The Legacy of Mohammed

[Osomir]

providing references requires either owning a set of mosque
pre-cooked propaganda or googling in a VERY VERY BIG
TOPIC-----something like "prove evolution" to a person who
categorically denies it and has at his fingertips every sophist
argument that has ever existed to "debunk" the observations
of Darwin or even the existence of "DNA" ---or the veracity of
carbon dating. I do not do "GENERAL GOOGLE"-----I am willing to discuss SPECIFIC ISSUES------if you are willing to
cite one

It isn't a big task at all if you actually know what you are looking for. For example, if I wanted to quote the specific verse for the Christian concept of the "potter having power over the clay to shape and mold it as he chooses" I can take that general remembrance of the like and couple it with the fact that I recall it being from the Book Of Romans and likely from Chapter 9 and simply input that information into a search engine to find the exact Biblical verse. If you can't do that with the Quran it just means that you are as familiar with it as you are claiming to be.

Likewise, if you are familiar with history or current conflicts then making a general reference to them shouldn't be very cumbersome.

 

[Osomir]

I'll ask you to address every other islamist majority nation excepting Senegal.

Easy enough. Albania is currently operating just fine, as is Kosovo, and Bosnia (not majority, but has a large Islamic population), Sierra Leone is still struggling in their recovery from their civil war, and now Ebola, but has been making strides in its development. Tunisia has undergone major political change recently with the Arab Spring, The Western Sahara is renowned for its lack of extremism, despite long suffering occupation by Morocco, etc.

I noticed you failed to address my comments about differing standards of proof in islamist majority nations. I'm not surprised. It must be difficult to address Islamic fascism. Discuss for us the standards of proof that must be met in a sharia court run by ISIS.

Sharia courts largely differ in this issue. Pick a specific court and I'd be happy to discuss it.

 

[Hollie]

what a joke you are-----Yemen? its sunnis vs Shiites ---which ones you want to call "the extremists"?

I am calling AQAP extremists in Somalia, and it has largely been both the Shafis and the Zaidi who have been fighting them. My Yemen example has nothing to do with Sunni vs Shiites.

Somalia---Islamic faction against Islamic faction.

So you agree with me then that Muslims are on the front line fighting against Al Shabaab. Good.

which are the
"extremists" Iraq? ISIS vs kurds???----vs Shiites??

Kurds are largely Muslims too.

Libya----one insane Islamic faction against they other.
Mali? same thing

You should study both regions and conflicts a little more if you honestly feel comfortable reducing their conflicts to the above. In either case it seems like you've conceded the point that it is generally Muslims fighting radical Muslim groups in these areas.

you are a joke-----I have conceded WHAT??? I have conceded that for the past 1400 years muslims have engaged in internecine fighting -----basing their conflcts on anything
from religious doctrine to-----(as in the Yemeni civil war raging since circa 1960) WHO GETS THE OIL and to
WHO GETS TO BE CALIPH. I fail to see the situation as
"the good guys vs the bad guys". Who are the "good guys" and who are the "bad guys" ----in the Shiite vs Sunni
thing going on since the inception of Pakistan? Since we are on the subject-----who were the good guys and who were the bad guys in the 1971 Pakistani civil war?

I stated that most of the fighting against these radical groups that we currently hate is being done by Muslims. You admitted that this was true. Pretty straight forward.

wrong again-----I did not 'admit' anything. I correctly stated that muslims fight with each other. At no time did I suggest
that muslims fight with each other in the interests of civilization or decency. The US made a huge mistake in
the 1980s in funding the Taliban pigs just because they
were fighting the USSR. Their motivation for fighting
was the estabslishment of shariah shit in Afghanistan.

The Taliban didn't exist in its modern form during the 80s. We routed funds through Pakistan to many groups fighting the Soviets, including some of the predecessors of the Taliban, but the Taliban hadn't yet been established.

I'll ask you to address every other islamist majority nation excepting Senegal.

Easy enough. Albania is currently operating just fine, as is Kosovo, and Bosnia (not majority, but has a large Islamic population), Sierra Leone is still struggling in their recovery from their civil war, and now Ebola, but has been making strides in its development. Tunisia has undergone major political change recently with the Arab Spring, The Western Sahara is renowned for its lack of extremism, despite long suffering occupation by Morocco, etc.

I noticed you failed to address my comments about differing standards of proof in islamist majority nations. I'm not surprised. It must be difficult to address Islamic fascism. Discuss for us the standards of proof that must be met in a sharia court run by ISIS.

Sharia courts largely differ in this issue. Pick a specific court and I'd be happy to discuss it.

That was rather simplistic. Please discuss for us the wondrous islamist paradise to be found in Egypt, Iran, KSA, Somalia, North Africa, Libya, Nigeria, and the list goes on.

I seems that Albania / Kosovo may soon be on the jihad front lines.

The Hidden Growth of Islamic Extremism in Kosovo


As it applies to legal status for non-moslems in many islamist majority nations, perhaps you can discuss for us the legal status of Christians in a place like Pakistan in reference to charges by a moslem alleging blasphemy aimed at Christians.

 

[irosie91]

I'll ask you to address every other islamist majority nation excepting Senegal.

Easy enough. Albania is currently operating just fine, as is Kosovo, and Bosnia (not majority, but has a large Islamic population), Sierra Leone is still struggling in their recovery from their civil war, and now Ebola, but has been making strides in its development. Tunisia has undergone major political change recently with the Arab Spring, The Western Sahara is renowned for its lack of extremism, despite long suffering occupation by Morocco, etc.

I noticed you failed to address my comments about differing standards of proof in islamist majority nations. I'm not surprised. It must be difficult to address Islamic fascism. Discuss for us the standards of proof that must be met in a sharia court run by ISIS.

Sharia courts largely differ in this issue. Pick a specific court and I'd be happy to discuss it.

"sh

I'll ask you to address every other islamist majority nation excepting Senegal.

Easy enough. Albania is currently operating just fine, as is Kosovo, and Bosnia (not majority, but has a large Islamic population), Sierra Leone is still struggling in their recovery from their civil war, and now Ebola, but has been making strides in its development. Tunisia has undergone major political change recently with the Arab Spring, The Western Sahara is renowned for its lack of extremism, despite long suffering occupation by Morocco, etc.

I noticed you failed to address my comments about differing standards of proof in islamist majority nations. I'm not surprised. It must be difficult to address Islamic fascism. Discuss for us the standards of proof that must be met in a sharia court run by ISIS.

Sharia courts largely differ in this issue. Pick a specific court and I'd be happy to discuss it.

It seems to me that there is a difference between an "ISLAMIST MAJORITY COUNTRY" and a country
with a muslim majority------and a country with a significant
muslim population. The very frequent refutation of reality
of the nature of islam ----and in its islamically run societies
is a function of the historically functionally nature of islam----
it waxes and wanes in adherence to shariah law over time
in any place so afflicted. Iran is a good example of islam ----reasonable for awhile and then ----BACK TO THE OLD TIME FASCIST RELIGION.--------in fact both Libya and
Tunisia are on the precipice

 

[Osomir]

As it applies to legal status for non-moslems in many islamist majority nations, perhaps you can discuss for us the legal status of Christians in a place like Pakistan in reference to charges by a moslem alleging blasphemy aimed at Christians.

I have no qualms condemning poor behavior by governments in countries like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Their existence does nothing to argue against my point. The difference here is that I am able to differentiate between say Saudi Arabia and Senegal or between Pakistan and the Western Sahara. That's where your dialogue options tend to fall apart, and why speaking on so general of terms isn't very enlightening or accurate.

 

[Hollie]

I'll ask you to address every other islamist majority nation excepting Senegal.

Easy enough. Albania is currently operating just fine, as is Kosovo, and Bosnia (not majority, but has a large Islamic population), Sierra Leone is still struggling in their recovery from their civil war, and now Ebola, but has been making strides in its development. Tunisia has undergone major political change recently with the Arab Spring, The Western Sahara is renowned for its lack of extremism, despite long suffering occupation by Morocco, etc.

I noticed you failed to address my comments about differing standards of proof in islamist majority nations. I'm not surprised. It must be difficult to address Islamic fascism. Discuss for us the standards of proof that must be met in a sharia court run by ISIS.

Sharia courts largely differ in this issue. Pick a specific court and I'd be happy to discuss it.

"sh

I'll ask you to address every other islamist majority nation excepting Senegal.

Easy enough. Albania is currently operating just fine, as is Kosovo, and Bosnia (not majority, but has a large Islamic population), Sierra Leone is still struggling in their recovery from their civil war, and now Ebola, but has been making strides in its development. Tunisia has undergone major political change recently with the Arab Spring, The Western Sahara is renowned for its lack of extremism, despite long suffering occupation by Morocco, etc.

I noticed you failed to address my comments about differing standards of proof in islamist majority nations. I'm not surprised. It must be difficult to address Islamic fascism. Discuss for us the standards of proof that must be met in a sharia court run by ISIS.

Sharia courts largely differ in this issue. Pick a specific court and I'd be happy to discuss it.

It seems to me that there is a difference between an "ISLAMIST MAJORITY COUNTRY" and a country
with a muslim majority------and a country with a significant
muslim population. The very frequent refutation of reality
of the nature of islam ----and in its islamically run societies
is a function of the historically functionally nature of islam----
it waxes and wanes in adherence to shariah law over time
in any place so afflicted. Iran is a good example of islam ----reasonable for awhile and then ----BACK TO THE OLD TIME FASCIST RELIGION.--------in fact both Libya and
Tunisia are on the precipice

I don't think that holding up Tunisia as a model for "Peaceful Inner Struggling" moslems is an especially clever tactic.

Tunisia after igniting Arab Spring sends the most fighters to Islamic State in Syria - The Washington Post

 

[irosie91]

As it applies to legal status for non-moslems in many islamist majority nations, perhaps you can discuss for us the legal status of Christians in a place like Pakistan in reference to charges by a moslem alleging blasphemy aimed at Christians.

I have no qualms condemning poor behavior by governments in countries like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Their existence does nothing to argue against my point. The difference here is that I am able to differentiate between say Saudi Arabia and Senegal or between Pakistan and the Western Sahara. That's where your dialogue options tend to fall apart, and why speaking on so general of terms isn't very enlightening or accurate.

You used the phrase "my point"------just what is
your "point"? I do not see that the fact that over time--
in any given place infected by islam -----islam has its peaks
and its valleys-----is a point since all you have is that fact----
and you can cite the "valleys" as proof that of your contention "ISLAM IS MISUNDERSTOOD ---I can prove it
by citing a place where the islam thing is down in the valley
a bit"

 

[Osomir]

I don't think that holding up Tunisia as a model for "Peaceful Inner Struggling" moslems is an especially clever tactic.

Tunisia after igniting Arab Spring sends the most fighters to Islamic State in Syria - The Washington Post

I didn't hold it up at a model of peaceful inner struggle, the Arab Spring has been quite turbulent; so was the African Spring in the early 90s. That's how quick political change tends to happen, the difference here in Tunisia is that the more moderate factions won in the elections and that significant reform has taken place. The fact that some Tunisians have opted to join ISIS abroad in no way changes that.

 

[irosie91]

I'll ask you to address every other islamist majority nation excepting Senegal.

Easy enough. Albania is currently operating just fine, as is Kosovo, and Bosnia (not majority, but has a large Islamic population), Sierra Leone is still struggling in their recovery from their civil war, and now Ebola, but has been making strides in its development. Tunisia has undergone major political change recently with the Arab Spring, The Western Sahara is renowned for its lack of extremism, despite long suffering occupation by Morocco, etc.

I noticed you failed to address my comments about differing standards of proof in islamist majority nations. I'm not surprised. It must be difficult to address Islamic fascism. Discuss for us the standards of proof that must be met in a sharia court run by ISIS.

Sharia courts largely differ in this issue. Pick a specific court and I'd be happy to discuss it.

"sh

I'll ask you to address every other islamist majority nation excepting Senegal.

Easy enough. Albania is currently operating just fine, as is Kosovo, and Bosnia (not majority, but has a large Islamic population), Sierra Leone is still struggling in their recovery from their civil war, and now Ebola, but has been making strides in its development. Tunisia has undergone major political change recently with the Arab Spring, The Western Sahara is renowned for its lack of extremism, despite long suffering occupation by Morocco, etc.

I noticed you failed to address my comments about differing standards of proof in islamist majority nations. I'm not surprised. It must be difficult to address Islamic fascism. Discuss for us the standards of proof that must be met in a sharia court run by ISIS.

Sharia courts largely differ in this issue. Pick a specific court and I'd be happy to discuss it.

It seems to me that there is a difference between an "ISLAMIST MAJORITY COUNTRY" and a country
with a muslim majority------and a country with a significant
muslim population. The very frequent refutation of reality
of the nature of islam ----and in its islamically run societies
is a function of the historically functionally nature of islam----
it waxes and wanes in adherence to shariah law over time
in any place so afflicted. Iran is a good example of islam ----reasonable for awhile and then ----BACK TO THE OLD TIME FASCIST RELIGION.--------in fact both Libya and
Tunisia are on the precipice

I don't think that holding up Tunisia as a model for "Peaceful Inner Struggling" moslems is an especially clever tactic.

Tunisia after igniting Arab Spring sends the most fighters to Islamic State in Syria - The Washington Post

my take on the popularity of ISIS amongst Tunisia----is that
the muslim population of Tunisia is doing that which muslim
populations have done for centuries-----a cyclic desire for
the good old fascist filth of THE GLORIOUS CALIPHATE OF
OMAR

 

[Osomir]

You used the phrase "my point"------just what is
your "point"? I do not see that the fact that over time--
in any given place infected by islam -----islam has its peaks
and its valleys-----is a point since all you have is that fact----
and you can cite the "valleys" as proof that of your contention "ISLAM IS MISUNDERSTOOD ---I can prove it
by citing a place where the islam thing is down in the valley
a bit"

I didn't claim that Islam is misunderstood, simply noted the basic fact that Islam isn't a monolith, which for some reason, you keep insisting upon.

 

[Osomir]

my take on the popularity of ISIS amongst Tunisia----is that
the muslim population of Tunisia is doing that which muslim
populations have done for centuries-----a cyclic desire for
the good old fascist filth of THE GLORIOUS CALIPHATE OF
OMAR

You realize that the Muslim population of Tunisia just held democratic elections and voted moderates into power right? That would seem to rather cleanly counter your theory.

 

[Hollie]

As it applies to legal status for non-moslems in many islamist majority nations, perhaps you can discuss for us the legal status of Christians in a place like Pakistan in reference to charges by a moslem alleging blasphemy aimed at Christians.

I have no qualms condemning poor behavior by governments in countries like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Their existence does nothing to argue against my point. The difference here is that I am able to differentiate between say Saudi Arabia and Senegal or between Pakistan and the Western Sahara. That's where your dialogue options tend to fall apart, and why speaking on so general of terms isn't very enlightening or accurate.

I suspect the issue you have is running out of options for apologetics when trying to defend Islamic fascism.

Where your apologetics fail is when you're unable to make distinctions between systems of representative democracies vs. theocratic totalitarianism.

 

[irosie91]

You used the phrase "my point"------just what is
your "point"? I do not see that the fact that over time--
in any given place infected by islam -----islam has its peaks
and its valleys-----is a point since all you have is that fact----
and you can cite the "valleys" as proof that of your contention "ISLAM IS MISUNDERSTOOD ---I can prove it
by citing a place where the islam thing is down in the valley
a bit"

I didn't claim that Islam is misunderstood, simply noted the basic fact that Islam isn't a monolith, which for some reason, you keep insisting upon.

Actually I have never made the statement ISLAM IS A MONOLITH------I am not even sure what it means. I do
know that muslim propagandaists do INSIST ----frequently
that "YOU SAID ISLAM IS MONOLITHIC" and
"YOU SAID ALL MUSLIMS ARE TERRORISTS" I have
never written or said either statement and other than
from the propagandaists who INSIST people do----I have
never heard or read them.
The creed does DEFINITELY have commonalities over time
and space-------is that what you mean? In my view the
shariah law code is vile. The fact that it is applied---"more or less" over time and space -----is the only positive issue----
as a legal code observed -------it is UTTERLY DEPRAVED
AND DISGUSTING. Tunisia will end up stinking to the extent that it employs it------hopefully it will repudiate it in the
ataturk manner-----but I doubt it

 

[Osomir]

AND DISGUSTING. Tunisia will end up stinking to the extent that it employs it------hopefully it will repudiate it in the
ataturk manner-----but I doubt it

Mustafa Kemal was a Muslim too. Just as an aside.

 

[irosie91]

AND DISGUSTING. Tunisia will end up stinking to the extent that it employs it------hopefully it will repudiate it in the
ataturk manner-----but I doubt it

Mustafa Kemal was a Muslim too. Just as an aside.

I am fully aware of that-------I am delighted that even you know
it. Lately ---in view of the rising interest in the filth of
shariah in Turkey-----even ataturk has been blessed with the
typical islamicist "worst libel" ----to wit "he was really a jew"

 

[Roudy]

You have no point. The topic of this thread is "The Legacy of Mohammad" yet you prefer to talk about an obscure conflict that nobody gives a shit about in India, that doesn't compare to what Muslims have done there. The legacy of Mohammad in India has been far more devastating and killed tens of millions of Hindus.

Get it straight.

My point was to utilize it as an example of how even you guys, with all of your advantages, aren't perfectly versed in global conflict, so the assumption that people living in third world countries would be is a bit of a stretch; furthermore, you guys i'm sure hardly relate to such groups (which is perfectly reasonable, you have little enough in common) just like most Muslims who you are fingerprinting in your generalizations and accusations of tacit approval hardly see themselves connected to these violent groups in the same way that you do.

You seem to be well versed in derailing any thread that has anything negative about Islam in it. Did anybody claim to be well versed in every single fucking conflict in the world now, however obscure or minute? Wake up and smell the Jihad.

Yes, you guys are predicating your notion of Muslim tacit approval of Islamist terrorism on the illogical notion that people in third world countries:

A.) are perfectly versed in conflict

And

B.) even relate to each other in the overly generalized way that you have arbitrarily decided to group them


Side note: it isn't a derailment of a thread to point out logical inconsistencies within your stances.

People in the third world who are suffering from Islamist terrorists waging ethnic cleansing and genocide, don't need to be "well versed in conflict." All they see is a bunch of religious Muslim assholes coming to kill them. This is the legacy of Mohammad and the fruits of Islam, 1400 years later. Neanderthal barbarian savages. We have one right here in this thread.

And in those countries it tends to be Muslims on the front lines fighting those local expressions of extremism. Your bigotry would lump all of them together though, and they deserve better than that.

Well of course they would be killing other Muslims, who else would they be killing in a Muslim majority country in order to "Islamicize" it? Doy.

 

[Roudy]

what a joke you are-----Yemen? its sunnis vs Shiites ---which ones you want to call "the extremists"?

I am calling AQAP extremists in Somalia, and it has largely been both the Shafis and the Zaidi who have been fighting them. My Yemen example has nothing to do with Sunni vs Shiites.

Somalia---Islamic faction against Islamic faction.

So you agree with me then that Muslims are on the front line fighting against Al Shabaab. Good.

which are the
"extremists" Iraq? ISIS vs kurds???----vs Shiites??

Kurds are largely Muslims too.

Libya----one insane Islamic faction against they other.
Mali? same thing

You should study both regions and conflicts a little more if you honestly feel comfortable reducing their conflicts to the above. In either case it seems like you've conceded the point that it is generally Muslims fighting radical Muslim groups in these areas.

you are a joke-----I have conceded WHAT??? I have conceded that for the past 1400 years muslims have engaged in internecine fighting -----basing their conflcts on anything
from religious doctrine to-----(as in the Yemeni civil war raging since circa 1960) WHO GETS THE OIL and to
WHO GETS TO BE CALIPH. I fail to see the situation as
"the good guys vs the bad guys". Who are the "good guys" and who are the "bad guys" ----in the Shiite vs Sunni
thing going on since the inception of Pakistan? Since we are on the subject-----who were the good guys and who were the bad guys in the 1971 Pakistani civil war?

I stated that most of the fighting against these radical groups that we currently hate is being done by Muslims. You admitted that this was true. Pretty straight forward.

You expect Christians and Europeans to fight the Islamic nutjob neanderthals? Ha ha ha.

 

[irosie91]

My point was to utilize it as an example of how even you guys, with all of your advantages, aren't perfectly versed in global conflict, so the assumption that people living in third world countries would be is a bit of a stretch; furthermore, you guys i'm sure hardly relate to such groups (which is perfectly reasonable, you have little enough in common) just like most Muslims who you are fingerprinting in your generalizations and accusations of tacit approval hardly see themselves connected to these violent groups in the same way that you do.

You seem to be well versed in derailing any thread that has anything negative about Islam in it. Did anybody claim to be well versed in every single fucking conflict in the world now, however obscure or minute? Wake up and smell the Jihad.

Yes, you guys are predicating your notion of Muslim tacit approval of Islamist terrorism on the illogical notion that people in third world countries:

A.) are perfectly versed in conflict

And

B.) even relate to each other in the overly generalized way that you have arbitrarily decided to group them


Side note: it isn't a derailment of a thread to point out logical inconsistencies within your stances.

People in the third world who are suffering from Islamist terrorists waging ethnic cleansing and genocide, don't need to be "well versed in conflict." All they see is a bunch of religious Muslim assholes coming to kill them. This is the legacy of Mohammad and the fruits of Islam, 1400 years later. Neanderthal barbarian savages. We have one right here in this thread.

And in those countries it tends to be Muslims on the front lines fighting those local expressions of extremism. Your bigotry would lump all of them together though, and they deserve better than that.

Well of course they would be killing other Muslims, who else would they be killing in a Muslim majority country in order to "Islamicize" a country? Doy.

I blame you and my own hubby ---roudy. If you and your
communities had not left------those muslims would not
have to kill each other. SHEEEESH you guys are selfish

 

[Roudy]

You mean you're about to tell me that Arab Muslim racist supremacists aren't killing black Africans in the millions to impose their version of Islam?

You understand that those "black Africans" are Muslim too yes? And that it isn't as straight forward an issue as one faction vs. another. You also understand that the fighting was occurring long before modern Sudanese rivertine Islamism existed right?

And how about Somalia?

What about it? I would be happy to discuss it.

Yes, the Arab Muslims are killing the blacks because they are blacks. The world black and slave "abd" in Arabic are the same. You know why? Because Arab Muslims did far worse to the black Africans than the Europeans.

 

[Roudy]

what a joke you are-----Yemen? its sunnis vs Shiites ---which ones you want to call "the extremists"?

I am calling AQAP extremists in Somalia, and it has largely been both the Shafis and the Zaidi who have been fighting them. My Yemen example has nothing to do with Sunni vs Shiites.

Somalia---Islamic faction against Islamic faction.

So you agree with me then that Muslims are on the front line fighting against Al Shabaab. Good.

which are the
"extremists" Iraq? ISIS vs kurds???----vs Shiites??

Kurds are largely Muslims too.

Libya----one insane Islamic faction against they other.
Mali? same thing

You should study both regions and conflicts a little more if you honestly feel comfortable reducing their conflicts to the above. In either case it seems like you've conceded the point that it is generally Muslims fighting radical Muslim groups in these areas.

you are a joke-----I have conceded WHAT??? I have conceded that for the past 1400 years muslims have engaged in internecine fighting -----basing their conflcts on anything
from religious doctrine to-----(as in the Yemeni civil war raging since circa 1960) WHO GETS THE OIL and to
WHO GETS TO BE CALIPH. I fail to see the situation as
"the good guys vs the bad guys". Who are the "good guys" and who are the "bad guys" ----in the Shiite vs Sunni
thing going on since the inception of Pakistan? Since we are on the subject-----who were the good guys and who were the bad guys in the 1971 Pakistani civil war?

I stated that most of the fighting against these radical groups that we currently hate is being done by Muslims. You admitted that this was true. Pretty straight forward.

wrong again-----I did not 'admit' anything. I correctly stated that muslims fight with each other. At no time did I suggest
that muslims fight with each other in the interests of civilization or decency. The US made a huge mistake in
the 1980s in funding the Taliban pigs just because they
were fighting the USSR. Their motivation for fighting
was the estabslishment of shariah shit in Afghanistan.

The Taliban didn't exist in its modern form during the 80s. We routed funds through Pakistan to many groups fighting the Soviets, including some of the predecessors of the Taliban, but the Taliban hadn't yet been established.

Ah, the Taliban, another product of the Muslim Brotherhood and Wahhabism.