The not-so-veiled threat to non-Muslims in Tennessee

[9thIDdoc]

Again Junior --- we did this yesterday.
BONNI INTALL
6100 Center Drive
Suite 1190
Los Angeles CA 90045
213/258-4422
Put down the crayons and comics and grow up.

Here again is what you clowns are desperately trying to bury...

Wake up! How many times must I say that I am pleased and proud of how the local Tennesseans acted at the meeting including in the video . Exactly what was called for. Quiet and orderly compared to many Muslim protests I've seen on TV but still managed to get the point across.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Then you shouldn't have a hard time providing a Surah and verse to support that claim.

ROFL

Surah VIII/12:
When thy Lord inspired the angels, (saying I am with you. So make those who believe stand firm. I will throw fear into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Then smite the necks and smite of them each finger.

Surah VIII/36:
Lo! those who disbelieve spend their wealth in order that they may debar (men) from the way of Allah. They will spend it, then it will become an anguish for them, then they will be conquered. And those who disbelieve will be gathered unto hell.

Surah IX/5:
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.

Surah IX/28:
O ye who believe! The idolaters only are unclean. So let them not come near the Inviolable Place of Worship after this their year. If ye fear poverty (from the loss of their merchandise) Allah shall preserve you of His bounty if He will. Lo! Allah is Knower, Wise.

You Muslims crack me up.

The byzantines were though, and Sura 9 with the Battle of Tabuk was a reference to them. Sura 8 was a reference to the Mecans. Both were called polytheists.

Hardly.

First off, it was Aksum, not Byzantine, and they HARBORED the Quraysh - not WERE the pagan Quraysh.

Moreso, the Christians are people of the book. They may live as second class, Dhimmis - provided that they accept that they are subdued and pay Jizya - the tax you Muslims place on them to ensure they remain at the economic bottom levels of society.

Paganism and Hinduism aren't the same thing. You made a mistake, just own up to it, attempting a work around just seems a little sad.

ROFL

Now who lacks grasp?

Hinduism has thousands of sects, and yes - the pagans of the Middle East in the 6th century were offshoots of Indian paganism. The Babylonian, Persian, and Kush were all variations on a theme.

Sure, hell an Islamic sect once stole the black rock from the Kabba.

But they didn't worship it? They didn't take it because control of the idol offers status?

ROFL

The bullshit you try to pawn off....

 

[Osomir]

This is why I point out that you play fast and loose with the truth. There was no Pakistan in the 6th century. The Islamic foray through Persia went into what is now Pakistan, but was North India at the time.

Again, I suspect you know this and have as your goal to deceive.

In the Hadith, the Prophet (warlord) said: "There is no shame in deceiving the Kafir." This is what you are doing, yes?

Muhammad never invaded Persia either. He never led armies in any part of what is modern day Pakistan, Iran, or India.

Your history is simply way off here, and once again it is pretty telling that you are getting even the basic aspects of his life so terribly wrong.

 

[9thIDdoc]

so how do you propose to pick and choose the 'right kind' of Islamic immigrants.....?

The same way we would any other immigrant.

We should not allow any Islamic immigrants.

 

[Kondor3]

Jesus had the luxury of being born under the heel of an oppressive conquering military occupation and STILL preached 'Love Thy Neighbor' and 'Turn the Other Cheek'.

Muhammed was a Being of Commoner Clay than the likes of Jesus and Buddha (and even Ghandi), I'm afraid.

I don't think I would call Muhammad "Common."

Like Genghis Khan, Attila, Alexander, Hitler, et al., Muhammad was a brilliant strategist. His armies conquered the entire peninsula, slaughtering all before him. Muhammad paid his soldiers with plunder and the promise that they could rape the women of defeated peoples, so he had no capital expense for his army. He pushed into North India, and eventually (after his death) his armies did what Alexander failed at, subdued Northern India under the iron fist of and invading army.

Muhammad was one of the most brutal, murderous, and successful warlords in history. Nothing common about him.

I agree entirely, with respect to worldly things like conquest, and setting the stage for centuries of even bloodier conflict and conquest following his own demise.

My reference to Common Clay versus Uncommon Clay had nothing to do with the worldly and secular, and everything to do with being Men of the God of Peace and Love rather than a bloodstained conqueror.

In worldly matters, Jesus and Buddha and Ghandi were Men who refused to force their will and beliefs upon others.

In spiritual matters, Jesus and Buddha and Ghandi preached and practiced behaviors in pursuit of the Peace and Love of God and sought to illuminate Men's minds, not to conquer nor browbeat them.

The pages of world history are saturated with bloodstained conquerors, who fought and ruled for a variety of reasons, secular and religious.

However, there are very few well-known Men of the God of Peace and Love, who only preached those core principles, and who only sought to illuminate rather than conquer, and who consciously chose not to take up the sword in pursuit of their ministry, and who still managed to win the hearts and minds of Men forevermore.

Such Men are Beings of Uncommon Clay.

Your average run-of-the-mill bloodstained conqueror - including the long list of those with a religious hallucination to play from - were Beings of a much Commoner Clay.

Perhaps that clarification might be of some use.

I was referring to Matters Spiritual, rather than Matters Temporal, with my 'clay' analogy.

My bad, for that lack of clarity early-on. Mea culpa.

 

[Kondor3]

"...or so we're told by biographers years later, through editors centuries later..."

When you can produce credible evidence to the contrary - that Jesus did not preach a message of peace and love while under oppressive Roman occupation - then you will have a leg to stand upon, in attempting to throw a monkey-wrench into that position...

For that matter, what Holy Book IS entirely reliable, after all these centuries and so many edits and copying and translations and alterations in linguistics and religious reforms, etc.?

 

[BecauseIKnow]

There's no such thing, pipsqueak.

Yep, no Muslim has ever harmed a non-Muslim.

And you have credibility.

I love how you throw words in my mouth, mental nutcase.

 

[BecauseIKnow]

Noticed that, did'ja? Yeah, I formed a similar impression, and fairly quickly.

I was tempted to add Westerners and/or Americans to the List, but decided to hold off 'cause the jury's still out on that one - barely.

BIK is American.

As I recall, he is a convert.

One of the many problems with the prison industrial complex in this nation is that the prisons are a breeding ground for Islam. Most American converts to Islam, convert in prison.

I'm not a convert you bozo......





............

 

[ScreamingEagle]

This is why I point out that you play fast and loose with the truth. There was no Pakistan in the 6th century. The Islamic foray through Persia went into what is now Pakistan, but was North India at the time.

Again, I suspect you know this and have as your goal to deceive.

In the Hadith, the Prophet (warlord) said: "There is no shame in deceiving the Kafir." This is what you are doing, yes?

Muhammad never invaded Persia either. He never led armies in any part of what is modern day Pakistan, Iran, or India.

Your history is simply way off here, and once again it is pretty telling that you are getting even the basic aspects of his life so terribly wrong.

Mohammed was a nervous type and had epileptic fits....that could explain alot....

 

[BecauseIKnow]

What's the point of this thread again?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

What's the point of this thread again?

the threat of blasphemy against Islam laws vs. freedom of speech rights...

 

[Osomir]

Surah VIII/12:
When thy Lord inspired the angels, (saying I am with you. So make those who believe stand firm. I will throw fear into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Then smite the necks and smite of them each finger.

So I already pointed out previously that Sura 8 included the Battle of Badr and the campaign against the Meccans. Just prior to this verse the Quran clarifies the parties (there are two of them, the Meccan armies and some Syrian caravans). That's in verse 7.

Surah IX/5:
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.

Surah IX/28:
O ye who believe! The idolaters only are unclean. So let them not come near the Inviolable Place of Worship after this their year. If ye fear poverty (from the loss of their merchandise) Allah shall preserve you of His bounty if He will. Lo! Allah is Knower, Wise.

And I already posted specific comments on and quotations from Sura 9 which contextualize both of these as well. I gotta say you are putting up a rather disappointing performance.

Hardly.

First off, it was Aksum, not Byzantine, and they HARBORED the Quraysh - not WERE the pagan Quraysh.

The Battle of Tabuk was to take place in the northern part of the Arabian Peninsula. Aksum was in Africa. I'm not sure where you are getting Aksum from in relation to Sura 9 but it had nothing to do with Tabuk or Surah 9. Aksum harbored Muslims prior to the Hijhra and Surah 9 is a post-Hijra scripture.

So once again you seem a little off here.

Moreso, the Christians are people of the book. They may live as second class, Dhimmis - provided that they accept that they are subdued and pay Jizya - the tax you Muslims place on them to ensure they remain at the economic bottom levels of society.

There were different groups of Christians. Most of those groups in the Middle East were groups such as Nestorians, or were Jewish peoples fleeing persecution from the Justinian codes within the Byzantine Empire. The trinity was considered polytheistic.

the pagans of the Middle East in the 6th century were offshoots of Indian paganism.

No they weren't.

But they didn't worship it? They didn't take it because control of the idol offers status?

It was a power play by the Qarmatians, they thought having it might shift the balance of power towards them, but when they didn't they sold the stone for ransom (hardly reverent). The Fatimids also supposedly hired someone to try and destroy it while they were building their attempted empire.

Qarmatians are a shia sub-group by the way. I know you have difficulties recognizing the existence of anything other than simple Shiite or Sunni. They also filled the well within the Meccan grand mosque with corpses by the way; hardly something Muslims who considered it holy would do.

 

[Osomir]

Mohammed was a nervous type and had epileptic fits....that could explain alot....

Not sure how your response is relevant to anything posted in this thread.

 

[BecauseIKnow]

What's the point of this thread again?

the threat of blasphemy against Islam laws vs. freedom of speech rights...

Huh? What's a threat of 'blasphemy' against Islam? Are you saying you're not allowed to criticize Islam in this country?

 

[Osomir]

Indeed. We don't have anything close to blasphemy against Islam laws in the US, so it seems an odd topic for him to dwell on.

 

[Kondor3]

Have ya'll ever noticed that Muslims and Muslim-sympathizers and apologists and fifth-columnists can go off-topic time-and-again in a variety of threads, but when they grow tired of viewing criticisms of Islam and Muhammed, which is no more of a departure from the OP than some of their own sidebars, they suddenly pull the Off-Topic Card?

For the longest time, I thought it was just my imagination, but I'm beginning to think I've spotted a pattern here...

 

[BecauseIKnow]

'Muslims and Muslim sympathizers'.....

How about Americans?

 

[Osomir]

Have ya'll ever noticed that Muslims and Muslim-sympathizers and apologists and fifth-columnists can go off-topic time-and-again in a variety of threads, but when they grow tired of viewing criticisms of Islam and Muhammed, which is no more of a departure from the OP than some of their own sidebars, they suddenly pull the Off-Topic Card?

Responding to a post of mine making a historical correction concerning Muhammad's military campaigns with "Muhammad had seizures" Is literally not relevant to anything that has been written at any point in this entire thread, let alone the specific post of mine that he was quoting.

I don't mind tangents, but that 'retort" simply doesn't make any sense within the context of anything being discussed. off topic or not.

 

[BecauseIKnow]

I'm actually liking this thread, Osomir keeps handing Uncensored's ass to him.

Btw, I also like how Uncensored referred to me as an American, probably referring to his version of an American, 'white born', but later converted.

 

[Uncensored2008]

What's the point of this thread again?

That the infidels stood up to Islamic domination in Tennessee....