Two kinds of Muslims

[Mr.Fitnah]

Kalam doesn't like links or scripture in his posts...

And the "laughably ironic post of the day" award goes to....

Deal with the injustice, others have figured out how.

 

[MikeK]

It's unfortunate that some neutral battlefield can't be established at some barren place in the world where all of the fanatical, hate-filled Muslims and Christians can go and have at each other with whatever infantry weapons they choose. I think that is the best way to let the killers do the killing and dying and remove the peaceful and innocent from harm's way.

I would like to operate an ammunition concession.

 

[lizzie]

It's unfortunate that some neutral battlefield can't be established at some barren place in the world where all of the fanatical, hate-filled Muslims and Christians can go and have at each other with whatever infantry weapons they choose. I think that is the best way to let the killers do the killing and dying and remove the peaceful and innocent from harm's way.

.

Suggested reading: "A Terrible Love of War" by James Hillman.

 

[MikeK]

It's unfortunate that some neutral battlefield can't be established at some barren place in the world where all of the fanatical, hate-filled Muslims and Christians can go and have at each other with whatever infantry weapons they choose. I think that is the best way to let the killers do the killing and dying and remove the peaceful and innocent from harm's way.

.

Suggested reading: "A Terrible Love of War" by James Hillman.

Thank you. Sounds Interesting.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

It's unfortunate that some neutral battlefield can't be established at some barren place in the world where all of the fanatical, hate-filled Muslims and Christians can go and have at each other with whatever infantry weapons they choose. I think that is the best way to let the killers do the killing and dying and remove the peaceful and innocent from harm's way.

I would like to operate an ammunition concession.

Just put all the muslims there ,they will all kill each other.

 

[Ravi]

That secular governments are an abomination.


duh!

Link?

Islam Question and Answer - Judging by that which Allaah has revealed
Islam Question and Answer - Judging by that which Allaah has revealed
Islam Question and Answer - Should he turn to the human rights organizations to get his rights?
Islam Question and Answer - Should he turn to the human rights organizations to get his rights?
Islam Question and Answer - The kufr of one who rules according to other than what Allaah revealed
Islam Question and Answer - The kufr of one who rules according to other than what Allaah revealed

Allaah has commanded us to refer matters to His judgement and to establish Sharee‘ah, and He has forbidden us to rule with anything else, as is clear from a number of aayaat in the Qur’aan, such as the aayaat in Soorat al-Maa’idah (5) which discuss ruling according to what Allaah has revealed, and mention the following topics:

The command to rule according to what Allaah has revealed: “And so judge between them by what Allaah has revealed . . .” [aayah 49]

Warning against ruling by other than what Allaah has revealed: “. . . and follow not their vain desires . . .” [aayah 49]

Warning against compromising on any detail of Sharee‘ah, no matter how small: “. . . but beware of them lest they turn you far away from some of that which Allaah has sent down to you . . .” [aayah 49]

Forbidding seeking the ruling of jaahiliyyah, as is expressed in the rhetorical question “Do they then seek the judgement of (the Days of) Ignorance?” [aayah 50]

The statement that nobody is better than Allaah to judge: “. . . and who is better in judgement than Allaah for a people who have firm Faith?” [aayah 50]

The statement that whoever does not judge according to what Allaah revealed is a kaafir, a zaalim (oppressor or wrongdoer) and a faasiq (sinner), as Allaah says: “. . . And whoever does not judge by what Allaah has revealed, such are the kaafiroon.” [aayah 44]; “. . . And whoever does not judge by that which Allaah has revealed, such are the zaalimoon (polytheists and wrongdoers)” [aayah 45]; “. . . And whoever does not judge by what Allaah has revealed (then) such (people) are the faasiqoon (rebellious or disobedient).” [aayah 47].

The statement that it is obligatory for the Muslims to judge according to what Allaah has revealed, even if those who seek their judgement are not Muslim, as Allaah says: “. . . And if you judge, judge with justice between them. . .” [aayah 42]

mmmkay, Fitnah, I've read your quotes. First, I will discount the editorialized blurb above as I've no idea who said it. It is easy enough to find a fundy giving an opinion that "god's will" should be followed closely no matter what the religion.

Second, your quotes are all small portions of larger verses so I don't know what they relate to in reality.

Third, the quotes seem to be saying that only God is capable of judging...again, how is that different that the Christian's version of God?

 

[Ravi]

Do you really want me to demonstrate your massive ignorance in public?

Don't answer, I really do not care if that is what you want, it is what you are going to get.

[Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor. Romans 13:1-7 NIV

As for Sharia law and the Koran.

"Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war." Sura 9:5

"Fight those who do not believe until they all surrender, paying the protective tax in submission." Sura 9:29

"The unbelieving infidels are allies. Unless you (Muslims) aid each other (fighting as one united block to make Allah's religion victorious), there will be confusion and mischief. Those who accepted Islam, left their homes to fight in Allah's Cause (al-Jihad), as well as those who give them asylum, shelter, and aid - these are (all) Believers: for them is pardon and bountiful provision (in Paradise)." Sura 8:173

Tell me honestly, which one sounds more like it is willing to let you live and follow the laws you want?

You got the first part right...even though you claimed prior to that that the bible said secular law trumped biblical law.

The funny thing is, aside from your out of context quotes, the imam that wants to build in NYC said EXACTLY the same thing you said about the bible about the Koran...sharia is God's law and therefore the US constitution is within the keeping of God's law.

EPIC fail.

You're welcome.

How does my quote somehow prove that the Bible trumps secular law? Romans 13 has been used for centuries to prove that Christians should never rebel against any government, even a totalitarian one, because that government comes from God. Just because a few radicals are twisting things now does not change the weight of history.

Which is precisely what I am pointing out about Islam, the weight of history proves that anyone who thinks that secular law trumps Sharia law is a fool. The radicals you dismiss in Islam are the ones that are speaking the historical truth about Islam.

It amazes me the ability of some people to find whatever supports there position. If you spent less time concentrating on the facts that make you right, and more time looking at all the facts, you might actually discover that somebody besides yourself can think.

Look at what people are doing, and what they have done, not what they say. You would think that after the example of Obama people would learn that words are not what matters, but I guess that would require a connection to reality.

I hesitate to judge an entire religion on the actions of a relatively smaller portion of fanatics. This is what most people seem to be doing.

 

[Ravi]

How is this different than the Christian belief that God makes laws through man and therefore man's laws are actually God's laws?

The way Christians believe, any law mad by man ultimately comes from God. In Islam, only the laws that come from Allah count, and all of those were written 1400 years ago, which is why a husband can beat his wife.

Does this make sense now, or do you still think Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance?

And more to the point, why does it matter? Our constitution forbids religion from ruling the country. How does building a mosque in NYC translate into sharia law ruling the US?

It matters because Islam wants to kill you, and Christianity wants to save you.

She will convert in a NY second to save herself.
She thinks that Christ dieing to save mankind, is the same as Mohammad killing to create Islam.

Really? What a fucktard you are.

 

[Ravi]

The spectrum of Muslim legal systems

The legal systems in 21st century Muslim majority states can be classified as follows.
Sharia in the secular Muslim states: Muslim countries such as Mali, Kazakhstan and Turkey (which is under pressure from religious political parties) have declared themselves to be secular. Here, religious interference in state affairs, law and politics is prohibited.[37] In these Muslim countries, as well as the secular West, the role of Sharia is limited to personal and family matters.
Muslim states with blended sources of law: Muslim countries including Pakistan, Indonesia, Afghanistan, Egypt, Nigeria, Sudan, Morocco and Malaysia have legal systems strongly influenced by Sharia, but also cede ultimate authority to their constitutions and the rule of law. These countries conduct democratic elections, although some are also under the influence of authoritarian leaders. In these countries, politicians and jurists make law, rather than religious scholars. Most of these countries have modernized their laws and now have legal systems with significant differences when compared to classical Sharia.[38]
Muslim states using classical Sharia: Saudi Arabia and some of the Gulf states do not have constitutions or legislatures. Their rulers have limited authority to change laws, since they are based on Sharia as it is interpreted by their religious scholars. Iran shares some of these characteristics, but also has a parliament that legislates in a manner consistent with Sharia.[39]

So basically, a country that allows Sharia law in total is a country that is ruled by clerics (priests).

This is not possible in the United States as it is unconstitutional.

My question, since you have just acknowledged that Sharia law requires that clerics rule, and further admit that this is unconstitutional, why do you continually insist that Sharia law is not incompatible with secular law?

Talk about EPIC FAIL.

So again, how does a mosque built in NYC mean the constitution will be come void?

And what is up with the current backlash against Muslims in general? Are we having more terrorist attacks, or less. Is this just the rightwing media and talking head GOPers trying to drum up fear because it is an *ahem* election year?

More. Definitely more.

Some people interpret Sharia law to mean that clerics must rule. Like Saudi Arabia. The fact that all Muslim countries are not like Saudi Arabia should tell you something.

More? How so?

 

[ConHog]

So basically, a country that allows Sharia law in total is a country that is ruled by clerics (priests).

This is not possible in the United States as it is unconstitutional.

My question, since you have just acknowledged that Sharia law requires that clerics rule, and further admit that this is unconstitutional, why do you continually insist that Sharia law is not incompatible with secular law?

Talk about EPIC FAIL.

So again, how does a mosque built in NYC mean the constitution will be come void?

And what is up with the current backlash against Muslims in general? Are we having more terrorist attacks, or less. Is this just the rightwing media and talking head GOPers trying to drum up fear because it is an *ahem* election year?

More. Definitely more.

Some people interpret Sharia law to mean that clerics must rule. Like Saudi Arabia. The fact that all Muslim countries are not like Saudi Arabia should tell you something.

More? How so?

Clerics don't rule Saudi Arabia, heavily influence? Maybe. Rule?No. Now Iran, that's a case of clerical leadership.

Learn what the fuck you are talking about.

 

[rdean]

I heard an interesting theory recently about Muslims that I'd like to share for consideration.

The theory is that there are indeed two kinds of Muslims, but not the two that gets peddled by media driven propaganda... that there is a minority of violent, extremist, jihadi Muslims but the majority are peaceful and tolerant. Rather, there are active Muslims and there are passive Muslims. The active muslims are the one's on the front lines of the jihad, committing acts of violence and terrorism and so on. And the passive Muslims simply lie in wait, quietly supporting the active Muslims, and perpetuating the misconception that they are tolerant and peaceful.

If nothing else, this theory is certainly more consistent with the Koran than the media driven propaganda that Islam is a religion of peace.

How very "simple". The right wing sees the world in terms of "simple".

Right or wrong.

Black or white.

They are a type of "binary" people. Everything can be broken down, in their small and limited world, to two choices, "either, or". Not a whole lot inbetween. Must be scary.

 

[ConHog]

I heard an interesting theory recently about Muslims that I'd like to share for consideration.

The theory is that there are indeed two kinds of Muslims, but not the two that gets peddled by media driven propaganda... that there is a minority of violent, extremist, jihadi Muslims but the majority are peaceful and tolerant. Rather, there are active Muslims and there are passive Muslims. The active muslims are the one's on the front lines of the jihad, committing acts of violence and terrorism and so on. And the passive Muslims simply lie in wait, quietly supporting the active Muslims, and perpetuating the misconception that they are tolerant and peaceful.

If nothing else, this theory is certainly more consistent with the Koran than the media driven propaganda that Islam is a religion of peace.

How very "simple". The right wing sees the world in terms of "simple".

Right or wrong.

Black or white.

They are a type of "binary" people. Everything can be broken down, in their small and limited world, to two choices, "either, or". Not a whole lot inbetween. Must be scary.

You know what? I don't neg often, but I'm gonna start negging you every time you're eligible. I'm sick of you posting something stupid about righties in EVERY god damned post you make.


Fucking idiot.

 

[manifold]

I heard an interesting theory recently about Muslims that I'd like to share for consideration.

The theory is that there are indeed two kinds of Muslims, but not the two that gets peddled by media driven propaganda... that there is a minority of violent, extremist, jihadi Muslims but the majority are peaceful and tolerant. Rather, there are active Muslims and there are passive Muslims. The active muslims are the one's on the front lines of the jihad, committing acts of violence and terrorism and so on. And the passive Muslims simply lie in wait, quietly supporting the active Muslims, and perpetuating the misconception that they are tolerant and peaceful.

If nothing else, this theory is certainly more consistent with the Koran than the media driven propaganda that Islam is a religion of peace.

How very "simple". The right wing sees the world in terms of "simple".

Right or wrong.

Black or white.

They are a type of "binary" people. Everything can be broken down, in their small and limited world, to two choices, "either, or". Not a whole lot inbetween. Must be scary.

That fact that you assume I'm right wing suggests that it's you who sees everything in black and white.

Oh the irony!

 

[lizzie]

I heard an interesting theory recently about Muslims that I'd like to share for consideration.

The theory is that there are indeed two kinds of Muslims, but not the two that gets peddled by media driven propaganda... that there is a minority of violent, extremist, jihadi Muslims but the majority are peaceful and tolerant. Rather, there are active Muslims and there are passive Muslims. The active muslims are the one's on the front lines of the jihad, committing acts of violence and terrorism and so on. And the passive Muslims simply lie in wait, quietly supporting the active Muslims, and perpetuating the misconception that they are tolerant and peaceful.

If nothing else, this theory is certainly more consistent with the Koran than the media driven propaganda that Islam is a religion of peace.

How very "simple". The right wing sees the world in terms of "simple".

Right or wrong.

Black or white.

They are a type of "binary" people. Everything can be broken down, in their small and limited world, to two choices, "either, or". Not a whole lot inbetween. Must be scary.

That fact that you assume I'm right wing suggests that it's you who sees everything in black and white.

Oh the irony!

I hear ya. I've been called a left-wing nut because I don't support the wars in the ME. Sometimes, you just gotta shake your head and look the other way to keep from exploding at the stupidity.

 

[ConHog]

How very "simple". The right wing sees the world in terms of "simple".

Right or wrong.

Black or white.

They are a type of "binary" people. Everything can be broken down, in their small and limited world, to two choices, "either, or". Not a whole lot inbetween. Must be scary.

That fact that you assume I'm right wing suggests that it's you who sees everything in black and white.

Oh the irony!

I hear ya. I've been called a left-wing nut because I don't support the wars in the ME. Sometimes, you just gotta shake your head and look the other way to keep from exploding at the stupidity.

Rdean is an idiot who needs to be exploded on.

 

[Ravi]

Looks like cornjob is spiraling downward again. Take your meds, idiot.

 

[ConHog]

Looks like cornjob is spiraling downward again. Take your meds, idiot.

If people who think Rdean is a partisan whack job hack who needs to shut his computer off and keep it off need to be on meds, well then that covers everyone on this board, except you and a few other morons.

 

[manifold]

Paul Newman playing the part of Ravi in this thread...

[youtube]8n0mgkaEGQc[/youtube]

 

[Ravi]

Still waiting for your verses from your Koran.

 

[manifold]

Already been posted chumley

Time to trot out another puppet I guess.