It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Some Facts on Islam Revealed Here

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 20 2006 @ 03:10 PM
link   
Here's something that sheds much light on the current war on terror:

www.chick.com...

It's a tract, but there are historical collaborations that go along with this.




posted on Jul, 20 2006 @ 03:28 PM
link   
Interesting read, but biased towards Christianity. I would like to see a more neutral account of this.
Thanks for the post



posted on Jul, 20 2006 @ 03:43 PM
link   
Yes it does seem biased. Are there any Muslims who'd like to give their interpretation/opinions on this?



posted on Jul, 20 2006 @ 04:41 PM
link   
I'd just like to say that I find Jack Chick, and his "tracts" among some of the most hateful, and dishonest tripe that is fostered upon humanity. If one doesn't follow the narrow path that he proclaims via his "work" then one is doomed.



posted on Jul, 20 2006 @ 08:52 PM
link   
Jack Chick is a blitering idiot and, if nothing else, an incredibly poor source for an education on islam.

Hell, he's not even a good source for an education on christianity or being a christian at that!


[edit on 20-7-2006 by Nygdan]



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 05:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xeros
Yes it does seem biased. Are there any Muslims who'd like to give their interpretation/opinions on this?


i have grown tired of having to keep on posting the same thing and then have someone come in with a retared source and breed more ignorance.



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 05:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by bodrul

Originally posted by Xeros
Yes it does seem biased. Are there any Muslims who'd like to give their interpretation/opinions on this?


i have grown tired of having to keep on posting the same thing and then have someone come in with a retared source and breed more ignorance.


Sorry but I'm just curious to learn more on the subject. It annoys me too but I'd like to at least strike a healthy debate out of this thread if nothing else.



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by soccerinco
Interesting read, but biased towards Christianity. I would like to see a more neutral account of this.
Thanks for the post

True. I'm hoping that you guys can come up with stuff that either refutes or proves these "facts" presented. I'm not much into these types of tracts myself...because they get a bit nutty towards the end. But the 'history' presented is somewhat different than the history that I got from my Western Religious Studies course.

Wouldn't you agree?



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mirthful Me
I'd just like to say that I find Jack Chick, and his "tracts" among some of the most hateful, and dishonest tripe that is fostered upon humanity. If one doesn't follow the narrow path that he proclaims via his "work" then one is doomed.






They lean towards evangelical christianity ("turn or burn") which I do not support. How about the "facts" about islam presented? *THIS* is what I wanted to focus on, not the last 4 tiles which say you're going straight to
if you don't believe and accept jesus.



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
Jack Chick is a blitering idiot and, if nothing else, an incredibly poor source for an education on islam.

Hell, he's not even a good source for an education on christianity or being a christian at that!


[edit on 20-7-2006 by Nygdan]


That may be true (the last sentence...which I am inclined to agree with). However, the first sentence is a sweeping generalization which I would like to see backed up with some real, historical works to refute.

I can tell you that all I have to do right now to make his explanation of Islam seem true is to Google "beheading".



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by bodrul

Originally posted by Xeros
Yes it does seem biased. Are there any Muslims who'd like to give their interpretation/opinions on this?


i have grown tired of having to keep on posting the same thing and then have someone come in with a retared source and breed more ignorance.


Ah, but are you posting, or linking sources? I want to see the sources. Also, I'd like to hear more Imams screaming at the media that this is "NOT ISLAM". which of course, I am not seeing.

Not starting an argument, and definitely not a 'hate-in'. I'm starting a debate over the 'facts' presented in this tract.

This is what they are saying...now what do YOU say?



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cletus_Lives
[I'm not much into these types of tracts myself...because they get a bit nutty towards the end.


You don't have to wait until the end to get nutty... Jack Chick's crap is a bowl of nuts from page one, frame one.



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mirthful Me

Originally posted by Cletus_Lives
[I'm not much into these types of tracts myself...because they get a bit nutty towards the end.


You don't have to wait until the end to get nutty... Jack Chick's crap is a bowl of nuts from page one, frame one.


I understood your opinion the first time. The inflammatory tone of evangelical Christianity aside, what about these historical "issues" presented?

You've made your opinion quite clear. Now on to the facts. Let's focus on tiles 15 through 30 of this...the idol 'beginnings' all the way through the conquests...the 23 wives, etc. History seems to support much of this.

Even my reading somewhat collaboratest his rendition.

I know that Ogrish certainly backs it up to an extent...





[edit on 21-7-2006 by Cletus_Lives]



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cletus_Lives
How about the "facts" about islam presented? *THIS* is what I wanted to focus on

The tract is not a factual production, its a peice of evangelism, not a history book. Its religious propaganda (in the neutral sense, something that tries to gain supporters). Thus, it can't be looked upon as at all meaningful in relation to the meaning or history of another religion.


which I would like to see backed up with some real, historical works to refute.

Fair enough, what in particular do you think is a fact worthy of discussion in chicks tract?


I can tell you that all I have to do right now to make his explanation of Islam seem true is to Google "beheading".

So you do or you don't have an ulterior motive here?

The "facts" that he tries to present are things like :
'muslim terrorists aren't extremists, they're good muslims'. Thats baloney. Islam is a religion of peace, many of its current members are not peaceful.

"allah is the moon god idol" Utter lie. Mohammed went to the Cubic temple in mecca, and destroyed all the idols. He belevied that the Cubic temple was built originally by Adam, from the bible, and that the arabs had fallen into paganism, but now the god of the bible wanted to reform them to monotheism, and thus he made mohammed a prophet.

"Mohammed was a derranged lunatic who had seizures and delusions, and was probably possessed by the devil who only pretend to be Gabriel and God". Absurd. Firstly, when you start talking about angels and demons, you're talking about faith. Jack Chick has faith that mohammed is wrong, so the devil impersonating gabriel and revealing god's word to mohammed is completely meaningless. Chick is not a muslim, therefore he's not going to beleive that god made mohammed a prophet. As far as mohammed's ecstatic visions being explainable by mental defect, so are the revelations of St. John, or any other religious figure.

"Mo's wife was a catholic". The christian world had already split by that time, into east (orthodox) and west (catholic) churches. Jack Chick is a hateful man, he hates, amoung other groups, catholics. He simply mindlessly bleats, like a goat, the idea that the RCC is satanic, and that the catholics created islam in order to attack christianity. Its an old lie.

Then it claims that mohammed was a bad guy because he was engaged in caravan raids. Fair enough, but so then, of course, was practically everyone else in the bible, excluding jesus, a pacifist who said to love one another. Is chick being very loving? Or is he hateful and a liar? He'd probably say 'its for christ', but whats the bible say about lying for christ?

Mohammed and Islams conquest of the middle east was far less bloody than god's ordering of the hebrews to conquer the levant. If we want to be fair, then critisize Islam for being about as violent as judaism and christianity. Christ was a pacifist, Mohammed was not. That hardly means that Islam can't be a peaceful religion.



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cletus_Lives
You've made your opinion quite clear. Now on to the facts. Let's focus on tiles 15 through 30 of this...the idol 'beginnings' all the way through the conquests...the 23 wives, etc. History seems to support much of this.


Emphasis mine in the above quote.

So now tiles 15 through 30 are facts? It's a cartoon... Drawn by an intolerant religious fanatic. You're not sourcing academia, your putting full faith and credit in a scrap of paper usually found on the ground in a shopping mall's parking lot.


As the Devil's advocate, I have to ask... Why not couch these concerns from a reliable source?



I know that Ogrish certainly backs it up to an extent...


I know there's no way you actually mean the website...



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mirthful Me

Originally posted by Cletus_Lives
You've made your opinion quite clear. Now on to the facts. Let's focus on tiles 15 through 30 of this...the idol 'beginnings' all the way through the conquests...the 23 wives, etc. History seems to support much of this.


Emphasis mine in the above quote.

So now tiles 15 through 30 are facts? It's a cartoon... Drawn by an intolerant religious fanatic. You're not sourcing academia, your putting full faith and credit in a scrap of paper usually found on the ground in a shopping mall's parking lot.


As the Devil's advocate, I have to ask... Why not couch these concerns from a reliable source?



I know that Ogrish certainly backs it up to an extent...


I know there's no way you actually mean the website...


Okay I meant the "facts as presented". I'd like to see a real history of Mohammad. From more than one source.

Some of the "facts" on this tract are compelling...even when they stem from the angle mentioned above. Got that...understood. It's a religious pamphlet. But even anti-Christian literature has some historical facts woven into it which can make one say "hmmmm".

I'm just saying "interesting".

Now I'm looking for some sound refute.

The Ogrish reference is obvious. Videos galore of Arab Muslims doing exactly what is depicted in the pamphlet. Hook line and sinker. Beheading in this particular way comes directly from the Koran.



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mirthful Me
I'd just like to say that I find Jack Chick, and his "tracts" among some of the most hateful, and dishonest tripe that is fostered upon humanity. If one doesn't follow the narrow path that he proclaims via his "work" then one is doomed.


Out of the mouth the heart speaks, the strait path is correct and the gate is narrow too.

One way or dead end: Deal with it.



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 02:26 PM
link   
Cletus, you said you want to discuss the lies being called facts, and then ignored them when they were discussed, only to repeat a claim that muslims are evil. What gives?



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 02:49 PM
link   
Jack Chick Tracts....Jack Chick. Are you freaking kidding me? My God this board is seeing some rough times. I guess that is the Mid East conflict in a nut shell, but Jack Chick...come on. This is dumb.



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
Cletus, you said you want to discuss the lies being called facts, and then ignored them when they were discussed, only to repeat a claim that muslims are evil. What gives?


Which post are you referring to? Just asking for some refute. I never made that claim.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join