I need a Muslim to explain this Islamic contradiction.
cr...@hotmail.com
something on a Muslim website that concerns me. This was in a section
describing the differences between Christianity and Islam. There is a
huge contradiction in the last sentence.
****************************
Islam does not treat law and morality as different things. What is
legal/lawful is also moral and conversely what is unlawful/illegal is
also immoral.
Muslims do not believe in the separation of 'church from state' (i.e.
secularism).
Muslims are forbidden to put pressure, either directly or indirectly,
on another person to convert to Islam. (???)
****************************
How could you claim that you are not permitted to convert others to
Islam yet you require, by force, for non-muslims to abide by muslim
customs? For example if a non-muslim woman wears shorts and a t-shirt
in public she would be punished, correct? How could you then claim that
you were not converting her to Islam?
For the record I am agnostic.
Alpha
glance it looks like a suffi site but maybe a shia site.....but it is
for sure not a mainstream sunni islam site (95%.of muslims are sunni)
How could you claim that you are not permitted to convert others to
Islam yet you require, by force, for non-muslims to abide by muslim
customs? For example if a non-muslim woman wears shorts and a t-shirt
in public she would be punished, correct? How could you then claim that
you were not converting her to Islam?
Islam does not allow women to dress in short skirts simply because
people are influenced by other people and the islamic dress code is so
that women are judged by charecture rather than viewed as a sex
object....fact of life......non muslims can do what they like in their
own lands and if they dont agree with islam there are many lands where
they can go to live how they choose to live. I live in England and
believe in sharia but i dont believe i have the right to impose it on
the brits....if i dont agree with democratic phillosophy i must move to
a muslim state as it states in the koran. Dress code is not forced on
anyone outside of sharia law obiding land/countries. Islam simply does
not believe in western democratic philosophy of "there is no right or
wrong there is only opinion and all idears should be put in a melting
pot to make some kind of random output. Islam instead believes in its
right to stand by what it believes as correct behavior just as the west
believes in standing by and defending democracy. If you believe
something is the truth you dont allow it to be corrupted or
diluted.....Democracy however does not offer any solution or protection
for righteousness...it is a chaos theory system....Hamas who target
civillians directly were "elected" just like hitler and under democracy
people are expected to "accept" this evil phillosophy.,...the fact is
that there is right from wrong....the problem is that people cannot
always distinguish the difference and are encouraged under democratic
culture to tollerate evil instead of illiminate it.
PS.....If you want to learn moderate mainstream islam go to "islam
online website" or better still read this article i wrote explaining
the central phillosophy behind koran in a crash course way not found on
most web sites.....enjoy.
The Fundamental difference Between a Christian and a Muslim
After reading many postings on Christian newsgroups and Muslim
newsgroups I have noticed there are many posts which are aimed at
converting people from one faith to their own faith but very little
effort being made to understand the differences between the
Monotheistic faiths of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Above all
there is a mass of postings made by Christians attempting to teach
Muslims the message of Jesus and Christianity. I myself am a Muslim
(Islam) and find it very disturbing that so many Christians seem to
have little to no understanding of just what it is that Muslims
believe.
Perhaps as a Christian you have no wish to understand either since you
have found a set of teachings that you believe are the truth and have
therefore dismissed all other religions as being false religions. As a
Muslim my religion is Islam and the scripture that I try to live my
life by is the Koran. In the Koran it is written that humans should
question all things and that God expects and encourages this as the way
to find truth. Like Christians we also believe that when you here the
truth (be it gods will) you will know it and recognize it if you use
reason. I am sure that as Christians you will believe the same thing
since to encourage blind belief in something is simply to encourage
mental suicide. The aim of writing this post is not to attempt to
convert Christians to Islam but to point out a difference in belief
that will hopefully bring about greater understanding between the two
faiths.....As a Christian you can only benefit by knowing the mindset
of someone of a different faith...who knows you may even end up
converting one..I know that I have benefited by reading bible text to
understand where Christian mentality is coming from. I am about to
attempt to give a crash course on the central Muslim belief without
boring you with pages and pages of detail...I am going to try to
explain why I choose Islam and not Christianity as my religion. If you
wish you can reply to my post to correct me if I have miss understood
something about Christianity. Before I put my case I would like to
repeat that both Christians and Muslims believe that when you here
truth you know it and cannot find fault in it nor deny it. As a Muslim
I believe that gods people do not live in one grouping of people on the
planet...ie.....come judgment day it is not going to be all those who
called themselves Muslim, or Christian, that are going to ascend to the
heavens but it will be a very mixed composition of people that does not
take into account such things as country, color of skin, religious
label, etc. Each Individuals fate will be determined by Gods Judgment.
I think the following text sums up this belief:
"Religion is not a club you can join..It is something you will drift in
and out of throughout your life dependant on your behavior. Your fate
and guidance in this life and the next are not decided by the label you
go by. be it agnostic Christian, Jew, or Muslim, but by your actions,
the words that flow from your lips, and what you truly believe in your
heart. This is my religion, your religion, and everybody's
religion......the name of this religion and teaching is XXXXX"
Of course this viewpoint is not unique to Islam, which is why I put
XXXXX instead of Islam, I'm sure many Christians reading this can
relate to the truth when they read it, and I'm sure you would tell me
this is Christianity too.
Many Christians would be surprised at reading the Koran.......the
scripture is very much the same as the bible and tells the same stories
of the profits...sometimes with slight variation in events but mostly
the same. Muslims Claim that Mohamed was the last profit and was given
the message of God so that he can correct the human Corruption of the
original message, much the same as Christians believe Jesus was given
the message of God to correct the Jews corruption of Scripture
etc.........The question begs to be asked What was this message that
god wants us to understand?....you can only look at the scripture of
the Jews, Christians, and Muslims to decide....what were the profits
teaching what is the common theme through the different versions of
mono religion?
Here is the Muslim Version and the crash course in Koran!
Muslims believe that gods message was that humans should not make
partners with god. And that there is only one god and all praise
belongs to Him. As Christians I am sure this is not a new concept to
you either and that you have read this many times in the bible. But
what exactly is meant by "do not make partners with God"?. Muslims
believe that by making "intercession" between a human and god is
the one thing that defines being guided or unguided. In other words by
assigning authority/power to anything other than god is in direct
contradiction of gods will and message. When humans assign symbols,
statues, create hierarchies in society with saints and kings, and
create semi gods like the golden calf the Jews created when Moses went
up the mountain we are at the same time creating division among people
and causing people to see others as different due to the limitations of
our senses. If you take away Christian crucifixes, saints (holy men),
statues of Jesus, (holy buildings), semi gods and all forms of idols
what differences are remaining between mankind ???.......NONE!...How
many wars have been fought and how many lives have been lost because of
power being assigned to the things of this life? People kill to protect
(so called) holy buildings or their other objects of worship. Even the
instincts of atheists will say that this is what turns them away from
religion. Muslims believe that in order to find guidance to the truth
you must first give up all forms of "shirk" (partner worship) and
connect with gods guidance directly without any intercession. Gods
message was the concept of unity and that this can only be achieved by
giving up "shirk". It is the defining line between devotion to God
and those who have gone astray. To become a Muslim Muslims must say in
the company of other Muslim witnesses, "There is no God but
God".......which explains the above teaching. Muslims believe that
Jesus was a Prophet of God and that he taught the above message of
unity to mankind. Muslims believe that Jesus was not the son of god but
was just an ordinary man like the rest of us who had weaknesses as we
all do. He was given Gods revelation so that mankind was given gods
message of unity and a warning for those who go against this way.
Muslims believe that when a Christian says "Jesus the son of God"
or "Jesus is God" this is assigning special power to an object of
this life (shirk/ Making Partners with God). Praying to a profit is
considered shirk too since it is a deviation of the true goal in life
which is to worship God only. Jesus was indeed one of the righteous and
a Profit of God but he was not "a son of God". Muslims believe that
Mohamed was the last profit of God sent to conclude the message of
unity that the prophets before him taught but he was rejected by many
without the chance of explaining that he was not teaching anything new
but simply warning those who had corrupted unity with idol worship. As
a Muslim I see a lot of idol worship in Christianity...i.e.
superstition in crosses, and all worship being channeled in the
direction
of Jesus. This to a Muslim is a direct contradiction to Gods message
since God expects his followers to set the example of unity and all
power and Prayer belongs to God alone.
Ask yourself this question....If I was a Christian preaching this
truth, would you not recognize it as the truth?............
And So you have understood the fundamental message of Islam and the
Koran
Regards....A
Anarchist
> Islam yet you require, by force, for non-muslims to abide by muslim
> customs? For example if a non-muslim woman wears shorts and a t-shirt
> in public she would be punished, correct? How could you then claim that
> you were not converting her to Islam?
You are catching on. You need to read the Quran and Hadith. Find out what
Muslims really beleive.
Make no mistake, I have known and do know some very nice Muslims. Some at
work are colleagues. As people I respect them.
I but I also know that they are not following the Quran. If they were, they
would be quite radical. And that radicalism demands something in how they
treat non-Muslims. Maybe their children might be radical.
Anarchist
cr...@hotmail.com
>> How could you claim that you are not permitted to convert others to
>> Islam yet you require, by force, for non-muslims to abide by muslim
>> customs? For example if a non-muslim woman wears shorts and a t-shirt
>> in public she would be punished, correct? How could you then claim that
>> you were not converting her to Islam?
>
> Islam does not allow women to dress in short skirts simply because
> people are influenced by other people and the islamic dress code is so
> that women are judged by charecture rather than viewed as a sex
> object....fact of life......non muslims can do what they like in their
> own lands and if they dont agree with islam there are many lands where
> they can go to live how they choose to live. I live in England and
> believe in sharia but i dont believe i have the right to impose it on
> the brits....if i dont agree with democratic phillosophy i must move to
> a muslim state as it states in the koran. Dress code is not forced on
> anyone outside of sharia law obiding land/countries.
You haven't addressed the contradiction. In an Islamic country,
non-Islamic women will be punished for wearing skirts, correct? Yet
Islam forbids forcibly converting non-muslims. This is a contradiction.
> Islam simply does
> not believe in western democratic philosophy of "there is no right or
> wrong there is only opinion and all idears should be put in a melting
> pot to make some kind of random output.
If you believe in freedom, then there is only one way to make laws.
Laws should only be made to prevent the use of force. Laws should not
INITIATE the use of force. Making laws according to Islam is wrong.
Making laws according to majority vote is wrong. For example laws
against murder are proper because they are used to prevent force, to
RETALIATE against force. Laws against wearing a skirt are wrong because
they INITIATE the use of force.
someone
<cr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140887083.3...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
> If you believe in freedom, then there is only one way to make laws.
Therein lies the rub. Islam is not a religion one associates with freedom.
Islam is a religion which demands "submission" (as its name means). It is a
religion which controls its adherents through thousands of rules as mundane
as insisting they pray five times a day, and as arcane as whether or not to
pray if you have a hole in your sock.
http://islam.tc/ask-imam/index.php
http://www.askimam.org/fatwa/fatwaList.php?fid=28
s.
Alpha
the right to defend the sunna (ways of the prophet) in its own
duristiction. I believe every country and person believes in the right
to live by their view of righteousness. Democracy system countrys will
defend that system, communists will defend their system and ways of
life etc. It is common sence to defend the islamic system in "islamic
territory"...what else would god expect if you assume the religion is
true?....would you expect god to say....no...dont bother protecting the
islamic belief and system, it does not matter if the system declines
and more people fall out of my message and way...take care of your own
personal rights only and dont bother trying to protect the islamic
rights for others...take care and think of yourself only.....like i
said before....islam is a phillosophy like democracy is a
phillosophy......Islam has the right to preserve that system and
prevent its corruption.....one of the reasons there are so many
problems in western society is because of the mentallity that all
things can be called into question because the sub consious has not
found a conclusive belief....and the result is that you get a chaos mix
where nobody has their beliefs preserved and people are forced to live
in a dog eat dog world where nothing is sacred and the rot sets in and
begins.
Muslims do not believe that their opinion is an opinion....they believe
there opinion is the truth and can be rationalised if given enough
contemplation of the issues of life.
The Quran explains that believers are people who encourage what is good
and forbid what is wrong........there are simply some fundamentals of
truth that are undeniable.
One of these truths is that the wearing of short skirts has its
negative effects on society since humans are controlled by the sences
no matter how much the ego likes to think it can resist anything. Women
simply want and need to be judged on charecture and do not like to be
valued and admired only for their beauty. This is their spiritual
right. look at all the ills are present because of womens self esteem
being shattered by magazines, cosmetic surgery to compete for a
man..etc...its extreeme, ugly, sad and clearly not natural to live
under such stresses and judgement and this depression and stress has
far reaching effects. However Muslims do not have the right to force
this system on others in other countries....... only within the borders
of islamic territorys. To understand the islamic mentallity you must
first recognise the illogical nature of democracy and how it is born
out of having not found any conclusion in life. Democracy is the
conclusion reached when no answer has yet been found....therefore no
opinion is sacred and is debatable and that the majority collective
stupidity is the only ultimate goal and right.....and this must be
defended to the death....just as muslims will defend islamic beliefs
and ways to the death.
Remembering that islam means "submission" explains a lot of islams
phillosophy.....the meaning is the subbmission of the ego and accepting
the limitations of our senses to achieve a just and happy society and
also submit to the common sense truth and fundamentals of koran are
what you already feel in your nature and rational. The right way in
life has nothing to do with what you desire and like since desires have
their price....it has everything to do with what works for everybody as
a society!...Beauty is not forbidden in islam, it is simply reserved
for the persons husband/wife in private only.....Wow if you could only
see what my wife wears under the islamic clothing....frwwwwwwwwwww....
cr...@hotmail.com
> prevent its corruption.....one of the reasons there are so many
> problems in western society is because of the mentallity that all
> things can be called into question because the sub consious has not
> found a conclusive belief....and the result is that you get a chaos mix
> where nobody has their beliefs preserved and people are forced to live
> in a dog eat dog world where nothing is sacred and the rot sets in and
> begins.
Yet western countries are by any reasonable definition much better
places to live than Islamic countries. People are waiting for years and
risking their life to enter western countries like the US and UK. Why
do you think that is? Did Allah make more money fall from heaven and
land in western countries? No, there's one primary reason why western
style democracies are better places to live. The majority of their laws
are designed to protect freedom. The majority of laws in Islamic
countries infringe on freedom. It's that simple.
> far reaching effects. However Muslims do not have the right to force
> this system on others in other countries....... only within the borders
> of islamic territorys.
And until Muslims grasp the concept of individual freedom your
countries will remain poor, desolate places to live.
-
-
-
-
Alpha
society......we are humans with limitations....and what we put into our
senses can have evil cosequenses for mankind......you need to drop your
arrogance and ego to realise the limits of mankind. The way forward is
to choose what works and not what the desire wants. Muslims believe in
freedom, but they also are humble enough to not think they can have
anything they want as their right. Freedom should stop when the outcome
turns negative.
The arrogant will never understand the limits of human nature since
they are blinded by questioning nothing.
PS....i see your publising jewish answers on islam sites.
personally i find it more rational to ask direct rather than an enemy
of islam who has no interest in understanding islam.
PPS....islam has very few rules....5 in fact...plus maybe half a dozen
or so minor guides in koran...you are confusing it with judaism which
is a vast database of thousands of obbsesive rules and regulations on
every aspect of living created by man. The koran clearly states not to
invent religion and every custom has a rational explanation. but you
would know that if you had not got your twisted info second hand from
some biggot who also passed on his chinese wisper.
Alpha
then congratulations.....if you are judging it by the laws of
scripture, ie, safety of community, relationship bonds, friendship
strenth, education disapline and quality, etc....then you westeners are
living in the dark ages.....and you have plenty to learn about whats
important in life from the muslims.
I see now that your mind is not open or interested to concider any new
idears and you are only seeking to gloat with western superiority by
means of money and arrogance......shame.....if you had taken a
different attitude you may have learned something and would have been
welcomed with hospitallity and honesty.........your own choice to not
seek to understand other points of view is only your own loss.
PS. Freedom is something which all should have until its natural limits
are reached and until the point that it negativly effects your fellow
man. Not something that is to be abused without limit at the cost to
those you claim to have responsibillity for and love.
Freedom to rape? Freedom to steal? Freedom to Hate? Freedom to Harm
without cause? Freedom to be racist?...Freedom to not question the
phillosophical natural limits of freedom itself?....As my wise uncle
once said.....everything has a costly price....even certain so called
freedoms.......
Where is my freedom to walk down the street without worrying about
getting mugged or killed?.......It is democracy which is still in the
stone age in terms of social bonds and spirituality....and you will
find that out when you draw your last breath of this life....
regards..........A
endovtha
<snip>
Islam does not allow women to dress in short skirts simply because
people are influenced by other people
<snip>
Where do you get this from Alpha(female)? Do women then not make
choices based upon mens fashions? This again goes back to the problem
of repression- Victorians had such perversitys due to trying to withold
what is natural- Muslim men , when transported from their homeland,
feel that every woman they see is available for sex, due to the fact
that this is what they have seen from an early age- I am assuming Alpha
, you are Muslim, ergo, you watched your Father forcefully take your
MOther whenever he wanted- this is not your fault- by being forcefed
dogma for generations- by relegious leaders whose pecadillos include
S+M and children(MOhammed himself married a child). You had no other
point of reference.
The great leap forward in technology has the great advantage for you in
that knowledge is within your grasp - reach out and grab it- understand
that all forms of worship are valid expressions- vis-a-vis - freedom.
Never take away that right. I hope that by digression we can all learn
to tolerate others, as I'm sure it says in the Quran.
Love one love all
someone
"Alpha" <newsgro...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140891151.4...@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> freedom is not limitless.....some freedoms have a huge cost to
> society......we are humans with limitations....and what we put into our
> senses can have evil cosequenses for mankind......you need to drop your
> arrogance and ego to realise the limits of mankind. The way forward is
> to choose what works and not what the desire wants. Muslims believe in
> freedom, but they also are humble enough to not think they can have
> anything they want as their right. Freedom should stop when the outcome
> turns negative.
> The arrogant will never understand the limits of human nature since
> they are blinded by questioning nothing.
What does your previous sentence mean? Please explain, because I can make
no sense of it. Did you find this "quote" or did you make it up?
Why don't you have a look at the philosophy of utilitarianism, a system of
ethics according to which the rightness or wrongness of an action should be
judged by its consequences. q.v. J. Bentham and J.S. Mill. The goal of
this ethic is "to promote the greatest happiness for the greatest number".
Islam presently does not seem to be promoting much happiness for anybody,
especially the poor people trapped in countries in the Middle East.
Would you agree that there must be some reason that so many people from
so-called "Muslim lands", like Pakistan, Afghanistan, almost any Middle
Eastern Country you can name, most sub-Saharan countries including Nigeria,
Somalia, Eritrea, etc. ad infinitum want to endure hell in small leaky boats
or overloaded lorries to come to Britain, Canada, the U.S., Australia,
almost anywhere that is not overseen by Islam? Why do these people want to
come and live in the country of their soi-disant enemies?
Can you explain why, once these people come to these countries, they live in
their own enclaves and then start fomenting to have Sharia law applied where
they live? So the question is: why come to non-Islamic countries in the
first place, unless it's just to be an entryist. Why not just stay in their
own Islamic heavens?
>
> PS....i see your publising jewish answers on islam sites.
>
> personally i find it more rational to ask direct rather than an enemy
> of islam who has no interest in understanding islam.
I'm sorry, I don't know what you mean about jewish answers on islamic sites.
Can you please explain?
Over the last 20 years I made what I thought were some good friends in
Islamic countries, I have visited them, and they have visited me in my
country, but I only discovered recently that they were using me to import
their children into my country. Even as they were saying "Allah bless you",
etc.
...islam has very few rules....5 in fact...plus maybe half a dozen
> or so minor guides in koran...you are confusing it with judaism which
> is a vast database of thousands of obbsesive rules and regulations on
> every aspect of living created by man. The koran clearly states not to
> invent religion and every custom has a rational explanation. but you
> would know that if you had not got your twisted info second hand from
> some biggot who also passed on his chinese wisper.
>
So Islam has nothing to do with women having to hide away like wraiths,
endure being treated like a plastic bag or a punch bag by the husband.
Maybe this is not the time to go into the details of hijabs, jilbabs,
burqas, or why lots of Islamic schools don't teach art, music, or phys.ed.
s.
drahcir
Alpha wrote:
> freedom is not limitless.....some freedoms have a huge cost to
> society......we are humans with limitations....and what we put into our
> senses can have evil cosequenses for mankind......you need to drop your
> arrogance and ego to realise the limits of mankind. The way forward is
> to choose what works and not what the desire wants. Muslims believe in
> freedom, but they also are humble enough to not think they can have
> anything they want as their right. Freedom should stop when the outcome
> turns negative.
> The arrogant will never understand the limits of human nature since
> they are blinded by questioning nothing.
>
> PS....i see your publising jewish answers on islam sites.
>
> personally i find it more rational to ask direct rather than an enemy
> of islam who has no interest in understanding islam.
>
> PPS....islam has very few rules....5 in fact...plus maybe half a dozen
> or so minor guides in koran...you are confusing it with judaism which
> is a vast database of thousands of obbsesive rules and regulations on
> every aspect of living created by man.
That is by far the funniest thing i have read on this group so far. YOU
ARE A SCREAM!!!! BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! Muslims can't wipe their asses
without asking the imam first, and everyone knows it.
drahcir
Alpha wrote:
> Islam does not believe in conversion by force
hey, alpha, you should try to get onto letterman, these lines of yours
are precious. You are really cracking me up!
Oh, btw, islam is not a conscious entity, therefore it cannot believe
in anything,
cr...@hotmail.com
> If you are judging success on the shallow basis of materials and money
> then congratulations.....if you are judging it by the laws of
> scripture, ie, safety of community, relationship bonds, friendship
> strenth, education disapline and quality, etc....then you westeners are
> living in the dark ages.....and you have plenty to learn about whats
> important in life from the muslims.
No, you didn't read my post. I'm judging it on the only objective
measurement there is to measure success of a country. Whether or not
there is a net migration into that country. You are the one who is
judging countries on imaginary criteria.
> PS. Freedom is something which all should have until its natural limits
> are reached and until the point that it negativly effects your fellow
> man. Not something that is to be abused without limit at the cost to
> those you claim to have responsibillity for and love.
>
> Freedom to rape? Freedom to steal? Freedom to Hate? Freedom to Harm
> without cause? Freedom to be racist?...Freedom to not question the
> phillosophical natural limits of freedom itself?....As my wise uncle
> once said.....everything has a costly price....even certain so called
> freedoms.......
Again, you didn't read my post. I said proper laws are ones that
prevent the use of force.
Just out of curiosity, what do you think the penalty should be be for a
woman wearing a skirt in an Islamic country?
Is this the best Islamics can do to answer my questions? There's got to
be someone out there that can do better than this person.
-
-
-
RUSSELL KINNAMAN
Just like fundementalist Christians. Too weak to live in a state where
they are tempted. I guess they must be in disagrement with the god of
Genesis. Who placed temptation in the garden as well as the deceiver.
All to weak to have abortion, drugs, pornography etc. available.
And I thought they were supposed to be like the god that created them.
Well , I guess they are !
Alpha
yourself to only be interested in being critical of islam by asking
questions.....if your aprouch had of been less arrogant you may have
been helped further but your own stupidity has prevented you from
gaining further infomation..........you are clearly not interested in
learning but only judging by your outstanding missinfomation.
Alpha
stupidity not trust their own religion and judgement.....They are
strong enough to stand for what they believe in and not be pressured to
allow what has clearly been forbidden. Christians are clearly not
strong enough to follow what is in the bible and resist what is in
clear error according to God. Not exactly what i would call a strong
charecture.....thats why christianity has been swollowed and islam is
growing around the globe.
drahcir
Poor brainwashed fool can't answer the simplest questions and then
prefers to try to blame the questioner. If you could just see yourself
clearly for 30 seconds, what an eyeful you would have.
cr...@hotmail.com
> You are not likely to receive much help now since you have proven
> yourself to only be interested in being critical of islam by asking
> questions.....
Gee I'm sorry, does Islam forbid asking questions as well? You forget
that I was defending Islam on another newsgroup. There are people that
think it's a good idea to detonate nuclear weapons on the whole middle
east.
I asked a simple question which apparently you couldn't answer. All you
did was launch into unrelated diatribes.
Here it is again.
*****************************
Islam does not treat law and morality as different things. What is
legal/lawful is also moral and conversely what is unlawful/illegal is
also immoral.
Muslims do not believe in the separation of 'church from state' (i.e.
secularism).
Muslims are forbidden to put pressure, either directly or indirectly,
on another person to convert to Islam
*****************************
My question is why the contradiction? Are you allowed to pressure
another person to convert to Islam or not?
The best I could get from your rambling responses is that it is only
permissible to pressure someone after you have taken over their
government. Trust me, this is not conforting to non-muslims. It's
actually scary.
Again I ask what should the penalty be for a woman wearing a skirt in
an Islamic country.
P.S. It is easier to follow if you include a portion of what you are
responding to in your post, above your reply.
RUSSELL KINNAMAN
the garden? You cannot be like the god and have such things as
temptation exist?
Did the god not create temptation and place it in the garden along
with the tempter the god had also created.
Alpha
Here it is again.
Alpha replied:
As i said before you have certainly made it quite clear that you have
no genuine interest in a mature question and answer session on islam in
order to understand the islamic phillosophy. You are clearly only
interested in attempting to confirm your own stupidity and false idears
about islam in the usual arrogance. If you wish to believe that islam
encourages warfare and violence outside of self defence despite a
muslims telling you that is not what koran teaches thats your problem
not mine. And since you have stooped to the level of a strawman
arguement by saying that i said:
"it is only permissible to pressure someone after you have taken over
their
government."
you can hardly expect me to take your lies seriously for one second
longer. The above lie is in no way islam as you well know. You will
only be required to explain your actions when you die to God not me.
My wise grandfather once said.....never argue with fools or people
might not know the difference.
cr...@hotmail.com
> not mine. And since you have stooped to the level of a strawman
> arguement by saying that i said:
>
> "it is only permissible to pressure someone after you have taken over
> their
> government."
>
> you can hardly expect me to take your lies seriously for one second
> longer. The above lie is in no way islam as you well know. You will
> only be required to explain your actions when you die to God not me.
It is not a lie. I didn't say that you said that. I said I deduced it
from what you said. Here's the full quote:
> The best I could get from your rambling responses is that it is only
> permissible to pressure someone after you have taken over their
> government.
I deducted that very simply from the following statement of yours:
"Islam does not allow women to dress in short skirts simply because
people are influenced by other people and the islamic dress code is so
that women are judged by charecture rather than viewed as a sex
object....fact of life......non muslims can do what they like in their
own lands and if they dont agree with islam there are many lands where
they can go to live how they choose to live. I live in England and
believe in sharia but i dont believe i have the right to impose it on
the brits....if i dont agree with democratic phillosophy i must move to
a muslim state as it states in the koran. Dress code is not forced on
anyone outside of sharia law obiding land/countries."
So I am deducing from your statement that if muslims could convert the
UK into an Islamic state they would force UK residents to follow
Islamic customs. That is not a lie. You are the liar.
Yet again I ask what should the penalty be for a woman wearing a skirt
in an Islamic country?
jism...@yahoo.com
please you. I can I am pleased so to point out differences between
Islamic and Christian countries, yes.
DEMOCRACY/CAPITALISM/
CHRISTIAN
Freedom
Prosperity
Happiness
Health
Knowledge
Literacy
Women's Rights
Rule of Law
Creativity
Superior Minds
ISLAM
Illiteracy
Poverty
Tyranny
Intolerance
Fanaticism
Blood Thirst
Separation of Sexes
Subjugation of Women
Lawlessness
Rule by Religious Jack-Heinies
Squalor
Filth
Disease
So there please you have it. Have do you any questions might ask?
neuroma...@gmail.com
Alpha wrote:
> Where is my freedom to walk down the street without worrying about
> getting mugged or killed?
Good question. If I am a white devote follower of Islam I would bet my
chances of being killed/mugged/stoned/kidnapped/beheaded were pretty
high in many middle eastern countries. Why? Because I am white. All
people see is that. Doesn't matter if I am a devote follower of Islam.
Frankly Radical groups are giving Islam a bad name in the world. Thats
not an opinion, its a fact.
drahcir
Alpha wrote:
> freedom is not limitless.....some freedoms have a huge cost to
> society......we are humans with limitations....and what we put into our
> senses can have evil cosequenses for mankind......you need to drop your
> arrogance and ego to realise the limits of mankind. The way forward is
> to choose what works and not what the desire wants. Muslims believe in
> freedom, but they also are humble enough to not think they can have
> anything they want as their right. Freedom should stop when the outcome
> turns negative.
> The arrogant will never understand the limits of human nature since
> they are blinded by questioning nothing.
>
> PS....i see your publising jewish answers on islam sites.
>
> personally i find it more rational to ask direct rather than an enemy
> of islam who has no interest in understanding islam.
>
> PPS....islam has very few rules....5 in fact...plus maybe half a dozen
> or so minor guides in koran...you are confusing it with judaism which
> is a vast database of thousands of obbsesive rules and regulations on
> every aspect of living created by man.
Further to my last reply to you. Of course you are afraid to respond
because you are just a pre-programmed automaton masquerading as a
person. You threw your life away for a lie. Congatulations.
Rules concerning Use of Lavatory
57. * It is obligatory to conceal one's private parts in the toilet and
at
all times from adult persons even if they are one's near relatives
(like
mother, sister etc.) Similarly, it is obligatory to conceal one's
private
parts from insane persons, and from children who can discern between
good
and evil. However, husband and wife are exempted from this obligation.
58. It is not necessary for a person to conceal the private parts with
any
definite thing, it is sufficient, if, for example, he conceals them
with his
hand.
59. * While using the toilet for relieving oneself, the front or the
back
part of one's body should not face the holy Ka'bah.
60. * If a person sits in the toilet with the front part of his body or
the
back facing the Qibla, but turns the private parts away from that
direction,
it will not be enough. Similarly, when the front part of the body or
the
back does not face Qibla, as a precaution, he should not allow the
private
parts to face that direction.
61. Recommended precaution is that one should not face the Qibla or
have
one's back towards it at the time of Istibra (to be explained later),
nor at
the time of washing oneself to become Pak after relief.
62. * When one is forced to sit facing the Qibla, or with his back
towards
it, so as to avoid somebody looking at him, or if it is not possible to
do
so, or when there is an unavoidable excuse for sitting that way, it is
permissible to do so.
63. It is a recommended precaution that even a child should not be made
to
sit in the toilet with its face or back facing Qibla. But if the child
positions itself that way, it is not obligatory to divert it.
64. It is haraam to relieve oneself at the following four places:
-- In blind alleys, without the permission of the people who live
there.
-- On the property (land) of a person who has not granted permission
for the
purpose.
-- At a place which is waqf exclusively for its beneficiaries, like
some
Madrassahs.
-- On the graves of Momineen, and at the sacred places whose sanctity
will
thus be violated.
65. In the following three cases, anus can be made Pak with water
alone:
If another najasat, like blood, appears along with the faeces.
If an external najasat reaches the anus.
If more than usual najasat spreads around the anus.
In the cases other than those mentioned above, anus can be made Pak
either
by water or by using cloth, or stone etc., although it is always better
to
wash it with water. (for details: see Notes 68 - 70).
66. * The urinary organ cannot be made Pak without water. If one uses
kurr
or running water, then washing the organ once will suffice, after
removal of
essential najasat. But, if one uses under-kurr water, then recommended
precaution is to wash it twice , better still, three times.
67. If the anus is washed with water, one should ensure that no trace
of
faeces is left on it. However, there is no harm if colour and smell
remain.
And if it is washed thoroughly in the first instance, leaving no
particle of
stool, then it is not necess ary to wash it again.
68. The anus can be made Pak with stone, clod or cloth provided they
are dry
and Pak. If there is slight moisture on it, which does not reach the
outlet,
there is no objection.
69. * If one makes oneself totally Pak with stone, clod or cloth once,
it
will be enough, though it is better to do it three times. In fact, it
is
better to use three pieces. And if one does not get totally Pak after
three
times, he may continue till he is Pak. However, there in no harm, if
invisible, tiny particles are still there.
70. It is haraam to make the anus Pak with things which are sacred and
revered, like, a paper on which the names of Allah and the Prophets are
written. And using bones or dung for the purpose, may not make the
place
Pak.
71. If a person doubts whether he has made the outlet Pak, it is
necessary
that he should make it Pak even if he may have been doing it always as
a
matter of habit.
72. * When a person doubts after Namaz, whether he made the outlet Pak
before he started the prayers, the namaz already prayed will be valid,
but
for the ensuing prayers, he will make himself Pak.
http://www.al-islam.org/laws/taharat.html#57
(thanks to another poster for this)
kuff (Isaac Adams)
In what postings in which newsgroup? Here's an aid for finding those
postings:
The same way you can claim the lady prosecuted for being naked in
public is not being converted to a {belief system}. Religious and
secular based rules for modesty don't seek to convert the person only
the person's behavior WRT dress.
>
> For the record I am agnostic.
For the record I believe the lady shouldn't be prosecuted for being
naked.
cr...@hotmail.com
kuff (Isaac Adams) wrote:
> cr...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > I have been defending Muslims on another newsgroup,
>
> In what postings in which newsgroup? Here's an aid for finding those
> postings:
Try searching on "cr113 muslim"
Here's a couple of my posts:
"So what do you suggest? There's over a billion muslims. Should we just
wipe them all out?"
"One thing I'll admit is that most of the terrorist activity lately is
Islamic. And it irritates me that the news is always covering it up.
For example the news always calls them "Chechen Rebels" when they are
really Islamic terrorists. But I think you are making an error
equating this to some sort of inherent design flaw in Islam. For one
thing there are 1.2 billion muslims. The percentage of troublemakers
is microscopic. Also the bible probably has more references to
slaughtering non-believers than the koran."
"One reason I don't think pre-emptive war is a good idea, especially
when the rest of the world is against the war, is because I think you
create more enemies than you kill. I think the main logical error most
people make is that there is a finite amount of terrorists. If you
blast your way into country X and kill 1,000 terrorists along with
1,000 innocents, how many new terrorists have you spawned? And how many
of those 1,000 terrorists that you killed were actually going to target
your country? Maybe you've only killed 50 who actually wanted to harm
your country but now you've created 100,000 more in other countries
that want to harm you."
> > How could you claim that you are not permitted to convert others to
> > Islam yet you require, by force, for non-muslims to abide by muslim
> > customs? For example if a non-muslim woman wears shorts and a t-shirt
> > in public she would be punished, correct? How could you then claim that
> > you were not converting her to Islam?
>
> The same way you can claim the lady prosecuted for being naked in
> public is not being converted to a {belief system}. Religious and
> secular based rules for modesty don't seek to convert the person only
> the person's behavior WRT dress.
Maybe, but there's a fine line between converting someone and forcing
them to follow all of your beliefs. Suppose you have a Christian contry
called Christiania. In Christiania you must attend church on sunday and
it is illegal to do any type of work on sundays, Christmas and Easter.
Anyone caught selling or eating meat during lent will be hung. All
children must pray before the start of school. Crosses are provided
free of charge by the government. The people of Christiania insist that
they are not converting people to Christianity, just making them follow
certain behavior. Do you buy that?
> > For the record I am agnostic.
>
> For the record I believe the lady shouldn't be prosecuted for being
> naked.
Me neither!
As a muslim (I'm assuming) do you believe in the separation of church
from state?
kuff (Isaac Adams)
kuff (Isaac Adams) wrote:
> cr...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > I have been defending Muslims on another newsgroup,
>
> In what postings in which newsgroup? Here's an aid for finding those
> postings:
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups/profile?enc_user=xQr9uREAAAABjBIWOhBhtYGnmJQA1Kt8kdEasx1kiYTQavV7mdW13Q&hl=en
>
> > however I found
> > something on a Muslim website that concerns me. This was in a section
> > describing the differences between Christianity and Islam. There is a
> > huge contradiction in the last sentence.
> >
> > http://muslim-canada.org
> >
> > ****************************
> > Islam does not treat law and morality as different things. What is
> > legal/lawful is also moral and conversely what is unlawful/illegal is
> > also immoral.
> >
> > Muslims do not believe in the separation of 'church from state' (i.e.
> > secularism).
> >
> > Muslims are forbidden to put pressure, either directly or indirectly,
> > on another person to convert to Islam. (???)
> > ****************************
> >
> > How could you claim that you are not permitted to convert others to
> > Islam yet you require, by force, for non-muslims to abide by muslim
> > customs? For example if a non-muslim woman wears shorts and a t-shirt
> > in public she would be punished, correct? How could you then claim that
> > you were not converting her to Islam?
>
> The same way you can claim the lady prosecuted for being naked in
> public is not being converted to a {belief system}. Religious and
> secular based rules for modesty don't seek to convert the person only
> the person's behavior WRT dress.
>
> >
> > For the record I am agnostic.
>
> For the record I believe the lady shouldn't be prosecuted for being
> naked.
= = = = = = = = = =
cr...@hotmail.com wrote:
> kuff (Isaac Adams) wrote:
>
> > cr...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > I have been defending Muslims on another newsgroup,
> >
> > In what postings in which newsgroup? Here's an aid for finding those
> > postings:
>
> Try searching on "cr113 muslim"
That's what I did with the URL I provided. Had trouble quickly
narrowing it down to specific posts.
>
> Here's a couple of my posts:
>
> "So what do you suggest? There's over a billion muslims. Should we just
>
> wipe them all out?"
That post's at:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics.libertarian/msg/c260ccdc91c1312a?hl=en&
Kinda of a weak "defense" though. :-)
>
> "One thing I'll admit is that most of the terrorist activity lately is
> Islamic. And it irritates me that the news is always covering it up.
> For example the news always calls them "Chechen Rebels" when they are
> really Islamic terrorists. But I think you are making an error
> equating this to some sort of inherent design flaw in Islam. For one
> thing there are 1.2 billion muslims. The percentage of troublemakers
> is microscopic. Also the bible probably has more references to
> slaughtering non-believers than the koran."
>
> "One reason I don't think pre-emptive war is a good idea, especially
> when the rest of the world is against the war, is because I think you
> create more enemies than you kill. I think the main logical error most
> people make is that there is a finite amount of terrorists. If you
> blast your way into country X and kill 1,000 terrorists along with
> 1,000 innocents, how many new terrorists have you spawned? And how many
>
> of those 1,000 terrorists that you killed were actually going to target
>
> your country? Maybe you've only killed 50 who actually wanted to harm
> your country but now you've created 100,000 more in other countries
> that want to harm you."
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics.libertarian/msg/1947ff31f87767fd?hl=en&
Better "defense"-wise. A little equivocation coupled with pragmatics.
>
> > > How could you claim that you are not permitted to convert others to
> > > Islam yet you require, by force, for non-muslims to abide by muslim
> > > customs? For example if a non-muslim woman wears shorts and a t-shirt
> > > in public she would be punished, correct? How could you then claim that
> > > you were not converting her to Islam?
> >
> > The same way you can claim the lady prosecuted for being naked in
> > public is not being converted to a {belief system}. Religious and
> > secular based rules for modesty don't seek to convert the person only
> > the person's behavior WRT dress.
>
> Maybe, but there's a fine line between converting someone and forcing
> them to follow all of your beliefs.
Sometimes there may be but most times there is not. For example there
seems a fine line if you force people to go to mosque/synagogue/church
(instant 3-day weekend that :-) ) (rare) but the line is pretty clear
if it's liquor stores closed until noon on Sundays (common).
> Suppose you have a Christian contry
> called Christiania. In Christiania you must attend church on sunday
Ah, then the line would be very fine indeed as I mentioned above.
Among other things, this would be forcing folks to actively do
something in accordance with the mores of the regime which had control
over that jurisdiction.
> and
> it is illegal to do any type of work on sundays,
Any type of work at all? Something like cutting your grass or
something like flipping burgers at the Mickey D's ?
Note that this example is different than your previous one. Instead
of forcing people to actively do something is is prohibiting them from
doing something at a particular time/place. The line is still thin,
true, but it is starting to thicken up a bit if the regime is
proscribing behavior rather than prescribing behavior.
Also there are the circumstances around the proscribed behavior which
affect the 'width' of the line. Prohibiting grass cutting on Sunday
is a skinnier line than prohibiting salaried occupational activities on
Sunday.
> Christmas and Easter.
> Anyone caught selling or eating meat during lent will be hung.
Prohibitions about selling it are more acceptable than prohibitions
about eating it (in private). And being hung as punishment is just
right out.
> All
> children must pray before the start of school.
Depends on the school. If a religious school then I have no grief
with that - the "line" doesn't come into play. If it is a public
school then a quiet/meditation/reflection period can be scheduled but
praying cannot be prescribed.
> Crosses are provided
> free of charge by the government.
You post to libertarian news groups so I suspect we both know there's
no such thing as "free". :-)
That said, I have no problem with a regime passing out free
crosses/yarmulkes/Qurans or whatever it wants consistent with its laws
regarding the collection of revenue and decisions regarding
expenditures. To the extent the regime is democratic, it may even be
what most of the people want it to do anyway.
I do have a problem with people being forced to accept the free crosses
however. And we can discuss whether or not the regime store around
the corner can also hand out condoms 'free of charge'.
> The people of Christiania insist that
> they are not converting people to Christianity, just making them follow
> certain behavior. Do you buy that?
No. See above for my objections to *some* of the things that regime
is described by you as doing.
>
> > > For the record I am agnostic.
> >
> > For the record I believe the lady shouldn't be prosecuted for being
> > naked.
>
> Me neither!
>
> As a muslim (I'm assuming)
Not a safe assumption.
> do you believe in the separation of church
> from state?
I believe in the separation of the individual from the state.
Ultimately the individual is sovereign and responsible to their own
conscience for their behavior. If the individual happens to use
religion (church) to inform their conscience then so be it.
Though it's not precisely the question you asked, I believe in the
superiority of the "church" (individual conscience) over the state.
Therefore my answer to the question "do you believe in the separation
of church from state", if forced to be either yay or nay, would have to
be "yes".
Dr. GroundAxe
Won't work......
'Yeah I butchered 100 people and gosh damn I feel just terrible about
it' -- Kuffland, a place without consequence. The state through some
form of constitutional consensus sets the bounds for acceptable conduct,
and the manner in which contravention of these bounds are punished.
Personal conscience is a poor arbiter of acceptable behaviour.
kuff (Isaac Adams)
Dr. GroundAxe wrote:
> kuff (Isaac Adams) wrote:
> >
> > I believe in the separation of the individual from the state.
> > Ultimately the individual is sovereign and responsible to their own
> > conscience for their behavior. If the individual happens to use
> > religion (church) to inform their conscience then so be it.
>
> Won't work......
The only thing which does work.
>
> 'Yeah I butchered 100 people and gosh damn I feel just terrible about
> it' -- Kuffland, a place without consequence.
'Yeah I invaded a country and butchered 100,000 people and gosh damn I
don't feel bad about it at all.' -- American, a place without
conscience.
> The state through some
> form of constitutional consensus sets the bounds for acceptable conduct,
> and the manner in which contravention of these bounds are punished.
The legitimate function of the state is to secure the individual rights
of those in its jurisdiction. Butchering even one person would
initiate this legitimate function against the butcherer. However the
state cannot legitimately make the individual a butcherer by claiming
it transcends his conscience.
> Personal conscience is a poor arbiter of acceptable behaviour.
Lack of conscience is an even poorer one. Only individuals have
consciences. States and other forms of the collective are psychotic
entities and conscience free. That's why we attempt to bind them so
firmly with things like Constitutions and Bill of Rights and such. But
after a while the people forget why the bindings are important and the
type of monster they restrain and therefore neglect or even untie the
ropes.
And so it goes. Terror, steel, fire and blood as Nature repeats the
lesson until She kills you.
Gary Rumain
Do not trust a word that comes out of their mouths. The koran tells
them to lie to others
cr...@hotmail.com wrote:
> I have been defending Muslims on another newsgroup, however I found
> something on a Muslim website that concerns me. This was in a section
> describing the differences between Christianity and Islam. There is a
> huge contradiction in the last sentence.
>
> http://muslim-canada.org
>
> ****************************
> Islam does not treat law and morality as different things. What is
> legal/lawful is also moral and conversely what is unlawful/illegal is
> also immoral.
>
> Muslims do not believe in the separation of 'church from state' (i.e.
> secularism).
>
> Muslims are forbidden to put pressure, either directly or indirectly,
> on another person to convert to Islam. (???)
> ****************************
>
> How could you claim that you are not permitted to convert others to
> Islam yet you require, by force, for non-muslims to abide by muslim
> customs? For example if a non-muslim woman wears shorts and a t-shirt
> in public she would be punished, correct? How could you then claim that
> you were not converting her to Islam?
>
Dr. GroundAxe
> Dr. GroundAxe wrote:
>> kuff (Isaac Adams) wrote:
> ...
>>> I believe in the separation of the individual from the state.
>>> Ultimately the individual is sovereign and responsible to their own
>>> conscience for their behavior. If the individual happens to use
>>> religion (church) to inform their conscience then so be it.
>> Won't work......
>
> The only thing which does work.
>
>> 'Yeah I butchered 100 people and gosh damn I feel just terrible about
>> it' -- Kuffland, a place without consequence.
>
> 'Yeah I invaded a country and butchered 100,000 people and gosh damn I
> don't feel bad about it at all.' -- American, a place without
> conscience.
Putting aside for a moment your flagrant misrepresentation of facts,
let's consider the percentage of the public that supported the war.
Where there no popular support-or a distinct lack of it-it could never
have gone ahead. Iraq was invaded on the back of huge public approval, a
fact you seem desperate to disregard.
>
>> The state through some
>> form of constitutional consensus sets the bounds for acceptable conduct,
>> and the manner in which contravention of these bounds are punished.
>
> The legitimate function of the state is to secure the individual rights
> of those in its jurisdiction. Butchering even one person would
> initiate this legitimate function against the butcherer. However the
> state cannot legitimately make the individual a butcherer by claiming
> it transcends his conscience.
You are losing yourself in meaningless hyperbole again. Your core
argument is anarchistic in nature. You hate what you perceive to be the
disease so much that you would kill the patient to cure it.
kuff (Isaac Adams)
Dr. GroundAxe wrote:
> kuff (Isaac Adams) wrote:
> > Dr. GroundAxe wrote:
> >> kuff (Isaac Adams) wrote:
> > ...
> >>> I believe in the separation of the individual from the state.
> >>> Ultimately the individual is sovereign and responsible to their own
> >>> conscience for their behavior. If the individual happens to use
> >>> religion (church) to inform their conscience then so be it.
> >> Won't work......
> >
> > The only thing which does work.
> >
> >> 'Yeah I butchered 100 people and gosh damn I feel just terrible about
> >> it' -- Kuffland, a place without consequence.
> >
> > 'Yeah I invaded a country and butchered 100,000 people and gosh damn I
> > don't feel bad about it at all.' -- American, a place without
> > conscience.
>
>
> Putting aside for a moment your flagrant misrepresentation of facts,
What, was it *only* 30,000 then?
> let's consider the percentage of the public that supported the war.
Why? Did they vote to attack Iraq or did their elected aristocrats
decide to do it on their own while lying to the people about why?
> Where there no popular support-or a distinct lack of it-it could never
> have gone ahead. Iraq was invaded on the back of huge public approval, a
> fact you seem desperate to disregard.
No, I'm not desperate to disregard that old observation Field Marshall
Goering.
>
> >
> >> The state through some
> >> form of constitutional consensus sets the bounds for acceptable conduct,
> >> and the manner in which contravention of these bounds are punished.
> >
> > The legitimate function of the state is to secure the individual rights
> > of those in its jurisdiction. Butchering even one person would
> > initiate this legitimate function against the butcherer. However the
> > state cannot legitimately make the individual a butcherer by claiming
> > it transcends his conscience.
>
>
> You are losing yourself in meaningless hyperbole again.
That's not hyperbole. Can you point to the sentence you think has
hyperbole in it?
> Your core
> argument is anarchistic in nature.
The core meaning of freedom is anarchistic.
> You hate what you perceive to be the
> disease so much that you would kill the patient to cure it.
Who's the patient - the individual or the collective?
>
>
> >
> >> Personal conscience is a poor arbiter of acceptable behaviour.
> >
> > Lack of conscience is an even poorer one. Only individuals have
> > consciences. States and other forms of the collective are psychotic
> > entities and conscience free. That's why we attempt to bind them so
> > firmly with things like Constitutions and Bill of Rights and such. But
> > after a while the people forget why the bindings are important and the
> > type of monster they restrain and therefore neglect or even untie the
> > ropes.
>
> >
> > And so it goes. Terror, steel, fire and blood as Nature repeats the
> > lesson until She kills you.
Now *that's* hyperbole. :-)
Humbucker
"Gary Rumain" <gru...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:1141348843.0...@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> The muzzies are all lying sacks of shit and hypocritical liars to boot!
>
> Do not trust a word that comes out of their mouths. The koran tells
> them to lie to others
...and of course jooz are the epitomy of truth &
honesty...LOL...LOL...LOL...LOL...LOL...LOL...LOL...LOL...LOL>>>LOL>>>LOL>>>LOL>>>LOL>>>LOL>>>LOL>>>LOL>>>LOL>>>LOL>>
Ben Cramer
"Gary Rumain" <gru...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:1141348843.0...@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Do not trust a word that comes out of their mouths. The koran tells
> them to lie to others
It's a semitic thing already?
Gary Rumain
Ben Cramer
> Like you would know, Benji
It was a question Gaz, not a statement.
drahcir
Ben Cramer wrote:
> "Gary Rumain" <gru...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
> news:1141348843.0...@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> > The muzzies are all lying sacks of shit and hypocritical liars to boot!
> >
> > Do not trust a word that comes out of their mouths. The koran tells
> > them to lie to others
>
> It's a semitic thing already?
>
copy many of the quips of the rev. Why do you think that is? Do you
like the rev? More to the point, do you idolize the rev? When you are
lying in your bed alone at night, looking at the ceiling because of
your restless, confused, ahem, "mind", do you find your "thoughts"
constantly coming back to the rev? Not that there's anything wrong with
that, of course.
Just curious...
Ben Cramer
"drahcir" <sue...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1141421608.2...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Ben Cramer wrote:
>> "Gary Rumain" <gru...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1141348843.0...@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> > The muzzies are all lying sacks of shit and hypocritical liars to boot!
>> >
>> > Do not trust a word that comes out of their mouths. The koran tells
>> > them to lie to others
>>
>> It's a semitic thing already?
>>
> Hey ben, got some questions for ya. I have noticed that you unabashedly
> copy many of the quips of the rev.
Who's copying whom?
Why do you think that is? Do you
> like the rev? More to the point, do you idolize the rev? When you are
> lying in your bed alone at night, looking at the ceiling because of
> your restless, confused, ahem, "mind", do you find your "thoughts"
> constantly coming back to the rev? Not that there's anything wrong with
> that, of course.
>
> Just curious...
You're extremely curious indeed.
Gary Rumain
cr...@hotmail.com
kuff (Isaac Adams) wrote:
> I believe in the separation of the individual from the state.
> Ultimately the individual is sovereign and responsible to their own
> conscience for their behavior. If the individual happens to use
> religion (church) to inform their conscience then so be it.
>
> Though it's not precisely the question you asked, I believe in the
> superiority of the "church" (individual conscience) over the state.
> Therefore my answer to the question "do you believe in the separation
> of church from state", if forced to be either yay or nay, would have to
> be "yes".
Sounds like you're an anarchist. Name the top 5 current anarchies in
order of most successful. Name the top 5 theocracies.
-
-
-
-
-
drahcir
Ben Cramer wrote:
> "drahcir" <sue...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1141421608.2...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Ben Cramer wrote:
> >> "Gary Rumain" <gru...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1141348843.0...@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >> > The muzzies are all lying sacks of shit and hypocritical liars to boot!
> >> >
> >> > Do not trust a word that comes out of their mouths. The koran tells
> >> > them to lie to others
> >>
> >> It's a semitic thing already?
> >>
> > Hey ben, got some questions for ya. I have noticed that you unabashedly
> > copy many of the quips of the rev.
>
> Who's copying whom?
The answer to that is well known by you, by all here, and by anyone who
googles you and the rev on, say, "already". Sheesh, very amateurish try
to squirm away. Oh, while we're on the subject, please do your best to
avoid the word "amateurish" in your reply, ok? You will come off
somewhat better that way.
>
>
> Why do you think that is? Do you
> > like the rev? More to the point, do you idolize the rev? When you are
> > lying in your bed alone at night, looking at the ceiling because of
> > your restless, confused, ahem, "mind", do you find your "thoughts"
> > constantly coming back to the rev? Not that there's anything wrong with
> > that, of course.
> >
> > Just curious...
>
> You're extremely curious indeed.
well, good. Now, doesn't it feel better to have gotten that off your
chest and out into the open?
I Love Edsels
>
>kuff (Isaac Adams) wrote:
>
>> I believe in the separation of the individual from the state.
>> Ultimately the individual is sovereign and responsible to their own
>> conscience for their behavior. If the individual happens to use
>> religion (church) to inform their conscience then so be it.
>>
>> Though it's not precisely the question you asked, I believe in the
>> superiority of the "church" (individual conscience) over the state.
>> Therefore my answer to the question "do you believe in the separation
>> of church from state", if forced to be either yay or nay, would have to
>> be "yes".
>
there is no individuality in Islam. calling individual conscience
"church" will get you beheaded or stoned to death
kuff (Isaac Adams)
cr...@hotmail.com wrote:
> kuff (Isaac Adams) wrote:
>
> > I believe in the separation of the individual from the state.
> > Ultimately the individual is sovereign and responsible to their own
> > conscience for their behavior. If the individual happens to use
> > religion (church) to inform their conscience then so be it.
> >
> > Though it's not precisely the question you asked, I believe in the
> > superiority of the "church" (individual conscience) over the state.
> > Therefore my answer to the question "do you believe in the separation
> > of church from state", if forced to be either yay or nay, would have to
> > be "yes".
>
> Sounds like you're an anarchist.
Sounds like you're a totalitarian.
Actually what it should sound like is that I am an individualist and
you are a collectivist. Those would be the 'polite' terms.
> Name the top 5 current anarchies in
> order of most successful.
Internet
Drugs
Porn
Gambling
...
> Name the top 5 theocracies.
Holy See
Saudi Arabia
Israel
Iran
Afghanistan