Post by: Otherguy Overby on January 25, 2008, 02:29:37 PM
She sure doesn't take any prisoners...
Post by: Gewehr98 on January 25, 2008, 02:43:45 PM
Post by: SomeKid on January 25, 2008, 02:51:54 PM
Post by: Otherguy Overby on January 25, 2008, 03:13:20 PM
Somehow I don't think we'll see anything like this in our own, now politically correct, speech.
Post by: De Selby on January 25, 2008, 11:11:23 PM
Not only is there no fatwa-a-go-go against her, she's made a ton of cash off these rants. She lives in LA, where not only is it perfectly safe to bash Islam and Muslims, it's actually quite profitable for a few...like herself.
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.
Post by: Manedwolf on January 25, 2008, 11:33:01 PM
Ah yes, Wafa Sultan-she makes her living insulting all religions, but primarily Islam.
Not only is there no fatwa-a-go-go against her, she's made a ton of cash off these rants. She lives in LA, where not only is it perfectly safe to bash Islam and Muslims, it's actually quite profitable for a few...like herself.
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.
Not only is there no fatwa-a-go-go against her, she's made a ton of cash off these rants. She lives in LA, where not only is it perfectly safe to bash Islam and Muslims, it's actually quite profitable for a few...like herself.
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.
And here we hear from the resident CAIR apologist. Right on time!
Please point to ANY case where she "bashes" other religions.
She tells the truth. And you apparently can't handle the truth.
Post by: SomeKid on January 26, 2008, 12:12:04 AM
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.
A blatant lie. There are posters on this forum who attack Christians daily. Of course, this reply is pointless. Maned already has you pegged. Why don't you go funnel some more money to Hamas?
As an aside, thanks for remembering her name. Wafa Sultan. I will have to remember that. She deserves to be remembered.
Oh, and your other, just as blatant lie?
Quote
Not only is there no fatwa-a-go-go against her, she's made a ton of cash off these rants. She lives in LA, where not only is it perfectly safe to bash Islam and Muslims, it's actually quite profitable for a few...like herself.
While I do not normally like the NYT, even they acknowledge the truth. (Also, they go out of there way to be nice to Islam in this piece. Of course, you will find it one-sided, and anti-Islam anyway...)
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/11/international/middleeast/11sultan.html
From the second paragraph:
Quote
Today, thanks to an unusually blunt and provocative interview on Al Jazeera television on Feb. 21, she is an international sensation, hailed as a fresh voice of reason by some, and by others as a heretic and infidel who deserves to die.
You say she is safe in LA. I say hardly. California has crappy gun laws, she probably cannot carry. She has Muslims out to kill her. Is that your definition of perfectly safe?
No fatwa you say? (For those who do not know what a fatwa is, here is a link straight to the definition: http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/fatwa )
Back to the NYT article. You say there is no fatwa against her, when clearly there is. From the second page, 10th and 11th paragraphs:
Quote
The other guest on the program, identified as an Egyptian professor of religious studies, Dr. Ibrahim al-Khouli, asked, "Are you a heretic?" He then said there was no point in rebuking or debating her, because she had blasphemed against Islam, the Prophet Muhammad and the Koran.
Dr. Sultan said she took those words as a formal fatwa, a religious condemnation. Since then, she said, she has received numerous death threats on her answering machine and by e-mail.
Dr. Sultan said she took those words as a formal fatwa, a religious condemnation. Since then, she said, she has received numerous death threats on her answering machine and by e-mail.
She is correct. Right there on TV, she had a fatwa issued to her.
SS, how does the Kool-Aid taste?
Post by: Tecumseh on January 26, 2008, 02:02:03 PM
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.
A blatant lie. There are posters on this forum who attack Christians daily. Of course, this reply is pointless. Maned already has you pegged. Why don't you go funnel some more money to Hamas?
As an aside, thanks for remembering her name. Wafa Sultan. I will have to remember that. She deserves to be remembered.
Oh, and your other, just as blatant lie?
Quote
Not only is there no fatwa-a-go-go against her, she's made a ton of cash off these rants. She lives in LA, where not only is it perfectly safe to bash Islam and Muslims, it's actually quite profitable for a few...like herself.
While I do not normally like the NYT, even they acknowledge the truth. (Also, they go out of there way to be nice to Islam in this piece. Of course, you will find it one-sided, and anti-Islam anyway...)
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/11/international/middleeast/11sultan.html
From the second paragraph:
Quote
Today, thanks to an unusually blunt and provocative interview on Al Jazeera television on Feb. 21, she is an international sensation, hailed as a fresh voice of reason by some, and by others as a heretic and infidel who deserves to die.
You say she is safe in LA. I say hardly. California has crappy gun laws, she probably cannot carry. She has Muslims out to kill her. Is that your definition of perfectly safe?
No fatwa you say? (For those who do not know what a fatwa is, here is a link straight to the definition: http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/fatwa )
Back to the NYT article. You say there is no fatwa against her, when clearly there is. From the second page, 10th and 11th paragraphs:
Quote
The other guest on the program, identified as an Egyptian professor of religious studies, Dr. Ibrahim al-Khouli, asked, "Are you a heretic?" He then said there was no point in rebuking or debating her, because she had blasphemed against Islam, the Prophet Muhammad and the Koran.
Dr. Sultan said she took those words as a formal fatwa, a religious condemnation. Since then, she said, she has received numerous death threats on her answering machine and by e-mail.
Dr. Sultan said she took those words as a formal fatwa, a religious condemnation. Since then, she said, she has received numerous death threats on her answering machine and by e-mail.
She is correct. Right there on TV, she had a fatwa issued to her.
SS, how does the Kool-Aid taste?
Maybe it is my Christian upbringing but I dont think telling others that they support terrorism is a polite thing to do.
Post by: De Selby on January 26, 2008, 02:04:26 PM
Quote
Please point to ANY case where she "bashes" other religions.
First of all, if you read the actual interview, she points out that she rejects all religion and that rejecting religion is necessary to "lift ourselves out of the middle ages." Here's a transcript:
http://www.aqoul.com/images/wafa_sultan.pdf
Ms. Sultan has an ideology that is very much in line with what she would have been taught as a child in Syria-that all religion is bad, and that only anti-religious nationalism can possibly lift the human race out of "the middle ages." That was what the Assads who ruled Syria taught, and that was how they justified banning religion in public and massacring entire townships of religious people unhappy with the ban on religion. (Ironically, the first suicide bomber in Lebanon was a Christian woman working for this very same Syrian "progressive" secular regime-but I'm sure Wafa Sultan is just as offended by that as she is by Muslim terrorism, right?)
You read this interview, and you see Wafa Sultan upset by the fact that religious people killed some of the members of her cultural elite in Syria. But what you do not see is Wafa Sultan being outraged at how the anti-religious ideology of her ruling class in Syria (the alawis) was used to massacre people by the thousands in Lebanon and Syria. I don't know about you, but I have a hard time believing that someone from the ruling circles around Hafez al Assad, and who basically apes the lines used by Hafez al Assad to justify his dictatorship is "a moderate progressive."
Somekid,
As you will note, not only is there no fatwa (which would require religious citations-there is no such thing as a "fatwa" that is just a spoken line), the guy arguing with Sultan repeatedly says that he doesn't care what other people believe, and that he thinks such measures as those taken by Saudi Arabia against non-Muslims are unIslamic. I quote his words: "First of all Saudi Arabia is not an Islamic model that should be followed in its orientations and general practices. It is the first country that I condemn by Islamic standards."
The fact that some backwards illiterates in rural Sudan would call Wafa Sultan a heretic who deserves to die means absolutely zero. She's on television all the time here; it's no secret that she lives in L.A., and that she has a psychiatric practice. She is safe because in America, Muslims hold forums to debate her and condemn her radical views. That's how things are done here in this country-regardless of your religion. That's also why she is going around making a pretty penny insulting Muslims, and not having to hide as a result.
I seriously doubt the plain facts are going to get in the way of your support for this lady though. Be my guest to support her-but know that you are supporting exactly the kind of people who made Syria what it is today, and exactly the same kind of radicalism that you oppose when it is directed towards Christianity.
Post by: Manedwolf on January 26, 2008, 02:07:35 PM
Quote
She is safe because in America, Muslims hold forums to debate her and condemn her radical views. That's how things are done here in this country-regardless of your religion.
Oh, really.
Quote
Police: Gun linked to journalists death
By MICHELLE LOCKE, Associated Press Writer
OAKLAND, Calif. - Police are testing guns recovered from raids in which authorities arrested seven members of an Oakland Black Muslim splinter group who investigators suspect were involved in the killing of a journalist and two others.
Police Lt. Ersie Joyner said one of the guns found during the raids is thought to be the weapon that a masked attacker used Thursday morning to slay Chauncey Bailey, a journalist who was walking to work.
Bailey, 57, was the editor of the Oakland Post, and had been working on a story about Your Black Muslim Bakery before he was ambushed and slain, his colleagues said.
By MICHELLE LOCKE, Associated Press Writer
OAKLAND, Calif. - Police are testing guns recovered from raids in which authorities arrested seven members of an Oakland Black Muslim splinter group who investigators suspect were involved in the killing of a journalist and two others.
Police Lt. Ersie Joyner said one of the guns found during the raids is thought to be the weapon that a masked attacker used Thursday morning to slay Chauncey Bailey, a journalist who was walking to work.
Bailey, 57, was the editor of the Oakland Post, and had been working on a story about Your Black Muslim Bakery before he was ambushed and slain, his colleagues said.
Guzzling that kool-aid now, are we? Man, you're in a lot deeper into the brainwashing than I thought, shootinstudent. You're really scaring me now. This is how the people who go over to the other side get started, you know that, right?
And radicals who are okay with treating women like crap are calling HER radical. The irony is overwhelming.
Post by: De Selby on January 26, 2008, 02:09:49 PM
Quote
She is safe because in America, Muslims hold forums to debate her and condemn her radical views. That's how things are done here in this country-regardless of your religion.
Oh, really.
Quote
Police: Gun linked to journalists death
By MICHELLE LOCKE, Associated Press Writer
OAKLAND, Calif. - Police are testing guns recovered from raids in which authorities arrested seven members of an Oakland Black Muslim splinter group who investigators suspect were involved in the killing of a journalist and two others.
Police Lt. Ersie Joyner said one of the guns found during the raids is thought to be the weapon that a masked attacker used Thursday morning to slay Chauncey Bailey, a journalist who was walking to work.
Bailey, 57, was the editor of the Oakland Post, and had been working on a story about Your Black Muslim Bakery before he was ambushed and slain, his colleagues said.
By MICHELLE LOCKE, Associated Press Writer
OAKLAND, Calif. - Police are testing guns recovered from raids in which authorities arrested seven members of an Oakland Black Muslim splinter group who investigators suspect were involved in the killing of a journalist and two others.
Police Lt. Ersie Joyner said one of the guns found during the raids is thought to be the weapon that a masked attacker used Thursday morning to slay Chauncey Bailey, a journalist who was walking to work.
Bailey, 57, was the editor of the Oakland Post, and had been working on a story about Your Black Muslim Bakery before he was ambushed and slain, his colleagues said.
Guzzling that kool-aid now, are we?
You're kidding, right?
Linking the black panther party's criminal remnants to Islam is like citing the killings carried out by white supremacists as evidence of "christian terrorism."
Sorry, but a radical racist gang in Oakland that believes its leader was a man-come-down-from-a-spaceship has about as much to do with Islam as Matthew Hale's "world church of the creator" or Manson does with Christianity. This is an absurd example on its face.
Post by: Manedwolf on January 26, 2008, 02:12:26 PM
Sorry, distortion of facts strawman fails. Please play again.
Post by: De Selby on January 26, 2008, 02:15:03 PM
Black Muslims =/= Black Panthers.
Sorry, distortion of facts strawman fails. Please play again.
Sorry, distortion of facts strawman fails. Please play again.
Yes, they do-that is what the qualifying name means in this case. "Black Muslims" is the name of a group in Oakland, not a description of the color of some worshippers. They owned "Your Black Muslim Bakery", and were all tied to black panther radicalism in the past, and recently to criminal drug racketeering.
Your citation of this crime as an example of "Muslim violence" is simply wrong. The group is a gang, and its theology isn't even remotely Muslim by any standard-they believe in a dude from a spaceship who came down to America to reveal the truth that white men are the devil. It's as kooky as Manson's theories of Christianity, and just as ridiculous.
Edit:
So we have some proof of the above:
http://www.ybmb.com/ybmbhistory.htm
Quote
He was born in Greenville Texas on December 21, 1935 but moved to Oakland with his family at the age of five. At the age of seventeen, he joined the US Air Force and after a four year stint received an honorable discharge. He worked briefly in warehousing and shortly thereafter enrolled in the School of Cosmetology. He went on to own beauty salons in Santa Barbara and Berkeley, California In the early sixties, he embraced the Islamic faith under the leadership of the Honorable Elijah Muhammad.
Elijah Muhammad, you know, the guy that founded Nation of Islam?
Further info:http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/12/us/12bakery.html?ex=1344571200&en=5edff60d8614e8b6&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
Post by: Tecumseh on January 26, 2008, 02:15:55 PM
Timothy McVeigh =/= Christians
KKK=/= Chrstianst
Westboro Baptist Church =/= Christians
Thought I would name a few Christian groups as well.
I see the similarities.
Post by: Gewehr98 on January 26, 2008, 03:08:35 PM
Quote
Maybe it is my Christian upbringing but I dont think telling others that they support terrorism is a polite thing to do.
I'm debating which is worse - insinuating that somebody supports terrorism, or trotting out the Christian upbringing schtick every 5 minutes. I'm of the opinion that we can fix the latter problem either the easy way or the hard way. What do you think, Tecumseh? Li'l Baby Jesus eagerly anticipates your decision...
Post by: SomeKid on January 26, 2008, 07:15:38 PM
Somekid,
As you will note, not only is there no fatwa (which would require religious citations-there is no such thing as a "fatwa" that is just a spoken line),
Put down that gallon, tanker truck or whatever the heck quantity of Kool-Aid you are drowning yourself in and check a dictionary. Here, I will refer you to one, again.
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/fatwa
Yes Virginia-Achmed-Alawa, there is such a thing as a fatwa.
Post by: Tecumseh on January 26, 2008, 07:25:10 PM
I'll wager there's a fatwa issued for her head in the not-too-distant future.
I seem to remember readin Sam Harris's prologue from the book called "A Letter to A Christian Nation" and he kept talking about all the death threats he recieved from Christians. He said that he feared for his life because of the threats. These threats were a response to his first book entitled "The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason." It is sad that such a peaceful religion is filled with violent people.
I recommend both the books. They are excellent critiques of a major religion.
Post by: Manedwolf on January 26, 2008, 07:31:43 PM
B..b.b.but CHRISTIANS...!
Give that one a rest. It's worn out. It's right there beside people saying "But Mcveigh!" every time an Islamist extremist blows something up daily.
Post by: CAnnoneer on January 26, 2008, 09:14:12 PM
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.
Post by: De Selby on January 26, 2008, 10:33:29 PM
For the record, I never said or insinuated SS supports terrorism. Merely Hamas. Take from that what you will.
Somekid,
As you will note, not only is there no fatwa (which would require religious citations-there is no such thing as a "fatwa" that is just a spoken line),
Put down that gallon, tanker truck or whatever the heck quantity of Kool-Aid you are drowning yourself in and check a dictionary. Here, I will refer you to one, again.
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/fatwa
Yes Virginia-Achmed-Alawa, there is such a thing as a fatwa.
Somekid,
As you will note, not only is there no fatwa (which would require religious citations-there is no such thing as a "fatwa" that is just a spoken line),
Put down that gallon, tanker truck or whatever the heck quantity of Kool-Aid you are drowning yourself in and check a dictionary. Here, I will refer you to one, again.
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/fatwa
Yes Virginia-Achmed-Alawa, there is such a thing as a fatwa.
I suppose you could rely on the dictionary to tell you what a fatwa is, or you could just ask someone who is Muslim. Whatever the dictionary says, it doesn't mean much if Muslims don't accept its definition. But anyway, let's consider what you posted:
Quote
a legal opinion or decree handed down by an Islamic religious leader
Note "legal opinion"-there is a vast body of law in Islam. Hence, there is no such thing as a one-line fatwa handed down in a conversation, because such a statement is not a legal opinion (obviously so.) A fatwa has citations to the laws that justify its conclusion, exactly like a judicial opinion handed down by an American court.
Post by: De Selby on January 26, 2008, 10:35:02 PM
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.
Personally, I found myself much more at odds with your beliefs when you were saying that the holocaust wasn't that horrific or unnatural. That's because 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.
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. 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.
Post by: SomeKid on January 26, 2008, 10:43:24 PM
For the record, I never said or insinuated SS supports terrorism. Merely Hamas. Take from that what you will.
Somekid,
As you will note, not only is there no fatwa (which would require religious citations-there is no such thing as a "fatwa" that is just a spoken line),
Put down that gallon, tanker truck or whatever the heck quantity of Kool-Aid you are drowning yourself in and check a dictionary. Here, I will refer you to one, again.
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/fatwa
Yes Virginia-Achmed-Alawa, there is such a thing as a fatwa.
Somekid,
As you will note, not only is there no fatwa (which would require religious citations-there is no such thing as a "fatwa" that is just a spoken line),
Put down that gallon, tanker truck or whatever the heck quantity of Kool-Aid you are drowning yourself in and check a dictionary. Here, I will refer you to one, again.
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/fatwa
Yes Virginia-Achmed-Alawa, there is such a thing as a fatwa.
I suppose you could rely on the dictionary to tell you what a fatwa is, or you could just ask someone who is Muslim. Whatever the dictionary says, it doesn't mean much if Muslims don't accept its definition. But anyway, let's consider what you posted:
Quote
a legal opinion or decree handed down by an Islamic religious leader
Note "legal opinion"-there is a vast body of law in Islam. Hence, there is no such thing as a one-line fatwa handed down in a conversation, because such a statement is not a legal opinion (obviously so.) A fatwa has citations to the laws that justify its conclusion, exactly like a judicial opinion handed down by an American court.
The Kool-Aid is strong in you. Do you honestly believe that first paragraph? You cannot argue with the definition of words. It destroys your ability to say anything meaningful. After all, I could argue what you really mean in your last post is that all Muslims are evil and should be killed. After all, we are ignoring definitions and what words actually mean. Would you like to ask what the definition of 'is' is? Being a Muslim gives you no more authority on being able to decide what a fatwa really means than my being an American gives me a right to tell you where the borders between America and Canada really are and expect to be right even if the map says otherwise.
You focus on the legal opinion side, and ignore the decree side. Do note, in the definition of fatwa, it said or. Meaning, either one. So, what does decree mean? http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/decree I think in this instance, definition 2 applies (though you probably think it is 3). Face it, any Muslim leader who holds any real position of authority can issue a fatwa. It may not be common, but they can. While some fatwas may have some legalistic backing, and in some ways be like an opinion handed down by an American court, a fatwa can also be issued by the Muslim equivalent to a preacher, nun, or Bible scholar. The man in question, as I recall, was the Muslim equivalent to the third.
Post by: De Selby on January 26, 2008, 10:53:35 PM
Quote
The Kool-Aid is strong in you. Do you honestly believe that first paragraph? You cannot argue with the definition of words. It destroys your ability to say anything meaningful.
I'm quite surprised that this is an issue-the merriam webster's dictionary does not define the universe of Islamic worship. I have no idea why you assume it does.
We are not ignoring the definitions of what words mean-what I am doing is pointing out that "fatwa" is a religious terms for Muslims, and hence, is defined by how Muslims interpret the term. That's pretty simple-the dictionary does not define what Islamic worship is or what the criteria are for being a Muslim; Muslims do.
Quote
Being a Muslim gives you no more authority on being able to decide what a fatwa really means than my being an American gives me a right to tell you where the borders between America and Canada really are and expect to be right even if the map says otherwise.
It most certainly does give me more authority to define what a fatwa really is. If no Muslim agrees that your definition of a fatwa is correct, then how on earth can you claim that Islam teaches such a thing? Muslim belief and practice defines what Islam is, not the dictionary, and not you. Just because you want for this guy's one liners in an interview to be fatwas, does not make it so.
Quote
Face it, any Muslim leader who holds any real position of authority can issue a fatwa.
Uh, no, that's not quite right. For one thing, there is no such thing as a "position of real authority" in Islam-there is no Islamic clergy. A fatwa is a researched opinion, and it is binding only insofar as its conclusions comport to the law. A fatwa in Islamic worship is only as good as the number of Muslims who agree with its reasoning and conclusions. There is absolutely no such thing as a fatwa that is binding because of who issued it; that concept is totally alien to Islam.
There is no Islamic equivalent to a preacher-there's no position or title in the religion that fits that role. The closest thing is the Imam, who is the guy that recites for everyone during prayer time. That's more like being an altar servant, since the prayer is scripted, and there is no "pause for sermon of the Imam's opinions" piece.
You are making the mistake of assuming that Islam is just like Christianity, and it isn't-not in form anyway, though it's similar in the content of its values and core teachings.
Post by: SomeKid on January 26, 2008, 11:06:35 PM
Quote
It most certainly does give me more authority to define what a fatwa really is. If no Muslim agrees that your definition of a fatwa is correct, then how on earth can you claim that Islam teaches such a thing?
So, by this standard, if a group of people disagrees with me about the use of a word, even if I use the word in a 100% accurate context, the definition and word choice are wrong? Just because most blacks have a knee-jerk reaction to the word niggardly does not mean it is a bad word. Muslims cannot set words aside as theirs. Words have set meanings.
Quote
There is absolutely no such thing as a fatwa that is binding because of who issued it; that concept is totally alien to Islam.
In the previous post you said it was like an opinion handed down by court. Now it is not binding. Can you make up your mind, or do you have Kool-Aid poisoning? Of course, this time you have the actual definition behind you. Congratulations! The only problem is, you are not trying to disprove whether it is binding.
Quote
There is no Islamic equivalent to a preacher-
I don't think Imams are analogous to alter servants. I do not think alter servants have a definition describing them in the same glowing terms an imam gets. http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/imam
Try again young Kool-Aid drinker. One day, you might actually make a convincing argument! Free tip: If you want to say that because you are Muslim you by default know more only works if you actually by default know more.
Post by: De Selby on January 26, 2008, 11:12:36 PM
Quote
So, by this standard, if a group of people disagrees with me about the use of a word, even if I use the word in a 100% accurate context, the definition and word choice are wrong?
Uh, no-your use of the word is wrong because you are applying it to things that obviously do not meet the definition. That's why. Not because people don't like what you are saying. Your use is inaccurate because you insist on claiming that a "fatwa" was issued by some guy on a TV show during a debate. Because a fatwa is a legal ruling, claiming that his statements are fatwas is an inaccurate use of the word.
Quote
In the previous post you said it was like an opinion handed down by court. Now it is not binding. Can you make up your mind, or do you have Kool-Aid poisoning? Of course, this time you have the actual definition behind you. Congratulations! The only problem is, you are not trying to disprove whether it is binding.
Please reread what I said-fatwas are binding insofar as they cite the correct laws and apply it correctly to a particular case. Just like judicial opinions. What they are not is binding because some person issued them-the issuer adds zero authority to the fatwa. Just because someone said it, doesn't make it binding. That is the rule in this religion.
Quote
I don't think Imams are analogous to alter servants. I do not think alter servants have a definition describing them in the same glowing terms an imam gets. http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/imam
That's apparently because you don't know anything about Islamic worship, which is fine, you don't have to. But you do have to know something about it in order to properly understand the terms, like Imam, which is defined exactly as I defined it in 1. of this definition. (2 and 3 apply only to Shia, and I have little to no clue what they believe...as is the case with most of the Muslim in this world, so you'll have a hard time getting anyone to answer for those.)
The prayer leader is someone who recites verses in Arabic. That's it-that is what Islamic prayer is. It isn't something you make up as you go along, nor is it something that has pauses for the Imam to stop and offer opinions.
Post by: SomeKid on January 26, 2008, 11:34:39 PM
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.
Post by: De Selby on January 26, 2008, 11:41:24 PM
Quote
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).
Quote
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
Post by: SomeKid on January 27, 2008, 12:13:54 AM
Quote
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.
Post by: CAnnoneer on January 27, 2008, 01:43:06 AM
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.
Quote
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?
Quote
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.
Post by: De Selby on January 27, 2008, 01:27:44 PM
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Post by: De Selby on January 27, 2008, 01:32:09 PM
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.
Quote
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.
Post by: CAnnoneer on January 27, 2008, 02:25:11 PM
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.
Right.
Quote
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.
Post by: De Selby on January 27, 2008, 05:10:05 PM
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.
Right.
Quote
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.
Post by: Tecumseh on January 27, 2008, 05:27:16 PM
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.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.
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?
Post by: Perd Hapley on January 27, 2008, 08:56:03 PM
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.
Post by: Manedwolf on January 27, 2008, 09:50:38 PM
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.
Post by: gunsmith on January 27, 2008, 11:46:29 PM
Quote
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.
Post by: De Selby on January 28, 2008, 05:41:27 PM
Quote
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.
Post by: De Selby on January 28, 2008, 05:47:00 PM
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.
Post by: Manedwolf on January 28, 2008, 09:34:18 PM
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.
Post by: K Frame on January 29, 2008, 03:10:33 AM
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.
Post by: Firethorn on January 29, 2008, 08:12:16 AM
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.
Post by: Tecumseh on January 29, 2008, 08:43:06 AM
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. 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.
But hey, when we have a chance to bash Islam, why waste it?
Post by: Manedwolf on January 29, 2008, 09:14:12 AM
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. 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.
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.
Post by: Tecumseh on January 29, 2008, 12:12:05 PM
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. 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.
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.
Post by: Perd Hapley on January 29, 2008, 12:13:20 PM
Post by: Iain on January 29, 2008, 12:15:43 PM
Post by: De Selby on January 29, 2008, 05:05:22 PM
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
Post by: De Selby on January 29, 2008, 05:09:39 PM
"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.
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
The attack against the Marine Barracks in Lebanon in 1983 was by an Islamic suicide bomber.
True. That's one.
Quote
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.
Post by: De Selby on January 29, 2008, 05:12:57 PM
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!
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?
Quote
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.
Post by: De Selby on January 29, 2008, 05:16:11 PM
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.
Again, an Imam is not the equivalent of a priest. I have no idea how this myth got started, but the Imam has no personal authority or authoritative station whatsoever. He is the main reciter during prayer time. That is it. If he gives opinions, they are only as good as the number who agree. But he has no special role of giving opinions.
Iman means "faith", but I got what you meant. But no, that is not quite right.
Post by: Tecumseh on January 29, 2008, 05:53:20 PM
Why do you put members' names in bold?
Old habit from when I quote others on forums. Its also easier for them to notice if I ask them a question.
Post by: K Frame on January 30, 2008, 06:11:09 AM
What, Hamas is the only radical Islamic group out there?
Hell, it wasn't even, by any stretch of the imagination, the first.
Post by: De Selby on January 30, 2008, 04:59:38 PM
"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."
What, Hamas is the only radical Islamic group out there?
Hell, it wasn't even, by any stretch of the imagination, the first.
What, Hamas is the only radical Islamic group out there?
Hell, it wasn't even, by any stretch of the imagination, the first.
True-but it was one of the first to use the infamous suicide vest, if not the first. And it was also responsible for a large chunk of all suicide bombings before Iraq and Afghanistan. It was founded in 1988 and started suicide bombing in 1994.
Do you have any examples of Islamic suicide terrorism before the 80's? I'm genuinely interested to see them in order to learn about how these movements got started in the suicide terror business.
Post by: Manedwolf on January 31, 2008, 04:12:10 AM
"Hamas were the first Islamic suicide bombers in 1994! It was Christians before!" (total BS)
"No they weren't." (which is a fact)
"Um...they were the first to use the vests!"
Post by: SomeKid on January 31, 2008, 08:00:11 AM
You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink.
Post by: Tecumseh on January 31, 2008, 08:47:28 AM
Weasel weasel weasel.
"Hamas were the first Islamic suicide bombers in 1994! It was Christians before!" (total BS)
"No they weren't." (which is a fact)
"Um...they were the first to use the vests!"
What about the Japanese Zero planes? Was that not a suicide bomber? "Hamas were the first Islamic suicide bombers in 1994! It was Christians before!" (total BS)
"No they weren't." (which is a fact)
"Um...they were the first to use the vests!"
Post by: Typhoon on January 31, 2008, 09:57:00 AM
Potentially self destructive tactics in declared wars are as old as ramming ships (even though there were ships built specifically to be ramming ships, the potential for both ships to suffer serious damage was always there).
I guess you could always argue that terrorists have declared war, but its still not the classical definition. Classical warfare did/does not specifically target non-combatants.
Post by: Perd Hapley on January 31, 2008, 01:34:39 PM
Post by: Tecumseh on January 31, 2008, 02:43:05 PM
Im not sure its appropriate to equate desperation suicide tactics in a declared war (Kamikazes) with todays suicide bombers.
Potentially self destructive tactics in declared wars are as old as ramming ships (even though there were ships built specifically to be ramming ships, the potential for both ships to suffer serious damage was always there).
I guess you could always argue that terrorists have declared war, but its still not the classical definition. Classical warfare did/does not specifically target non-combatants.
They declared war along time ago. We never properly declared war.
Potentially self destructive tactics in declared wars are as old as ramming ships (even though there were ships built specifically to be ramming ships, the potential for both ships to suffer serious damage was always there).
I guess you could always argue that terrorists have declared war, but its still not the classical definition. Classical warfare did/does not specifically target non-combatants.
Post by: Tecumseh on January 31, 2008, 02:45:04 PM
The intentional bombing of civilians, folks. Big difference.
Well I would argue the bombing of Baghdad was pretty intense. And we knew there would be many civilian casualties. There was no suicide on the part of the pilots, but it is hard to say that it was "collateral damage" when we knew the destructive power of the bombs.
Post by: Typhoon on January 31, 2008, 04:00:52 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on January 31, 2008, 04:13:23 PM
The intentional bombing of civilians, folks. Big difference.
Well I would argue the bombing of Baghdad was pretty intense. And we knew there would be many civilian casualties. There was no suicide on the part of the pilots, but it is hard to say that it was "collateral damage" when we knew the destructive power of the bombs. (rude comment was here, please don't push it - OV)
good call - fistful.
Post by: De Selby on January 31, 2008, 05:13:58 PM
Weasel weasel weasel.
"Hamas were the first Islamic suicide bombers in 1994! It was Christians before!" (total BS)
"No they weren't." (which is a fact)
"Um...they were the first to use the vests!"
"Hamas were the first Islamic suicide bombers in 1994! It was Christians before!" (total BS)
"No they weren't." (which is a fact)
"Um...they were the first to use the vests!"
Uh, what is weaseling about it? If you have some information that proves me wrong, I'm happy to see it, but every source I can find lists 1994 as the first suicide bombing by Hamas.
Every source I can find also lists Lola Aboud, Christian, working for Syrian socialists, as the first suicide bomber in Lebanon.
The only source I'm aware of that compiled a database of suicide bombings, Robert Pape's outfit at U Chicago, says most suicide bombers throughout the entire Lebanon conflict were secular and Christian.
So what exactly is it that you claim I'm avoiding?
Post by: De Selby on January 31, 2008, 05:16:00 PM
Maned, if you are having fun, by all means keep going. I however realized there is no reasoning with this guy. When he considers the dictionary not a good source of information because he as a Muslim rejects it because the definitions are not what he wants it is rather obvious he will see only what he wants to see.
You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink.
You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink.
No need to take my word for it or to rely on "my opinion as a Muslim"-try to see if you can find any Muslim who agrees with your claims about Islam. Alot some time to that project, because you will be looking long and hard to find one.
Post by: Manedwolf on January 31, 2008, 06:09:49 PM
Maned, if you are having fun, by all means keep going. I however realized there is no reasoning with this guy. When he considers the dictionary not a good source of information because he as a Muslim rejects it because the definitions are not what he wants it is rather obvious he will see only what he wants to see.
You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink.
You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink.
No need to take my word for it or to rely on "my opinion as a Muslim"-try to see if you can find any Muslim who agrees with your claims about Islam. Alot some time to that project, because you will be looking long and hard to find one.
It's very difficult. If they did, publically, the radicals would try to kill them, or declare that they ought to be killed.
Ask Ayaan Hirsi Ali what that's like. Because she's one of what you're asking about.
Post by: doc2rn on January 31, 2008, 07:09:36 PM
Quote
Tecumseh
Christian Identity =/= Christians
Timothy McVeigh =/= Christians
KKK=/= Chrstianst
Westboro Baptist Church =/= Christians
I thought McVeigh and KKK belonged to the Arian Church. Westboro that totally goes against the preachings of Jesus Christ. So I can say while they may have their own beliefs, philosophy, and religion, I certainly would not call a message of hate Christian. Actions speak louder than words. Christian Identity =/= Christians
Timothy McVeigh =/= Christians
KKK=/= Chrstianst
Westboro Baptist Church =/= Christians
Fatwa=Muslim
Church Burning=Muslim
Suicide Bombing Innocent People=Muslim
Post by: Tecumseh on January 31, 2008, 07:36:45 PM
Quote
Tecumseh
Christian Identity =/= Christians
Timothy McVeigh =/= Christians
KKK=/= Chrstianst
Westboro Baptist Church =/= Christians
I thought McVeigh and KKK belonged to the Arian Church. Westboro that totally goes against the preachings of Jesus Christ. So I can say while they may have their own beliefs, philosophy, and religion, I certainly would not call a message of hate Christian. Actions speak louder than words. Christian Identity =/= Christians
Timothy McVeigh =/= Christians
KKK=/= Chrstianst
Westboro Baptist Church =/= Christians
Fatwa=Muslim
Church Burning=Muslim
Suicide Bombing Innocent People=Muslim
Just as Christians have sects, so does Islam. Wahabism for example is a militant sect that Osama Bin Laden follows. However there are other sects just like Christianity. Here is some reading on it...
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/islam/blfaq_islam_sunni.htm
Your little spiel about "Fatwa = Muslim, Church Burning = Muslim, Suicide Bombing Innocent People = Muslim" is like me saying "KKK Cross burning = Christianity, Shooting Abortionists = Christianity, Molesting Children = Christianity". It simply is not true. I would argue that some members of Islamic sects and faith are terrorists just as some members of the Catholic sect of Christianity are pedophiles. The same goes for all examples.
Post by: Barbara on January 31, 2008, 08:27:25 PM
Quote
Arian Church
Aryan.
Arian doesn't have any current church that I'm aware of.
Post by: De Selby on January 31, 2008, 08:48:15 PM
Maned, if you are having fun, by all means keep going. I however realized there is no reasoning with this guy. When he considers the dictionary not a good source of information because he as a Muslim rejects it because the definitions are not what he wants it is rather obvious he will see only what he wants to see.
You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink.
You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink.
No need to take my word for it or to rely on "my opinion as a Muslim"-try to see if you can find any Muslim who agrees with your claims about Islam. Alot some time to that project, because you will be looking long and hard to find one.
It's very difficult. If they did, publically, the radicals would try to kill them, or declare that they ought to be killed.
Ask Ayaan Hirsi Ali what that's like. Because she's one of what you're asking about.
Huh? You think the radicals believe that Imams can issue fatwas on the spot!? Have you read any of the ideological work that drives these movements?
Radical Islamists are by far the most anti-authority of all the Muslim subsects. They absolutely hated establishment scholars, state religious figures, and any claims that some interpretation of the Qu'ran other than their own should be considered authoritative or binding.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali is not Muslim, so I don't see how her opinion on the role of the Imam would have much to do with our discussion. I think you are perhaps confused as to what SomeKid was alleging. He was alleging that Imams have some special authority in Islam; I was pointing out to him that they do not, and that no such position as "priest" in Islam exists. There is no such thing as ordination or sacrament or "divine authority" in Islam; there are only Muslims, all of whom have the right to argue and interpret the available legal texts. Some find bigger audiences, some find smaller. In that sense it is very similar to Rabbinical Judaism (from what I know of Judaism, anyway.)
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 01, 2008, 12:16:46 PM
McVeigh used the Christian churches beliefs to guide him in his bombings.
You keep saying that, but where do you get that idea?
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 01, 2008, 12:17:28 PM
Quote
Arian Church
Aryan.
Arian doesn't have any current church that I'm aware of.
I've never heard of an Aryan Church. I think he meant Christian Identity.
Post by: WeedWhacker on February 02, 2008, 03:12:59 PM
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.
But if I tried to list all the terrorists who have blown stuff up in the name of Islam, I'd crash the server.
No need, we have someone else's server to crash: http://prophetofdoom.net/Islamic_Terrorism_Timeline.Islam
Post by: WeedWhacker on February 02, 2008, 03:19:45 PM
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.
"November 6, 1970: In Israel, a bomb exploded in the central bus station in Tel Aviv. A explosion followed twenty minutes later. Two people were killed and thirty-four were wounded in the terrorist act attributed to al-Fatah.
On November 8th, Abu Iyad of Fatah issued a statement in Amman saying that the twin suicide bombings were "the start of more and bigger operations within our occupied homeland.""
Just the first one I found after 30 seconds.
Post by: Bogie on February 02, 2008, 03:39:43 PM
Post by: WeedWhacker on February 02, 2008, 03:56:57 PM
It must be really, really hard to hate so much.
I might agree, depending on whom that comment was directed at...
Post by: De Selby on February 02, 2008, 05:39:24 PM
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.
"November 6, 1970: In Israel, a bomb exploded in the central bus station in Tel Aviv. A explosion followed twenty minutes later. Two people were killed and thirty-four were wounded in the terrorist act attributed to al-Fatah.
On November 8th, Abu Iyad of Fatah issued a statement in Amman saying that the twin suicide bombings were "the start of more and bigger operations within our occupied homeland.""
Just the first one I found after 30 seconds.
You're serious? Al-Fatah, the infamous communist/secularist group that fought a war against its religious rival, Hamas, serves as an example of "Islamic terrorism"?
Not only that, but suicide terrorism? Nope.
It is simply astounding that just because terrorists have arabic names (even when many of them are Christian), an attack perpertrated by them automatically counts as "Islamic terrorism." If that's not evidence of gross bias in the reporting on these issues, I don't know what is.
Looking at the list you posted from 1970, there's already one act (the hijacking of TWA 707) that was carried out by a Christian-led organization. I don't think that makes this qualify as "Christian terrorism" though. Do you?
The timeline from "prophetofdoom.net" (note the website name-that sure looks reliable, doesn't it?) is simply ridiculous-it's a list of years with no citation the religion of the actors, or discussion of the religious elements in these attacks. The website itself is a hack piece against Muslims-its only redeeming feature is that it is evidence of free speech even on touchy subjects; it has absolutely zero information or sane argumentation to contribute to this discussion. Between the really bad writing, atrocious reasoning, lack of citation, and unprofessional layout, I'm surprised this website gets any attention at all. But I guess hating Islam and Muslims is popular enough that even a poorly done rant against Muslims gets some play.
Post by: Bogie on February 02, 2008, 09:11:00 PM
Al Fatah and Hamas are Freedom Fighters!
They are here for your welfare.
They will make things Good for you.
Disregard any lying infidels. They will be beheaded and lie with pigs.
thankyouverymuch
Post by: De Selby on February 02, 2008, 09:13:18 PM
Do not Worry.
Al Fatah and Hamas are Freedom Fighters!
They are here for your welfare.
They will make things Good for you.
Disregard any lying infidels. They will be beheaded and lie with pigs.
thankyouverymuch
Al Fatah and Hamas are Freedom Fighters!
They are here for your welfare.
They will make things Good for you.
Disregard any lying infidels. They will be beheaded and lie with pigs.
thankyouverymuch
Sorry, but saying that a terrorist group is not Muslim is not the same thing as saying it's good.
It'd be nice if you could just address what was said, instead of claiming that in some bizarre way, it's a compliment to Fatah to say that it isn't a Muslim organization. It's really not-IMO, if they were practicing Muslims, they might try to be decent people (like practicing Christians actually make an effort to be good people), and none of the Fatah leadership ever were.
"Arab" does not mean Muslim, and neither does "not Muslim" mean "good." In light of this, I fail to see how your response above in any way relates to this question.
Post by: Bogie on February 03, 2008, 12:09:53 PM
Post by: De Selby on February 03, 2008, 12:27:21 PM
Remember that they purge the intellectuals first.
Who is they? The communists, or the Islamists?
Neither are good people-but that's not the issue here.