in all the world.

In fact, they saved the world form Christian anti-intellectualism and saved Greco-Roman Classicism.

It was Islam's contributions that started the Italian and subsequent European Renaissances.

Originally posted by Alliance
Well, oh foolish one, thats rather funny, because Baghdad was the capitol of the intellectual wold during the Middle ages and the Islamic empire was the most advanced and scholarly in all the world.

In fact, they saved the world form Christian anti-intellectualism and saved Greco-Roman Classicism.

It was Islam's contributions that started the Italian and subsequent European Renaissances.

pray

Originally posted by hardwoodman
Are they really predisposed to world domination$

Not a big fan of it.

Except they're not prodisposed to world domination.

The Muslim Golden Age ended a long time ago, it's an Athiest Age now. Muslims are however(In the Middle East that is) living in the Middle Ages, they will murder people for not being Muslim, very dangerous, but I know some, their semi-friends of mine, they arn't bad, so I dunno, I say they need one set version of their Religion, that's their problem, the people choose what it means

Originally posted by Darth Kreiger
The Muslim Golden Age ended a long time ago, it's an Athiest Age now. Muslims are however(In the Middle East that is) living in the Middle Ages, they will murder people for not being Muslim, very dangerous, but I know some, their semi-friends of mine, they arn't bad, so I dunno, I say they need one set version of their Religion, that's their problem, the people choose what it means

Where is all this "they are living in the middle ages" coming from?

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Where is all this "they are living in the middle ages" coming from?

Their society, they never advanced in Culture, Government, Technology, anything, since then, their ideals are all based from back then, when they had glory, and now look at it

Originally posted by Darth Kreiger
Their society, they never advanced in Culture, Government, Technology, anything, since then, their ideals are all based from back then, when they had glory, and now look at it


Cultures? How are you defining culture?

They haven't advanced technologically? How is the Islamic middle east then one of the cornerstones of the modern economy and industry - what with the importance of oil and all?

Government? Which one are you talking about? We have dicatorships, we have theocracies, we have democracy... how exactly are these indicative of Middle Age standards? By that logic there are Asian nations that are middle age like. And the whole of Africa almost?

It seems to me that "middle ages" in this case is being used to me "Hasn't kept pace with the "west"/is not acting like the "west" thinks it should."

Originally posted by Darth Kreiger
The Muslim Golden Age ended a long time ago, it's an Athiest Age now. Muslims are however(In the Middle East that is) living in the Middle Ages, they will murder people for not being Muslim, very dangerous, but I know some, their semi-friends of mine, they arn't bad, so I dunno, I say they need one set version of their Religion, that's their problem, the people choose what it means

Don't be foolish.

1. How are we in an Athiest age?

2. No religon has one doctrine. Look at how many versons of EVERY religion, not to mention non-religious philosophies. The fact that you should demand one is absurd.

Originally posted by Alliance
Don't be foolish.

1. How are we in an Athiest age?

2. No religon has one doctrine. Look at how many versons of EVERY religion, not to mention non-religious philosophies. The fact that you should demand one is absurd.

Indeed. And if the Muslims have to be mashed into a single religious identity it would be only just if we merge all the Christian groups into a single Christian faith. And maybe the Buddhists groups into one as well.

Of course there would likely be war... after all, who is to say which is the doctrine all the others should adhere to?

An Athiestic golden age might be nice though.

As long as it was permenant.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Not a big fan of it.

Er could you elaborate on that? Actually dont!

Originally posted by Alliance
Well, oh foolish one, thats rather funny, because Baghdad was the capitol of the intellectual wold during the Middle ages and the Islamic empire was the most advanced and scholarly in all the world.

In fact, they saved the world form Christian anti-intellectualism and saved Greco-Roman Classicism.

It was Islam's contributions that started the Italian and subsequent European Renaissances.

Yeah I know about all that, thats all in the past now.

Personally, I'm glad I'm not Muslim, because if I were, I'd be embarrassed and pissed as that a handful of barbarians had hijacked my faith and are making it look like in front of the rest of the world.

Originally posted by Mindship
Personally, I'm glad I'm not Muslim, because if I were, I'd be embarrassed and pissed as that a handful of barbarians had hijacked my faith and are making it look like in front of the rest of the world.

Hijacked how?

Hijacked from what? The 7th century murdurous warlord tactics and updated it to today's terorism?

What EXACTLY has been hijacked from Islam?


How the hell noone hijacked Buddhism!? Why noone hijacked Taoism and Zen?!
Why noone hijicked Judaism?

Jihad is a holy war, and its been declared on everything non-Muslim, particulary so the west.

Originally posted by Mindship
Personally, I'm glad I'm not Muslim, because if I were, I'd be embarrassed and pissed as that a handful of barbarians had hijacked my faith and are making it look like in front of the rest of the world.

Orale! Tell me about it. The religion has gone down the toilet, since the majority of its followers act like it's still 1000 A.D. I'm not talking about the approximate 7 million Muslim Arab-Americans; I'm talking about the Arabs over there.

Instead of the star & crescent, the religion's symbol should be an AK and an RPG.

Lil, you need to wake up. All of Islam has not declared war on everyhtign non-Muslim. Its a small minority of crazies that are the product of poor education and unstable governments.

Buddhism, Taoism, Zen, and Judaism are all very tiny religions. Their extremest fractions are likely a couple hundred people spread throught the world. With a huge religion like Islam, the radical majority, which albeit is currently larger than normal, can gain some political traction.

Originally posted by Alliance
Its a small minority of crazies that are the product of poor education and unstable governments.

Small minority my ass!

I need to wake up?

I awoke the minute I learned what Islam was and what it says. Its history and its future.

And what small minority? This ''minority'' is everywhere!

Where is this minority? Why does this minority control Arab televisions and school books, all over middle east where children are thought that Jews are not human and should all be murdered?

Strange that minority.

If it was a minority, we wouldn't hear about it all day every day, would we?

If it was a minority it would not attract so much attention BECAUSE MAJORITY would shut the MINORITY up.

You two should know better than this.

Do you think that the mjority of Muslims, the moderate majority, is not existant? The minorty are violent, hence they get a lot of coverage. If the majority of Muslims were part of the radical movement, then every Islamic nation in the world would have declared war on the US. NONE has.

The minority is more vocal than the majority. The majority of Islamic nations that I can recall (meybe all of them) condmened binLaden's attacks on 9-11. I'd say that an equally proportionate number of CHildern in the US are taught that Muslims are inhuman. Thankfully, the US also has a vocal moderate that tries to shut that down.

If that moderate were to become silent, I think we'd be living in a very different world.

I think similar things happened in the Middle east. The moderate majority doesn't have enough will to combat these radical elements because they sympathis with thier grievances against other nations, be it Isreal, the US or whatever.

Indeed. The reason for the lack of condemnation is that many people in predominantly muslim countries still have ill-will toward the West - as Alliance says, represented through the USA and Israel. It's not like they don't have reasons to be upset. Also, there's no reason for the media to report all the countries that criticise terrorism.

Anyway, Just because a minority is willing to use violence doesn't make the whole violent. Minorities have proven to be very good at hijacking the image of both themselves and the majority.

Originally posted by Alliance
You two should know better than this.

Do you think that the mjority of Muslims, the moderate majority, is not existant? The minorty are violent, hence they get a lot of coverage. If the majority of Muslims were part of the radical movement, then every Islamic nation in the world would have declared war on the US. NONE has.

The minority is more vocal than the majority. The majority of Islamic nations that I can recall (meybe all of them) condmened binLaden's attacks on 9-11. I'd say that an equally proportionate number of CHildern in the US are taught that Muslims are inhuman. Thankfully, the US also has a vocal moderate that tries to shut that down.

If that moderate were to become silent, I think we'd be living in a very different world.

I think similar things happened in the Middle east. The moderate majority doesn't have enough will to combat these radical elements because they sympathis with thier grievances against other nations, be it Isreal, the US or whatever.

This shows evident lack of any knowledge apart from what TV tells you.

US? Us is not on the main outlook at all! It is the Jews and Israel which are the focus of Arab and Middle Eastern propaganda!

Because you are ignorant to what Arab and Middle Eastern tv and leaders say and show, you talk this bullshit.

Muslims do not believe US leads Israel against Muslims. Their main propaganda is that Israel and all the Jews are controling the USA and the West.

Please educate yourself a little regarding this, at least.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
This shows evident lack of any knowledge apart from what TV tells you.

US? Us is not on the main outlook at all! It is the Jews and Israel which are the focus of Arab and Middle Eastern propaganda!

Because you are ignorant to what Arab and Middle Eastern tv and leaders say and show, you talk this bullshit.

Muslims do not believe US leads Israel against Muslims. Their main propaganda is that Israel and all the Jews are controling the USA and the West.

Please educate yourself a little regarding this, at least.

I'm just wondering, where have you listened/ watched Arab news?

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
I'm just wondering, where have you listened/ watched Arab news?


You can get pieces of news, complete with translation over the internet.
If anyone bothered to search and research.

In fact, I cannot upload a movie with a large collection of those on google videos or youtube cos its too big. And I would persume illegal.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Oh thats right. I live in the west, and I have NO access to middle eastern television.

You can get pieces of news, complete with translation over the internet.

In fact, I cannot upload a movie with a large collection of those on google videos or youtube cos its too big. And I would persume illegal.

Wow. Thank you for that rant when I was being curious.

And a lot of our news is based on the Muslims in the Middle East.

I don't see your point - our media points to Iran and radical Muslims, suggesting they lead the Middle East in aggression against the West, and their media says the Israel and the Jews lead the West in aggression toward the Middle East and Islam itself.

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
Wow. Thank you for that rant when I was being curious.

sorry, but a lot of people have a random go at me about Islam, when they have no idea about anything.

I very often get sly comments based on absolutely nothing other than what they thing they should say.

Apologies.

Originally posted by Trickster
And a lot of our news is based on the Muslims in the Middle East.

I don't see your point - our media points to Iran and radical Muslims, suggesting they lead the Middle East in aggression against the West, and their media says the Israel and the Jews lead the West in aggression toward the Middle East and Islam itself.

Their media, is not like OUR media.

Our media does not allow people saying ''all jews are monkeys and pigs'' and ''death to america'' and things like ''blood of unbelievers will flow''.

At least not without critisism from people.

There are over 1 billion muslims in the world. Hundreds of them are members of terrorist groups. That's less than amount of criminals among christians or jews. And certanly media doesn't say anything about one billion peacefull men and women that work, go to school and raise children. Nobody cares about them. So whoever thinks that "mijority" of muslims is violent is ignorant or just stupid. As for hating jew, thousands of murdered inocent palestinians is a good reason to hate them.

Originally posted by Sam Z
There are over 1 billion muslims in the world. Hundreds of them are members of terrorist groups. That's less than amount of criminals among christians or jews. And certanly media doesn't say anything about one billion peacefull men and women that work, go to school and raise children. Nobody cares about them. So whoever thinks that "mijority" of muslims is violent is ignorant or just stupid. As for hating jew, thousands of murdered inocent palestinians is a good reason to hate them.

There is never any good reason to hate.

I find it hard to believe that the majority of Muslims watch news channels that have these claims. I don't deny their existence, though.

As for the hatred of Israel... Well, there are reasons for that. It's not like a central tenet of Islam is to hate Judaism.

I thought you said that the US was not mentioned on Arab media? And also, as an aside, how can something be both a monkey and a pig? (Some sort of Jewish Mig... Not quite sure how that would work, though).

What exactly do you object to in the Islamic faith?

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
sorry, but a lot of people have a random go at me about Islam, when they have no idea about anything.

I very often get sly comments based on absolutely nothing other than what they thing they should say.

Apologies.



Their media, is not like OUR media.

Our media does not allow people saying ''all jews are monkeys and pigs'' and ''death to america'' and things like ''blood of unbelievers will flow''.

At least not without critisism from people.

Apology accepted, and sorry for being snappy.

Well, our media allows people to be called "Islamic Fascists" with no consequences.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Jihad is a holy war, and its been declared on everything non-Muslim, particulary so the west.

It wasn't quite that originally. It is one of the problems from 18th century European scholar's that the Jihad was viewed as simply a Muslim Crusade - which wasn't its actually meaning or function.

However the term has been twisted by modern terrorist cells and they use it in that sense, which is unfortunate, as it reaffirms the historically inaccurate use of it as the "Muslim Crusade."

And it must be remembered that the motives and claims of the terrorists doesn't stand up to there actions - "declared war on everything non-Muslim" - yet the majority of deaths in places like Iraq isn't the western contractors or soldiers, but rather Muslim civilians that the Terrorists are targeting.



To my knowledge the Muslims in the 7th century (the founding period) weren't especially unique in their conduct, nor any worse then other groups/powers before, during or after the time. In fact they were less violant then many of them.

And certainly after that the Umayyads, the Abbasids and the Arabs were, in context, very good empires, especially in terms of what Alliance was talking about earlier in protecting and advancing intellectualism. It was, in my view, the coming of the Turks that did the most damage.



Not really. Minorities are known to get the media attention. The masses who go about their lives not causing trouble don't draw attention to themselves - it is the minorities that cause the stir.

The unfortunate thing is that the attention drawing actions of the few tend to lead to majority being tarred with the same brush.

And I don't know how easy it would be for the majority to do anything - after all, the collective might of the worlds most powerful nation and its allies have been brought to bare... and hasn't really achieved anything.

The Majority love their Extremeist leaders, maybe not for the same reasons, but they're told Propaganda, and they believe it, so they want to kill us, the only "Majority" of Muslims that are "Nice" live outside the Middle East, which brings me to the Theory of, they hate the craphole of a place that is the Middle East, and if they see what we have, they'll stop being Violent bastards

Originally posted by Darth Kreiger
The Majority love their Extremeist leaders, maybe not for the same reasons, but they're told Propaganda, and they believe it, so they want to kill us, the only "Majority" of Muslims that are "Nice" live outside the Middle East, which brings me to the Theory of, they hate the craphole of a place that is the Middle East, and if they see what we have, they'll stop being Violent bastards

Yet the Middle East is one of the most desirable bits of real estate on earth - oil and religion. Christians, Muslims and Jews all have an interest in the area.

As to the condition of the Middle East today - that responsibility doesn't solely rest with just the Muslims. It is often overlooked both the pros and cons the Western powers had on the Middle East during the colonial period.

Originally posted by dani_california
It is sort of a messed up religion but i say its fine as long as they seperate church from state which they DON'T in the middle east. That's the most ****ed up part of it. Guys getting stoned for cheating on their wives no matter how many they might have.
aye thats a big part of it, they talk about how peaceful their way of life is blah blah blah, ofcourse thats why they have to come and make america lovely and peacefull, just look how serene the place is now all thanks to islam.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
sorry, but a lot of people have a random go at me about Islam, when they have no idea about anything.

I very often get sly comments based on absolutely nothing other than what they thing they should say.

Apologies.



Now lil you know I agree with 99% of what you say. I agree with you that there is a problem with Islam and fundamentalism, but my problem is that you kinda give the impression that the Christians and Jews are perfect.

For example when you talked about the Crusades you made the Christians look like the good guys who were trying to liberate their lands. To be fair the Christians were just looking for an excuse to fight, because you must know that the Christian Crusaders massacred both Jews and Christians. In my opinion I think it was a possibility that the muslims who were attacking Christian pilgrims where Christians in disguise who wanted to start a war. Im saying this because in the Crusades it seems that the Christians were the most barbaric.

Concerning Judiasm, do you know some Orthodox Jews disagree with the state of Isarel? Do you also know that that some Orthodox jews see Zionism as a Jewish form of fascism. I dont agree with suicide bombing but you do know before the state of Isarel was formed that there were muslims living with Jews and alot of Arabs were kicked off their land and killed?

There is a problem with Islamic fudamentalism but sometimes you dont have a balanced arguement and you just see Islam as the ONLY problem, when Christanity and Judaism contribute as well.

Originally posted by Alfheim
Now lil you know I agree with 99% of what you say. I agree with you that there is a problem with Islam and fundamentalism, but my problem is that you kinda give the impression that the Christians and Jews are perfect.

For example when you talked about the Crusades you made the Christians look like the good guys who were trying to liberate their lands. To be fair the Christians were just looking for an excuse to fight, because you must know that the Christian Crusaders massacred both Jews and Christians. In my opinion I think it was a possibility that the muslims who were attacking Christian pilgrims where Christians in disguise who wanted to start a war. Im saying this because in the Crusades it seems that the Christians were the most barbaric.

Concerning Judiasm, do you know some Orthodox Jews disagree with the state of Isarel? Do you also know that that some Orthodox jews see Zionism as a Jewish form of fascism. I dont agree with suicide bombing but you do know before the state of Isarel was formed that there were muslims living with Jews and alot of Arabs were kicked off their land and killed?

There is a problem with Islamic fudamentalism but sometimes you dont have a balanced arguement and you just see Islam as the ONLY problem, when Christanity and Judaism contribute as well.

Christians and Jews are far from perfect. I do not claim that.
We are not, afterall having an argument regarding Christians OR Jews.

When people are talking about the fallibility of Christianity noone EVER says anything regarding Islam being bad.

This often used tecnique of ''Islam is bad BUT Christianity is too'' is very poor and I strongly disagree with it.

Noone ever says ''Christians are bad, but Muslims did this and this and this'', while people very often say ''Muslims are bad but Christians are effing worse''

It is a technique of shaming one to reclaim the other. Its weak, and very unconvincing.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
It wasn't quite that originally. It is one of the problems from 18th century European scholar's that the Jihad was viewed as simply a Muslim Crusade - which wasn't its actually meaning or function.

However the term has been twisted by modern terrorist cells and they use it in that sense, which is unfortunate, as it reaffirms the historically inaccurate use of it as the "Muslim Crusade."

And it must be remembered that the motives and claims of the terrorists doesn't stand up to there actions - "declared war on everything non-Muslim" - yet the majority of deaths in places like Iraq isn't the western contractors or soldiers, but rather Muslim civilians that the Terrorists are targeting.

This info is incorrect.

Jihad as an idea and as a goal existed BEFORE Islamic expantion to Persia and Europe, and it can never be called Islamic Crusaide, because the Crusaide begun because the safety of Christians in Christian holy land, which was occupied by Muslims was no longer guaranteed.

furthermore, the best place to look for what Jihad has to say, is to look at Hadiths, and what Muhammad said regarding it.



Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
To my knowledge the Muslims in the 7th century (the founding period) weren't especially unique in their conduct, nor any worse then other groups/powers before, during or after the time. In fact they were less violant then many of them.

And certainly after that the Umayyads, the Abbasids and the Arabs were, in context, very good empires, especially in terms of what Alliance was talking about earlier in protecting and advancing intellectualism. It was, in my view, the coming of the Turks that did the most damage.

Again, no.

Arabia was predominantly Jewsih at the time. Muhammad and his followers, expelled and murdered ALL Jews and Christians in the Arabia at the time, through war and raids.

Why, Muhammad himself beheaded a whole tribe of Jews, killing between 600 and 900 men.

A famous story, which is roudly studied in the Middle East and Arabia, is the torture of Rabi of one of the tribes, ordered by Muhammad himself, in order to obtain information as to where Jewish gold and treasures were.

The raise of Islam came through a sword.

For more information, I suggest ''Life of Muhammad'' There is a free version online. I'll hook you up with a link.



Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Not really. Minorities are known to get the media attention. The masses who go about their lives not causing trouble don't draw attention to themselves - it is the minorities that cause the stir.

The unfortunate thing is that the attention drawing actions of the few tend to lead to majority being tarred with the same brush.

And I don't know how easy it would be for the majority to do anything - after all, the collective might of the worlds most powerful nation and its allies have been brought to bare... and hasn't really achieved anything.

I tend to disagree.
Hate preaching is not condemened at all to the extent in which it should have.

Only people who condem such behaviour are non-muslims who are usually called bigoted and hated.

Why, a Muslims fundamentalist came ona radio just few days ago, praising 9/11 and 7/7 bombers as great people.
12 minutes of air time. Shocking.

Furthermore, if Islam was a religion of peace, no twisted mind could possibly turn it into a terrorist heaven.

As I have already mentioned, in Islamic theology, Muhammad is considered the 'perfect man' whos example is to be followed.

If you read the historical account of Muhammad's life, you will find that Terrorist have converted 7th century warlord type behaviour which when transleted in 21st century produces terrorism.

As I have mentioned numerous times before - there are peaceful and moderate muslims, but here is no peaceful and moderate Islam.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Christians and Jews are far from perfect.


Ok now I know that im cool.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness

When people are talking about the fallibility of Christianity noone EVER says anything regarding Islam being bad.

Ok fair enough I just got the wrong impression.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness

This often used tecnique of ''Islam is bad BUT Christianity is too'' is very poor and I strongly disagree with it.

Noone ever says ''Christians are bad, but Muslims did this and this and this'', while people very often say ''Muslims are bad but Christians are effing worse''

It is a technique of shaming one to reclaim the other. Its weak, and very unconvincing.


Well thats not the reason why im pointing this out. Fair enough this discussion is about Islam and eventhough there is a problem with Islamic fundamentalism I am just trying to elaborate on the point that there is a problem with the three major religons in general it does not negate from anything you said.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
This info is incorrect.

Jihad as an idea and as a goal existed BEFORE Islamic expantion to Persia and Europe, and it can never be called Islamic Crusaide, because the Crusaide begun because the safety of Christians in Christian holy land, which was occupied by Muslims was no longer guaranteed.

furthermore, the best place to look for what Jihad has to say, is to look at Hadiths, and what Muhammad said regarding it.

I am not saying that Jihad doesn't exist as an idea of a goal, however the claim that it is a "holy war" is far from accurate - it is much more complicated then that, and its cultural and theological manifestations go beyond mere "holy war" status.

However don't think that I am saying that military actions are not necessarily a part of it (the less worthy version of Jihad) - because they can be. But it promotes an erroneous stereotype of the word and its purpose to claim it is merely a means of "holy war" - this is not a definition supported historically, theologically or culturally.

As to the Christian crusades - the concept of them merely being a defence mechanism for the holy land is another historical definition that no longer stands up to scrutiny. The historicity of the event (the closest fitting your description was the First Crusade) has moved away from the Eurocentric, romanticised image of the Crusades as the sources, studied critically, just don't support it. Just like the Jihad is not clear cut in nature, nor are the Crusades. It is only in the recent terrorist history that Jihad as a pure military act has arisen, devoid of the culturally or theological reasoning it originally. They have twisted it into a pure tool of hate that has harmed both Muslim and non-Muslim alike.



The Jews in Arabia were indeed a powerful faction and influential faction, but "predominantly" makes it sound as if they were the majority either in terms of population or religion, which was not quite the case.

Was the treatment of the Jews wrong? By our standards yes. However it is historically inadvisable to attempt to implant modern Western morality and ethics into historical periods - simply because the two are incompatible. The early Muslims were in no way special in the the way they treated the Jews - in fact the actions you mention are far more favorable then some of the events that occurred to them during Roman. Or in pre-Roman states.

The expelling was gradual, and far from things such as the holocaust - the Manichean's were treated worse by the Persians and then the Christians. Or the Christians by the Pagan administration of Rome.

So, if part of the basis of Islamic condemnation is the interactions they had with Jews and others early on then to avoid bordering on hypocrisy you must condemn equally the Romans. And the Greeks at times. And the Egyptians and Persians. And if it just brutality in general basically any power at the time did worse then the Muslims. Condemn the Germanic tribes, or the Mongol hoard, or once again the Romans, or any number of others. And if it is based upon the fact their religious text advises them to take action against others - plenty of Pagan religions had an active military component that advocated war - for wars sake.

The Muslims in the 7th century are no more historically brutal or prejudiced then many others - and history shows they could be a lot better. And they arose in a period of persecution - remembering that Muhammad and co were not treated favorably by the powers of the time. Sure, it is possible to theorise "that they could have taken it like the Christians" - but they didn't have the same context or cultural background to approach things like that.

Once again I feel the claim "the rise of Islam came through the sword" is an over simplification that fails to take into account the cultural, political, theological and economic realities of the time - was there violence in the rise? Yes. I know there are experts who claim it was a main part. But there are just as many, who present just as strong a case, that there was far more to the rise and its success then just bloodshed. The majority of people who converted where not forced. They joined because they wanted to.



I don't deny that hate preaching should be censored. In fact sometimes I am the first to imply that free speech goes to far sometimes. But far from easy, as you seem to imply, that a minority can be silenced. I am yet to see any real example from history when a group can be decisively shut down merely by consensus of the majority - especially in Middle Eastern nations which tend to have rampant corruption and woeful inadequacies in law enforcement.

But then again some ask why the US doesn't do more to censure those individuals who crow and blog about how the "Middle East should be glassed" or the like. Yes, it is easy to say "no body takes them seriously" - but that isn't really the case. So much media picks up on such opinionated louts and it perpetuates the image that the US is the bully boy war monger - and I am sure you agree the average US citizen isn't.



Yet the same is debated fiercely about Christianity - if it is a religion of peace how were so many able to twist it for so long and use it to promote war, forced conversion and the stifling of intellect/artistic freedom? Things are never clear cut. In fact the more obvious something appears the more likely it is to have at some point been twisted by others. Islam had a golden age - and it deserves respect, just as Rome and Greece deserve respect. However it also has had its dark ages - both these need to be recognised. I don't believe we should shy away from identifying the fundamental problems within Islam, any more then we should shy away from the fundamental problems in any religion. However I don't think it is possible to cast a blanket over the whole religion that is fundamentally incapable of separating itself from war and violence.

Even religions noted for being just and tolerant are not free, in history, of having followers who found a way to use their religion to justify their actions. Hinduism and Buddhism, which I respect greatly - events in Burma and Sri Lanka have shown adherents to Buddhism can find ways to fight. Especially in the Burmese case - arguably The Democratic Karen Buddhist Army (militant Buddhist in membership) claims they are fighting for freedom from the oppressive Burmese government, but at times their methods harm only innocents and have been viewed as overtly fundamentalist and terrorist in nature.

I am sure you will agree, as someone whose knowledge on such subjects I respect, that this would not reflect on Buddhist doctrine or theology in general - yet this is a group that professes a fundamentalist belief in Buddha and have found a way to use the religion to support violent struggle against perceived oppressors (and the Burmese government is oppressing them), but as a result there actions have often harmed Muslims and Christian not involved in the oppression (the destruction of Churches a few years ago attracting some attention, or at least in Australia due to our proximity to Asia.)

The main difference of course is Buddhists texts don't advocate violence where as Muslim one do in the right circumstances (and in fairness so do the Hebrew and Christian ones) - but then it speaks strongly of the lengths then people go to to find a way of justifying their actions.

Well said Imperial.

Jihad do exist among many followersoft hte islamic faith it is ral and it really do exist........does exist as a goal and it is very much alive in the middle east......why cause too many idiots follow a trick master who stray easily fooled dudes into believing his /theirs interpretation of the koran is the real one.,

To those who object on actuall facts, your good at dissmissing other ways of thinking than that of your own..........I pay none og your over 30player fought it ff

Originally posted by finti
Jihad do exist among many followersoft hte islamic faith it is ral and it really do exist........does exist as a goal and it is very much alive in the middle east......why cause too many idiots follow a trick master who stray easily fooled dudes into believing his /theirs interpretation of the Koran is the real one.,

To those who object on actuall facts, your good at dissmissing other ways of thinking than that of your own..........I pay none og your over 30player fought it ff

Not sure if you are speaking to me... if you are: I am not disputing that the terrorists are claiming Jihad, or using it. Merely saying that the form in which they are using it is definitely a twisted version of what it was originally devoid of much of the meaning.

The Jihad of today is not the same as the Jihad of the ancient Muslim empires culture. As you said "why cause too many idiots follow a trick master who stray easily fooled dudes into believing his /theirs interpretation of the Koran is the real one." Bin Laden and co. took the ball and ran with it - they found there justification, they reinterpreted historical concepts, and they create there Terrorist Holy War with it. However it is not like anything the Muslim history has had before.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
I am not saying that Jihad doesn't exist as an idea of a goal,
however the claim that it is a "holy war" is far from accurate - it is much more complicated then that, and its cultural and theological manifestations go beyond mere "holy war" status
However don't think that I am saying that military actions are not necessarily a part of it (the less worthy version of Jihad) - because they can be. But it promotes an erroneous stereotype of the word and its purpose to claim it is merely a means of "holy war" - this is not a definition supported historically, theologically or culturally.
I promise you, you are wrong. Jihad is a Holy War. Prophet Muhammad said so, he declared it as so, and it was implemented in Perisa and Europe.
Jihad has ALWAYS been understood as Holy War, and it still is.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Was the treatment of the Jews wrong? By our standards yes.
However it is historically inadvisable to attempt to implant modern Western morality and ethics into historical periods - simply because the two are incompatible.
Which is a lot like saying ''was the genocide of NativeIndians wrong? Yes, by our standards, however to attempt to implement Modern Western Morality and ethics into historical periods- simply because two are incompatible''

To think that people thought such was ok at the time, is extremely incomprehensible to me.
We cannot dismiss any atrocities of the past, based on the fact that ''it was like that then''

Why don't you ask a Hindu, whos mother land has seen a death of 100 million Hindus by Muslims during the occupation?
Or does that not count because they did not live in Western times.

(ps. this is believed to have been the biggest holocaust in human history)
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
The expelling was gradual, and far from things such as the holocaust - the Manichean's were treated worse by the Persians and then the Christians. Or the Christians by the Pagan administration of Rome.
Thats where we disagree. Once Muhammad has gotten his armies, the expelling and the raides were active for two reason -

1. conversion
2. they needed the money to finance further raides and coversions.

Jews and Christians were, very quickly, killed, coverted or expelled from the lands.
Percentage of Christians and Jews in Saudia Arabia today? 0%.
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
So, if part of the basis of Islamic condemnation is the interactions they had with Jews and others early on then to avoid bordering on hypocrisy you must condemn equally the Romans. And the Greeks at times. And the Egyptians and Persians. And if it just brutality in general basically any power at the time did worse then the Muslims. Condemn the Germanic tribes, or the Mongol hoard, or once again the Romans, or any number of others.
So what are you telling me here now?

You are comparing someone who claims to be a prophet of God, with the Empires who fought for land and power?

Why are you comparing Muhammad and his army to those of Persians, Romans and Egyptians?
Doing that you effectively support my view that Islam is not a religion of peace.
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
The Muslims in the 7th century are no more historically brutal or prejudiced then many others - and history shows they could be a lot better. And they arose in a period of persecution - remembering that Muhammad and co were not treated favorably by the powers of the time. Sure, it is possible to theorise "that they could have taken it like the Christians" - but they didn't have the same context or cultural background to approach things like that.

You forget a minute but extreamly important thing regarding Islam.


Muhammad in Islamic theology is considered to be al-insan al-kamil, which means ''The Perfect Man''.
He is the model, to be imitated, and the more Muslims is like him, the better off he is with Allah.
HERE is where the problem with Islam lies.

If one is to 'imitate' al-insan al-kamil, or Muhammad, and his behaviour of a not too different 7th century warlord, what you get through that imitation is the modern day terrorism.
Does that make sense?

Not only does it mean modern day terrorism, it also means peadophilia (since Muhammad married 6 year old girl, and had sex with her when she was 9, while he was 54)
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
I don't believe we should shy away from identifying the fundamental problems within Islam, any more then we should shy away from the fundamental problems in any religion. However I don't think it is possible to cast a blanket over the whole religion that is fundamentally incapable of separating itself from war and violence.
A lot of people in the West do not understand the sagnificance of the Qur'an, because they do not have anything which equates to the Qur'an in the West. And the Bible doesn't even come close.

Bible is acknowledged by many Christians to have been changed or tampared with at some point. Some disagree. Some agree. Its a varied opinion.
To be a Christian you don't have to believe Bible is the word of God, you need to believe in Jesus.

To reject that Qur'an is the exact unchanged word of god, is to reject the fundamentals of Islam.
Its like claiming your a Christian but rejecting Jesus.

Also, refer to al-insan al-kamil comment. This is what makes Islam dangerous and what ultimately leads to the terrorism we have today.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
I am sure you will agree, as someone whose knowledge on such subjects I respect, that this would not reflect on Buddhist doctrine or theology in general - yet this is a group that professes a fundamentalist belief in Buddha and have found a way to use the religion to support violent struggle against perceived oppressors (and the Burmese government is oppressing them), but as a result there actions have often harmed Muslims and Christian not involved in the oppression (the destruction of Churches a few years ago attracting some attention, or at least in Australia due to our proximity to Asia.)
I do not deny such at all. But again, that is the people's falability and lack of understanding and compassion for one another which leads for such tragic events and loss of life.

The differance here for example, and in Christianity, Judaism and Buddhism, is that Jesus, Moses nor Buddha were a warlord of their times.
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
The main difference of course is Buddhists texts don't advocate violence where as Muslim one do in the right circumstances (and in fairness so do the Hebrew and Christian ones) - but then it speaks strongly of the lengths then people go to to find a way of justifying their actions.
I promise you, there are no right circumstances for violence. Hate doesn't extinguish hate, Love extinguishes hate.
I believe that a devine would endorse this very much.

Jihad connotes a wide range of meanings: anything from an inward spiritual struggle to attain perfect faith to just cause in a political or military sense.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I promise you, you are wrong. Jihad is a Holy War. Prophet Muhammad said so, he declared it as so, and it was implemented in Perisa and Europe.
Jihad has ALWAYS been understood as Holy War, and it still is.

I don't know where you get this idea - it doesn't pan out that way in the approaches taken to it. Storm is on the right path:

"Jihad connotes a wide range of meanings: anything from an inward spiritual struggle to attain perfect faith to just cause in a political or military sense."

As I have said - it is not clear cut, it is complex, and in its original forms, during the Islamic empires it was not seen as simply "holy war." It could be directed as a military tool - though of course that operates under what is "just", which is a question equally asked for the crusades, but to just take it purely as a way of violance was not seen as right in the past. Bin Laden and co. have twisted it.



Although the genocide of Native Indians had Christian connotations and motivations, just like much of what went on with Africans and slavery had Christian motivation.



It is wrong - to us. I like history and study a lot of it, and there is a lot of horror in it. Makes me thankful we have advanced.

But in those days? To apply modern morality to history would end up with everyone in the past being labelled evil. There is a difference from learning from the past and trying to shoe horn in modern morality. I know by our standards bad things happened. After all are you aware of the founding of Rome? Of the way in which Pharaohs dealt with rebellion? Of the destruction of cultures by tribes forced into migration? All I am saying that you can not concentrate on condemning Islam for its actions during its founding period unless you are prepared to do the same for virtually every other power before it, alongside it and even after it - because they all did comparable at one time or another.



Historically after the initial disintegration of relations between Jews and Muslims led to the exile and violence the Muslims were not known for forcing conversion - they were tolerant, much as Rome had been, offering freedom of worship in return for a tax (note that Rome, who usually got on well with Jews when they weren't rebelling left them in peace in return for a tax) - however over the time most did convert or moved west. Which ties in with the point I was making about cultural, political, economic and the like contributions.

The evolution of Islam is seen as very much reactive to Christianity. The disparate, often exploited and poor regions of Arabia were being influenced. Much as Alirix sought to unify the Goths through political and cultural cohesion the same happened to the many Pagans still living in that area. Mohamed did not ride around converting people by holding swords at their throats - violence occurred initially, but to claim that was the primary way fails to recognise the evidence that shows many, many people at the time who joined wilfully and quickly.



Yes, I know, it is easily more justifiable that they did the things they did for political reasons, or just because they felt superior (didn't you know the Romans believed they had a cultural and even religious belief in their superiority and the right of there might?)

Yes, I am comparing them. Because it seems hypocritical to say "But the Muslims in the 7th century had a war lord mentality born out of their religion" while ignoring thousands of years of a similar mentality preceding it. It was very much the way things were done. Morality has evolved over thousands of years, it seems disingenuous to imply that Islam is terrible because it failed to spring forth perfectly with a moral structure in line with modern morality.

Even the Christians at the time, despite the "peace" support in the Bible took over a thousand years to even begin approaching anything like modern morality. And the old testament - well, it claims the Jews left Egypt and then massacred the native people of the Holy Land on God's order.

Perhaps it is a product of the time rather then a fault of the religion?



Yet you do not deny there are moderate Muslims? Muslims who are of the faith but who manage to differentiate between the parts they feel are right and the parts they don't. It still comes down to interpretation. There are people like Bin Laden who have found a place for their hate mongering in th Koran. There are far more who follow it all their lives as good people without doing that. Then there were great Islamic Empires that managed to be highly tolerant .

To say that the Koran is irrevocably geared towards war is wrong. It has parts that advocate violence - so does the Bible. And the Torah. Yet the followers of these religions have fairly successfully managed to distance themselves from these parts (though history shows this wasn't always the case. In fact the exact opposite.) Muhammad was a military leader? Certainly. Doesn't mean that the majority of Muslims feel the Koran is telling them to follow that path now. It is easy for us to look at it and say "It says he was perfect, thus he must be followed" but it quite clearly isn't the case of how many Muslims approach Islam.



Yet there are literal Christians and not so literate - just like there are Muslims. There are Christians (even on this forum) who believe that over 50% of Christians should be excluded from that term because they don't follow the Bible word for word. And there are Muslims that are the same - the fundamentalists that believe the Koran is everything you have said and that they have to take it literally, and then there are those who follow it closely but realise not everything in is to be taken as Gospel.

If you can have fundamentalist Christians and that not reflect on Christianity as a whole you can also have fundamentalist Muslims and that not reflect on Islam as a whole. It is about interpretation - everyone does it. I have read the Koran, and I know the different ways things can be taken.



I don't see why the same doesn't apply for Islam then. There are moderate Muslims, and they follow moderate Islam. They make it moderate. Religion is in the hands of people. Holy texts are only powerful in interpretation. There are Muslims that interpret it in a moderate fashion. There are ones that interpret it in a fundamental fashion.



Indeed, which makes it even more telling. If people can twist peaceful individuals as figure heads in war is it so hard to believe that others will find it easy to interpret texts that advocate violence?

And besides, some would debate Moses. If one takes the Old Testament as historically accurate (and some do) you have him giving orders on how to keep slaves, being privy to the murder of Egyptian first borns and so forth.

And Jesus others claim, since he was seen as a perfect, sinless figure to be emulated, gave Christians a persecution complex that made them purposely seek to frustrate Roman orders in order to seek noble martyrdom. Both incidentally things that aren't advocated by the religions any more - despite them being in the holy texts.



Ah, I agree, though being somewhat cynical I have seen little evidence of the power of love in history. Bloody God's of war, sacrifice, murder, conquest. The belief of flawed humans as divine - always bad.

Ultimately it comes down to the people. People will be people. Islam could be devoid of any mention of violence, and people would find a way around it. It is what they do, and nothing has shown otherwise. Islam is not violent - followers of it are. Just like Christianity isn't violent. But followers of it are. Buddhism isn't violent, but there are violent followers.

Originally posted by Storm
Jihad connotes a wide range of meanings: anything from an inward spiritual struggle to attain perfect faith to just cause in a political or military sense.

quoting for emphasis

You know, to be honest, Islam makes more sense than Christianity. It's like a theistic socialism. Y'know, people working together, man worshoping god and all that.

Originally posted by lord xyz
You know, to be honest, Islam makes more sense than Christianity. It's like a theistic socialism. Y'know, people working together, man worshoping god and all that.

Yes.

Because Islam is a governmental, military and social system desguised as religion, while Christianity is...well....a religion.

At times not too convincing.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Yes.

Because Islam is a governmental, military and social system desguised as religion, while Christianity is...well....a religion.

At times not too convincing. What? I don't understand how it's disguised as a religion.

Originally posted by lord xyz
What? I don't understand how it's disguised as a religion.

Wrong wording.

It is a governmental, military and social system, BEFORE it is a personal religion.
It is contrencated on dominance on larger scale, and then with personal growth.

I said this before, religion to ordinary people is true, to wise it is false and to rulers it is useful.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Wrong wording.

It is a governmental, military and social system, BEFORE it is a personal religion.
It is contrencated on dominance on larger scale, and then with personal growth.

I said this before, religion to ordinary people is true, to wise it is false and to rulers it is useful. Oh I get it, the rulers in countries like Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia are using Islam to abuse their power. Yes. That is pretty wrong, but the idea of Islam (if you're a theist) isn't.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Oh I get it, the rulers in countries like Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia are using Islam to abuse their power. Yes. That is pretty wrong, but the idea of Islam (if you're a theist) isn't.

As far as I am concerned, people can believe in whatever the hell they like, as long as they leave ME alone.

Believe in stones if you want, as long as you don't throw them at me.

Having that in mind, biggest poblem I have with Islam, is its ultimate need for having no other religion other than Islam.

I don't want anyone elses religion waved at me, especially not through threatening.
I don't want their laws imposed on me, and I would like to say whatever the hell I like, without the fear of Murder.

All which, Islam is against. Hence, we have a problem.

The same way I feel about Christianity and Judiasm. They are all religions of hate and death.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
As far as I am concerned, people can believe in whatever the hell they like, as long as they leave ME alone.

Believe in stones if you want, as long as you don't throw them at me.

Having that in mind, biggest poblem I have with Islam, is its ultimate need for having no other religion other than Islam.

I don't want anyone elses religion waved at me, especially not through threatening.
I don't want their laws imposed on me, and I would like to say whatever the hell I like, without the fear of Murder.

All which, Islam is against. Hence, we have a problem. Don't christians use that same arguement againts atheism?

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
As far as I am concerned, people can believe in whatever the hell they like, as long as they leave ME alone.

By "ME" did you mean "me" or "Middle East"?

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
By "ME" did you mean "me" or "Middle East"? I think she was refering to herself.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
By "ME" did you mean "me" or "Middle East"?

Me as in selfish me

Originally posted by lord xyz
Don't christians use that same arguement againts atheism?

And I would know what argument Christians use against atheism because....?
Maybe they are right, if atheists are threatening to kill Christians.

As far as government goes, it should be secular.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Me as in selfish me

Gold digging b*tch!!!

offtopic

Because when you bash Christians online, no one will hack your computer, delete your posts or harass you. But if you state ONE thing regarding a movie that has the lunar/female rule..and wonder if it would be good for women because of the way women are treated in Muslim countries, it gets deleted, that's some power. Freedom of speech is about to be removed for good, UK is experiencing it now, get ready America!!!!!!!!

With Christianity, you have some level of free speech!!!!!!!!

EXACTLY, EVERYONE IS SCARED, EXACTLY.

Originally posted by Oncewhite
Freedom of speech is about to be removed for good, UK is experiencing it now, get ready America!!!!!!!!

Ever heard of the Patriot Act (and antipsycotics)

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Ever heard of the Patriot Act (and antipsycotics)


I JUST GOT TWO THREADS DELETED BECAUSE SOME PUNK ASS CAN'T TAKE SENTENCES, TOO SENSTIVE, NO WONDER THEY RESORT TO BOMBING EACH OTHER, THEY DON'T KNOW HOW TO ARGUE OR TALK, THEY ONLY KNOW ATTACK OR CENSOR OR DELETE OR ELIMINATE, THAT'S ALL THEY KNOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AND THEN BLAME AMERICANS FOR THEIR LACK.

WE, AMERICANS, HAVE SOMETHING CALLED FREEDOM OF SPEECH, AND RELIGION, I DON'T HAVE TO LIKE YOUR RELIGION, AND U DON'T HAVE TO LIKE MINE, IT'S THAT SIMPLE, AND IF U HAVE COMMENTS ABOUT MY RELIGION, IF IT'S A SUN WORSHIP OR IF JESUS WAS GAY OR WHATEVER, THAT'S YOUR OPINION, THOSE THREADS DON'T GET DELETED, NO ONE PISSES IN THEIR PANTS.

IT'S CALLED FREEDOM OF SPEECH, FOREIGN TO YOU, ISN'T IT.

Originally posted by Oncewhite
WE, AMERICANS, HAVE SOMETHING CALLED FREEDOM OF SPEECH, AND RELIGION, I DON'T HAVE TO LIKE YOUR RELIGION, AND U DON'T HAVE TO LIKE MINE, IT'S THAT SIMPLE, AND IF U HAVE COMMENTS ABOUT MY RELIGION, IF IT'S A SUN WORSHIP OR IF JESUS WAS GAY OR WHATEVER, THAT'S YOUR OPINION, THOSE THREADS DON'T GET DELETED, NO ONE PISSES IN THEIR PANTS.

IT'S CALLED FREEDOM OF SPEECH, FOREIGN TO YOU, ISN'T IT.

Ever since Bush passed the Patriot act freedom of speech in the US has been limited.

And calm down most of the time people seem to ignore me and I don't get pissed.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Ever since Bush passed the Patriot act freedom of speech in the US has been limited.

YEAH, LIKE PRESIDENT BUSH TOLD THE MODS TO DELETE MY THREAD ON THE FACT THAT LUNAR WORSHIP DOESN'T EQUATE TO FREEDOM FOR WOMEN B/C OF HOW WOMEN ARE TREADED IN THE ISLAMIC FAITH, YEAH, (sarcasm) BUSH IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT ONE!!!!!!

WHAT DO YOU MEAN CALM DOWN, NO ONE WAS IGNORING THAT THREAD, PEOPLE WERE COMMENTING ON IT AND MAKING THEIR JOKES, THE SAME AS THEY ACT TOWARD OTHER THREADS, BUT AS SOON AS I MENTIONED "ISLAM NOT GOOD FOR WOMEN", MY BROWSER STOPPED WORKING FOR AT LEAST 5 MINUTES AND THE POST WAS DELETED.

Avoid the use of capital letters in all or part of your posts, except where capitalisation of a single word gives an appropriate emphasis, or where used as a heading to a paragraph of text to make for easier reading and improved comprehension.

And what are you talking about?

Originally posted by Oncewhite
YEAH, LIKE PRESIDENT BUSH TOLD THE MODS TO DELETE MY THREAD ON THE FACT THAT LUNAR WORSHIP DOESN'T EQUATE TO FREEDOM FOR WOMEN B/C OF HOW WOMEN ARE TREADED IN THE ISLAMIC FAITH.

A) the mods are perfectly within their rights to remove meaningless threads that will fail to even produce hostility
B)How are lunar worship and freedom for women related in the slightest?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
A) the mods are perfectly within their rights to remove meaningless threads that will fail to even produce hostility
B)How are lunar worship and freedom for women related in the slightest?

a. my problem with the senstivity to "islam" is that threads that are hostle towards Christians don't get deleted, which shows who is the ones with a problem.

b. you would know if there wasn't a strong effort in censorship.

Originally posted by Oncewhite
b. you would know if there wasn't a strong effort in censorship.

the classic conspiracy theorist answer

Here on KMC, no thread of yours has been deleted.

Originally posted by Oncewhite
WHAT DO YOU MEAN CALM DOWN, NO ONE WAS IGNORING THAT THREAD, PEOPLE WERE COMMENTING ON IT AND MAKING THEIR JOKES, THE SAME AS THEY ACT TOWARD OTHER THREADS, BUT AS SOON AS I MENTIONED "ISLAM NOT GOOD FOR WOMEN", MY BROWSER STOPPED WORKING FOR AT LEAST 5 MINUTES AND THE POST WAS DELETED.

Perhaps it is a sign from God, or Allah as the case may be.

Originally posted by dani_california
It is sort of a messed up religion but i say its fine as long as they seperate church from state which they DON'T in the middle east. That's the most ****ed up part of it. Guys getting stoned for cheating on their wives no matter how many they might have.

They stone MEN? NOOOOOOOO. I thought the law applied only to women, as that one Muslim woman who cheated or was someone's lover, she was going to be stoned to death. I mean, let's just go back to horse and bugy, forget about eletricity, and anything "modern". They only know the "old" way of punishment, which is to eliminate, just like they did to my two threads!!!!!!!!

Originally posted by Storm
Here on KMC, no thread of yours has been deleted.

I can't find the one about the Aquarious, Hilary, and the Moon (sounds crazy, but crazy titles can be eye catching, normal sounding titles can seem to boring to look into)...I can't find it...it seemed to be deleted as soon as I wondered if the Lunar/Moon power was really an advantage to women as Islam was reported to be a Lunar worship...and before some of you start pissing in your pants, most have the good sense to know that Christianity is Solar/Sun...so, let's just calm down and stop trying to censor someone just because of a few sentences, my goodness, I am getting less liberal as time goes on, as I see that the same ones who are benefiting from liberalism are not liberal in return, they want to be able to bash Christians, calling Jesus gay, Jew's Zionist and all, but they can't take "Islam may be related to Lunar/Moon worship"...and if they can't, then they don't deserve the same liberal freedom they are trying to restrict....get what's happening in the UK, someone says one thing about Islam and there are riots...it's crazy!

female wariors, age of Aquarious, and Hilary?

Originally posted by Oncewhite
Because when you bash Christians online, no one will hack your computer, delete your posts or harass you. But if you state ONE thing regarding a movie that has the lunar/female rule..and wonder if it would be good for women because of the way women are treated in Muslim countries, it gets deleted, that's some power.

Originally posted by Oncewhite
I JUST GOT TWO THREADS DELETED BECAUSE SOME PUNK ASS CAN'T TAKE SENTENCES, TOO SENSTIVE, NO WONDER THEY RESORT TO BOMBING EACH OTHER, THEY DON'T KNOW HOW TO ARGUE OR TALK, THEY ONLY KNOW ATTACK OR CENSOR OR DELETE OR ELIMINATE, THAT'S ALL THEY KNOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AND THEN BLAME AMERICANS FOR THEIR LACK.

Originally posted by Oncewhite
YEAH, LIKE PRESIDENT BUSH TOLD THE MODS TO DELETE MY THREAD ON THE FACT THAT LUNAR WORSHIP DOESN'T EQUATE TO FREEDOM FOR WOMEN B/C OF HOW WOMEN ARE TREADED IN THE ISLAMIC FAITH, YEAH, (sarcasm) BUSH IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT ONE!!!!!!

Originally posted by Oncewhite
They only know the "old" way of punishment, which is to eliminate, just like they did to my two threads!!!!!!!!

Originally posted by Storm
Here on KMC, no thread of yours has been deleted.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Perhaps it is a sign from God, or Allah as the case may be.

don't impose that on me, that's your belief, and you have that right to hold on to whatever is between your ears. If you want to believe the Easter Bunny deleted my posts, then go ahead.

Originally posted by Storm
female wariors, age of Aquarious, and Hilary?

Yeah, I see it now, thanks. I usually see "moved" next to the title, that's what confused me. Ok, thanks!!!!!!!

It wasn' t moved either. Apparently, you weren' t aware you were posting in the OTF.

Originally posted by Storm
It wasn' t moved either. Apparently, you weren' t aware you were posting in the OTF.

Uhm, I've never done that before. Well, I got hot and bothered...lol, I guess it could be funny to some...haha.

Originally posted by Oncewhite
don't impose that on me, that's your belief, and you have that right to hold on to whatever is between your ears. If you want to believe the Easter Bunny deleted my posts, then go ahead.

I am an atheist.

Your posts were not deleted.

I am merely suggesting that since you consider the temporary cease in functioning of your browser and the subsequent disappearance of your post to be deliberate, that you should consider the possibility that God, or Allah as the case may be is the one responsible, since the post in question is critical of Islam.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
I am an atheist.

Your posts were not deleted.

I am merely suggesting that since you consider the temporary cease in functioning of your browser and the subsequent disappearance of your post to be deliberate, that you should consider the possibility that God, or Allah as the case may be is the one responsible, since the post in question is critical of Islam.

So, a person can't be critical of a religion? Seems like it's "man" not god, as "man" plays control games, god gave us freewill, "man/woman" tries to take it away, that's my opinion. We make slaves of each other, and then talk about "god". IT'S MAN/WOMAN, AND IT ALWAYS HAS BEEN, TAKE THAT god TALK TO SOMEONE WHO IS INFERIOR TO YOU, ATHEIST.

Originally posted by Oncewhite
So, a person can't be critical of a religion? Seems like it's "man" not god, as "man" plays control games, god gave us freewill, "man/woman" tries to take it away, that's my opinion. We make slaves of each other, and then talk about "god". IT'S MAN/WOMAN, AND IT ALWAYS HAS BEEN, TAKE THAT god TALK TO SOMEONE WHO IS INFERIOR TO YOU, ATHEIST.

No one has free will according to The Bible:















Save your righteous indignation for someone who is less informed about Christianity than you are, theist.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
No one has free will according to The Bible:















Save your righteous indignation for someone who is less informed about Christianity than you are, theist.


Ha.

There are so many catechisms behind Christian denomination, you can't take quotes and then impose it on any given Christian, it's too diverse, we Christians have too many different interpretations, literal verses non-lit.

So, again, save your pushiness, and offer it to someone inferior to you, a-theist.

Originally posted by Oncewhite
Ha.

There are so many catechisms behind Christian denomination, you can't take quotes and then impose it on any given Christian, it's too diverse, we Christians have too many different interpretations, literal verses non-lit.

So, again, save your pushiness, and offer it to someone inferior to you, a-theist.

There is no figurative way to interpret the verses in question, but you are more than welcome to try.

Ooh, boy, predestination. Ima make a thread on this one.

Originally posted by Oncewhite
a-theist.

You do know that atheist is a word.

Originally posted by hardwoodman
Are they really predisposed to world domination$

I don't know. Either way, I'm not concerned either.

Originally posted by hardwoodman
Are they really predisposed to world domination$

I have some homies that went Muslim when they were in the clink.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I have some homies that went Muslim when they were in the clink.


I have some homies who went homo when they were in the clink

Yes, now Americans can fear prisons as a dirty bastion of Muslims, homosexuals and *gasp* gay Muslims.

Originally posted by Alliance
*gasp* gay Muslims.



fear






SAY IT ISN'T SO !!!!

Probability says its likely so.

More likely than humo rosado...which confuses me.

Originally posted by Alliance
*gasp* gay Muslims.

Muslims can't be gay.

Being a *** is a capital crime in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Iran and Pakistan.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Muslims can't be gay.

Being a *** is a capital crime in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Iran and Pakistan.

they can be gay in the US (its not a capital offense yet but we're trying)

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
they can be gay in the US (its not a capital offense yet but we're trying)

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Muslims can't be gay.

Being a *** is a capital crime in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Iran and Pakistan.


Then why are there Muslims being executed for being Gay ?


Why are there Muslims trying to fight for Gay Rights in current Iraq ?

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Muslims can't be gay.

Being a *** is a capital crime in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Iran and Pakistan.

Yes. Those countries are well known for thier "forwardness."

I guess that's why the Iraq chatroom on gay.com is always empty.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Then why are there Muslims being executed for being Gay ?


Why are there Muslims trying to fight for Gay Rights in current Iraq ?

Really? I never heard of such a thing occuring, especially in Iraq.

Or anwhere really in the Middle East....

http://64.40.99.49/Multimedia%5Cpics%5C1384%5C4%5CLegal%5C37.jpg

Yea its crime but Quran never mention to kill gays , In my country they just send them to jail and treat them if they need help ..

Originally posted by Fatima
Yea its crime but Quran never mention to kill gays, In my country they just send them to jail and treat them if they need help ..

eek2

TREAT THEM!?!?

Reparative therapy... it exists.

Originally posted by Fatima
Yea its crime but Quran never mention to kill gays

Yes, but the laws in those countries are based on nothing but interpretation. Sharia is nothing but how some vato thinks it should be.

"Would ye really approach men in your lusts rather than women? Nay, ye are a people grossly ignorant! But his people gave no other answer but this: They said, "Drive out the followers of Lut from your city: these are indeed men who want to be clean and pure!" But We saved him and his family, except his wife; her We destined to be of those who lagged behind. And We rained down on them a shower of brimstone!; and evil was the shower on those who were admonished, but heeded not!"

-The Koran 27:55-58

Ok, that line speaks against gay people, but why do the law makers in those various countries interpret it as "We must kill all f.ags!!!" ?

Originally posted by Fatima
Yea its crime but Quran never mention to kill gays , In my country they just send them to jail and treat them if they need help ..

Which is bullshit, we all agree, right?

Originally posted by Nellinator
Reparative therapy... it exists.

People who use something like that should be put in jail and treated.

It's not a bad thing.

Originally posted by Nellinator
It's not a bad thing.

Altering a persons personality is very very bad.

Personally I consider behavior madification to be just about as perverse and evil as anything could ever be.

Originally posted by Nellinator
It's not a bad thing.

If they want to use it, sure, it isn't. Thing is it doesn't work. Generally. There are no unbiased pieces of evidence to support it. Homosexuality is most likely not chosen and can not be changed if not by drastic measurements (destroying the brain with a hammer, maybe).

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Altering a persons personality is very very bad.

Personally I consider behavior madification to be just about as perverse and evil as anything could ever be.
Is it not correct to recondition overly aggressive children? Is anger management a bad thing? Those are part of people's personalities.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Is it not correct to recondition overly aggressive children? Is anger management a bad thing? Those are part of people's personalities.

If it is forced. It also depends on the methods.

True enough.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Is it not correct to recondition overly aggressive children? Is anger management a bad thing? Those are part of people's personalities.

To pick apart a person's personality when they have done nothing to harm you is wrong. Beyond that it is near the level of irreconcialble evil.

There are things on which I give people leeway but forcing people to change just because you don't like who they are will never be one of them.

They do have to want to do it, in which case it is available and studies (albeit not peer reviewed) have been done on it. Since this is the case in North America, it is not a bad thing.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Reparative therapy... it exists.

You neglected to mention:

It does not work.

Is harmful.

Is condemned by every reputable mental health organization.

Originally posted by Fatima
Yea its crime but Quran never mention to kill gays , In my country they just send them to jail and treat them if they need help ..
Homosexuality is not an illness and does not require treatment.
Originally posted by Nellinator
Reparative therapy... it exists.
There is no conclusive data that shows ex-gay reparative therapy is possible.

People are taught techniques on how to suppress their feelings, but they are not "healed".

Originally posted by Nellinator
Reparative therapy... it exists.


Please show me a success story for reparative therapy, which has lasted for years, in which the individual man or woman is truly heterosexual, and not just "back in the closet"




Originally posted by Nellinator
Yea its crime but Quran never mention to kill gays , In my country they just send them to jail and treat them if they need help

Originally posted by Nellinator
They do have to want to do it, in which case it is available and studies (albeit not peer reviewed) have been done on it. Since this is the case in North America, it is not a bad thing.

People are manipulated into "wanting" to do it by pressure from those around them.

And yes it is a bad thing (not to mention worse than useless and insane)

It does work, you are welcome to get in contact with any ex-gay group if you want, that's up to you. There may be no peer reviewed articles that can confirm successful reparative therapy, but that does not mean it does not happen. I'd be willing to share some of the research that has been done on the matter if you want, but I suggest that we take that to the Homosexuality and Relgion thread. And no it is not condemned by all reputable medical associations. I would know.

Originally posted by Nellinator
I'd be willing to share some of the research that has been done on the matter if you want, but I suggest that we take that to the Homosexuality and Relgion thread.

Good idea

Originally posted by Nellinator
And no it is not condemned by all reputable medical associations. I would know.

How would you know?

That does nothing to change my opinion that changing someones personality is wrong (unless they truly want it to be changed)

Psychology is my field and I know what we are allowed to do and what we are not. We are allowed to attempt reparative therapy. The official position of the CPA is that there is no peer reviewed evidence suggesting reparative therapy can be successful. That said, no worthwhile attempt has been made to create a peer reviewable study. There are a lot of articles indicating that it is possible and far fewer declaring that it is not.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Psychology is my field and I know what we are allowed to do and what we are not. We are allowed to attempt reparative therapy. The official position of the CPA is that there is no peer reviewed evidence suggesting reparative therapy can be successful. That said, no worthwhile attempt has been made to create a peer reviewable study. There are a lot of articles indicating that it is possible and far fewer declaring that it is not.


Still waiting for those credentials by the way.

I find it interesting that so many of the die hard bible thumpers on our little board are members of the scientific community, despite the very communities to which they belong disagreeing with their life long views on society, behavior, evolution, history, science, fact, fiction.

It must be that damned liberal media telling us lies about our intellectual leaders again.

There may be disagreeances, but the scientific communities are not against anything I believe.
I don't give out my credentials for a variety of reasons, not the least of which being my personal privacy.

Originally posted by Nellinator
There may be disagreeances, but the scientific communities are not against anything I believe.
I don't give out my credentials for a variety of reasons, not the least of which being my personal privacy.

I suppose you're right. You're probally the most scientifically oriented, bible thumping, world-wide flood myth believeing, evidence-ignoring, psycologist to grace these boards. And that's saying a lot since there are so many of you on the internet. I mean, someone with your credentials (would citing some professors you've studied under, or schools you've attended or types of degrees you've obtained really be like tossing out your credit card numbers on the internet?) has gone so far in their feild that the only thing you have left to you is to debate gay marriage and bible fairy tales on teh internet with 15 year olds.

Originally posted by Nellinator
There may be disagreeances, but the scientific communities are not against anything I believe


Once again, the first half of your sentence totally negates the second half. Let me translate what I mean:

"The scientific community may disagree with me, but it's not like they disagree with me." wtf?

lol