al Qaeda Desperation

[Eghad]

Parody?

do some research on the Nestorian Chrisitans in Asia. The Nestorians stretched all the way to the Pacific Coast of Asia. The Coptic church was big in Egypt.......

Islam wasnt exactly nuturing to them as co-religions.

look up the word dhimmi....and abbrogation

Mohammed said, "slaughter is better than persecution"

Honor Killings are still practiced today in many Islamic parts of the world....

Notice I use the word Jihadist... I dont want to tar every Muslim with the same brush becuae most of them want to lead a normal life.

I see that Muslims have condemed terrorists....but I havent seen a lot of calls to law enforcement to give up the jihadists among us ???? If you know of some tell me....

it ok for a Jihadist to look you in the eye and lie to you, its not a sin if you do it to spread Islam. Not a sin to steal from a nonbeliever nor kill him. It is a duty to Jihadists to do this.

Muslims were practicing violence long before the Crusades happened. The Crusaders were not choir boys by any standard.....neither were the Muslims of that period despite what PC folks say....

 

[Hunter Rose]

Wow... I'm gonna have a disagreement with Rebar. Everyone look shocked!

>And you all didn't seem to mind that the KKK and the so-called militia movement was completely infiltrated by the FBI.<

The main difference isn't in "us protecting the Muslim", but in the insular nature of "the Muslim". While any white guy could train himself to spout the proper lines and infiltrate the militia or KKK, it's a lil' more difficult for 'em to do the same with Mosques. You're talking racialy different people here. Now, IF they could get some arabic-lookin' dudes, but I think that's problematic in itself, especially since the stakes are that high. Read up on the problems the FBI had with 1% bikers, and infiltrating them...


Oh, and I couldn't let THIS gem go by:
>it ok for a Jihadist to look you in the eye and lie to you, its not a sin if you do it to spread Islam. Not a sin to steal from a nonbeliever nor kill him. It is a duty to Jihadists to do this.<

Sure... I'd have to look it up to verify that. The only thing *I* remember about the rules of Jihad was concerning who you could attack. IIRC, the line goes "no women, no children, no non-combatants. No buildings, not one green leaf on one growing tree". Failure to follow this rule while engaging in Jihad? Express elevator to Hell. If you'ld like, I'd be MORE than happy to look up the relevant passages in my copy of the Qu'ran...


Now, I'm not over there, but a friend just got back. I'll ask him when I next see him if HE thinks we're winning...

 

[shootinstudent]

Parody? Hardly. Any reasonable reading of the koran and the haditha, along with a knowledge of the doctrine of abrogation (naskh), where the "nice" parts of the koran are cancelled out, the dhimma where the choices are submission or death, or slavery if you're lucky, and lying to non-muslems (taqiyya and kitman) to further the cause of worldwide domination of islam, will show the incredible intolerance intrinsic to islam.

Yes, parody. You have not read either the Koran or the Hadith, but rather another website like "Contender Ministries" or "New Covenant." This is the same as last time we talked about this...you didn't cite any Fiqh, remember, you just cited christian ministry webpages? I won't be drawn into this discussion any further.

Hunter Rose,

Looks like you have it right on.


But of course, to try and get this back to Al Qaeda's desperation...


Why are we thinking of giving religious bigotry the force of law (which discrimination against Muslims would most certainly be), when Al Qaeda is losing anyway?

It strikes me as a bit odd to say on the one hand "Al Qaeda is dying! You are in a dream world if you think Al Qaeda can survive now!" and then to turn around and say:

"We need to stop respecting all religions because of the danger of terrorism."

What's Rebar's motivation for discriminating against Muslims? Is he not really sure that Al Qaeda and the terrorists are losing, or is there something more?

Hmmm...

 

[Hunter Rose]

Heck shootin... at this point, we've already got PLENTY of terrorist cells in the States, waiting. And focusing on Muslims probably wouldn't be much help anyway. Assuming they have at least a touch of brains (and I think I'm safe in that assumption), what we'll be seeing will be something like the SLA making any strikes in the US...


Things might not be winding down in the ME, but I'm actually starting to wonder if that isn't more a smoke and mirrors campaign, to distract from things happening here. NOT our government, but the terrorists. Of course, that might just be the tinfoil talkin'...

 

[Cnon]

JR47, Thank you for your service to our country.

JR47,

Thank you for your service to our country.

Cnon

 

[Rebar]

it's a lil' more difficult for 'em to do the same with Mosques.

It's hard, so we shouldn't try, in other words. We'll have to agree to disagree then.

IIRC, the line goes "no women, no children, no non-combatants. No buildings, not one green leaf on one growing tree". Failure to follow this rule while engaging in Jihad? Express elevator to Hell.

That is incorrect. I highly recommend you read The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam if you want to find out what islam is really all about. That particual quote you're thinking of, was abrogated.

You have not read either the Koran or the Hadith

You are absolutely incorrect sir. And I note that again you avoid the embarrasing points made. Islam is a lot like scientology, in that at first it sounds great, but the more you find out about it, the less it sounds like a legitimite belief, and more like something some nut made up. Except scientologists just sue people, instead of cutting their heads off. And L Ron Hubbard wasn't a brutal bandit chieftain who raped children and murdered innocent folks.

Why are we thinking of giving religious bigotry the force of law (which discrimination against Muslims would most certainly be), when Al Qaeda is losing anyway?

I note that you ignore that islamofacist terrorism is far more than just Al Qaeda. Were the London bombers members of Al Qaeda? No. They were just average kids who were brainwashed in a local mosque and turned into murderers. If that mosque had been infiltrated by undercover police, and the plot discovered, would that have been good police work, or "discrimination"? Certainly a lot of folks, including those boys, would still be alive. But that would have robbed those boys of "paradise", and thus is religious discrimination, right?

Your attempts to paint me as a bigot are rediculous, based on the plain facts. Mosques are being used to recruit for terrorist cells and plan terrorist attacks. This is fact. The truth is a perfect defense, and I'm no bigot.

 

[shootinstudent]

That is incorrect. I highly recommend you read The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam if you want to find out what islam is really all about. That particual quote you're thinking of, was abrogated.

It is painfully obvious to anyone who has read the primary sources in question that you haven't.

Now we've gone to the point of Rebar's thread with this:

I note that you ignore that islamofacist terrorism is far more than just Al Qaeda. Were the London bombers members of Al Qaeda? No.

So victory against Al Qaeda only counts as part of a larger war on Islam? I see...hmm, tough to square that with:

Your attempts to paint me as a bigot are rediculous, based on the plain facts. Mosques are being used to recruit for terrorist cells and plan terrorist attacks. This is fact. The truth is a perfect defense, and I'm no bigot.

Sure.

 

[Hunter Rose]

>That is incorrect. I highly recommend you read The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam if you want to find out what islam is really all about. That particual quote you're thinking of, was abrogated.<

Actually, that quote was directly from the bloody Qu'ran. You know what that is, don't you? The holy book of Islam? Would you argue that a "Politically Incorrect Guide to Christianity" would be a better source than the Bible?

 

[Eghad]

Here is the PC from this website

"The word jihad sends shivers down the spines of many Westerners. They readily equate this term with violence and oppression. However, it must be said that the meaning of jihad, as a 'holy war', is something which is totally foreign and not from Islam. If anything, such a description belongs more so to Christianity and its adherents. It was terms like this which were used to justify the slaughter and pillage of towns and cities during the crusades by the Christians. By simply looking into the sources of Islam, one is able to know that the true meaning of jihad is to strive/make effort in the way of Allah. Thus striving in the way of Allah can be both peaceful and physical. The Prophet Muhammed (saws) said "

http://thetruereligion.org/modules/wfsection/article.php?articleid=63

/pulls on hip waders.......

what they dont tell you is that some verses abbrograte others in the Koran. So they can quote you the peacful scriptures all day long as evidence without blinking an eye

Shaikh Muhammad as-Saleh Al-'Uthaimin
Translated by Dr. Maneh Al-Johani

"The previous scriptures were meant for a limited period. Their use ended with the revelation of the Qur'an, which abrogated them and exposed their distortions and changes. That is why they were not protected from corruption. They underwent distortion, addition, and omission: "Some of the Jews pervert words from their meanings"

the problem with studying the Koran is you have to know whats been abrogated. Which verses were for a limited time....

The Muslims and Islam are very practical when it comes to survival... and Islam. Islam must survive above all else.

One thing I have learned is that I had to throw any concepts I had about Islam out the window and start over from scratch. That includes the PC and the right wing wacko stuff.

 

[Eghad]

http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area =sr&ID=SR2704

On January 14, 2004, Sheikh Muhammad Kamal Mustafa, the imam of the mosque of the city of Fuengirola, Costa del Sol, was sentenced by a Barcelona court to a 15 month suspended sentence and fined € 2160 for publishing his book 'The Woman in Islam.' In this book, the Egyptian-born Sheikh Mustafa writes, among other things, on wife-beating in accordance with Shar'ia law.

On pages 86-87, Mustafa states: "The [wife-]beating must never be in exaggerated, blind anger, in order to avoid serious harm [to the woman]." He adds, "It is forbidden to beat her on the sensitive parts of her body, such as the face, breast, abdomen, and head. Instead, she should be beaten on the arms and legs," using a "rod that must not be stiff, but slim and lightweight so that no wounds, scars, or bruises are caused." Similarly, "[the blows] must not be hard." [1]

if they treat the women that way....wonder what the treatment for nonbelivers would be?

Mustafa noted in his book that the aim of the beating was to cause the woman to feel some emotional pain, without humiliating her or harming her physically. According to him, wife-beating must be the last resort to which the husband turns in punishing his wife, and is, according to the Qur'an, Chapter 4, Verse 34, the husband's third step when the wife is rebellious: First, he must reprimand her, without anger. Next, he must distance her from the conjugal bed. Only if these two methods fail should the husband turn to beating.

In his verdict, the judge said that Sheikh Mustafa's book contained incitement to violence against women, that today's society is completely different from society 1400 years ago, and that the sections of the book in which the sheikh wrote of wife-beating constitute a violation of the penal code and of women's constitutional rights. In his defense, Sheikh Mustafa's attorney argued that his client was not expressing his personal opinion, but only reiterating the writings of Islam from the 13th and 19th centuries. [2]

if they treat the women that way....wonder what the treatment for nonbelivers would be?

This is again not meant to be an indictment of all muslims....

but remember this guy is a religious leader in the community.

 

[Rebar]

It is painfully obvious to anyone who has read the primary sources in question that you haven't.

I sure have, just not in the way you'd like non-muslems to read it, ie reading the abrogated text and thinking that it's still relevant.

For a non-muslem to look at the koran, there are a lot of misdirections, contradictions, and confusions to overcome. For example, the koran is not in cronological order. It starts with the shortest verses, and ends with the longest, ie in random order. What a muslem won't tell you that islamic scholarship (such that is allowed) divides the koran into two sections - Meccan and Medinan suras.

The "tolerant" verses are from the earlier Meccan period, where Mohammad was trying to convert the local Jews and Christians to join him. However, they weren't buying what he was selling, and that really got him mad. He went to Medina where the warlike verses were "reveiled". Why is this important? Because of this:

Nothing of our revelation (even a single verse) do we abrogate or cause be forgotten, but we bring (in place) one better or the like thereof. Knowest thou not that Allah is Able to do all things? (sura 2:106)

In other words, if Mohammad contradicts himself, then what he said last replaces the other. It's known as the doctrine of abrogation. Without abrogation the whole book is so riddled with contradictions that it's basically useless as a guide to anything.

Thus, the last sura written (known as the Verse of the Sword):

So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. (sura 9:2)

abrogates, or renders null, 124 more "peaceful" verses.

To really read the koran as a muslem understands it, you need to strike out all the abrogated verses, which makes it considerably shorter, but infinitly more horrifying. Gone are all the "nice" verses, replaced with a bloodthirsty creed that demands the whole world submit to islam, or pay the price.

A muslem apologist will recite these abrogated verses all day long, neglecting to mention that they hold no sway in the islamic world, of course.

So victory against Al Qaeda only counts as part of a larger war on Islam?

Nice dodge, ignoring the fact that the London bombers learned their hate and yearning for death at a mosque. Those boys were just as much victims as the people they killed. If that mosque was under survellence, do you deny that a lot of innocent people would have been saved, including those boys?

 

[shootinstudent]

Citing writings of random "Sheikhs" without identifying the Fiqh is like just picking some guy with a name, say Jim Jones, and then citing his writing on the bible and saying "See, that's authoritative biblical writing!"

Rebar, that Koran quote is a great example of cut and paste from a website instead of reading the actual Koran. You didn't cite 9:2...you cited 9:5.

Here's 9:4 and 9:6 to put the verse you just cited in context:

4. (But the treaties are) not dissolved with those Pagans with whom ye have entered into alliance and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor aided any one against you. So fulfil your engagements with them to the end of their term: for Allah loveth the righteous.

[insert rebar's nonstandard translation here]

6. If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah. and then escort him to where he can be secure. That is because they are men without knowledge.

See what happens when you don't read the primary sources?

Eghad,

If you want to know what the majority of the religion believes in regards to law, look up a Hanafi scholar. Malik, Shafi'i, and Hanbali are the smaller sects, but still prevalent. I challenge you to find any who, relevant to this thread, support terrorism.

Interesting, that we have a discussion on terrorism which goes to beating wives and cutting and pasting from anti-Islamic websites (the only possible way Rebar could've gotten the verse wrong; if he'd had the Book in front of him, it would've been clear...).

Looks to me more like people are taking terrorism in a certain part of the world as an excuse, inspiration, or whatever, to go off bashing a religion they already don't like. It is certainly depressing me at this point, to see people being sold the same tired old garbage that's been sold for centuries about this or that "other people." Shame on us for not defeating the blood libel a thousand years ago. It's a sad day in America when talk like this is common, and I can only wonder who will be next once the Muslim boogey man is no longer relevant.

 

[Rebar]

You didn't cite 9:2...you cited 9:5.

A simple typo.

Looks to me more like people are taking terrorism in a certain part of the world as an excuse, inspiration, or whatever, to go off bashing a religion they already don't like.

It looks to me that people who were wholly ignorant of islam before, have taken it on themselves learn about it - and are shocked and horrified by what they've found.

Shame on us for not defeating the blood libel a thousand years ago.

A thousand years ago, the islamic armies were doing their damned best to conquer all of Europe, after seizing all of christian North Africa, Spain, and the rest of the middle east and converting them by the sword.

 

[shootinstudent]

A simple typo.

A simple typo that takes pieces of two verses, cuts them in half, and combines them into one!? I'm going to have to ask which translation you used. I cannot imagine that it is a good one.

It looks to me that people who were wholly ignorant of islam before, have taken it on themselves learn about it - and are shocked and horrified by what they've found.

See above. You didn't pick up Islamic texts, you started reading Muslim bashing webpages. That is the only possible explanation for you having so grossly misquoted the piece that you did, and indeed it's pretty clear to anyone who has actually read the primary source material.

A thousand years ago, the islamic armies were doing their damned best to conquer all of Europe, after seizing all of christian North Africa, Spain, and the rest of the middle east and converting them by the sword.

Ah yes, the Muslims are trying to kill us all. Sounds suspiciously like the line that was sold against another religious group in Europe for the past 1000 years.

As tough as it is for me to remain silent when I see fellow gun owners spreading religious bigotry, with that I am checking out of this one.

 

[Rebar]

I'm going to have to ask which translation you used. I cannot imagine that it is a good one.

Here are three of them, pick the one you like:

YUSUFALI: But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
PICKTHAL: Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
SHAKIR: So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

Sounds suspiciously like the line that was sold against another religious group in Europe for the past 1000 years.

You mean the line that muslems today are screaming from their minaretts?

I also note you have "checked out" of explaining about the doctrine of abrogation, and explaining how the London bombers went from average boys to suicidal jihadists.

 

[Hunter Rose]

>I also note you have "checked out" of explaining about the doctrine of abrogation, and explaining how the London bombers went from average boys to suicidal jihadists.<

Heck, that's easy to explain: perversion of the religion. Which, unfortunately, is happening with scary regularity in the ME with Islam. DOesn't make every follower of Islam an evil terrorist, any more than Jim Jones made every Christian a psychotic nutball with bad taste in Kool-Aid flavors...

 

[Rebar]

Which, unfortunately, is happening with scary regularity in the ME with Islam.

The doctrine of abrogation is not some nutball thing that only a few muslems subscribe to, it's how the vast majority understand their own holy book.

And if regular kids are being turned into suicidal maniacs in mosques, isn't a good idea to see just what is happening inside of those?

 

[Hunter Rose]

>The doctrine of abrogation is not some nutball thing that only a few muslems subscribe to, it's how the vast majority understand their own holy book.<

Rebar... do you know any Muslims? Seriously... do you? *I* do... several. By all means, tell me what kind of people they are, based on your websites...

>And if regular kids are being turned into suicidal maniacs in mosques, isn't a good idea to see just what is happening inside of those?<

Not saying it's a bad idea, but rather it's close to impossible. We'd have to find someone who could blend in, train them to gather intelligence, and insert them: doesn't sound like mush, but it's more than we can do (appearantly). Nowhere do I say we SHOULDN'T be doing so. I'm saying the odds are against us being able to.

Could you stop and actually read what's being said, without reading into it? Please?

 

[GoSlash27]

Rebar,
I'm sorry, but you have no basis for understanding the 'vast majority' of Muslims beyond your misguided websites.
They are no more indoctrinated into jihad than we are (well, you are).

 

[Rebar]

I'm sorry, but you have no basis for understanding the 'vast majority' of Muslims beyond your misguided websites.

Which websites are those? I posted no websites, I quoted from the koran, if you're claiming that the koran is misguided, then we're in agreement.

do you know any Muslims?

I'm talking about a theological doctrine, not about individual people.

For example, in pre-columbian central America, the Aztecs had a horrible religion, which required mass human sacrifice, cutting out still beating human hearts and all that. We can all agree that it was a bad religion. Yet I'm sure Joe Shmoe greengrocer or fishmonger was a man who loved his wife and kids and was liked and respected by his neighbors. So if Joe Shmoe was a great guy, does that make the religion ok too? No, it does not.

Do you know the penalty for a muslem who converts to another faith? It is death. Do you know that islamic countries forbid other religions to spread or build places of worship in them, and that non-muslems are persecuted? That the koran forbids muslems to make friends with non-muslems? That it's the religous duty of muslems to lie to unbelievers, if it will advance the cause of islam? That the goal of muslems is the umma, the worldwide submission to islam?

Don't believe me. I highly encourage everyone to find out for themselves. Read the koran, read the haditha.

And don't dismiss some sources of information just because there might be a bias, if you really want to find out about scientology, for example, do you go to the official website, or to the protest site? Take a look through these sites:
http://answering-islam.org.uk/Muhammad/index.html
http://answering-islam.org.uk/Terrorism/peace-loving.html
http://answering-islam.org.uk/Silas/jihad.htm
http://www.bibleprobe.com/muhammad.htm
http://www.british-israel.ca/Islam.htm

and read the "Politically Correct guide to Islam" linked to previously.

See what they claim, and match it up against the original source material. You'll find that, on the whole, they make points that are impossible for the islamic apologists to refute, so they attack the source rather than the point. Don't let that fool you. Read and learn, question, check and recheck. Don't just take an islamic apologist's word for it, dig deep.