Why Muslims should be treated with more respect

I have never read the Bible so I am unable to comment on your post.

I wanted to show Babloyi that there are many more intolerant verses than verses promoting friendship.

Had I listed them all myself it would have taken ages, The Skeptics Annotated Koran is a convenient shortcut.

Each entry is referenced with a verse number which one can check.

reply to post by Ersatz

Hello again, Ersatz.

This portion of the conversation seems to be going in circles: I explain what taqiyya is (with backing from the Islamic Scriptures), and you choose to ignore that explanation, and give your own (unislamically backed one). I show under what conditions taqiyya is acceptable, yet you ignore those conditions and call whatever you want 'taqiyya'. I show you what Islam calls taqiyya, and you tell me what 'muslims' call taqiyya (without any proof, too).

I did not call any of those people a village mullah. I may respect some of their efforts, but refuse to automatically accept everything they say based simply on their names, or the fact that by (post-islamic) 'tradition' they are correct.


As to your claim that the first verse I posted can be rejected because it is referring only to muslims (Muhammad is not reciting, at least not when I read it)- you really are a funny guy Ersatz. The verse starts with "Oh Mankind". Since when is 'Mankind' translated as 'muslims'? The word used is 'naas'. Everywhere it is used it refers to all of humankind.

As for the explanation that you posted, about the verse being abrogated....you do realise that thequran.com is an anti-islamic site, right? Anyhow, putting that aside, that is another 'traditional' way of thought that I disagree with, and absolutely reject (and most Islamic scholars of today, as well as the Quran itself agree with me)- There are no abrogated verses in the Quran.

Now I hope you don't expect me to address 502 supposed references to intolerance and hate, when you didn't even bother to post more than a link to them. I wouldn't enjoy addressing those points, and you (and others here) would probably ignore it, considering the huge amount of space it would waste. I've been through that list before, but am not opening it right now. It's a prime example of what I mentioned earlier on in this thread- where they compile a huge list of 'snippets', all out of context, all with the important parts edited out, and dumps them all at once so that nobody can realistically address them all. At this point, this discussion would essentially be over, except for the first part of your post, which I left to address till the end:

Originally posted by Ersatz
Unfortunately, many Muslims do not understand that when they choose to become citizens of a country and make it their home, they also embrace its culture, customs, habits and social behaviour. This is a reality that is as clear as daylight. All Muslims have to do is accept it. Unfortunately, even Muslims who came to Europe decades ago do not understand this fundamental reality.

As long as the Muslims do not truly integrate with their “host societies”, they will continue to cause and face hostility.

This raises some pretty interesting points, especially in the scope of this discussion. I'd encourage others to post their thoughts also.

Part of it involves the whole culture vs. progress argument. Should anybody have to 'give up' their heritage when they move to another society? We are all in a trend to advance towards the more 'progressed societies'- which would essentially be exactly the same everywhere. The problem is that this 'progressed' society leaves no place to hold history. No place for culture. For example: should an old disused temple/church/mosque (which may not necessarily be in use, but is an object of history, tells a story, etc) be brought down, and replaced with an office block? Should a 500 year old village be destroyed, replaced with apartment buildings and a superhighway?

And on a more personal level, should person leave off their 'traditional dress' and don a business suit, leave off their 'traditional dishes' for 'coffee and a bagel'? This may also be part of the root of the problem that the OP outlined: fear of someone/something because it appears alien and is an outsider- like the sikh, with their huge turban and beard. As far as I'm concerned, a balance is the best.

I don't really see this as directly concerning Islam, however. Islam doesn't designate it's own specific dress. But it concerns people, and their perception of people. Outsiders are always unwelcome. As far as the Islamic instructions are concerned, I don't really see much of a problem there either. Anywhere I go, even if they don't have 'halal' food, they're bound to have kosher food (which is also acceptable to muslims). If they don't have kosher food, they're bound to have vegetarian food. You suggesting that all these options should be eradicated?

Society isn't built up of each country having some pure line or race that has been there since the beginning of time. Our society is bound to mix together. You suggest that newer entrants to a society should ignore their own habits, and conform exactly to the society that they are entering? That would make for a very boring world, and is also a pretty unrealistic expectation. Both sides adjust a little to make a wholly more peaceful result. India is a good example: People today may assume that it's all one culture and one people, but in actuality, it's a millennia's worth of cultures and people all mixing together, where the society slowly picked up bits and pieces of each, so that the end result is a combination of all.

[edit on 1-9-2008 by babloyi]

reply to post by babloyi


Apparently in many Muslim societies honor killings are not only allowed, but publically approved, the recent story about the murder of three girls by villagers, with the local leaders approval is proof of this.

Maybe you might want to consider that many Muslims interpret the Koran, and choose what they want to believe far differently than you do. You claim the sources provided that go against your beliefs are wrong, but the actions of many Muslims show that they interpret these things the way we see them as being.

Not all Muslims are bad people, most are good people, but for us westerners, how do we tell the difference? We have to consider the safety of our children, and our grandchildren, and the future of our society, so how do we learn to distinguish between the good Muslims and the bad ones?

In your statements about how wrong honor killings are, you should admit that many Muslims do condone the act, and you might also want to add that if you knew of anyone planning such a heinous crime, you would turn them into the authorities. This is the kind of issue that moderate Muslims should be constantly addressing and condemning.

reply to post by poet1b

Yes, many people condone this act, but not through property of being muslim. NOWHERE in the Quran or in the Hadith, or in the entire life of Muhammad was there ever an occasion where an 'honour killing' occurred or was sanctioned. In fact, the opposite is true: Islam forbade the pre-islamic arab practice of burying new-born girls alive, and also required that the for the marriage contract to be accepted, both parties must willingly have consented.

It was 5 women, not just 3 girls, and nowhere will you see any mention of it being done because it was an islamic ruling- at most it was 'defended' as a 'centuries old tribal tradition' (although other baloch people are vehemently disagreeing, saying that there is no such tradition). Local leaders 'approved' of it because one of the perpetrators was a brother of a provincial minister- thus most of the villagers were too afraid to give a statement, however now there are 3(?) of the 4 suspects in custody.

See, this is a prime example of how media can be used to target and distort something. They needn't even lie, they just leave out the some points as 'irrelevant'. If you read the articles in Pakistani newspapers online, or any of the online TV-channels, you'd see how vocal the condemnation is (even of the Senator who defended the practice on the floor of the senate) and how everyone- as muslims and even as balochis- say that the act was totally immoral and against their beliefs and traditions, and they demanded that the criminals be punished.


It is somewhat depressing how you differentiate between 'muslims' and 'US westerners' and 'OUR children, OUR grandchildren, OUR society'. You judge a person (any person, whether muslim or non-muslim) on their actions- if they do something wrong, they must face the consequences. However, if a Texan (for example) does something wrong, does that mean all Texans are dangerous, and must be suspected? Of course not! Same is true for muslims. If you ask me, the only difference between 'us' and 'them' is education, which I am always emphasising the importance of. Pakistan currently has a literacy rate of less than 50% (and probably even less for women). This has to be rectified. Proper Education does away with all idiocy.

[edit on 2-9-2008 by babloyi]

reply to post by babloyi



Being that honor killings like these occur in numerous Muslim nations, not just this particular region in Pakistan, claiming this is an isolated incident is once again burying your head in the sand. How many examples do you need before you recognize that this is a problem with Muslim culture?

Certain cultures have certain traits, and there is nothing wrong to pointing out the problems that certain cultures have. For example, the west currently has a serious problem with high divorce rates, or you can point out the high crime rates on our urban ghettos.

I am aware that plenty of people in Pakistan are demanding justice against these murderers, see link below, but that doesn't take away from the reality that this incident was actually defended on the Pakistani Senate floor. Hopefully this incident gets a great deal more coverage. A large out pouring of condemnation by the Muslim world for these types of acts would be very good, might even get noticed.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by babloyi



The conversation goes in circles because you refuse to answer straight questions and are not prepared to accept facts in evidence.

My second question was:
2) What about the doctors that lived and practiced in England for years before turning terrorists;
Did they have a gun at their head when they were disguising their hate for the non Muslims?

They confessed to being Muslims after arrest.

You did not reply as to whether they had a gun at their head ….

All doctors swear an oath to protect and preserve life; these doctors not only broke their oath, they were also hiding their profound hate for non Muslims.

You did not reply as to whether they had a gun at their head etc etc ….

Originally posted by babloyi

that is another 'traditional' way of thought that I disagree with, and absolutely reject (and most Islamic scholars of today, as well as the Quran itself agree with me)- There are no abrogated verses in the Quran.

I am sorry you do not like “Abrogation”, I should have said “Substitute”

The Qur’an itself talks about this in the following verses:

God does not abrogate any verse but substitutes something similar or better...2:106
God removes (abrogates?) what He wills...13:39
God substitutes one revelation with another; God has the mother of the Book...16:101

Originally posted by babloyi

Should anybody have to 'give up' their heritage when they move to another society?

When one willingly moves to another society one acquires many rights but also duties.

Should Europeans tolerate those who abduct journalists, murder civilians, explode buses?

Europe is one of the most liberal regions in the World, many peoples with differing cultures have successfully come to settle. Russians, Indians, Chinese, Africans, South Americans etc..

Europe is made up of many cultures all sharing knowledge and managing to coexist relatively well together.

Politicians consistently imagine that all religions at their core teach the same thing and teach it equally well. This is one of the many delusions borne of political correctness.

The problem is not Muslims but Islam.
Muslims are instructed not to make friends with the Disbelievers and they do not.

Muslims are indoctrinated to hate non Muslims and they hate them, to the point of indiscriminately killing innocent people without any shame or conscience.

Islam is not a religion of peace and its followers do abuse 'political correctness'...

Where are the Christian or the Jewish suicide bombers? Or the Buddhist suicide bombers?

What is the difference that makes the difference? The difference lies in the specific tenets of Islam.

Of the three Abrahamic religions, Islam was born with the idea that it should rule the world.

Judaism speaks about national salvation - namely that at the end of the story, when the world becomes a better place, Israel will be in its own land, ruled by its own king and serving God.
Christianity speaks about the idea that every single person in the world can be saved from his sins, while Islam speaks about ruling the world. "Allah sent Mohammed with the true religion so that it should rule over all the religions."

The idea that Islam is a “peaceful religion hijacked by extremists” is a dangerous fantasy—and it is now a particularly dangerous fantasy for Muslims to indulge.

Sam Harris has a very good point about moderate Islam here:
www.huffingtonpost.com...

Wherever there is Islam, there is the potential for intolerance and violence justified by religion.

61.009
YUSUFALI: It is He Who has sent His Messenger with Guidance and the Religion of Truth, that he may proclaim it over all religions, even though the Pagans may detest (it).

reply to post by poet1b

I did not claim it was an isolated incident, and neither am I burying my head in the sand. I'm not too sure about the validity of such a term as 'muslim culture'. There is Islam, then there are muslims, then there is arab culture, then there is the culture of people who are muslims. None of these terms are synonymous.

There has always been a 'large outpouring of condemnation' from muslims against such acts. No, it has not been noticed. It is not 'news', so it is ignored. In case you didn't read my post, I already mentioned that the honour killings were defended in the senate, and there was outrage against that too.

[edit on 2-9-2008 by babloyi]

reply to post by Ersatz

Originally posted by Ersatz
You did not reply as to whether they had a gun at their head etc etc ….

This is the main question you are asking, that you say I refuse to reply to?! Wow....Really....are you serious? What is the purpose of this question? Do you think they had a gun to their head? Do you think I will say that they had a gun to their head? What relevance does it have to anything if they had a gun to their head, when they weren't even in accordance to Islam?

About replacing abrogation for substitution...if you check the verses you quoted in context, you'll notice it is talking about replacing earlier scriptures which were 'sent for a time'. Stuff like the sabbath, and those extra strict dietary laws of the Jews no longer applied.
Also: The 13:39 verse you quoted is an easy example of one of the weirdnesses of the Yusuf Ali translation. He translates Umm-al-kitab as "The Mother of the book". While a literal translation of 'Umm' may mean 'mother', the word is also used to mean 'source' or 'origin' or 'original'. To translate it in this case as 'mother', especially after looking at the context is a little odd. It does not take a professional scholar of Islam to notice these things.


You once again target Islam specifically for the barbarous actions of some people, without proof. Nowhere is there any 'tenet' that Islam should rule the world. Like ANY religion, Islam considers itself to be the truest path. Are you using that last quote from Surah as-Saff as proof that Islam wants to conquer the world? Because that is absurd.

PS: I fundamentally disagree with Sam Harris, because he seems to think that 'all books are candidates for flushing down the toilet'. Such a disgusting approach towards any literature does not speak well for one's character.

[edit on 2-9-2008 by babloyi]

Originally posted by pause4thought
People claiming to represent Christianity or Western civilization have perpetrated unbelievable heinous crimes against Muslim nations throughout history. It should never have happened, and the legacy is a deeply divided world.

about the topic. muslims have done the same thing. Both christianity and islam have done bad sinful things. there is never just one side who did only good. In fact you should remember what happening today. Islam extemeist are creating there own crusades right now. They let their childrden kill and women kill. They kill there own people. I dont think I remember in the bible or the past where Christians kills their own children or strap on a bomp to the 5 year old and let them run around like its a play toy.

however I do believe that muslim should get respect. But everyone should get respect.

reply to post by babloyi

Originally posted by babloyi
This is the main question you are asking, that you say I refuse to reply to?! Wow....Really....are you serious? What is the purpose of this question?

Because it proves that you are an opportunistic liar.

In an earlier statement you said that Taqiyya (Lying for Allah, dissimulation and disguise) is only allowed to Muslims when they have a gun at their head:

Originally posted by babloyi
because you don't have a gun to my head.

It is only allowed when one is in mortal danger if they speak the truth- for example if a person was going around asking people their religion, and then shooting Muslims. In this case, a muslim would be permitted to say they are non-muslim”.

Did those doctors who lied and disguised their hate towards non-Muslims for years have a gun at their head?
Were they in mortal danger when they swore an oath to protect and preserve life?

Originally posted by babloyi

What relevance does it have to anything if they had a gun to their head, when they weren't even in accordance to Islam?

The relevance is that they were being hypocritical, same as you are... denying it.

Where does it say it is not in accordance with Islam ?

Originally posted by babloyi
About replacing abrogation for substitution...if you check the verses you quoted in context, you'll notice it is talking about replacing earlier scriptures which were 'sent for a time'.

You argue with the term abrogation and substitution and use replace or even “sent down”….

Here is an Islamic site more honest than you, they use straight forward abrogation!

Abrogation from Islamic site

“Then when the Sacred Months (the 1st, 7th, 11th, and 12th months of the Islamic calendar) have passed, then kill the Mushrikoon (see V.2:105) wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush. But if they repent [by rejecting Shirk (polytheism) and accept Islamic Monotheism] and perform As-Salaah (Iqaamat-as-Salaah), and give Zakaah, then leave their way free. Verily, Allaah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful”
[al-Tawbah 9:5]
This verse is known as Ayat al-Sayf (the verse of the sword).

These and similar verses ABROGATE the verses which say that there is no compulsion to become Muslim.

islamqa.com...

Originally posted by babloyi

You once again target Islam specifically for the barbarous actions of some people, without proof.

I target Islam??? Rather Islam targets the rest of the world…
Or maybe it is some Martian Muslims who are the perpetrators of barbarous actions?

Since 9/11 there have been 11768 documented deadly terror attacks attributable to Muslims.

Muslims must admit that their religion might be motivating the bombers.

Terrorism is a Muslim problem, and refusal to admit so is worsening the problem, Muslims should put their own house in order.

Here is an honest Muslim: Abdel Rahman al-Rashed (general manager of Al-Arabiya Television) said:

“We cannot clear our names unless we own up to the shameful fact that terrorism has become an Islamic enterprise; an almost exclusive monopoly, implemented by Muslim men and women."

Originally posted by babloyi

Nowhere is there any 'tenet' that Islam should rule the world.

3.085
YUSUFALI: If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah), never will it be accepted of him; and in the Hereafter He will be in the ranks of those who have lost (All spiritual good).

61.009
YUSUFALI: It is He Who has sent His Messenger with Guidance and the Religion of Truth, that he may proclaim it over all religions, even though the Pagans may detest (it).

9.005
YUSUFALI: But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
(The Jews, Christians and are to be asked to enter Islam; if they refuse then they should be asked to pay the jizyah. If they refuse to pay the jizyah then the Muslims must fight them if they are able to do so.)

9.029
YUSUFALI: Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

8.039
YUSUFALI: And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere; but if they cease, verily Allah doth see all that they do.

That seems pretty clear and unequivocal.

And it is not just Sunni who say, Shia’s Khomeini also rebuked the Islam-is-a-religion-of-peace crowd:
“Those who study jihad will understand why Islam wants to conquer the whole world. All the countries conquered by Islam or to be conquered in the future will be marked for everlasting salvation. For they shall live under [God's law].”
Ayatollah Khomeini: Islam Is Not a Religion of Pacifists (1942)


“Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless”
Ayatollah Khomeini: Islam Is Not a Religion of Pacifists (1942).

But I have some good news for you … I am going away at the end of this week, so you will be able to spread your “sugar coated innocuous” Islam undisturbed.

reply to post by Ersatz

I really do not want to descend into petty name-calling and insulting. While you call me 'an opportunistic liar', you fail to read where I repeatedly said that THOSE DOCTORS WERE NOT PERFORMING TAQIYYA. WHAT THEY WERE DOING WAS NOT IN ACCORDANCE TO ISLAM. EVERY TIME A SUPPOSEDLY MUSLIM PERSON LIES, IT IS NOT CALLED TAQIYYA.

Also, to note: Not all those doctors were medical doctors, and I don't think that engineers swear an oath to protect and preserve life, although I may be wrong.

And then again you descend into a this site-that site argument. I can provide just as many (if not more) links to prove the opposite- that the early, post-Muhammad tradition of calling every other verse 'abrogated' is false and incorrect. But instead I provide FACTS only from authentic Islamic sources (The Quran and the Saheeh Hadith). Here is one such fact: The practice of locating the abrogated verses (known as naasikh or mansookh) is known as 'naskh'. Were does the Quran mention this? When it says "None of our revealations to we cause to be abrogated (nansakh)".

Names like 'Ayat-us-sayf' are also post-muhammad, and thus have no part in the Quran or the Hadith.

About Islam ruling the world......I don't know what to say...all the verses you posted before out of context, you have posted again out of context as your 'proof'. Is there even any point in me going through them one by one? Will you even read it? The Quran openly accepts that the entire world will never be muslim.

[edit on 3-9-2008 by babloyi]

Originally posted by babloyi


I really do not want to descend into petty name-calling and insulting. While you call me 'an opportunistic liar', you fail to read where I repeatedly said that THOSE DOCTORS WERE NOT PERFORMING TAQIYYA. WHAT THEY WERE DOING WAS NOT IN ACCORDANCE TO ISLAM. EVERY TIME A SUPPOSEDLY MUSLIM PERSON LIES, IT IS NOT CALLED TAQIYYA.

It is called Taqiyya when it is performed by a true believer; they blindly follow the will of Allah from the Quran and the Hadiths. Everything must be legitimate or they would not enter Paradise.
You seem to know Islam well only when it suits you.

The primary verse to justify taqiyya that all the ulema have relied on to articulate doctrines of deception is 3:28. This verse says nothing about forced conversions or mortal danger.

Al-Bukhari recorded that Abu Ad-Darda' said, "We smile in the face of some people although our hearts curse them.'' Al-Bukhari said that Al-Hasan said, "The Tuqyah is allowed until the Day of Resurrection.'' Allah said.

Check the Hadiths/Tafsir for yourself from a Muslim site:

www.tafsir.com...

Islamic studies professor Sami Makarem, unequivocally states in its opening page:

“Taqiyya is of fundamental importance in Islam. Nearly every Islamic sect has agreed to it and practices it….Indeed, we can go so far as to say that mainstream Islam practices taqiyya, and that those few sects that do not practice it are aberrant, diverging from the mainstream.”
(Taqiyya in Islam p. 7)
There is no major difference between what al-Tabari, Ibn Kathir, al-Baydawi, and al-Jilalan all say in regards to taqiyya.

Originally posted by babloyi

Also, to note: Not all those doctors were medical doctors, and I don't think that engineers swear an oath to protect and preserve life, although I may be wrong.

All seven arrested were medical doctors working for the NHS.

www.telegraph.co.uk...

Originally posted by babloyi

Names like 'Ayat-us-sayf' are also post-muhammad, and thus have no part in the Quran or the Hadith. .

What utter nonsense, The Quran itself is post-muhammad, it was compiled some thirty years after he died.
The Hadiths are post-muhammad as they were collected 230 years after his death.

Ayat al-Sayf, or the Verse of the Sword does exist in the Quran, the phrase was coined by Muslims and unfortunately, it’s quite a significant passage in governing the relationship between Muslims and the rest of the world.
It won’t go away if you call it by another name.

Muslims quite obviously, still employ the practice of abrogation and think it is legitimate.

Originally posted by babloyi
About Islam ruling the World...
All the verses you posted before out of context, you have posted again out of context as your 'proof'

Your suggestion that a Grand Ayatollah doesn’t know the Tenets of Islam is the same as saying that the Pope misunderstand the central message of Christianity.

The two most common arguments from Muslims and apologists of Islam: the language/translation argument, and that old standby, “you have quoted out of context.”

The historical context argument is not available in fact to Muslims, since the Koran is the eternal word of God, true and valid for always.
Thus for Muslims themselves there is no historical context.

With regards to textual context, please show me where and in which way I am out of context…?

Rather, you are out of context because the intolerant/violent verses are much more numerous that the tolerant/peaceful verses.

If you want respect, you have to give respect, but all we are getting issmoke and mirrors and denial. The constant double talk, and failure frankly discuss problems only leads to a dead end. As long as the terrorism and the honor killings persist, people are not going to trust those who are part of the Muslim faith, and for good reason.

It is not good enough for Islam to claim that it is a religion of peace, it must demonstrate this, and all evidence is to the contrary.

reply to post by Ersatz

Originally posted by Ersatz
It is called Taqiyya when it is performed by a true believer; they blindly follow the will of Allah from the Quran and the Hadiths.

No, I'm sorry, no definition of 'taqiyya' says 'lying (or hiding the truth) when performed by a true believer'. That seems to be only your opinion, and it has no basis in fact.

There are 2 Quranic verses used when talking about the concept of taqiyya. One is 16:106, and the other is 3:28. As far as what the ulema does (despite how irrelevant that is to Islam), both the shi'a and the sunni school of thought agree it is only for when one is in danger. Besides, of course 3:28 is talking about when you fear from them. One of the main meanings of taqiyya is 'to fear from'. Even the tafsir you quoted agrees with me here, while it doesn't support your case for showing that lying can be used whether or not one is in danger- it (along with your other 'proof') just says that taqiyya is allowed - which is not something I disagree with.

Originally posted by Ersatz
All seven arrested were medical doctors working for the NHS.

While this is irrelevant to the current discussion, it is not irrelevant to the truth. The article itself says almost all arrested were foreign doctors, and then afterwards saying "the 7th arrested was Dr. Asha's wife" (who does not happen to be a doctor). I'm curious as to why you would use such an old article for events that (obviously) move with time. It may interest you to know that charges have been dropped for all but 3 of those who had been arrested. Those 3 may be medical doctors, but the one who died of his burns was an engineer.

Originally posted by Ersatz
What utter nonsense, The Quran itself is post-muhammad, it was compiled some thirty years after he died.
The Hadiths are post-muhammad as they were collected 230 years after his death.

If by 'compiled' you mean that all written records were combined together to form a book, you would be correct, but it would be just as absurd as saying that the story of Little Red Riding Hood is personified by a book I hold in my hand, instead of a story that almost every one knows in their head, that has been around since the 14th century. In the same way, the Quran were completed during Muhammad's lifetime. As for the hadith, the collection began less than 15 years after the death of the Prophet, and the first collection was probably completed about 100 years after the prophet died. You seem to be under the impression that the Hadith Collection are like the Bible- incomplete unless all the books are accounted for that were ever written for it. Anyhow, once again, the ahadith themselves (narratives from the Prophet Muhammad) were all completed, obviously, while the Prophet was alive- he could hardly speak to anybody after he was dead.


To compare the Grand Ayatollah to a pope is silly. No muslim on the planet would consider 'Grand Ayatollah' to have any connection to any concept of "God's representative on Earth". A Grand Ayatollah is not an umbrella figure that is a leader of even all Shi'a people on earth (forget Sunni). A Grand Ayatollah is not beyond question, and is not incorruptable or unable to make mistakes. In the case of Khomeini, many, many such mistakes have come up.

When I say you have quoted out of context, I am not talking about historical context. I am talking about within the context of the text itself. If you actually go back to read what I said in my previous posts, when you used those verses out of context before, you will see how they are out of context.


reply to post by poet1b

Hello poet1b.
I'm getting somewhat annoyed with all the accusations, so I'd be happy if you could point out exactly where I said what I did not mean, or what I meant that I did not say clearly, or what I've said that is incorrect. Thanks!

[edit on 4-9-2008 by babloyi]

reply to post by babloyi


You don't seem able to cogently refute real facts, you just prevaricate on terminology and seek refuge in digressions and evasion.
Honesty is not at home for this Mr. Muslim

There is an infinite number of counter-arguments and counter-counter-arguments and counter-counter-..... all using different meanings and interpretations from different scholars using different values and computations.

It is always possible to argue against any interpretation, luckily facts speak louder than words.

This documentary pretty much confirms all that I have been saying.

www.youtube.com...

There are no Buddhist, Jewish, Christian suicide bombers; if you want to make yourself useful, you should go to Muslim Forums and convince your co-religionists that Islam is the “Religion of Peace” because it is Muslims who incite violence and commit atrocities.

Funny:

Yes, it is very funny that all the while revering a stone, Muslims do not believe that they are worshipping it.

It is very funny that all the while claiming that pre-Islamic humanity was in zahilia, Muslims fail to show anything good which is unique to Quran.

It is very funny that even while following the same book, prophet and religion, Muslims hardly ever agree on any issue.

It is very funny that Muslims fail to see any contradictions in Quran which are glaringly apparent to all the non Muslims.

It is very funny that all the while following many pagan customs and rituals, Muslims ridicule and belittle pagans.

It is very funny that all the while cursing and criticizing the western countries and cultures, Muslims prefer them over their own Islamic paradises.

It is very funny that Muslims keep claiming that all the other scriptures are corrupt while using them to authenticate Quran.


Not so Funny:

What is not so funny is that all the while claiming that Islam is a religion of peace, Muslims continue to kill all the time.

What is not so funny is that all the while claiming that Islam teaches human rights and equality, Muslims continue to violate human rights of non Muslims in their countries.

What is not so funny is that Muslims are not ready to accept the same treatment for themselves which they mete out to non Muslims in Islamic countries and as prescribed in their scriptures.

What is not so funny is that Muslims are stuck in 7th century groove and wish to impose the same barbaric laws and customs on the whole world.

What is not so funny is that Muslims justify the expulsion of all the non Muslims from their holy lands, yet cannot tolerate a tiny Jewish state in their midst.

What is not so funny is that in spite of claiming that lying is forbidden, except in extreme cases, in Islam they keep lying to the kaafirs.

What is not so funny is that instead of integrating in their host countries and culture, they keep hating them and expect the hosts to adopt their ways.

I think the words of John Quincy Adams, the 6th President of the United States, are as fresh and meaningful today as when they were written circa 1827. He had Muslims well summed up.

“In the seventh century of the Christian era, a wandering Arab of the lineage of Hagar [i.e., Muhammad], the Egyptian, combining the powers of transcendent genius, with the preternatural energy of a fanatic, and the fraudulent spirit of an impostor, proclaimed himself as a messenger from Heaven, and spread desolation and delusion over an extensive portion of the earth. Adopting from the sublime conception of the Mosaic law, the doctrine of one omnipotent God; he connected indissolubly with it, the audacious falsehood, that he was himself his prophet and apostle. Adopting from the new Revelation of Jesus, the faith and hope of immortal life, and of future retribution, he humbled it to the dust by adapting all the rewards and sanctions of his religion to the gratification of the sexual passion. He poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy; and he declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind. THE ESSENCE OF HIS DOCTRINE WAS VIOLENCE AND LUST: TO EXALT THE BRUTAL OVER THE SPIRITUAL PART OF HUMAN NATURE (Adam's capital letters)….Between these two religions, thus contrasted in their characters, a war of twelve hundred years has already raged. The war is yet flagrant…While the merciless and dissolute dogmas of the false prophet shall furnish motives to human action, there can never be peace upon earth, and good will towards men.”

His view of Muslims still holds. It clearly shows that they have not changed and are as hell bent on domination today. He could have been speaking yesterday.

reply to post by Ersatz

Originally posted by Ersatz
You don't seem able to cogently refute real facts, you just prevaricate on terminology and seek refuge in digressions and evasion.
Honesty is not at home for this Mr. Muslim

And you don't seem to be able to go into anything more specific than "You are wrong, you are mentally deficient, you are a liar". It's considered impolite to make these statements without proof. Where am I wrong, where am I not 'cogently refuting real facts', where am I lying? You'll notice that all the personal attacks have been one-sided so far?

Your youtube 'fact' is a documentary about wahabism. I was never talking about wahabism, or supported it in any way. Yes, your list is very funny. I wonder which 'funny' website you copy-pasted it from? It's funny how nothing in your list involves 'the Quran says this', but always 'muslims (heh) do/say this'.

As for John Quincy Adams....yes....really, how surprising that an islamically uninformed person would have an axe to grind with what he perceived to be a competitor. It's a good thing that his predecessors, who had a lot to do with the foundation of the USA were a lot more level headed.

[edit on 5-9-2008 by babloyi]

reply to post by babloyi

Originally posted by babloyi

You don't seem to be able to go into anything more specific than "You are wrong, you are mentally deficient, you are a liar". Etc..etc..

Every time I thought you were lying or evading the point I have given you my reasons, read my posts again; I have never used the words “mentally deficient”, here you are lying for effect.

You have regularly diverted points critical to the discussion about Islam to something irrelevant.
You consistently refuse to acknowledge reality.

Irrespective of the ambiguity of words like Kafir, Taqiyya, Awliya; Muslims do call others Kafirs, they do not make friends, they disguise their true intentions and nurse hate towards non-Muslims.

Originally posted by babloyi

Your youtube 'fact' is a documentary about Wahabism. I was never talking about Wahabism, or supported it in any way….etc..etc..

Islam, naturally, is the totality of Islam, the whole of the Quran at least.
And Wahabism and extremism are part of Islam.

The only way you can have Islam not be extreme is to reject large parts of it, which really would mean it isn't Islam but a castrated Islam.

I don’t care if not all Muslims agree, that is what is written in Islam’s holy texts, and the major branches of Islam support it.

Islam is as Islam does.

But that is not the issue;
Here again, I don’t know if you are unable or unwilling to observe and bear witness to reality.
The two “youtube” documentaries, were shot in the UK most prestigious Mosques.

It is significant that you fail to note or comment that during the various “sermons” nobody stood up and declared that “it is wrong to kill, it is wrong to hate, Islam is the religion of Peace.
Nobody objected, not one.
No Muslim or Muslimah queried the speeches or confronted the speakers! Why is that ?

Now consider how many Muslims actually say a word against extremism ?
Where are the marches on Mecca? Where are the high profile protests?

Muslims around the world need to take responsibility for their hateful, volatile ideology.

If you believe in moderate Islam go to Muslim Forums like Ummah.co and tell them about peaceful Islam.

Originally posted by babloyi

As for John Quincy Adams....yes....really, how surprising that an islamically uninformed person, would have an axe to grind with what he perceived to be a competitor. Etc..etc..

How much do you know about the ex USA president Mr. Adams to pronounce that he was an “Islamically uninformed person ? Where is it written that he was uninformed about Islam?

Earlier on you dismissed Ayatollah Khomeini….
Only the most important Ayatollah are accorded the rank of Grand Ayatollah.
They are regarded as enlightened by the Word of God. They claim a vast following and Khomeini’s opinions are still unchallenged and undisputed in the Muslim world.

On what basis do you say that he made mistakes and that his statements are incorrect?

reply to post by Ersatz


Wow, I never knew John Adams had wrote such a thing. Clearly shows his awareness of the world, even back then.

reply to post by poet1b


Hello poet1b,

Adams was not the only one,


Winston Churchill on Islam:

How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy.
The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.
A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.
Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it.
-- Sir Winston Churchill (The River War, first edition, Vol. II, pages 248-50 [London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1899]).

Unfortunately I have to go away and will have very limited access to the Internet.

But I will be back towards the end of September to spend some more time on ATS/BTS.

All the best.