Arab woman opens a can of verbal whoopass...

[SomeKid]

Fatwa's do NOT have to be some lawyeristic write up. They are not always analogous to American judicial opinions. They can be a decree from someone in a position of authority regarding the Koran. Go check up on who the guy was who issued the fatwa.

You can argue this till you explode (just don't be near me), but the fact is, you are saying I am wrong because my facts don't ante up to what you want Islam to be. You can want it all you want, but when the facts are different, it makes you wrong. It doesn't matter if it is your religion or not.

In the graciousness of my own heart, I will make you feel better. (Because in the West, we are nice, but to you guys it is is weakness.) A bunch of months back, I got into a Biblical discussion with a guy on THR. I did not think he was right. I did not think it was the Christian way. He pulled out the Bible, and showed me I was wrong. I have showed you what a fatwa is. I am however bored with showing it over and over again. Either prove me wrong, live in ignorance, or accept what the truth is.

Personally, I expect you will go with decision two. I might duck back into this thread, but frankly, you are just flat out boring me at this point. I have basically been repeating myself. If you have a response to this post, go back and read any of my previous posts. They will all likely have an applicable rebuttal to whatever you will add.

[De Selby]

They can be a decree from someone in a position of authority regarding the Koran. Go check up on who the guy was who issued the fatwa.

The point I'm trying to get across is that there is no such position-there are scholars, but their work has to be scholarly if they want anyone to pay attention to it.  Ie, they have to cite to the legal texts available to get anyone to agree.  The guy who was in the debate is a teacher at Al Azhar; as such, he's likely not even allowed to issue a fatwa without the department heads reviewing it (and probably the Egyptian government as well, but that's another issue). 

Either prove me wrong, live in ignorance, or accept what the truth is.

Well, it's hard to prove you wrong when you don't accept what Muslims say a fatwa is as evidence of what a fatwa actually is, isn't it? 

This isn't the same as your friend proving something to you using the bible.  This is more like you claiming that "transubstantiation" actually doesn't mean "bread becomes flesh", and then arguing with a Catholic who tells you otherwise.  It's pointless, because no matter how right you think you are, the obvious fact that no Catholic will agree with you ends the question as to what the word means in Catholic theology.

You may continue to believe that all of us Muslims simply don't know what Islam is, but if that's the case, then this mythical Islam you have constructed in your mind is irrelevant to our world.  You can claim that you know what fatwas are and that you know what Islam is until you are blue in the face, but unless you find some Muslims who agree with you, your ideas about what Islam is are completely irrelevant to those of us who actually practice the faith.


Edit:

Perhaps this will make clear the issue, so we don't have to continue on this point.  Here's an article explaining the history of the term "fatwa" and the role of the fatwa in Islamic theology:


http://www.understanding-islam.com/related/text.asp?type=rarticle&raid=399

[SomeKid]

The point I'm trying to get across is that there is no such position-there are scholars,

Then why does the definition for imam sound like a super-glorified priest? Oh, right, because according to you, some Muslims consider imams to be like priests. Wait, you said imams were just altar servants... Could this be the exact thing I noted earlier? In your view of Islam (where Islam is peaceful) things are your way, and you refuse to be corrected. You may be Muslim, but the definitions, and other parts of Islam contradict you. Stop trying to act like you know everything about Islam, when it is clear, from your misuse of the words, you know less than a Christian does about Islam, not to mention the English language. The following is one more example.

As to the teacher, what do you think scholars are? I highly doubt you want to consider definition 1, but #2 sure sounds a lot like what MY teachers are. http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/scholar Looks to me, that he would qualify as a scholar.

[CAnnoneer]

you insulting my religion doesn't doesn't make it bad, but anyone denying the horror of the holocaust makes the world that much worse off. 

And I would contend that stating the objective truth about the holocaust being just another of a long list of genocides in human history does not make the world a worse place, just a more honest one. However, people supporting terrorists and upholding a violent, intolerant, backward, oppressive religion such as Islam does make the world worse off.

But, I also find it quite ironic that you would criticise me along this line when you support people like Ahma-loonie-jad, who straight out deny the very existence of holocaust or the right of Israel to exist.

But hey, you live in a country where you have the freedom to both insult my religion and say any number of offensive things about Jews and the Holocaust. 

Isn't America wonderful? So why is it then that you wish to live under shariah and support terrorists that want to destroy us and our way of life?

I just wish we could all put that freedom to better use than to waste it with petty religious bashing, regardless of whether the target is me, my Christian neighbors, or my Jewish relatives.

Actually, I think the use is very good as is - preservation of objective truth and personal freedoms from the likes of your friends.

As to your christian neighbours, have you bothered to recite to them even half of the bileous stuff you have said about Christianity in this forum?

As to your Jewish relative, have you bothered to inform them of your being a Muslim and your support for holocaust-deniers, regimes that believe Israel should be wiped out off the face of the earth, and terrorists who try to kill Jews every day?

Come to think of it, why do I even bother. You are so full of contradictions that refuting you is like clubbing baby seals.

[De Selby]

The point I'm trying to get across is that there is no such position-there are scholars,

Then why does the definition for imam sound like a super-glorified priest? Oh, right, because according to you, some Muslims consider imams to be like priests. Wait, you said imams were just altar servants... Could this be the exact thing I noted earlier?

Uh, no, because it's not what I said.  Altar servant="altar boy" in gender neutral language.  A Priest gives homilies and gives his opinions on scriptures-an Imam does no such thing.  He just recites, because he's trained to pronounce the words properly.  Hence, there is no equivalence between an Imam and a Priest.

In your view of Islam (where Islam is peaceful) things are your way, and you refuse to be corrected. You may be Muslim, but the definitions, and other parts of Islam contradict you. Stop trying to act like you know everything about Islam, when it is clear, from your misuse of the words, you know less than a Christian does about Islam, not to mention the English language. The following is one more example.

Well, you haven't turned to any "parts of Islam" for your claims here.  Merriam Webster's dictionary isn't an authority for Muslims, so I have no clue why you insist that we must abide by its one line definitions for our religious practice.  It's not that difficult for you to investigate actual Muslim sources for explanations of Muslim beliefs (I just posted one to you-but I guess a website operated by Muslims doesn't count as much as SomeKid's posts on the internet??)....but you refuse to do so, and mysteriously you think that makes you "more knowledgeable" about Islam.

As to the teacher, what do you think scholars are? I highly doubt you want to consider definition 1, but #2 sure sounds a lot like what MY teachers are. http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/scholar Looks to me, that he would qualify as a scholar.

Yes, he would qualify as a scholar-but so what? A scholar can't just write one sentence and submit it to his peers and say "see, I'm a scholar, so it must be true."   He has to do scholarship-which is how the Islamic system works, as explained to you above in the Muslim article on fatwas. 

[De Selby]

you insulting my religion doesn't doesn't make it bad, but anyone denying the horror of the holocaust makes the world that much worse off. 

And I would contend that stating the objective truth about the holocaust being just another of a long list of genocides in human history does not make the world a worse place, just a more honest one. However, people supporting terrorists and upholding a violent, intolerant, backward, oppressive religion such as Islam does make the world worse off.

Yeah, I guess that's the consistent-you think the holocaust is just one of those things that happens, but of course my religion must be bad because you say so. 

Right.

As to your christian neighbours, have you bothered to recite to them even half of the bileous stuff you have said about Christianity in this forum?

Sorry, but I don't recall ever posting a single slam on Christianity.  I respect it and I respect religious Christians.  In that sense I am a member of the infamous "religious right", I guess, but apparently beliefs are more about club membership to some than they are about, oh, specific beliefs.

[CAnnoneer]

Yeah, I guess that's the consistent-you think the holocaust is just one of those things that happens, but of course my religion must be bad because you say so. 

Right.

Sorry, but I don't recall ever posting a single slam on Christianity.  I respect it and I respect religious Christians.  In that sense I am a member of the infamous "religious right", I guess, but apparently beliefs are more about club membership to some than they are about, oh, specific beliefs.

That's a bold-faced lie. One of your preferred strategies is to slam Christianity every time somebody brings up a horrible fact about Islam, under the line of thought of "yeah, but look at what the Christians did".

I really don't know why I even bother. It must be that flat-out falsehoods just tick me off.

[De Selby]

Yeah, I guess that's the consistent-you think the holocaust is just one of those things that happens, but of course my religion must be bad because you say so. 

Right.

Sorry, but I don't recall ever posting a single slam on Christianity.  I respect it and I respect religious Christians.  In that sense I am a member of the infamous "religious right", I guess, but apparently beliefs are more about club membership to some than they are about, oh, specific beliefs.

That's a bold-faced lie. One of your preferred strategies is to slam Christianity every time somebody brings up a horrible fact about Islam, under the line of thought of "yeah, but look at what the Christians did".

I really don't know why I even bother. It must be that flat-out falsehoods just tick me off.

The examples are not to show Christianity is bad-on the contrary, comparisons to Christianity would be silly if the claim were "Christianity is as bad as Islam", because that would still mean Islam is bad.  Rather, the point I try to make is that all religions have been misused, and consequently, it is improper to take one instance of misuse and use it to tar the entire religion.

Before you jump with your accusations of lies, you should read what I am saying.  That's one of the reasons you can review my posts and see not one instance of me calling anyone a liar here-because I try to read for what people are actually saying, and respond to that. 

I also find that getting offended and calling names never advances a discussion, so I don't do it.  That attitude might serve you well.

[Tecumseh]

Was McVeigh really Christian? I seem to remember something like "thou shalt not kill", especially innocents. Also, was his bombing religiously motivated to any meaningful extent?

In any case, McVeigh is irrelevant to the current discussion. Even if Christianity were just as bad as Islam (which it certainly is not), that's still no excuse for Islam. I've said it before and I will say it again - Islam is crap and the prophet was a murderous violent power-hungry opportunist. Go ahead, put a fatwah on me, with extra phlegm, you worthless pinheads.

  He did have ties to the Christian Identity movement.  Not to mention his actions were based on a book with Christian Identity ties and beliefs.  The Bible says thou shalt not kill, yet Christians murder people by the thousands in this country alone.  I have read many posts on various gunboards that insist we are a Christian nation, so by that estimate the majority of people who are imprisoned are Christians.  They have committed crimes, thus they are not living up to the standard.

I would believe that his religious views did touch on his actions.  I would suggest reading the book in the following link.  It is an interesting g study on religious violence.  The author looks at religious terrorists such as the IRA, Hamas, Timothy McVeigh, some of the Christians who murdered abortionists, Jewish terrorists, Sikh terrorist in India and he attempts so apply sociological thought to them.  He looks at their motivations, their actions, and their desires and attempts to explain their world view as well as the best way to understand their motivations.  He has been given a lot of access to terrorist leadership and the terrorists themselves.  He did meet with some of the WTC bombers from the first attack however  he does not deal with 9/11 as he wrote the book before that day. 

http://www.amazon.com/Terror-Mind-God-Religious-Comparative/dp/0520240111/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1201490390&sr=8-1

I would also argue that the KKK is a Christian terrorist group.  Not to mention some of the pro-life groups.  Any churches with ties to the pro-life groups that allow them to exist are thus terrorist sympathizers.  Right?

[Perd Hapley]

Was McVeigh really Christian?

I always ask for confirmation of that when it comes up, but I am usually ignored.  Haven't gotten around to researching it.  In any case, his attack on the Murrah building doesn't seem to have been religiously-motivated.  And his ties to the Christian Identity movement don't tell us that much, either.  It seems likely that he associated with such people only because of their racial and political views, rather than their religious inclinations. 

I just googled "McVeigh Christian" and read a few things.  For instance, McVeigh had the Turner Diaries with him on the day of the bombing, and quotations from John Wilkes Booth and T. Jefferson.  He apparently did not have a Bible, a rosary, or a cross.  In interviews, he said he was agnostic, and he distributed copies of the poem "Invictus" before his execution.  Which is, of course, thoroughly blasphemous.  But it seems he also met with a Catholic priest at the end, too. 

[Manedwolf]

Was McVeigh really Christian?

I always ask for confirmation of that when it comes up, but I am usually ignored.  Haven't gotten around to researching it.  In any case, his attack on the Murrah building doesn't seem to have been religiously-motivated.  And his ties to the Christian Identity movement don't tell us that much, either.  It seems likely that he associated with such people only because of their racial and political views, rather than their religious inclinations. 

I just googled "McVeigh Christian" and read a few things.  For instance, McVeigh had the Turner Diaries with him on the day of the bombing, and quotations from John Wilkes Booth and T. Jefferson.  He apparently did not have a Bible, a rosary, or a cross.  In interviews, he said he was agnostic, and he distributed copies of the poem "Invictus" before his execution.  Which is, of course, thoroughly blasphemous.  But it seems he also met with a Catholic priest at the end, too. 

The thing is, even if he was, does it really matter?

Wow. So he was a terrorist who blew up something who happened to be a Christian, and, it seems, not motivated by that.

But if I tried to list all the terrorists who have blown stuff up in the name of Islam, I'd crash the server.

[gunsmith]

If any person dared to bash Christianity or Judaism the same way, that person would rightly be written off as a lunatic fringe.  The only reason Wafa Sultan is taken seriously by anyone is that she primarily bashes Muslims.

Oh man, you gotta be joking!
Christianity gets bashed every ten seconds by all types in the MSM.
Even on my own myspace I have friends who bash Christianity even though they know I AM one.

[De Selby]

If any person dared to bash Christianity or Judaism the same way, that person would rightly be written off as a lunatic fringe.  The only reason Wafa Sultan is taken seriously by anyone is that she primarily bashes Muslims.

Oh man, you gotta be joking!
Christianity gets bashed every ten seconds by all types in the MSM.
Even on my own myspace I have friends who bash Christianity even though they know I AM one.

Not like Islam does-no way.  I don't see anyone seriously arguing that we should watch Churches because of Eric Rudolph or the IRA; the molestation scandals had more impact than anything else, and I don't know of any plans proposed to spy on confessionals in order to catch "terrorizers of children" or anything similar.

The main attack on Christianity is to its relevance-people who want to live traditional lifestyles and who try to live their faiths are made fun of or otherwise written off.  And I sympathize with Christians on this point-for example, when their views on sex and marriage are called "repressed" or "medieval." 

But there is no one with any noticeable audience proposing, for example, that Christianity should be wiped out by force and all its holy sites destroyed in order to end all of the so-called "Christian problems."  But there are no shortage of people saying this about Islam-and sometimes they get a reception even on this board.

The idea that Christians should be blamed for the acts of terrorists under the banner of Christianity (and there are such terrorists-they just aren't widely publicized as Christians, rightly so, because the proposition that Christianity should be held responsible is simply ridiculous) is so far outside the mainstream that it's simply written off whenever it comes up, even as an example to compare to media treatment of other religions like Islam. 

[De Selby]

But if I tried to list all the terrorists who have blown stuff up in the name of Islam, I'd crash the server.

I doubt you would-before the late 1980's, there weren't any such terrorists.  And today, very few (if any) of those do what they do "in the name of Islam", as opposed to in the name of politics.  There might be some, but all of the known terrorist groups list politics as their primary motivation.  And that's not surprising-that's how communist terrorists justified their crimes, fascist terrorists, etc etc.  Politics is primary in terrorism; truly religious terrorism is so rare that I think you'd have a hard time coming up with even one pure example in the modern world.

[Manedwolf]

Flawed argument, and you know it.

Islam and Politics are the SAME THING to most of the governments in the sandbox. Why do you think they call them "Islamic States"? Why do you think people are brought up on charges by the state for violating Islamic law? Hello!

The Sudan. Saudi Arabia. Iran. Naming a teddy bear "Mohammed", state charges from an Islamic State. Being alone with unrelated men, state charges of lashes from an Islamic State. Thought to be homosexual, state charges and execution from an Islamic State.

The religion is the politics is the religion. And I think you know that full well, and are just trying to obfuscate again. It doesn't work. Pulling false "facts" out of thin air doesn't work. I know Islamic radicals do it all the time, simply state "There is no such thing", sort of like Ahmadinejad's "There are no homosexuals in Iran", and it is supposed to be so.

But to the rest of the world? Saying a thing doesn't make it so.

[K Frame]

"I doubt you would-before the late 1980's, there weren't any such terrorists."

I don't know whether to laugh, or cry, at that statement.

The modern Islamic suicide bombing movement kicked off in the middle to late 1970s.

It was in full swing by the mid 1980s.

The attack against the Marine Barracks in Lebanon in 1983 was by an Islamic suicide bomber.

Sacrificing oneself for Islam against infidels in exchange for immediate entry into paradise is also a very old concept in Islam, dating back to at least the 1000s.

[Firethorn]

Fatwa's do NOT have to be some lawyeristic write up. They are not always analogous to American judicial opinions. They can be a decree from someone in a position of authority regarding the Koran. Go check up on who the guy was who issued the fatwa.

A fatwa can be anything from a judgement of a local imman/priest equivalent to a muslim seeking advice to a call for genocide.

Due to the distributed nature of Islam, a fatwah only has as much effect as the issuer can summon.  An Imman with the right fanatics following him can write fatwa death sentences.  The average Imman can do the local equivalent of marriage counseling.

[Tecumseh]

Flawed argument, and you know it.

Islam and Politics are the SAME THING to most of the governments in the sandbox. Why do you think they call them "Islamic States"? Why do you think people are brought up on charges by the state for violating Islamic law? Hello!

The Sudan. Saudi Arabia. Iran. Naming a teddy bear "Mohammed", state charges from an Islamic State. Being alone with unrelated men, state charges of lashes from an Islamic State. Thought to be homosexual, state charges and execution from an Islamic State.

The religion is the politics is the religion. And I think you know that full well, and are just trying to obfuscate again. It doesn't work. Pulling false "facts" out of thin air doesn't work. I know Islamic radicals do it all the time, simply state "There is no such thing", sort of like Ahmadinejad's "There are no homosexuals in Iran", and it is supposed to be so.

But to the rest of the world? Saying a thing doesn't make it so.

  Actually the majority of terrorist incidents involving Muslims before the 70s were not in the name of Islam but in the name of Palestine.

But hey, when we  have a chance to bash Islam, why waste it?

[Manedwolf]

Flawed argument, and you know it.

Islam and Politics are the SAME THING to most of the governments in the sandbox. Why do you think they call them "Islamic States"? Why do you think people are brought up on charges by the state for violating Islamic law? Hello!

The Sudan. Saudi Arabia. Iran. Naming a teddy bear "Mohammed", state charges from an Islamic State. Being alone with unrelated men, state charges of lashes from an Islamic State. Thought to be homosexual, state charges and execution from an Islamic State.

The religion is the politics is the religion. And I think you know that full well, and are just trying to obfuscate again. It doesn't work. Pulling false "facts" out of thin air doesn't work. I know Islamic radicals do it all the time, simply state "There is no such thing", sort of like Ahmadinejad's "There are no homosexuals in Iran", and it is supposed to be so.

But to the rest of the world? Saying a thing doesn't make it so.

  Actually the majority of terrorist incidents involving Muslims before the 70s were not in the name of Islam but in the name of Palestine.

But hey, when we  have a chance to bash Islam, why waste it?

How does that statement have any relevance whatsoever to what you quoted from me?

Answer: It doesn't.

[Tecumseh]

Flawed argument, and you know it.

Islam and Politics are the SAME THING to most of the governments in the sandbox. Why do you think they call them "Islamic States"? Why do you think people are brought up on charges by the state for violating Islamic law? Hello!

The Sudan. Saudi Arabia. Iran. Naming a teddy bear "Mohammed", state charges from an Islamic State. Being alone with unrelated men, state charges of lashes from an Islamic State. Thought to be homosexual, state charges and execution from an Islamic State.

The religion is the politics is the religion. And I think you know that full well, and are just trying to obfuscate again. It doesn't work. Pulling false "facts" out of thin air doesn't work. I know Islamic radicals do it all the time, simply state "There is no such thing", sort of like Ahmadinejad's "There are no homosexuals in Iran", and it is supposed to be so.

But to the rest of the world? Saying a thing doesn't make it so.

  Actually the majority of terrorist incidents involving Muslims before the 70s were not in the name of Islam but in the name of Palestine.

But hey, when we  have a chance to bash Islam, why waste it?

How does that statement have any relevance whatsoever to what you quoted from me?

Answer: It doesn't.

  You are correct.  I meant to quote Mike Irwin.  My apologies.

[Perd Hapley]

Why do you put members' names in bold? 

[Iain]

What was the name of the PLO guy who died recently? He was a Christian, which is a statement likely to offend some who wouldn't insist on the same distinction when referring to OBL as a muslim.

[De Selby]

What was the name of the PLO guy who died recently? He was a Christian, which is a statement likely to offend some who wouldn't insist on the same distinction when referring to OBL as a muslim.

George Habash

[De Selby]

"I doubt you would-before the late 1980's, there weren't any such terrorists."

I don't know whether to laugh, or cry, at that statement.

The modern Islamic suicide bombing movement kicked off in the middle to late 1970s.

Really? I'd be interested to see any examples of Islamic suicide bombing before 1982.

It was in full swing by the mid 1980s.

Odd, because Hamas had not carried out a single suicide bombing until 1994.  There were several in Lebanon before that, but by some estimates 70 percent of the suicide bombers were Christian, and by all estimates most of them were Syrian-backed nationalists.  Including the first suicide bomber in Lebanon, Lola Aboud.

The attack against the Marine Barracks in Lebanon in 1983 was by an Islamic suicide bomber.

True.  That's one.

Sacrificing oneself for Islam against infidels in exchange for immediate entry into paradise is also a very old concept in Islam, dating back to at least the 1000s.

It is older than that, but "against infidels" is not the rule.  The traditional Islamic rule was that any outside-the-battlefield killing required one of two outcomes-payment of full damages if the killing was accidental, and the death penalty if it was purposeful.  Dying on the battlefield fighting an opposing army could yield this result in some circumstances, though, definitely.

Now the idea that intentionally killing oneself for religious ends was permissible did not exist, as far as anyone has been able to gather, until after the car bomb was invented and the tactic was proved by other leftist guerrillas around the world.  But that was well into the 80's.

[De Selby]

Flawed argument, and you know it.

Islam and Politics are the SAME THING to most of the governments in the sandbox. Why do you think they call them "Islamic States"? Why do you think people are brought up on charges by the state for violating Islamic law? Hello!

What??? They aren't in any of the states most plagued by terrorism.  Palestinians use the british code; Syrians and Iraqis had avowedly anti-religious states for most of the past 40 years.  Include Egypt in that list, where Nasser was the bane of all Islamists.  You listed three states with "islamic law" systems.  That leaves the vast majority without them, even though the populations are majority Muslim.  None of the extreme Islamic states are democratic.  Do you not find that to be a problem for your thesis?

The religion is the politics is the religion. And I think you know that full well, and are just trying to obfuscate again. It doesn't work. Pulling false "facts" out of thin air doesn't work. I know Islamic radicals do it all the time, simply state "There is no such thing", sort of like Ahmadinejad's "There are no homosexuals in Iran", and it is supposed to be so.

Well, certainly Bin Laden and Khomeini claim that the religion is politics.  And you.  But obviously the vast majority of Muslims don't buy that-although they are certainly more comfortable being religious in public than Europeans.