is israelforum becoming ummah.com like?

[andak01]

Ali Sina is a scholar. I think the debate will be as fluent as should be.

Ali Sina is NOT a scholar. I'm not aware that any of his research is original. Like Ibn Warraq, he simply assembles collections of other apologists. The bulk of what he writes comes from a Christian viewpoint which, if he were doing original research, would be odd for an ex-Muslim.

I've answered a good number of his points on this forum and often they were pasted from FaithFreedom. Faith Freedom means freedom of faith and he doesn't want Muslims to be free to practice our faith, so his first lie begins with his URL.

[NewsGuy]

if there is OK, I Pass to Ali?

Sure.

Anyone is welcome to debate here in accordance with the RoR.

And, of course, anyone else is welcome to challenge him.

[Mediocrates]

I take fairly harsh, and some would say, simplistic view of the world. That which is right or wrong is right or wrong, for the most part. If something is abusive, rude, inflammatory then that's what it is. Period. Full stop. There is no but or in case. Which is not to say there is NO room in the public space for inflammatory invective. There is. But it has to have some purpose. It has to lead somewhere. Otherwise it's just childish noise. And in all honesty I'd rather you spit on me than bore me. I don't know why anyone tolerates mindless calls for global anything. I don't why we should tolerate it here.

[Steven]

I take fairly harsh, and some would say, simplistic view of the world. That which is right or wrong is right or wrong, for the most part. If something is abusive, rude, inflammatory then that's what it is. Period. Full stop. There is no but or in case. Which is not to say there is NO room in the public space for inflammatory invective. There is. But it has to have some purpose. It has to lead somewhere. Otherwise it's just childish noise. And in all honesty I'd rather you spit on me than bore me. I don't know why anyone tolerates mindless calls for global anything. I don't why we should tolerate it here.

Alis Sina approach does lead somewhere. It hopefully leads to Muslims turning against and leaving Islam.
So what would be your plan for combating the ideology of Islam? Sorting out the "good" Muslims from the bad has not worked for 1400 years. Do you think we should continue to allow Muslim immigration?

Thanks.

[sharonbn]

Sharon, I'm curious, why censor Ali Sina's opinion?

Here's the way I see it:

1) Islam as a religion, as a concept, as an ideology, as a way of living - is beyond refute. This is b/c of its long history and wide influence over mankind. Religions and social ideologies that span millenias and have a wide audience are concepts that have validity beyond mere controversial historical facts of real life events and people.

Jesus probably wasn't the son of God and his mother Mary was not a virgin when she gave birth to him. Whether these ppl were real or not does not negate the concept of Christianity. Muhammad's real persona (which I have no knowledge of) is irrelevant to the symbol that Muhammad became as the prophet of Islam.

2) If anything, history teaches us that people and their ideas change over time. If you look at history, you will see that Christianity was much more destructive and hateful religion than Islam. You will also see that Muslims and Jews can live in peace, that Muslims can build an advanced civilization that can produce scholars and artists that create knowledge and works that are revered by later generations. Furthermore, any first year anthropologist will tell you you cannot judge a foreign culture, so the assessment of a given religion as "primitive" tells more about the person giving that assessment than about the subject.

3) Another thing that can be taught from history is that religion and politics are often mixed together, and that the result is usually a distorted view of the religion aimed at advancing a political agenda. Iran, Hamas and Al Qaida are doing it today. A terrorist shouting "Allah hu Akbar" before he explodes is a misguided soul who bought the distorted view of Islam presented by the likes of Bin Laden. Bin Laden does not represent Islam!

4) Another thing that can be taught from history is that talented charismatic people can make use of popular misconceptions and prejudice to advance their own agenda. They will say that the illnesses of the society are due to some minority group. All you have to do to cure thoese illnesses is get rid of the scapegoat. These ideas are not only wrong (meaning they won't solve the problems), they will usually worse the situation. The problems of western society: incoherent comunity, less personal security, rise of violence, rise of extremism and so on are due to problems in western soceity itself, not in rivaling ideologies.

Any person offering magical solution to social problems by finding a scapegoat is either a charlatan or worse - a bigot.

[sharonbn]

One can debate the political use and abuse of Islam. However, the religion itself, along with its symbols, holy men and scriptures are beyond refute.

I will accept a religious debate on Islamic concepts if its being done in an academic/scholar context and with proper respect to the subject. To claim that Muhammad was a rapist and murderer is neither and only serves as provocation.

[Steven]

Here's the way I see it:

1) Islam as a religion, as a concept, as an ideology, as a way of living - is beyond refute. This is b/c of its long history and wide influence over mankind. Religions and social ideologies that span millenias and have a wide audience are concepts that have validity beyond mere controversial historical facts of real life events and people.

Jesus probably wasn't the son of God and his mother Mary was not a virgin when she gave birth to him. Whether these ppl were real or not does not negate the concept of Christianity. Muhammad's real persona (which I have no knowledge of) is irrelevant to the symbol that Muhammad became as the prophet of Islam.

2) If anything, history teaches us that people and their ideas change over time. If you look at history, you will see that Christianity was much more destructive and hateful religion than Islam. You will also see that Muslims and Jews can live in peace, that Muslims can build an advanced civilization that can produce scholars and artists that create knowledge and works that are revered by later generations. Furthermore, any first year anthropologist will tell you you cannot judge a foreign culture, so the assessment of a given religion as "primitive" tells more about the person giving that assessment than about the subject.

3) Another thing that can be taught from history is that religion and politics are often mixed together, and that the result is usually a distorted view of the religion aimed at advancing a political agenda. Iran, Hamas and Al Qaida are doing it today. A terrorist shouting "Allah hu Akbar" before he explodes is a misguided soul who bought the distorted view of Islam presented by the likes of Bin Laden. Bin Laden does not represent Islam!

4) Another thing that can be taught from history is that talented charismatic people can make use of popular misconceptions and prejudice to advance their own agenda. They will say that the illnesses of the society are due to some minority group. All you have to do to cure thoese illnesses is get rid of the scapegoat. These ideas are not only wrong (meaning they won't solve the problems), they will usually worse the situation. The problems of western society: incoherent comunity, less personal security, rise of violence, rise of extremism and so on are due to problems in western soceity itself, not in rivaling ideologies.

Any person offering magical solution to social problems by finding a scapegoat is either a charlatan or worse - a bigot.

2. They only way they are changing over time is that the Islamic world is getting stricter and stricter. Those that follow the subject, know that. They are voting terrorist groups like Hamas, Hezbollah and the Muslim Brotherhood into their govt's. More and more of them are heading towards Sharia or more aspects of it.
Jews are getting rockets shot at them everyday and when the Muslims get chemical weapons they will use them instead. Iran wants to wipe Israel off the map. Israel has to have suicide bomber checkpoints. You call that peace?
3.You show your lack of studying Islam here. Islam has ALWAY combined politics and religion. Mohammad himself was a terrorist. He would invite non Muslims to Islam and if they did not except, he would tell them to pay extortion (jizya), if they did not pay he would wage war on them.

Just because it is classified as a religion does not mean it has to be good.
4.Once again, you show you do not know the ideology or history of Islam.
5.Any person offering a solution, instead of just locking threads is helpful. Nothing that had been done has worked. Islamos are now all over the world. Just because you do not know about the ideology itself or do not like the ugly truth, how can you to silence those that do? You admitted you do not know about Mohammad. So how can call those that do bigots? How can you close thread, not even knowing if they are truthful? Please think about it. Newsguy might just agree here.

Islam calls for the death or domination of non-Muslims. To call anyone against that a bigot is like calling black people bigots for not liking the ideology of the KKK.

I and some others here would appreciate you not making this thread disappear. Please let Newsguy respond.
Thanks and have a good night.

[Steven]

One can debate the political use and abuse of Islam. However, the religion itself, along with its symbols, holy men and scriptures are beyond refute.

I will accept a religious debate on Islamic concepts if its being done in an academic/scholar context and with proper respect to the subject. To claim that Muhammad was a rapist and murderer is neither and only serves as provocation.

In other words you are using Andak saying Ali Sina is not a scholar as your way out of a debate. Ali Sina knows more about Islam then anyone here. By far. How do you know Bin Laden is not a scholar? Mohammad was a murder, but just because you do not like the truth, others have to lose their freedom of speech? That is not fair.

The scriptures prove he was a warrior.
From Islamic scriptures.

http://islaminaction08.blogspot.com/...thats-who.html


Mohammad was for sex slave. Which is obviously rape.
http://www.answering-islam.org/Silas/femalecaptives.htm

To you respect means do not speak the truth. So you want to force people what to say.

[Steven]

Some quotes on Islam.

"Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyzes the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step." -- Sir Winston Churchill - circa 1899



"The sword of Muhammad and the Quran are the most fatal enemies of civilization, liberty, and the truth which the world has yet known." - The eminent orientalist Sir William Muir (1819-1905)





From the former Supreme Islamic Ruler. But I guess he does not know about Islam.


Ayatollah Khomeini

Khomeini accordingly delivered notorious rebuke to the Islam-is-a-religion-of-peace crowd: “Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless. Islam says: Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! Does this mean that Muslims should sit back until they are devoured by [the unbelievers]? Islam says: Kill them, put them to the sword and scatter [their armies].... Islam says: Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to Paradise, which can be opened only for the Holy Warriors! There are hundreds of other [Qur’anic] psalms and Hadiths [sayings of the Prophet] urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all this mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim.”

[Steven]

The Barbary Coast Wars. Islam was the problem over 200 years ago.
In France, Jefferson asked 'Tripoli's ambassador what right Tripoli had to extort money and take slaves. According to Jefferson, the ambassador answered that such a right was founded on the Laws of the Prophet, that it was written in their Koran that all nations who did not recognize their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Muslim slain in battle was sure to go to heaven.

Following Jefferson's inauguration as president in 1801, the pasha of Tripoli, Yussif Karamanli, demanded $225,000. Jefferson refused. In May, the Pasha declared war on the United States, not through any formal written documents, but by cutting down the flagstaff in front of the U.S. Consulate in Tripoli. Morocco, Algiers and Tunis joined their ally Tripoli against the United States. Jefferson sent some frigates to the Mediterranean, with the approval of Congress - without having declared war.
http://www.fsmitha.com/h3/h27b-pirx.html

[sharonbn]

2. They only way they are changing over time is that the Islamic world is getting stricter and stricter.

That is your opinion. You can voice it freely. As long as you use moderate respectful language.
My opinion is this is not intrinsic in the religion. This can be reversed.

Jews are getting rockets shot at them everyday

What's that gotta do with Islam? This is the Arab-Israeli conflict, basically a territorial conflict.

Iran wants to wipe Israel off the map.

Yes, Iran is a problem. It is indeed motivated by religious agenda, it wants to spread the Islamic revolution worldwide. It is recognized as a threat by other Islamic countries such as Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

Mohammad himself was a terrorist. He would invite non Muslims to Islam and if they did not except, he would tell them to pay extortion (jizya), if they did not pay he would wage war on them.

and how is that different from the Crusaders? Even Jewish leaders did the same in biblical times. You judge Mohammad using current moral standards.

Just because it is classified as a religion does not mean it has to be good.

That is your opinion. You can voice it freely. As long as you use moderate respectful language.

5.Any person offering a solution, instead of just locking threads is helpful.

really? any solution is acceptable no matter what?

Nothing that had been done has worked. Islamos are now all over the world.

typical bigot rhetoric. So are Jews and black people.

Islam calls for the death or domination of non-Muslims.

You can find such declarations in scriptures of all religions.

To call anyone against that a bigot is like calling black people bigots for not liking the ideology of the KKK.

Are KKK bigots? They claim to know the true nature of blacks. How do you know if they're not telling the truth?

[Steven]

That is your opinion. You can voice it freely. As long as you use moderate respectful language.
My opinion is this is not intrinsic in the religion. This can be reversed.


What's that gotta do with Islam? This is the Arab-Israeli conflict, basically a territorial conflict.


Yes, Iran is a problem. It is indeed motivated by religious agenda, it wants to spread the Islamic revolution worldwide. It is recognized as a threat by other Islamic countries such as Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Egypt.


and how is that different from the Crusaders? Even Jewish leaders did the same in biblical times. You judge Mohammad using current moral standards.


That is your opinion. You can voice it freely. As long as you use moderate respectful language.


really? any solution is acceptable no matter what?


typical bigot rhetoric. So are Jews and black people.


You can find such declarations in scriptures of all religions.


Are KKK bigots? They claim to know the true nature of blacks. How do you know if they're not telling the truth?

1.I said Muslims are getting stricter and stricter. That is NOT opinion, it is FACT. If you actually followed the subject you would know that.
Here is a little sample.
It's Only a Few.....That's What They Keep Telling us
Those that follow the worldwide problem of Islam, continually hear the popular "it's only a few" excuse by the Islamic apologists. Well, I beg to differ. Lets finally put that excuse to rest.

If it were only a "few", then how can these FACTS be explained?



http://islaminaction08.blogspot.com/...they-keep.html
2. So when Mohammad was killing the Jews it had nothing to do with Islam and the Koran bashing Jews has nothing to do with it either.
The point is you said that Jews and Muslims are living peacefully, they are not.
3.You said you did not know about Mohammad and I explained. Maybe YOU judge Mohammad by modern standards. But to Muslims he was the perfect man and the Koran CANNOT be changed as it in Gods words and mere man cannot change them. It really does not matter how YOU judge him does it?
4.Once again you say it is my opinion without doing any research. Simply amazing.
5.Did I say any solution is acceptable? If you knew anything about Sina, he knows there are millions of Muslims who deep down know something is not right with Islam. He wants to help them leave. Sounds like a good solution to me. You do not even read, you just lock. Just like my Muslims in the public schools thread.
6.You call those against an ideology that YOU DO NOT EVEN know about a bigot? Yes, we are all bigots for not wanting to be under Islamic rule. That does not make sense. You even compare Jews and blacks to Islamofascists......once again simply amazing.
7. We are not talking about other religions. Other religions are not looking to nuke Israel and the US. Or impose a set of barbaric laws on them.
8.Your KKK statement does not even make sense.


I am curious to see what Newsguy has to say. He did not understand why you locked the thread and he said he mostly agrees with Ali Sina.

[sharonbn]

What's not making sense with my KKK statement? it is well structured English sentence.....

[Steven]

What's not making sense with my KKK statement? it is well structured English sentence.....

How about we agree to disagree, atleast for now?

Its late here in the USA, is it morning there?

[sharonbn]

there's always tomorrow