Is Islam holding Arab Nations back

Started by yerssot7 pages

I use the term Chickies 😉

I don't bow to any King or Queen
nor do I but I rather bow for royalty before listening to any MPriest, Vicar, Clergyman, Bishop, Pope,Minister, Iman, Rabbi, holy man or whatever title a religious spokesperson uses

Originally posted by alic88
SNAKEHEAD i swear i haf had it.. YOU SHOULD OBEY THE RULES AND RESPECT MY RELIGION.. U HAF NO IDEA HOW ANGRY I AM....!!!!!!!!

Yersott can you tell me that there are more inicent deaths in the past lets say 100 years from christianity then there is from islam?

considering WWI and WWII were in the last century... I would think so yes...

the conflicts in Northern Ireland, Bosnia Herzegovina

[i]Shirk-an arabic word-is the most appropriate word for translating the word "freedom" in Article 18 of the Universal Declaration for Human Rights, which is posed as an ideal to be attained: "Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion; this includes freedom to change his religion."[/i]

The muslim author of the above words Fatima Mernissi readily concedes, shirk, the ultimate, unpardonable sin of blasphemy and the exact opposite of Islam, stands for freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. A muslim is not free to believe or do what he wishes. He is under Islamic law, which is the only legal, legitimate, moral, and rational code. That is the most important "fruit" of Islam, from which a variety of others have sprouted. Fatima Mernissi, Islam and Democracy, London, 1993, p. 87

--Serge Trifkovic, The Sword of the Prophet, 2002

Originally posted by alic88
SNAKEHEAD i swear i haf had it.. YOU SHOULD OBEY THE RULES AND RESPECT MY RELIGION.. U HAF NO IDEA HOW ANGRY I AM....!!!!!!!!

I apoligize greatly. I might have been a bit frazled when I read the verse about killing non believers.

According to an undisputable hadith , Muhammad once said to a group of women: "I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religion than you. A cautious, sensible man could be led astray by some of you." The women asked what was deficient in their intelligence and religion, and he replied:

"Is not the evidence of two women equal to the witness of one man?" They replied in the affirmative(yes). He said: "This is the deficiency of your intelligence....Isn't it true that a woman can neither pray nor fast during her menstrual period?" The women replied in the affirmative. He said: "This is the deficiency in your religion." -- Sahih of Al-Bukhari, vol.1, Hadith No. 301, See also vol. 3 Hadith No. 826.

Interestingly, Muhammad does not command women to fast or to pray during their menstrual period, and then takes that as conclusive evidence of their lack of faith...

--Serge Trifkovic, The Sword of the Prophet, 2002

apologies for the double post, but in addition to my previous post:

We are, nevertheless, often told by contemporary apologists for Islam that the usual modus operandi of the early Muslims-attacking other people's lands, pillaging, raping, robbing, and extorting-should be judged in its "context," that this was normal behaviour at the time. The same understanding, however, is not extended towards those Europeans-often coarse and decidedly unpleasant characters that joined the Crusades-who attempted to turn the tables and take the battle back into the enemy camp, and whose actions those same Western friends of Islam so sternly condemn -- Notably e.g. Muhammad: A Biography of the Prophet by Karen Armstrong

The emerging sense from the language is that the militant expansion of the Muslims was appropriate and understandable, but defeats that were inflicted on them by their rivals(the crusaders) were not, and the truth about the life of non-Muslims under Islam remains censored...

--Serge Trifkovic, The Sword of the Prophet, 2002

Originally posted by Fëanor
[i][b]Shirk-an arabic word-is the most appropriate word for translating the word "freedom" in Article 18 of the Universal Declaration for Human Rights, which is posed as an ideal to be attained: "Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion; this includes freedom to change his religion."[/i]

The muslim author of the above words Fatima Mernissi readily concedes, shirk, the ultimate, unpardonable sin of blasphemy and the exact opposite of Islam, stands for freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. A muslim is not free to believe or do what he wishes. He is under Islamic law, which is the only legal, legitimate, moral, and rational code. That is the most important "fruit" of Islam, from which a variety of others have sprouted. Fatima Mernissi, Islam and Democracy, London, 1993, p. 87

--Serge Trifkovic, The Sword of the Prophet, 2002 [/B]


all nice and fun to read, but you forgot to mention that "muslim" is a follower/believer of Islam (I need to get my book here again, but I believe it means "subjected to Allah"😉

so, of course a muslim is under Islamic law like a christian gets told to uphold the 10 commandments and jezus his teachings too

Originally posted by yerssot
all nice and fun to read, but you forgot to mention that "muslim" is a follower/believer of Islam (I need to get my book here again, but I believe it means "subjected to Allah"😉

so, of course a muslim is under Islamic law like a christian gets told to uphold the 10 commandments and jezus his teachings too

forgive my ineptness...but i fail to see your point...the subject being is islam holding back arab nations...islam's transliteration is "to submit" wholely, bodily, spiritually to Allah....

QUOTE: Muhammad described the three most important works a man could perform as faith, war in the path of Allah, and a blameless pilgrimage...

...The view of modern Islamic activists, that "Islam must rule the world and until Islam does rule the world we will continue to sacrifice our lives," is neither extreme nor even remarkable from the standpoint of traditional Islam...

It has been divinely sanctioned from the moment Muhammad had established a safe power base in Medina:
"O Prophet! Rouse the Believers to the fight," and the Qu'ran orders, and promises that 20 Muslims, "patient" and "persevering," would vanquish 200 unbelievers; if a 100, they will vanquish a 1000...--Qu'ranic verse 8:65 END QUOTE

Originally posted by speiderman
I hate to sound like I am bashing Islam, but the religion has become so radicalized it does not stick to its roots of peace.

unfortunately i believed that too...but it's roots were anything but peaceful...

Islam is a religion that preaches many things the terrorist just want to destroy the world and thats what I think.

Originally posted by yerssot
sure

2004-500=1504 right?

so, ... what about the colonisation by spain and portugal of the "new world" where native americans were brutally slayed for their gold all in the name of christianity and converting people to the "true faith"?

I don't have the book here but it states the estimate of how many MILLIONS of people died, thanks to that baptising.

You need more?

How about the burning of Smyrna by the Ottoman Empire in the 1920's???

QUOTE: At the destruction of Smyrna there was one feature for which Carthage presents no parallel. There was no fleet of Christian battleships at Carthage looking on at a situation for which their governments were responsible.... English, American, Italian, and French ships were indeed anchored in Smyrna's harbor. Ordered to maintain neutrality, they would or could do nothing for the 200,000 desperate Christians on the quay:
"The pitiful throng-huddled together, sometimes screaming for help but mostly waiting in a silent panic beyond hope-didn't budge for days. Typhoid reduced their numbers....On the American battleships, the musicians on board were ordered to play as loudly as they could to drown out the screams..."--Nicholas Gage, Greek Fire, Alfred A. Knopf, 2000 --END QUOTE

to me all religions are bad, none is better or less violent than the other.

I never said and will never say that Islam or many of the other religions is peaceful, but people here make it sound like every muslim is a terrorist while they forget that their own "peaceful" religion has killed millions of people already

Originally posted by Fëanor
forgive my ineptness...but i fail to see your point...the subject being is islam holding back arab nations...islam's transliteration is "to submit" wholely, bodily, spiritually to Allah....

QUOTE: Muhammad described the three most important works a man could perform as faith, war in the path of Allah, and a blameless pilgrimage...

...The view of modern Islamic activists, that "Islam must rule the world and until Islam does rule the world we will continue to sacrifice our lives," is neither extreme nor even remarkable from the standpoint of traditional Islam...

It has been divinely sanctioned from the moment Muhammad had established a safe power base in Medina:
"O Prophet! Rouse the Believers to the fight," and the Qu'ran orders, and promises that 20 Muslims, "patient" and "persevering," would vanquish 200 unbelievers; if a 100, they will vanquish a 1000...--Qu'ranic verse 8:65 END QUOTE


and a christian is forced to follow the rules too, right? A monk or priest these days has to submit bodily (no marriage anymore, though that was added later on) and mentaly (you have to accept it)

and what about the crusades? that's a war in the path of God too... not forgetting that the "New World" got butchered too to create that "one world one religion" ideal...

all I'm trying to say here is that before saying ANYTHING about Islam killing people and being aggresive, you have to remember that a LOT (if not all already) religions have done the exact same thing

Originally posted by finti
to me all religions are bad, none is better or less violent than the other.

how dumb to say. Hindus arnt violent at all. Heck they dont even swat flys 🙄

Hindus arnt violent at all. Heck they dont even swat flys

Hindus not violent huh, well read a bit about when India parted into two nations; India and Pakistan .

saying all religion is bad will just p!$$ off a lot of people here.