THE REAL [GOD] = ALLAH ...... join here you all need to know

[GeoffP]

But the reason why I refer to the West and America this way is that we have been colonized for 200 years by the European countries who used us a slaves and abused our people. The Europeans (British and Spanish) also shipped our brothers in Africa to America to work as slaves for them and made them convert to Christianity.

An even more horrid tale is that of the Africans collected in the slave trade for sale to islamic nations in the Middle East. Strangely, none of their descendants seem to have survived out of millions of people taken. How odd, don't you think?

In fact, the situation goes on today in the Sudan, where northern muslims make war on truly peace-loving, defenseless Christians and animists in southern Sudan.

Apparently one of the major and ironic saving graces was the partial genetic resistance of central Africans to malaria; something the Arabic slave traders did not have. A two-edged sword, so to speak.

Some families of African-Americans still don't east pork or drink wine, which is a remnant of their forgotten Muslim past.

Never heard of this one. Islam didn't reach Western Africa until recently, I'd heard.

The situation of the Islamic world is much worse, in that Palestine was taken over by immigrant jews, Chechnya was invaded by the Russians, and also many Muslim regions were taken over by more powerful neighbors after and during the European conquest and remain under control.

And a good thing for them, too. How did islam get into those places, except by conquest? Is it not good (and islamic, I might add) to fight against oppressors? By Allah, I say those countries you list are the better muslims, then, for they fought back against islamic invaders and oppressors, Allah bless them.

Geoff

[DiamondHearts]

What was wrong with the attack on Afghanistan, or Iraq for that matter? The women of Afghanistan were finally freed from the oppression of extreme sharia, and the Shi'ites to hold their own elections free of oppression by Saddam Hussein and the Sunni-dominated government. This is not what I am saying; it is what the Afghani women - who now have the right to vote and go to school - and the Shi'ites themselves are saying.

You are a fool who would listen to whatever the American government tells them. Afghanistan was not invaded for the reasons stated. This is obvious due to the fact that Pakistan offered to hold an international televised court to bring the Taliban and the US to present their claims with evidence. America refused, while the Taliban accepted. This alone proves America had no proof against the Taliban. The 9/11 attacks was an inside job used to bolster support for invasion into Afghanistan and open other Muslim nations to military action. ElQaaida themselves denied responsibility for the attacks, while the Americans used a forged video which they found in a cave to prove that they had something to do with it. That was the only video broadcast in the US, I wonder why. The women of Afghanistan aren't supportive of the US invasion. Maybe some paid women have fabricated accounts and presented baseless arguments. The women in Afghanistan were supportive of the Taliban because the Taliban executed all rapists and womanizers. Adultery was punished by death. A great American lie is that the Taliban did not have girl schools, which is a complete lie. As a matter of fact, Kabul had many girls schools, some of which are still operational in Afghanistan. The Taliban also asked the European countries and America for funds to pay for more, however they were turned down. These lies are hardly justified to invade the sovereign nation of Afghanistan of Taliban. The reasons for the Iraq invasion was baseless fabrication as well. The US invaded to take Iraqi oil and exert pressure on both Syria and Iran, as well as destroy one of the largest militaries in the region which was a threat to Israel. The US used the Shiat to gain hegemony over the Iraqis. The Shia now realize that and are increasing in resistance to America.

I'll ignore the ad hominem attack - for the moment. Are you saying that imams from Saudi Arabia are not preaching evil in the US? There are many Wahhabi mosques in which hatred and islamic supremacy was being shrieked from the pulpit. And muslims worldwide raged and threatened violence over what? A few cartoons. And now you tell me that MalcolmX of the NOI said that any attack must be responded to. And you wonder why then I must assume that we in the West should "do unto others" as they would do unto us? Is there some reason we should hold ourselves to some higher standard of behaviour?

Yes I am saying that the Imams coming to America form various regions are not preaching hatred. The Wahhabi state especially is one of America's biggest allies in the region, mainly due to its oil revenue and support against Iran and suppression of Muslim revivalists. Considering how many Muslims were deported alone based on immigration violations, if an imam did say something against America, he would be sent straight to a CIA secret prison without any trial or even informing his family. Cartoons used to insult and encourage violence against a weak and suseptible Muslim minority in a Western country does justify anger. The fact is America does not hold itself on a higher standard, it invades countries on pure lies. Also you should read more on Malcolm X (Al Hajj Malik Al Shahbaz). He was part of the Nation of Islam, but he left them to embrace true Islam after pilgrimage to the Holy City of Makkah. After that he became a true Muslim and preached justice for his people. He was assassinated by the Nation of Islam with complicity from the New York police.

This is completely unsupportable propaganda. It has no place in this debate; hence, it is refused.

Again, you are saying exactly what the American government is. Hardly unbiased.

Is this the same Sadr?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050805/...tes_2;_ylt=AkI

"Al-Jaafari later met with radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, who has toned down his opposition to the U.S.-led coalition since his supporters staged a failed uprising last year..."

The same one who's followers infiltrated the police and murdered Steven Vincent?

He's entitled to his opinion, but not terrorism.

I don't know about the murder of a Westerner, however he has a right to challenge US hegemony in his country. He is more entitled to his country than the Americans. Again, the toning down is only the American agency regurgitating US government's views.

If the terrorists will not adhere to international rules of combat, it seems hypocritical to complain that the Americans used phosphorus, if they indeed did. And why did the brave resistance fighters take shelter behind civilians? And how many civilian deaths were there?

The resistance fighters of Fallujah were engaged in fighting American occupation forces. They never used illegal chemical weapons in combat. Americans did use phosperous, go look it up. The brave soldiers fought a long a bloody battle on the front lines. This is pure propganda. The civilian deaths were not taken from the Americans because American soldiers don't believe in respecting the dead.

Scores killed in Fallujah

And Al Jazeera is not alone in reporting a reality very different from the one U.S. officials describe. Authorities have been able to keep a tight rein on the information flow from Fallujah, with only one small television network pool in the city that "travels and operates" under the watch of the Marines (Television Week, 4/12/04). (It's noteworthy that the U.S. has reportedly demanded, as a condition for lifting the siege of Fallujah, that Al Jazeera cameras be removed from the city-- IslamOnline.net, 4/9/04.)

But independent journalists reporting from Fallujah have described a scene consistent with the one broadcast by Al Jazeera. Rahul Mahajan, a U.S. journalist in Fallujah, estimated that of the 600 Iraqis killed in Fallujah, 200 were women and 100 young children, with many of the adult male casualties also non-combatants. He reported witnessing "a young woman, 18 years old, shot in the head" and "a young boy with massive internal bleeding" at a clinic (CommonDreams.org, 4/12/04). Mahajan recounted that during the "cease-fire," "Americans were attacking with heavy artillery but primarily with snipers"-- with ambulances among the targets. The sniper activity was also reported by U.S. journalist Dahr Jamail (NewStandardNews.net, 4/11/04): "Fallujah residents say Marines are opening fire randomly on unarmed civilians and have attacked clearly marked ambulances."

http://info.interactivist.net/articl.../04/16/1730210

Who else is supposed to have "invaded" Iraq? Hindus?

The secular neo-imperial capitalists of the West.

Thanks for making my point for me. You would murder homosexuals, and you would do so in the name of islam. I would not. I consider your viewpoint unacceptable, inhuman and disgusting and it will be banned from our communities. You need mental help.

This is a difference of opinion. In Islamic countries, homosexuality is views as evil and inhuman, thus to the Muslim masses the punishments are justified. The West can have whatever law regarding this they want, as a matter of fact, it would be best if America became a nation of homosexuals, then there would be no proceeding generation and the world would be better off.

The comment about minorities being in islamic parliaments is laughable. And so the only kind of islamic states that can exist are oppressive ones? Afghanistan, Palestine, Iran. Again, you make my points for me.

Hamas hasn't even initiated any laws. Your arguments against the Taliban are based on American lies. Iran's government is guilty of being anti-Israel so it must be oppressive as well.

But they are not free. That is not the point of dhimmitude. Q 9:29 "feel themselves oppressed" gives the real state of "kufr" in islamic nations. Anywhere that there is no freedom of religion is not free; that is, where apostates are sentenced to death.

I already went over that didn't I. Go back a few pages and you will see it. Again, taken out of context, this was based on the breach of a treaty by the Makkan Pagans who massacred a tribe allied to the people of Madinah.

This is incorrect - zakaat has not always been obligatory. It became obligatory with the decline of the non-muslim tax base over the centuries.

I am Muslim, I pay Zakat every year. My ancestors were Muslim, they payed Zakat every year. It has been obligatory for 1400 years.

It is first on the "to do" list of Hamas. It seems they feel quite strongly about it. Hello, 7th century oppression. And it has gone both to war and the poor in the past, as you yourself admit:

Ok, once they initiate it, go send them a letter or something.

"Indeed, the Jizya was used for the policies of the government which could include war, but they were particularly used for the non-Muslims' affairs."


Again, incorrect. The jizya was often levied on women in North Africa, and it was usually higher than that of zakaat - about twice as high.

Being Muslim and having studied the laws of governance in Islam, I will tell you you are completely incorrect. The Jizya did not have a set rate and was definately not twice. If you are so sure of yourself, bring me a hadith on this value.

I have heard it many, many times both on this forum, on other forums, on TV from the Middle East and in transcripts of mosque speeches worldwide. You are sadly mistaken. There appears to be precious little respect paid any other religion by islam, especially when even the threefold offering of conversion, suppression or death is not even considered for religions other than "the People of the Book" - Christians and Jews.

Examples. Examples.

So service against the armies of islam is a good use of jihad? Jihad in the name of oppressed religion minorities in islamic nations is a good idea? I agree wholeheartedly. Or do you see dhimmitude as being an acceptable state of affairs? From your perspective, I'm sure it is. Not so from theirs.

Seeing how modern Islamic armies are resistance movements in their respective countries, it is the West that needs to be pushed out. Minorities in Islamic countries are hardly oppressed, in many ways Muslims respect and protect the rights of minorities in the Middle East and Muslim world.

Dhimmi is a protected minority which has rights and obligations the state is responsible for. The Dhimmi is not allowed to preach their religion to Muslims because this undermines the Islamic character of the State, but they may practice religion freely in churches, temples, homes, without any fear. Dialogue and understanding howeer is encouraged.

Thanks for the Quranic quotes. They are a great help to me in illustrating the inequality of literal islam; sharia, to give it a name:



But not too wise, apparently, to foresee the coming of human rights for women. Why could he not see to the present day? My understanding was of his omnipotence.

Women have different rights of inheritance because they do not carry the full weight of obligations of the family. They are not obliged to work for their spouses or children and any money they earn is their own, while a husband has to spend on his family.

I have seen no translation which includes the phrase, anywhere, "lightly". I have therefore removed it from the text so that it may be seen in its pure reading.

Yusuf Ali Translation, the most widely used and authentic according to most of the Muslim English speaking people.

And men - should they remain chaste also? Funny, I don't find that anywhere.

Actually the Quran and hadith state the same punishment for unchaste men and women. The verse stating the death penalty for adultery and lashes for fornication says both men and women.

Never seen that reported anywhere. List your chain of evidence.

The Prophet's last speech in Makkah.

Qatada said as narrated by al-Tabari in his Tafsir (5:68): "Ghayr mubarrih means ghayr sha'in = not disgraceful/ not outrageous/ not obscene/ not indecent [beating]." `Ata' said: "I asked Ibn `Abbas: 'What is the hitting that is ghayr al-mubarrih?' He replied: '[With] the siwak [toothbrush] and the like'." Narrated by al-Tabari in his Tafsir (Dar al-Fikr 5:68).

"In case they are guilty of open lewdness you may leave them alone in their beds and inflict only slight punishment. If they are obedient (no lewdness) to you, do not seek against them any means of annoyance" (Tirmidthi)

"The believers who show the most perfect faith are those who have the best character and the best of you are those who are best to their wives" (Tirmidthi).

Ah - death for estrangement. A fair exchange! LOL

Death for extra-maritial affairs.

It also allows abused women to escape their partners, which islam apparently does not allow, keeping those chains "strong", as you say. We in the West prefer to try to form equal unions and treat our partners as humans, with full rights, relying on the goodness of character of each partner in the marriage. I regret that islam does not apparently see things this way.

Indeed, the women can present an abuse case to the Islamic Khalifat's court. This has happened, and a women has the full right of divorce, alsoa women is allowed to put conditions for marriage, as well as obtain a dowry in exchange for marriage which is a gift for her only, not to be touched by anyone.

4:36. "Serve Allah, and join not any partners with Him; and do good- to parents, kinsfolk, orphans, those in need, neighbours who are near, neighbours who are strangers, the companion by your side, the wayfarer (ye meet), and what your right hands possess: For Allah loveth not the arrogant, the vainglorious.

"What your right hands possess": that is, slaves.

Servants, workers, adopted children, other family members, or people living under your roof.

[DiamondHearts]

An even more horrid tale is that of the Africans collected in the slave trade for sale to islamic nations in the Middle East. Strangely, none of their descendants seem to have survived out of millions of people taken. How odd, don't you think?

A vicious lie which Westerners repeat to somehow avert their own blame of slavery to those who didn't practice it. It's convenient to accuse others, isn't it?

In fact, the situation goes on today in the Sudan, where northern muslims make war on truly peace-loving, defenseless Christians and animists in southern Sudan.

Hardly peace-loving. The southern Sudani started a civil war with the legitimate government of Sudan with European support. As a matter of fact, the civil war has seen many unjust murders from independent groups allied to pro-Western groups. The Sudani goverment has the legitimate claim to all of sovereign Sudan. Ofcourse, you must think that wherever there is a conflict in which Muslims are involved, they must be wrong.

Apparently one of the major and ironic saving graces was the partial genetic resistance of central Africans to malaria; something the Arabic slave traders did not have. A two-edged sword, so to speak.

You mean so the Westerners could enslave them later. The Arabs weren't slave traders, this is a lie often issued from only the West and often depicted in films by Zionist producers. The West enslaved the African people for more than 200 years and only Allah knows how many they killed. And yes, many of them were Muslims. Watch this movie: Roots .

Never heard of this one. Islam didn't reach Western Africa until recently, I'd heard.

Perhaps then you could explain the Muslim kingdoms of Mali and Songhai. Islam entered Western Africa in the 14th century, thats 600 years ago.

African-American Islamic History

And a good thing for them, too. How did islam get into those places, except by conquest? Is it not good (and islamic, I might add) to fight against oppressors?

By trade with honesty, by Sufism, by the teachings, by justice of Khalifah, by honor of Muslims, and also by the appeal of Islam as a way of life complete and perfect.

Killing innocents and massacring people by taking the land of people for only economical gain is hardly just. The West does not need to teach anyone else or chastise anyone else about this due to its 200 year colonial legacy. Islam has had a very peaceful and beautiful history. The blood of Muslims was mainly spilled in defense of their lands and hardly spilling in unjust wars. Islamic history is much more grand and lovely than you would like to admit.

"O people, I have been elected your leader, although I am not better than anyone from among you. If I do any good, give me your support. If I go wrong, set me right. Listen, truth is honesty and untruth is dishonesty. The weak among you are powerful in my eyes, as long as I do not get them their due, Allah willing. The powerful among you are weak in my eyes, as long as I do not take away from them what is due to others, Allah willing." -Hazrat Abu Bakr Siddiq, the first Khalifat

[TheVisitor]

The US invaded to take Iraqi oil and exert pressure on both Syria and Iran, as well as destroy one of the largest militaries in the region which was a threat to Israel

If thats true is was only to save ourselves from a worldwide threat.
Muslims want world domination.
They have 12 abab nations, 10 former soviet states, pakistan, indonesia, and still are destablizing nation after nation from within.
They with take every nation by force or marriage if force is not possible, increasing in numbers and then declaring they need a seperate state or representation tearing the country apart untill it reforms as a muslim nation.
They are like a plague of locusts speading and killing everything in their path and they have to be stoped by ANY MEANS nessessary.

[(Q)]

Visitor

Muslims want world domination.

They are like a plague of locusts speading and killing everything in their path and they have to be stoped by ANY MEANS nessessary.

Most religions can be described in much the same way, yours included. We can't irradicate only one religion from the earth, they ALL must go, yours included.

[DiamondHearts]

If thats true is was only to save ourselves from a worldwide threat.
Muslims want world domination.
They have 12 abab nations, 10 former soviet states, pakistan, indonesia, and still are destablizing nation after nation from within.
They with take every nation by force or marriage if force is not possible, increasing in numbers and then declaring they need a seperate state or representation tearing the country apart untill it reforms as a muslim nation.
They are like a plague of locusts speading and killing everything in their path and they have to be stoped by ANY MEANS nessessary.

I speak for the majority of Muslims when I say that we do not recognize the modern governments which were put in place to keep us from reestablishing the Khalifat. The modern governments are a disuniting and new concept to the Islamic world. The Islamic world has been united under one recognized unified Khalifat, and their local regional governments which swore obedience to God's representatives of Earth which promoted and strengthed the Islamic culture and fully recognized the religion of Islam as the only truth.

Muslims as a people care nothing for ruling or even having control over the West. Indeed, all we want and struggle for is a government structure which reflects our will, culture, and religion. We can care less what the West does, however we do have one thing to say to the West or any other nation which wars against the Muslim people, massacres our innocent, fights our way of life, and kills our beloved leaders. Basically, we have only a few reasonable demands, that is: No more military control or conquest in the Muslim world. No more supporting corrupt regimes who kill to supress Muslims. No more economic control of Muslim regions through the use of sanctions. If, however, this trend continues, then there will be a massive revolution in the Muslim world. If the West never invaded Afghanistan or Iraq, or blindly supported Palestinian, Kashmiri, and Chechen genocide, we would have fairly good ties with the West. These trends can be changed with a complete reversal of Western policies.

During the 1990s, most Muslims had a dislike for Western policies (particularly Kosovo and Bosnia, where the West showed its blindness to Muslim suffering), but now it is hatred against Western policies because the situation is finally effecting the Muslim world in the most negative ways. Killing, Jail abuse, Sanctions, the situation has gone way too far. Any sovereign people who had any pride would resist cultural imperialism and military invasion in their lands.

Muslims want domination of their own sovereign lands, we care nothing for domination of the rest of the world. Such an accusation is only said by those who want to create a rift between intellegent people from the West and the Muslims. Freedom is not something which is given, it must be fought for and earned. And if the West isn't prepared to allow us to be free in our own countries to pursue our choice of government (the Khalifah), then freedom must be achieved through force and resistance.

"We want freedom by any means necessary.
We want justice by any means necessary.
We want equality by any means necessary." -Malcolm X. Al Hajj Malik Al Shabaz

[GeoffP]

You are a fool who would listen to whatever the American government tells them.

Don't insult me, you little fascist.

[quote]Afghanistan was not invaded for the reasons stated./[quote]

This is irrelevant. The people have been freed. Women may vote, get an education. It will take a long time of course to work out the religious limitations placed on them, but I hope that it will happen.

I elected to ignore the nonsensical accusations against the US. More supremacist silliness. Bring your proofs, if ye are truthful.

The women of Afghanistan aren't supportive of the US invasion. Maybe some paid women have fabricated accounts and presented baseless arguments. The women in Afghanistan were supportive of the Taliban because the Taliban executed all rapists and womanizers. Adultery was punished by death. A great American lie is that the Taliban did not have girl schools, which is a complete lie. As a matter of fact, Kabul had many girls schools, some of which are still operational in Afghanistan. The Taliban also asked the European countries and America for funds to pay for more, however they were turned down.

These are baseless lies. Women were not permitted schooling in Afghanistan, except perhaps in a madrassa. The women of Afghanistan are free, complain as you might.

Yes I am saying that the Imams coming to America form various regions are not preaching hatred.

Then you are wrong.

Considering how many Muslims were deported alone based on immigration violations, if an imam did say something against America, he would be sent straight to a CIA secret prison without any trial or even informing his family.

Utterly laughable.

Cartoons used to insult and encourage violence against a weak and suseptible Muslim minority in a Western country does justify anger.

Cartoons - most of which were innocuous - do not justify hatred, vandalism, rioting and murder.

I don't know about the murder of a Westerner, however he has a right to challenge US hegemony in his country. He is more entitled to his country than the Americans.

Oh? And those who want an Iraq with elections and democracy - do they have the right to demand such? Or must those who oppose Sunnism be killed?

The resistance fighters of Fallujah were engaged in fighting American occupation forces. They never used illegal chemical weapons in combat. Americans did use phosperous, go look it up. The brave soldiers fought a long a bloody battle on the front lines. This is pure propganda. The civilian deaths were not taken from the Americans because American soldiers don't believe in respecting the dead.

Nonsensical tirade aside, the American soldiers didn't hide in madrassas or among civilians and then scream foul when the Americans fired back.

I think the word for that is: cowardice.

This is a difference of opinion. In Islamic countries, homosexuality is views as evil and inhuman, thus to the Muslim masses the punishments are justified. The West can have whatever law regarding this they want, as a matter of fact, it would be best if America became a nation of homosexuals, then there would be no proceeding generation and the world would be better off.

There's that hate. Let it out. Tell us what you really think.

But no, this is not a difference of opinion. It means you are essentially a Nazi. Homosexuals are humans too. You are advocating murder.

Hamas hasn't even initiated any laws. Your arguments against the Taliban are based on American lies. Iran's government is guilty of being anti-Israel so it must be oppressive as well.

No, it's oppressive because it's oppressive. Funnily enough, Americans don't hang sixteen year olds because they got raped by their uncles. And the very first business of Hamas is sharia. They've admitted as much.

Again, taken out of context, this was based on the breach of a treaty by the Makkan Pagans who massacred a tribe allied to the people of Madinah.

Wow, all sharia everywhere must be taken out of context. So the oppression of non-muslims in muslim countries - which you say is not islamic - is all a big misunderstanding. You must not approve of sharia at all then.

I am Muslim, I pay Zakat every year. My ancestors were Muslim, they payed Zakat every year. It has been obligatory for 1400 years.

No. Not in all countries, not at all times.

Ok, once they initiate it, go send them a letter or something.

No, the time to act is now, before Hamas thinks they can begin oppressing non-believers as in other islamic countries. I can understand how you wouldn't take such concerns seriously, of course, as you are muslim yourself.

Being Muslim and having studied the laws of governance in Islam, I will tell you you are completely incorrect. The Jizya did not have a set rate and was definately not twice. If you are so sure of yourself, bring me a hadith on this value.

A hadith? LOL! And what would that mean to me? I tell you instead, read "The Sword of the Prophet".

Examples. Examples.

The massacre of the Hindus by the Sufis. The massacre of peace-loving animists in the Sudan.

Seeing how modern Islamic armies are resistance movements in their respective countries, it is the West that needs to be pushed out. Minorities in Islamic countries are hardly oppressed, in many ways Muslims respect and protect the rights of minorities in the Middle East and Muslim world.

They abrogate them in more ways than they protect them. Unless not having freedom to convert from islam and spreading hate about them is "protection". For example:

The Dhimmi is not allowed to preach their religion to Muslims because this undermines the Islamic character of the State, but they may practice religion freely in churches, temples, homes, without any fear.

Aside from the fact that they particularly may not practice without fear - as Saudi Arabia shows time and again, and as is the experience of the Copts in Egypt - why are dhimmis not allowed to preach to muslims? Muslims are allowed to try to convert non-muslims.

Your entire system appears to be based on islamic supremacism.

Women have different rights of inheritance because they do not carry the full weight of obligations of the family. They are not obliged to work for their spouses or children and any money they earn is their own, while a husband has to spend on his family.

Yusuf Ali Translation, the most widely used and authentic according to most of the Muslim English speaking people.

It is not in the original text; nor, moreover, is anyone supposed to be using an English translation to learn islam. Islam is meant to be studied in Arabic alone; therefore, the English translation is not exactly a model of islam.
Pickthall, for example, is more recent and does not state this:

Q4:34 Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them.

Qatada said as narrated by al-Tabari in his Tafsir (5:68): "Ghayr mubarrih means ghayr sha'in = not disgraceful/ not outrageous/ not obscene/ not indecent [beating]." `Ata' said: "I asked Ibn `Abbas: 'What is the hitting that is ghayr al-mubarrih?' He replied: '[With] the siwak [toothbrush] and the like'." Narrated by al-Tabari in his Tafsir (Dar al-Fikr 5:68).

al-Tabari? Wasn't he born 200 years after Mohammed? He's also considered questionable and highly weak.

Why is islam so desperate to control women?

Indeed, the women can present an abuse case to the Islamic Khalifat's court. This has happened, and a women has the full right of divorce, alsoa women is allowed to put conditions for marriage, as well as obtain a dowry in exchange for marriage which is a gift for her only, not to be touched by anyone.

And their testimony is worth half a man's. I'm sure many of those cases must be successful, then.

Servants, workers, adopted children, other family members, or people living under your roof.

Slaves. "Those whom your right hands possess" = slaves.

Geoff

[GeoffP]

A vicious lie which Westerners repeat to somehow avert their own blame of slavery to those who didn't practice it. It's convenient to accuse others, isn't it?

It isn't a lie, and it's extremely racist of you to deny it.

Hardly peace-loving. The southern Sudani started a civil war with the legitimate government of Sudan with European support. As a matter of fact, the civil war has seen many unjust murders from independent groups allied to pro-Western groups. The Sudani goverment has the legitimate claim to all of sovereign Sudan. Ofcourse, you must think that wherever there is a conflict in which Muslims are involved, they must be wrong.

But don't the southern Sudanese deserve to rebel against usurpers and invaders? Don't they, who are different that the northerners, have a greater right to their own land?

It seems rather that whenever there is evil done by islam that islam must have an excuse, or an accusation.

You mean so the Westerners could enslave them later.

I have no idea what point you're trying to create here.

The Arabs weren't slave traders, this is a lie often issued from only the West and often depicted in films by Zionist producers.

That is a lie and a racist one. Retract it.

By trade with honesty, by Sufism, by the teachings, by justice of Khalifah, by honor of Muslims, and also by the appeal of Islam as a way of life complete and perfect.

But as we've already illustrated, it isn't perfect. Women, religious minorities, apostates and homosexuals are oppressed. The tiniest perception of insult to islam sends muslims in muslim countries into a rage of burning and riots. How can islam be less than perfect in islamic countries and yet you tell us that islam is perfect. Obviously, it can't be.

Killing innocents and massacring people by taking the land of people for only economical gain is hardly just. The West does not need to teach anyone else or chastise anyone else about this due to its 200 year colonial legacy. Islam has had a very peaceful and beautiful history. The blood of Muslims was mainly spilled in defense of their lands and hardly spilling in unjust wars. Islamic history is much more grand and lovely than you would like to admit.

To those who weren't its victims, maybe. Unfortunately, islamic aggression all the way through Northern Africa, Turkey, India, Spain, the Balkans and the Latin east pretty much means that islam has a much more grandiose history of violence than the West. It seems likely that westerners even learned such radical intolerance and imperialism from islamic sources, since nothing of the like had been seen in Europe prior to islamic invasion.

"O people, I have been elected your leader...

This says nothing about protecting the rights of non-muslims.

Geoff

[DiamondHearts]

But as we've already illustrated, it isn't perfect. Women, religious minorities, apostates and homosexuals are oppressed. The tiniest perception of insult to islam sends muslims in muslim countries into a rage of burning and riots. How can islam be less than perfect in islamic countries and yet you tell us that islam is perfect. Obviously, it can't be.

Islam is perfect, regardless of what you say.

Open Apostates are potentially dangerous to the Islamic State, which was proven throughout Islamic history when this part of the law was not practiced and rebellions of apostates and agents formed a large alliance and almost destroyed the Khalifah from within. In the end, through the will of Almighty Allah (swt) the Muslims overcame with faith and re-enforced the law to bring peace back to the State.

Homosexuals are only accepted in the West due to a significant politically correct majority which agrees with this. In Islamic civilization, they have always been viewed as destabilizing and an indicator of the corruption and degradation of society from the natural way. Abortions, pornography, pedophilia, and rape is very common in the West and Islam is a religion which maximizes punishment for these crimes against nature and humanity to decrease them in number. The Islamic world is the only place where AIDS and HIV are almost nonexistent. This is due to the superiority of Islam in regards family honor, chastity, and values.

The majority of Muslims are reactionary only because they are on edge. We have been colonized by the West for 200 years, subjected to the most vicious and widespread attacks on our faith and cultre than any other people on earth. How can you expect us to sit silently and say 'Yes Master!'? Islam is perfect, most countries with Muslim majorities are mostly secular with very minor rleigious elements. This is based on Western interference and pressure and has nothing to do with Islam as a religion. People in the Islamic world are mainly very religious and care a great deal about their religious symbols. The protests only prove that Muslims have had enough of vilification and attacks on religion and culture. The West is provoking them, can't you see that?

[GeoffP]

Islam is perfect, regardless of what you say.

Islam is flawed, crucially and irreparably, regardless of what you say. You, in fact, contribute to its example, as you illustrate again below.

Open Apostates are potentially dangerous to the Islamic State, which was proven throughout Islamic history when this part of the law was not practiced and rebellions of apostates and agents formed a large alliance and almost destroyed the Khalifah from within. In the end, through the will of Almighty Allah the Muslims overcame with faith and re-enforced the law to bring peace back to the State.

There are many ways in which to answer this.

Do you really expect that the apostates will rise up and overthrow the islamic state? Really? Why would they do so? What is it they have to gain? Freedom of religious choice, perhaps? Until they do in fact do so, you have no justification whatever for your oppression of such people. If you make the argument that they "once did", then by proxy the West should indeed be actively persecuting muslims in our countries, who might well be acting in accordance with Q 9: 1-5. Should we do so? Would you consider this justified?

You appear to be a living embodiment of the subtle refusal of freedom of religion found by careful perusal of Q 2: 256 - the word "for" in that sura being, of course, the hinge. Your repression of free choice of religion is appalling, and repugnant. It is also, incidentally, why so many muslims abandon their religion once they reach the West - which is to say, because they can abandon it. I know three muslim girls who left islam, two of which I helped to do so. Now you tell me that in an islamic country they should have been killed. That is utterly repugnant.

So: what true loyalty does allah command, then, save within the reach of a gun or a sword? And what does this say about the freedom and the peace of his religion?

Homosexuals are only accepted in the West due to a significant politically correct majority which agrees with this. In Islamic civilization, they have always been viewed as destabilizing and an indicator of the corruption and degradation of society from the natural way. Abortions, pornography, pedophilia, and rape is very common in the West and Islam is a religion which maximizes punishment for these crimes against nature and humanity to decrease them in number. The Islamic world is the only place where AIDS and HIV are almost nonexistent. This is due to the superiority of Islam in regards family honor, chastity, and values.

Homosexuality is accepted in the West due to a significant majority who recognize that homosexuals are human beings. I note that they at least have not crashed airliners into buildings here. Islam would butcher them for - what? Which reason? "Degradation from the natural way?" Homosexuality is common in wild animals as well. How much more "natural" an example would you like?

Moreover, one of the major reasons HIV is spreading in Africa is because of both Catholic and islamic injunctions against contraceptives and disease protection. (In other African nations, polio is spreading because the imams there think that vaccinations are a secret Western attempt to sterilize muslims. Madness, as always.)

Rape is exceedingly common in Pakistani society, which is also muslim. Do you think for some bizarre reason that the West encourages rape? How and why? I'm also given to understand from people I know that have worked there that paedophila is extremely common in Saudi Arabia, but that it's not recognized as a sin unless you're the "catcher", so to speak.

The majority of Muslims are reactionary only because they are on edge. We have been colonized by the West for 200 years, subjected to the most vicious and widespread attacks on our faith and cultre than any other people on earth. How can you expect us to sit silently and say 'Yes Master!'? Islam is perfect, most countries with Muslim majorities are mostly secular with very minor rleigious elements. This is based on Western interference and pressure and has nothing to do with Islam as a religion. People in the Islamic world are mainly very religious and care a great deal about their religious symbols. The protests only prove that Muslims have had enough of vilification and attacks on religion and culture. The West is provoking them, can't you see that?

Reactionary because you've been attacked? If you expect me to believe that muslims are only reactionary because they're on edge, guess again. It wouldn't explain islamic behaviour during the last 1400 years, including all the invasions and persecution, unless you're a very nervous faith generally. And so what should Westerners do about the attacks in New York, London and Spain? Should they just calm down? How about the importing of radicals imams and muslims here? Should we not be reactionary ourselves? You don't want to be slaves of the West? Neither do we want to be slaves of islam. Talk about 200 years of oppression - ask the religious minorities in islamic nations about that.

If muslims care so very much about their religious symbols (which, since that would be shirk, I thought they weren't supposed to do), then how do you suppose Westerners feel with the vitriol spewed out of Middle Eastern TV and shrieked from the mosques there? I think, contrarily, that Westerners (Secularists, Christians and Jews in specific) have had quite enough of your bile and are starting to respond to your attacks in ways you don't like.

Bother us further - and see how we apply your own rules to our dealings with you.

Geoff

[Godless]

. Abortions, pornography, pedophilia, and rape is very common in the West and Islam is a religion which maximizes punishment for these crimes against nature and humanity to decrease them in number.

Wait there one second buddy! You do know your Muhammed "ass whipe be his name" married a six year old shild, and consumated that marriage just three years latter right? He freaking raped a nine year old child, if that is not condoned in Islamic law, then Muhammed "ass whipe be his name" made it too law, that one can marrie a child and deflower her.

click

click

It seems that pedophilia is an accepted norm in Islam. Thank goodness that Muhammed "ass whipe be his name" made such a law, so you horny fuckers can have sex with children, and be it legal.

Godless

[spidergoat]

Open Apostates are potentially dangerous to the Islamic State...

Well, I can see where that would be a problem when muslims move to western countries, which are refreshingly free of theocracy. When "Islamic states" become totally isolationist, then your rules will only offend the native victims of it.

[DiamondHearts]

You appear to be a living embodiment of the subtle refusal of freedom of religion found by careful perusal of Q 2: 256 - the word "for" in that sura being, of course, the hinge. Your repression of free choice of religion is appalling, and repugnant. It is also, incidentally, why so many muslims abandon their religion once they reach the West - which is to say, because they can abandon it. I know three muslim girls who left islam, two of which I helped to do so. Now you tell me that in an islamic country they should have been killed. That is utterly repugnant.

No compulsion for people who aren't Muslim. If someone leaves Islam, which is not common at all, but in a rare circumstance, if they live in an Islamic Khalifah they must keep it hidden, because publicly announcing this will undermine the Islamic character of the State and will (and has in the past) encourage rebellion. Most of those who become apostates, do so to gain favor among the Western Anti-Islamics and Evangelist organizations in terms of better treatment and monetary support. Rarely will you see a person who leaves Islam who is not encouraged by Non-Muslims or people bent on undermining Islamic society.

So: what true loyalty does allah command, then, save within the reach of a gun or a sword? And what does this say about the freedom and the peace of his religion?

Allah (swt) will govern his kingdom by whatever way He wills. No matter how much injustice occurs to us, we should always feel greatful for His blessed favors. Allah (swt) is the supreme and most powerful, as well as the most kind and merciful to His creations. Loyalty to Allah (swt) in Islam is mind, body, soul, and spirit. Islam teaches servitude to Allah (swt) above all others.

Homosexuality is accepted in the West due to a significant majority who recognize that homosexuals are human beings. I note that they at least have not crashed airliners into buildings here. Islam would butcher them for - what? Which reason? "Degradation from the natural way?" Homosexuality is common in wild animals as well. How much more "natural" an example would you like?

They are still human beings. It is not the people directly that is oppossed to Islam, it is the acts which they commit. If they cease their acts, there is room for forgiveness. Humankind was not created to engage in sodomy. We are human beings, not animals.

Moreover, one of the major reasons HIV is spreading in Africa is because of both Catholic and islamic injunctions against contraceptives and disease protection. (In other African nations, polio is spreading because the imams there think that vaccinations are a secret Western attempt to sterilize muslims. Madness, as always.)

Pure lies. Many Muslim nations have various vaccinations and there is nothing in Islam that says vaccinations are not allowed. In fact, the basic dietary laws of Islam are allowed to be broken to save someone's life. For example, a Muslim is allowed to eat swine only out of extreme necessity. Actually many members of my own family living in the Muslim world have had polio vaccinations. This proves you are just lying to convey a point. As a matter of fact, this isn't the first time you have said something so outrageous.

Rape is exceedingly common in Pakistani society, which is also muslim. Do you think for some bizarre reason that the West encourages rape? How and why? I'm also given to understand from people I know that have worked there that paedophila is extremely common in Saudi Arabia, but that it's not recognized as a sin unless you're the "catcher", so to speak.

Pakistan has cases of rape among tribal areas of the country, but most are resolved in court with the rapists executed. Rape is a serious issue, sometimes the family members take revenge before bringing it to the law, which is regrettable. A small number of women fake rape to gain popularity in Western papers or get money from Western organizations. This is quite evident when biological samples prove the woman wrong, the case is often reversed against the accuser.

Western society has way more rape cases than any Muslim country or any Non-Western country. The Western secular sexual culture stimulates this. Women encourage it by wearing revealing clothes and going to clubs and parties with men. You can look at rape cases in the United States, UK, and the rest of the West for proof.

You have providen no evidence as to how pedophilia is common in Saudi Arabia. This is a mere accusation without any shred of evidence. Please provide some.

In the West rapists and murders often target young girls, often cutting them in pieces. Is that not pedophilia? It is quite common in the West, and cases appear often.

Reactionary because you've been attacked? If you expect me to believe that muslims are only reactionary because they're on edge, guess again. It wouldn't explain islamic behaviour during the last 1400 years, including all the invasions and persecution, unless you're a very nervous faith generally. And so what should Westerners do about the attacks in New York, London and Spain? Should they just calm down? How about the importing of radicals imams and muslims here? Should we not be reactionary ourselves? You don't want to be slaves of the West? Neither do we want to be slaves of islam. Talk about 200 years of oppression - ask the religious minorities in islamic nations about that.

Religious minorities are treated well in Islamic countries, far better than how Muslims are villified in the West. Like I said, many Islamic countries have seats reserved for minority religious groups and provide financial aid in college to them. Islam has never been known for violence against minorities, but the West has had a long hisory of persecuting Jews, Catholics, Protestants, Gypsies, Native Americans, Blacks, Arabs, Berbers, Japanese, Mexicans, and so on.

If muslims care so very much about their religious symbols (which, since that would be shirk, I thought they weren't supposed to do), then how do you suppose Westerners feel with the vitriol spewed out of Middle Eastern TV and shrieked from the mosques there? I think, contrarily, that Westerners (Secularists, Christians and Jews in specific) have had quite enough of your bile and are starting to respond to your attacks in ways you don't like.

Bother us further - and see how we apply your own rules to our dealings with you.

Geoff

Again you demonstrate your perversion of Islamic principles to further your arguments. Shirk means not associating anything in worship with Allah (swt). How is honoring the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), The Holy Quran, and Allah (swt) shirk? Muslims do not worship anything but Allah (swt). Learn some honesty.

[DiamondHearts]

Wait there one second buddy! You do know your Muhammed " be his name" married a six year old shild, and consumated that marriage just three years latter right? He freaking raped a nine year old child, if that is not condoned in Islamic law, then Muhammed "ass whipe be his name" made it too law, that one can marrie a child and deflower her.
Godless

Actually Hazrat Aishah (radhi allahu anha), the daughter of the first Caliph Abu Bakr (radhi allahu anhu) was married to the Holy Prophet (sallahu alayhi wa salam) at the age of 9, however she did not consummate the marriage until she had reached the age of 14. Allah (swt) told him in a dream to marry her, so he did without hesitation. It is also worth noting that he married his first wife at the age of 25 to a lady who was 40 and did not marry again for 25 years. Wives of the Prophet No one objected because this was a norm in the semitic culture. Jews, Muslims, and early Christians all believed that after menstruation a woman is eligible for marriage. This was quite common at the time, and is still among the Arab bedouins, African cultures, Chinese and East Asian cultures, which include Christians, Muslims, Jews, and East Asian religions.

[GeoffP]

It's funny how you can contrast this:

No compulsion for people who aren't Muslim.

with this:

If someone leaves Islam, which is not common at all, but in a rare circumstance, if they live in an Islamic Khalifah they must keep it hidden, because publicly announcing this will undermine the Islamic character of the State and will (and has in the past) encourage rebellion.

Rarely will you see a person who leaves Islam who is not encouraged by Non-Muslims or people bent on undermining Islamic society.

There are more than a few scholars who have done so, and many more laymen that have. They leave because they see the inequity of islam, or because they can leave it and no longer fear. Your comments are sheer paranoia and propaganda.

Allah (swt) will govern his kingdom by whatever way He wills. No matter how much injustice occurs to us, we should always feel greatful for His blessed favors.

This assumes he even exists, for which there is no evidence whatever. Should one feel blessed for being murdered in the name of a god that is unknown?

They are still human beings. It is not the people directly that is oppossed to Islam, it is the acts which they commit. If they cease their acts, there is room for forgiveness. Humankind was not created to engage in sodomy. We are human beings, not animals.

Your specification was "natural", not "animal". The fact that humans do engage in such behaviours proves that they are, indeed, animals.

Pure lies. Many Muslim nations have various vaccinations and there is nothing in Islam that says vaccinations are not allowed.

Tell that to the African imams. Whether or not you have had your vaccinations, your point was that islam is preventing HIV, when it clearly isn't; nor, moreover, is its practice and requisite paranoia (such a defensive religion!) are not helping poor Africans. Is there really a need for such defensiveness?

This proves you are just lying to convey a point. As a matter of fact, this isn't the first time you have said something so outrageous.

I will say many, many more things more outrageous without your approval; and no, I was not lying. You will kindly be more careful about your accusations in future.

A small number of women fake rape to gain popularity in Western papers or get money from Western organizations. This is quite evident when biological samples prove the woman wrong, the case is often reversed against the accuser.

Of course, I'm sure many biological samples are taken...for some family out in the boondocks who bring a claim to the authorities days after it happens, or longer, out of fear of having dishonoured the family. Of course!

Western society has way more rape cases than any Muslim country or any Non-Western country. The Western secular sexual culture stimulates this. Women encourage it by wearing revealing clothes and going to clubs and parties with men. You can look at rape cases in the United States, UK, and the rest of the West for proof.

There's that refreshing tolerance of non-segregation. It's often difficult to argue this point since islamic countries make it a point not to collect rape statistics. I wonder why not.

You have providen no evidence as to how pedophilia is common in Saudi Arabia. This is a mere accusation without any shred of evidence. Please provide some.

Personal accounts from people that worked there. I have as many personal accounts or more than there were for a merchant from Medina to be acclaimed the prophet of God.

In the West rapists and murders often target young girls, often cutting them in pieces. Is that not pedophilia? It is quite common in the West, and cases appear often.

"Quite common"? I imagine it would seem that way...but paedophilia is a crime in the West. Mohammed himself was a paedophile; far better it be a crime than a religiously approved act. Didn't the Ayatollah himself accredit the validity of the practice?

Religious minorities are treated well in Islamic countries, far better than how Muslims are villified in the West. Like I said, many Islamic countries have seats reserved for minority religious groups and provide financial aid in college to them. Islam has never been known for violence against minorities

This is an utter lie. Westerners do not limit the rights of religious minorities in any way, nor interfere with the selection of religious principle. As I opined earlier, you are a bit blind when it comes to recognizing the inherent faults of islam.

Again you demonstrate your perversion of Islamic principles to further your arguments. Shirk means not associating anything in worship with Allah (swt). How is honoring the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), The Holy Quran, and Allah (swt) shirk? Muslims do not worship anything but Allah (swt). Learn some honesty.

You said "religious icons". How can Mohammed be a religious icon? He was only a man, not worthy of worship. He merely related words he heard in his head, no? Why is this mere man's image so important that depictions of his image - by other than islamic artists - is considered so vile a crime that it needs result in riot, destruction and murder?

Geoff

[duendy]

Follow Allaha if you want to see the future

No.

[Sock puppet path]

Follow Allaha if you want to see the future

Follow santa claus if you wanna get toys.

[spidergoat]

What do you have to offer? Tent living with no refrigeration and weekend beheadings for entertainment?

[SnakeLord]

lol.. so once we're converted, do we get to live in little mud huts and have hairy, ugly wives just like you do or what?

[qwerty mob]

The term "camel toe" takes on a hole new meaning... or not.