Shame to religious cult [Archive]

PDA

View Full Version : Shame to religious cult

lovely_girl_brunette

12-05-2006, 05:06 AM

Nitrus

12-05-2006, 07:51 AM

If its their beliefs then you cant say whether they are wrong or not.

CheesyMuslim

12-05-2006, 12:40 PM

Sorry bout that,

1. A women who wants to make a name for her beauty and charm, isn't the property of others.
2. The "Person" has her rights.
3. Its typical insanity from Islam to control women into black potato sacks.
4. And a crime against humanity.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

Buck Laser

12-05-2006, 02:22 PM

mumin

12-06-2006, 02:42 AM

They did not threaten her, did they?

Now, if a Christian person did something heretic, such as flush the bible and word got out, would he not be deemed a heretic by Christians? Oh wait, many Christians have even killed abortionist doctors in an educated country such as the United States. Oh, there is even that Christian group that holds protests at funerals for soldiers, cursing the dead!

Exposing oneself, especially for such superficial reasons like "beauty" pageants, is against Islam. I would have thought that traditional Christians would have thought similarly. If not, then why don't you walk around nude, since there is nothing holding you back? It is called "shame" and it was given to mankind when Adam and Eve sinned.

BoogyMan

12-06-2006, 02:44 AM

lovely_girl_brunette

12-06-2006, 05:50 AM

BoogyMan

12-06-2006, 11:07 AM

Boogyman nobody will come to get you..I dont.iggy!

Answer the question you were asked and provide your proof, its called debate.

Nitrus

12-06-2006, 01:38 PM

Provide something to backup your opinions and STAY ON TOPIC. At the moment you are using every thread you create to criticise others and glorify things that do NOT need to be glorified.

Libre

12-07-2006, 12:10 AM

A pakistani beauty pageant in recent Miss Earth Beauty pageant 2006 curse upon by Muslim Religious leaders. They believe it is against holy koran sutra exposing your body in swimsuit bikini contest.religion is nothing but controlling believers like a loyal dog that dont know which way to swing their head.Too much religion make you like a living zombie.

No, you generalise too much i think. All the western civilization has been built on Christianism. And this religion has built a philosophy of freedom and democracy. Some Libertarians are Christians. Becose this religion say that no man is stronger than an othr one. So this religion says that equality of rights must be done. This is the base of liberalism. This is the base of freedom. And firsts libertarians were christians. See in Europe History. Tocqueville, Smith, Benjamin Constant, these peoples believes in god. Some Libertarians think this is not compatible. That's not true. Religion, in few parts of the world, has developped freedom. And all your history, American history, was built one the religion. ("God bless america" ^^)

Islam is a particulary problem. This is a religion who calls for fight. All theirs conquests were in the name of God. Coran is not a tolerant book. And it says that a good muslim must obei completely to the hoy book, because it was not writing by the prophet, but by the hand of god. Christiany is the contrary. ^^

But i do believe that muslims can be tolerant. I have some friend which are muslims. And you got your first member of the House which is muslim. Do you really think this man could not be free because he believe in Allah ? And do you really think that millions of muslism which live in IsraÃ«l couldn't be free ?

There is an ennemy, terrorism. But as Bush said, this is not a war against Islam, against a religion. It is a war against totalitarists. ^^

mumin

12-07-2006, 01:55 AM

Nitrus still live in dark ages who can't tell wrong or not.If I say London sub-ways bombing by muslim martyrs in name of their faith is justified.Tell the Truth it will set you free from dark age.Only gutless people who tolerate misdeeds of losers out of fear.I speak the truth.
mumin is another future martyr of 20th century.get a life not rest in peace using your body to commit murdering innocent people in name of "Islam".Pakistan need you.
Boogyman nobody will come to get you..I dont.iggy!
Chesswarsnow speak with wisdom,courage and truth.It's makes this forum worth to have like Sir James of texas.

If you think every Muslim is a 'future martyr' and as you imply that martyrdom is supposedly achieved by murdering innocent people, then there would be a lot more dead people than the 3000 Americans on 9/11. Remember, there are 1.2-1.5 billion Muslims. More than 1/6 people on Earth is a Muslim. If we really intended to kill and destroy so we can be martyred, don't you think a simultaneous explosion, which would end up destroying the Earth itself suffice?

:rolleyes:

Oh, and here's something interesting to read about modesty and dressing in such a manner; warning: responses by Christians:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20061126181526AANYhOW

Islam is a particulary problem. This is a religion who calls for fight. All theirs conquests were in the name of God. Coran is not a tolerant book. And it says that a good muslim must obei completely to the hoy book, because it was not writing by the prophet, but by the hand of god. Christiany is the contrary. ^^
Right. Please make a tally of the number of people killed in the name of Christ compared to the number of people killed in the name of Allah. You'll be unpleasantly surprised. You haven't read the Noble Qur'an, yet you call it intolerant. Let me guess? You get your daily Islam dosage from jihadwatch or some other nutcase site. I can just go ahead and get all my info on Christianity from an Atheist website or something and run amok demonizing Christianity.

But i do believe that muslims can be tolerant. I have some friend which are muslims. And you got your first member of the House which is muslim. Do you really think this man could not be free because he believe in Allah ? And do you really think that millions of muslism which live in IsraÃ«l couldn't be free ?

There is an ennemy, terrorism. But as Bush said, this is not a war against Islam, against a religion. It is a war against totalitarists. ^^

'Terrorism' is an abstract enemy. Since it is Muslims that are dying unnecessarily (how many of those have been terrorists??), being held in Guantanamo without charge, being targets of racism and hatred, what Bush said doesn't appear to be true.

Libre

12-07-2006, 11:24 AM

Islam is a particulary problem. This is a religion who calls for fight. All theirs conquests were in the name of God. Coran is not a tolerant book. And it says that a good muslim must obei completely to the hoy book, because it was not writing by the prophet, but by the hand of god. Christiany is the contrary. ^^
Right. Please make a tally of the number of people killed in the name of Christ compared to the number of people killed in the name of Allah. You'll be unpleasantly surprised. You haven't read the Noble Qur'an, yet you call it intolerant. Let me guess? You get your daily Islam dosage from jihadwatch or some other nutcase site. I can just go ahead and get all my info on Christianity from an Atheist website or something and run amok demonizing Christianity.

Oh i'm sorry if i said that Christianity is like Islam. i said Christinity is "the contrary", so i wanted to say that Christianity ison thecomplete opposite with Islam. Islam is a war religion, and more and more Muslims are becoming tolerants outside of middle east. ^^ we are on the same point I think don't we ?

But i do believe that muslims can be tolerant. I have some friend which are muslims. And you got your first member of the House which is muslim. Do you really think this man could not be free because he believe in Allah ? And do you really think that millions of muslism which live in IsraÃ«l couldn't be free ?

There is an ennemy, terrorism. But as Bush said, this is not a war against Islam, against a religion. It is a war against totalitarists. ^^

'Terrorism' is an abstract enemy. Since it is Muslims that are dying unnecessarily (how many of those have been terrorists??), being held in Guantanamo without charge, being targets of racism and hatred, what Bush said doesn't appear to be true.

Well, there is a fact. Terrorists come from middle east, Arab and Turkish countrys, and are muslims on the biggest part. that's the reality. And as you have said, this is an abstract enemy, for a particular war. They kill innocent. Muslims or Christians. They take hostages. This is a particular war. If you want to win, you must use some particular way to fight. Okay it's not a good thing when muslims without charge are sent into guantanamo. But i'm really sure that all people there are innocents ;)

Elrathin

12-07-2006, 02:04 PM

Terrorists come from middle east, Arab and Turkish countrys, and are muslims on the biggest part. that's the reality.

No, that's the reality at THIS time, not at all points in history. So yes it is a mislabel to think that only terrorists come from the middle east. Terrorism has been a concept and used for centuries and the middle east does not hold a monopoly on that.

Darfur ring a bell? How many people have been killed there due to terrorists acts? How about the many terrorists that are in Colombia now or the ones in Africa?

The only reason the middle east gets soo much press is due to 9/11 in a big part and the the fact it happened to us.

Again, terrorism has existed for centuries, that is why the idea of a "war on terrorism" can NEVER be won and why that phrase should NEVER have been coined. People want to fight wars that can be won. Terrorism will NEVER be defeated. That is not to say don't fight it, but to coin the phrase a war will just mean that it is a never ending battle and from a PR perspective it is losing public support quickly.

mumin

12-07-2006, 02:09 PM

Oh i'm sorry if i said that Christianity is like Islam. i said Christinity is "the contrary", so i wanted to say that Christianity ison thecomplete opposite with Islam. Islam is a war religion, and more and more Muslims are becoming tolerants outside of middle east. ^^ we are on the same point I think don't we ?
Where is your evidence that "Islam is a war religion"? There is much more evidence about Christianity being all about war and 'killing the infidel' (a classic line attributed to Islam) than there is for Islam being an advocate of war. In fact, wherever Islam has advocated warfare, there are many conditions attached to war. The same cannot be said of Christianity. Most of the time, those conditions have been put in practice. The same cannot be said about Christian warfare...because there aren't any specific religious conditions on warfare.

Well, there is a fact. Terrorists come from middle east, Arab and Turkish countrys, and are muslims on the biggest part. that's the reality. And as you have said, this is an abstract enemy, for a particular war. They kill innocent. Muslims or Christians. They take hostages. This is a particular war. If you want to win, you must use some particular way to fight. Okay it's not a good thing when muslims without charge are sent into guantanamo. But i'm really sure that all people there are innocents ;)

Actually, majority of the 'terrorists' have been from Pakistan. So, if some are terrorists in Guantanamo, that is supposed to justify the holding of the innocent? I mean, at least give them a trial or at least don't engage in torture.

You also seem to be forgetting terrorist acts carried out by non-Muslims, such as the IRA - and that was definitely on a religious basis, whereas most people can argue that the terrorists have more of a political agenda rather than a religious one. The KKK is also a terrorist group.

Libre

12-07-2006, 05:30 PM

Where is your evidence that "Islam is a war religion"? There is much more evidence about Christianity being all about war and 'killing the infidel' (a classic line attributed to Islam) than there is for Islam being an advocate of war. In fact, wherever Islam has advocated warfare, there are many conditions attached to war. The same cannot be said of Christianity. Most of the time, those conditions have been put in practice. The same cannot be said about Christian warfare...because there aren't any specific religious conditions on warfare.

No, you cannot say that. Look on history. If you want talk about crusades, you must see the REAL history. Crusaders were sended to protect bysantin Empire, the last protection for Europe. Crusades were defensiv counter attack to protect Christianism. I don' believe in god. But i'm a student in history, and this is my speciality the high middle age. look were is islam in all the world. For the VIIÂ° century to the XVIIIÂ° century, Islam only grown up with wars, attacks (last one on Europe at Vienna in 1683). The Reconquista in Spain was RE conquest. Islam grown up without war only since the biggining of the XXth century. This is the reality. I don't say Muslims cannot be tolerant and peacefull. I say they have a war history. And they have lost again Europe a lot of time since 1683. Some of them want a revenge. And some of Muslim countrys cannot think dfferently of this thought : West is responsable of our misfortune, we have lost agaisnt them...

So i'm agree. Muslims could be tolerant. I now some that their are. But some aren't. This is the reality!

Actually, majority of the 'terrorists' have been from Pakistan. So, if some are terrorists in Guantanamo, that is supposed to justify the holding of the innocent? I mean, at least give them a trial or at least don't engage in torture.

You also seem to be forgetting terrorist acts carried out by non-Muslims, such as the IRA - and that was definitely on a religious basis, whereas most people can argue that the terrorists have more of a political agenda rather than a religious one. The KKK is also a terrorist group.

And here i'm completely agree with you. We can't win in a short time agaisnt them. And yes, all terrorists are not Muslims. I'm okay with you ! But in the same time, i'm not sure i can say that Bin Laden is a real muslim. He has probably never read the Coran. And "Islamists leaders" are not real Muslims. But their power is coming from Islam. ^^ I think every one must have the right to exert his religion. I just say the greater threat is coming from Islamics countrys...

And IRA will never attack USA for win against UK... As terrorists in Corse will never attack a country that is not France. That's a reality too !!!

mumin

12-08-2006, 02:29 AM

No, you cannot say that. Look on history. If you want talk about crusades, you must see the REAL history. Crusaders were sended to protect bysantin Empire, the last protection for Europe. Crusades were defensiv counter attack to protect Christianism. I don' believe in god. But i'm a student in history, and this is my speciality the high middle age. look were is islam in all the world. For the VIIÂ° century to the XVIIIÂ° century, Islam only grown up with wars, attacks (last one on Europe at Vienna in 1683). The Reconquista in Spain was RE conquest. Islam grown up without war only since the biggining of the XXth century. This is the reality. I don't say Muslims cannot be tolerant and peacefull. I say they have a war history. And they have lost again Europe a lot of time since 1683. Some of them want a revenge. And some of Muslim countrys cannot think dfferently of this thought : West is responsable of our misfortune, we have lost agaisnt them...
You're not a very good history student, then.

There is a huge difference between attacking armies and attacking civilians. If Islam had conquered lands, it had done so by destroying armies. Otherwise, there would be a history of mass genocides in any of the lands that had once belonged to the Islamic empire. I mean, if you think the world's Hindu population, which was completely under Islamic control for centuries, grew to over a billion from nothing in the past 300 years, either Indians must be hypersexuals or you're living a pipe dream. Oh, those millions upon millions of Coptic Christians from Egypt MUST have just appeared from nowhere, something of a 'reverse rapture'. Not to mention the Jews, who found safe heaven among Muslims, thanks to the 'reconquista'.

The Crusades were hardly a defense, since the Crusaders killed the CHRISTIANS of the land as well! The Orthodox Church was completely furious for this 'defense' of their people. I guess to you it's considered defense when the civilian populations of entire cities is gathered up and massacred.

It's called 'reconquista' and considered one by Spanish Christians who are still blind to what happened. Do you know many JEWS were killed by the 'reconquering' forces of Spain under Isabella? Do you know about the persecution of Protestants? It kinda reminds me of the Holocaust, you know, with Hitler murdering all the Jews in his lands (and basically anyone else who wasn't white, but in the case of the Inquisition, white AND Catholic). Many Muslims were SPANISH, but CONVERTS who were killed or forced to convert back to Christianity (but still practiced in secrecy, only to be discovered and then...burned at the stake or hung). There were Spanish CHRISTIANS who were living peacefully within Andalusia and within the Islamic empire. This is unheard of if the case was with Muslims living under Christian rule during the times.

Here's a mini-refresher course:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition

Also, there is no such thing as a 'reconquest', especially if you finally get around to it after nearly HALF A MILLENNIA (and I don't think anyone who owned land in Andalusia but was deported before the Inquisiton was alive then)! Do you think the Native Americans have a right to reconquer their lands from the non-Native Americans?
So i'm agree. Muslims could be tolerant. I now some that their are. But some aren't. This is the reality!
That statement is a vague and general one; it is applicable to ANY group, religious or not.

And here i'm completely agree with you. We can't win in a short time agaisnt them. And yes, all terrorists are not Muslims. I'm okay with you ! But in the same time, i'm not sure i can say that Bin Laden is a real muslim. He has probably never read the Coran. And "Islamists leaders" are not real Muslims. But their power is coming from Islam. ^^ I think every one must have the right to exert his religion. I just say the greater threat is coming from Islamics countrys...

And IRA will never attack USA for win against UK... As terrorists in Corse will never attack a country that is not France. That's a reality too !!!

There's a huge difference here, though. The US does not support the UK financially - it does not provide for its military nor does it save the UK from every UN resolution drafted up against it. If that were the case, the IRA and those who were sympathetic to its cause would have considered attacking the US, since they were radical enough to attack the UK itself.

I don't think Bin Laden hasn't 'never read the Coran', since he does (mis)quote verses during his public service announcements (and misquotes grossly, like omitting the ending of the verse or failing to provide the verses right before or after the verse that would seem to allow violence).

Also, I am 100% in agreement with you that the leaders of 'Muslim' countries are either apostates or idiots who only see money and follow it. Look at the entire Arab world. All the leaders there are complete nutjobs! Muslims do not like the Arab leaders because they are extremely hypocritical and blatant liars (even more so than Bush; at least Bush supposedly THOUGHT there were WMDs!). For example, many members of the Saudi royal family consume alcohol and take turns with prostitutes on their many trips to Europe (alcohol and premarital sex is completely forbidden in Islam).

Libre

12-08-2006, 09:38 AM

You're not a very good history student, then.

There is a huge difference between attacking armies and attacking civilians. If Islam had conquered lands, it had done so by destroying armies. Otherwise, there would be a history of mass genocides in any of the lands that had once belonged to the Islamic empire. I mean, if you think the world's Hindu population, which was completely under Islamic control for centuries, grew to over a billion from nothing in the past 300 years, either Indians must be hypersexuals or you're living a pipe dream. Oh, those millions upon millions of Coptic Christians from Egypt MUST have just appeared from nowhere, something of a 'reverse rapture'. Not to mention the Jews, who found safe heaven among Muslims, thanks to the 'reconquista'.

The Crusades were hardly a defense, since the Crusaders killed the CHRISTIANS of the land as well! The Orthodox Church was completely furious for this 'defense' of their people. I guess to you it's considered defense when the civilian populations of entire cities is gathered up and massacred.

It's called 'reconquista' and considered one by Spanish Christians who are still blind to what happened. Do you know many JEWS were killed by the 'reconquering' forces of Spain under Isabella? Do you know about the persecution of Protestants? It kinda reminds me of the Holocaust, you know, with Hitler murdering all the Jews in his lands (and basically anyone else who wasn't white, but in the case of the Inquisition, white AND Catholic). Many Muslims were SPANISH, but CONVERTS who were killed or forced to convert back to Christianity (but still practiced in secrecy, only to be discovered and then...burned at the stake or hung). There were Spanish CHRISTIANS who were living peacefully within Andalusia and within the Islamic empire. This is unheard of if the case was with Muslims living under Christian rule during the times.

Here's a mini-refresher course:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition

Also, there is no such thing as a 'reconquest', especially if you finally get around to it after nearly HALF A MILLENNIA (and I don't think anyone who owned land in Andalusia but was deported before the Inquisiton was alive then)! Do you think the Native Americans have a right to reconquer their lands from the non-Native Americans?

Well; that's right. Christians have killed Christians. But Muslims have killed Muslims too (war with Abbassides, Ommeyades, Ottomans, etc...).

But that is not my point. A talk about WAR and not killing themselves. Christian is not a war Religion like Islam. When Christianism was imposed to peoples, it was the fact of States, Kingdoms... Not their Religious Chief like for Islam. Islam say that a good muslim must fight others religions.

And if you want to talk about religions war in Europe, you must agree that it was more politic than religious. Religion was the political power.

When you said that Islam not killing civilians because Indians are growing for 300 years... Maybe you have noticed that in Europe, in China, everywhere on the world, that's the same !

For Reconquiste, I agree, Spanish converted others Spanish with sword... That's right, their was Inquisition. In Islamic Empire too... and once more, it was POLITIC... and almost "normal" on this period. You cannot judge this with our way of thinking...

I talk about the nature of religions. Okay, Christian had killing peoples too... like Islam... (yes we don't say that a lol in West because we only can be responsible of the situation of Muslims populations... we must to continue to whip ourselves !), and you cannot prove that Islam is a peacefull Religion. they call to war today again !

;)
There's a huge difference here, though. The US does not support the UK financially - it does not provide for its military nor does it save the UK from every UN resolution drafted up against it. If that were the case, the IRA and those who were sympathetic to its cause would have considered attacking the US, since they were radical enough to attack the UK itself.

Yeah you're right, that's why i say we can't make a comparison between IRA or ETA and Islamists ;)

mumin

12-09-2006, 01:12 AM

Well; that's right. Christians have killed Christians. But Muslims have killed Muslims too (war with Abbassides, Ommeyades, Ottomans, etc...).
Again, killing in battlefield is different from killing civilians.

But that is not my point. A talk about WAR and not killing themselves. Christian is not a war Religion like Islam. When Christianism was imposed to peoples, it was the fact of States, Kingdoms... Not their Religious Chief like for Islam. Islam say that a good muslim must fight others religions.
You make me laugh! Christianity has been fighting amongst itself from the start! You say that the murder of Catholics in England was simply politically motivated?

And if you want to talk about religions war in Europe, you must agree that it was more politic than religious. Religion was the political power.
No, it was not! Where are you getting this from? Most of the wars that could be described as genocidal were religiously motivated.

When you said that Islam not killing civilians because Indians are growing for 300 years... Maybe you have noticed that in Europe, in China, everywhere on the world, that's the same !
You didn't get my point.

Let me tell you this:

Under Muslim rule, Indians were allowed to convert or practice their religion. That is why Hinduism is still huge in numbers. Now look at what Christians did. If you were to live under Christian rule in Europe, you MUST be Catholic (in a predominantly Catholic state) or a Protestant (in a predominantly Protestant state). If not, you'd be persecuted and if anything laid any blame about anything upon you or any of your group, better start packing your bags before the mob comes knocking.

Tell me, what indigenous religions of Europe were allowed to survive? Europe was a completely polytheistic continent before Christianity. Now, those polytheistic religions are reemerging only after the Enlightenment. If one even spoke of Wicca or other pagan religions in a good light, they would be declared heretics.

For Reconquiste, I agree, Spanish converted others Spanish with sword... That's right, their was Inquisition. In Islamic Empire too... and once more, it was POLITIC... and almost "normal" on this period. You cannot judge this with our way of thinking...
What history are you reading??

The Inquisition was forced conversion or murder. There is NOTHING like that in any other religion! In Islam, people had the choice of converting, leaving the land, or simply living under Islamic rule. They would only have to pay tax (which was LESS than the taxes Muslims must pay). This tax was to guarantee protection of those who lived under Muslim rule. That is why Jews thrived under Islamic rule. The Golden Age of Judaism came under Islamic control! Heard of Maimonides? He was a Jewish philosopher during this golden age and he worked in the sultan's (and not just any, the famous Salahuddin Ayubi) court! Now, show me what prominent Jew or Muslim worked in any Christian kingdom before the enlightenment, then I'd consider taking any of your points seriously.

I talk about the nature of religions. Okay, Christian had killing peoples too... like Islam... (yes we don't say that a lol in West because we only can be responsible of the situation of Muslims populations... we must to continue to whip ourselves !), and you cannot prove that Islam is a peacefull Religion. they call to war today again !
That is really funny. Wasn't it Bush who said God speaks through him? If we are to follow his logic, we have to consider that God:
a) is a warmongerer
b) is a liar
c) can be quieted by a pretzel stuck in Bush's throat

What can I do to prove that Islam is a peaceful religion, when your version of history is perverse and groundless at best? History is the greatest testimony about the peace and justice that Islam brings and has brought every nation it had conquered.

What army went to Indonesia? In a time when those conquered were forced to convert, be killed, or expelled, Islam let people stay in their lands. If Islam had been anything like Christianity, all Jews would have been kicked out or killed or forced to convert that were living under Islamic control. There were Jews in Jerusalem before the entire Zionist movement came into being in the mid to late 1800s. They had their synagogues. Christians had their churches. All within the Muslim world. What historic synagogue or mosque exists in Christian countries? Or even temples? Or any other place of worship except a church? The only famous mosque that I can recall that still stands is the Cordoba Mosque (the Mezquita) but even that was converted to a church, with idols of Christ placed within (ironically, verses of the Qur'an still plaster that church :)).

Sorry, but it is the US that is engaged in wars - the Iraq war being illegal according to international law.

Yeah you're right, that's why i say we can't make a comparison between IRA or ETA and Islamists ;)

You completely missed the point.

One of the reasons that Bin Laden attacked the US was due to its unconditional support for Israel since the late 80s. Now that you know this, reread what I stated.

lovely_girl_brunette

12-09-2006, 03:46 AM

mumin

12-09-2006, 03:53 AM

Here's something for you:

http://www.patriarchspath.org/Articles/Docs/Modesty_and_the_Christian_Woman.htm

That is by an anti-feminist Christian woman.

Professor

12-09-2006, 12:50 PM

lovely_girl_brunette

12-11-2006, 01:37 AM

Professor,Im glad you got friends.This time I believe you.

BoogyMan

12-11-2006, 01:45 AM

BoogyMan i aint comin to gotcha.There is no Question to answer,but proof Yes!Type the word Pakistan Miss Earth 2006 in google or yahoo search.I suggest google I am sitting beside Miss Pakistan but she ask permission before posting my pics in website.Then click muslim remarks about her..by the way Miss Afghanistan and Miss Pakistan both cursed upon by Muslim Clerics.I give you a bonus now not only Pakistan but Afghanistan.I speak the Truth not blinded by Ignorance pretending here smart but need a brain.If you dont find it Ill tell you next time so no excuses that no such muslim curse upon Miss pakistan and Afghanistan.

Read Sir James of Texas post you learn more from Notredamus of Texas.Libre is Republican and very smart man.next time i dont need proof as no matter what,your braindead.I dont wanna waste my time for close minded PRO TERRORISTS.I have all the time to ALL PRO BUSH ONLY.LONG LIVE PRESIDENT GEORGE W BUSH!!!

How exactly do you get pro terrorist from my asking how religion makes zombies out of people?Â*Â*Egads this was an entertaining read.

I bolded the following in my original question from your original rant:

religion is nothing but controlling believers like a loyal dog that dont know which way to swing their head.Too much religion make you like a living zombie.

Then I asked you to provide proof for this and as of yet you have not answered the question, as a matter of fact you have refused to provide any support for this claim.

lovely_girl_brunette

12-11-2006, 03:08 AM

BoogyMan

12-11-2006, 03:12 AM

BoogyMan did you check website in google of Miss pakistan?I guess you did so I made my point with proof.About your Questions?I'll give you an answer.exploiting hatred against America while worshipping inside a Mosque Chanting Death to America.Then little muslim baby boy with explosives as future martyrs in name of islam.72 virgins rewards in paradise for killing Jews and American make this loyal muslim believers live like a living zombie.In name of Allah they will give their body,anytime.

Lovely, when you personally attack other posters you will get warned.

Now, back to your refusal to support your commentary.Â*Â*

You didn't limit your commentary to Islam, you said "religion is nothing but controlling believers like a loyal dog that dont know which way to swing their head.Too much religion make you like a living zombie."

Answer the question Lovely.

Libre

12-11-2006, 09:43 AM

You make me laugh! Christianity has been fighting amongst itself from the start! You say that the murder of Catholics in England was simply politically motivated?

Yes, I do ! At this time, religion's fights were like politicals fight today ! That is a reality. If you want to talk about religion, you must begin to think before "religion is not necessarely bad, Christianism, is not necessarely bad but could be some times, and the same for Islam" ! We have religions today to ! We believe in freedom. And politics have oral fights to convince us that they could better offer freddom to us (hum... i'm not really sure that is a correct english :()

And if you want to talk about religions war in Europe, you must agree that it was more politic than religious. Religion was the political power.
No, it was not! Where are you getting this from? Most of the wars that could be described as genocidal were religiously motivated.

[/quote]

Yes, like Hitler killed Communists, and like communism and Liberalism fought themselves during cold war ;) Our political believes are religion forms too ! We don't beleive in a god, but Libertarians for exemple believes that each person can live freely, and a group of person will lives in the better way for them without a state to rule them. Even if there is crimes, poverty, etc... We,Â*Â*all of us, believe in the best system for mankind as religion did before !

You didn't get my point.

Let me tell you this:

Under Muslim rule, Indians were allowed to convert or practice their religion. That is why Hinduism is still huge in numbers. Now look at what Christians did. If you were to live under Christian rule in Europe, you MUST be Catholic (in a predominantly Catholic state) or a Protestant (in a predominantly Protestant state). If not, you'd be persecuted and if anything laid any blame about anything upon you or any of your group, better start packing your bags before the mob comes knocking.

Tell me, what indigenous religions of Europe were allowed to survive? Europe was a completely polytheistic continent before Christianity. Now, those polytheistic religions are reemerging only after the Enlightenment. If one even spoke of Wicca or other pagan religions in a good light, they would be declared heretics.

You forget one thing : Christianity was growing peacefuly during about six centurys. It is only on the begining of Franck Kindoms that we did wars to expend Christianity. And it was Seven centurys later, (about 1200 AD) that Inquisition born only in Spain.

But you are right. Muslims conquered regions of world where they were in minority. In these lands, they were tolerant. But, remember that : when they began to be the majority, they splet in a few parts of the same religion. And they fought themselves since this time ! And they are still fighting ! Look for Chiits and Sunnits ! And why ? Only one reason : power of the ones who told "words of god" in Middle age. So peoples who had power, and wanted to keep and reinforce it ! That was politic too ! That was a way to gain power. And Muslims fought temselves like Christians. You cannot just ignore it !

The Inquisition was forced conversion or murder. There is NOTHING like that in any other religion! In Islam, people had the choice of converting, leaving the land, or simply living under Islamic rule. They would only have to pay tax (which was LESS than the taxes Muslims must pay). This tax was to guarantee protection of those who lived under Muslim rule. That is why Jews thrived under Islamic rule. The Golden Age of Judaism came under Islamic control! Heard of Maimonides? He was a Jewish philosopher during this golden age and he worked in the sultan's (and not just any, the famous Salahuddin Ayubi) court! Now, show me what prominent Jew or Muslim worked in any Christian kingdom before the enlightenment, then I'd consider taking any of your points seriously.

just done that ;)

That is really funny. Wasn't it Bush who said God speaks through him? If we are to follow his logic, we have to consider that God:
a) is a warmongerer
b) is a liar
c) can be quieted by a pretzel stuck in Bush's throat

What can I do to prove that Islam is a peaceful religion, when your version of history is perverse and groundless at best? History is the greatest testimony about the peace and justice that Islam brings and has brought every nation it had conquered.

I'm agree with you ! History is the greatest testimony ! But not of the peace and justice of Islam.

My point is not that Islam is more a killing religion than Christianity. All religions killed. I'm not saying there is a better religion than others as you do. I am saying that Islam IS a religion of war naturely. I will maybe better explain this just after. And Christiany did wars and invented Inquisition. That is right.

I'm talking about beginnig of Islam. How did it born ? Mohammad was ejected from Mecqua because he called for war. He went to Medina and rised an army. Then, he cames back to Mecqua and built a Kingdom with arms. He imposed Islam. And Ten years later, when he had died, firsts Muslims began to conquer a huge Empire by WAR. and Islam expended by WAR. When peoples where not agree with Islam, the were not killed. But they haden't the same rights (more taxes for exemple).

And how born Christiany ? Under persecutions ! and hear the words of Chritianity today ! Is it words of war ? No. Now hear Islam's words. Is it words of war ? Sometimes.

That's why i'm not saying that Christianity is better than Islam. I say there is a different of nature between them. Islam is a religion of war which is sometimes - a lot of times maybe - rational an peacefull. Christianity is a religion of peace which WAS in the past sometimes (During XII century and from XVI to XVIII centurys) intolerant.

Please, if you want to studie them, don't say "there is the black one an the white one" !

Sorry, but it is the US that is engaged in wars - the Iraq war being illegal according to international law.

Yes, you are right ! International decision, taken by France and a majority of countrys in the United nation, a union of undemocratic countrys in the majority, have said that. And that is normal. But I think that we must to buid an other UN with only democratics countrys. Dictatorships cannot be in this kind of union.

[/quote]

You completely missed the point.

One of the reasons that Bin Laden attacked the US was due to its unconditional support for Israel since the late 80s. Now that you know this, reread what I stated.

loooooool !!! you really think that ? So, for you, we must to accept to destroy a democracy to protect us from dictatorship attacks ? I'm sorry, i will never accept that.

And could i remember you that Bin Laden didn't say that ? he said he wants to destroy West. As Iran, as all Islamists ! That is the reallity, and you cannot denied it.

mumin

12-11-2006, 07:17 PM

Yes, I do ! At this time, religion's fights were like politicals fight today ! That is a reality. If you want to talk about religion, you must begin to think before "religion is not necessarely bad, Christianism, is not necessarely bad but could be some times, and the same for Islam" ! We have religions today to ! We believe in freedom. And politics have oral fights to convince us that they could better offer freddom to us (hum... i'm not really sure that is a correct english :()
Sorry, but it was a religious hatred between the Protestants and Catholics. Other elements did help, as they do in any other conflict, but it was a religious conflict. Such recent history does not need revision.

Also, shouldn't you make a better effort to learn the official language of the US? It's not like you're living in a country where you have to pay directly from your pockets for basic education.

Yes, like Hitler killed Communists, and like communism and Liberalism fought themselves during cold war ;) Our political believes are religion forms too ! We don't beleive in a god, but Libertarians for exemple believes that each person can live freely, and a group of person will lives in the better way for them without a state to rule them. Even if there is crimes, poverty, etc... We, all of us, believe in the best system for mankind as religion did before !
Hitler killed anyone that got in his way, but his primary target were JEWS.

You forget one thing : Christianity was growing peacefuly during about six centurys. It is only on the begining of Franck Kindoms that we did wars to expend Christianity. And it was Seven centurys later, (about 1200 AD) that Inquisition born only in Spain.

But you are right. Muslims conquered regions of world where they were in minority. In these lands, they were tolerant. But, remember that : when they began to be the majority, they splet in a few parts of the same religion. And they fought themselves since this time ! And they are still fighting ! Look for Chiits and Sunnits ! And why ? Only one reason : power of the ones who told "words of god" in Middle age. So peoples who had power, and wanted to keep and reinforce it ! That was politic too ! That was a way to gain power. And Muslims fought temselves like Christians. You cannot just ignore it !
You have no evidence so you just start making up history?

There was a Muslim majority in many parts of the world. I already cited the case about Jews and Christians in Palestine before Zionism. Muslims were the majority there, yet you don't hear of massacres of minorities by Muslims, unlike those perpetrated by Christian Europe or North America.

"Chiits" (lol) and "Sunnits" (lolx2) do not have a murderous hatred of each other. It's only recently that this has occurred, due to the Salafi/Wahhabi puritanic movement that began in Saudi Arabia. According to your theory, there should be no Shi'a existing now since the Sunni have been the majority ever since the split (as you said, Muslim majorities tend to kill the minorities).

Also, the actual split itself was PURELY POLITICAL. It was based on who would be the leader of the Muslims after the passing of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). The Shi'a said that the line must continue from the offspring or relatives of the Prophet (pbuh) and so they chose 'Ali (ra), whereas the Muslim community at large elected Abu Bakr (ra). The actual split didn't occur until much later than that, since 'Ali (ra) did not himself believe to be the next ruler and he followed all the caliphs until him (he was the fourth).

So, it is a purely political split. This cannot be said of Catholicism or Protestantism.

just done that ;)
Uh, no you have not...

My point is not that Islam is more a killing religion than Christianity. All religions killed. I'm not saying there is a better religion than others as you do. I am saying that Islam IS a religion of war naturely. I will maybe better explain this just after. And Christiany did wars and invented Inquisition. That is right.
You have not provided one shred of evidence that Islam is a "religion or war naturely".

I'm talking about beginnig of Islam. How did it born ? Mohammad was ejected from Mecqua because he called for war. He went to Medina and rised an army. Then, he cames back to Mecqua and built a Kingdom with arms. He imposed Islam. And Ten years later, when he had died, firsts Muslims began to conquer a huge Empire by WAR. and Islam expended by WAR. When peoples where not agree with Islam, the were not killed. But they haden't the same rights (more taxes for exemple).
Again, your history is completely bogus. If you're a student of history, I highly suggest picking a different field of study because:
a) you're frankly not very good at history
b) history doesn't lead to many employment opportunities

To the matter at hand:

The Prophet (pbuh) left Makkah because he and his followers were persecuted for their religion. He called for war? That is the first I'm hearing it.

He left because the polytheists of Makkah hated him and his religion, as it declared that there was only one god, whereas the idols of Makkah were the source of revenue for the Makkan leadership.

He didn't 'make an army' or anything of the sort. The army formed by itself, as the people willingly accepted. Oh, did you know that the city of Yathrib (now called Madina) had mostly accepted Islam before the Prophet (pbuh) even set foot there?

Also, not a single drop of blood was shed in the conquest of Makkah. Everyone's faults were absolved after the conquest. The ensuing campaigns were military but were hardly an invasion. Armies met in the battlefield and the defeated party gave up land. Islam spread westwards mostly by force, but eastwards was mostly by conversion. The powers of the west were oppressive. Once their rule ended over the land, the people of the land welcomed the Muslims, either converting or living among Muslims (or if they were in the pockets of the previous government, they would leave).

Can you also please tell me that if Islam did spread by war, why are so many Muslims non-Arabs? Nearly 80% of all Muslims aren't Arabs.

Granted that early Christendom did not have formal armies, that does not mean they were pacifists. There was enmity towards Jewish groups (Judeophobia, which was the basis of anti-Semitism) which would last until the Holocaust.

Here's a decent site about Christian warfare post-Constantine.
http://www.bandoli.no/warfare.htm

And how born Christiany ? Under persecutions ! and hear the words of Chritianity today ! Is it words of war ? No. Now hear Islam's words. Is it words of war ? Sometimes.
Hear the words of "Christiany" today? I've been reading those words from your Bible and they certainly do not promote love, peace, happiness, and least of all, justice.

That's why i'm not saying that Christianity is better than Islam. I say there is a different of nature between them. Islam is a religion of war which is sometimes - a lot of times maybe - rational an peacefull. Christianity is a religion of peace which WAS in the past sometimes (During XII century and from XVI to XVIII centurys) intolerant.
No, you're saying that "Christianity is better than Islam" simply due to your lack of knowledge of Islam and your blatant blind faith in Christianity, when your religion is awash with many absurdities.

So, by saying that your religion "WAS" peaceful, you're simply saying that your religion has changed. Now, that simply shows that someone changed your Bible or that those who were interpreting your Bible in the past were wrong.

I cannot accept this theory, since there are many passages in the Bible that are obvious and blatant in their advocacy of violence and to interpret them differently is to simply not accept them at all. I haven't heard of God or Christ telling Christians to omit this or accept that.

And that argument about the Old Testament being useless is absurd, since Christians are happy to target homosexuals and draw upon other laws from their Old Testament while rejecting the many other laws which would actually benefit your religion.

Please, if you want to studie them, don't say "there is the black one an the white one" !
I don't follow...

Yes, you are right ! International decision, taken by France and a majority of countrys in the United nation, a union of undemocratic countrys in the majority, have said that. And that is normal. But I think that we must to buid an other UN with only democratics countrys. Dictatorships cannot be in this kind of union.
That is sheer idiocy. There is no true democracy.

I mean, just look at the United States. It's either the Democrats or the Republicans. You call that democracy? You elect one group of elites or you elect the other group of elites. Money speaks more than what you stand for in this country. Big corporations get away with a lot simply because they made some 'campaign contributions' (read bribery) to this or that candidate.

Just look at the UK. There were almost 1-2 million protesters against the Iraq war before it began 3-4 years ago in London alone. Did Blair hear their cries? NO. He bowed down to Bush.

loooooool !!! you really think that ? So, for you, we must to accept to destroy a democracy to protect us from dictatorship attacks ? I'm sorry, i will never accept that.
Democracies aren't so great to me if their foundations are unjust. Hey, I guess the American democracy that advocated the slave trade was great in comparison to the many monarchies of Europe that outlawed the slave trade.

Or, if I was the leader of a democratic country, I guess I have the right to travel to any non-democratic country (or at least ones I think are non-democratic, like Palestine or Lebanon, which are actual democracies), kill anyone I do not like or my people in general do not like, and establish a democracy, where the majority would be my people and I can subdue all opposition by the use of my military. That is justified to you, but it sure as hell isn't to me. No country or people has the right to attack or oppress another country or another people simply in the name of democracy.

By the standards of democracy today, it's freedom for the few and subjugation for the many.

And could i remember you that Bin Laden didn't say that ? he said he wants to destroy West. As Iran, as all Islamists ! That is the reallity, and you cannot denied it.

No, he did not say that. I can and will and DO deny your paranoid reality. NOWHERE did Iran say anything about destroying the West. Nowhere did Bin Laden say anything about destroying the West.

His 2 major demands were:
1) Removal of US military presence from Saudi Arabia
2) Removal of unconditional support for Israel

lily

12-12-2006, 02:44 AM

Mumim.......I hate to disrupt the discussion, but what does (ra) mean? I know it's a minor question, but it helps when I'm reading your response.

Libre

12-12-2006, 06:21 PM

Sorry, but it was a religious hatred between the Protestants and Catholics. Other elements did help, as they do in any other conflict, but it was a religious conflict. Such recent history does not need revision.

Also, shouldn't you make a better effort to learn the official language of the US? It's not like you're living in a country where you have to pay directly from your pockets for basic education.

I'm (again lol) sorry for my terrible english... But as i said here (http://www.democracyforums.com/showthread.php?tid=2453) I'm French , and I work hard to speak better... I hope this discussion does not come to be personal with personals attacks ? :p

And this is not revision, that's right there is religious conflicts, and religion exists. I just try, as you would have, a new vision on religions... and don't stay in what they want to be but study what they are ;)

You forget one thing : Christianity was growing peacefuly during about six centurys. It is only on the begining of Franck Kindoms that we did wars to expend Christianity. And it was Seven centurys later, (about 1200 AD) that Inquisition born only in Spain.

But you are right. Muslims conquered regions of world where they were in minority. In these lands, they were tolerant. But, remember that : when they began to be the majority, they splet in a few parts of the same religion. And they fought themselves since this time ! And they are still fighting ! Look for Chiits and Sunnits ! And why ? Only one reason : power of the ones who told "words of god" in Middle age. So peoples who had power, and wanted to keep and reinforce it ! That was politic too ! That was a way to gain power. And Muslims fought temselves like Christians. You cannot just ignore it !
You have no evidence so you just start making up history?

Making history ? Me ? lol

if you really think that, i think you must go back to your books... On Europe History to 200 AD to 1000 AD ... I'm sorry but now i don't see other solution

There was a Muslim majority in many parts of the world. I already cited the case about Jews and Christians in Palestine before Zionism. Muslims were the majority there, yet you don't hear of massacres of minorities by Muslims, unlike those perpetrated by Christian Europe or North America.

Sorry, i'm really not sure about what you said... You said that Muslims where in Palestine before Jews and Christians ? You said that Islam existed before 622 ? Are you really saying that ? ... :D :D :D :D :D :D

"Chiits" (lol) and "Sunnits" (lolx2) do not have a murderous hatred of each other. It's only recently that this has occurred, due to the Salafi/Wahhabi puritanic movement that began in Saudi Arabia. According to your theory, there should be no Shi'a existing now since the Sunni have been the majority ever since the split (as you said, Muslim majorities tend to kill the minorities).

Sorry if Chiits and Sunnits are not good words... I believed that...

But do you know why Charlemagne could invade north Spain in 778 ? (and he was defeated by the way) It was because of the first religious AND politic division of Islam Empire in 748 between Abbassides and Ommeyades Arabs. They have begun to fight themselves at this moment ;) but, you are right, maybe one of us must go to study harder history...

Also, the actual split itself was PURELY POLITICAL. It was based on who would be the leader of the Muslims after the passing of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). The Shi'a said that the line must continue from the offspring or relatives of the Prophet (pbuh) and so they chose 'Ali (ra), whereas the Muslim community at large elected Abu Bakr (ra). The actual split didn't occur until much later than that, since 'Ali (ra) did not himself believe to be the next ruler and he followed all the caliphs until him (he was the fourth).

Ah ! Here i'm okay with you.

So, it is a purely political split. This cannot be said of Catholicism or Protestantism.

But not here. Are you sure you can say that King of England decided to split off with Pope only for religious convictions ? :D :D

I'm talking about beginnig of Islam. How did it born ? Mohammad was ejected from Mecqua because he called for war. He went to Medina and rised an army. Then, he cames back to Mecqua and built a Kingdom with arms. He imposed Islam. And Ten years later, when he had died, firsts Muslims began to conquer a huge Empire by WAR. and Islam expended by WAR. When peoples where not agree with Islam, the were not killed. But they haden't the same rights (more taxes for exemple).
Again, your history is completely bogus. If you're a student of history, I highly suggest picking a different field of study because:
a) you're frankly not very good at history
b) history doesn't lead to many employment opportunities

:D okay now, only one solution go to learn => http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquests

To the matter at hand:

The Prophet (pbuh) left Makkah because he and his followers were persecuted for their religion. He called for war? That is the first I'm hearing it.

He left because the polytheists of Makkah hated him and his religion, as it declared that there was only one god, whereas the idols of Makkah were the source of revenue for the Makkan leadership.

He didn't 'make an army' or anything of the sort. The army formed by itself, as the people willingly accepted. Oh, did you know that the city of Yathrib (now called Madina) had mostly accepted Islam before the Prophet (pbuh) even set foot there?

At last ! So, i know that Midena was Muslim before. If it wasn't, how rise an army ? So, you say that we can forgive his coup d'Etat because he was montheist ? And because the others were vilains ? :D if you want, i'm not saying that Mohamad was a bad guy, i just said he did what you are talking about. Now if you want to say what did he do was good, it's your problem. I don't judge the far past, it was an other time. I judge what's going on now.

Also, not a single drop of blood was shed in the conquest of Makkah. Everyone's faults were absolved after the conquest. The ensuing campaigns were military but were hardly an invasion. Armies met in the battlefield and the defeated party gave up land. Islam spread westwards mostly by force, but eastwards was mostly by conversion. The powers of the west were oppressive. Once their rule ended over the land, the people of the land welcomed the Muslims, either converting or living among Muslims (or if they were in the pockets of the previous government, they would leave).

Can you also please tell me that if Islam did spread by war, why are so many Muslims non-Arabs? Nearly 80% of all Muslims aren't Arabs.

Granted that early Christendom did not have formal armies, that does not mean they were pacifists. There was enmity towards Jewish groups (Judeophobia, which was the basis of anti-Semitism) which would last until the Holocaust.

Here's a decent site about Christian warfare post-Constantine.
http://www.bandoli.no/warfare.htm

Well, i will answer all of this in one time : why do you want seing me like someone who doesn't like Islam and love Christians ? :D I don't believe in any god ! And i am agree, Islam extended peacefuly sometimes... asChristiany did. And Christianity, like Islam have a lot of faithful people who are from lot of peoples. You only want that i denie this reality, i'm not... ;)

And how born Christiany ? Under persecutions ! and hear the words of Chritianity today ! Is it words of war ? No. Now hear Islam's words. Is it words of war ? Sometimes.
Hear the words of "Christiany" today? I've been reading those words from your Bible and they certainly do not promote love, peace, happiness, and least of all, justice.

well :D maybe you must go to your next church and listen the next mass... personaly I can't support it. But if you want to become just tolerant, maybe you must do it.

That's why i'm not saying that Christianity is better than Islam. I say there is a different of nature between them. Islam is a religion of war which is sometimes - a lot of times maybe - rational an peacefull. Christianity is a religion of peace which WAS in the past sometimes (During XII century and from XVI to XVIII centurys) intolerant.

No, you're saying that "Christianity is better than Islam" simply due to your lack of knowledge of Islam and your blatant blind faith in Christianity, when your religion is awash with many absurdities.

So, by saying that your religion "WAS" peaceful, you're simply saying that your religion has changed. Now, that simply shows that someone changed your Bible or that those who were interpreting your Bible in the past were wrong.

Really ? I believe in god ? well, this evening I learnt something ! I believ in god... I don't think this is good new because few months ago I thought that every religion is bad... but if when i vomit every time I heard a prayer is not against my new Illumination in My God Faith... ok :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

But maybe you are an intelorant muslim who want to see West being destroy... Then i think i will understand more things...

I cannot accept this theory, since there are many passages in the Bible that are obvious and blatant in their advocacy of violence and to interpret them differently is to simply not accept them at all. I haven't heard of God or Christ telling Christians to omit this or accept that.

And that argument about the Old Testament being useless is absurd, since Christians are happy to target homosexuals and draw upon other laws from their Old Testament while rejecting the many other laws which would actually benefit your religion.

well, I informe you one more time that i am a Libertarian and i don't believe in god and i am fighing for Homosexual rights (they can live freely, as long as they don't touch my ass ;) )

That is sheer idiocy. There is no true democracy.

I mean, just look at the United States. It's either the Democrats or the Republicans. You call that democracy? You elect one group of elites or you elect the other group of elites. Money speaks more than what you stand for in this country. Big corporations get away with a lot simply because they made some 'campaign contributions' (read bribery) to this or that candidate.

Just look at the UK. There were almost 1-2 million protesters against the Iraq war before it began 3-4 years ago in London alone. Did Blair hear their cries? NO. He bowed down to Bush.

Well... if you think that Syria is a better democracy than USA... but that's not the subject. But like i am french, i can assure you that money's law seems to be democracy on mypoint (don't forget my president was elected by 18% of the 40% of the french population who have right to vote and who has voted ^^ don't try to say to me that USA is not a real democracy please...

loooooool !!! you really think that ? So, for you, we must to accept to destroy a democracy to protect us from dictatorship attacks ? I'm sorry, i will never accept that.
Democracies aren't so great to me if their foundations are unjust. Hey, I guess the American democracy that advocated the slave trade was great in comparison to the many monarchies of Europe that outlawed the slave trade.

Or, if I was the leader of a democratic country, I guess I have the right to travel to any non-democratic country (or at least ones I think are non-democratic, like Palestine or Lebanon, which are actual democracies), kill anyone I do not like or my people in general do not like, and establish a democracy, where the majority would be my people and I can subdue all opposition by the use of my military. That is justified to you, but it sure as hell isn't to me. No country or people has the right to attack or oppress another country or another people simply in the name of democracy.

By the standards of democracy today, it's freedom for the few and subjugation for the many.

And could i remember you that Bin Laden didn't say that ? he said he wants to destroy West. As Iran, as all Islamists ! That is the reallity, and you cannot denied it.

No, he did not say that. I can and will and DO deny your paranoid reality. NOWHERE did Iran say anything about destroying the West. Nowhere did Bin Laden say anything about destroying the West.

His 2 major demands were:
1) Removal of US military presence from Saudi Arabia
2) Removal of unconditional support for Israel

:D ok i think you can post this end on in other subject now but saying that theWTC was destroyed because Bin Laden wanted that US leave Saudi arabia... :(:(

:D :D :D :D

mumin

12-12-2006, 09:56 PM

I'm (again lol) sorry for my terrible english... But as i said here (http://www.democracyforums.com/showthread.php?tid=2453) I'm French , and I work hard to speak better... I hope this discussion does not come to be personal with personals attacks ? :p

And this is not revision, that's right there is religious conflicts, and religion exists. I just try, as you would have, a new vision on religions... and don't stay in what they want to be but study what they are ;)
I did not know you were French (although the French are notorious for being anti-Islamic).

What you did in your other post WAS revising history. You were making stuff up without any substantiation, especially when there wasn't even a hint of truth to that.

Making history ? Me ? lol

if you really think that, i think you must go back to your books... On Europe History to 200 AD to 1000 AD ... I'm sorry but now i don't see other solution
Yes, you made up your story about Islam. I wasn't even referring to Europe.

Sorry, i'm really not sure about what you said... You said that Muslims where in Palestine before Jews and Christians ? You said that Islam existed before 622 ? Are you really saying that ? ... :D :D :D :D :D :D
I guess your efforts at English aren't very good. Please reread what I wrote and understand what I stated.

And yes, every Muslim believes that Islam came with Adam and Eve. After all, Islam means submission to the will of God.

Sorry if Chiits and Sunnits are not good words... I believed that...

But do you know why Charlemagne could invade north Spain in 778 ? (and he was defeated by the way) It was because of the first religious AND politic division of Islam Empire in 748 between Abbassides and Ommeyades Arabs. They have begun to fight themselves at this moment ;) but, you are right, maybe one of us must go to study harder history...
You are once again wrong. The Abbasids and the Umayyads were Sunni. It was political, yet again.

But not here. Are you sure you can say that King of England decided to split off with Pope only for religious convictions ? :D :D
Wow, do you even know what Protestantism is? It began with Martin Luther in Germany.

I didn't even mention anything about the Anglican, Church of England.

:D okay now, only one solution go to learn => http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquests
You made completely baseless and bogus claims towards our Prophet (pbuh). Also, you know nothing about the Jizya. This was a tax imposed on non-Muslims who lived under Muslim rule. It was less than the Zakat tax every Muslim must pay. I say that's quite a fair deal. The non-Muslims were allowed to use the amenities and safety provided by Muslims to them AND they paid fewer taxes.

I do not dispute those conquests. At least they did not result in enslaving or murder/persecution of entire populations, which was happening in Europe. And not based on religion, but on language or nationalism.

At last ! So, i know that Midena was Muslim before. If it wasn't, how rise an army ? So, you say that we can forgive his coup d'Etat because he was montheist ? And because the others were vilains ? :D if you want, i'm not saying that Mohamad was a bad guy, i just said he did what you are talking about. Now if you want to say what did he do was good, it's your problem. I don't judge the far past, it was an other time. I judge what's going on now.

Coup d'Ã©tat? What on earth?

The Muslims there were CONVERTS. And those who did not convert STILL LIVED IN MADINAH. There were Jews and Christians in and around Madinah.

Nearly all the wars that were fought during the Prophet (pbuh)'s time were of self defense or for securing vital resources. The Battle of the Trench, the Battle of Badr, of Uhud...they were defensive.

And when the Muslim army went into Makkah to put the final nail in the coffin of idol worship in that city, not a single drop of blood was spilled.

Well, i will answer all of this in one time : why do you want seing me like someone who doesn't like Islam and love Christians ? :D I don't believe in any god ! And i am agree, Islam extended peacefuly sometimes... asChristiany did. And Christianity, like Islam have a lot of faithful people who are from lot of peoples. You only want that i denie this reality, i'm not... ;)
Earlier, you stated:

"You forget one thing : Christianity was growing peacefuly during about six centurys. It is only on the begining of Franck Kindoms that we did wars to expend Christianity. And it was Seven centurys later, (about 1200 AD) that Inquisition born only in Spain."

Now, I'm not a mind reader...

well :D maybe you must go to your next church and listen the next mass... personaly I can't support it. But if you want to become just tolerant, maybe you must do it.
See, there's a difference between what the moderate churches preach and what their Bible says.

Many evangelical Christian churches have recently been spewing hatred against Islam. Becoming just like those bigoted Imams in Arab countries who spew hatred against the West.

Just like there's a difference between what the terrorists do and what the Qur'an says. Or, for that matter, there's a difference between what terrorists do and what everyday Muslims do.

I know many Christians (after all, I am in a country full of Christians), both as acquaintances and friends. I do not argue religion with them nor do they argue religion with me. I know they are not following their Bible and they know I'm not following what they perceive to by the Qur'an.

Really ? I believe in god ? well, this evening I learnt something ! I believ in god... I don't think this is good new because few months ago I thought that every religion is bad... but if when i vomit every time I heard a prayer is not against my new Illumination in My God Faith... ok :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
See above.

But maybe you are an intelorant muslim who want to see West being destroy... Then i think i will understand more things...
Ah, your bigotry and hypocrisy shines through. You had just in that post warned me that I was on the verge of name-calling (when I clearly wasn't) and here you are, calling me an 'intelorant muslim'.

I won't stoop to your level. :)

well, I informe you one more time that i am a Libertarian and i don't believe in god and i am fighing for Homosexual rights (they can live freely, as long as they don't touch my ass ;) )
That has nothing to do with the point at hand. You are advocating Christianity over Islam so you better stick up for it, otherwise it really shows that you can't stand your own ground in this.

Well... if you think that Syria is a better democracy than USA... but that's not the subject. But like i am french, i can assure you that money's law seems to be democracy on mypoint (don't forget my president was elected by 18% of the 40% of the french population who have right to vote and who has voted ^^ don't try to say to me that USA is not a real democracy please...
Where did I say Syria?

Did I even make a comparison between corrupted Arab countries to the US?

I'd say look to Europe. Or South Korea. Or Japan.

And, no the US is not a true democracy. No country is a true democracy when you get only two choices and both are horrible on their own. It's like choosing between sibling dictatorships.

:D ok i think you can post this end on in other subject now but saying that theWTC was destroyed because Bin Laden wanted that US leave Saudi arabia... :(:(

:D :D :D :D

Uh, yes, his demands WERE the removal of US troops from Saudi Arabia and the backing away from supporting Israel unconditionally. I would think that he wouldn't have attacked the US to that extent if even one of those demands were partially met or showed any hope of being addressed.

Contrary to popular belief, not everyone's born a nut job. Not even a terrorist.

I have lived in Saudi Arabia and I have seen American military personnel there.

Of course, the hypocrite kingdom of Saudi Arabia made no effort to have another country's army out of the holiest land for Muslims. Asking would've definitely helped. Too bad it was Bin Laden who did the asking and went mad when he didn't get what he wanted, resorting to murder.

Elrathin

12-12-2006, 10:08 PM

mumin

12-13-2006, 06:01 AM

Uh, yes, his demands WERE the removal of US troops from Saudi Arabia and the backing away from supporting Israel unconditionally. I would think that he wouldn't have attacked the US to that extent if even one of those demands were partially met or showed any hope of being addressed.

Here's a bigger question Mumim. What right does Osama have to tell the U.S. ANYTHING?

You seem to think the U.S. should stop giving support to Israel and for a moment, (Just for arguments sake), say you are right about that and the U.S. stopped supporting Israel. The countries that the U.S. has bases on (minus Afghanistan and Iraq because this would be pre-9/11) have INVITED the U.S. there to stay and have bases. What right does Osama have to tell the U.S. to get out of those? What authority does he have to do this?

Also keep in mind 9/11 was almost a decade in planning from the flight schools, the Visas, etc, do you think for a moment that if the U.S. actually gave into the demands of Osama that he would have called off the 9/11 attacks? I don't.

At this point we are just playing "what if" games, but the point is Osama masterminded an attack that killed CIVILIANS ON PURPOSE. There is no excusing that and much like terrorism in general, giving into terrorists demands just paints a target on your country for more terrorism.

I don't agree with the reasons we went into Iraq, but I FULLY supported President Bush's decision to go into Afghanistan after Osama.

Hey, I never said Bin Laden had the right to say anything and as I already stated, the real problem is the complacent leadership of Arab nations. Bin Laden hates the Arab regimes and they hate him back.

You didn't complete your train of thought about Israel.

And I don't think the US should withdraw support for Israel. I just think there has to be some justice and fairness. The US knocks down EVERY UN resolution targeting Israel, even when there is unanimity at the UN over the resolution. A fair-minded approach to the peace process would surely help, but the peace process has been constantly undermined by Israel who almost never concedes, and then the US has to comply with Israel's wishes...if the US seriously wishes to be involved in the peace process, it should NOT give Israel everything it demands. After all, they even have NUKES yet when Iran declares they're enriching uranium, words like 'madman' and 'idiot' start flying.

Just look what's happening after President Carter's book came out. He's being labeled an anti-Semite...how ridiculously absurd. He hasn't even been nearly as critical of Israel (if at all, I haven't read his book) as many Jews out of the United States (and even in Israel) have. If you're a Jew and you don't like Israel, you're labeled a self-hating Jew or an anti-Semite (lol). Look at Norman Finkelstein. He's even been labeled a Holocaust revisionist, even though his own parents are Holocaust survivors!

You don't even have to look past Europe to see media criticism of Israel, which is done by regular news media. In fact, I don't think I even ever recall any major American media outlet saying 'peep' about Israel in the Israel-Lebanon war. They all blamed Hizbullah and the story ended there.

I also supported going after bin Ladin, but now, it is plain for all to see that those who perpetrated the crimes are still free and nowhere close to being caught and it is the civilians who are paying with their lives.

The longer bin Ladin lives, the more reason the morons have to continue their war on terror. I suspect bin Ladin is never going to be caught, because doing so would certainly lessen the support for this war on terrorism of yours (i.e. the US).

And I do think that they would have called off the attacks if the US gave up even an inch of ground on bin Ladin's demands. Contrary to popular US media portrayals, many terrorists are insane to the point of killing civilians after justifying their attacks in the same way Israel justifies the killing of civilians or the US justifies the killing of civilians. You'll see this in nearly even non-North American media outlet.

To me, there is no excuse for the killing of civilians. To me, what's happening in Iraq is worse than 9/11, especially since there's a hypocrisy (the US liberates by murder? good intentions don't cut it). Frankly, I'm not American so I'm not blinded by patriotism or nationalism.

Buck Laser

12-13-2006, 05:21 PM

Mumin, I think you are right on in your comments about the middle east here. I simply do not understand why so many otherwise rational people reflexively holler "anti-semite!" whenever anyone suggests that Israel may bear some responsibility for the unease in the middle east. But they do.

I would appreciate if if someone could speak to this issue with both clarity and candor, as Mumin has, without resorting to name-calling or dismissive statements. A week ago, I suggested that many Christian "friends of Israel" are friends only because they think turmoil in the middle east will bring about Armageddon, in which a few Christians will triumph and everybody else will be up shit creek. I'm sure that's how some Christians believe, but is that the main reason for uncritical support of Israel?

mumin

12-14-2006, 12:54 AM

There should be more to it than that, since people like Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats (non-Christians) also bow to Israel's every need and will. The Jewish lobby group, AIPAC, holds considerable power in Washington. This is clearly evident in the US, but not so much elsewhere.

The recently elected Muslim, Keith Ellison was only elected because he said he supported Israel. I can guarantee that if he had brought attention to even 1 of Israel's many injustices, he would not have been elected.

There's an excellent documentary produced by the UK's Channel 4 about the connection between evangelical Christians and Jews called "The Doomsday Code" (nothing similar has been broadcast in the US or Canada). Even many Jews feel sickened by the thought that Israel only exists to fulfill the Christian prophecy of Armageddon and holds the key to the Christian Rapture, leaving the Jews to die in the battle.

Funny how it is mostly in the United States and impoverished, recent Christian African nations where Revelations is taken so literally.

The UN labeled Zionism a form of racism, no better than South African apartheid, in the mid-1970s. I guess the entire world was anti-Semitic and hadn't learned from the lessons of the Holocaust! It was only when Bush Sr came into power and began to say things along the lines of the UN being irrelevant, the UN had to pass another resolution that nullified the earlier resolution.

Oh wait. Many doomsday Christians already believe the UN to be the vessel of the anti-Christ...

CheesyMuslim

12-14-2006, 01:36 AM

Sorry bout that,

1. But The Anti-Christ will come from Turkey
2. Will be a Muslim.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

lily

12-14-2006, 01:38 AM

..........and you know this how?

mumin

12-14-2006, 06:52 PM

Sorry bout that,

1. But The Anti-Christ will come from Turkey
2. Will be a Muslim.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

I think most Evangelists would disagree with you (not to mention that Christian theories about who or what is the anti-Christ have been changing throughout history).

Here's "The Doomsday Code" by Channel 4:
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=6439295521791525424

Buck Laser

12-14-2006, 08:23 PM

..........and you know this how?

Lily, he pulled it out of his ass, where he gets all of his religious opinions. The book of Revelation was written five or six hundred years before Islam or Muhammad ever appeared on the scene. To say that the Anti-Christ will be a Muslim is supported even less in scripture than my belief that the Anti-Christ will be a member of the Bush family!:cool:

BoogyMan

12-14-2006, 08:58 PM

Sorry bout that,

1. But The Anti-Christ will come from Turkey
2. Will be a Muslim.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

Hi Chess,

Can you provide a scriptural basis for a scenario where THE antichrist of which you speak is evidenced?

The new testament talks about many being of an anti-christ mindset or spirit, but I find no evidence for THE (one) antichrist.

Consider:

Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

CheesyMuslim

12-15-2006, 01:07 AM

Sorry bout that,

1. But the Anti Christ will lead an attack on Israel.
2. Then set himself up as Gawd, after running the Jews out of Israel.
3. Its all written.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

Elrathin

12-15-2006, 01:15 AM

1. But the Anti Christ will lead an attack on Israel.
2. Then set himself up as Gawd, after running the Jews out of Israel.
3. Its all written.

Care to show in the bible where it say it will be a Muslim or come from Turkey? You being the self-proclaimed "highly-trained bible scholar" and all this should be such an easy task for you to prove us all wrong with.

CheesyMuslim

12-15-2006, 01:24 AM

Elrathin

12-15-2006, 01:29 AM

3. To dredge up scriptures to support my arguments would soon turn this debate into a Bible Study.
4. And I don't think many here really want that.

In other words, you don't know any scriptures that support your point, yet again. Thanks again for clearing up your "highly-trained bible scholar" status yet again. :rolleyes:

You have yet to provide ANY scriptures to support ANY of your outlandish claims. Add this one to the long list of times you haven't proven, with scripture, what you have said. Fraud is a sin.

CheesyMuslim

12-15-2006, 01:45 AM

Sorry bout that,

1. But lol!!!!!!!

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

Elrathin

12-15-2006, 01:48 AM

1. But lol!!!!!!!

Yes, that is what we do each time Chess.

BoogyMan

12-15-2006, 02:08 AM

Sorry bout that,

1. Satan's seat is in Turkey.
2. Its a fact that seeing his location is in Turkey that he will come from there.
3. To dredge up scriptures to support my arguments would soon turn this debate into a Bible Study.
4. And I don't think many here really want that.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

Hi Chess,

Since this IS a forum for discussion of religion a bible study would be entirely appropos.Â*Â*I would welcome your showing me from the scripture where your commentary can be substantiated.

CheesyMuslim

12-15-2006, 11:01 PM

Elrathin

12-15-2006, 11:04 PM

3. You will all have to take my word for it

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA Sorry Chess, your claims are running short on credibility here.

The fact you can't quote it only proves it isn't in there. To be sure I asked a TRUE Christian and even he said it isn't in the bible. Seems like Chess just got proven a fraud on this one.

CheesyMuslim

12-15-2006, 11:36 PM

Sorry bout that,

1. But what exactly are you saying, I said isn't in the Bible?

Regards,

SirJamesofTexas

CheesyMuslim

12-15-2006, 11:40 PM

Elrathin

12-16-2006, 12:06 AM

1. But what exactly are you saying, I said isn't in the Bible?

Simple Chess, what you said IS NOT in the bible. Until you prove otherwise you are a fraud. I've asked several "HIGHLY-TRAINED CHRISTIAN BIBLICAL SCHOLARS (2 of which have a degree in theology) and they confirm what you say is NOT in the bible regarding the Anti-Christ being Muslim and from Turkey. You have now been PROVEN a fraud in regard to biblical studies.

Have a nice day, I know I am. :D

CheesyMuslim

12-16-2006, 12:10 AM

Sorry bout that,

1. But your scholars are full of beans then.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

lily

12-16-2006, 12:21 AM

Sorry bout that,

1. Its in the Bible, or I wouldn't of said it.
2. To busy to go fetch my Bible and transcribe it here folks.
3. You will all have to take my word for it, if you don't know the Bible as well as I do.
4. Sorry bout that.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

Chess........I'm not sure if this is the same link that Boogyman posted for you or not. Either way there are many bible sites on line, there is no need for you to go fetch your bible and transcribe it for us. You say you've read it front and back, and know it better than some, then with any of the on-line bible sites your passages shouldn't be too hard to find.

http://www.biblegateway.com/

Elrathin

12-16-2006, 02:31 AM

1. But your scholars are full of beans then.

No, you are, that is why you don't provide scripture, because there isn't any. PROOF is what failed you Chess and Fraud is a sin.

CheesyMuslim

12-16-2006, 02:49 AM

Sorry bout that,

1. But I have proven it.
2. You just can't handle the proof!
3. You don't know beans about the Bible.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

Elrathin

12-16-2006, 03:20 AM

1. But I have proven it.
2. You just can't handle the proof!
3. You don't know beans about the Bible.

You haven't proven ANYTHING, you haven't posted ONE PROOF from the bible in this regard. You have only said It is in the bible, but haven't PROVEN it by showing ONE SCRIPTURE supporting your claims.

You are a FRAUD.

BoogyMan

12-16-2006, 03:39 AM

Sorry bout that,

1. Its in the Bible, or I wouldn't of said it.
2. To busy to go fetch my Bible and transcribe it here folks.
3. You will all have to take my word for it, if you don't know the Bible as well as I do.
4. Sorry bout that.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

Chess, my friend, I do know the bible. I know it pretty well as a matter of fact, and I am not finding anything to substantiate your claims. I would love to be able to support you in this commentary but there is no grounds for doing so in the scripture.

If you will download a copy of the online bible at http://www.onlinebible.com you can simply cut and paste the references into your posts, it is quick and easy.

CheesyMuslim

12-16-2006, 01:29 PM

Sorry bout that,

1. But me thinks a resident hypocrite is trying to convince me of sin.
2. Seems the biggest hypocrites are the ones who always say others are sinners!
3. You really should learn about the Bible, before you attack me about it.
4. Relying on others to support your attacks is very risky.
5. Boogy, I don't know how to cut and paste, thanks bud anyway.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

Elrathin

12-16-2006, 04:47 PM

3. You really should learn about the Bible, before you attack me about it.
4. Relying on others to support your attacks is very risky.

You can call them what you want, I would rather believe actual scholars that have theology degrees than self-proclaimed ones such as yourself.

The problem Chess is when you actual state something as written in the bible, you should be able to produce such scripture. You have not and you do this in most of your posts.

Like the boy that cried wolf, your credibility is no longer believable since you have been shown so many times that you are in error.

Have a nice day.

mumin

12-18-2006, 05:49 AM

Sorry bout that,

1. But I found a very interesting link.
2. Enjoy.
http://www.reformation.org/vatican-and-islam.html
3. Of course the cr@p written about the Catholics is hogwash, but read whats been said about the Muslims.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

LOL!

I guess all those Christians and Jews who speak Arabic are also pleading to this moon goddess.

Allah is the translation of "the god" in Arabic (or simply "God" in the proper noun form).

That is why the Shahadah, theMuslim declaration of faith, states, "I bear witness that there is no god except God and I bear witness Muhammad (pbuh) is his servant and messenger".

Funny thing about the wives. Didn't Soloman (pbuh) have thousands of wives and concubines (I can't recall the exact figure, since many religious figures in the bible had many wives)? Also, I can't recall from where in the Bible you get your basis for monogamy. In fact the Qur'an is the only text that says, to marry only one if you cannot do justice to more than 1.

Also, the Prophet (pbuh) married WIDOWS. Why would he not marry all the newly reverted (or brainwashed, as you may think) young virgins?

As I have already mentioned before, the crescent moon wasn't a symbol of Islam until the conquest of Constantinople, where it was the symbol of the city and of Mary (pbuh). I guess all those Christians were worshiping this moon goddess.

Khadija (ra) was a NUN? LOL!!!!!!!!!11111111

11 is our lucky number? LOL!!!!!!!!!!1111111

Whoever made that page/site has too much time and too much hemp to smoke to come up with such absurd ideas!

Thanks for the comedy!!! :P

CheesyMuslim

12-18-2006, 01:12 PM

Sorry bout that,

1. But nope, moon god stands, along with the black moon rock on the square building in Mecca.
2. Yep, all true, all plain facts, problem is you don't want this out.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

Libre

12-18-2006, 04:12 PM

At last I answer ;)

I did not know you were French (although the French are notorious for being anti-Islamic).

What you did in your other post WAS revising history. You were making stuff up without any substantiation, especially when there wasn't even a hint of truth to that.

You really believe that French guys are anti-islamic :D:D:D:D

In France more than 70% of French think that Arafat was not a terrorist and was a democrat :D:D:D and we think that Israel is country of evil and dictatorshÃ®p :D:D:D

I can assure you, I don't believe that !

And if you think I'm a revisionist... When I quote my sources and I argue my poiint of view... i do not know how I can say more... sorry, I only believe into the facts... ;)

Yes, you made up your story about Islam. I wasn't even referring to Europe.

And you believe history of Europe and Islam are not bound ? :D

I guess your efforts at English aren't very good. Please reread what I wrote and understand what I stated.

And yes, every Muslim believes that Islam came with Adam and Eve. After all, Islam means submission to the will of God.

I'm deeply sorry, I'm trying... but like I not belive in one god, God cannot help me !!! :p
and, yes I know, Islam is like Judaisme... and like Christianism... Roger Sabbah and Messod Sabbah said it in "Exod's secrets"... All this religions are the same one : Atonism !

You are once again wrong. The Abbasids and the Umayyads were Sunni. It was political, yet again.

Yeah... and I never said that Abbasids and Umayyads were not both Sunni... There were both Sunni, but Islam can fight with himself. You have only repeat what I said guy ;)

Wow, do you even know what Protestantism is? It began with Martin Luther in Germany.

I didn't even mention anything about the Anglican, Church of England.

Yes I know lol :D but if you don't know, there is three forms of Protestantism in XVIÂ° century (a few more now). Lutherianism, Reformism and Anglicanism ! Protestantism not only Lutherianism, sorry ;)

Also, you know nothing about the Jizya. This was a tax imposed on non-Muslims who lived under Muslim rule. It was less than the Zakat tax every Muslim must pay. I say that's quite a fair deal. The non-Muslims were allowed to use the amenities and safety provided by Muslims to them AND they paid fewer taxes.

I do not dispute those conquests. At least they did not result in enslaving or murder/persecution of entire populations, which was happening in Europe. And not based on religion, but on language or nationalism.

Yeah... you're right... They couldn't oblige Christians to pay a biggest tax during Reconquista... The consequence would have been only revolts next to the first front agaisnt Christians...

And me again, I have never said that Islam persecuted Christians (They did in Greece after falling of Bysantin Empire, but we talk about West ;) ). I have said what you agree, Arabs made lot of conquests in name of GOD from the very start of their religion : Islam... So you are agree with what I say from the begining ;)

Coup d'Ã©tat? What on earth?

The Muslims there were CONVERTS. And those who did not convert STILL LIVED IN MADINAH. There were Jews and Christians in and around Madinah.

Nearly all the wars that were fought during the Prophet (pbuh)'s time were of self defense or for securing vital resources. The Battle of the Trench, the Battle of Badr, of Uhud...they were defensive.

And when the Muslim army went into Makkah to put the final nail in the coffin of idol worship in that city, not a single drop of blood was spilled.

Ok, I am ok with that... I don't even remeber when I said that Mohammad was a tyran or ether... I said he rise an army after being excluded, and done a war... They were into defense position, ok if you want ! Like I told you, I never never judge the past. I only look for what appens... And Islam was born in war, and extended itself with conquest. I don't say this is bad. This was an other time, and I really think that when we judge the past with our modern eyes, we oly can made mistakes.. So I say to you, don't judge Chritianity, only look at, as I do for Islam !

Earlier, you stated:

"You forget one thing : Christianity was growing peacefuly during about six centurys. It is only on the begining of Franck Kindoms that we did wars to expend Christianity. And it was Seven centurys later, (about 1200 AD) that Inquisition born only in Spain."

Now, I'm not a mind reader...

Yes, I agree, I'm a downward of these peoples... and It is a mystake in the same time. In special cases, you can say "we" when you say "you" in French (if you see what I mean...), that's why ;) it's my fault but i can assure you in my real life I'm working on my tolerancy because a short time ago, my point was every kind of religion is evil ;)

See, there's a difference between what the moderate churches preach and what their Bible says.

Many evangelical Christian churches have recently been spewing hatred against Islam. Becoming just like those bigoted Imams in Arab countries who spew hatred against the West.

Just like there's a difference between what the terrorists do and what the Qur'an says. Or, for that matter, there's a difference between what terrorists do and what everyday Muslims do.

I know many Christians (after all, I am in a country full of Christians), both as acquaintances and friends. I do not argue religion with them nor do they argue religion with me. I know they are not following their Bible and they know I'm not following what they perceive to by the Qur'an.

Well, do you remember caricatures problem ? That is a real problem in my point... Today you can caricature Chritians as you want... But if you do the same, a complete part of the world wants to kill you (ok not every one lol but I'm not far away with reality !!!:( )

Ah, your bigotry and hypocrisy shines through. You had just in that post warned me that I was on the verge of name-calling (when I clearly wasn't) and here you are, calling me an 'intelorant muslim'.

I won't stoop to your level. :)

Yeah, because I accept Islam and I don't judge it for the past. You seems thinking that everything of Chritiany i bad. But, as you know I'm sure, democracy was brn in christians country... Not Muslims country... And I don't say every muslim is intolerant, but as you really want that Christianity is bad, I only can think that, sorry ^^

That has nothing to do with the point at hand. You are advocating Christianity over Islam so you better stick up for it, otherwise it really shows that you can't stand your own ground in this.

No, I just tryed to show you that if you are a Muslim guy or a Christian guy, I really don't care ^^ and I refuse to hear that Islam is better than Christianity. I really don't accept that. Well you can say it, but I cannot stay without answering ;)

Where did I say Syria?

Did I even make a comparison between corrupted Arab countries to the US?

I'd say look to Europe. Or South Korea. Or Japan.

And, no the US is not a true democracy. No country is a true democracy when you get only two choices and both are horrible on their own. It's like choosing between sibling dictatorships.

So, why don't you support independants ? They exist ! You have other choices !

And in the two main partys, you have lot of elections before the main election, and you can participate, do you ? And into the GOP for example, there is libertarians, there is conservativs, there is a lot of runnings ! You have not two choices... If you want to participate, you have a lot of choice. If you want...

:D ok i think you can post this end on in other subject now but saying that theWTC was destroyed because Bin Laden wanted that US leave Saudi arabia... :(:(

:D :D :D :D

Uh, yes, his demands WERE the removal of US troops from Saudi Arabia and the backing away from supporting Israel unconditionally. I would think that he wouldn't have attacked the US to that extent if even one of those demands were partially met or showed any hope of being addressed.

Contrary to popular belief, not everyone's born a nut job. Not even a terrorist.

I have lived in Saudi Arabia and I have seen American military personnel there.

Of course, the hypocrite kingdom of Saudi Arabia made no effort to have another country's army out of the holiest land for Muslims. Asking would've definitely helped. Too bad it was Bin Laden who did the asking and went mad when he didn't get what he wanted, resorting to murder.

[/quote]

Bin Laden wanted to declare the third world war because he wanted that US troops leave Arabia ? ...
Well... sorry for him, but he has completely lost :D

mumin

12-18-2006, 07:40 PM

At last I answer ;)

I did not know you were French (although the French are notorious for being anti-Islamic).

What you did in your other post WAS revising history. You were making stuff up without any substantiation, especially when there wasn't even a hint of truth to that.

[1]
You really believe that French guys are anti-islamic :D:D:D:D

In France more than 70% of French think that Arafat was not a terrorist and was a democrat :D:D:D and we think that Israel is country of evil and dictatorshÃ®p :D:D:D

I can assure you, I don't believe that !

And if you think I'm a revisionist... When I quote my sources and I argue my poiint of view... i do not know how I can say more... sorry, I only believe into the facts... ;)

Yes, you made up your story about Islam. I wasn't even referring to Europe.

[2]
And you believe history of Europe and Islam are not bound ? :D

I guess your efforts at English aren't very good. Please reread what I wrote and understand what I stated.

And yes, every Muslim believes that Islam came with Adam and Eve. After all, Islam means submission to the will of God.

[3]
I'm deeply sorry, I'm trying... but like I not belive in one god, God cannot help me !!! :p
and, yes I know, Islam is like Judaisme... and like Christianism... Roger Sabbah and Messod Sabbah said it in "Exod's secrets"... All this religions are the same one : Atonism !

You are once again wrong. The Abbasids and the Umayyads were Sunni. It was political, yet again.

[4]
Yeah... and I never said that Abbasids and Umayyads were not both Sunni... There were both Sunni, but Islam can fight with himself. You have only repeat what I said guy ;)

Wow, do you even know what Protestantism is? It began with Martin Luther in Germany.

I didn't even mention anything about the Anglican, Church of England.

[5]
Yes I know lol :D but if you don't know, there is three forms of Protestantism in XVIÂ° century (a few more now). Lutherianism, Reformism and Anglicanism ! Protestantism not only Lutherianism, sorry ;)

Also, you know nothing about the Jizya. This was a tax imposed on non-Muslims who lived under Muslim rule. It was less than the Zakat tax every Muslim must pay. I say that's quite a fair deal. The non-Muslims were allowed to use the amenities and safety provided by Muslims to them AND they paid fewer taxes.

I do not dispute those conquests. At least they did not result in enslaving or murder/persecution of entire populations, which was happening in Europe. And not based on religion, but on language or nationalism.

[6]
Yeah... you're right... They couldn't oblige Christians to pay a biggest tax during Reconquista... The consequence would have been only revolts next to the first front agaisnt Christians...

And me again, I have never said that Islam persecuted Christians (They did in Greece after falling of Bysantin Empire, but we talk about West ;) ). I have said what you agree, Arabs made lot of conquests in name of GOD from the very start of their religion : Islam... So you are agree with what I say from the begining ;)

Coup d'Ã©tat? What on earth?

The Muslims there were CONVERTS. And those who did not convert STILL LIVED IN MADINAH. There were Jews and Christians in and around Madinah.

Nearly all the wars that were fought during the Prophet (pbuh)'s time were of self defense or for securing vital resources. The Battle of the Trench, the Battle of Badr, of Uhud...they were defensive.

And when the Muslim army went into Makkah to put the final nail in the coffin of idol worship in that city, not a single drop of blood was spilled.

[7]
Ok, I am ok with that... I don't even remeber when I said that Mohammad was a tyran or ether... I said he rise an army after being excluded, and done a war... They were into defense position, ok if you want ! Like I told you, I never never judge the past. I only look for what appens... And Islam was born in war, and extended itself with conquest. I don't say this is bad. This was an other time, and I really think that when we judge the past with our modern eyes, we oly can made mistakes.. So I say to you, don't judge Chritianity, only look at, as I do for Islam !

Earlier, you stated:

"You forget one thing : Christianity was growing peacefuly during about six centurys. It is only on the begining of Franck Kindoms that we did wars to expend Christianity. And it was Seven centurys later, (about 1200 AD) that Inquisition born only in Spain."

Now, I'm not a mind reader...
[8]
Yes, I agree, I'm a downward of these peoples... and It is a mystake in the same time. In special cases, you can say "we" when you say "you" in French (if you see what I mean...), that's why ;) it's my fault but i can assure you in my real life I'm working on my tolerancy because a short time ago, my point was every kind of religion is evil ;)

See, there's a difference between what the moderate churches preach and what their Bible says.

Many evangelical Christian churches have recently been spewing hatred against Islam. Becoming just like those bigoted Imams in Arab countries who spew hatred against the West.

Just like there's a difference between what the terrorists do and what the Qur'an says. Or, for that matter, there's a difference between what terrorists do and what everyday Muslims do.

I know many Christians (after all, I am in a country full of Christians), both as acquaintances and friends. I do not argue religion with them nor do they argue religion with me. I know they are not following their Bible and they know I'm not following what they perceive to by the Qur'an.
[9]
Well, do you remember caricatures problem ? That is a real problem in my point... Today you can caricature Chritians as you want... But if you do the same, a complete part of the world wants to kill you (ok not every one lol but I'm not far away with reality !!!:( )

Ah, your bigotry and hypocrisy shines through. You had just in that post warned me that I was on the verge of name-calling (when I clearly wasn't) and here you are, calling me an 'intelorant muslim'.

I won't stoop to your level. :)

[10]
Yeah, because I accept Islam and I don't judge it for the past. You seems thinking that everything of Chritiany i bad. But, as you know I'm sure, democracy was brn in christians country... Not Muslims country... And I don't say every muslim is intolerant, but as you really want that Christianity is bad, I only can think that, sorry ^^

That has nothing to do with the point at hand. You are advocating Christianity over Islam so you better stick up for it, otherwise it really shows that you can't stand your own ground in this.
[11]
No, I just tryed to show you that if you are a Muslim guy or a Christian guy, I really don't care ^^ and I refuse to hear that Islam is better than Christianity. I really don't accept that. Well you can say it, but I cannot stay without answering ;)

Where did I say Syria?

Did I even make a comparison between corrupted Arab countries to the US?

I'd say look to Europe. Or South Korea. Or Japan.

And, no the US is not a true democracy. No country is a true democracy when you get only two choices and both are horrible on their own. It's like choosing between sibling dictatorships.

[12]
So, why don't you support independants ? They exist ! You have other choices !

And in the two main partys, you have lot of elections before the main election, and you can participate, do you ? And into the GOP for example, there is libertarians, there is conservativs, there is a lot of runnings ! You have not two choices... If you want to participate, you have a lot of choice. If you want...

:D ok i think you can post this end on in other subject now but saying that theWTC was destroyed because Bin Laden wanted that US leave Saudi arabia... :(:(

:D :D :D :D

Uh, yes, his demands WERE the removal of US troops from Saudi Arabia and the backing away from supporting Israel unconditionally. I would think that he wouldn't have attacked the US to that extent if even one of those demands were partially met or showed any hope of being addressed.

Contrary to popular belief, not everyone's born a nut job. Not even a terrorist.

I have lived in Saudi Arabia and I have seen American military personnel there.

Of course, the hypocrite kingdom of Saudi Arabia made no effort to have another country's army out of the holiest land for Muslims. Asking would've definitely helped. Too bad it was Bin Laden who did the asking and went mad when he didn't get what he wanted, resorting to murder.

[13]
Bin Laden wanted to declare the third world war because he wanted that US troops leave Arabia ? ...
Well... sorry for him, but he has completely lost :D

First of all:
France is anti-Islamic since it has banned the headscarf. Wait, let me correct that; France is anti-religion.

Also, Arafat wasn't a terrorist because for THIRTY YEARS he supported a TWO STATE solution. He recognized Israel. And after he's dead, Israel wants a two state solution? What the hell happened after Arafat died that caused this apparent about face?

2nd quote:

.................

Statements like your second one there can give people a migraine at their sheer i