Normalizing Islam in America [Archive]

L@mplighterM

08-28-2003, 06:49 PM

Normalizing Islam in America
8/23/2003 - Social Religious - Article Ref: IC0308-2068
Number of comments: 21
By: Imam Abu Laith Luqman Ahmad
IslamiCity* -

Snip:

From a strictly religious perspective, the goal of the Muslim is to please Allah, practice Islam, and go to paradise. In another context with respect to our existence and condition as a people living in the United States, a non-Islamic country, we should start thinking about what will ultimately be social-political as well as religious norms for us as Muslims living here. The dilemma is that although we have to be Muslim, and adhere to and obey Islamic laws, which can only successfully be done in a system, we have decided to do this in a country that is fundamentally non-Muslim. This, is a delicate undertaking at best, requiring a high degree of intelligence and commitment, or an impossible dream, destined for failure at worst.

The decision regarding whether we are going to stay and be citizens or are we going to migrate and return to that presently non-existent "Muslim State" that we all say we want, seems to have already been made. At this juncture I do not see any mass exodus of Muslims from this country and almost all of the ones I see leaving to go back "home" are being deported. In fact, Muslims are steadily populating the waiting lists to get into the United States. Lets face it we are settling in for the long haul. We just haven't figured out how we are going to settle. I'm not going to debate here the Islamic rulings regarding hijra (migration) or staying put. The argument and ensuing scholarly deliberation about it has merit. However for practical purposes it is a moot point. Notwithstanding the follow-up question of where will we go? Thus, the obvious focus needs to be normalizing the practice of Islam in America.

In the United States, Islam has not yet evolved into an organized religion in the conventional sense; we do not have a synod, an ecclesiastical council, a board of bishops, house of deputies or any other religious governing body with real legislative powers. Instead we have an amalgam of imams, sheikhs and political pundits and organizations each with their own limited sphere of influence. It is true that most masaajid, Islamic organizations and Islamic centers have boards and councils and even imams with authority to set rules and guidelines and to adjudicate the affairs of their local community. However with respect to normalcy what we have now is a veritable circus. If someone disagrees with the policy at one masjid, they simple go to the masjid on the other side of town or a few blocks away where a totally different understanding of Islam awaits them. Something can be haram (prohibited) at one masjid and mubaah (permissible) at the next.

The system of marriage and divorce is in shambles. In fact there is no real system in place at all. In too many instances, marriage and divorce are characterized by a capricious recklessness that borders on the insane. All kinds of horror stories are circulating from husbands with multiple welfare wives, sometimes not even knowing of each other's existence. To the unchecked and increasing frequency of HIV infection, to the numerous and undocumented instances of divorce and broken families, to the widespread abuse of the rights and bodies of Muslim women, and that's just touching the surface. Some of us emphatically detest the notion of civil court-sanctioned marriages because it legitimizes the "kaafir" system. Yet, the cavalier disregard of a good number of Muslims for the sanctity of marriage, an institution that the prophet himself hailed as "half of religion", suggests the need for some sort of legal enforcement apparatus. Not in the way of a Muslim police force that goes around arresting people for infractions, that would be unfeasible for obvious reasons. However, across the board consistency would raise the level of compliance and go a long way in establishing normalcy. The simple ma sha Allah scout's honor approach is not working.

It is lamentable that there is such a thing as an Arab Masjid, a Pakistani Masjid, an African American Masjid and so on. We can try to deny that this is the case but who are we kidding? Most Muslim schools in the United States are segregated, Arabs in Arab schools, Pakistanis in Pakistani schools and indigenous Americans in their own schools. The degree of cross-cultural cooperation is at an undesirable low, and tragically, this trend is being passed on to the next generation. In general, Native-born American Muslims are more openly accepting of immigrant Muslims and their culture than the latter are of them. Roughly a quarter of the Islamic practices that we have adopted have been culturally based, imported from the Middle East and other Muslims lands, and not textually based. That trend needs to change.

For Islam to make sense in America, systemic predictability needs to evolve. We need a type of unity that will place the whole of the community on one spectrum. Currently Muslim communities are demarcated primarily on the basis of race; ethnicity and nationality all of which are ludicrous notions especially given the current attack that Islam is under. The irony of Islam in America is that except for a few instances, we are thoroughly integrated secularly and civilly but grossly separated and dysfunctional religiously. For example we are very conscious of obeying civil laws like paying fines and taxes, keeping traffic court dates, even registering to vote. Meticulously adhering to every regulation and being honest, law abiding Americans. In fact, many of us pride ourselves on being law abiding "regular" Americans, especially in this post 9/11 period we are living in. I've even heard Muslims leaders say publicly, "we're as American as apple pie" whatever that means. However, in a religious sense, we are woefully lacking in Masjid attendance, paying zakat (charity), creating our own systems or taking care of our own. There is no such thing as a Muslim hospital in America despite the presence of close to 7 million Muslims. I am an Imam of a Masjid and virtually every Masjid and Islamic Center I am aware of is pathetically cash strapped and has be in a perpetual fundraising mode just to survive.

The majority of Muslims living in the United States aren't part of any organized Muslim community or body in this country. Yes, many of them are sickened by the inability of many Muslim leaders to work together in a meaningful way or to even realize that they are not in the "old country" anymore! Still despite the backwardness of some of our leaders, we have to gather the fortitude work through this quagmire. Somebody needs to kick them in the head (figurative speaking) and say, Dorothy you are not in Kansas anymore ala the Wizard of Oz. We have virtually no religious system of law in place and in many cities; we seem to not be able to agree on which day to celebrate our holidays. Some of us aren't even sure what our real names are. We'll be Yusuf when we come around the Muslims but John to everybody else. Or the even more odious example of the man who goes by Moe the liquor store proprietor during the day but on Fridays and in the Masjid he's Muhammad, the Masjid board member. Give me a break!

Islam as a system does not function well without cohesion, unity or order. As Allah has said "and do not conflict (with one another) for you will fail and your energy will be dissipated" (Quran 8:46). Nor does Islam function well without command (amr). It was ibn Taymiyyah who said: "it is better for the Muslims to live under a tyrannical ruler for 100 years then to be without a ruler for one night".

In the United States, there is currently no Islamic rule, not even on a limited basis, except in the local ways that I described earlier. Muslims in America need to establish a system of law that is comprehensive and applied across the board. Starting on a local, citywide level would be a good beginning. Whatever we are unable to establish we are pardoned from as Allah has said: "Fear Allah to the degree that you can" (Quran 63:16). However to accept a mediocre application of Islam because we are too comfortable living the good American life or because it will cost us more money or because we are afraid of trying is not acceptable. Just look at the Amish in Pennsylvania, the Mormons in Utah or the Jehovah's Witnesses. Three examples of comprehensive religious order right here in the good old USA. If anyone thinks that Muslims can't learn anything from other religious groups, let him be reminded of the hadith of the Prophet (saws): "Wisdom is the lost item of the believer, wherever he finds it, he has more right to it". Perhaps Allah has brought us all here to set an example for Muslims around the world.

http://www.islamicity.com/articles/Articles.asp?ref=IC0308-2068

One way to solve the Imams problems is to Islamesize the US, in other words import more Muslims. I hope the Europeans read this and wake up but I fear not.

This is the way that I see Europe unfolding in the coming years:

France will most likely be the first country that falls to Islam and after that Germany, after that the smaller countries will fall. By this time Israel will most likely be gone or find itself isolated always at the ready to push the button. Perhaps Britain will be the last holdout, internal terrorism collapses its economy and they surrender to Islam without a fight.

The way it goes is that so called Muslims give it time and radical Islam wants it right away.

Isiah 2:4

08-29-2003, 06:30 AM

I dont see how you can espouse that 'Europe will fall to the evils of the infidels' type of rhetoric.

My aunties husband is French, so my uncle, is french really. Now, his kids go to a private school, as do most French, because, and this is not his view, but the view of many as he explained it to me, the state schools are full of arabs!

Considering the French are very, very Catholic and there is a big resurgence in the facist right, do really expect it will become an Islamic country? Seriously?

People were saying what you say now, about communism 50 years ago. Look how that panned out.

Its not the spread of religion, politics or ideas that is the danger, it is the spread of fundamentalism of any type that threatens the world. And even more worrying than that, the normalisation and acceptence of fundamentalist beliefs, and the acceptence of them as rational ideologies, may be already nearing. That is the danger.

L@mplighterM

08-29-2003, 07:21 AM

Originally posted by Isiah 2:4
I dont see how you can espouse that 'Europe will fall to the evils of the infidels' type of rhetoric.

My aunties husband is French, so my uncle, is french really. Now, his kids go to a private school, as do most French, because, and this is not his view, but the view of many as he explained it to me, the state schools are full of arabs!

Considering the French are very, very Catholic and there is a big resurgence in the facist right, do really expect it will become an Islamic country? Seriously?

People were saying what you say now, about communism 50 years ago. Look how that panned out.

Its not the spread of religion, politics or ideas that is the danger, it is the spread of fundamentalism of any type that threatens the world. And even more worrying than that, the normalisation and acceptence of fundamentalist beliefs, and the acceptence of them as rational ideologies, may be already nearing. That is the danger.

I also know what many people said about Hitler and that sure the hell panned out. The former Soviet Union didnâ€™t just up and walk away, many factors led to its downfall.

Muslims make Muslims and it wouldnâ€™t be bad if they westernized and had offspringâ€™s that didnâ€™t turn out Islamic radicals (a percentage). I know about French schools and how the government there had to establish laws (Iâ€™m guessing here) to keep Muslims in line.

France will fall to Islam (Iâ€™m practically certain) and itâ€™ll happen within the next 25-50 years, after that youâ€™ll see a domino affect through Europe. Itâ€™s all about numbers and how the reproduction rate of Muslims surpasses that of native Europeans

SteveMetch

08-29-2003, 08:02 AM

I have yet to see a good Muslim who wouldnâ€™t make a better Christian.

Islam is simple unworkable in a modern secular society. To make it work would mean throwing away over 80% of the Koran and Hadiths at which point what remained would not be Islam. This is why Muslims divide the world into the House of Submission and the House of War. They realize that Islam is an all encompassing social system that requires complete submission in order to operate correctly.

Both of the major religious traditions of Judeo/Christian and Hindu/Buddhism have managed in the modern age to adapt themselves to secular liberal democracies. Islam has not shown nor will it ever be able to adapt to such an environment because it seeks to submit all within its domain whether they are Muslim or not to the will of Allah.

Lowell

08-30-2003, 05:55 AM

Originally posted by SteveMetch
I have yet to see a good Muslim who wouldnâ€™t make a better Christian.

Islam is simple unworkable in a modern secular society. To make it work would mean throwing away over 80% of the Koran and Hadiths at which point what remained would not be Islam. This is why Muslims divide the world into the House of Submission and the House of War. They realize that Islam is an all encompassing social system that requires complete submission in order to operate correctly.

Both of the major religious traditions of Judeo/Christian and Hindu/Buddhism have managed in the modern age to adapt themselves to secular liberal democracies. Islam has not shown nor will it ever be able to adapt to such an environment because it seeks to submit all within its domain whether they are Muslim or not to the will of Allah.

Excuse me, but does Christianity adapt so well to modern secular society, either? Some Christians still believe the world was literally created in six days, a mere 4004 years ago. I've always wondered why an all powerful God would need six whole days to create everything- why not six seconds, or six nano-seconds? In addition the same can be said of the Christian Bible as you suggest of the Qu'ran of Islam: it is well documented that the early Christian church suppressed many writings that can be attributed to the Jewish man Christ or to His disciples, and the Gospels are quite inconsistent in the stories they tell- in other words, made up. For a long time, too, Christianity was an all encompassing social system wherever it was in the world, and it was as fearful as any Islamic fundamentalist regime- just ask any of the millions of 'heretics' burnt alive at the Christian stake. Finally, it is erroneous to speak of the 'Judeo-Christian' tradition or heritage: Judaism, at 5763 years and counting, is far older than either Christianity or Islam, and it is a completely separate and unique way of life and system of beliefs. Considering that Christian Europe has long persecuted and murdered Jews, as Islam now does, it is both dishonest and insipid of Christianity to claim a commonality with Judaism- isn't it enough that Christians have usurped the Jewish man they call Messiah?

SteveMetch

09-04-2003, 07:36 AM

Originally posted by Lowell
Excuse me, but does Christianity adapt so well to modern secular society, either?

Christianity founding principles and Post Reformation practice is very compatible with liberal democracy. In fact allowing everyone to follow their conscience in regards to the interpretation of the bible and the resulting sects that formed is very similar to the competition of ideas (democracy) and the competition of goods & services (capitalism). The rigid â€œSubmissionâ€ of Islam is the exact opposite.

Originally posted by Lowell
Some Christians still believe the world was literally created in six days, a mere 4004 years ago. I've always wondered why an all powerful God would need six whole days to create everything- why not six seconds, or six nano-seconds?

The fact that some Christianâ€™s sects interrupt the bible literally is a fall out of their free conscience rather than an example of non-compliance with the modern world. Heck, a lot of the ideologies of the socialist are pure fantasy with no place in the real world.

Originally posted by Lowell
In addition the same can be said of the Christian Bible as you suggest of the Qu'ran of Islam: it is well documented that the early Christian church suppressed many writings that can be attributed to the Jewish man Christ or to His disciples, and the Gospels are quite inconsistent in the stories they tell- in other words, made up.

I said that â€œIslam is unworkable in the modern worldâ€ whether the Bible or the Koran is a work of fact or fiction is irrelevant. Fortunately, through divine guidance or just plain luck, Christianity had the benefit of Greek logic combined with Jewish religious teachings to create a set of writings that were generally self-consistent and have a definable central theme and philosophy. Islam didnâ€™t under go this same critical review and logic cycle and suffers to this day with metaphysical absurdities like Predestination + An all power God and verses that oscillate between one belief or another. This is primary reason Islam is so screwed up. The lack of good editing before release.

Originally posted by Lowell
For a long time, too, Christianity was an all encompassing social system wherever it was in the world, and it was as fearful as any Islamic fundamentalist regime- just ask any of the millions of 'heretics' burnt alive at the Christian stake.

All religions have had there share of those who use religion to justify their barbaric acts and to control populations. The difference is that when â€œChristiansâ€ engage in this behavior they are going against their fundamental teachings where as â€œMuslimsâ€ are very consistent with their teachings. There is no path to heaven let alone 72 virgins through the murder of non-believers in Christianity unlike Islam.

Originally posted by Lowell
Finally, it is erroneous to speak of the 'Judeo-Christian' tradition or heritage: Judaism, at 5763 years and counting, is far older than either Christianity or Islam, and it is a completely separate and unique way of life and system of beliefs. Considering that Christian Europe has long persecuted and murdered Jews, as Islam now does, it is both dishonest and insipid of Christianity to claim a commonality with Judaism- isn't it enough that Christians have usurped the Jewish man they call Messiah?

Christians are a continuation of the Jewish tradition only as a light to the rest of the world. If only you understood Christianity as well as I understand Judaism you would see the complete absorption of Jewish religious tradition and philosophies in Christianity. In fact during the earlier days of Christianity it was hard to distinguish it from just one of many Jewish sects. With the destruction of the temple and the scattering of the Jewish people by the Romans, the competition over which faction would rule the Jewish temple and the therefore center of Jewish life was completely ended.

Do to the teaching of this new Jewish Christian sect that allowed non-Jews thru baptism to become part of the large Judeo-Christian tradition this sect grew to dominate over all other Jewish sects to the point it became separate and distinct from its original Jewish foundation. Whether this was do to divine will is irrelevant, as a mechanism of attracting new adherents it is far superior to just utilizing birth rate and marriage conversions, the later being especially difficult when emersed in a non-jewish population. Natural selection applies to social systems like religion and government as well as the natural world.

abu afak

09-04-2003, 12:01 PM

`

http://homepage.mac.com/cfj/.Pictures/Americanmuslim-X.gif

.

Revkha

09-04-2003, 03:54 PM

The lead article in this thread points out an important point - there is no central or organized body to Islam in the U.S. and in other areas. There is segmentation in Christianity in that S. American Catholics are culturally but not dogmatic religiously different from N. American Catholics or European Catholics. But the Pope is the central figure in Catholicism and makes policy for Catholics worldwide. Islam like Judaism is based on law. Unlike Judaism which has its rabbinical courts for religious law, Islam does not have an established Islamic court but fragmentation courts based on interpretations of local or regional Imams.

Islam will only change and adapt from within. No amount of military might or western influence and diplomacy will radically change Islam.

The problems lies with the laws and history of Islam. Islam involves not only faith and practice but also an identity and loyalty. There is no separation of "church and state." Islam is not only religious but it is political. Islam considers itself as the sole custodian of G_d's truth. Although the Christian clergy in the U.S. is very vocal and political, their influence in the U.S. pales in comparison to the influence of Islamic leaders in other countries particularly Saudi Arabia and Iran.

Jihad will not vanish overnight. It is considered a religious obligation. It has been present from the beginning of Islamic history, not only in the actions of the Prophet but in the actions of his successors. Muhammad was not only a teacher but he was a soldier. The early Arab jihads were eventually halted by Christian Europe. But it appears now that present day Islam will triumph though centuries later as Europe eventually succumbs to Islam vis-a-vis the birthrate.

Contrary to non-Muslim society Muslims do not forget. Even today, centuries later, they still remember and celebrate Saladin and his capture of Jerusalem from the Crusaders in 1187. Even the prime minister of France, Raffarin, in pandering to the Muslims referred to Saladin's victory in a speech in 2002.

Moderate Islam is lost and silent until it finds a common and central voice. According to Islam it is blasphemous to speak against Islam, its Prophet or its laws. Until the moderate Muslims overtake the radical Muslims, jihad will continue. Until the Imams instruct their congregations to speak against the radical elements, the radicals will continue to win.

The other important point is the reference to what constitutes a goal for Islamization of the world. For those who want to function as ostriches and believe otherwise - well they are in for a very rude awakening.

Lisa-loo

06-13-2006, 06:41 AM

I think what everyone's been saying about the utter incomaptibility of Islam and modernization/secularism/democracy is really interesting, mostly because I've been on a forum that is mostly dominated by Muslims, and they are having the same conversation. However, many of the Muslims communicating on the website are those liberal Muslims who seem so hard to find, and by dialoguing, I believe they are trying to change and explore their religion from within.

The forum could use some more perspectives on this issue, both within Islam and especially from people on the outside looking in. These people, though they are openly intolerant at times, are really debating the right issues and could use some of the perspectives here to spark discussion. Go onto www.children-of-abraham.org and click on public forums and see the discussion for yourself!

ps: when someone writes Mohammed or Jesus and then writes (SAW) afterwards, what does it mean?

Agnosthiest

06-13-2006, 07:28 AM

Excuse me, but does Christianity adapt so well to modern secular society, either?

Are you blind??? Look at North America, South America, Europe, Philippines and Australia. Christian dominated countries are the stronghold of secular society.

Considering that Christian Europe has long persecuted and murdered Jews, as Islam now does, it is both dishonest and insipid of Christianity to claim a commonality with Judaism-

they do share things in common. like the jewish scriptures. and christians and jews practically grew up together and shaped the world together. if thats not commonality then i dont know what is. whats dishonest about that?

besides, it is this kind of thinking that stopped their ill treatment of jews. It is this kind of thinking that led many christians to support zionism. you should be thankful instead.

isn't it enough that Christians have usurped the Jewish man they call Messiah?

Its this jewish man that led people to believe that he was the messiah, the son of god, and god himself.

Luke90

06-13-2006, 08:16 AM

Agnostheist,
This is an ancient thread, I don't think you'll get much of a debate from Lowell, he hasn't posted since November 04.

Agnosthiest

06-13-2006, 08:29 AM

^Oh thanks, luke. Just got carried away. :D

Cellis

06-13-2006, 08:39 AM

2003 :) goodness... i think islam is now normalized

Muslima

06-13-2006, 11:59 AM

Excuse me, but does Christianity adapt so well to modern secular society, either? Some Christians still believe the world was literally created in six days, a mere 4004 years ago. I've always wondered why an all powerful God would need six whole days to create everything- why not six seconds, or six nano-seconds? In addition the same can be said of the Christian Bible as you suggest of the Qu'ran of Islam: it is well documented that the early Christian church suppressed many writings that can be attributed to the Jewish man Christ or to His disciples, and the Gospels are quite inconsistent in the stories they tell- in other words, made up. For a long time, too, Christianity was an all encompassing social system wherever it was in the world, and it was as fearful as any Islamic fundamentalist regime- just ask any of the millions of 'heretics' burnt alive at the Christian stake. Finally, it is erroneous to speak of the 'Judeo-Christian' tradition or heritage: Judaism, at 5763 years and counting, is far older than either Christianity or Islam, and it is a completely separate and unique way of life and system of beliefs. Considering that Christian Europe has long persecuted and murdered Jews, as Islam now does, it is both dishonest and insipid of Christianity to claim a commonality with Judaism- isn't it enough that Christians have usurped the Jewish man they call Messiah?

Very well said Lowell,

This SteveMetch character likes to pretend that Christiantiy's ugly history which shames Islam's terrorists today, didn't exist.

Muslima

06-13-2006, 12:19 PM

All religions have had there share of those who use religion to justify their barbaric acts and to control populations. The difference is that when â€œChristiansâ€ engage in this behavior they are going against their fundamental teachings where as â€œMuslimsâ€ are very consistent with their teachings. There is no path to heaven let alone 72 virgins through the murder of non-believers in Christianity unlike Islam.

.

You demonstrate your lack of knowledge about Islam, you ignorant man, or you deliberately lie. I suspect the latter, but that wasn't what i wanted to raise here.

Another thing, your pathetic attemtps to whitewash Christianity's cruelty over thousands of years, is truly pathetic, but again i digress.

Can you explain how these Evangelists are going against their fundamental beliefs, and if they are why are they so influential:

and extracts from:
http://www.sullivan-county.com/identity/jew_haters.htm

"Petersburg Times, June 26, 1994; Bailey Smith, a founding father of
Robertson's Christian Coalition, once told 15,000 people at a Religious
Roundtable briefing in Dallas, "With all due respect to those dear people,
my friend, God Almighty does not hear the prayer of a Jew."

"(Preacher) Thomas Short: In November 1996, Christian evangelist Thomas
Short was visiting Texas A&M, when he openly declared to a Jewish student
that she was "destined for hell." He then told another Jewish student that
"Hitler did not go far enough."

"Pat Robertson is clearly a racist and anti-Semitic bigot. He and other
Bible-thumpers may support Israel, they do not support Jews or Judaism. To
these folks Israel is part of some second-coming of Christ prophecy, despite
the fact the Bible proves this failed in the First Century. The Liberal Left
is equally anti-Semitic and racist with their irrational hatred of Israel
(near blind worship of the PLO Arabs) and their support of racist
multiculturalism."

and extracts from:
http://www.sullivan-county.com/identity/jew_haters.htm

Muslima

06-13-2006, 12:22 PM

Agnostheist,
This is an ancient thread, I don't think you'll get much of a debate from Lowell, he hasn't posted since November 04.

Oh no, you're kidding , but no, you're right !
Damn, what a waste lol

Luke90

06-13-2006, 02:30 PM

Not entirely a waste of time for you.
I read your responses and probably others did too.

Agnosthiest

06-14-2006, 05:00 AM

Very well said Lowell,

This SteveMetch character likes to pretend that Christiantiy's ugly history which shames Islam's terrorists today, didn't exist.

The way you said thatâ€¦as if you pretend that Islamâ€™s own ugly history isnt as bad.

Agnosthiest

06-14-2006, 05:05 AM

"Pat Robertson is clearly a racist and anti-Semitic bigot. He and other
Bible-thumpers may support Israel, they do not support Jews or Judaism. To
these folks Israel is part of some second-coming of Christ prophecy, despite
the fact the Bible proves this failed in the First Century. The Liberal Left
is equally anti-Semitic and racist with their irrational hatred of Israel
(near blind worship of the PLO Arabs) and their support of racist
multiculturalism."

Pat Robertson is an idiot. But where is the evidence that he is racist and anti-semitic?

Muslima

06-14-2006, 05:20 AM

The way you said that…as if you pretend that Islam’s own ugly history isnt as bad.

Nahhhhhhhh,

Islam has a SPECTACULAR history, spectacular with a capital "S". ;)

Not an ugly one, some aspects of it are ugly i concede that, but generally it is SPECTACULAR,GREAT, WONDERFUL, MARVELLOUS, .......and i can contine bragging, but i havn't time

You can continue pretending otherwise, though, but you don't fool anyone.

Muslima

06-14-2006, 05:29 AM

Pat Robertson is an idiot. But where is the evidence that he is racist and anti-semitic?

those wern't my words they were from that op-ed i posted. Doesn't it say in there Pat Robertson's book is Anti-Semitic? I havn't read it, but he apparently talks of a Jewish banking conspiracy or something.

Agnosthiest

06-14-2006, 06:08 AM

Nahhhhhhhh,

Islam has a SPECTACULAR history, spectacular with a capital "S". ;)

Not an ugly one, some aspects of it are ugly i concede that, but generally it is SPECTACULAR,GREAT, WONDERFUL, MARVELLOUS, .......and i can contine bragging, but i havn't time

You can continue pretending otherwise, though, but you don't fool anyone.

You are either in denial like most muslims or just plain ignorant like most muslims. Its so disgusting. :mad:

* Islam’s ugly history started with Mohammad when he massacred an entire tribe of unarmed POW jews.

* Muslims conquered peaceful nations from France to Egypt to India and back to Greece. That sure taught Christians the concept of colonialism.

* Muslims murdered countless of apostates, gays. That sure rivals Christianity’s inquisition & witch huntings.

* Muslims dhimmified christians & jews, and conflicts occurred because of this discrimination. Like when moors massacred an entire jewish town. Or when the turks massacred thousands of armenian christians.

* In its entire occupation of India Muslims killed indians by the tens of millions.

Etc, etc etc.

Islam’s spectacular history were mostly confined to its rule of spain, thanks mostly to priceless jewish contributions, and it didn’t last very long.

You dont fool anyone, Muslimah. We (whether christian, jew, hindu or athiest) all now know Islam's atrocities in the past. Thats what scares us about islam, a repeat of these things. Because islam is a militaristic and fascist political religion.

Bloodnut

06-14-2006, 06:26 AM

Wow, that's all you could come up with Muslima?

Seems to me Christianity compares better to Islam than I originally thought. I mean where are the institutionalized rantings from dozens of Christian authorities throughout numerous countries, who insist the holocaust didn't exist, that Jews are the offspring of apes and pigs, that Israel is the cause of all evil, should be destroyed, et cetera? Seems to me there is no comparison, even if you run back to medieval times and try the old switcharoo by pretending the Byzantine Empire and "Christianity" were synonymous. The tolerance offered by the Popes of old were impressive compared to Islamic sharia. Whether the Roman emperors allowed that tolerance to be practiced was another matter.

As far as the comment from some fundamentalist who said God doesn't hear the Jew's prayer, this is demonstrably not mainstream. Further, Muhammed informed Allah that if he didn't grant him the power to overwhelm his "enemies" during one of his piracy campaigns, that he would be "worshipped no more." Meaning, since the Muslims would all be killed, nobody else on the planet really worshipped Allah.

Your entire tirade is a pitiful attempt to excuse Muslim bigotry by providing the silly "oh but Christians are too," nonsense. There is a difference between Christian and Islamic texts regarding the Jews; if one is interested in educating oneself and finding out.

Mediocrates

06-14-2006, 07:08 AM

I'm not sure that analog is meaningful. One is a belief - today, now. The other is history, what actually happened. Yes Evangelicals in the US have a strange relationship with Jews. The Southern Baptist Convention put as an item on their national agenda, the conversion of Jews. Some of their more prominent spokesmen have uttered some pretty offensive things. But that's quite a bit different than the history of how both Christians and Muslims treated the Jews in the past.

Muslima

06-14-2006, 07:32 AM

Muslima

06-14-2006, 07:43 AM

You are either in denial like most muslims or just plain ignorant like most muslims. Its so disgusting. :mad: .

You know i'm sick of your agenda, it's as plain as pie. It's like what SteveMetch does here, except that he tries to pretend that Christianity is more tolerant than Islam, and you try to pretend that Secularism is better and more tolerant than Islam.

You both are full of sh----

I don't hear you say anything about the genocides and massacres that secular systems indulged in?

* Islam’s ugly history started with Mohammad when he massacred an entire tribe of unarmed POW jews.

Read history you ignorant man. The tribe was guilty and the death sentence passed on by one of their own, (a convert,who was the Prophet's commander) I've posted on this subject here before if you bother to look back.
If the Prophet had done this, dont you think they would have dumped his as Prophet?

The Prophet is the greatest leader in history. Why would a Jew (Sir Bernard Shaw) be calling for a man like him to be ruling the world today if your nonsense is true? Bernard Shaw said about him:
"He must be called the Savior of Humanity. I believe that if a man like him
were to assume the dictatorship of the modern world, he would succeed in
solving its problems in a way that would bring it much-needed peace and
happiness".
(The Genuine Islam, Singapore, Vol. 1, No.8, 1936)

* Muslims conquered peaceful nations from France to Egypt to India and back to Greece. That sure taught Christians the concept of colonialism.

Yes they did, and thank God for that. Christian's were not given a God given mandate to rule. Only Islam was. Don't compare colonialism to the Islamic conquest's.

* Muslims dhimmified christians & jews, and conflicts occurred because of this discrimination. Like when moors massacred an entire jewish town. Or when the turks massacred thousands of armenian christians.

Stop this b---

Dhimmified is our system of rule. There is nothing wrong with it.

The genocides? Are you stupid? This has nothing to do with religion. More genocides have occured under secular rulers than ever under religious systems.

Islam’s spectacular history were mostly confined to its rule of spain, thanks mostly to priceless jewish contributions, and it didn’t last very long.

The Jews golden age was their own. We had our own input and it wasn't just in Spain. If you deny that you are even more stupid than i thought.

You dont fool anyone, Muslimah. We (whether christian, jew, hindu or athiest) all now know Islam's atrocities in the past.

I'm not out to fool anyone. I don't deny that people comitted atrocities. You on the other hand have an agenda to take all the atrocities that Muslims comitted and make it out like Islam was the reason. You know very well it wasn't but yoiu have an agenda to promote secularism by proving organised religion is inferior to a man made system.

You are the one who is TRYING to fool people.

Thats what scares us about islam, a repeat of these things. Because islam is a militaristic and fascist political religion.

If that were true, i and a billion other Muslims would renounce the faith today. It is certainly powerful and strong, and that is what bothers you, that is what scares you. But lying isn't helping your cause any;)

Remember my earlier words: more crimes and genocides are comitted under secular man made rule. History has proven that. That is why your agnostic/atheist creed agenda will always be where it deserves to be. Right at the bottom, and extremely unpopular.

And Bloodnut, the above is for you as well.

Sarah_Bathsheba

06-14-2006, 08:13 AM

Once I was a great and glorious people. Once I wore a crown about my head, a crown made of wisdom and knowledge, jewels I wore around my neck were made of truth and understanding. Rings upon my fingers were righteousness and faith.

Once I was a mighty nation, ruling even over Egypt the renowned force. I stood strong and sure. I sang with one voice, I prayed with one heart. Once I was Godâ€™s pride and his joy. Once, onceâ€¦ once I wasâ€¦.

O but wantonness and vanity overcame me. Strife and turmoil ripped my heart wide open. From within I tore down the tabernacles of my God. With my own hands and mouth I broke the covenant, I defiled it. I traded my crown and my jewels for fools gold. I was enticed by the whore. So alluring her sweet bed of roses blinded me from the serpents that lay waiting beneath for me to fall at her feet. Consumed by lust, I begged of her flesh, disregarding who I was, whom I served. My god, my father, caught me in the whoreâ€™s embrace, drunken with wine, covered in the blood of the spirit of my youth.

O how my Father wept for me. An ocean could not hold His tears. I had pierced him to his very soul. He had brought me out of the house of bondage time and time again. Always I betrayed him. Always, I was compelled by the spectacular beauty of Babylon, my mistress. There was milk and honey at my table, and my lips were never dry. Nations wondered at the many blessings I alone received of my Father, yet stillâ€¦I was so foolish.

Finally I had to be punished. I was left alone because of my iniquities. My mouth was dry and the source that had once given me so much nourishment was now like unto a desert.

There I stood stripped of truth, void of knowledgeâ€¦. With out understanding of who I was, or from whence I came,.. I was easily overtaken. From western coast Africa to the new Egypt was I brought against my will, (as though I had claim to my own any longer), they stole me away in their ships. Branded SLAVE, I was beaten, brutally raped, worked like a mule until my muscles tore from my bones, then forced to work even harder. I ate the table scraps of swine and my teeth fell from my mouth. I suffered great unspeakable atrocities unto my death, unto my death, a thousand times and more. There was no solace for my pain, no one to hear my cries in the night. A proverb, a by-word I was trampled under foot like unto a snake. My face, my being, my very existence was abhorred by every nation. â€œ A beastly people unworthy to breathe godâ€™s airâ€, is what was said of me (and still is).

For over 400 years I scraped by on my face, begging, borrowing, stealing, even killing my own to survive. No father, no mother, no name. I had lost my identity completely! I heard the name Israel and thought of a land. Desperately I grasped for some kind of hope, some sense of belonging.

Muslims called me brother but they were the ones who sold me to the Egyptians, so how could they be my kin? Christians who had bought me like cattle also called me brother but they had performed the most terrible acts upon me during my enslavement. Read the rest @ www.israelitenation.com/sarahspeaks.html

Sarah Bathsheba
Sarah_Bathsheba@israelitenation.com

Bloodnut

06-14-2006, 08:14 AM

While Muslima is obviously becoming more and more unhinged in his emotional outbursts, he continues to spread the ignorance. The simple fact that his is unwilling to acknolwedge the difference between Christianity and the Byzantine Empire, speaks volumes about his "agenda."

Muhammed was a charlatan who murdered entire groups of people for doing little more than disagreeing with him. The 600-900 Jews he had beheaded were killed, not because they had done anything wrong, but because another "divine" intervention in the form of an angel told him that the battle was not over yet. He was to attack the Jews. This message came to him when Muhammed had removed his armor and started bathing, indicating that there was obviously no threat from the Jews. Later ad hoc excuses were invented that said the Jews were guilty for refusing to "fight" alongside the Muslims, but Muhammed's biographer indicated that there was virtually no fighting during this seige in the first place, rendering this claim without merit. Moreover, this particular Jewish massacre was just one of many. Nobody here has yet to explain or apoligize for the "historic" fact that Muhammed charged the Jews of Khaybar for no reason other than to quell the bloodthirst of his adherents, who were upset with Muhammed for making a treaty with the Meccans instead of invading. The Jews were always a convenient punching bag for the Muslims to unleash their frustrations, when they couldn't do so with the Meccans. Islamic sources provide an outline for this argument, as virtually every page of Ibn Ishaq's "Life of Muhammed" offers a blistering refutation of the normal apologetic perceptions of him.

It is therefore ironic that Muslima would call upon those to read the "history" while ignoring it himself.

Agnosthiest

06-14-2006, 08:20 AM

Read history you ignorant man. The tribe was guilty and the death sentence passed on by one of their own, (a convert,who was the Prophet's commander) I've posted on this subject here before if you bother to look back.

Donâ€™t mock me, I know this history particularly well. Mohammad was the real power here and he could have overruled this judgement and have shown mercy instead. But rather Mohammad was so overjoyed by bin Muadâ€™s clever excuse to exterminate the jews that he proclaimed it as the will of God.

You wont be making that pathetic post had you known that bin Muad was Mohammadâ€™s bodyguard, appointed by Mohammad to be the judge. At least you know that he was a convert, but you should have given some thought to the fact that there are very few things more pleasing to a convert than making his Prophet happy.

What a pathetic excuse.

If the Prophet had done this, dont you think they would have dumped his as Prophet?

Oh please look around. Cult leaders have done equally worst things and their blinded followers still cant see the light.

Yes they did, and thank God for that. Christian's were not given a God given mandate to rule. Only Islam was.

rule my arse. If such a mandate came from any real god islam would have ruled the world by now. On the contrary muslims only succeed in making a mess the nations they rule. And all attempts in making theocracies result either in failures or fascisms like Saudi Arabia. Islam doesnâ€™t work, its as clear as pie. Thank God for these failures? No, its thank God that Islam failed to conquer the rest of the world. For that we have the internet. Thank God indeed.

Dhimmified is our system of rule. There is nothing wrong with it.

Nothing wrong for the ruler, but everything wrong for the ruled and dhimmified. How can you be so blind. Muslims will all turn terrorists if the West makes dhimmies out of all of them.

The genocides? Are you stupid? This has nothing to do with religion. More genocides have occured under secular rulers than ever under religious systems.

No Im not stupid, but maybe you are. See how you stupidly contradict your own statements. First you say genocides have nothing to do with religion and then you admit that some do happen under religious systems.

Iâ€™ll be back for the restâ€¦

Mediocrates

06-14-2006, 08:21 AM

Medio, as a Jew, do you believe that both Christianity and Islam were equally bad in their treatment towards' Jews? or was one better than the other?

I would rather not take sides. I feel it's meaningless. If we go back to the Roman era, if they had just left us alone, and the the Muslims and the Christians had too there would be 300 million of us. But over the years everyone in the west and in the mideast too has, when it suited their needs, persecuted, tortured, oppressed, expelled and exterminated us. That's one beauty contest I should think neither of you wants to either win OR lose.

Bloodnut

06-14-2006, 08:25 AM

== Dhimmified is our system of rule. There is nothing wrong with it.

Oh really?

So then you agree that Jews and Christians should be second-class citizens? The reason I ask is because most Muslims trying to come across as "moderate" insist this is an old tradition that doesn't pertain to modern times. Kinda like killing people who knowing change their religion from Islam to something else.

Your statement here pretty much proves our point, I think. Either you just knowingly admitted being a bigot, supporting an ideology that is completely at odds with modern concepts of equal rights, or you are too ignorant of dhimmitude to realize what you just conceded to.

You know, there is a saying that I believe is pertinent here.

"It is better to keep one's mouth shut and appear the fool, than to speak, and remove all doubt."

Agnosthiest

06-14-2006, 09:04 AM

The Jews golden age was their own. We had our own input and it wasn't just in Spain. If you deny that you are even more stupid than i thought.

I know, that’s why I said “mostly”. Now please admit that you are what you call “stupid”.

I'm not out to fool anyone. I don't deny that people comitted atrocities. You on the other hand have an agenda to take all the atrocities that Muslims comitted and make it out like Islam was the reason. You know very well it wasn't but yoiu have an agenda to promote secularism by proving organised religion is inferior to a man made system.

You are the one who is TRYING to fool people.

To tell you the truth, the way I see it atrocities committed by muslims throughout history is just partly to blame on islam itself. Not entirely. The same with Christianity & Judaism, to a lesser degree compared with Islam.

Organized religion is a man made system. Don’t tell me you don’t see non-islamic religions that way. My only difference with you is I see all of them for what they are, whether islamic system, hindu system, jewish system, xtianic, or falun gong system.

If that were too, i and a billion other Muslims would renounce the faith today. It is certainly powerful and strong, and that is what bothers you, that is what scares you. But lying isn't helping your cause any;)

If its as simple as that then muslims would have renounced islam when the early caliphs employed islam as a militaristic & fascist theocratic endeavor.

Christianity is a dozen times more powerful and strong, but it doesnt scare me one bit. The way Judaism is now wont scare me either. Nor will most other religion. You know why? Guess.

The other religion that scares me is Scientology. Again, guess why. :D

Remember my earlier words: more crimes and genocides are comitted under secular man made rule. History has proven that. That is why your agnostic/atheist creed agenda will always be where it deserves to be. Right at the bottom, and extremely unpopular.

How can anyone trust your interpretation of history if you cant even read my words right, and when you contradict your own statements. Anyhow you are wrong again, agnosticism and athiesm is the darling of todays media & entertainment. We are a lot more than you like to imagine. If it’s a religion then we are certainly the fastest growing.

Bloodnut

06-14-2006, 09:46 AM

Islam is powerful in one sense alone. It certainly isn't powerful intellectually or technologically. In that sense Islam is the weakest system on the planet, which is why it is so frustrating for Muslims. They only way they can appear strong militarily is to blow themselves up.

The scary thing is that they care nothing for life in general, and everything for the "collective" whole. Think of the Borg from Star Trek. They subject themselves to excessive poverty by attempting to breed out the non-Muslims from the world. They further deny themselves the opportunities for education. You see, Islam doesn't generally grow through converting others because Islam is intellectually attractive. No.

It grows primarily through breeding. A method no more respectable than illegal cloning. This comes across as a sign of power for Muslims, but that has alot to do with the fact that Most Muslims are uneducated, even illiterate. It is an illusion of power, but not power itself. That is what Islam has provided the world today. It breeds poverty and crime and exports it to foreign countries where Muslims have little or no intentions to adapt to their host societies. Just look at Denmark and France. Both overwhelmed by Muslim immigrants who take advantage of the new freedoms offered to them, absorb most of the government's welfare resources, and give virtually nothing back to the society except more crime and poverty; all the while whinning about how their state is to be blamed on racism or what not.

It is a backwards religion and society that is exporting poverty, ignorance and every aspect of backwards thinking to other countries. It doesn't respect other cultures, but demands that all other cultures respect its demands.

Muslima

06-14-2006, 09:46 AM

I would rather not take sides. I feel it's meaningless. If we go back to the Roman era, if they had just left us alone, and the the Muslims and the Christians had too there would be 300 million of us. .

Medio, the reason your numbers are small are because most Jews converted or were killed by Christianity.
Certainly on Arab lands they converted, i can give yoiu a long list of prominent families in Saudi and The Arabian Gulf who are of Jewish origin. People like agnostic will now cry they were forced to convert (another lie) and i'll point you towards China. Over the centuries most Chinese Jews converted to Islam even tho the ruling system there wasn't Islamic . Can give you many other examples.

If you note in America and in Europe today, the Jews are mostly secular, ie. they fit in with their host countries. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but that's the reason why your numbers are small. I keep hearing many Jewish groups lamenting the facts that the Jews in America are not Jewish enough, or are assimilating too much, and this has led to them losing influence. Same in Europe, to the extent that lots of Jews are anti-Israel.

But over the years everyone in the west and in the mideast too has, when it suited their needs, persecuted, tortured, oppressed, expelled and exterminated us. That's one beauty contest I should think neither of you wants to either win OR lose

The pogroms and killings against Jews were mainly a Christian thing, not an Islamic one, even Daniel Pipes says that.

Another thing, Jews used to flee to Muslim lands from Christendom, when they could have just as easily migrated elsewhere, ie. to non Muslim lands.

How does the NUT (blood) and the Agnost Agenda explain why Jews chose to live under Islam than go anywhere else?

Bloodnut

06-14-2006, 09:49 AM

== the reason your numbers are small are because most Jews converted or were killed by Christianity.

Well it doesn't get any dumber than this.

Muslima

06-14-2006, 09:49 AM

Islam is powerful in one sense alone. .

After reading your posts, i have come to the conclusion that your nickname doesn't do you justice, you should remove "blood" and just call yourself

N U T

I don't have the time to go through your horse manure point by point. You exhibit crass ignorance, blind bigotry, and plain stupidity.

By the way, i'm a woman not a man.

Also i just read in the other thread that you're not Jewish? How dare you post all this BS with Christianti'es murderous ugly history against Jews.

Islam protected the Jews from your savagery.

Muslima

06-14-2006, 10:07 AM

But rather Mohammad was so overjoyed by bin Muad’s clever excuse to exterminate the jews that he proclaimed it as the will of God.

You wont be making that pathetic post had you known that bin Muad was Mohammad’s bodyguard, appointed by Mohammad to be the judge. At least you know that he was a convert, but you should have given some thought to the fact that there are very few things more pleasing to a convert than making his Prophet happy.

What a pathetic excuse.

…

You know i agree with Toga for once, you bring nothing of value to this forum.
I'm not mocking you, I AM DEADLY SERIOUS WHEN I SAY YOU LACK CREDIBILITY.

You can scream your lies about the Prophet, all you want, but it's not true. History records the facts. and anyway would he want the Jews killed? The Prophet's personal phsycian was a practicing Jew.
They were no threat to himm, he even expected them to help him spread the faith which they did at first, until the faith threatened them.
He was a threat to them. Islam outlawed usuary, and the money lenders there were threatened by that. By the way, you say Jews, but the ones who were his enemies were the ones who sided with the Pagans and undermined the state.
The non hostile Jews weren't his enemy, in fact he was very close to his ahl dhimma. Jews and Christians alike.

I really don't have the time to rebut all your nonsense and lies.

Agnosthiest

06-14-2006, 10:35 AM

Certainly on Arab lands they converted, i can give yoiu a long list of prominent families in Saudi and The Arabian Gulf who are of Jewish origin. People like agnostic will now cry they were forced to convert (another lie)

you are soooo naive. dhimmitude is a slow process of forced conversion. think about it. the only way for dhimmies to escape persecution and discrimination is to convert to islam. and the first to give in are the weaker-willed and less educated christians & jews.

and i'll point you towards China. Over the centuries most Chinese Jews converted to Islam even tho the ruling system there wasn't Islamic . Can give you many other examples.

give us facts. links please.

The pogroms and killings against Jews were mainly a Christian thing, not an Islamic one, even Daniel Pipes says that.

That I agree with. Muslims were more preoccupied with killing countless of polytheists and hindus. A matter to note just to balance xtian atrocities with islamic atrocities.

Another thing, Jews used to flee to Muslim lands from Christendom, when they could have just as easily migrated elsewhere, ie. to non Muslim lands.

How does the NUT (blood) and the Agnost Agenda explain why Jews chose to live under Islam than go anywhere else?

simple. only because there were nowhere else to go. Christians rule the north & west. The sahara blocks the far south. Muslims rule the immediate south, east, and even the land of india. Ferocious mongols plague the far eastern wilderness. Had they known about the new world im sure they would have all mysteriously sailed westward.

Right? Muslima, don’t be so simple minded. Honestly, give things some deeper thought. Don’t just rely on propaganda.

Now you tell me...if the muslim world was such a heaven for jews, why didnt all the jews migrate to muslim lands instead, and completely abandon europe? Or you could just tell me that the muslim world wasnt as good to the jews as you would like to think.

Bloodnut

06-14-2006, 11:07 AM

== I don't have the time to go through your horse manure point by point. You exhibit crass ignorance, blind bigotry, and plain stupidity.

Translation: "I cannot refute what you have clearly derived from Islamic sources, so I will simply try to hide my inability to argue intellectually by calling you names."

== By the way, i'm a woman not a man.

That explains why hell hath no fury like your posts.

== Islam protected the Jews from your savagery.

More ignorance than refuses to accept the basic distinction between Christianity and the Byzantine Empire. The Christian Church actually played a part in the survival of Judaism, often providing rights and privileges nowhere to be found under Islamic rule.

How do you explain the fact that the inquisition was an attempt to stop injustices that were occurring, and in fact saved the lives of thousands of Jews? By contrast, Jews were used to feed the Islamic economy through high taxation. How do you explain the fact that the Popes insisted that Jews not be refused the right to practice their religion openly, or to deny them the right to celebrate their festivals in public, as was denied them under every form of dhimmitude throughout Islamic history? How do you explain the fact that the Popes insisted that Christians not be allowed to testify in court against Jews, yet in Islam, Muslims could, and in fact Jews were not allowed to testify against Muslims?

I know it might be a fun game to play by arguing via assertion all day, pretending to be some kind of knowledgable authority, when you don't have educated opponents who can call your bluff; but here I am, hence your frustration and pedantic meltdown.

Agnosthiest

06-14-2006, 11:11 AM

You know i agree with Toga for once, you bring nothing of value to this forum.
I'm not mocking you, I AM DEADLY SERIOUS WHEN I SAY YOU LACK CREDIBILITY.

Donâ€™t worry- whatever my credibility is, its much much more than yours. Who knows whether or not Toga now appreciates my posts, but what truly matters is that many people here do. You would too if you would only read my posts with a clear head, instead of with an angry heart.

You can scream your lies about the Prophet, all you want, but it's not true. History records the facts.

And I speak with the facts of history. Tell me where you think Im lying and Iâ€™ll tell you which part of history I got it from.

and anyway would he want the Jews killed? The Prophet's personal phsycian was a practicing Jew.

Im sure many islamist terrorists had jews and christians as their personaly physicians. Doesnâ€™t stop them from trying to kill jews and christians. People use people, its just the way it is. There are many good reasons why a jewish physician would aid what he honestly think is a false prophet and a killer of jews. Think about it.

By the way, you say Jews, but the ones who were his enemies were the ones who sided with the Pagans and undermined the state.
The non hostile Jews weren't his enemy, in fact he was very close to his ahl dhimma. Jews and Christians alike.

he got his wish and subdued & humiliated these poor folks. Its enough to keep him happy for a while.

I really don't have the time to rebut all your nonsense and lies.
Excuses excuses. Tell you what, Iâ€™ll stop posting here until Monday next week. Thatâ€™s more than enough time for you to make something up. Cya next week. ;)

Muslima

06-14-2006, 11:28 AM

Mediocrates

06-14-2006, 12:01 PM

Medio, the reason your numbers are small are because most Jews converted or were killed by Christianity.

Most Jews were killed or converted to Paganism, Christianity or Islam at the point of a sword.

Certainly on Arab lands they converted, i can give yoiu a long list of prominent families in Saudi and The Arabian Gulf who are of Jewish origin.

I have Irish ancestors who were 'converted' to American by the English Army.

People like agnostic will now cry they were forced to convert (another lie) and i'll point you towards China. Over the centuries most Chinese Jews converted to Islam even tho the ruling system there wasn't Islamic.

No the tiny proportion of Chinese Jews were simply assimilated into the Chinese culture. Most Chinese Jews were in the East, most Chinese muslims today are in the west.

If you note in America and in Europe today, the Jews are mostly secular, ie. they fit in with their host countries. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but that's the reason why your numbers are small.

No the reason they are secular is because cultures like yours made it lethal to be Jewish. Force of habit.

I keep hearing many Jewish groups lamenting the facts that the Jews in America are not Jewish enough, or are assimilating too much, and this has led to them losing influence. Same in Europe, to the extent that lots of Jews are anti-Israel.

No we don't really worry about losing influence. People are ambivalent about Israel because it appears intractable.

The pogroms and killings against Jews were mainly a Christian thing, not an Islamic one, even Daniel Pipes says that.

In recent history the level of Dejudification in the middle east approached 99% versus 'only' 70% in the Holocaust. Those are simply facts. That suddenly being left to live and only kicked out your own country doesn't seem to significant to YOU is ironic or stupid in massive proportions.

Another thing, Jews used to flee to Muslim lands from Christendom, when they could have just as easily migrated elsewhere, ie. to non Muslim lands.

Such as where? Borneo? The South Pole?

BTW bloodnut is slang for redhead. Like that Hamas guy with the huge red beard.

Bloodnut

06-14-2006, 01:35 PM

== don't flatter yourself,

From one educated respondent to another who isn't, it seems that I am flattering you. Soak it up while you can.

== Go and get an education and i'll debate you.

I have an education, but you will not debate the subject because you know you'd lose royally.

== One does not debate with an ignoramus.

Poor excuse, to say nothing of vicious ad hominem.

==Do you get my drift ?

Yes, and it smells bad. You're scared to debate, and that is understandable.

Here are some citations that undermine your mantra and agenda.

"Any judgment on the Christian treatment of Jews should also take account of the treatment of other religions, and indeed of dissident movements within Christianity. Against this background, the treatment of Jews can actually seem astonishingly humane and generous." [DE LANGE, The Origins of Anti-Semitism: Ancient Evidence and Modern Interpretation. (in Anti-Semitism in Times of Crisis, 1991) p. 35] "

"Christianity mercilessly persecuted paganism and heresies," says Abram Leon," [but] it tolerated the Jewish religion." [LEON, p. 73] "We shall have to admit," wrote famed Jewish historian Salo Baron, "that church censorship has rarely interfered with the autonomous development of Jewish culture." [BARON, Ancient and Medieval Jewish History. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, NJ, 1972, p. 266]

"It may be asserted that had it not been for the Catholic Church, the Jews would have not survived the Middle Ages in Christian Europe." [Schorsch, Ismar. From Text to Context: The Turn to History in Modern Judaism. Brandeis University Press, Published by the University Press of New England, Hanover and London, 1994p. 38]

"Jewish historiography towards Christianity, and especially Catholicism, is typical of the errors which a too slavish following of the German tradition has inspired ... The same lack of understanding and the same violence of contrast have been carried into other aspects of Jewish history. No attempt whatsoever has been made to understand the psychology of persecution. Any Jew-baiter is necessarily represented as a bloodthirsty desperado ... Any [Jewish] apostate as a mere self-seeking humbug. All persons who have favored the Jews inevitably figure as saints and heroes, while whoever opposes or oppressed them automatically become ruffians and hypocrites ... Almost every Jew is made to figure as a peaceful, unoffending saint, with no blemish whatsoever to mar his character or to explain his mistreatment ... [But] blood ran as quickly in the ghetto as outside ... [Jewish] violence was not unknown in the synagogue itself. [Jewish] sordidness was present in plenty to enhance by contrast the glories of martyrdom." [Roth, Cecil. Jewish History for Our Own Needs. The Menorah Journal, May 1928, v. xvi, no. 2, p.421-423]

Achihud

06-14-2006, 03:37 PM

you are soooo naive. dhimmitude is a slow process of forced conversion. think about it. Unfortunately, Muslima can permit herself to 'play' naive until the day we all will understand the true nature behind this 'peace' proposition, the way you described it so perfectly.

You know Agnost, I hope one day you will discover what really happened. I don't like to explain but I can tell you this;
If judaism does not practice spiritism, then there’s nothing left but mere interpretation.
If christianity does not practice spiritism, then there’s nothing left but mere interpretation.
Satan is a master in developing opposing interpretations that will never come together.
Once this theological stalemate is accomplished, another non-spiritualist religion can arise that will challenge both but is nothing of its own. An empty promise to empty peoples, a perfect tool in the hands of satan to eradicate God’s work on earth. But at the same time, also a remedy in the hands of God to eradicate this stubborn self-satisfaction from mere interpretation.

andak01

06-15-2006, 02:02 AM

In recent history the level of Dejudification in the middle east approached 99% versus 'only' 70% in the Holocaust. Those are simply facts. That suddenly being left to live and only kicked out your own country doesn't seem to significant to YOU is ironic or stupid in massive proportions.

Only instead of being murdered, they were leaving bad economies for a one where they were given all kinds of incentives. Even Muslims were lying about their religion to get to Israel. I won't say that life didn't get tough for those who stayed as the Israel/Arab situation has deteriorated, but comparing that to the Holocaust is a real insult to those who endured the real thing.

Muslima

06-15-2006, 02:59 AM

[QUOTE=Mediocrates]Most Jews were killed or converted to Paganism, Christianity or Islam at the point of a sword.

Not in the Arab Lands for sure. Most of the Jews who converted over the centureis were from the upper and middle class. The ones who were mixing with the locals . The ones who didn't mix with the locals were mainly the ones who were living separately and ghettoised and they were from the lower classes.

Bahrain's Kanoo family didn't convert to Islam until they were well established and are Bahrains richest family. I can give you many other examples.

No the tiny proportion of Chinese Jews were simply assimilated into the Chinese culture. Most Chinese Jews were in the East, most Chinese muslims today are in the west.

http://www.chinatravel1.com/english/travel-tips/religionsite/jew-3.htm

China has 55 national minorities, who are declared such on the basis of common language, traditions, customs and geographic area. The Muslims now constitute the second largest minority in China, after the Zhuang, and they are able to retain their study of Arabic and religious observance in mosques. The Jews, however, long ago lost their knowledge of Hebrew and, with the destruction of the synagogue, a communal meeting place for worship) Jews were, in fact, swallowed up by Islam over the years, since it was the religion whose customs and practices were most like those of Judaism.
also
http://faculty.rmwc.edu/fwebb/buck/eaandrijcic/chinesejews.html
Chinese Jews nowadays can be recognized by the seven surnames that weregiven to them by one of the emperors. The surnames are: Ai, Gao, Jin, Li,Shi, Zhang and Zhao. Many Chinese Jews converted to Islam over the years,since Islam was the religion whose beliefs and practices were similar tothose of Judaism.

No the reason they are secular is because cultures like yours made it lethal to be Jewish. Force of habit.

If that is so, then why are most Israeli's secular? I mean in Israel itself, which has a Jewish majority, even though most are secular. Ive heard people saying the trend is a growing one in Israel.

In recent history the level of Dejudification in the middle east approached 99% versus 'only' 70% in the Holocaust.

The Holocaust happened in countries where Jews were citizens. The "dejudification" in the Mid East, happened because of a political conflict, and the Jewish citizens were stripped of their nationality. Today, the Jews are not allowed in for the same reason, ie. they're seen as an enemy.

There is a difference here Med, you can't compare the two. One was a systematic genocide the other was anger over what Arab's saw as a betrayal. You may not agree with the Arab side, and that is understandable, but you can't compare it to the Holocaust. Remember, even then the Arab's expelled the Jews, they didn'ts systematically kill them, even though with hindsight what they did was wrong.

The point is there was a reason for the "dejudification". It wasn't based on a long term plan but rather a reaction to an event, (the creation of Israel) or why didn't "dejudification" occur before that?

Another thing, this "dejudification" will only last for as long as the state of war exists.

Those are simply facts. That suddenly being left to live and only kicked out your own country doesn't seem to significant to YOU is ironic or stupid in massive proportions.

It is significant, and i wans't talking about the present day history or the last 60 or so years, because that is not the norm in the Mid EAst. A state of war is not the norm, and you can't judge normal relations with the state of affairs in a non war environment.

Such as where? Borneo? The South Pole?

Islam didn't have the monopoly on the world,
Why didn't Jews go to Africa, Japan, China, and the rest of the world?

BTW bloodnut is slang for redhead. Like that Hamas guy with the huge red beard.
Hamas are extremists. They would not even be in power today if the PA hadn't been so corrupt and inept and if the Palestinians had the choice of a better alternative.

Muslima

06-15-2006, 03:10 AM

Unfortunately, Muslima can permit herself to 'play' naive until the day we all will understand the true nature behind this 'peace' proposition, the way you described it so perfectly.

Hello Achihud,

To put it simply, God gave us the duty of protecting the Book People. That is what dhimmitude is. It is a responsibilty, not an oppression.
For once, try to see it from our side and tell me what is wrong with protecting people?

The Prophet said
"Whoever hurts a dhimmi (non-Muslim living under the protection of the a Muslim state), it is as if he has hurt me."

The Prophet (p) also said:

"Let it be known, if any one (Muslim) commits injustice, insults, aggravates, mistreats or abuses a person of the People of the Book (protected, by the state or an agreement), he will have to answer me (for his immoral action) on the Day of Judgment." Izzeddin Blaque, Minhaj Alsaliheen, Page 106.

The reason people like Agnost are against dhimmitude, is because he takes the actions of those who abused the system, and apply them to the concept at large.

Donj't you have people who abuse democracy? does it mean democracy should be banned because people abuse it?

Get real people!

Mediocrates

06-15-2006, 03:45 AM

Only instead of being murdered, they were leaving bad economies for a one where they were given all kinds of incentives. Even Muslims were lying about their religion to get to Israel. I won't say that life didn't get tough for those who stayed as the Israel/Arab situation has deteriorated, but comparing that to the Holocaust is a real insult to those who endured the real thing.

It's simply a statistical reality. Mulisma can tell me all about how not bad it all was but there were people who lived there for a 1000 years. Often enough they were stripped of their own children and everything they owned and marched to the border at gunpoint.

Mediocrates

06-15-2006, 03:46 AM

And I will no longer debate the issue with them.

Bloodnut

06-15-2006, 04:26 AM

Muslima you keep dodging the question. So then you agree that Jews and Christians should be second-class citizens? You support dhimmitude yet you have the audacity to call Hamas extremist?

andak01:Only instead of being murdered, they were leaving bad economies for a one where they were given all kinds of incentives.

It amazes me the junk you guys come up with. Go ahead and ask Bat Ye’or if that is why she left Egypt as a refugee. Muslims refuse to give their dhimmi subjects an equal voice even after they leave their jurisdiction. Anything they say about their own trials and tribulations under Islamic rule, is dismissed as biased or Islamophibic or whatever. Jews were run off in a systematic fashion from all Muslim lands. They were fleeing organized Muslim persecution, not the economy! The refugee problem for Jews was tremendous. Who in their right mind opts for refugee status as opposed to citizenship, even in a bad economy?

Bloodnut

06-15-2006, 04:38 AM

Elsewhere Muslima opined: http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php?p=187797

== The rules in the Pact of Omar nearly all contradict his recommendation "whoever hurts a dhimmi has hurt me" and humiliating and discriminating against the ahl dhimma would have been hurting them.

This is such apologetic spin-doctoring as to be rendered insulting to the masses. Muslima takes one phrase from mid-sentence from a questionable hadith and then presumes to use it to refute what the Quran clearly says. The Quran says that dhimmis must be subjugated until they â€œfeel themselves subdued.â€ So clearly, according to the Quran, and Muhammed, humiliation was part of the deal.

Muslima likes to also refer to dhimmis as â€œprotected,â€ but the word dimmi also means guilty. From whom were the Jews of Medina protected? The only protection they ever really needed was from Muhammed and his bloodlust. Mecca was a religious utopia where religions of all stripes could practice. The reason Muhammed had a hard time getting along with everyone was because he was persecuting everyone for paganism. He did not tolerate their religious practices, so they kicked him out of town instead of killing him. So Muhammed, ticked off and prideful, left for Medina and raised an army from desert mongrels and pirates. He then proceeded to raid caravans, gradually building his wealth and arsenal before launching an offensive against Mecca.

â€œdhimma got equal rightsâ€ says Muslima!!!!

Such an asinine comment, we are to believe, comes from the lips of one who holds a Ph.D in the subject? From someone who is scared to death to have a formal debate on the matter at hand? From someone who is content to scour the internet for nifty half-quotes and use them to make hasty generalizations? Since when did Muslims start disregarding the Quran?

Muslima

06-15-2006, 05:26 AM

It's simply a statistical reality. Mulisma can tell me all about how not bad it all was but there were people who lived there for a 1000 years. Often enough they were stripped of their own children and everything they owned and marched to the border at gunpoint.

Where did stripping of their children happen? I mean when and where?

Illuminatus

06-15-2006, 05:38 AM

Excellent last three posts Bloodnut -- well said.

It's astonishing (but we shouldn't be surprised) how the Muslim world twists its own reality.

Just like gravity is a law of physics - lack of critical self honesty (the law of truthfulness) explains why the Muslim world wallows in the 3rd and 4th world.

Bloodnut

06-15-2006, 05:40 AM

== Where did stripping of their children happen? I mean when and where?

What do you think happened to the women and children who suffered the vision of their fathers being killed before their very eyes during Muhammed's raids? The women and children were sometimes ransomed back to their families (depending on the Muslim state of finances), but usually they were sold into slavery, and raping the females was a practice sanctioned by Muhammed - the exception being if the woman was already pregnant.

Most recently however, the Ottomans were notorious for literally stealing children of the Jewish and Christian community as a means of breeding them out. But throughout history there were many examples of dhimmis forced to sell their children because they could not pay the high tax that had been imposed on them.

Achihud

06-15-2006, 12:01 PM

For once, try to see it from our side (...) I'm busy trying but...

And the Jews will not be pleased with thee, nor will the Christians, till thou follow their creed. (002.120)

...according to your Qu'ran, we "CANNOT"...:D

(...) and tell me what is wrong with protecting people? (...) And so are the virtuous women of the believers and the virtuous women of those who received the Scripture before you (lawful for you) when ye give them their marriage portions and live with them in honour, not in fornication, nor taking them as secret concubines. Whoso denieth the faith, his work is vain and he will be among the losers in the Hereafter. (005.005)

I'm wandering of what has to be done when a jew or christian wants to marry a muslim woman? If you still find the time while being busy working on my comparative translations post...;)

andak01

06-17-2006, 03:32 AM

Muslima you keep dodging the question. So then you agree that Jews and Christians should be second-class citizens? You support dhimmitude yet you have the audacity to call Hamas extremist?

andak01:Only instead of being murdered, they were leaving bad economies for a one where they were given all kinds of incentives.

It amazes me the junk you guys come up with. Go ahead and ask Bat Yeâ€™or if that is why she left Egypt as a refugee.

I'm not saying everything was a bed of roses. But many Jews were not pushed out of Muslim countries, they left for better opportunities. That's part of the story, and if you leave it out and compare a diaspora to the Holocaust, it's not a fair assessment.

Muslims refuse to give their dhimmi subjects an equal voice even after they leave their jurisdiction.

I'm not going to push for dhimmis, even in Sharia states. However, dhimmi status would have been a blessing for blacks living in America even fifty years ago. In fact, it would have keep them from going to Vietnam. All of the things that were ever done to dhimmis were also done to Jews in Christian Europe and worse. Of the fifty-three majority Muslim states in the world, only two or three have ever even discussed such a practice in modern times.

Bloodnut

06-17-2006, 03:42 PM

== But many Jews were not pushed out of Muslim countries, they left for better opportunities.

Of course they did. Jews leave the United States and head to Israel as well. But the do so for reasons other than coercion. Jews in Muslim lands were coerced to leave, usually by force.

== That's part of the story, and if you leave it out and compare a diaspora to the Holocaust, it's not a fair assessment.

I’ve said nothing about the holocaust.

== I'm not going to push for dhimmis, even in Sharia states.

So what is your take on sharia? Does it apply or should it apply in our day and age? “Moderate” Islamic scholars, such as Khalid el Fadl from UCLA, insist that sharia and Islam are one in the same. Without sharia you have something entirely different from “Islam.”

== However, dhimmi status would have been a blessing for blacks living in America even fifty years ago.

This is nonsense. Most of the slaves were bought from Muslims in North Africa. Slavery is divinely sanctioned in Islam and remains so even to this day. That is why slavery in our modern age only exists in Muslim societies, especially Sudan and Mauritania, also Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.
Sheikh Saleh Al-Fawzan is the author of a religious textbook (At-Tawhid, "Monotheism") widely used to teach Saudi high school students as well as their counterparts abroad studying in Saudi schools (including those in the West). "Slavery is a part of Islam," he announced in a recent lecture. "Slavery is part of jihad, and jihad will remain as long there is Islam." He argued against the idea that slavery had ever been abolished, insulting those who espouse this view as "ignorant, not scholars. They are merely writers. Whoever says such things is an infidel."

Al-Fawzan is not some whacko extremist who has no clout. He is:

1. A member of the Senior Council of Clerics, Saudi Arabia's highest religious body;
2. A member of the Council of Religious Edicts and Research;
3. Imam of the Prince Mitaeb Mosque in Riyadh; and
4. Professor at Imam Mohamed Bin Saud Islamic University.

Muslims generally support slavery and they bring it to America. This is horrible because it is extremely difficult to prove someone is enslaving others. America provides right to privacy, and intimidating Muslims can easy import slaves and lock them away without them actually knowing what rights they have. Take this incident for example:

Homaidan Ali Al-Turki, 36, and his wife, Sarah Khonaizan, 35, appear to be a model immigrant couple. They arrived in America in 2000 and now live with their four children in an upscale Denver suburb. Mr. Al-Turki is a graduate student in linguistics at the University of Colorado, specializing in Arabic intonation and focus prosody. He donates money to the Linguistic Society of America and is chief executive of Al-Basheer Publications and Translations, a bookstore specializing in titles about Islam.

The FBI accused Homaidan Ali Al-Turki and his wife of enslaving an Indonesian woman who is in her early 20s. For four years, reads the indictment, they created "a climate of fear and intimidation through rape and other means." The slave woman cooked, cleaned, took care of the children, and performed other tasks for little or no pay, fearing that if she did not obey, "she would suffer serious harm."

The two Saudis face charges of forced labor, aggravated sexual abuse, document servitude, and harboring an alien. If found guilty, they could spend the rest of their lives in prison. The government also wants to seize the couple's Al-Basheer bank account to pay their former slave $92,700 in back wages.

Further, there are black Americans who admit that slavery was a blessing for them. Anyone who thinks living in 19th century Africa was preferable to living in the South Eastern United States, needs a good reality check. Sure some were abused, but by far the majority received a life with privileges far better than those available to Africans at the time. Compare that to modern-day slavery in Islam. I was living in Orlando a few years ago when a Saudi princess was arrested for nearly beating her live-in maid to death for disobedience. Upon further investigation the authorities found out that she was a slave that she brought from Saudi Arabia.

== In fact, it would have keep them from going to Vietnam.

This is absurd. Vietnam took place long after slavery ended. And slavery ended because of Christian abolitionists.

== All of the things that were ever done to dhimmis were also done to Jews in Christian Europe and worse.

Prove it. I can name clear examples where Jews were given privileges under Christian law, where theyw ould be denied under Muslim law. Jews had to fear the Roman empire, not the Christian church.

== Of the fifty-three majority Muslim states in the world, only two or three have ever even discussed such a practice in modern times.

Why “discuss” it when it is implied already that it is OK? And there is no true Islamic state today. Muslims always blame their governments for the bad things when it is actually the other way around. Here is a case where slavery is illegal in most Muslim countries, not because of Muslims protesting the idea, but because of political leaders being pressured by Human Rights organizations that are primarily based in the West, and were born from Western/Christian values.

The recent threat to kill a Christian convert is a perfect example. The entire Muslim community wanted his head on a plate, but because of the political repercussions, the court let him free.

andak01

06-17-2006, 04:39 PM

== But many Jews were not pushed out of Muslim countries, they left for better opportunities.

Of course they did. Jews leave the United States and head to Israel as well. But the do so for reasons other than coercion. Jews in Muslim lands were coerced to leave, usually by force.

Source please.

I’ve said nothing about the holocaust.

Mediocrites did. I'm not so sure how serious he was.

So what is your take on sharia? Does it apply or should it apply in our day and age?

To equal extent of Catholic Cannonical law or Jewish Hallakhic law. People of those faiths will try to live within the law of wherever they happen to be without contradicting their own faith. That is generally always possible.

“Moderate” Islamic scholars, such as Khalid el Fadl from UCLA, insist that sharia and Islam are one in the same. Without sharia you have something entirely different from “Islam.”

Sharia is a legal system, and like any other legal system, it is open to a wide range of interpretations.

This is nonsense. Most of the slaves were bought from Muslims in North Africa. Slavery is divinely sanctioned in Islam and remains so even to this day.

Slavery is a human evil, highly profitable that affects all societies to this day. Whether it is sex slaves of sweat shop workers chained to sewing machines, slavery has not been completely wiped out in a single nation today. Prophet Muhammed recommended the practice of manumission, freeing of slaves by paying the owners. He did it himself on more than once.

Muslims generally support slavery and they bring it to America.

Source?

Further, there are black Americans who admit that slavery was a blessing for them.

Source?

I was living in Orlando a few years ago when a Saudi princess was arrested for nearly beating her live-in maid to death for disobedience. Upon further investigation the authorities found out that she was a slave that she brought from Saudi Arabia.

The Saudis, while imagining themselves as the premier examples of good Muslims are often nothing of the sort. Having said that, the idea that only Arabs own slaves is a travesty of the truth.

By Andrew CockburnPhotographs by Jodi Cobb

There are more slaves today than were seized from Africa in four centuries of the trans-Atlantic slave trade. The modern commerce in humans rivals illegal drug traf in its global reach—and in the destruction of lives.
...
One such child is a nearsighted, chain-smoking blonde named Victoria, at 20 a veteran of the international slave trade. For three years of her life she was among the estimated 27 million men, women, and children in the world who are enslaved—physically confined or restrained and forced to work, or controlled through violence, or in some way treated as property.

Victoria's odyssey began when she was 17, fresh out of school in Chisinau, the decayed capital of the former Soviet republic of Moldova. "There was no work, no money," she explained simply. So when a friend—"at least I thought he was a friend"—suggested he could help her get a job in a factory in Turkey, she jumped at the idea and took up his offer to drive her there, through Romania. "But when I realized we had driven west, to the border with Serbia, I knew something was wrong."

It was too late. At the border she was handed over to a group of Serb men, who produced a new passport saying she was 18. They led her on foot into Serbia and raped her, telling her that she would be killed if she resisted. Then they sent her under guard to Bosnia, the Balkan republic being rebuilt under a torrent of international aid after its years of genocidal civil war.

Victoria was now a piece of property and, as such, was bought and sold by different brothel owners ten times over the next two years for an average price of $1,500. Finally, four months pregnant and fearful of a forced abortion, she escaped. I found her hiding in the Bosnian city of Mostar, sheltered by a group of Bosnian women.

http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0309/feature1/

== In fact, it would have keep them from going to Vietnam.

This is absurd. Vietnam took place long after slavery ended. And slavery ended because of Christian abolitionists.

One of the conditions of dhimmitude was that dhimmis were not required to serve in the military. That's what I was referring to.

== All of the things that were ever done to dhimmis were also done to Jews in Christian Europe and worse.

Prove it. I can name clear examples where Jews were given privileges under Christian law, where theyw ould be denied under Muslim law. Jews had to fear the Roman empire, not the Christian church.

Towit I can think of higher taxes, being forced to wear different close and being forced to live in seperate communities or different parts of the city. These things are such common knowledge that I shouldn't have to bother verifying it. But for your benefit, I will.

As the public mood turned against Jews, Edward I subjected them to a special tax and, according to some sources, considered forcing them to wear yellow patches.

Eventually in 1290, the king decided to expel Jews en mass. In reality, he had devised a new form of royal financing using Christian knights to fill the royal coffers.

So did they leave?

Many fled, fearing for their lives after already witnessing pogroms, or hearing of them elsewhere. One of the worst incidents was the 1190 massacre of Jews in York.

Some converted to Christianity, although in many cases this was largely a faÃ§ade in order to placate persecutors.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5076900.stm

== Of the fifty-three majority Muslim states in the world, only two or three have ever even discussed such a practice in modern times.

Why “discuss” it when it is implied already that it is OK?

Source? What modern Arabic states are presently practicing dhimmitude?

The recent threat to kill a Christian convert is a perfect example. The entire Muslim community wanted his head on a plate, but because of the political repercussions, the court let him free.

As I recall, that was in the free democracy of Afghanistan that we forced into being. And, in the end, he wasn't killed. So this "perfect example" is extraordinarily rare but always makes it to the international press.

Bloodnut

06-17-2006, 08:10 PM

“’Jews in Muslim lands were coerced to leave, usually by force”

== Source please.

You really need a source? These things are such common knowledge that I shouldn't have to bother verifying it. But for your benefit, I will. The wikipedia is the source I’ll use since it is convenient. Notice that the reasons given for their exodus is never explained as economic opportunity. It is almost always explained as their intent to flee oppression under Muslim rule.

From the article:“The Jewish exodus from Arab lands.”

The combined population of Jewish communities in the Greater Middle East (excluding Israel) was reduced from about 900,000 in 1948 to less than 8,000 today. Some of these communities were more than 2,500 years old.

Jewish communities, in Islamic times often (though not always) living in ghettos known as mellah, have existed in Morocco for at least 2,000 years. Intermittent large scale massacres (such as that of 6,000 Jews in Fez in 1033, over 100,000 Jews in Fez and Marrakesh in 1146 and again in Marrakesh in 1232) were accompanied by systematic discrimination through the years.

In 1948, approximately 75,000 Jews lived in Egypt. About 100 remain today, mostly in Cairo. In 1948, Jewish neighborhoods in Cairo suffered bomb attacks that killed at least 70 Jews. Hundreds of Jews were arrested and had their property confiscated. The 1954 Lavon Affair, in which Israelis and Egyptian Jews were arrested for bombing Egyptian and American targets served as a pretext for further persecution of the remaining Jewish community in Egypt. After the 1956 Suez Crisis, Egypt expelled over 25,000 Jews, confiscated their property, and about 3,000 were imprisoned. About 1,000 more were imprisoned or detained. In 1967, Jews were detained and tortured, and Jewish homes were confiscated as emigration continued.

Egypt was once home of one of the most dynamic Jewish communities in the diaspora. Caliphs in the ninth, tenth, and eleventh centuries CE exercised various repressive policies, culminating in the destruction and mass murder of the Jewish quarter in Cairo in 1012. Conditions varied between then and the advent of the Ottoman Empire in 1517, when they deteriorated again. There were at least six blood libel persecutions in cities between 1870 and 1892. In more recent times, the fraudulent Protocols of the Elders of Zion have been published and promoted as though they were authentic historical records, fueling anti-Semitic sentiments in Egyptian public opinion.

Jews have lived in Tunisia for at least 2300 years. In the thirteenth century, Jews were expelled from their homes in Kairouan and were ultimately restricted to ghettos known as hara. Forced to wear distinctive clothing, several Jews earned high positions in the Tunisian government. In 1948, approximately 105,000 Jews lived in Tunisia. About 1,500 remain today, mostly in Djerba, Tunis, and Zarzis. Following Tunisia's independence in 1956, a number of anti-Jewish policies led to emigration, of which half went to Israel and the other half to France. After attacks in 1967, Jewish emigration both to Israel and France accelerated. There were also attacks in 1982, 1985, and most recently in 2002.

Including Aden, there were about 63,000 Jews in Yemen in 1948. Today, there are about 200 left. In 1947, riots killed at least 80 Jews in Aden. Increasingly hostile conditions led to the Israeli government's Operation Magic Carpet, the evacuation of 50,000 Jews from Yemen to Israel in 1949 and 1950. Emigration continued until 1962, when the civil war in Yemen broke out. A small community remained unknown until 1976, but it appears that all infrastructure is lost now.

Jews in Yemen were long subject to a number of restrictions, ranging from attire, hairstyle, home ownership, marriage, etc. Under the "Orphan's Decree", many Jewish orphans below puberty were raised as Muslims. This practice began in the late 18th century, was suspended under Ottoman rule, then was revived in 1918. Most cases occurred in the 1920s but sporadic cases occurred until the 1940s. In later years, the Yemenite government has taken some steps to protect the Jewish community in their country.

In 1948, there were approximately 150,000 Jews in Iraq. In 2003, there were 100 left…In 1941, following Rashid Ali's pro-Axis coup, riots known as the Farhud broke out in Baghdad in which approximately 200 Jews were murdered (some sources put the number higher), and up to 2,000 injured.

Like most Arab League states, Iraq forbade the emigration of its Jews for a few years after the 1948 war on the grounds that allowing them to go to Israel would strengthen that state. However, intense diplomatic pressure brought about a change of mind. At the same time, increasing government oppression of the Jews fueled by anti-Israeli sentiment, together with public expressions of anti-semitism, created an atmosphere of fear and uncertainty.

In 1948 there were approximately 30,000 Jews in Syria. The Syrian government placed severe restrictions on the Jewish community, including on emigration. Over the next decades many Jews managed to escape, and the work of supporters, particularly Judy Feld Carr in smuggling Jews out of Syria, and bringing their plight to the attention of the world, raised awareness of their situation. Following the Madrid Conference of 1991 the United States put pressure on the Syrian government to ease its restrictions on Jews, and in 1992 the government of Syria began granting exit visas to Jews on condition that they not emigrate to Israel. At that time the country had several thousand Jews; today, under a hundred remain.

The area now known as Libya was the home of one of the oldest Jewish communities in the world, dating back to at least 300 BCE. In 1948, about 38,000 Jews lived there.

A series of pogroms started in November of 1945, when more than 140 Jews were killed in Tripoli and most synagogues in the city looted. The pogroms continued in June of 1948, when 15 Jews were killed and 280 Jewish homes destroyed.

Upon Libya's independence in 1951, most of the Jewish community emigrated from Libya. After the Suez Crisis in 1956, another series of pogroms forced all but about 100 Jews to flee. When Muammar al-Qaddafi came to power in 1969, all remaining Jewish property was confiscated and all debts to Jews cancelled. Although the main synagogue in Tripoli was renovated in 1999, it has not reopened for services. The last Jew in Libya, Esmeralda Meghnagi died in February of 2002.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e1/NYTimes_1948_Jews_in_Arab.jpg

== To equal extent of Catholic Cannonical law or Jewish Hallakhic law.

That doesn’t answer the question. Do you believe Muslims should follow sharia and strive to have it applied in all societies as the law everyone should follow? There is no such thing as a Catholic law comparable to sharia. Sharia is a system of rule that covers government as well.

== Sharia is a legal system, and like any other legal system, it is open to a wide range of interpretations.

This is nonsense. All four schools of Sunni jurisprudence agree on the fundamentals that drive the reforms crazy. Particularly the death for apostates. There is hardly any room for interpretation here that would make sharia, in any interpretation, applicable in secular societies.

== Slavery is a human evil

That is divinely ordained according to Islamic Law.

== highly profitable that affects all societies to this day. Whether it is sex slaves of sweat shop workers chained to sewing machines, slavery has not been completely wiped out in a single nation today.

Give me a break. The only slavery in America is that which is imported by Muslims. Can you name any non-Muslim cases of American slavery today?

== Prophet Muhammed recommended the practice of manumission, freeing of slaves by paying the owners. He did it himself on more than once.

So what? He also owned slaves, which according to you, makes him part of that “human evil.” He also legislated how slaves could be raped and used as income by turning them into prostitutes.

== Source?

I already gave you two sources.

== Source?

Keith Richburg, a black American journalist said “Thank God for slavery.” http://www.revisionisthistory.org/slaves2.html

== Having said that, the idea that only Arabs own slaves is a travesty of the truth.

Who said it was only Arabs? I said it was a phenomenon common in Sudan and Rwanda too.

== One of the conditions of dhimmitude was that dhimmis were not required to serve in the military. That's what I was referring to.

Yet Muhammed massacred Jews because they would not fight for him.

== Towit I can think of higher taxes, being forced to wear different close and being forced to live in seperate communities or different parts of the city.

Wrong. You cannot assume the emperor or King is synonymous with Christian law. Christian Law as dictated by the Pope gave Jews privileges nowhere to be found under Islam. Some lame BBC article written by God knows who, talking about one particular instance in the 13th century, is hardly compelling.

andak01

06-17-2006, 08:59 PM

Gee, what happened in 1948 to change things?

During the war of 1948, many fled or were expelled from their homes in the part of Palestine that would become the State of Israel to other parts of Palestine or to neighbouring countries.

The UN estimates their number at 711,000 [1] while the Israeli estimate of the refugees is 520,000 and the Palestinian estimate is 900,000.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_exodus

Yes, relations between Jews and Arabs have greatly worsened in the past 50+ years. However, exaggerating animosities on both sides has made it even worse. It's politics, not religion. My own wife grew up in a Moroccan neighborhood filled with Jews. They were her neighbors, not her enemies, and her father is an imam.

Just within the last two weeks, Moroccan TV was showing an interview with a minister to the late King Hassan II, a Jew. He said that his father knew an imam that went to Mecca every year. One year he brought back soil from Jerusalem. "I knew you couldn't be there with me, but I thought how much that place means to you and I said a prayer for you and your family." This is the kind of relations we have fallen from, and the type we must strive to get back.

JERUSALEM -- Tens of thousands of Israelis are mourning the death of Morocco's King Hassan II, a man they considered "their" king, leaving them homesick for the land their families left.

Young Israelis of Moroccan origin placed the Moroccan flag on top of their cars, while others displayed huge posters in their homes of the king, who died last Friday of a heart attack at the age of 70.

The Moroccan Jewish community in Israel declared a seven-day period of mourning for the king.

A delegation led by Israeli President Ezer Weizman, Prime Minister Ehud Barak and former Prime Minister Shimon Peres joined 30 other world leaders, including President Clinton and Palestinian Authority leader Yasser Arafat, in remembering a man who played a vital role in bridging the gap between the Jewish state and the Arab world.

http://www.jewishsf.com/content/2-0-/module/displaystory/story_id/11698/edition_id/225/format/html/displaystory.html

Bloodnut

06-18-2006, 03:48 PM

== Gee, what happened in 1948 to change things?

Andako1, you initially impied that I was wrong in saying Jews had been forced out of Arab lands. I provide examples from numerous countries as the reasons given were brute force, not economic tribulation as you opined. You have not provide one iota of evidence to support this silliness. Jews were forced to leave Arab lands simply because they were Jews.

You now offer a link to an article that says nothing whatsoever about the Jewish exodus, but rather the Palestinian exodus. Either you 1) donâ€™t realize that this is referring to Palestinians and not Jews, or 2) you are hoping to change the subject or shift your ground. Which is it?

If you are trying to say Palestinians were forced to leave Israel, therefore the expulsion of Jews was justified, then you are wrong. Why? Because for the most part Palestinians left Israel because the Arab nations told them to get out so they could get in and wipe out the Jews. They left Israel thinking they could return to a Jew free Palestine. But things went wrong. Israel kicked their butts. All five countries that ganged up on Israel were used as mop water. So the Palestinians tried to go back to the country they sought to have overthrown. What country in its right mind would allow that? This would be like admitting hundreds of thousands of Osama bin Ladins in the United States.

The article you cite also admits it is â€œdisputedâ€ in accuracy, mainly because it relies an the idiot, Benny Morris. Click on the link offered there and find the correctives. Such as:

The claim of premeditated dispossession is itself not only baseless, but the inverse of the truth. Far from being the hapless victims of a predatory Zionist assault, the Palestinians were themselves the aggressors in the 1948-49 War, and it was they who attempted, albeit unsuccessfully, to 'cleanse' a neighbouring ethnic community. Had the Palestinians and the Arab world accepted the United Nations resolution of 29 November 1947, calling for the establishment of two states in Palestine, and not sought to subvert it by force of arms, there would have been no refugee problem in the first place. It is no coincidence that neither Arab propagandists nor Israeli 'new historians' have ever produced any evidence of a Zionist master plan to expel the Palestinians during the 1948-49 War. For such a plan never existed. (Karsh, Efraim (2003). Rethinking the Middle East. London: Routledge. ISBN 0714683469, p. 157).

Andâ€¦

The Jewish Agency declares that this exodus has been carried out deliberately by the Arabs to besmirch the Jews, to influence the Arab Governments to send more help, and to clear the ground for attack by regular Arab forces. The simplest, most human explanation is that the Arabs have fled out of pure disorder. To all its problems Palestine has now to add that of a mass of refugees in flight. ('British Aid Haifa Evacuees Three Officers Wounded', From Our Own Correspondent, The Times, Saturday, 24 April, 1948; pg. 4; Issue 51054; col B).

The fact remains. Jews were systematically expelled from Arab nations and nothing you have presented changes this fact.

So much for the myth of Muslim tolerance.

andak01

06-18-2006, 04:51 PM

Wow, you got me there. Something between 500,000 and 900,000 Palestinian people left their homes forever voluntarily with no compensation to refuge slums with huge unemployment secured by an army from the people who now live on their old property.

Meanwhile, Jews living in other countries, who had been taught that Jerusalem is a little piece of paradise were offered a place to live with all kinds of incentives. But that had no effect on them whatsoever. Rather, they left lands where there was little or no economic opportunities for the land of paradise, where there was, because they were forced out, ALL of them. ...Well, some of them.

Doesn't explain why any of them would want to go live next to those people who were so stupid they left their homes for a refuge camp. After all, I'm hearing all the time what lousy neighbors they are. Oh, yeah, something about those Israeli passports always being available.

Anyway, this world where there is no cause and effect for anyone of the Arab persuasion is starting to make sense to me. I keep hearing it explained everyday.

Did I get it straight? Jews all moved because they were forced? Palestinians, moved for kicks or better, they moved to refuge camps just to spite the Jews!

physics

06-18-2006, 07:16 PM

Did I get it straight? Jews all moved because they were forced? Palestinians, moved for kicks or better, they moved to refuge camps just to spite the Jews!

Unfortunately, 6 million Jews didn't have an opportunity to move out, even by force. So the Jews that moved did it because they wouldn't want to take that same crappp whether it's from Europeans Russians or Arabs.

physics

06-18-2006, 07:17 PM

Let's not get into the same old historical debates. Focus on today.

Bloodnut

06-18-2006, 07:59 PM

== Wow, you got me there. Something between 500,000 and 900,000 Palestinian people left their homes forever voluntarily with no compensation to refuge slums

You’re not listening. These “Palestinians” left thinking they wouldn't be "giving up" anything. At the request of the Arab nations and their own behalf they got the heck out of Dodge. They did so not to choose refugee status, because they never thought there would be a refugee issue. They thought Israel would be destroyed. When Israel was not destroyed, they wanted to go back because the Arab nations wouldn't take them in. Israel didn’t let them return as citizens for obvious reasons, and neither did the Arab nations (except Jordan). Thus, the refugee crisis was caused by the Arab nations who waged war on Israel, encouraged the Arab populations to flee, and then refused to clean up their own mess in the aftermath.

Ever since the "refugee crisis" has been used as a political tool for the Arabs.

== Meanwhile, Jews living in other countries, who had been taught that Jerusalem is a little piece of paradise were offered a place to live with all kinds of incentives.

Your living in fantasy land. Jews fled Arab lands because they were forced out, having their lands and private property confiscated by the governments. It takes some true revisionist history to twist this situation into some kind of paradise for expelled Jews.

== Rather, they left lands where there was little or no economic opportunities for the land of paradise

You keep beating this drum about the economy, but that clearly didn’t have anything to do with it. I have already proved this, but you don’t seem to be interested in acknowledging these facts. As you already seem to have conceded, the expulsion of Jews was exacerbated by the 1948 war. So then, why is it that the Jews didn’t decide to pack up and leave in massive clusters before the war? Jews had been living in these lands for hundreds, even thousands of years. Yet you expect us to believe that only around 1948 did they realize the economy was bad and that they would break their traditions and suddenly take off for a foreign land? Surely the economy in Muslim lands was just as bad in 1938 as it was in 1948. The difference of course is obvious, and it had nothing to do with economic opportunity or lack thereof. In 1948 the Arabs were furious with having been defeated by the Israeli army and they decided to take their frustrations out on their resident Jews. Again, Islamic love, justice and tolerance at its finest.

== Doesn't explain why any of them would want to go live next to those people who were so stupid they left their homes for a refuge camp.

This analysis demonstrates a tremendous amount of ignorance on your part. You can’t seem to get it in your head that these people didn’t flee because a choice was given to them of “refugee” or “citizen.” What they wanted first and foremost was to have the Jews driven into the sea. They wanted no part of a government run by Jews, and this is because virtually all of them were Muslims, who traditionally see Jews as evil. Further, the Islamic division of the world into the House of Islam and the House of war was undoubtedly alive and well.

== Did I get it straight? Jews all moved because they were forced?

Yes of course they were forced. Are you disputing the historical record? Do you deny these persecutions and the mass expulsions?

== Palestinians, moved for kicks or better, they moved to refuge camps just to spite the Jews!

No they moved because they were making way for their Arab “allies” to move on Israel. This is a matter of historical record, so ignoring it isn’t going to make it go away. Many others were forced to go to the refugee camps in Gaza because of Egypt. There they were kept under guard, shot if they tried to leave, and never given Egyptian citizenship or Egyptian passports. These facts are recorded by Yasir Arafat himself in his authorized biography. Similar restraints were enacted by the Lebanese government where the “Palestinians” were barred from almost 70 professions, not granted citizenship, and not allowed to travel.

Palestinians still living, who left Israel, have no right of return because the Arab leadership representing them are still at war with Israel; and these refugees, therefore, and still potential hostiles. International law does not require a country at war to commit suicide by allowing the entry of hundred of thousands of a hostile population that gladly advertises its desire to see the nation destroyed.

In 1949 a peace treaty was offered and the Arab refugees could have taken advantage of the offer but their leadership refused.

Moreover, the claim that Israel expelled Arabs is belied by the fact that nearly 200,000 Arabs did not flee Israel during the 1948 war, and that number has grown to nearly 1.5 million since. They have 12 representatives in the Israeli Parliament, judges sitting on Israeli courts and on the Israeli Supreme Court benches, and Ph.D’s and tenured professors teaching in Israeli colleges and universities. They enjoy more freedom, education and economic opportunity than do any comparable Arab populations anywhere in the world.

The fact is that during the Arab flight from Israel, the mayor of Haifi, at the risk of his own life, drove through the Arab section of the city with a loudspeaker on his jeep, and in Arabic called out to the residents of his city urging them not to leave and to ignore the Arab propaganda.

andak01

06-19-2006, 01:22 AM

This also happened after 1948:

Independent Morocco

While Jews played a marginal role in the nationalist struggle, the new Government's constitution assured equality between Jews and Muslims. Jews began to take the place of French in administration. Three Jews were eventually elected to Parliament, including a rabbi from the heavily-Jewish town of Sefrou. Jews were found in high posts in the Administration and industry. The appointment of a Jewish Minister of Posts and Telegraphs was a symbol of the Jewish community's importance.

Nevertheless, the fact that emigration to Israel was forbidden in 1956 did not inspire the confidence of Moroccan Jews in their Government. A secret emigration network was established, enabling 35,000 Jews to leave the country until emigration to Israel was legalized in 1961.

In February 1961, Morocco's Jews joined Muslims in a National Day of Mourning for King Mohammed V. Despite the efforts of his successor, King Hassan II, to make Jews feel welcome and an integral part of the Moroccan nation, emigration continued, to Israel until 1964 and then mainly to France and Canada.

The dwindling Jewish community remained proudly Moroccan. Jews participated and contributed to the success of the Green March in 1975, when 350,000 Moroccans marched into the former Spanish Sahara to reclaim it for their country.

King Hassan II has been a strong proponent of peace and reconciliation in Israel and Palestine. He has organized several conferences to address vital issues, such as Jerusalem and investment in the Middle East. At crucial and strategic times, he has shown courage in meeting publicly with Israeli leaders such as Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin. Throughout his period of leadership, he has invited the Jews of Moroccan descent, of which there are approximately 600,000 in Israel and almost 250,000 in France, to return to Morocco. While few have returned to live, tens of thousands visit each year. Many of the remaining 6,000 Jews have strong links with family members outside of the country, but believe that they would not feel at home anywhere else in the world but Morocco.

http://rickgold.home.mindspring.com/page15.html

Even though they were forbidden to emigrate directly to Israel, many endured two or more emmigrations in order to end up there. But yet we are to believe in the face of that that the draw of Israel played zero part in their decision to leave.

andak01

06-19-2006, 01:59 AM

A third group of Jews who are today considered "settlers," moved to the West Bank primarily for economic reasons; that is, the government provided financial incentives to live there, and the towns were close to their jobs.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/settlements.html

For each North American immigrant, Israel provides unconditional help: a $3,300 grant, airline tickets, health insurance, Hebrew study, tax deductions, and rent assistance. Nefesh B'Nefesh gives an additional conditional grant (to be returned if people return to the US within three years), as well as support services for settling in. More funds go to those choosing certain cities and rural areas. Immigrants must become Israeli citizens.

"All this might equal between $25,000 and $40,000 for a family," says Mr. Landsberg.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0815/p13s02-lire.htm

Mordechai's group is the third to emigrate to Israel from Peru, and all of them went to live in Jewish settlements. Rabbi David Mamo, who arranged the conversions in Peru, says one of the conditions was that the new Jews come to live in Israel.

...

GRADSTEIN: `The commandment to live in the land of Israel is equal to all of the other commandments combined,' he said, `but where in Israel is unimportant. It could be Tel Aviv, Haifa or Hebron.'

Critics in Israel charge the rabbis rush through the conversions in Peru to boost the Jewish settler population. Didi Ramez, a longtime activist with the Peace Now movement, says tens of thousands of Russian immigrants to Israel find it almost impossible to convert to Judaism, while a small group of Peruvian Indians, willing to live in the West Bank, is converted almost overnight.

http://www.npr.org/programs/morning/transcripts/2002/sep/020917.gradstein.html

Bloodnut

06-19-2006, 06:08 AM

== This also happened after 1948:

Yeah, most of it long after 1948. But so what? Youâ€™re trying to derail here. The fact remains that Jews were forced to leave Arab lands, including Morrocco. What happened later on doesn't change this fact.

In 1948, approximately 265,000 Jews lived in Morocco. Between 5,000 and 8,000 live there now, mostly in Casablanca, but also in Fez and other cities.

In June 1948, soon after Israel was established and in the midst of the first Arab-Israeli war, riots against Jews broke out in Oujda and Djerada, killing 44 Jews. In 1948-9, 18,000 Jews left the country for Israel. After this, Jewish emigration continued (to Israel and elsewhere), but slowed to a few thousand a year. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Morocco

== Even though they were forbidden to emigrate directly to Israel, many endured two or more emmigrations in order to end up there. But yet we are to believe in the face of that that the draw of Israel played zero part in their decision to leave.

Youâ€™re all over the place and you're citing excerpts from articles that do nothing to change what I have already proved. You jumped over 1948 to ignore the Jewish expulsion in order to focus on 1956 when Morrocco won its independence. Sure, after Israel had established itself as a country Jews wanted to go there for economic reasons. They still do. But economic reasons had nothing to do with why hundreds of thousands of Jews fled their Arab lands immediately before and after the Arabs declared war in 1948.

== A third group of Jews who are today considered "settlers," moved to the West Bank primarily for economic reasons; that is, the government provided financial incentives to live there, and the towns were close to their jobs.

Again, here you go again moving even further down the road from the 1948 war. The article you cite refers to the settlements that were created during the 1967 war, two decades later!

Can you stop dancing around for a second and just admit that what I said was true? Jews were expelled from Arab lands. Period. This is common knowledge and a matter of historical record. This expulsion was because the Arab countries were upset about having lost their war with Israel. They never once gave a flying flip about the suffering of whatever refugees were created from their own actions.

That Jews later on decided to go to Israel once it established itself as a powerful country with the best economy in the region, is irrelevant, and does not mitigate the implications of the Jewish expulsion from Arab lands, whereby Jews had their lands and properties confiscated by the Muslims.

Agnosthiest

06-19-2006, 07:20 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_exodus_from_Arab_lands

After the 1956 Suez Crisis, Egypt expelled over 25,000 Jews, confiscated their property, and about 3,000 were imprisoned. About 1,000 more were imprisoned or detained. In 1967, Jews were detained and tortured, and Jewish homes were confiscated as emigration continued.

skinnynana

06-20-2006, 12:51 AM

I am enjoying this discussion from such varied people on the subject of Islam. I have a question for the Jews here: The old testament has a lot of killing and an eye for an eye justice much like the sharia justice today, what I would like to know is when did the Jewish Nation stop that behaviour and yet Islam still practises sharia. Am I in the wrong thread to ask this question.???

andak01

06-20-2006, 03:44 AM

Let me make myself clear. Jews are exposed to hate crime and descrimination everywhere they go, with the possibly exception of Israel. In America, Hate crimes against Jews make up the largest portion of religiously motivated hate crimes every year. Now, this is in a country that is friendly to Israel and has hate crime legislation in place. What would we expect in countries that have actually been at war with Israel and where there is no hate crime legislation?

Incidents Offenses Victims Known Offenders
Religion: 1,374 1,480 1,586 604
Anti-Jewish 954 1,003 1,076 330
Anti-Catholic 57 57 68 37
Anti-Protestant 38 43 48 28
Anti-Islamic 156 193 201 124
Anti-Other Religion 128 140 147 68
Anti-Multiple Religions, Group 35 37 39 14
Anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc. 6 7 7 3

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/hate_crime/index.html#table2_32

It's a fact that all those nations should enact hate crime legislation to protect not only Jews but other religions. Hatred is a natural state of being among others when disparate groups live together. You need to make it a serious offense in order to prevent people from hurting each other. Kudos to our government for taking that task seriously.

It's also a fact that many Jews were given opportunity and incentives to move to Israel. They felt it was their religious and Zionist duty to make alayah and they did. To factor that out of the picture as if it didn't exist is to miss an important part of the story.

Bloodnut

06-20-2006, 04:59 AM

So now you concede the point that Jews are despised and persecuted to a ridiculous degree, in Muslim lands? Now wasn't that much easier than offering all that baseless rhetoric and rationization?

== It's a fact that all those nations should enact hate crime legislation to protect not only Jews but other religions.

It is a fact that country "should" do alot of things that they don't. The reason hate crime legislation is no enacted in Muslim lands is because of the Muslim societies forming the majority. Muslims clusters, wherever they may exist, always push for inequality where the non-Muslims is second-class. They have no interested or benefit in pushing for their equality.

== Hatred is a natural state of being among others when disparate groups live together.

It just so happens that Muslim lands like Egypt represent the worst cases.
== You need to make it a serious offense in order to prevent people from hurting each other. Kudos to our government for taking that task seriously.

This becomes easier in a sharialess government that works for a people that is only .5% Muslim.

== It's also a fact that many Jews were given opportunity and incentives to move to Israel.

Sure, eventually. I noticed you don't mention the date again. Why is that?

== They felt it was their religious and Zionist duty to make alayah and they did.

Oh? So why did the Muslim countires bother expelling them at all, if, according to you, they were on their way out anyway?

== To factor that out of the picture as if it didn't exist is to miss an important part of the story.

It isn't to be "factored out" but rather understood in context. Your silly cmments about economic motivations and incentives have no context, and they mislead the reader to think these had anything whatsoever to do with the fact that Muslims lands are pretty mush Jewishless now.

andak01

06-20-2006, 08:16 AM

So now you concede the point that Jews are despised and persecuted to a ridiculous degree, in Muslim lands? Now wasn't that much easier than offering all that baseless rhetoric and rationization?

I concede that lands without hate crime legislature are prone to acts like the Gujarat massacres and Rwanda's genocide and terrorism of the Tamil Tigers and the Lord's Resistance Army of Uganda and Serbian genocide- that governments have a responsibility to protect their citizens from themselves instead of to encourage insensitivity. It has zero to do with Islam.

When I grew up in the South, there were commonly lynchings and mistreatment of blacks. Churches were burned. In fact, it was in the 1980s in response to numerous Church burnings that the first hate crime laws were passed. A black man was dragged to death from the back of a pickup truck at about that time.

== It's also a fact that many Jews were given opportunity and incentives to move to Israel.

Sure, eventually. I noticed you don't mention the date again. Why is that?

First you were saying it never happened. Now you want a date. This is why I kvetch! OK. I'll go get you a few dates.

== They felt it was their religious and Zionist duty to make alayah and they did.

Oh? So why did the Muslim countires bother expelling them at all, if, according to you, they were on their way out anyway?

It's a pretty hard thing to prove that they were expelled or they weren't unless the governments actually deported them. Where were they deported from and how many? Or, failing that, is there a statistical poll relating to how many felt pushed out and how many left for greater opportunity? Quote from your own wiki article.

Through the early fifties, Zionist organizations encouraged emigration, particularly in the poorer south of the country, seeing Moroccan Jews as valuable contributors to the Jewish State:

...These Jews constitute the best and most suitable human element for settlement in Israel's absorption centers. There were many positive aspects which I found among them: first and foremost, they all know (their agricultural) tasks, and their transfer to agricultural work in Israel will not involve physical and mental difficulties. They are satisfied with few (material needs), which will enable them to confront their early economic problems. (Yehuda Grinker (an organizer of Jewish emigration from the Atlas), The Emigration of Atlas Jews to Israel, Tel Aviv, The Association of Moroccan Immigrants in Israel, 1973

[quote]== To factor that out of the picture as if it didn't exist is to miss an important part of the story.
[QUOTE]

You've only got 13-14 million Jews to spread around the world. 5-6 million live in the US and about that many again live in Israel. Going back to the wiki article, around a million moved from 10 or more countries. Most of those again ended in Israel or the US. Why not Germany? Denmark? Japan? Russia? Because they also did not feel welcomed in those places either. And in the US of A, where they are the most loved, they represent the highest casualty of hate crimes. That's a sad commentary on humanity, not on Jews or Muslims.

Agnosthiest

06-21-2006, 04:59 AM

that governments have a responsibility to protect their citizens from themselves instead of to encourage insensitivity. It has zero to do with Islam.

Islam's dhimmi policies have everything to do with encouraging insensitivities towards religious minorities. And the Quran's insensitive generalization of jews and christians give muslims (especially today) the excuse of thinking badly of jews & christians.

Admit it, it would instead be fair if Mohammad just said

O ye who believe! take not the allies & friends of your enemies for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust.

instead of

O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust.

Right??? Thats from the Quran-verse 5:51.

Think about it.

That verse was just mohammad speaking, not God. A god cant make a simple ethical mistake like that.

andak01

06-21-2006, 07:15 PM

Why do the contents of the Quran upset you so? You don't believe in any scripture. To you it's all quaint. I've said it before and I'll repeat. You don't have to take someone as a protector and moral guide to work constructively with them, to assist the community together or to reach common goals. That isn't friendship, but it is well worthwhile. The Quran doesn't advise against that.

Agnosthiest

06-22-2006, 05:42 AM

Why do the contents of the Quran upset you so? You don't believe in any scripture. To you it's all quaint.

Why? Because Islam threatens to turn the world into a Saudi Arabia. That means free-minded good people like me would suffer. That means much of humanityâ€™s achievement in science and arts would be for nothing. Ultimately the survival of humanity as a specie would be slimmer. There would be no reaching the stars.

I've said it before and I'll repeat. You don't have to take someone as a protector and moral guide to work constructively with them, to assist the community together or to reach common goals. That isn't friendship, but it is well worthwhile. The Quran doesn't advise against that.

Of course. But didnâ€™t you get the point I keep making all along? Mohammad did not need to generalize christians & jews. Those verses I point out can give a general message without picking on a specific religion. Without giving extremists the excuse to do great harm.

andak01

06-23-2006, 03:46 AM

To understand a Muslim's relation to Christians and Jews, perhaps it is best to present you with the translation of the Salah an-Nabiyy or invocation of blessings upon the Prophet. We ask that Allah give as many blessings to Muhammad as were given to Abraham and Moses. Would you say that Abraham and Moses were Jews? Muhammad wants the same treatment of a Jew from God! Find me a single ill word about Abraham or Moses anywhere in the Quran. You cannot. They were our rightly guided models.

O Allaah! send prayers on Muhammad, and on his household, and on his wives and progeny, as you sent prayers on the family of Ibraaheem; You are indeed Worthy of Praise, Full of Glory. And send blessings on Muhammad, and his household, and his wives and progeny, as you sent blessings on the family of Ibraaheem; You are indeed Worthy of Praise, Full of Glory.
...
as 'Ali ibn Talhah has related from Ibn 'Abbaas (radi Allaahu 'anhu) about the saying of the Exalted, "Allaah has chosen Aadam, Nooh, the family of Ibraaheem and the family of 'Imraan above all people" (aal-'Imraan 3:33);

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/pillars/prayer/albaani/prayer_18.html#HEADING89

Agnosthiest

06-23-2006, 05:35 AM

Abraham wasn’t a jew, even the koran says he wasn’t.

Moses wasn’t a jew because he was descended from the tribe of Levi. It is only in modern days that jews came to mean ‘anyone descended from jacob’. Even the koran doesnt say he was a jew.

Bloodnut

06-23-2006, 09:48 PM

Bloodnut

06-23-2006, 09:52 PM

== Why do the contents of the Quran upset you so? You don't believe in any scripture. To you it's all quaint.

This is precisely how one Muslims scholar responded in a debate held at Cambridge awhile back. Except the Christian scholar noted frustration with teh Quranic mandate to kill polytheists. The Muslim responded, that Christians and Jews are not polytheists, so that doesn't even pertain to him so he shouldn't worry about it.

Then he asked him about the hundreds of millions of Polytheists in the world today, for whom these passages do pertain to. His responses was dead silence. He painted himself in a corner.

andak01

06-24-2006, 02:45 AM

Sigh...

I pointed ths out in a previous thread but he ignored it. Now I see he decided to regurgitate the same flawed argument.

His premise is simple.

YOU believe Moses and Abraham were Jews.
Muslims speak well of Moses and Abraham.
Muslims must speak well of Jews.

The problem of course, is that it doesn't matter if we believe they were Jews. The fact is Muslims do not believe they were Jews. Therefore, Muslims do not feel they are speaking well of Jews. In fact, according to Muslims, these men were also Muslim.

They cannot have been Muslim in any sectarian sense of the word. The word Muslim is an Arabic word. When people refer to Moses or Abraham as Muslim, they are quoting Arabic. The word itself means "one who submits" to God! Did not Abraham and Moses submit to God?

Yes, and Allah means God. How do we know? Because he is the same God that Abraham, Noah, Moses, Lot, Joseph, Jonah and even Jesus prayed to. He is the same God that created the heavens and the earth and the same that smote Sodom and Gammorah.

Of the pillars of Islam as we know today:

- Abraham and Moses didn't say shahada
- They didn't pray five times daily to Mecca
- Moses didn't come to Mecca

But they did submit to God (Peace and Blessings upon all of them).

Bloodnut

06-24-2006, 05:14 AM

You're derailing again. The question is whether they are Jews, not Muslims. Are Abraham and Moses considered "Jews" in Islam?

Yes or no.

andak01

06-24-2006, 08:45 AM

Well let me ask you, is the Torah Jewish enough? Because the God of the Quran says that He revealed the Torah (Taurat).

009.111
Lo! Allah hath bought from the believers their lives and their wealth because the Garden will be theirs: they shall fight in the way of Allah and shall slay and be slain. It is a promise which is binding on Him in the Torah and the Gospel and the Qur'an. Who fulfilleth His covenant better than Allah? Rejoice then in your bargain that ye have made, for that is the supreme triumph.

061.006
And when Jesus son of Mary said: O Children of Israel! Lo! I am the messenger of Allah unto you, confirming that which was (revealed) before me in the Torah, and bringing good tidings of a messenger who cometh after me, whose name is the Praised One. Yet when he hath come unto them with clear proofs, they say: This is mere magic.

005.043
How come they unto thee for judgment when they have the Torah, wherein Allah hath delivered judgment (for them)? Yet even after that they turn away. Such (folk) are not believers.

Speaking harshly of those who turn away from the Torah.

http://www.usc.edu/cgi-bin/msasearch

KettleWhistle

06-24-2006, 10:13 PM

I am enjoying this discussion from such varied people on the subject of Islam. I have a question for the Jews here: The old testament has a lot of killing and an eye for an eye justiceNo, it doesn't.

Muslima

06-25-2006, 12:46 AM

I'm busy trying but...

And the Jews will not be pleased with thee, nor will the Christians, till thou follow their creed. (002.120)

...according to your Qu'ran, we "CANNOT"...:D .

Well that is true isn't it? I've had Ygalg here, telling me i'd be a better person if i wasn't a Muslim, and SteveMetch saying that he hasn't met any Muslim who'd be a better Christian, and lots of other examples,

We were forewarned and foretold. That's wisdom in the Quran for you;)

(...) And so are the virtuous women of the believers and the virtuous women of those who received the Scripture before you (lawful for you) when ye give them their marriage portions and live with them in honour, not in fornication, nor taking them as secret concubines. Whoso denieth the faith, his work is vain and he will be among the losers in the Hereafter. (005.005)

I'm wandering of what has to be done when a jew or christian wants to marry a muslim woman? If you still find the time while being busy working on my comparative translations post..;)

Well Achihud, there are a few sects of Islam that allow marriage between Muslim women and ahl kitaab men, only. (No others) Even in these minority sects, if the man is a Christian he'd have to become circumsiced if he isn't already.

Having said that, most of the Islamic sects, (in both Shia and Sunni Islam) only allow Muslim women to marry ahl kitaab men if they convert. The conversion has to be a genuine one, and not just a convenience to get into her pants. He also has to be circumcised.

The reason Muslim women may only marry Muslim men is not because of disrimination, it's because men are the mainteners of women. As the head of the house, they are ones responsible for the welfare of their women. It stands to reason then that Muslim women can't be entrusted to a Non Muslim, who doesn't respect her faith. What if he trashes her religion or doesn't let her practice it?

A Jewish or Christian woman marrying a Muslim man, will know that her Religion, Book, and Prophets are loved and respected by her husband. In other words her faith won't be trashed.

A Muslim woman wouldn't have that security if she married an ahl kitaab man. Also her children wouldn't be Muslim, as usually children follow the father's faith, until they grow up.

To sum it up, this ruling is in place to protect women. Yet another example of the superior status of women in Islam, would you not agree Achihud?

By the way, i heard it is the same in Judaism? Arn't Jewish women (practicing) forbidden from marrying non Jews? Can anyone elaborate?

Muslima

06-25-2006, 08:19 AM

Can you please make this "bloodnut" person, use quote tags, when he/she writes. He uses his own weird terminology which is out of place here and ruins the thread.

I have mentioned this before to this person but he see's fit to ignore and has provided no reason as to why he can't use quote tags like everyone else does.

For the record, if html tags are provided on the message board, is there any reason why people should not use them? What is the point of providing something, if it is not going to be used and people insist on using their own weird shorthand? Since when did = signs take the place of quotes?

Thank you.

Andak,

I suggest you stop replying to Bloodnut until he learns common forum courtesy, how to write, and how to respond.

By the way Bloodnut, as well as learning how to use forums, it would be appreciated if you could provide sources more credible than Wikipedia. Thank you.

andak01

06-25-2006, 11:12 AM

In the future, please PM me or one of the other moderators with your complaints. It is usually easier to handle things in private first prior to going public. If swapping == for quote was his worst crime around here, I'd be all over Bloodnut for that.

Suggest everyone reread the Rules of the Road.

Bloodnut

06-25-2006, 01:57 PM

You're derailing yet again.

Are Abraham and Moses considered "Jews" in Islam?

Yes or no.

Your comment about the Torah is just another red herring that avoids the question. And it is especially irrelevant because in Islam, the â€œTorahâ€ that was revealed by Allah is really nonexistent. Because according to Muslims the Jewish Torah has been so contorted by Jewish scribes as to be unrecognizable and useless. This is why Muslims generally donâ€™t ever read the Torah.

Will you just answer the question?

In Islam are Moses and Abraham â€œJewsâ€?

Muslima, I know you feel inadequate when reading my posts because you never offer an intelligent response. The best you can do is whine about me replacing == with quotes? Is this truly difficult for you to adjust or are you just trying to derail as usual? Further, the facts I mentioned are a matter of historical record; the wikipedia illustrated my point well enough. Deal with the argument and stop shooting the messengers.

andak01

06-26-2006, 02:44 AM

I can't even answer that with a straight face. I guess they were people from a parallel universe who shared names, beliefs and scripture and did all the same stuff! Of course they are the same people! And I already showed you that they didn't bear any resemblance to modern Muslims. So why do you suppose a Muslim in their right mind would argue such a thing? They don't! No Muslim says that Moses was a Muslim and thinks of him as quoting the Quran or Muhammad, or praying in the way that we do or going to Friday juma'ah.

Instead, it is the word muslim being used in it's untranslated sense of "one who submits". You wouldn't have a problem if we ascribed other adjectives such as faithful, charitable or kind. Your problem is that you'd like to demonize that word so that it can never be used for anything good again. And I would say that people who refuse to translate words like Muslim and Allah for better understanding are engaging in a political polemic whether they realize it or not. So either it's their fault that you are confused or you aren't confused. In either case, by now it should be readily appearant that we do think Abraham and Moses as Jewish as anyone else does.

Agnosthiest

06-27-2006, 09:13 AM

In either case, by now it should be readily appearant that we do think Abraham and Moses as Jewish as anyone else does.

But the koran says otherwise....

Quran 003.067
Abraham was not a Jew nor yet a Christian; but he was true in Faith, and bowed his will to Allah's (Which is Islam), and he joined not gods with Allah.

andak01

06-27-2006, 03:03 PM

I'll take this up with the Baptists...

Was Abraham Jewish?

Answer
Technically no, Abraham wasn't Jewish, but he was the start of people who ultimately became the Jews.

http://experts.about.com/q/Baptists-954/Abraham.htm

Actually, I think it's a good question. What is the definition of Jewish? Does anyone that came before the Torah fall in that category?

Mediocrates

06-27-2006, 03:25 PM

Judaism is a covenant. Abraham was the first (well 2nd really) covenant. So Abraham was a Jew.

Achihud

06-27-2006, 04:26 PM

Sitcom material, folks!

(…) I've had Ygalg here, telling me i'd be a better person if i wasn't a Muslim, and SteveMetch saying that he hasn't met any Muslim who'd be a better Christian, and lots of other examples (…)
And I’m the one telling everyone that muslims are brainwashed.
But it would be desirable if I could show you that my understanding of islam is sufficient to make such a statement and here we are;

For once, try to see it from our side (...)

I'm busy trying but...

And the Jews will not be pleased with thee, nor will the Christians, till thou follow their creed. (002.120)

...according to your Qu'ran, we "CANNOT"...:D

Well that is true isn't it? (...) We were forewarned and foretold. That's wisdom in the Quran for you;) What happened here is that with your "that is true isn’t it?" you admitted that I understand the Qu’ran well enough in the true spirit of islam, to dismiss your "try to see it from our side" with "we CANNOT".
Have you asked yourself how it was possible for me to correct you islamicly, if I’m not inside your head already?

The Qu’ran is brainwashing material as I explained before in #44. Now, who are those that do not know their own condition except for those who are BRAINWASHED!!!

Achihud

06-27-2006, 04:48 PM

To sum it up, this ruling is in place to protect women. Yet another example of the superior status of women in Islam, would you not agree Achihud? Ehh…no!

If a non-muslim man wants to marry a muslim woman = no marriage unless conversion

If a muslim man wants to marry a non-muslim woman = no problem at all (005.005)

So if you target non-muslim women into marriage, then there will be a shortage for non-muslim men, unless they convert to islam.

dhimmitude is a slow process of forced conversion.
think about it... I don't know about you but I'm done thinking.

Bloodnut

06-27-2006, 05:16 PM

I didn't ask about Baptists. I asked about Muslim perspective of Abraham and Moses. You keep hopping around the question and then finally say that "we" consider them Jews, as if you speak for all Muslims.

Agnotheist just refuited you with your own Quran. It says quite clearly he wasn't Jewish.

Get a grip on your own religion already.

andak01

06-28-2006, 03:11 AM

Judaism is a covenant. Abraham was the first (well 2nd really) covenant. So Abraham was a Jew.

Alright, I'm going to be fair now and say how I understand someone getting offended. On top of that, it wouldn't pass me by that some Muslims say things in order to be offensive. The fact is that we have differences of opinion about the definition of the advent of Judaism. But on the other hand, what I said about Muslim being an Arabic word is true. And there is no evidence that using that Arabic adjective was intended to inflame people in its original usage.

The fact that the words muslim and Islam are so highly politicized is not the fault of Arabic. In its 7th century sense, muslim means one who submits (there is no distinction of capital and lowercase letters in the Arabic alphabet).

The bigger more important distinction (for us) is that Abraham and Moses weren't mushrikuun (those who commit shirk or worship multiple Gods). That was the important break that Noah and those prophets made with those before and I think Jews and Muslims are in agreement with the importance of those men for the same reasons.

Bloodnut

06-28-2006, 04:24 AM

andak01, is Abraham a Jew according to Muslim belief?

This is a simple yes/no question.

Mediocrates

06-28-2006, 04:43 AM

Alright, I'm going to be fair now and say how I understand someone getting offended.

Did you know that the root of the word Rabbinate is Rabbanu which in Talmudic Hebrew means 'abuse of power'? I always get a kick out of that.

andak01

06-29-2006, 03:30 AM

andak01, is Abraham a Jew according to Muslim belief?

This is a simple yes/no question.

Go ahead and say what you want to say. If I say no, that proves what? If I say yes, that proves what?

Medio says that taking a covenant makes one a Jew. Joseph Smith had a covenant and the Christians have a "New Covenant". Still, I'm not going to claim that Judaism is a defunct or errant religion because he or even all Jews wish to believe things that way.

The most important thing to Muslims is that Abraham wasn't a Mushrik. He didn't commit shirk and for that he is our hero. Jews who commit shirk are worse than others because they were given a covenant by God. Christians commit shirk whenever they worship Jesus. No Christian could be a role model for us the way that Abraham and Moses are. And that explains why we cannot accept the authenticity of the entire New Testament. Do you, by the way have a quote from the Quran denying that Jesus was a Jew? That would really interest me.

Agnosthiest

06-29-2006, 05:45 AM

Go ahead and say what you want to say. If I say no, that proves what? If I say yes, that proves what?

if you say no then that renders this post meaningless:

To understand a Muslim's relation to Christians and Jews, perhaps it is best to present you with the translation of the Salah an-Nabiyy or invocation of blessings upon the Prophet. We ask that Allah give as many blessings to Muhammad as were given to Abraham and Moses. Would you say that Abraham and Moses were Jews? Muhammad wants the same treatment of a Jew from God! Find me a single ill word about Abraham or Moses anywhere in the Quran. You cannot. They were our rightly guided models.

Any other method of understanding a muslim's relation to christians & jews?

Achihud

06-29-2006, 01:26 PM

Christians commit shirk whenever they worship Jesus. Calling Jesus a prophet and a liar at the same time yeahhh...that'll help.
I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. (Joh 14:6)

At least the jews know how to reject someone, either they do or they don't.

andak01

06-30-2006, 04:59 AM

Calling Jesus a prophet and a liar at the same time yeahhh...that'll help.
I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. (Joh 14:6)

At least the jews know how to reject someone, either they do or they don't.

I never called him a liar. I wouldn't go farther than to say that his words were not properly transcribed by the semi-anonymous authors of the New Testament.

If you take a red letter Bible and read what he supposedly said, there are probably only three or four sentences that I wouldn't agree with. Like the ones where we are supposed to worship him. The one above, if you change the word "am" to "represent" (viz. I represent the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.) would be acceptable to Muslims. We do recognize Jesus as one capable of making intercession to God.

Agnosthiest

06-30-2006, 05:20 AM

If you take a red letter Bible and read what he supposedly said, there are probably only three or four sentences that I wouldn't agree with.

If you knew the things that jesus said you wouldnt be saying that. As a muslim there would be dozens of Jesus' teachings that you would reject. Including...

* several parables about wine
* his turning water to wine
* his last supper commanding people to remember him through bread & wine
* his teachings on loving your enemy
* the whole episode of his crucifixion...his statements there that prove he suffered on the cross.
* the episode of his resurrected state...like where he asked an apostle to put his finger inside the wound openings in his hand and side.
* his teachings on prayer & baptism under the name of the father, son & holy spirit
* his teachings that he is the only way
* his teachings on what the afterlife is like...which contradicts islam's sex centered paradise.

andak01

06-30-2006, 09:25 AM

If you knew the things that jesus said you wouldnt be saying that. As a muslim there would be dozens of Jesus' teachings that you would reject. Including...

* several parables about wine
* his turning water to wine
* his last supper commanding people to remember him through bread & wine[/quote]

I do find it's a contradiction from this.

Mathew 5:17Think not that I am come to destroy the law [of Moses], or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Whereas...

Leviticus 010:009
Do not drink wine nor strong drink, thou, nor thy sons with thee, when ye go into the tabernacle of the congregation, lest ye die: it shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations:

Proverbs 020:001
Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise.

Isaiah 005:022
Woe unto them that are mighty to drink wine, and men of strength to mingle strong drink:

004:011
Whoredom and wine and new wine take away the heart.

http://ishwar.com/christianity/holy_bible/

That isn't a key theological argument, simply a behavioral prohibition. If he did indeed say those things, they do contradict other things he is said to have said.

* his teachings on loving your enemy

Good. And the Christians, they survived the Romans by loving their enemy? Or was it that they revolted again and again until such time as they were supported by the government.

* the whole episode of his crucifixion...his statements there that prove he suffered on the cross.

Even though none of the people who quoted those statements were actually present, and they couldn't even agree upon his last words!

Matthew - 027:046 ...
Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

Luke - 023:046 ...
Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit...

John 019:030
...It is finished...

* the episode of his resurrected state...like where he asked an apostle to put his finger inside the wound openings in his hand and side.

Well yes, I'm with the Jews on that belief. Christ wasn't resurrected.

* his teachings on prayer & baptism under the name of the father, son & holy spirit

Which, as I said before boils down to around four verses.

* his teachings that he is the only way
* his teachings on what the afterlife is like...which contradicts islam's sex centered paradise.

There isn't any sex centered paradise except for those with their minds in the gutter. They translate the presence of an etherial female being in Paridise into an orgy.

Agnosthiest

06-30-2006, 09:36 AM

Leviticus 010:009
Do not drink wine nor strong drink, thou, nor thy sons with thee, when ye go into the tabernacle of the congregation, lest ye die: it shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations:

andak, that was for aaron, not for every jew.

didnt you remember my thread about whether or not jews can drink wine?

Proverbs 020:001
Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise.

Isaiah 005:022
Woe unto them that are mighty to drink wine, and men of strength to mingle strong drink:

it was referring to drunkeness. too much of everything is bad.

Good. And the Christians, they survived the Romans by loving their enemy? Or was it that they revolted again and again until such time as they were supported by the government.

Mohammad showed concern to a person who tried to torment him each day. Admit it, andak. Sometimes its good to show love to an enemy.

Even though none of the people who quoted those statements were actually present, and they couldn't even agree upon his last words!

like what?

Agnosthiest

06-30-2006, 10:05 AM

andak, please see my other post on the previous page.

Even though none of the people who quoted those statements were actually present, and they couldn't even agree upon his last words!

Matthew - 027:046 ...
Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

Luke - 023:046 ...
Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit...

John 019:030
...It is finished...

Only Luke specifically said that “…into thy hands…” were Jesus’ last words. Nobody else claimed a last word of jesus. It is possible that he said those after he said “finished”, and then at last he breathed his last, bowed down and gave up his spirit.

Well yes, I'm with the Jews on that belief. Christ wasn't resurrected.

I with that belief too. But Jesus’ words about his wounds suggests that he survived the crucifixion. Which contradicts the story made by mohammad wherein jesus wasn’t crucified in the first place.

andak01

06-30-2006, 11:30 AM

Agnosthiest

06-30-2006, 11:43 AM

I really don't know what this quibbling is about. The Christians say we made the whole Quran up. That's why they aren't Muslim. We say the Christians modified portions of the Bible to suit themselves. That's why we aren't Christian. We disagree on theology to the point that we can't reconcile within one religion.

How frustrating isnt it? Thats why I gave up religion entirely. Its safer just to believe in God, rather than risk making him madder & madder when im going to the wrong religion without realizing it. :D If he doesnt like the way I live let him tell me himself. I will devote everything that I am to his wishes.

andak01

06-30-2006, 07:22 PM

Mohammad showed concern to a person who tried to torment him each day. Admit it, andak. Sometimes its good to show love to an enemy.

There is more than one example of that in Islam. So I don't understand how people could say we aren't forgiving. One of the 99 names of Allah is al Ghuffar, the Forgiver.

Achihud

07-01-2006, 06:16 AM

If you take a red letter Bible and read what he supposedly said, there are probably only three or four sentences that I wouldn't agree with.
Make that thirty to forty, or three hundred to four hundred depending on how far an in-depth conversation will take us.
Like the ones where we are supposed to worship him. The one above, if you change the word "am" to "represent" (viz. I represent the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.) would be acceptable to Muslims. We do recognize Jesus as one capable of making intercession to God. I 'am' or I 'represent' doesn’t make a difference. Point is, no man comes to God unless with his approval. And how would He have gained such authority if He isn’t alive! So all verses where Jesus mentioned his return can be put on the list.

Achihud

07-01-2006, 06:32 AM

his last supper commanding people to remember him through bread & wine (...) Whereas...

Leviticus 010:009
Do not drink wine nor strong drink, thou, nor thy sons with thee, when ye go into the tabernacle of the congregation, lest ye die: it shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations. And where is that tabernacle of the congregation now!!! Other then in the words of Jesus; Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. (Joh 2:19)

Although the first one is temporary enabled by the destruction of the temple, both Covenants coexist, in fact they ALWAYS HAVE in history of judaism. The tabernacle is just a visible reproduction of the invisible Covenant between God and godly prophethood. So another one to put on the list...

Besides, wine is so spiritual that it bears heavenly proportions in itself, if wine goes inside the body it can bring out soul impurities. It has to be used with moderation out of protection from blasphemy before the holy Spirit. The interesting thing about it is, that Pesach is lechem and jajin combined.

Pesach: 80-60-8=148
Lechem: 30-8-40=78
Jajin: 10-10-50=70

Last Supper: bread + wine=148
Therefore, the Lam is our salvation or our Pesach before Exodus to heaven.

I do find it's a contradiction from this.

Mathew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law [of Moses], or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
To understand this, one needs to know that the precepts of NT are much more based on personal judgement then the laws of Moses. Christianity doesn’t have laws that say, don’t touch this and don’t touch that. It has everything to do with the transformation of the tabernacle of congregation into the body of Christ. One of the major upsides to this is that a spiritual christianity can produce many prophets/apostles in a short period of time. One of the major downsides to this is that it also brings forth many false prophets which can overgrow christian congregation everywhere in a similar period of time. Once this has happened, the age of the spirit of the anti-Christ begins of which islam is just a part of it. This era of the anti-Christ cannot be avoided and is therefore calculated within God’s plan of salvation. It will only end when this world/aeon ends in a pool of blood and fire in which both enemies of judaism will succumb and collapse. It is therefore that the Apocalypse among other NT genuine testimony remains favourable towards the destination of jewish people, culminating in a latter renewed possession of the Promised Land and Jerusalem. The entire heaven (not just Jesus) will be on the jewish side at the expense of billions taking the wrong side out of fear for islamic anti-Christ retaliation which is btw, already taking place in this age of terrorism, misdirection by islamic regimes and all these political/religious PR deception. Some of it can be witnessed, here at IF!

Womble

07-01-2006, 06:38 AM

The interesting thing about it is, that Pesach is lechem and jajin combined.

Pesach: 80-60-8=148
Lechem: 30-8-40=78
Jajin: 10-10-50=70

Last Supper: bread + wine=148
Therefore, the Lam is our salvation or our Pesach before Exodus to heaven.
Can't check out the Gematria right now but I am sure of two things:

1)Jesus does not qualify as a sacrificial animal as he isn't listed among the animal species which can be used for sacrifices.
2)Ritual sacrifice is not done by cricifixion, nor is it done outside the Temple, nor can it be done by non-Jewish soldiers of a hostile power neither of whom is a legitimate Jewish high priest.

SteveMetch

07-03-2006, 07:50 AM

The most important thing to Muslims is that Abraham wasn't a Mushrik. He didn't commit shirk and for that he is our hero. Jews who commit shirk are worse than others because they were given a covenant by God. Christians commit shirk whenever they worship Jesus. No Christian could be a role model for us the way that Abraham and Moses are. And that explains why we cannot accept the authenticity of the entire New Testament. Do you, by the way have a quote from the Quran denying that Jesus was a Jew? That would really interest me.

Explain to me Andak01 how, Yawhew the name of the Jewish God, is mention over 1,000 times in the Jewish scripture but not once in the Koran. Also explain how there is no description of Abraham every traveling to Mecca to build that rock pile you worship five times day. Or was it Adam that piled all those rocks. See Mohhamed was a very bad liar even he couldnâ€™t keep his story straight. In one verse itâ€™s Adam that piled the rocks then next itâ€™s Abraham. Islam is the complete anti-thesis of authenticity.

andak01

07-03-2006, 11:18 AM

Explain to me Andak01 how, Yawhew the name of the Jewish God, is mention over 1,000 times in the Jewish scripture but not once in the Koran.

Neither the Quran nor the Bible use the name God in their original texts. Because they weren't revealed or written in English! What sort of a red herring is that? Besides the language, there is a millinium (at least) gap.

Also explain how there is no description of Abraham every traveling to Mecca to build that rock pile you worship five times day.

There is no description of twenty years of Jesus life in the New Testament or decades and even centuries of Noah's life. Because it isn't in the Bible does not mean that it never happened.

A pile of rocks could collapse or get covered up or get rebuilt. There is no contradiction in that whatsoever.

SteveMetch

07-04-2006, 06:39 AM

Neither the Quran nor the Bible use the name God in their original texts. Because they weren't revealed or written in English! What sort of a red herring is that? Besides the language, there is a millinium (at least) gap.

“Original Texts” are you referring to the Islamic fantasy land of biblical corruption. A conspiracy, over 15 centuries mind you, to write out the name of Allah and replace it with Yahweh. Now that’s a whooper of a conspiracy theory. Of course Muslims are known for their wacky conspiracy theories after all over 75% believe that 9/11 was perpetrated by the CIA.

Yahweh was God’s revealed name to the Jews. Roughly translated it means I am. Of course Mohammed would not know this because all the Jews he encountered would not mention the name out of profound respect referring to Lord if the said anything at all while reading the Jewish scripture. Being illiterate he couldn’t have read it.

Let see should I believe that a tradition compiled by literate people over 30 generations was corrupted or the ravings of some murdering illiterate thief compiled 100 years after his death based on recollection of his surviving band of murdering thieves intent on continuing the murders franchise?

The problem is that there are copies of the Jewish scripture that not only radio carbon predate Mohammed but agree to the letter with the ones we use today. Allah is the name of one of many pagan rock God’s worshiped by the Mecans. That’s a fact revealed in Islamic rock piling tradition.

Mohammed’s story on what God he was a prophet of switched from Allah, one of many rock God's in Mecca, to Allah = (Jewish God, though I don’t know his name is lets just call him Allah or Lord as you do or maybe just what his name). Boy the Jews must have be laughing at this guy. Allah? who the heck is Allah? That’s not his name you illiterate pagan fool. Of course they weren’t laughing after he murder all of them in cold blood but that’s another story. Now able to attract more thieves from the looted Jewish wealth he returned to Mecca and got rid of all other pagan idols and made his pagan idol number one in the pantheon of rocks. This is the same rock you worship five times a day and have to kiss and walk around one day. He then had a steady source of money from the pagan rituals above with loot coming in from all the raids. Yes life was good for Mohammed up until one of his sex slaves poisoned him and sent him to Allah’s heaven better known as Hell.

What a lovely story, someday I hope someone makes an unauthorized biography of the wild and wacky times of Mohammed. Just make sure to hand out barf bags seeing over a 1,000 innocent people beheaded is hard to stomach. Islam is just bursting with peace.

Hey, Andak01 here is a little math quiz or you.

Mohammed said there were only 70,000 slots in heaven but over 100,000 Muslim prophets. How many slots does that leave for faithful Muslims like yourself? I mean you’re probably behind most of the Muslim prophets and then you have all those exploding Muslims which have killed infidels. What do you think your odds are?

andak01

07-04-2006, 08:19 PM

Yahweh was Godâ€™s revealed name to the Jews. Roughly translated it means I am.

There is no present tense verb "to be" in Arabic. There is the past tense kana and the negative laisa (not to be). It is also revealed in the Quran that there are secret names of Allah in addition to the 99 known ones.

The problem is that there are copies of the Jewish scripture that not only radio carbon predate Mohammed but agree to the letter with the ones we use today. Allah is the name of one of many pagan rock Godâ€™s worshiped by the Mecans. Thatâ€™s a fact revealed in Islamic rock piling tradition.

Of course they werenâ€™t laughing after he murder all of them in cold blood but thatâ€™s another story.

Yeah, a story that never happened. On what account do you have it that Muhammad, or anyone else murdered all the Jews in Arabia, Mecca or even Medina in cold blood?

This is the same rock you worship five times a day and have to kiss and walk around one day.

Another lie. Nobody is required to kiss the Kaaba or the black stone. Second, we don't worship either.

How many slots does that leave for faithful Muslims like yourself? I mean youâ€™re probably behind most of the Muslim prophets and then you have all those exploding Muslims which have killed infidels. What do you think your odds are?

You really shouldn't drink and blog.

SteveMetch

07-05-2006, 07:53 AM

There is no present tense verb "to be" in Arabic. There is the past tense kana and the negative laisa (not to be). It is also revealed in the Quran that there are secret names of Allah in addition to the 99 known ones.

Interesting, because Muslim's believe Arabic to be the language of Allah it would be impossible for Allah to call himself "I am" in Arabic as clearly written in the Jewish scriptures. Therefore Allah cannot be the Jewish “I am”.

Yeah, a story that never happened. On what account do you have it that Muhammad, or anyone else murdered all the Jews in Arabia, Mecca or even Medina in cold blood?

On the account if Islamic scripture.

Bukhari:V5B58N148-B59N447 “Sa'd came riding a donkey, and when he approached the mosque, the Prophet said, ‘Get up for the best amongst you.' Then the Apostle said, ‘O Sa'd. These people have agreed to accept your verdict.' Sa'd said, ‘I judge that their men should be killed and their offspring and women should be taken as captives.' The Prophet said, ‘You have given a judgment similar to Allah the King's Judgment.'” A second reveals: Bukhari:V5B59N448 “They then surrendered to the Prophet's judgment but he directed them to Sa'd to give the verdict. Sad said, ‘I give my judgment that their men should be killed, their women and children should be taken as captives, and their properties distributed.'” A third proclaims: Bukhari:V5B59N362 “The Nadir and Qurayza violated their peace treaty, so the Prophet exiled the Nadir and then he killed the Qurayza men. He distributed their women, children and property among the Muslims.” And what do you suppose the Muslim militants did to their women? The Qur'an says that they forced them into prostitution. The Hadith says that they raped them. Bukhari:V5B59N459 “I entered the Mosque, saw Abu, sat beside him and asked about sex. Abu Said said, ‘We went out with Allah's Apostle and we received female slaves from among the captives. We desired women and we loved to do coitus interruptus.'”

Sorry my mistake Mohhammed only murder the men they raped the women after they were forced to witnessing the murder of their fathers, husbands brothers and sons.

Another lie. Nobody is required to kiss the Kaaba or the black stone. Second, we don't worship either.

You need to read the Hadiths it clearly describes the early rock cult worship of the Meccans. Everything associated with the Meccan pilgrimage to this day can trace its roots to the practice of the pagan Meccans. Mohammed only cursed the Meccans because they wouldn’t accept him as the prophet of the rock god Allah, not to be confused with the Jewish “I am”. The only difference between then and now is that now the only pagan rock god that is worshiped in Meccan is Allah.

Face it Andak01 you worship either a rock or the devil. Your mind is gradually being turned into mush by your Iman. Pretty soon you will think terrorism is okay and before you know it you have a suicide built around your waist.

Do the math Islamic Heaven is already at capacity.

Agnosthiest

07-05-2006, 09:50 AM

Bukhari:V5B59N459 “I entered the Mosque, saw Abu, sat beside him and asked about sex. Abu Said said, ‘We went out with Allah's Apostle and we received female slaves from among the captives. We desired women and we loved to do coitus interruptus.'”

Here is the actual stuff..

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/046.sbt.html

I saw Abu Said and asked him about coitus interruptus. Abu Said said, "We went with Allah's Apostle, in the Ghazwa of Barli Al-Mustaliq and we captured some of the 'Arabs as captives, and the long separation from our wives was pressing us hard and we wanted to practice coitus interruptus. We asked Allah's Apostle (whether it was permissible). He said, "It is better for you not to do so. No soul, (that which Allah has) destined to exist, up to the Day of Resurrection, but will definitely come, into existence."

Muslim fighters have captured arab women and wanted to rape them without impregnating them. So they asked Mohammad if the withrawal method is permissible. Mohammad practically said not to bother because souls destined to be born would come into existence anyway.

Sounds to me he allowed the rape of captives and didn’t care whether or not they became pregnant in the process.

Agnosthiest

07-05-2006, 11:04 AM

Face it Andak01 you worship either a rock or the devil. Your mind is gradually being turned into mush by your Iman. Pretty soon you will think terrorism is okay and before you know it you have a suicide built around your waist.

Hey please dont treat andak like that. I think is he wise enough not to fall into that kind of thinking.

Achihud

07-05-2006, 01:34 PM

Can't check out the Gematria right now but I am sure of two things:

1)Jesus does not qualify as a sacrificial animal as he isn't listed among the animal species which can be used for sacrifices.
2)Ritual sacrifice is not done by cricifixion, nor is it done outside the Temple, nor can it be done by non-Jewish soldiers of a hostile power neither of whom is a legitimate Jewish high priest. Womble, my position is that christians should take a good look into the mirror (NT) before they point a finger at the jews for not accepting Jesus. My contribution to this forum is mainly about providing some more insight on christian issues and what the christian perspective should be on judaism, islam and 'christendom' in its present state.

Nonetheless, I hope I will not be accused of proselytizing if I say that your two points have no relevance to me. Jesus isn’t to be considered as a ritual sacrifice the way it was done in the temple but as a sacrificial lamb…before a great exodus would take place similar to the one in Egypt. At that point, there was no mention of any tent or temple because the lamb was eaten at home to celebrate the exodus. The christian Pesach is one that leads out of captivity from the chains of satan to a better hereafter for those who believe in this Redeemer. But you are free to accept or reject this sacrifice just as the Hebrews were free in believing that Moses would lead them out of captivity from the chains of the farao. And after that we keep our free will to forfeit the benefits that come with this Covenant just as the Hebrews did in the desert to the extent that God wanted to destroy them all except for Moses and you know that God is capable of making such a decision. In the same way, we christians ought to look at our own Covenant in this age of the spirit of the anti-Christ.

ps: I have written on this subject before if you are interested

Hebrew Swede

07-05-2006, 05:11 PM

Another lie. Nobody is required to kiss the Kaaba or the black stone. Second, we don't worship either.

Of course no one kisses al-Ka'bah (the Cube); that's the sacred house inside al-Masjid al-Haram. What you kiss, touch or pay respect to (IOW worship) is the Black Stone, which is situated in one of the corners inside the cube structure. There are conflicting opinions as to the meaning of the stone, but it doesn't matter what version you pick. Here's why:

When the 2nd Caliph, Umar ibn al-Khattab, came to kiss the stone, he spoke directly to the stone in front of the people assembled, and said something like: I know you're just a stone and can neither harm nor benefit anyone, and had I not seen All-h's messenger kissing you, I would not have kissed you.

This means that Muhammad (PissBUH) kissed the stone, and that my friend is worshipping an idol. G-d makes it clear in the 2nd commandment that you shall not worship idols. Muhammad (PissBUH), was a pagan and so are all who follows him. Do you see the light yet, andak?

Hebrew Swede

07-05-2006, 05:38 PM

The fact that the Black Stone even exist is worship of idols, whether or not you travel to S. Arabia to kiss or touch it.

Mediocrates

07-05-2006, 06:59 PM

Like a Torah?

:cool:

Hebrew Swede

07-05-2006, 07:15 PM

Like a Torah?

:cool:

Like a Torah -- what?

What are you asking about and for whom is your question?

Mediocrates

07-05-2006, 07:39 PM

The fact that the Black Stone even exist is worship of idols, whether or not you travel to S. Arabia to kiss or touch it.

I meant exist as in a Torah scroll. Those aren't idols but they are solid and real and we carry them around and bury them when they are damaged, etc..

Hebrew Swede

07-05-2006, 07:46 PM

I meant exist as in a Torah scroll. Those aren't idols but they are solid and real and we carry them around and bury them when they are damaged, etc..

That's right. The Torah is scripture, not an idol. So what's your point?

andak01

07-06-2006, 03:19 AM

Of course no one kisses al-Ka'bah (the Cube); that's the sacred house inside al-Masjid al-Haram. What you kiss, touch or pay respect to (IOW worship) is the Black Stone, which is situated in one of the corners inside the cube structure. There are conflicting opinions as to the meaning of the stone, but it doesn't matter what version you pick. Here's why:

When the 2nd Caliph, Umar ibn al-Khattab, came to kiss the stone, he spoke directly to the stone in front of the people assembled, and said something like: I know you're just a stone and can neither harm nor benefit anyone, and had I not seen All-h's messenger kissing you, I would not have kissed you.

You missed that he cryed when he said it. Such was his fear of committing shirk by this act that it caused him to cry. Kissing the stone is not a requirement of hajj and millions of Muslims do not kiss it. Educated Muslims remind themselves of this saying, that a stone is a stone, though it may contain symbolism, it doesn't contain any magic.

This means that Muhammad (PissBUH) kissed the stone, and that my friend is worshipping an idol. G-d makes it clear in the 2nd commandment that you shall not worship idols. Muhammad (PissBUH), was a pagan and so are all who follows him. Do you see the light yet, andak?

So, the act of kissing something equates to idol worship? Interesting.

http://www.bible.ca/catholic-pope-kissing-koran.jpg
http://www.fotosearch.com/IMG011/122865h

Mediocrates

07-06-2006, 05:31 AM

That's right. The Torah is scripture, not an idol. So what's your point?

The physical object is treated with reverence, awe. People touch it, carry it around, etc.

SteveMetch

07-06-2006, 07:36 AM

Hey please dont treat andak like that. I think is he wise enough not to fall into that kind of thinking.

Let me see if I can get this straight. Based on your first response you have clearly indicated that Mohammed, according to Muslims to be the best example of how a Muslim should behave, condones raping of non-muslims.

When I bring this fact to the attention of Andak01 who is trying to be a â€œGoodâ€ Muslim as defined by life example of Mohammed you say I am insulting him. How can I insult him by simply point out that â€œGoodâ€ Muslimâ€™s rape infidels among a host of other evil things some of which involving suicide belts and murdered non-muslims?

In summary, all the evil and terrible behavior that is Islam is in the scriptural texts. It is evil at its core. Therefore it can never be reformed only diluted. Iâ€™m not making this stuff up its straight from their texts in context and on message.

If we found this type of â€œrape endorsementâ€ in Mien Kamfp would you consider it â€œover the topâ€ for me to criticize a self proclaimed Nazi who believed in some twisted peaceful version of Hitlerâ€™s original evil ideology? If Hitler was believed by Naziâ€™s to be the best example of how to be a â€œGoodâ€ Nazi would you consider it over the top to point out evil behaviors of Hitler or call to tasks clear differences between their fantasy version of Nazism and what was in their ideological documents and demonstrated practice. I'm not buying it an neither should you.

Given all the above Andak01 is either a fool or evil take your pick. Evil is clever and clever people can appear to be wise. Satan is both clever and evil making bad seem good and good seem bad.

SteveMetch

07-06-2006, 07:49 AM

That's right. The Torah is scripture, not an idol. So what's your point?

Any act of reverence is not idol worship. We kiss are children and wives too.

The difference in Islam is that kissing of the rock is directly related to pagan rock idol worship rituals that predate Mohammed. Mohammed just took over the rock worshiping franchise via murdering the all Meccans that opposed him after murdering Median Jews and stealing their wealth. Once he took over the Meccan pilgrimage he narrowed it down to one rock god Allah hacked up a bunch more people in violent version of Amway and bingo you have Islam. About two hundred years after he was poisoned someone thinks gee we better codify and legitimize all this violence against Non-Muslims and associated burn in hell if you donâ€™t become Muslims stuff on paper. Itâ€™s really not more complicated than that.

Agnosthiest

07-06-2006, 10:47 AM

Let me see if I can get this straight. Based on your first response you have clearly indicated that Mohammed, according to Muslims to be the best example of how a Muslim should behave, condones raping of non-muslims.

When I bring this fact to the attention of Andak01 who is trying to be a “Good” Muslim as defined by life example of Mohammed you say I am insulting him. How can I insult him by simply point out that “Good” Muslim’s rape infidels among a host of other evil things some of which involving suicide belts and murdered non-muslims?

Friend, a ‘good muslim’ is really just a matter of opinion. Andak is the type of guy whose idea of being a ‘good muslim’ is anything but strapping bombs to kill the enemies of islam. Lets have a little more faith in him. He is very civil in his approach here, don’t you think he deserves a little more respect?

If we found this type of “rape endorsement” in Mien Kamfp would you consider it “over the top” for me to criticize a self proclaimed Nazi who believed in some twisted peaceful version of Hitler’s original evil ideology?

Had Nazism evolved into a religion, there would arise followers who would have enough sense not to take it literally to the letter. Just like Judaism. Evil to the core when taken literally to the letter, fortunately its followers had matured enough not to do so.

Given all the above Andak01 is either a fool or evil take your pick. Evil is clever and clever people can appear to be wise. Satan is both clever and evil making bad seem good and good seem bad.

For certain I don’t see anything in Andaks words that indicates an evil. And for fairness I cant call andak a fool for simply disagreeing with you & me. A fool for me is someone who is insistent on every issue regardless of the weight of the evidence that goes against him. What I notice with Andak is that he chooses to remain quiet when the evidence stacks up. That for me is a sign of wisdom. These debates wont lead to an instant convert. The things said here require time to think about.

SteveMetch

07-06-2006, 02:29 PM

Friend, a ‘good muslim’ is really just a matter of opinion. Andak is the type of guy whose idea of being a ‘good muslim’ is anything but strapping bombs to kill the enemies of islam. Lets have a little more faith in him. He is very civil in his approach here, don’t you think he deserves a little more respect?

Let say I called myself a “good” (Insert Ideology here) yet in practice I performed say 10% of what a “good” (Insert Ideology Here) is supposed to do. Let also say the other 90% of my actions are defined by (Insert a 1-many other Ideologies here). What Ideology do I predominately practice the first or the second.

What I call myself a “good” representative of is irrelevant it is what I do that matters.

Second question say, someone logs into this forum and calls them self a “good” Nazi yet in reality the only believe in 10% of what Nazism believes in. Would you think it intellectually honest for this 10% Nazi to defended Nazism by pointing out the other 90% of non-Nazi stuff he believes in?

Real Muslims believe that Mohammed represents the best example of a Muslim. Therefore it is perfectly permissible to ask Andak01 whether being a Good Muslim means following the life example of Mohammed.

In fact I think Andak01 is probable a very bad Muslim. Which is fine by me because bad Muslims by definition are the opposite of Mohammed and therefore are Good people?

HebrewSwede

07-07-2006, 09:11 AM

Any act of reverence is not idol worship. We kiss are children and wives too.

Exactly.

HebrewSwede

07-07-2006, 09:16 AM

The physical object is treated with reverence, awe. People touch it, carry it around, etc.

So? Again, what's your point, Med? That all physical objects are idols? C'mon, you know better than that? For example, wearing nice clothes and people admiring what you wear, is not idolatry. Clothes are not idols, and admiration is not worship. Beauty has no content other than beauty itself. That's not true with idols. An idol suggests spiritual content in an object. Please, this is too elementary.

HebrewSwede

07-07-2006, 09:33 AM

You missed that he cryed when he said it. Such was his fear of committing shirk by this act that it caused him to cry. Kissing the stone is not a requirement of hajj and millions of Muslims do not kiss it. Educated Muslims remind themselves of this saying, that a stone is a stone, though it may contain symbolism, it doesn't contain any magic.

If he was crying or not, laughing or tap dancing is irrelevant. The point is that the khalifah clearly testified that Muhammad had kissed the stone. That's all we need to know.

That you're repeating to me what you've been saying to others here, that it's not a requirement to kiss the stone, proves that you're not really paying attention to my posts. Don't confuse my opinions with others'! It is CLEAR in my previous post that kissing the stone is NOT a requirement. Why are you then repeating it to me as if I didn't know? Pay attention now: No one ELSE needs to kiss the stone; it is ENOUGH that Prophet Muhammad has kissed it. Only a pagan prophet would kiss an idol.

So, the act of kissing something equates to idol worship? Interesting.

There you go again, twisting words. I have reminded you before to stop doing this, if you want to be taken seriously. You do this all the time just to win arguments, which is vain and shows desperation. I'll now prove it to you, so pay close attention again:

I never said the 2nd commandment forbids kissing "something"; I said it forbids kissing "idols," since kissing an idol is worshipping an idol. See how you twist the words? Andak, you're not an attorney in a court room, trying to win a case. You're debating to learn, not to defend what you already think you know. That's arrogance. The Torah teaches us that we know nothing, because you must be humble to be receptive to knowledge. And you're not receptive, andak. I've given you good arguments, and I expect good arguments in return, and not word-twisting. Please, I get easily bored. If you can't even try to make the slightest effort to stimulate my mind and make me think, please hold your peace.

Mediocrates

07-07-2006, 10:32 AM

So? Again, what's your point, Med? That all physical objects are idols? C'mon, you know better than that? For example, wearing nice clothes and people admiring what you wear, is not idolatry. Clothes are not idols, and admiration is not worship. Beauty has no content other than beauty itself. That's not true with idols. An idol suggests spiritual content in an object. Please, this is too elementary.

I have no idea how Muslims approach the Kabaah. All I'm saying is that each religion has to carve out for itself what it thinks is idolatry and what is not.

There are two dimensions to idolatry in Judaism. One is the surface appearance, the trappings of practicing idolatrous religion. The other is the moral and ethical dimension of practicing depravities and abominations in the idolatrous cultures in the Torah. Abram broke his father's gods because a) they were not God and b) because Abram's God is an ethical and moral God that goes far beyond primative statue worship. I can tell you that the mechanics of how we hold and handle the Torah in services is not as a simple word, it's as an object of worship in some ways. At least divine respect, if that term helps. But that's only on the surface. The deeper meaning is obviously in Torah itself and not the object. Why? Because we can use non kosher Torah for private study but not during services.

HebrewSwede

07-07-2006, 12:43 PM

I have no idea how Muslims approach the Kabaah. All I'm saying is that each religion has to carve out for itself what it thinks is idolatry and what is not.

I hope you're not talking about different definitions of the word idolatry in the dictionary. Yes, idolatry can also mean blind or excessive devotion to something. But if you're talking about idolatry to be interpreted as worship of idols, then the 2nd commandment and the Torah makes it perfectly clear what idols are and what their not. And if Islam wants to claim to be an Abrahamic religion, it must adhere to the same rule as Judaism when it comes to anti-idolatry. If not, then Islam should just come clean and admit it's a pagan religion, just like Hinduism, which doesn't try to make it a secret that it's polytheist. G-d is one -- one spiritual entity – one spiritual entity to be worshipped. If you add an idol, then G-d becomes two, et cetera, no matter what physical size or the magnitude of the spiritual significance the idol possesses. Pretend G-d is a loaf of bread. If you separate the tiniest crumb (an idol) from the loaf, then G-d is two. Alright, enough already, I think I made my point clear.

Abram broke his father's gods because a) they were not God and b) because Abram's God is an ethical and moral God that goes far beyond primative statue worship.

And you forgot c) because G-d was not one.

The deeper meaning is obviously in Torah itself and not the object. Why? Because we can use non kosher Torah for private study but not during services.

Med, Med, Med, we're still at that elementary level of Judaism. This could be so simple to understand if you just applied yourself a little. If the Torah used during service could suddenly fall apart or a tear or coffee stain makes a word illegible, then the service would be interrupted. Whereas with a private Torah, you could be as rough as you like, depending how intensively you're studying it. If it breaks you have plenty of time to fix or replace it. So this is all for practical reasons. C'mon, you knew that.

Mediocrates

07-07-2006, 02:11 PM

Like I said - I care little for Islamic definitions of what IT believes idolatry to be. I'm sure they believe there's a subtle difference between that and what you assert. In either case it matters little to Judaism. My Rasta friends can assert all sorts of things about being of Zion too. So what?

No it actually has nothing to do with the practical aspects of a using a kosher Torah. If a kosher Torah scroll is damaged it must be given a funeral. You know that.

(BTW there was no consistent agreement on the word for word content of Torah in Talmud debates. Up through the time of Rashi, even Obiadiah ben Avraham Bartinoro there are some credible some questions about the meanings of specific phrases and meanings, even the words themselves.) At least that what Bartinoro's comments in my edition Mishnah Tractate Berachot with commentary discusses.

HebrewSwede

07-07-2006, 08:30 PM

No it actually has nothing to do with the practical aspects of a using a kosher Torah. If a kosher Torah scroll is damaged it must be given a funeral. You know that.

That's not true. You may tape and repair the Torah as many times you like. But when you're ready to do away with it, you must bury it like a person or living thing. I find that beautiful, treating a worn out Torah as a deceased family member.

andak01

07-08-2006, 05:28 AM

The difference in Islam is that kissing of the rock is directly related to pagan rock idol worship rituals that predate Mohammed.

And a Christmas tree goes back to the tree worshippers and the dates of Easter and Christmas go back to pagan rituals. However, the Christian interpretation of those things entirely negates their original meaning.

The swastika was an ancient symbol with some religious connotations. When the Nazis used it, its original meaning was subverted to the point that, even when we see it used in its original context, we think of Nazis.

So this argument that a symbol has to relate directly to its previous meaning is specious. Sometimes there is a complete break with the past and the same object takes on a new meaning which may have nothing to do with its past.

Mediocrates

07-08-2006, 05:23 PM

That's not true. You may tape and repair the Torah as many times you like. But when you're ready to do away with it, you must bury it like a person or living thing. I find that beautiful, treating a worn out Torah as a deceased family member.

No you have to ascertain how much damage there is. If it's too much it's nonkosher.

andak01

07-09-2006, 04:19 AM

And use only Kosher duct tape!

Mediocrates

07-09-2006, 09:46 AM

Not my own - more or less the Rabbi gets to decide and if he/she doesn't know then the scroll goes to a Rabbi who writes scrolls. Usually individual letters can be repaired and panels can be reattached but for example if a scroll is buried intact it's automatically not kosher.

Mediocrates

07-10-2006, 04:07 AM

a scribe is a rabbi - you know that.

SteveMetch

07-10-2006, 08:31 AM

And a Christmas tree goes back to the tree worshippers and the dates of Easter and Christmas go back to pagan rituals. However, the Christian interpretation of those things entirely negates their original meaning.

The swastika was an ancient symbol with some religious connotations. When the Nazis used it, its original meaning was subverted to the point that, even when we see it used in its original context, we think of Nazis.

So this argument that a symbol has to relate directly to its previous meaning is specious. Sometimes there is a complete break with the past and the same object takes on a new meaning which may have nothing to do with its past.

Wrong again, you forget which came first. The incorporation of pagan rituals/symbols/festivals came after the doctrine of Christian theology was firmly established. The prime motive was to work within the existing pagan rituals/symbols/festivals to gradually bring pagans to Christianity. To the extent these pagan activities do not detract but enhance the message they are positive influence and bring about a richer heritage of mans quest for the divine.

In contrast the pagan rituals of the Meccan’s “are” Islam. Mohammed attempted to put lip stick on pig in a vain attempt at convince Jews and Christians he was a prophet from their G-d. Hence the need for the doctrine of corruption because most of Mohammed preach was the complete opposite of everything in the Jewish/Christian scriptures.

I’m well aware that a Christmas tree is of pagan origin it beautiful none the less and amplifies a central theme in Christianity. Even the time of Christmas is based on the pagan ritual established in the Northern hemisphere of celebrating winter solstice "dark becoming light". Easter re-birth and the bringing of new life happening in of all crazy times spring. Boy what pagan kooks we are.

Only Muslims could find ugliness in a Christmas tree. I wonder if I could put one of those up in Mecca. Satan hates beautiful things after all.

Speaking of symbols and Satan, Islam is Lunar based. In most pagan cultures the moon is known as a fallen/lesser sun that reins over the dark world. The sun is usually the central/supreme god who reins over the day.

Looks like the pagans would even be able to tell the true foundations of Islam.