The Legacy of Mohammed

[irosie91]

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.

Try again, "professor"------you can learn something from me---you are suggesting that THE TALIBAN did not exist in
the 1980s because they were not KNOWN world wide as
"THE TALIBAN"? They existed----their brothers and cousins and classmates told me about them way back then.
For those who do not know----THE TALIBAN----are the cream
of Pakistani youth. "IDEALISTIC" utopianist ---sunni muslims recruited off the college campuses of Pakistan. They went to Afghanistan to do what an idealistic
Pakistani is taught is IDEAL since infancy-----a STRICT
SHARIAH SOCIETY. The name itself does refer to the
fact that the bulk of them were students. (I don't know
Urdu) The white house saw them as useful----and so funded them. They turned out to be more like henchmen
to pol pot. For the record---the white house did not ask
my opinion. What they did was predictable.

 

[Osomir]

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.

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

Kurds are largely Muslims too.

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.

You're wrong, of course, about the Taliban in terms of their vulgar ideology. Their ideology is simply another manifestation of the vulgar ideology created by muhammud (swish) which is as cancerous and caustic today as it was 1,400 years ago..

The koran and the hadith, which are still interpreted literally, are a virulent manifesto of Islamo-fascism, and they are the blueprint for the Religion of Peace's agenda. It's just easier to lay the blame on a discrete group of vile knuckle-draggers with a name, rather than the Dark Ages politico- religious ideology that inspires them.

More "Islam is a monolith" rhetoric. It is really as tired at this point as it is unsupportable.

 

[Osomir]

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.

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

Kurds are largely Muslims too.

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.

Try again, "professor"------you can learn something from me---you are suggesting that THE TALIBAN did not exist in
the 1980s because they were not KNOWN world wide as
"THE TALIBAN"? They existed----their brothers and cousins and classmates told me about them way back then.
For those who do not know----THE TALIBAN----are the cream
of Pakistani youth. "IDEALISTIC" utopianist ---sunni muslims recruited off the college campuses of Pakistan. They went to Afghanistan to do what an idealistic
Pakistani is taught is IDEAL since infancy-----a STRICT
SHARIAH SOCIETY. The name itself does refer to the
fact that the bulk of them were students. (I don't know
Urdu) The white house saw them as useful----and so funded them. They turned out to be more like henchmen
to pol pot. For the record---the white house did not ask
my opinion. What they did was predictable.

Forgive me if I believe the US Army, and academics in the field of Pakistani studies over your unnamed Pakistani sources.

 

[Hollie]

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.

You're wrong, of course, about the Taliban in terms of their vulgar ideology. Their ideology is simply another manifestation of the vulgar ideology created by muhammud (swish) which is as cancerous and caustic today as it was 1,400 years ago..

The koran and the hadith, which are still interpreted literally, are a virulent manifesto of Islamo-fascism, and they are the blueprint for the Religion of Peace's agenda. It's just easier to lay the blame on a discrete group of vile knuckle-draggers with a name, rather than the Dark Ages politico- religious ideology that inspires them.

More "Islam is a monolith" rhetoric. It is really as tired at this point as it is unsupportable.

Actually, it's excuses and apologetics for a Dark Ages system of politico-religious fascism that is tired.

Islamo-fascism is the one and only logical terminus of fascism under the guise of "religion", the color of "sharia" made by a desert arab warlord, and the simpering rationale of "cultural sensitivities" as the reason for not calling out Islamo-fascism for what it is.

 

[Osomir]

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.

You're wrong, of course, about the Taliban in terms of their vulgar ideology. Their ideology is simply another manifestation of the vulgar ideology created by muhammud (swish) which is as cancerous and caustic today as it was 1,400 years ago..

The koran and the hadith, which are still interpreted literally, are a virulent manifesto of Islamo-fascism, and they are the blueprint for the Religion of Peace's agenda. It's just easier to lay the blame on a discrete group of vile knuckle-draggers with a name, rather than the Dark Ages politico- religious ideology that inspires them.

More "Islam is a monolith" rhetoric. It is really as tired at this point as it is unsupportable.

Actually, it's excuses and apologetics for a Dark Ages system of politico-religious fascism that is tired.

Islamo-fascism is the one and only logical terminus of fascism under the guise of "religion", the color of "sharia" made by a desert arab warlord, and the simpering rationale of "cultural sensitivities" as the reason for not calling out Islamo-fascism for what it is.

Let me know when you're able to support your argument with anything other than your own insistence.

 

[irosie91]

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.

You're wrong, of course, about the Taliban in terms of their vulgar ideology. Their ideology is simply another manifestation of the vulgar ideology created by muhammud (swish) which is as cancerous and caustic today as it was 1,400 years ago..

The koran and the hadith, which are still interpreted literally, are a virulent manifesto of Islamo-fascism, and they are the blueprint for the Religion of Peace's agenda. It's just easier to lay the blame on a discrete group of vile knuckle-draggers with a name, rather than the Dark Ages politico- religious ideology that inspires them.

More "Islam is a monolith" rhetoric. It is really as tired at this point as it is unsupportable.

oh gee "professor osomir" any reasonable person with
any knowledge of Pakistan and islam knows that most
Pakistanis are sunni muslims who, whether they fully understand it----have been acculturated to the concept that the KORAN is the one single truth and the ISLAMIC SOCIETY which the Islamic scholars have developed as the
"shariah way" life over the past 1400 years is the IDEAL to which they adhere along with virtually all sunni muslims thruout the world. <<<< that is about all that hollie said---
so you want to dispute her statement?

 

[irosie91]

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.

You're wrong, of course, about the Taliban in terms of their vulgar ideology. Their ideology is simply another manifestation of the vulgar ideology created by muhammud (swish) which is as cancerous and caustic today as it was 1,400 years ago..

The koran and the hadith, which are still interpreted literally, are a virulent manifesto of Islamo-fascism, and they are the blueprint for the Religion of Peace's agenda. It's just easier to lay the blame on a discrete group of vile knuckle-draggers with a name, rather than the Dark Ages politico- religious ideology that inspires them.

More "Islam is a monolith" rhetoric. It is really as tired at this point as it is unsupportable.

Actually, it's excuses and apologetics for a Dark Ages system of politico-religious fascism that is tired.

Islamo-fascism is the one and only logical terminus of fascism under the guise of "religion", the color of "sharia" made by a desert arab warlord, and the simpering rationale of "cultural sensitivities" as the reason for not calling out Islamo-fascism for what it is.

Let me know when you're able to support your argument with anything other than your own insistence.

You are making the argument OSOMIR ----the onus is
upon you to prove that sunni muslims thruout the world
hear entirely different concepts and even contradictory
concepts from one Friday to the next depending on which
mosque they visit. You want to present some of that remarkable diversity in Islamic thought and practice that
exists ------lets say as an example----amongst the religiously adherent muslims of Karachi?

 

[Osomir]

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.

You're wrong, of course, about the Taliban in terms of their vulgar ideology. Their ideology is simply another manifestation of the vulgar ideology created by muhammud (swish) which is as cancerous and caustic today as it was 1,400 years ago..

The koran and the hadith, which are still interpreted literally, are a virulent manifesto of Islamo-fascism, and they are the blueprint for the Religion of Peace's agenda. It's just easier to lay the blame on a discrete group of vile knuckle-draggers with a name, rather than the Dark Ages politico- religious ideology that inspires them.

More "Islam is a monolith" rhetoric. It is really as tired at this point as it is unsupportable.

oh gee "professor osomir" any reasonable person with
any knowledge of Pakistan and islam knows that most
Pakistanis are sunni muslims who, whether they fully understand it----have been acculturated to the concept that the KORAN is the one single truth and the ISLAMIC SOCIETY which the Islamic scholars have developed as the
"shariah way" life over the past 1400 years is the IDEAL to which they adhere along with virtually all sunni muslims thruout the world. <<<< that is about all that hollie said---
so you want to dispute her statement?

There has been no singular Sunni understanding of Shariah law over the past 1400 years.

 

[Hollie]

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.

You're wrong, of course, about the Taliban in terms of their vulgar ideology. Their ideology is simply another manifestation of the vulgar ideology created by muhammud (swish) which is as cancerous and caustic today as it was 1,400 years ago..

The koran and the hadith, which are still interpreted literally, are a virulent manifesto of Islamo-fascism, and they are the blueprint for the Religion of Peace's agenda. It's just easier to lay the blame on a discrete group of vile knuckle-draggers with a name, rather than the Dark Ages politico- religious ideology that inspires them.

More "Islam is a monolith" rhetoric. It is really as tired at this point as it is unsupportable.

Actually, it's excuses and apologetics for a Dark Ages system of politico-religious fascism that is tired.

Islamo-fascism is the one and only logical terminus of fascism under the guise of "religion", the color of "sharia" made by a desert arab warlord, and the simpering rationale of "cultural sensitivities" as the reason for not calling out Islamo-fascism for what it is.

Let me know when you're able to support your argument with anything other than your own insistence.

How about you let me know when you're able to offer a rebuttal. You've offered nothing but excuses for your hurt feelings.

Your reluctance or inability at actual communication is not my concern. Statements that accurately describe objective reality or the convictions and intentions of my comments are not difficult to discern. Is it any wonder that islamist apologists can't follow a simple line of thought from premises to conclusion? Is it any wonder that islamist apologists, when commanded to express themselves on a subject of greater complexity than what they want for dinner, can't forge a coherent sentence, much less a coherent string of them?

 

[Osomir]

How about you let me know when you're able to offer a rebuttal.

You haven't even presented an argument to make a rebuttal against. Hence why I asked that you let me know whenever you actually develop one.

 

[irosie91]

How about you let me know when you're able to offer a rebuttal.

You haven't even presented an argument to make a rebuttal against. Hence why I asked that you let me know whenever you actually develop one.

Hollie described that which is prescribed in the Koran-----
the manner in which muslim scholars have interpreted
the Koran and thus elaborated shariah law, the history of
the actions and societies of adherents to shariah law
over the past----approximatey 1200 years-----and the ideology touted by Islamic leaders and theorists to the present day.
If you are unclear-----feel free to ask specific questions-----
your nebulous "PROVE IT" is childish

 

[Osomir]

Hollie described that which is prescribed in the Koran-----

Without quoting or referencing a single passage to support her "description"

the manner in which muslim scholars have interpreted
the Koran and thus elaborated shariah law,

Without quoting or even mentioning the name of a single Islamic scholar to support her description.

the history of the actions and societies of adherents to shariah law
over the past----approximatey 1200 years-----

Without mentioning a single specific historical example

and the ideology touted by Islamic leaders and theorists to the present day.

Once again without quoting, referencing, or even mentioning the name of a single ideologue.

If you are unclear-----feel free to ask specific questions-----
your nebulous "PROVE IT" is childish

It isn't childish to have basic standards.

 

[Hollie]

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.

You're wrong, of course, about the Taliban in terms of their vulgar ideology. Their ideology is simply another manifestation of the vulgar ideology created by muhammud (swish) which is as cancerous and caustic today as it was 1,400 years ago..

The koran and the hadith, which are still interpreted literally, are a virulent manifesto of Islamo-fascism, and they are the blueprint for the Religion of Peace's agenda. It's just easier to lay the blame on a discrete group of vile knuckle-draggers with a name, rather than the Dark Ages politico- religious ideology that inspires them.

More "Islam is a monolith" rhetoric. It is really as tired at this point as it is unsupportable.

oh gee "professor osomir" any reasonable person with
any knowledge of Pakistan and islam knows that most
Pakistanis are sunni muslims who, whether they fully understand it----have been acculturated to the concept that the KORAN is the one single truth and the ISLAMIC SOCIETY which the Islamic scholars have developed as the
"shariah way" life over the past 1400 years is the IDEAL to which they adhere along with virtually all sunni muslims thruout the world. <<<< that is about all that hollie said---
so you want to dispute her statement?

There has been no singular Sunni understanding of Shariah law over the past 1400 years.

That's largely untrue. I refer, for one example to the beheadings of the war captives by ISIS currently jihadin' their way across Iraq and Syria. Beheadings are entirely consistent with practices and patterns of behavior established by muhammud (swish). Similarly, non-moslem groups are treated as inferior, as objects of revulsion and subjected to standards that are much different than the moslem population. Those elements apply to any moslem majority nation, past or present, as demonstration of my claim. I’ll cite the differing standards of proof in a sharia court and rights to religious freedoms (among a host of other standards), as they apply to moslems and non-moslems as evidence of my claim.

Slavery is not condemned in the Koran (it’s described explicitly), but it is in the laws of the USA for instance. Stoning of criminals is a viable method of punishment in the koran, but it is not acceptable to modern civilized nations. That is why there is such outrage against sharia in Moslem countries. It's not because they go "against the word of muhammud (swish)" -- but because they adhere to the word of Mo' (swish).

 

[irosie91]

Hollie described that which is prescribed in the Koran-----

Without quoting or referencing a single passage to support her "description"

the manner in which muslim scholars have interpreted
the Koran and thus elaborated shariah law,

Without quoting or even mentioning the name of a single Islamic scholar to support her description.

the history of the actions and societies of adherents to shariah law
over the past----approximatey 1200 years-----

Without mentioning a single specific historical example

and the ideology touted by Islamic leaders and theorists to the present day.

Once again without quoting, referencing, or even mentioning the name of a single ideologue.

If you are unclear-----feel free to ask specific questions-----
your nebulous "PROVE IT" is childish

It isn't childish to have basic standards.

you have no standards----you presented yourself as an
educated person. I will help you since I am probably older
than are you. The Koran is the Koran-----read it. It is
not a very long book and comes in many translations to English----the first one I read was translated by PICKTHALL.---but there are other freely available translations----the one by Yusuf Ali is really ---IMO---
the best because of extensive commentary and references
by the translator. Islamic history is one of conquest and
oppression of the conquered USING the shariah legal
code -----for an up close understanding talk to people who survived shariah cesspits or try to do a bit of learning. For
current Islamic thought-----keep up with the news

 

[Osomir]

you have no standards----you presented yourself as an
educated person. I will help you since I am probably older
than are you. The Koran is the Koran-----read it. It is
not a very long book and comes in many translations to English----the first one I read was translated by PICKTHALL.---but there are other freely available translations----the one by Yusuf Ali is really ---IMO---
the best because of extensive commentary and references
by the translator. Islamic history is one of conquest and
oppression of the conquered USING the shariah legal
code -----for an up close understanding talk to people who survived shariah cesspits or try to do a bit of learning. For
current Islamic thought-----keep up with the news

Already done, which is why I can actually quote specific verses, point to various schools of thought, and reference specific historical and current examples when making a point. All something which you and Hollie have yet to do.

 

[irosie91]

you have no standards----you presented yourself as an
educated person. I will help you since I am probably older
than are you. The Koran is the Koran-----read it. It is
not a very long book and comes in many translations to English----the first one I read was translated by PICKTHALL.---but there are other freely available translations----the one by Yusuf Ali is really ---IMO---
the best because of extensive commentary and references
by the translator. Islamic history is one of conquest and
oppression of the conquered USING the shariah legal
code -----for an up close understanding talk to people who survived shariah cesspits or try to do a bit of learning. For
current Islamic thought-----keep up with the news

Already done, which is why I can actually quote specific verses, point to various schools of thought, and reference specific historical and current examples when making a point. All something which you and Hollie have yet to do.

anyone can parrot pre-cooked mosque propaganda----I have
heard it for decades ------go right ahead-----bring me back
to my youth. The first bit I heard long long long ago----
was "ISLAM HAS THE MOST TOLERATION"-----I was very
young and had never heard the word "toleration" before----but it is a word. You want to tell me "islam has the most toleration"-----and then move on to "muslims never fight unless attacked"???

 

[Osomir]

Those elements apply to any moslem majority nation, past or present,

I'll ask you to then address the same country that I asked Roudy to: Senegal. A majority Muslim country, democratically run, whose first head of state was a Christian.

as demonstration of my claim. I’ll cite the differing standards of proof in a sharia court and rights to religious freedoms (among a host of other standards), as they apply to moslems and non-moslems as evidence of my claim.

I look forward to your citations, I would be more than happy to discuss them.

Slavery is not condemned in the Koran (it’s described explicitly), but it is in the laws of the USA for instance. Stoning of criminals is a viable method of punishment in the koran, but it is not acceptable to modern civilized nations.

The vast majority of Islamic majority states have also outlawed slavery and don't use stoning as a punishment for crimes. In fact, stoning isn't even mentioned once in the entire Quran.

 

[Osomir]

anyone can parrot pre-cooked mosque propaganda----I have
heard it for decades ------go right ahead-----bring me back
to my youth. The first bit I heard long long long ago----
was "ISLAM HAS THE MOST TOLERATION"-----I was very
young and had never heard the word "toleration" before----but it is a word. You want to tell me "islam has the most toleration"-----and then move on to "muslims never fight unless attacked"???

Well let me know when you are able to provide any sort of supporting evidence for any of your claims. Let me know when you are capable of referencing Suras, specific historical examples, modern examples, reference specific scholars both past and present. You keep claiming that your understanding is based on these things, but so far neither you nor Hollie has utilized any references in your postings.

 

[irosie91]

anyone can parrot pre-cooked mosque propaganda----I have
heard it for decades ------go right ahead-----bring me back
to my youth. The first bit I heard long long long ago----
was "ISLAM HAS THE MOST TOLERATION"-----I was very
young and had never heard the word "toleration" before----but it is a word. You want to tell me "islam has the most toleration"-----and then move on to "muslims never fight unless attacked"???

Well let me know when you are able to provide any sort of supporting evidence for any of your claims. Let me know when you are capable of referencing Suras, specific historical examples, modern examples, reference specific scholars both past and present. You keep claiming that your understanding is based on these things, but so far neither you nor Hollie has utilized any references in your postings.

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

 

[Hollie]

Those elements apply to any moslem majority nation, past or present,

I'll ask you to then address the same country that I asked Roudy to: Senegal. A majority Muslim country, democratically run, whose first head of state was a Christian.

as demonstration of my claim. I’ll cite the differing standards of proof in a sharia court and rights to religious freedoms (among a host of other standards), as they apply to moslems and non-moslems as evidence of my claim.

I look forward to your citations, I would be more than happy to discuss them.

Slavery is not condemned in the Koran (it’s described explicitly), but it is in the laws of the USA for instance. Stoning of criminals is a viable method of punishment in the koran, but it is not acceptable to modern civilized nations.

The vast majority of Islamic majority states have also outlawed slavery and don't use stoning as a punishment for crimes. In fact, stoning isn't even mentioned once in the entire Quran.

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

And, life is not all date palms and camel's milk in Senegal:
IRIN Africa Senegal looking more vulnerable to extremism instability Mali Niger Nigeria Senegal Conflict Economy Education Governance Security Urban Risk

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.

Wow, the vast majority of Islamic majority states have also outlawed slavery and don't use stoning as a punishment for crimes? You may wish to do some overseas outreach and apply for the title of "Information Minister" for ISIS. Sex slaves as spoils of war was a staple for Muhammud (swish). How difficult it must be for some islamist nations to adhere to modern standards of behavior as opposed to "striving in the way of muhammud (swish)"