October 21st, 2006, 3:37 pm
QuoteOriginally posted by: flairplayQuoteOriginally posted by: menceyQuoteOriginally posted by: flairplayWhile you find ppauper's comments on all things Muslim totally disgusting. I find several things in your religion really really disgustinghere comes a short list1- justification of Suicide attacksFairplay says: A LIE. I WOULD NEVER JUSTIFY MURDER OF ANY TYPE. Response: Counterintelligence Field Activity, or CIFA - cites a number of passages from the Quran dealing with jihad, or "holy" warfare, martyrdom and Paradise, where "beautiful mansions" and "maidens" await martyr heroes. In preparation for attacks, suicide terrorists typically recite passages from six surahs, or chapters, of the Quran: Baqura (Surah 2), Al Imran (3), Anfal (8), Tawba (9), Rahman (55) and Asr (103).Addressing a youth session at the 1999 Islamic Association for Palestine's annual convention in Chicago, CAIR founder Omar Ahmad praised suicide bombers who "kill themselves for Islam,"."Fighting for freedom, fighting for Islam, that is not suicide," Ahmad asserted. "They kill themselves for Islam."Osama bin Laden has encouraged "Muslims brothers" to defeat the U.S. and U.K. with suicide attacks. "I tell you to act upon the orders of Allah," he said in 2003, "be united against Bush and Blair and defeat them through suicide attacks so that you may be successful before Allah." British scholar Azzam Tamimi recently told 8,000 Muslims in Manchester, England, that dying while fighting "George Bush and Tony Blair" is "just" and "the greatest act of martyrdom." Earlier, he said it's "the straight way to pleasing Allah." 2- justification and approval of slaveryFairplay says: A LIE. I WOULD NEVER JUSTIFY SLAVERYResponse: The Quran, which Muslims believe to have been revealed by God to the Prophet Muhammad in the seventh century, makes numerous references to slaves and slavery (e.g., Q. 2.178; 16.75; 30.28). he Quran does not explicitly condemn slavery or attempt to abolish it. Nonetheless, it does provide a number of regulations designed to ameliorate the situation of slaves. It recommends freeing slaves, especially believing slaves (Q. 2.177). Manumission of a slave is required as expiation for certain misdeeds (Q. 4.92; 58.3) and another verse states that masters should allow slaves to purchase their own freedom (Q. 24.33).The Quran also suggests certain means of integrating slaves, some of whom were enslaved after being captured in war, into the Muslim community. It allows slaves to marry (either other slaves or free persons; Q. 24.32; 2.221; 4.25) and prohibits owners from prostituting unwilling female slaves (Q. 24.33). Despite this protection against one form of sexual exploitation, female slaves do not have the right to grant or deny sexual access to themselves. Instead, the Quran permits men to have sexual access to what their right hands possess, meaning female captives or slaves (Q. 23.5-6; 70.29-30). This was widely accepted and practiced among early Muslims; the Prophet Muhammad, for example, kept a slave-concubine (Mariya the Copt) who was given to him as a gift by the Roman governor of Alexandria.Further look what is happing our days in DarfurDarfur3- discrimination towards womenfairplay says: A LIE. I WOULD NEVER JUSTIFY ANY FORM OF DISCRIMINATIONResponse: Quote: However, all too often, in the turn to Islam as a way of life and the source for solutions to the ills and injustices that beset our societies, women, their rights, status, role in private and public life, dress, behaviour have become the first battleground to prove the authenticity and piety of ones return to Islam. It is therefore not surprising that in many Muslim countries today, womens groups are at the forefront in challenging traditional religious authority within government and Islamist political activists and their use of religion to justify womens subordination and perpetuate discriminatory laws and practices. Unesco: Islam and Women Rights4- Dhimmi and lack of respect for human dignityfairplay says: A LIE. I HAVE RESPECT FOR ALL DECENT HUMAN BEINGS WHETHER CHRISTIAN, JEW, HINDU, MUSLIM, ATHEIST OR AGNOSTIC.reponse: For Shariah. A political order, which for one strictly separates masters from the subjugated and secondly takes political and social order away from human influence for the most part. Let's talk about the first aspect: According to the Shariah, the Muslims are masters, the followers of other "book religions" - Christians, Jews, Parsees, Buddhists, are subjugated, Dhimmi. The subjugated were not allowed to carry weapons, they were unarmed, thus not 'real men'. Christians and Jews had to wear special colors or pieces of clothing (this discrimination was the origin of the "Judenstern") so as to be visibly "dhimmi"; they were not allowed to ride on horseback, only on mules, to remind them of their subjugation; they paid a special tribute (jizyah), that they had to pay personally, while being given a slap on the head. They had to let themselves be beaten by any Muslim, without being allowed to defend themselves; if a dhimmi retaliated, his hand would be cut off, or he would be executed. A dhimmi's witness did not count against a Muslim, who only had to pay half the fine for any crime committed against a dhimmi, and could never ever get executed for any such crime. On the other side, the most cruel methods of execution were reserved for the dhimmie. "Dhimmitude" put non-Muslims in a state of radical "otherness". To call people in this state "second class citizens" is a euphemism.5- The notion that muslims are superior to other humans (Nazis did it in term of race, Islam does it in terms of religion. Therefore there is a much higher likelihood than Adolf would have welcomed YOU on in his inner circle, instead of ppauper. )fairpaly says:A LIE. I DONT BELIEVE ANY COMMUNITY OR CULTURE IS INTRINSICALLY SUPERIOR TO ANY OTHER. IN ALL CULTURES AND COMMUNITIES THERE ARE WISE PEOPLE AND NOT SO WISE ONES.JUST LIKE THE WEST CANNOT BE DAMNED BECAUSE OF THE PRESENCE OF PEOPLE LIKE YOU.response:In the same way national socialism divided humans into master-race and subhumans on racial grounds, so Shariah did it on religious grounds. As the first world-religion, Islam created an apartheid, where Christian or Parsee majorities were colonized and slowly Islamized. Islamic tolerance meant: tolerate the subjugated as humiliated and demeaned. All this is well known via studies about "dhimmitude". Dhimmitude6- The notion that Islam should rule over the world and over all other religionsfariplay says:A LIE. I DONT WANT MUSLIMS TO RULE THE WORLD OR FOR ANYONE TO DOMINATE ANYONE ELSE. response: Islam was born with the idea that it should rule the world. Let's look, then, at the difference between these three religions. Judaism speaks about national salvation - namely that at the end of the story, when the world becomes a better place, Israel will be in its own land, ruled by its own king and serving God. Christianity speaks about the idea that every single person in the world can be saved from his sings, while Islam speaks about ruling the world. Let me quote a verse in English. "Allah sent Mohammed with the true religion so that it should rule over all the religions." While Jesus' missionary call meant to convert all peoples, but to leave their political order untouched, Islam's aim is to submit all non-muslims politically, but to leave their religion untouched, if it is a religion of the book. The idea, then, is not that the whole world would become a Moslem world at this time, but that the whole world would be subdued under the rule of Islam. When the Islamic empire was established in 634 AD, within seven years - 640 - the core of the empire was created. The rules that were taken from the Koran and from the tradition that was ascribed to the prophet Mohammed, were translated into a real legal system. Jews and Christians could live under Islam provided they paid poll tax and accepted Islamic superiority. Of course, they had to be humiliated. And Jews and Christians living under Islam are humiliated to this very day. Muslims themselves have disagreed throughout their history about the meaning of the term jihad. In the Quran (or Koran), it is normally found in the sense of fighting in the path of God; this was used to describe warfare against the enemies of the early Muslim community (ummah). In the hadith, the second-most authoritative source of the sharia (Islamic law), jihad is used to mean armed action, and most Islamic theologians and jurists in the classical period (the first three centuries) of Muslim history understood this obligation to be in a military sense.Islamic jurists saw jihad in the context of conflict in a world divided between the Dar al-Islam (territory under Islamic control) and the Dar al-harb (territory of war, which consisted of all lands not under Muslim rule). The inhabitants of the territory of war are divided between People of the Book (mainly Jews and Christians) and polytheists. This requirement to continue jihad until all of the world is included in the territory of Islam does not imply that Muslims must wage nonstop warfare, however. Although there was no mechanism for recognizing a non-Muslim government as legitimate, jurists allowed for the negotiation of truces and peace treaties of limited duration. Additionally, extending the territory of Islam does not mean the annihilation of all non-Muslims, nor even their necessary conversion: jihad cannot imply conversion by force, since the Quran (2:256) states that There is no compulsion in religion. More than a religious aim, jihad really had a political one: the drive to establish a single, unified Muslim realm justified Islams supercession of other faiths and allowed for the creation of a political and social order.7- The concept of jihad fariplay says:A LIE. THE CONCEPT OF JIHAD IS NOT MUDER. JIHAD MEANS STRUGGLE FOR THE RIGHT. IF ANYONE USES IT TO JUSTIFY MURDER THEN THEY ARE WRONG. JUST AS YOU USE TERRORISM TO JUSTIFY WHY ALL MUSLIMS ARE AWFUL PEOPLE. response:Since the beginning of the classical period between the ninth and the eleventh century Islamic jurists have divided the world into two parts, namely the "House of Islam" and the "House of War". This dichotomy is independent of where Muslims live in large numbers, or even form the majority, but depends on where Islam rules supreme - by applying Shariah - or where it does not rule. So, this dichotomy is not religious in nature, but political. Between these two parts of the world naturally exists a state of war, until the House of War is no more and Islam rules the world (Sura 8, 39 and 9, 41). Thus, according to classical teaching, for the Muslim community there is a duty to wage war against the disbelievers, until those either convert, or submit. This war is called jihad.While Jesus' missionary call meant to convert all peoples, but to leave their political order untouched, Islam's aim is to submit all non-muslims politically, but to leave their religion untouched, if it is a religion of the book. God's general call to jihad is based on surah 9, 29. It is true though, that minute factions of Islam did not accept this interpretation. The Shiites accept it, but demand that a true imam must be leading the Muslim community (and has been waiting for such a one for more than 13 centuries), so that for the time being they only feel bound to defensive jihad, in the case of attacks on the Muslim community.On the other hand, the other factions, e.g. the so-called Kharijites, have radicalized the content of Sura 9.29: for them, jihad is an individual duty of each able-bodied Muslim, which counts as a sixth pillar next to the other five cardinal duties. In the consequence of such teachings: when everyone has to either take part in the collective war against the unbelievers, or, should the Muslim community be too weak for the time being, has to wage war alone or in small groups, then assassinations and terror attacks are right. What the Kharijites demand for offensive jihad, most proponents of orthodox Sunnah-teachings demand for defensive jihad: when Islam is being attacked, or islamic territory is being invaded by infidels, jihad becomes an individual duty, e.g. a fatwa of the Grand Mufti of Cairo's Al-Azhar university - against Israel - leaves no doubt about that. Any enemy power that acts according to the Hague rules of warfare and strictly distinguishes combatants and non-combatants will be in great difficulty. The state of war lasts so long, until the House of War is destroyed, and the world is conquered. This is why Majid Khadduri calls Islam a "divine nomocracy on imperialist foundations". Peace treaties, which Islamic rulers closed with non-Islamic rulers, were only considered as cease- fires; this is why as a rule, they were only closed for no more than ten years. Two schools of jurisprudence permit no more than three to four years of peace. The short deadlines made it possible for the militarily superior Muslims to constantly blackmail their adversaries; this way throughout the centuries huge amounts of money and humans went to the Muslim side. When the paradigm of power shifted, Muslim rulers had to change their practice.Thus in 1535 Suleiman the Magnificent made a peace with the French king which was to last for the lifetime of the Sultan - a break with tradition. Christian theologians tried to define, in the face of a plurality of states, what could be deemed a "just war" and what could not be deemed such. To wage war just in the interest of faith for the most part was not considered just. For Muslim scholars on the other hand, the "house of Islam" is a political unit, which does not permit internal war, therefore only war for the sugjugation of infidels was considered legitimate and even a duty, as the famous fourteenth-century scholare Ibn Chaldun categorically states: "In Islam the jihad is prescribed by law, because it has a universal calling and is supposed to convert all of humanity to Islam, be it of their own free will, or by force".8- the concept of Martyrdom and the lack of respect for the human live fariplay says: A LIE. I RESPECT ALL HUMAN LIFE INCLUDING THAT OF MUSLIMS. response: Decisive for the warriors' acceptance of death was the firm promise of eternal salvation for those who die for the faith (surah 4, 74-76). Muslims should withstand a tenfold force (surah 8, 66-67); retreat was judged to be acceptable by later scholars if the enemy was at least double as strong, as Khadduri describes. As the decisive factor in any war is the fighting human being and his readiness to sacrifice himself, being on a par technically with the Arabs and Seljuks - in the long run, they had to succumb, if their morale was not of the same kind. Higher readiness to die is an enormous advantage in a fight- foolhardy operations can be waged and dashing maneuvers to surprise and confuse the enemy; in that way, victory can be forced, that is technically and materially almost impossible, and battles are won, that would be lost under the usual circumstances.Nikephoros knew about the military consequences of surah 4, 74-76; he was the first who tried to correct the conceptual military disadvantage of the Christian religion. But the bishops of the Eastern Church found themselves incapable of manipulating their theology in a way to create warlike martyrdom. This was it. The Byzantine emperors had to wage their heavy defensive wars against the permanent Saracen and Seljuk aggression without the help of religi8- fataws condeming to death to people because they do not share their ideasA LIE. I DO NOT AGREE AT ALL WITH THE CONCEPT OF ANYONE ENCOURAGING MURDER IN ANY FORM. fairplay says:ACTUALLY IN MAINSTREAM ISLAM THERE IS NO ORDAINED CLERGY AND HENCE NO CONCEPT OF FATWA. response: A fatwa (Arabic: فتوى; plural fatāwa), is a legal pronouncement in Islam made by a mufti, a scholar capable of issuing judgments on Sharia (Islamic law). Usually a fatwa is issued at the request of an individual or a judge to settle a question where "fiqh" (Islamic jurisprudence) is unclear.I can put you here a long list: salman rushdie, the Pope, etc, etc, etc, etcFatwa to Rushdie by ayatolla Yomeini9- The fact that the religion does not allow free thinkingfariplay says: A LIE. MANY GREAT THINKERS HAVE BEEN HIGHLY RELIGIOUS. FROM ISAAC NEWTON TO CARL JUNG. THE LIST IS NOT AS EMPTY AS YOU WOULD WISH. MANY GREAT THINKERS HAVE ALSO BEEN AGNOSTIC, OR ATHIEST. NO SCHOOL OF BELIEF HAS PATENT OVER FREE THIKING.response: In Islam, Allah (Muslim God) demands believers (Muslims) to surrender to him completely and to obey his every command in the Quran in its totality. Allah states in the Quran that everything recorded in the Quran are of his own words. Allahs unconditional demands in the Quran to his followers are absolute. Muslim scholars of more then 200 Islamic sects, agree, confirm and believe this is absolutely true, and it is mandatory to obey Allahs commands in the Quran, with no reservation of any kind by every Muslim. (No buts allowed).10- The notion that if a territory was once ruled by Islam, Islam retains right over that territory despite the populationfariplay says: A LIE. THERE IS NO SUCH CONCEPT IN ISLAM.response: One of the open issues in the relation between Islamic states and non-Islamic states is the claim from hardline Muslims that once a certain land, state or territory has been under 'Muslim' rule, it can never be relinquished anymore, and that such a rule, somewhere in history would give the Muslims a kind of an eternal right on the claimed territory. This claim is particularly controversial with regard to Israel and to a lesser degree Spain and parts of the Balkan. It also goes against several principles of international rights and UN resolutions.Traditional Islamic theology holds that any land that has once belonged to the House of Islam belongs to it forever. Islam created one very important, fundamental rule about territory. Any territory that comes under Islamic rule cannot be de-Islamized. Even if at one time or another, the [non-Moslem] enemy takes over the territory that was under Islamic rule, it is considered to be perpetually Islamic."For we want the flag of Islam to fly over those lands again, who were lucky enough, to be ruled by Islam for a time, and hear the call of the muezzin praise God. Then the light of Islam died out and they returned to disbelief. Andalusia, Sicily, the Balkans, Southern Italy and the Greek islands are all Islamic colonies which have to return to Islam's lap. The Mediterranean and the Red Sea have to become internal seas of Islam, as they used to be". These are not the words of Al Qaeda, they were taken from the programme formulated by the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hassan Al Banna, in a speech.For further discussions refer to the "House of Islam" vs "House of war"11- Due to the previous facts the dennial of human rightsfariplay says: A LIE. FOR ME ALL HUMAN RIGHTS ARE PARAMOUNT - INLCUDING THOSE OF HUMAN BEINGS SUBSCRIBING TO THE MUSLIM FAITH response: not a lie, simply a logical consequenceFurther, do not put in my mouth words that I never said or hate that I never had. Those are your conclusions not mine. I do not doubt of your good intention and that your answers above reflect your particular point of view. However when we refer to Islam we are not discussing your particular point of view. Please remark, I am not critizing the individuals but the ideology, in the same way that if I critize the Nazis does not mean that I critize all Germans.I understand that there may be different opinions within the Islamic world, however there are several very concerning issues regarding your religion as stated above. These issues goes against my principles and therfore I cannot accept or like them.Regarding the rest of your post, read it again, then read Popper, Jung or Soros, and then let's discuss it again. I say, "as an ideology, Islam is a close society who threatens open societies",.... proof me wrong Regarding your insistence of calling me Nazi, I found it quite funny. Nazism and open society does not go along well with each other.
Last edited by
mencey on October 20th, 2006, 10:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.