PDA

View Full Version : Americans' suspicions frustrate U.S. Muslims


MasterOfPuppets
09-13-2010, 02:10 AM
NEW YORK — Nine years of denouncing terrorism, of praying side-by-side with Jews and Christians, of insisting "I'm American, too." None of it could stop a season of hate against Muslims that made for an especially fraught Sept. 11. Now, Muslims are asking why their efforts to be accepted in the United States have been so easily thwarted.
"We have nothing to apologize for, we have nothing to fear, we have nothing to be ashamed of, we have nothing that we're guilty of — but we need to be out there and we need to express this," said Imam Mohammed Ibn Faqih in a sermon at the Islamic Institute of Orange County in Anaheim, Calif., the day before the 9/11 anniversary.
There is no simple way for American Muslims to move forward.
Images of violence overseas in the name of Islam have come to define the faith for many non-Muslims at home. The U.S. remains at war in Afghanistan, and although America has formally declared an end to its combat operations in Iraq, U.S. troops there continue to fight alongside Iraqi forces.
Within the U.S., domestic terror has become a greater threat, while ignorance about what Islam teaches is widespread. More than half of respondents in a recent poll by the Pew Forum for Religion & Public Life said they knew little or nothing about the Muslim faith.
Some U.S. Muslims say their national organizations share the blame, for answering intricate questions about Islam with platitudes, and failing to fully examine the potential for extremism within their communities. Muslim leaders often respond when terrorists strike by saying Islam is a "religion of peace" that has no role in the violence instead of confronting the legitimate concerns of other Americans, these Muslim critics say.
"There's a quaintness and naivete or outright whitewashing of some very complex issues," said Saeed Khan, who teaches at Wayne State University in Detroit. "This has caused a lot of frustration for a lot of Muslim Americans, myself included."
The summer frenzy about Islam in America has revolved around Park51, a community center and mosque planned two blocks from New York's ground zero. Opponents and supporters of the center converged on the area for protests and counter-protests Saturday after the morning memorial ceremony at the World Trade Center site.
In recent months, mosques in Tennessee, California, New York and elsewhere have been shot at and vandalized. Threatening messages were left at one mosque. A Florida pastor caused a global uproar with his ultimately unfulfilled threat to make a bonfire of Qurans on Sept. 11.
Many Jewish, Roman Catholic, mainline Protestant, evangelical, atheist and other groups have responded with an outpouring of support for Muslims, but suspicion remains high among many Americans.
Islamic centers have become a focus of non-Muslim fears. Federal authorities have placed informants in mosques, saying doing so is a critical counter-terrorism tool. Muslim groups have separately created national campaigns encouraging congregations to monitor for any sign of radicalization, but they have also complained bitterly about the use of informants, worried the innocent will be caught up in the net police have set for criminals.
Akbar Ahmed, professor of Islamic studies at American University, found a wide range of mosques — from literalist to modernist to mystical — while researching his book, "Journey Into America, The Challenge of Islam." He said many mosques are engaged in internal struggles between Muslims with rigid and modernist views, but he found none that fit the imaginings of anti-Muslim conspiracy theorists.

Historians, and several Muslim leaders, see similarities to the prejudice Roman Catholics and Jews experienced as newcomers to America starting in the 19th century. The hierarchical Catholic church was denounced as a threat to the separation of church and state. Synagogues were banned in many states, and Jews were viewed as undermining the nation's Christian character.
Mark Silk, director of the Greenberg Center for the Study of Religion in Public Life at Trinity College in Connecticut, said the experience of Japanese Americans in World War II more closely parallels the current plight of Muslims. After the Pearl Harbor bombing, Silk said Americans asked, "Are our Japanese different from those Japanese?"
"I don't think we're about to round up all the Muslims and put them in concentration camps," Silk said. "But I don't think we've ever seen the degree of legitimacy given by people in positions of authority to straight-up, anti-Islamic expression."
The Muslim Public Affairs Council, a Los Angeles-based advocacy group, blames bigotry on "a small cottage industry" that foments prejudice on the Web and elsewhere. These organizations have dramatically expanded their reach since 2001 through social media, and have made celebrities of Muslim converts to Christianity who disparage Islam as thoroughly violent.
"The reality is that there are very well-funded initiatives to spread misinformation about Islam," said Ingrid Mattson, president of the Islamic Society of North America, an umbrella group for thousands of Muslims. "For the Muslim community, we are finding ourselves so stretched. We're a young community."
U.S. Muslim condemnations of terrorism have failed to persuade other Americans.
This year, in response to recent cases of young Americans lured into jihadist movements by Internet preaching, nine prominent U.S. Muslim scholars made a YouTube video denouncing radicalism. Other American Islamic scholars have written edicts, or fatwas, saying violence is contrary to Islamic teaching. The Islamic Society of North America dedicated its 2005 annual convention, which draws tens of thousands of Muslims, to fighting terrorism and extremism.

(http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39136087/ns/us_news-life#after)However, suspicion persists among other Americans that Muslims say one thing in public and something different among themselves. U.S. Muslim groups that still accept foreign funding are the most vulnerable to this charge. Many critics, within and outside the Muslim community, also find the condemnations so broad that they are meaningless since they rarely denounce specific terrorist groups, including al-Qaida.
It doesn't help that many of the statements against violence are delivered in heavily accented English at a time of heightened anti-immigrant feeling in the United States.
"I think that part of the reason the general American public is not listening is the common human impulse to fear and mistrust what we don't know or understand," said Abdullahi An-Na'im, an expert in Islam and human rights at Emory University School of Law.
Throughout the recent anti-Muslim outburst, American Muslim leaders have taken pains to acknowledge that many in their community have prospered in the U.S., and that Muslims have more freedom here than they would in many other countries.
At the same time, fatigue is setting in. They wonder: How many more times will they have to condemn violent extremism before non-Muslim Americans believe them?
____
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39136087/ns/us_news-life

MasterOfPuppets
09-13-2010, 02:19 AM
this article pretty much sums it up for me .... just look at the problems they're having in europe by not keeping the muslim population in check...

Muslims Have Conquered Europe Without Firing A Shot

America Will Be Next, Unless We Wake Up


Question 1

True or False: In Brussels, Belgium, the capital of the European Union and Belgium, the Socialist mayor presides over a caucus that has a majority made up of Muslims.

Question 2

True or False: In a few years, Amsterdam, Antwerp, Rotterdam and many other European cities will reach majority Muslim status.

Question 3

True or False: The Muslim population of the United Kingdom is increasing 10 times faster than the general population.



Question 4

True or False: British banks have abolished piggy banks, as they might offend Muslims and police in Brussels are enjoined from eating doughnuts during Ramadan.

Question 5

True or False: Ken Livingstone, the former mayor of London, believes it is perfectly acceptable to blow up buses in Tel Aviv, but objects to those blowing up buses in England.

Question 6

True or False: The British lean over backward to grant freedom of speech to Muslim groups, even as they slander returning war heroes; but they also lean over backward to silence any critics of Islam.

If you answered true to all six questions, you’re tuned into what is going on in Europe. All six are true. This quiz is based on an article by Mark Steyn in Commentary Magazine (May 2009) titled “Israel Today, The West Tomorrow: Acquiescence to extremist Islam’s assault on Jewry and Israel will not save the nations of Europe from a Muslim Fate.”

Mr. Steyn’s thesis is that the Muslims may now be targeting Israel, but their basic objective, for the moment, is to take over Europe … and they are well along in that process, as the six-question quiz suggests.

He wrote a classic book, America Alone: The End of the World As We Know It, in which he found that Europe is virtually finished as a Western, Christian continent and will soon be under Muslim control. But here is his bottom line, to make sure resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict isn’t viewed as the magic bullet for peace: “In the end, this isn’t about Gaza, this isn’t about the Middle East; it’s about them [the Europeans]. It may be some consolation to an ever lonelier Israel that, in one of history’s bleaker jests, in the coming Europe the Europeans will be the new Jews.”

Europe thinks when the canary in the mine dies, the miners are safe. In this case, the Europeans are the miners, and if the present trend continues, they will be as dead as the canary in short order.

Mr. Steyn’s book was frightening on two counts. First, it is shocking to understand that Europe is about to become Eurabia, a continent subject to Muslim domination. Second, it is even more shocking that when you study what is going on in Europe, you get the feeling that America is starting down the same path to the destruction of Western civilization. Mr. Steyn’s book came out in 2006, and it painted a grim picture. Now, just three years later, Mr. Steyn’s predictions are proving to be right on target, and the collapse of Europe is continuing at a steady and rapid pace.

Mr. Steyn’s conclusions are backed in another recent article found in Townhall Magazine (May 2009) by Tim Montgomerie titled “Far From United: The United Kingdom’s Government Has Decided To Appease Muslim Extremists and Act Embarrassed About Western Culture. Can Britain Survive?”

The picture he paints is just as grim and bleak as that of Mr. Steyn’s. Just consider his opening salvo. When British troops returned from a tour of duty in Iraq, they were given a homecoming parade by the southern English town of Luton. The people of Luton enthusiastically greeted the soldiers with cheers, smiles and flowers.

But then came what some might be considered to be unexpected if not the incredible:

“But a day of thanksgiving was overshadowed by the loud protests of a group of Islamic extremists. Holding up placards, they accused Britain’s heroic soldiers of being ‘butchers,’ ‘war criminals,’ ‘murderers’ and ‘baby killers.’ By granting the Muslim protestors a right to insult the soldiers, the police were risking a breach of the peace — and a breach of the peace did occur. But Britain’s police service always appears eager to bend over backwards for a militant minority within the Muslim population.”

The British give every consideration and every doubt to the Muslim population, including freedom of speech to insult war heroes. But when it comes to critics of Islam, the British are willing to abolish free speech to silence them, if that’s what it takes to appease the Muslims.

They did that by banning the appearance before Parliament of Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders. The ban came after Islamic Web sites threatened to mobilize a mob protest if Mr. Wilders was granted a right to deliver his warning that Islam is an intrinsically violent religion.

More recently, after the Townhall article went to the printer, the British government banned talk show host Michael Savage from entry as his views were apparently considered too inflammatory. This all shows how far along the British and the rest of Europe are to surrendering to the oncoming Islamic tide. Mr. Steyn and others who forecast the end of Europe as we know it were right on course.

For other excellent books documenting the same trend, see Melanie Phillips, Londonistan; Bat Ye’Or, Eurabia: The European Arab Axis; and Bruce Bawer, While Europe Slept.

Ms. Phillips, who is right on target in her writings, says the British have an unwritten agreement that they would turn a blind eye to Muslim terrorists as long as they did not target Britain. You would think that would have all changed after the London subway bombing of July 7, 2005 killed 50 Londoners. Instead, Britain answered by more appeasement, according to Mr. Montgomerie. This is the kind of hopelessly stupid and irrational reaction that leads people like Mr. Steyn and Ms. Phillips to write the Europeans off as lost to Islam.

You can’t preserve your own culture and values and fight off those who would subjugate you if you don’t believe in yourself. America, England and much of Europe have become self-loathing apologists for their own culture, and can hardly expect it to be preserved against those who believe in their culture and values and who are determined to see it win.

Even in America, we have important centers of America-hating self-loathing in our academic centers, in much of our mainstream media and in the White House. That does not bode well in an ideological war between two cultures and value systems pitting self-loathing apologists of the West against fanatical enthusiast on the other side.

You also can’t preserve your culture and values if you aren’t forming enough families and having enough children to preserve your nation and its power. Europe is ideologically doomed, but it is also demographically doomed. Its population is shrinking slowly, while the Muslim population is exploding. This is classic conquest by demography on the part of the Muslims and death by demography on the part of the Europeans.

You also won’t preserve your culture and values when one of the bastions of our way of life, the churches, are being weakened and are even disappearing in Europe. That continent seems to have surrendered to secularism and religion has gone out of style. In England, for example, the Church of England is in retreat and is in the appeasement mode. The bishop in charge of the Church’s urban ministry opposed the idea of the Church having a duty to convert Muslims to Christianity. The bishops of the Church seem more interested in accommodating Islamic opinion than in bringing their religion to others. The leader of the Anglican Church has spoken with approval of the introduction of aspects of Shariah law (Muslim law) into Britain.

There’s another deadly trend obvious in England but making headway elsewhere in the West — the union of the left and radical Islam in the hate America campaign. The Townhall magazine article explains the seemingly strange but solid alliance between the left (including major segments of the Democratic Party) and radical Islam. To make the point the article quotes Michael Gove, a leading Conservative member of Parliament:

“The Left’s enemies are no longer primarily a system, capitalism and its agents such as big business. Instead the principal enemy is now the oppressive West and, in particular, The Great Satan, America and the Little Satan, Israel. The Crusaders and the Zionists … Antipathy towards America, like opposition to Israel, has become the touchstone of radical Left credibility.”

So America has to face the music and fight, as no matter what happens to Israel and other obstacles in the path to Muslim world domination, the final target has to be America. Like it or not, we are marked for subjugation and/or destruction.

If we are to win that war against radical Islam, we have to recognize we’re in a battle, which will not be won by retreat and appeasement. And we will not win if we do not believe in our own values and culture and if we do not try to end the hate-America, blame-America streak that is becoming all too common in our national life. Again, Mr. Gove struck a cord, also sounded by Mr. Steyn. He was speaking of the challenge facing Britain, but America and the rest of the West face the same challenge:

“Unless we retain the moral clarity to know that Western society, its freedoms and traditions, are worth celebrating, deserve to be emulated, and will benefit others by being adopted, then we will find them increasingly difficult to defend at a time of trial.”

Those in the process of appeasing the Muslim onslaught should heed the wisdom of Mr. Churchill, one of the great statesmen of history who understood the folly of appeasement: “An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile — hoping it will eat him last.”

And then for those who won’t stand up to a bully, an aggressor, or a homicidal maniac until it’s too late, they should heed the words of the German theologian, Martin Neimoller:

First they came for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Communist.

Then they came for the Social Democrats, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Social Democrat.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Jew,

Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me.

Rev. Neimoller almost learned his own lesson too late. He supported the Nazis until he finally realized what they were up to. He was sent to the Dachau concentration camp, and was one of the lucky ones to survive and be freed at the end of the war.

Most aren’t that lucky. The sooner you speak up, the more likely you are to escape without catastrophic consequences. Don’t count on being one of the lucky ones.

Vis
09-13-2010, 12:37 PM
Keeping the Muslim population in check? How do you propose to do that? Special neighborhoods? Special rules?

MACH1
09-13-2010, 02:42 PM
Keeping the Muslim population in check? How do you propose to do that? Special neighborhoods? Special rules?

Hunting seasons. Daily bag limit of ten. :flap:

Vis
09-13-2010, 02:53 PM
First they came for the Muslims, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Muslim.

MasterOfPuppets
09-13-2010, 03:56 PM
Keeping the Muslim population in check? How do you propose to do that? Special neighborhoods? Special rules?
i don't mean the existing population per say , but the growth of the population.

The Muslim population of the United Kingdom is increasing 10 times faster than the general population.

Vis
09-13-2010, 06:18 PM
How do you do that? And why worry about it unless they take over Mexico first?

MasterOfPuppets
09-13-2010, 07:42 PM
How do you do that? And why worry about it unless they take over Mexico first?
not giving 10's of thousands of them every year visas and citizenship would be a good start..
in 1970 we had an estimated 160,000 muslims... today there are approximately 7 million.

NEW YORK — The events of Sept. 11 transformed life for Muslims in the United States, and the flow of immigrants from countries such as Egypt, Pakistan and Morocco thinned drastically.
But five years later, as the United States wrestles with questions of terrorism, civil liberties and immigration control, Muslims appear to be moving here again in surprising numbers, according to statistics compiled by the Department of Homeland Security and the Census Bureau.
Immigrants from predominantly Muslim countries in the Middle East, North Africa and Asia are planting new roots in states from Virginia to Texas to California.
In 2005, more people from Muslim countries became legal permanent U.S. residents — nearly 96,000 — than in any year in the previous two decades. More than 40,000 of them were admitted last year, the highest annual number since the terrorist attacks, according to data on 22 countries provided by the Department of Homeland Security.

Vincent
09-13-2010, 08:24 PM
Keeping the Muslim population in check? How do you propose to do that? Special neighborhoods? Special rules?

Special toys...

http://www.motifake.com/image/demotivational-poster/0809/barrett-50-cal-sniper-rifle-demotivational-poster-1220478094.jpg

Jimmy's new muslim rifle. That picture gets me all verklempt.

Talk amongst yourselves. Frags. muslims. Discuss.

Vis
09-14-2010, 04:57 AM
not giving 10's of thousands of them every year visas and citizenship would be a good start..
in 1970 we had an estimated 160,000 muslims... today there are approximately 7 million.

So you want an immigration policy that has quotas based on religion, race or both?

MACH1
09-14-2010, 11:08 AM
So you want an immigration policy that has quotas based on religion, race or both?

Enforcing the immigration laws would be a good start.

MasterOfPuppets
09-14-2010, 01:59 PM
So you want an immigration policy that has quotas based on religion, race or both?
nope... i want an immigration policy based on nationality.:popcorn:

i'm thinking citizens of countries that we DON'T see burning american flags should get a bit more consideration.

Vis
09-14-2010, 03:19 PM
24% of legal immigrants come from Mexico. The next highest country is China at under 5%. It's the Catholics who are overrunning the country, not the Muslims.

Vincent
09-14-2010, 03:40 PM
24% of legal immigrants come from Mexico. The next highest country is China at under 5%. It's the Catholics who are overrunning the country, not the Muslims.

Catholics make good football players and they don't fly our airplanes into our buildings.

muslims don't do @#$%. And everything they touch turns to @#$%. I can't think of a single thing that islam has contributed to the world except terrorism. Zip, zilch, nada. If you look at what they've done to Europe, keep them the @#$% out.

Vis
09-14-2010, 03:54 PM
I can't think of a single thing that islam has contributed to the world except terrorism. Zip, zilch, nada.

That's right up there with the 3rd grader who can't perform brain surgery. Just because it's beyond you doesn't make it so.

Vincent
09-14-2010, 03:57 PM
That's right up there with the 3rd grader who can't perform brain surgery. Just because it's beyond you doesn't make it so.

Typical vacuous playground Vis response. OK Counselor, WTF has islam contributed? You have the floor.

Vis
09-14-2010, 04:08 PM
algebra, paper manufacturing, gunpowder, textiles, the university systems, etc...

Google to your heart's content. Be curious, learn. Let the kids walk on the grass.

SteelCityMom
09-14-2010, 04:10 PM
Wow...I know there are some radicals that give Muslims a bad name, but have never contributed anything except terrorism? Gosh. I could have sworn that Islam, in its golden era, basically instituted the first real hospitals, the first medical degrees, the first university and the scientific method. Not to mention that an Islamic university is credited as being the oldest degree granting university.

Without historical Islamic contributions, the studies of mathematics, chemistry, pharmaceuticals, medicine, philosophy, psychology, agriculture and on and on and on, would not have advanced the same way.

I get the hate for terrorists. A terrorist of any nationality, race or religion sucks...but damn, talk about sweeping generalities in this thread.

I guess I should go along with the line of thinking here and say that since some Catholic priests like to touch little boys in the no-no spot, that all Catholics should be put under strict scrutiny and called worthless little kiddie touchers. Whats good for the goose I guess.

SteelCityMom
09-14-2010, 04:12 PM
Muslims also perfected the production of alcohol through chemistry. True story. We can all get tanked because of Muslim contributions to the world.

Pass me the tequila!

MasterOfPuppets
09-14-2010, 04:18 PM
Muslims also perfected the production of alcohol through chemistry. True story. We can all get tanked because of Muslim contributions to the world.

Pass me the tequila!
don't forget the hashish ... :thumbsup:

Vincent
09-14-2010, 04:31 PM
algebra, paper manufacturing, gunpowder, textiles, the university systems, etc...

Google to your heart's content. Be curious, learn. Let the kids walk on the grass.

The Nubians were doing what we call Algebra long before the advent of islam. The Chinese were using gunpowder before Jesus. Ditto paper. WTF did islam have to do with textiles? "University system"? You're just making @#$% up.

You seem to need to attribute something positive to islam and in doing so you associate things of other cultures with islam.

Mom, Alcohol had been around for thousands of years before islam. I've looked everywhere for some relationship between alcohol production and islam and find nothing.

http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/Controversies/1114796842.html

"Be curious, learn". Follow your own advise Counselor.

SteelCityMom
09-14-2010, 04:34 PM
So you want an immigration policy that has quotas based on religion, race or both?

Well, technically we still have immigration policies based on race.

The Hart-Cellar Act abolished the national origins quota system that had structured American immigration policy since the 1920s, replacing it with a preference system that focused on immigrants' skills and family relationships with citizens or residents of the U.S. Numerical restrictions on visas were set at 170,000 per year, not including immediate relatives of U.S. citizens, nor "special immigrants" (including those born in "independent" nations in the Western hemisphere; former citizens; ministers; employees of the U.S. government abroad)

http://library.uwb.edu/guides/USimmigration/1965_immigration_and_nationality_act.html

An annual limitation of 300,000 visas was established for immigrants, including 170,000 from Eastern Hemisphere countries, with no more than 20,000 per country. By 1968, the annual limitation from the Western Hemisphere was set at 120,000 immigrants, with visas available on a first-come, first-served basis. However, the number of family reunification visas was unlimited. While as of 2010 there are no quotas for immigrant spouses of US citizens, quotas for other types of relatives of US citizens have since been instituted.

I think what some others would like to see is a form of the 1924 Immigration Act that restricted visas from certain parts of the world (mostly China, Japan, Phillipines and other East Asian and Asian Indian countries).

SteelCityMom
09-14-2010, 04:57 PM
The Nubians were doing what we call Algebra long before the advent of islam.

Khwarizmi, Abu Jafar Muhammad ibn Musa al-

Mathematician, astronomer, and geographer. Synthesized extant Hellenic, Sanskritic, and cuneiform traditions to develop algebra, a term derived from the title of one of his books (containing the term al-jabr, meaning “forcing” [numbers). Introduced Arabic numerals into the Latin West, based on a place-value decimal system developed from Indian sources. The word algorithm is derived from a Latin corruption of his name.

http://www.oxfordislamicstudies.com/article/opr/t125/e1305

The Chinese were using gunpowder before Jesus.

Gunpowder Composition for Rockets and Cannon
in Arabic Military Treatises
In Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries
http://www.history-science-technology.com/Articles/articles%202.htm

Potassium Nitrate in Arabic and Latin Sources

http://www.history-science-technology.com/Articles/articles%203.htm

Ditto paper. WTF did islam have to do with textiles?

They obviously didn't invent textiles, but Muslims were responsible for a dramatic change in how textiles and other goods were manufactured. I think that's what Vis meant.

TRANSFER OF ISLAMIC TECHNOLOGY TO THE WEST

PART 1

AVENUES OF TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER

http://www.history-science-technology.com/Articles/articles%207.htm

"University system"? You're just making @#$% up.

No, he's really not making shit up. The University of Al Karaouine as the oldest degree-granting university in the world with its founding in 859 CE. Islamic schools were also the first to hand out doctorates.

http://www.jstor.org/pss/604423


Mom, Alcohol had been around for thousands of years before islam. I've looked everywhere for some relationship between alcohol production and islam and find nothing.

You are not looking hard enough then. Note I said production (distillation) and not invention of alcohol.

Here's a small blurb from Wikipedia. The link also cites references and other examples of Muslim discoveries.

"Early forms of distillation were known to the Babylonians, Greeks and Egyptians since ancient times, but it was Muslim chemists who first invented pure distillation processes which could fully purify chemical substances. They also developed several different variations of distillation (such as dry distillation, destructive distillation and steam distillation) and introduced new distillation aparatus (such as the alembic, still, and retort), and invented a variety of new chemical processes and over 2,000 substances."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inventions_in_medieval_Islam#Chemical_industries

MasterOfPuppets
09-14-2010, 05:21 PM
10 Greatest Inventions by Muslims


1. Coffee (http://english.pravda.ru/filing/Coffee_/)

The story goes that an Arab named Khalid was tending his goats in the Kaffa region of southern Ethiopia, when he noticed hi s animals became livelier after eating a certain berry. He boiled the berries to make the first coffee. Certainly the first record of the drink is of beans exported from Ethiopia to Yemen where Sufis drank it to stay awake all night to pray on special occasions. By the late 15th century it had arrived in Mecca and Turkey from where it made its way to Venice in 1645. It was brought to England in 1650 by a Turk named Pasqua Rosee who opened the first coffee house in Lombard Street in the City of London . The Arabic qahwa became the Turkish kahve then the Italian caffé and then English coffee.
2. Chess (http://english.pravda.ru/filing/Chess_/)
A form of chess was played in ancient India but the game was developed into the form we know it today in Persia. From there i t spread westward to Europe - where it was introduced by the Moors in Spain in the 10th century - and eastward as far as Japan. The word rook comes from the Persian rukh, which means chariot.
3. Parachute (http://english.pravda.ru/filing/Parachute_/)

A thousand years before the Wright brothers a Muslim poet, astronomer, musician and engineer named Abbas ibn Firnas made several attempts to construct a flying machine. In 852 he jumped from the minaret of the Grand Mosque in Cordoba using a loose cloak stiffened with wooden struts. He hoped to glide like a bird. He didn't. But the cloak slowed his fall, creating what is thought to be the first parachute, and leaving him with only minor injuries. In 875, aged 70, having perfected a machine of silk and eagles' feathers he tried again, jumping from a mountain. He flew to a significant height and stayed aloft for ten minutes but crashed on landing - concluding, correctly, that it was because he had not given his device a tail so it would stall on landing. Baghdad international airport and a crater on the Moon are named after him.
4. Shampoo (http://english.pravda.ru/filing/Shampoo_/)
Washing and bathing are religious requirements for Muslims, which is perhaps why they perfected the recipe for soap which we still use today. The ancient Egyptians had soap of a kind, as did the Romans who used it more as a pomade. But it was the Arabs who combined vegetable oils with sodium hydroxide and aromatics such as thyme oil. One of the Crusaders' most striking characteristics, to Arab nostrils, was that they did not wash. Shampoo was introduced to England by a Muslim who opened Mahomed's Indian Vapour Baths on Brighton seafront in 1759 and was appointed Shampooing Surgeon to Kings George IV and William IV.
5. Metal Armor (http://english.pravda.ru/filing/Metal_Armor_/)
Quilting is a method of sewing or tying two layers of cloth with a layer of insulating material in between. It is not clear whether it was invented in the Muslim world or whether it was imported there from India or China. But it certainly came to the West via the Crusaders. They saw it used by Saracen warriors, who wore straw-filled quilted canvas shirts instead of armour. As well as a form of protection, it proved an effective guard against the chafing of the Crusaders' metal armour and was an effective form of insulation - so much so that it became a cottage industry back home in colder climates such as Britain and Holland.
6. Surgery (http://english.pravda.ru/filing/Surgery_/)
Many modern surgical instruments are of exactly the same design as those devised in the 10th century by a Muslim surgeon called al-Zahrawi. His scalpels, bone saws, forceps, fine scissors for eye surgery and many of the 200 instruments he devised are recognisable to a modern surgeon. It was he who discovered that catgut used for internal stitches dissolves away naturally (a discovery he made when his monkey ate his lute strings) and that it can be also used to make medicine capsules. In the 13th century, another Muslim medic named Ibn Nafis described the circulation of the blood, 300 years before William Harvey discovered it. Muslims doctors also invented anaesthetics of opium and alcohol mixes and developed hollow needles to suck cataracts from eyes in a technique still used today.
7. Soup (http://english.pravda.ru/filing/Soup_/)
Ali ibn Nafi, known by his nickname of Ziryab (Blackbird) came from Iraq to Cordoba in the 9th century and brought with him the concept of the three-course meal - soup, followed by fish or meat, then fruit and nuts. He also introduced crystal glasses
8. Pay Cheques
The modern cheque comes from the Arabic saqq, a written vow to pay for goods when they were delivered, to avoid money having to be transported across dangerous terrain. In the 9th century, a Muslim businessman could cash a cheque in China drawn on his bank in Baghdad.
9. Rocket and Torpedo (http://english.pravda.ru/filing/Torpedo_/)
Though the Chinese invented saltpetre gunpowder, and used it in their fireworks, it was the Arabs who worked out that it could be purified using potassium nitrate for military use. Muslim incendiary devices terrified the Crusaders. By the 15th century they had invented both a rocket, which they called a "self-moving and combusting egg", and a torpedo - a self-propelled pear-shaped bomb with a spear at the front which impaled itself in enemy ships and then blew up.
10. Windmill (http://english.pravda.ru/filing/Windmill_/)
The windmill was invented in 634 for a Persian caliph and was used to grind corn and draw up water for irrigation. In the va st deserts of Arabia, when the seasonal streams ran dry, the only source of power was the wind which blew steadily from one direction for months. Mills had six or 12 sails covered in fabric or palm leaves. It was 500 years before the first windmill was seen in Europe.

Vis
09-14-2010, 05:47 PM
1
[B]7. Soup (http://english.pravda.ru/filing/Soup_/)
Ali ibn Nafi, known by his nickname of Ziryab (Blackbird) came from Iraq to Cordoba in the 9th century and brought with him the concept of the three-course meal - soup, followed by fish or meat, then fruit and nuts. He also introduced crystal glasses
.

Vincent, no soup for you.

MasterOfPuppets
09-14-2010, 05:53 PM
:toofunny:

ricardisimo
09-14-2010, 07:07 PM
Catholics make good football players and they don't fly our airplanes into our buildings.

muslims don't do @#$%. And everything they touch turns to @#$%. I can't think of a single thing that islam has contributed to the world except terrorism. Zip, zilch, nada. If you look at what they've done to Europe, keep them the @#$% out.
Timothy McVeigh was Catholic. True, he didn't fly a plane into the Murrah Building, but...

Vincent
09-14-2010, 07:30 PM
Khwarizmi, Abu Jafar Muhammad ibn Musa al-
http://www.oxfordislamicstudies.com/article/opr/t125/e1305

So an islamic propaganda site says nothing about this guy "inventing" algebra. Their words, "he developed it".

The Nubians "invented" what we call algebra" I posted the link earlier.

Gunpowder Composition for Rockets and Cannon
in Arabic Military Treatises In Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries
http://www.history-science-technology.com/Articles/articles%202.htm

So what? The Chinese invented it scores of centuries before. The Europeans used the technology as well. The only thing muslims added to blowing @#$% up was blowing themselves up. Very impressive.

They obviously didn't invent textiles, but Muslims were responsible for a dramatic change in how textiles and other goods were manufactured. I think that's what Vis meant.

I think that's what Vis meant.

Next?

TRANSFER OF ISLAMIC TECHNOLOGY TO THE WEST

PART 1

AVENUES OF TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER

http://www.history-science-technology.com/Articles/articles%207.htm

The common thread to all these "islam actually did something positive" apology articles is that muslims were someplace where something positive was already going on - including the "near East". As this article notes, al this civilized activity was going on since ancient times. islam just happened to emerge and spread on the same ground. But it had nothing whatsoever to do with advancing any civilization.

No, he's really not making shit up. The University of Al Karaouine as the oldest degree-granting university in the world with its founding in 859 CE. Islamic schools were also the first to hand out doctorates.

http://www.jstor.org/pss/604423

So from that we are to conclude that islam is responsible "for the university system". Thin.

"Universitas" is where the term came from. The University of Bologna is "the oldest university in the Western world". So the crown for "the oldest" is a pissing contest. To say that islam had anything to do with "inventing" or originating what we call the university system isn't there. Bologna makes no reference to Ali Baba U.

http://www.eng.unibo.it/PortaleEn/University/Our+History/default.htm

You are not looking hard enough then. Note I said production (distillation) and not invention of alcohol.

Here's a small blurb from Wikipedia. The link also cites references and other examples of Muslim discoveries.

Muslim discoveries? C'mon Mom.

The Chinese were making perfume millenia before mohammad zoomed his first nine year old. The monks were distilling "the spirits', or as they call "it" aqua vītae, ("water of life") in Scotland (then Alban) and Ireland during late Roman times..

http://www.thewhiskyguide.com/Facts/History.html

10 Greatest Inventions by Muslims

1. Coffee (http://english.pravda.ru/filing/Coffee_/)

The story goes that an Arab named Khalid was tending his goats in the Kaffa region of southern Ethiopia...

OK, I'll give them coffee.

[2. Chess (http://english.pravda.ru/filing/Chess_/)
A form of chess was played in ancient India but the game was developed into the form we know it today in Persia.

OK, so the Indians invented Chess. The Hindus also "invented" what has become to be known as the Arabic numeral" system. But, of course, islam gets the credit. How long was Persia around before mo was raping and pillaging the "near East"?

I'm noticing that Pravda is the source for these. Odd.

[3. Parachute (http://english.pravda.ru/filing/Parachute_/)

A thousand years before the Wright brothers a Muslim poet, astronomer, musician and engineer named Abbas ibn Firnas made several attempts to construct a flying machine. In 852 he jumped from the minaret of the Grand Mosque in Cordoba using a loose cloak stiffened with wooden struts...

Who, in Europe, Asia, and presumably even the Antarctica, wasn't trying to fly since the beginning of time?

[4. Shampoo (http://english.pravda.ru/filing/Shampoo_/)

Next?

[5. Metal Armor (http://english.pravda.ru/filing/Metal_Armor_/)
Quilting is a method of sewing or tying two layers of cloth with a layer of insulating material in between. It is not clear whether it was invented in the Muslim world or whether it was imported there from India or China....

That's correct Bob, China.

Next.

[6. Surgery (http://english.pravda.ru/filing/Surgery_/)
Many modern surgical instruments are of exactly the same design as those devised in the 10th century by a Muslim surgeon called al-Zahrawi. His scalpels, bone saws, forceps, fine scissors for eye surgery and many of the 200 instruments he devised are recognisable to a modern surgeon....

Blah, blah, blah. The Incas did brain surgery too. So what? People have been hacking on people since the beginning of time.

Next?

[7. Soup (http://english.pravda.ru/filing/Soup_/)
Ali ibn Nafi, known by his nickname of Ziryab (Blackbird) came from Iraq to Cordoba in the 9th century and brought with him the concept of the three-course meal - soup, followed by fish or meat, then fruit and nuts. He also introduced crystal glasses

Bull@#$%. Cavemen invented soup.

8. Pay Cheques
The modern cheque comes from the Arabic saqq, a written vow to pay for goods when they were delivered, to avoid money having to be transported across dangerous terrain. In the 9th century, a Muslim businessman could cash a cheque in China drawn on his bank in Baghdad.

Maybe. This may explain the fixation muslims have with paychecks.

9. Rocket and Torpedo (http://english.pravda.ru/filing/Torpedo_/)
Though the Chinese invented saltpetre gunpowder, and used it in their fireworks, it was the Arabs who worked out that it could be purified using potassium nitrate for military use. Muslim incendiary devices terrified the Crusaders. By the 15th century they had invented both a rocket, which they called a "self-moving and combusting egg", and a torpedo - a self-propelled pear-shaped bomb with a spear at the front which impaled itself in enemy ships and then blew up.

Yes, that was indeed a great contribution to mankind. It also seems to be the extent of their severely limited intellects as well. Very impressive, considering.

10. Windmill (http://english.pravda.ru/filing/Windmill_/)
The windmill was invented in 634 for a Persian caliph ...

And islam had what to do with this?

So we have coffee, paychecks and bombs. Nothing new in the world of islam, is there?

Vincent, no soup for you.

Vincent makes his own damn soup.

Vincent
09-14-2010, 07:33 PM
Timothy McVeigh was Catholic. True, he didn't fly a plane into the Murrah Building, but...

He also didn't blow up the Murrah Building.

http://www.amazon.com/Third-Terrorist-Connection-Oklahoma-Bombing/dp/0785261036

Be curious, learn.

SteelCityMom
09-14-2010, 08:35 PM
He also didn't blow up the Murrah Building.

http://www.amazon.com/Third-Terrorist-Connection-Oklahoma-Bombing/dp/0785261036

Proof? Other than a book that is as much of an opinion piece as all the "9/11 was an inside job" articles, books and documentaries are?

So an islamic propaganda site says nothing about this guy "inventing" algebra. Their words, "he developed it".

The Nubians "invented" what we call algebra" I posted the link earlier.

You didn't mention "inventions" in your original post. You said they have never contributed anything to society. I, and a couple others, have done nothing but prove you wrong.

You can try to be all slick and call my link an "islamic propaganda site", but the information on Khwarizmi is factual. You can find it by checking a few other links on your own.

You are also known to use biased sources of information, so it's not really fair to dismiss one persons source and use opinion pieces as informational documents.

So what? The Chinese invented it scores of centuries before. The Europeans used the technology as well. The only thing muslims added to blowing @#$% up was blowing themselves up. Very impressive.

Again, never said they invented gunpowder. I'm pretty sure our military is very thankful that a some Muslims centuries ago figured out how to make rockets to blow shit up.

The common thread to all these "islam actually did something positive" apology articles is that muslims were someplace where something positive was already going on - including the "near East". As this article notes, al this civilized activity was going on since ancient times. islam just happened to emerge and spread on the same ground. But it had nothing whatsoever to do with advancing any civilization.

These are not apology articles. These are factual articles. Many cultures bandwagoned off of others...that's how we as humans evolved mentally and societally. Saying that Muslims never contributed anything to that development though is complete ignorance. There's more than enough evidence to the contrary of your statement.


Muslim discoveries? C'mon Mom.

The Chinese were making perfume millenia before mohammad zoomed his first nine year old. The monks were distilling "the spirits', or as they call "it" aqua vītae, ("water of life") in Scotland (then Alban) and Ireland during late Roman times..

Yes, I said Muslim discoveries. You need to read the entire link I posted. I know they didn't discover everything and didn't invent everything, but they furthered advancement in so many different areas that it is literally too much for me to post.

You keep posting about distillation like I said Muslims invented it. I did not. I even posted that other cultures were distilling alcohol before Muslims were. No other culture had ever been able to grasp pure distillation (and chemistry as a whole) the way the Muslims did though. That's just a simple fact that you can't refute...and yes, it had a lot to do with the way alcohol was produced, transported and eventually enjoyed by many.

Vincent
09-14-2010, 11:24 PM
You said they have never contributed anything to society. I, and a couple others, have done nothing but prove you wrong.

I'll respectfully disagree. I'm reading here about a lot of happenstance attributed to muslims by apologists for islam. In many of the examples the dates don't accommodate islamic involvement; in others trying to explain the achievement as islamic just isn't possible.

islam occurred relatively late to many established cultures. islam contributed nothing to the cultures. Rather, it has de-evolved every culture it has overtaken. Its nature isn't to explore, invent, improve or to progress in any way. It's nature is to reduce its victims to medieval bondage.

We can argue "islamic achievements" until the goats come home. Perhaps a good objective measure of muslim contribution to mankind would be the Nobel prize, as liberal an award as there is. No, I'm not even suggesting you are liberal. But the world views the prize as a benchmark for recognition, biased or not.

Out of a population of 1.4 billion, or 20% of the planet, 7 muslims have been awarded the prize. And I'm being generous here and counting the Kenyan interloper in that number. And one of that number was a terrorist. Contrast that puny, no embarrassing number with those that muslims call apes and pigs - the Jews. The Jews comprise less than 2/10s of one percent of the world's population, yet 165 Jews have been awarded the prize. We're only about 4.6% of the population yet we've been awarded 39% of the total and 47% in the areas of sciences, medicine, and economics. muslims haven't done @#$% and no amount of wanting for them changes that fact.

I say all that to say this. These contrasting achievements may result from many factors. But one factor we share with the Jew is freedom. We are not bound by a medieval mafia that demands one thing - submission. Yet.

Proof? Other than a book that is as much of an opinion piece as all the "9/11 was an inside job" articles, books and documentaries are?

Have you read that book? If you have, your comment surprises me. If you haven't, you should reserve judgment. It was written by a local TV reporter. "The story" didn't pass the smell test. She continued to investigate. The facts as they were recorded are the facts. The story we were told doesn't descend from the facts.

Its history at this point. No amount of discussion will alter "the story".

9/11 didn't pass my smell test on 9/11, 9/12, 9/13, or on any day thereafter. And the more they "explained", the more ridiculous they sounded. Nuther thread.

tony hipchest
09-14-2010, 11:31 PM
"he who smelt it, dealt it"

"the first smeller is the feller"

SteelCityMom
09-14-2010, 11:50 PM
I'll respectfully disagree. I'm reading here about a lot of happenstance attributed to muslims by apologists for islam. In many of the examples the dates don't accommodate islamic involvement; in others trying to explain the achievement as islamic just isn't possible.

islam occurred relatively late to many established cultures. islam contributed nothing to the cultures. Rather, it has de-evolved every culture it has overtaken. Its nature isn't to explore, invent, improve or to progress in any way. It's nature is to reduce its victims to medieval bondage.

We can argue "islamic achievements" until the goats come home. Perhaps a good objective measure of muslim contribution to mankind would be the Nobel prize, as liberal an award as there is. No, I'm not even suggesting you are liberal. But the world views the prize as a benchmark for recognition, biased or not.

Out of a population of 1.4 billion, or 20% of the planet, 7 muslims have been awarded the prize. And I'm being generous here and counting the Kenyan interloper in that number. And one of that number was a terrorist. Contrast that puny, no embarrassing number with those that muslims call apes and pigs - the Jews. The Jews comprise less than 2/10s of one percent of the world's population, yet 165 Jews have been awarded the prize. We're only about 4.6% of the population yet we've been awarded 39% of the total and 47% in the areas of sciences, medicine, and economics. muslims haven't done @#$% and no amount of wanting for them changes that fact.

I say all that to say this. These contrasting achievements may result from many factors. But one factor we share with the Jew is freedom. We are not bound by a medieval mafia that demands one thing - submission. Yet.



Have you read that book? If you have, your comment surprises me. If you haven't, you should reserve judgment. It was written by a local TV reporter. "The story" didn't pass the smell test. She continued to investigate. The facts as they were recorded are the facts. The story we were told doesn't descend from the facts.

Its history at this point. No amount of discussion will alter "the story".

9/11 didn't pass my smell test on 9/11, 9/12, 9/13, or on any day thereafter. And the more they "explained", the more ridiculous they sounded. Nuther thread.

We're just going to have to disagree on this one I guess. I don't see any evidence to the contrary of what I'm stating, so I'm just going to continue to rely on the multiple sources that go into detail about the medical, scientific, mathematic, literary etc. etc. advancements that Muslims contributed to society over many centuries. I've really found nothing while searching to not back these statements up.

And no, I've never read the book you mentioned. She obviously goes by the Manila Theory though. She's not the only one to write and publish on it. Another theory that authors have written about and believe to be backed up by facts are The Elohim City Theory, which connects McVeigh to a white separatist group in OK and a crazy German guy.

Whoever is correct though, there's only one thing that's certain. McVeigh said "I blew it up" and then went to the chair without taking it back.

zulater
09-17-2010, 05:40 AM
When a report challenging our national security policy of ignoring Islamic supremacism through Islamic law was released during a Capitol Hill press conference on Wednesday (disclosure: I was one of the co-authors of the report, titled: “Shariah: The Threat to America”), among the chief critics were representatives from the Congressional Muslim Staffers Association (CMSA).

This group, which has been briefing both Democrat and Republican congressional leadership in recent months, claiming that there is nothing inherently violent in Islamic law, has a very poor history of embracing Islamic radicals — even al-Qaeda terrorists.

Immediately after 9/11, the CMSA began holding Friday afternoon prayer services on Capitol Hill. Who did they choose to lead them in their prayers? Al-Qaeda sheikh Anwar al-Awlaki, who is currently subject to a kill or capture order issued by President Obama. In fact, video of al-Awlaki preaching to the CMSA was included in the 2002 documentary, Muhammad: Legacy of a Prophet. (That video clip is available to view via the Investigative Project on Terrorism.)

Identified in that clip listening to the al-Qaeda cleric: Nihad Awad, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR); then-CAIR communications specialist Randall “Ismail” Royer, who is currently serving a 20-year federal prison sentence on terrorism charges; and CMSA founder and former president Jameel Alim Johnson.

Jameel Johnson is no stranger to PJM readers. In December 2007, I reported exclusively here on an Islamic conference on Capitol Hill that had been scheduled by Johnson, as chief of staff from Congressman Gregory Meeks. The conference was cancelled at the last minute by the House of Representatives sergeant-at-arms when it was discovered that it was to feature a long list of Islamic radicals, some of whom were known to be on the terror watch list.

So when the CMSA leadership whine to the media about anyone offering an alternative view to our failed foreign and domestic policy of submitting to Islamic radicalism, we must look at the record of CMSA as an organization, and its leadership as individuals. They have given radicals and terrorists, such as al-Awlaki, a voice on Capitol Hill.

This infiltration of our highest government institutions is not limited to the CMSA.

Read on...

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/al-awlaki-led-prayer-services-for-congressional-muslim-staffers-association-after-911-pjm-exclusive/

zulater
09-29-2010, 09:31 AM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/8031570/Terror-plot-against-Britain-thwarted-by-drone-strike.html

Of course we all know that Muslims extemists are less dangerous to Europeans than normal folk, right SCMom?

SteelCityMom
09-29-2010, 09:40 AM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/8031570/Terror-plot-against-Britain-thwarted-by-drone-strike.html

Of course we all know that Muslims extemists are less dangerous to Europeans than normal folk, right SCMom?

I never said normal folk...but thanks for putting words in my mouth. (unless you want to consider rapists and murderers "normal folk"...then I agree with this statement)

I said domestic terrorists...and yes, they pose just as much, if not more, of a threat to Europeans as Muslim extremists do. I'm glad this attack was thwarted though. Good for them. Now if they could just do as good a job thwarting domestic terrorism, that'd be great too.

zulater
09-29-2010, 09:56 AM
You really don't see Islam as a looming threat to Europe? Wait 10 years, and sadly you'll have no choice but to see what appeasement and denial brings.

zulater
09-29-2010, 10:04 AM
I know you consider me an Islamaphobe or perhaps even a xenophobe, but it's funny I have no fear or concerns towards any other of the worlds religions? Look throughout the world and you see friction between Muslims and every other religion to a significant degree, I don't see that sort of friction between the other major religions excpet on a token scale. . Funny enough excpet for Islam I have no discernable prejudice whatsoever. I'm not sure how that happens to such an irrational person such as myself? :noidea:

SteelCityMom
09-29-2010, 10:06 AM
You really don't see Islam as a looming threat to Europe? Wait 10 years, and sadly you'll have no choice but to see what appeasement and denial brings.


There's a lot of looming threats to the whole world (US and Europe included). Is Muslim extremism one of them? Yes. But I'm not about to start pointing fingers at every Muslim and say they are the problem. That would be like considering all Germans Nazi's or all Japanese (or Asian people for that matter) terrorists in their time. Just not gonna happen with me.

And while I feel that Muslims should definitely have a voice in Europe and America, you and others are correct in one thing, Europe has made a mistake in changing its laws to suit Muslims...but you can't blame Muslims for it. It's not their fault that the governments there have no spines. I'd never agree to "keeping a population in check" though. Just don't cede to it where national laws are concerned. Simple as that. If they want to live there, they can follow the laws of that nation. If the laws get changed because a Muslim group calls for it, then I guess said nation (its leaders anyway) must not have cared about them that much.

Sorry Zu, I'm not jumping on your fear bandwagon. I'll always fight for our nations laws (which have been warped more by our own politicians than by anyone else), but I'm not going to start hating a group of people because of extremists.

SteelCityMom
09-29-2010, 10:13 AM
I know you consider me an Islamaphobe or perhaps even a xenophobe, but it's funny I have no fear or concerns towards any other of the worlds religions? Look throughout the world and you see friction between Muslims and every other religion to a significant degree, I don't see that sort of friction between the other major religions excpet on a token scale. . Funny enough excpet for Islam I have no discernable prejudice whatsoever. I'm not sure how that happens to such an irrational person such as myself? :noidea:

It's because you've allowed it to be ingrained into your head. You only look for murder and hate in that religion, so that's all that you'll find. I choose to look at things differently, and that's fine....nobody's going to change your opinion on that. Just like how many people think Catholics are nothing but hateful kiddie touchers who control the world through fear and money, or Jews control the world through Zionism, or Muslims are nothing but ragheads with bombs strapped to them. They are all semi-irrational thoughts. (I say semi b/c some of these things are true, but they are not true for the majority of those in said religion...it's just what is being spoon fed to you through the media).

Again, you can have your hate and fear, I won't fight you on it anymore. Don't expect me to eat up every single story about a Muslim terror plot and start hating everyone in the religion like that though. It's not gonna happen. We're never going to agree on any of this.

zulater
09-29-2010, 10:23 AM
When did I ever say I hate everyone of the religion? I've said here and elsewhere that I beleive people to be largely a product of their envirorment, what religion your born to you'll at the very least be shaped by even if you choose not to practice it. Well of course with Islam if you choose to leave you could brin about fairly severe consequence, but that's another story for another day. But regardless to any grand scale no other religion compares to Islam in the amount of stress it induces upon it's citizenry that doesn't toe the party line ( gays, interracial marriage, woman right's etc..) or it's neighbors.

zulater
09-29-2010, 10:31 AM
It's because you've allowed it to be ingrained into your head. You only look for murder and hate in that religion, so that's all that you'll find. I choose to look at things differently, and that's fine....nobody's going to change your opinion on that. Just like how many people think Catholics are nothing but hateful kiddie touchers who control the world through fear and money, or Jews control the world through Zionism, or Muslims are nothing but ragheads with bombs strapped to them. They are all semi-irrational thoughts. (I say semi b/c some of these things are true, but they are not true for the majority of those in said religion...it's just what is being spoon fed to you through the media).

Again, you can have your hate and fear, I won't fight you on it anymore. Don't expect me to eat up every single story about a Muslim terror plot and start hating everyone in the religion like that though. It's not gonna happen. We're never going to agree on any of this.

I don't have hate and fear so much as I have suspicion and practice due diligence. I don't distrust our Muslim neighbors, I distrust their Mosques and their Imans to some degree though. I wouldn't discriminate against a Moslem, but I wouldn't cowtow to them either.

One thing i would do though is discourage any female family member from marrying a devout Moslem from a forign country. Because basically if they kidnap the kids after a divorce and get the child to their home country ( happens far too often) the woman has no rights to the child thereafter except what little access the father grants.

MasterOfPuppets
09-29-2010, 02:30 PM
IvnrdQR6l8E

MasterOfPuppets
09-29-2010, 02:49 PM
this guy actually IS a prophet !!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHh0NdR5Jh0&feature=related

this freakin board needs some serious upgrading. half the time when you try to post a vid it doesn't work. :mad:

SteelCityMom
09-29-2010, 02:55 PM
Good vid MOP...and I agree with the Muslim moderates who were outraged that no action was taken against the blatant attempts to incite people to murder. Protests are fine, and Muslims should be allowed to protest civilly (like everyone else), but that was obviously something that was against the law, and nobody did anything. While it may be wrong to say such things (and horrible as well), it's even more wrong when authorities sit back and do nothing about it. Again, I blame their government for being spineless. They must not value their set laws that much.

P.S. Political Correctness is BULLSHIT...in all forms. It does nothing but encourage extremists and belittle those you are trying to "protect" with PC. Whoever thought this whole pansy idea up should be ashamed of themselves.

SteelCityMom
09-29-2010, 02:59 PM
this guy actually IS a prophet !!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHh0NdR5Jh0&feature=related

this freakin board needs some serious upgrading. half the time when you try to post a vid it doesn't work. :mad:

mHh0NdR5Jh0

Just use the letters and numbers after v=....none of that feature, embed or any junk after that....I don't know why they ever changed it. (mHh0NdR5Jh0 is all I copied and pasted)

And yes...this guy is the one who started the mega thread "somewhere else" lol.

MasterOfPuppets
09-29-2010, 03:06 PM
Just use the letters and numbers after v=....none of that feature, embed or any junk after that....I don't know why they ever changed it. (mHh0NdR5Jh0 is all I copied and pasted)

.
i did ...twice infact...all i got was a white square ... incase you didn't notice i posted one successfully right above this one , so i do know the drill ..thats why i said "half the time" .lol

SteelCityMom
09-29-2010, 03:10 PM
i did ...twice infact...all i got was a white square ... incase you didn't notice i posted one successfully right above this one , so i do know the drill ..thats why i said "half the time" .lol

I'm just better than you. :chuckle:

I keed I keed!!!

I know it's a pain in the ass...maybe you added the & in at the end of it when you copied and pasted? That's what it usually is if mine doesn't come up right away. I don't know why it doesn't just let you copy and paste the embed code anymore, that's how I used to always do it.

MasterOfPuppets
09-29-2010, 03:18 PM
I'm just better than you. :chuckle:

I keed I keed!!!

I know it's a pain in the ass...maybe you added the & in at the end of it when you copied and pasted? That's what it usually is if mine doesn't come up right away. I don't know why it doesn't just let you copy and paste the embed code anymore, that's how I used to always do it.
nope... i even tried to edit it and did a do over ... same results...:popcorn:

but anywho...did you watch the vid ? he said in germany, they are now allowing men to have multiple wives... BUT ONLY MUSLIM MEN

edit.... its in this vid

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nI5WoXpmPiM&feature=related

SteelCityMom
09-29-2010, 03:31 PM
nope... i even tried to edit it and did a do over ... same results...:popcorn:

but anywho...did you watch the vid ? he said in germany, they are now allowing men to have multiple wives... BUT ONLY MUSLIM MEN


Well...I can't say I disagree with that. I think Mormon men should be allowed to have multiple wives if they want as well. And I know that almost everyone here cringes at even the mention of Sharia, but most countries that have some Sharia law only have it set up in a way that it only deals with family and personal issues (sort of like how Canon law is set up).

If you ask me, I think it is not the majority of a religious population that needs to be kept in check, but it's leaders. They are the ones that are ultimately enabling these strict religious laws to be imposed upon the majority of their religion. I don't agree with any of it.

MasterOfPuppets
09-29-2010, 03:35 PM
Well...I can't say I disagree with that. I think Mormon men should be allowed to have multiple wives if they want as well. And I know that almost everyone here cringes at even the mention of Sharia, but most countries that have some Sharia law only have it set up in a way that it only deals with family and personal issues (sort of like how Canon law is set up).

If you ask me, I think it is not the majority of a religious population that needs to be kept in check, but it's leaders. They are the ones that are ultimately enabling these strict religious laws to be imposed upon the majority of their religion. I don't agree with any of it.
i think that ANY man that would even consider having multiple nags, errr,... i mean wives ... should be put in a mental hospital ....:chuckle:

seriously though, how is it a good idea ? so they can have 40 or 50 kids for the taxpayers to support ?

Who Foots Bill For Polygamist Communities?

(CBS) The raid on the polygamist compound in Eldorado, Texas has not only focused public attention on such sects, it's sparked many questions about them.

One such query: Who pays their bills?

A significant part of the answer, according to Early Show national correspondent Hattie Kauffman is -- taxpayers, in the form of welfare.

Kauffman and Laurie Allen, who escaped from polygamy, drove around one such community, in Colorado City, Ariz., and saw many mammoth homes built to accommodate multiple wives and children.

How the man of the house can afford to build such super-sized dwellings! The answer: He can't. He doesn't pay for them, you do.

As Allen explained to Kauffman, "What happens is a man marries one wife, she's his legal wife, then he marries ten other wives in the church, and all the other wives are, by law, single women, so they have all these children with him, and they all get welfare."

The more kids, the bigger the welfare check, Kauffman points out.

"Some of the women in this town have 26 babies," Allen told her.

And the women, Kauffman adds, have no choice. The fundamentalists believe a man needs three wives to get into heaven. And the wives exist for one reason: to make babies.

"On my wedding night, I was raped," another escapee from polygamy, Pam Black, said to Kauffman. She had 13 babies but, she says, "knew nothing about sexuality or intimacy, friendship."

It's been a long road to recovery, Kauffman says. Now free from the sect, Black is building a new life, with a new man who is able to show her tenderness.

"I just want people to know the most important thing is right here," said Gordie Soaring Hawk, tapping his chest, "a very tender, precious heart."

Black says she got away just in time. "They were trying to set me up so they could put the handcuffs on me, and take me away," she said tearfully, " ... because they don't want women here who think for themselves."

Though shunned by the town's residents, Black has refused to move away.

A stillborn daughter is buried in the religious sect's graveyard for babies.

"It's cruel here, what people do," Black remarked.

The religious group teaches that both laughter and tears come from evil spirits, Kauffman says.

"People's feelings are shut down and they can't feel," Black cried. "They just like, go around like a zombie."

"It's OK to feel, it's OK to cry," Kauffman reassured Black.

"Yes!" Black agreed. "I encourage everyone to feel to the fullest!"

"If your heart is filled with sorrow," Soaring Hawk advised, "then feel it to the depth. And then walk through it."

Black says women who can't control their feelings are beaten, and men who can't control their women lose them -- church leaders simply assign the wives and children to another man.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/10/earlyshow/main4005519.shtml

SteelCityMom
09-29-2010, 04:00 PM
i think that ANY man that would even consider having multiple nags, errr,... i mean wives ... should be put in a mental hospital ....:chuckle:

seriously though, how is it a good idea ? so they can have 40 or 50 kids for the taxpayers to support ?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/10/earlyshow/main4005519.shtml

That's where having a separate court for those matters comes in. Nations with a Muslim majority that only impose Sharia for family and personal matters are set up like this. They have secular courts for criminal and most civil matters, and a separate Sharia Court for family and personal matters. This means that the Sharia Court sees over the divorce proceedings and child support means.

The only reason I can say that I do not agree with this is because I don't like organized religions and don't want them to have any courts at all...BUT if someone is of that religion (in a non-extremist country) or marries into it, they do know what they are getting into in that respect. The Sharia Court will take care of their family needs according to religious law and not by the nations laws. It happens with the Catholic Church in many nations as well.

I understand where you're coming from in regards to Mormon polygamy though. Without them having their own courts and laws set up to deal with it, there is no reasonable way the US can accommodate for them.

MasterOfPuppets
09-29-2010, 04:19 PM
That's where having a separate court for those matters comes in. Nations with a Muslim majority that only impose Sharia for family and personal matters are set up like this. They have secular courts for criminal and most civil matters, and a separate Sharia Court for family and personal matters. This means that the Sharia Court sees over the divorce proceedings and child support means.

The only reason I can say that I do not agree with this is because I don't like organized religions and don't want them to have any courts at all...BUT if someone is of that religion (in a non-extremist country) or marries into it, they do know what they are getting into in that respect. The Sharia Court will take care of their family needs according to religious law and not by the nations laws. It happens with the Catholic Church in many nations as well.

I understand where you're coming from in regards to Mormon polygamy though. Without them having their own courts and laws set up to deal with it, there is no reasonable way the US can accommodate for them.
i can't think of any church that writes welfare checks or gives medical cards ...:noidea: if the church wants a bigger role in peoples lives , let em start with their financial burdens.

SteelCityMom
09-29-2010, 04:30 PM
i can't think of any church that writes welfare checks or gives medical cards ...:noidea: if the church wants a bigger role in peoples lives , let em start with their financial burdens.

Can't say I disagree with that at all. No church I can think of would like that idea very much at all though lol.

MasterOfPuppets
09-29-2010, 04:53 PM
Can't say I disagree with that at all. No church I can think of would like that idea very much at all though lol.
NOPE..... these big churches do very little in terms of helping people. a few soup kitchens here and their and thats about it. ever heard how the catholic or CLDS is helping in haiti ? no ? me either. there's still millions of homeless people there and those two organizations are sitting on hundreds of billions of dollars. but yet the CLDS did spend 10 + million dollars to try to block california from allowing gay marriage ....:thumbsup: good to see their looking out for other peoples morals instead of well being ...:coffee:

SteelCityMom
09-29-2010, 05:01 PM
NOPE..... these big churches do very little in terms of helping people. a few soup kitchens here and their and thats about it. ever heard how the catholic or CLDS is helping in haiti ? no ? me either. there's still millions of homeless people there and those two organizations are sitting on hundreds of billions of dollars. but yet the CLDS did spend 10 + million dollars to try to block california from allowing gay marriage ....:thumbsup: good to see their looking out for other peoples morals instead of well being ...:coffee:

Well...to be fair, there are a lot of churches that provide help, some of which I took advantage of a few years back when I was on welfare. Things like food banks (AngelFood Ministries, which I still take advantage of), clothing drives and housing help. There's a lot of good programs out there that you just don't hear about until you need them. These are mostly organizations run by local church groups though, and many of them do their best to send help where needed. I respect that. These are good people though who I feel would do good things for their communities regardless of organized religion. The upper crusts of these religions though don't do much to help anyone unless there's something in it for them, that I will agree with.

MasterOfPuppets
09-29-2010, 05:25 PM
Well...to be fair, there are a lot of churches that provide help, some of which I took advantage of a few years back when I was on welfare. Things like food banks (AngelFood Ministries, which I still take advantage of), clothing drives and housing help. There's a lot of good programs out there that you just don't hear about until you need them. These are mostly organizations run by local church groups though, and many of them do their best to send help where needed. I respect that. These are good people though who I feel would do good things for their communities regardless of organized religion. The upper crusts of these religions though don't do much to help anyone unless there's something in it for them, that I will agree with.
i said big churches .....:smack:.....:chuckle:

sure there are some that does good deeds. my loathing is for the corporations that disguise themselves as a religion.

i'm still waiting for the vatican to market the pope bobble head or the crucifix fathead..

i think the government needs to start making churches open their books , and demand that they show a certain percentage of the churches income go towards charities . after all that's supposedly the reason why they are tax exempt in the first place. if it were up to me , i'd put a limit on the amount of property / assets a religious organization would be aloud to hold at any given time. anything more would be taxed the same as any business. (actually if it were up to me, they would be paying taxes, maybe at a reduced level, but they'd be paying something)

i'm a member of a private social club. (bar). which receives certain privleges that a public bar doesn't have. the club is owned by the members and no single person profits. in order to maintain the "club" status they have to give a percentage of their profits to charity and they are only aloud to have a certain amount of money in the bank.
churches should be held to the same standard.

zulater
09-30-2010, 07:58 AM
mHh0NdR5Jh0

Just use the letters and numbers after v=....none of that feature, embed or any junk after that....I don't know why they ever changed it. (mHh0NdR5Jh0 is all I copied and pasted)

And yes...this guy is the one who started the mega thread "somewhere else" lol.

Good stuff MOP. :thumbsup: I'm thinking of printing up t-shirts that repeating his line,

"My freedom is more important than your religion!" :applaudit:

zulater
09-30-2010, 08:01 AM
http://www.worthynews.com/9539-ethiopian-muslims-burn-down-christian-homes-farms

http://www.thedailynewsegypt.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=123462&catid=1&Itemid=183

A couple more examples of non Taliban Islamic intolerance of others.

I hate the fact that I'm labeled ignorant and bigoted for refusing to ignore hatred, bullying, and intolerance, but that's a price I'm willing to pay.:coffee:

zulater
09-30-2010, 08:23 AM
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/09/shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_glo_1.html

Can we stop calling Islam a religion of peace now? The fairy tale has been tarnished by Islamic violence, and it's undignified for children of the Enlightenment to go on repeating falsehoods.


If Islam were a religion of peace, no one would be worried about violence resulting from the burning of Korans. If Islam were a religion of peace, then a Supreme Court justice would not have compared burning a Koran to shouting "fire" in a crowded theater.


The liberal Rhodes Scholar George Stephanopoulos recently reported that "Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer told me on ["Good Morning America"] that he's not prepared to conclude that -- in the internet age -- the First Amendment condones Koran-burning. ... For Breyer, that right is not a foregone conclusion."


In discussing Koran-burning, Justice Breyer said of free speech, "Holmes said it doesn't mean you can shout 'fire' in a crowded theater." Not only did the Justice misquote Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes' famous crowded theater quote, but he did so in a way that indicates his willingness to weaken the First Amendment in favor of appeasing radical Islam.


Actually, Holmes wrote that "falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater" cannot be protected. The key word "falsely," left out by Breyer, gave the phrase its legal significance. If you truthfully shout "fire" in a crowded theater, then that is dangerous but truthful, so it's protected by the First Amendment. If you falsely shout "fire," then that is dangerous and not protected. This is a very telling omission. If Breyer means what he says, then he is willing to give free-speech veto power to irrational and violent groups, regardless of whether one is criticizing -- or shouting "fire" -- falsely or truthfully. To give that power to radical Muslims would be a craven surrender of our rights and interest in open debate and criticism. It would also be an awful reflection on the hypersensitivity and inherently violent nature of modern Islam.


J. Breyer's botched invocation of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes's crowded theater phrase shows that he is just as careless about free speech on this issue as Holmes was. That quote comes from Schenck v. U.S., a 1919 case where Holmes agreed that a man could be criminally convicted for handing out leaflets opposing the WWI draft. Holmes' ruling was awful; he dramatically changed his thinking later the same year, and Schenck was further altered in favor of free speech by Brandenburg v. Ohio. Breyer used a wretched example that stands for the proposition that speech can be curbed if there will be an irrational reaction to it.


As a matter of free speech, J. Breyer's remarks were sinister. As a reflection on Islamic violence and intolerance, Breyer's comments were even more disturbing -- but also a bit humorous. We just assume, correctly, that Muslims will explode upon slight provocations that would be ignored by every other religion. Yet we go on repeating the religion of peace mantra. We even make concessions -- to include entertaining limits on our rights. One has to find amusement in such a neurotic and dishonest outlook. Only Islam benefits from such low standards.


Burning a Buddhist sutra would be like yelling "fire" when you are alone in a theater; no Buddhist would kill and riot over the burning. Burning a Bible would be like passing gas in crowded theater; it would earn you contempt and not much more. But burning a Koran -- that's more like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. We simply take for granted that a significant number of the faithful will erupt in violence -- as they did in Afghanistan and Iran at the mention of burning a book across the ocean.


Members of the ruling class like J. Breyer endanger and shame us all by accommodating the growing demands of radical Islam: Disney and Abercrombie and Fitch are being sued because they won't let Muslim women wear their medieval headgear at work, where it doesn't belong. The state of New Jersey fired a transit worker for burning a Koran while off-duty. An American cartoonist for the Seattle Weekly named Molly Norris has changed her identity to avoid Muslim death threats. On top of that, we have a president whose only response to Islamic violence is to lecture non-Muslims about bigotry.


As a note on sensitivity, I use the phrase "Islamic violence" in the same sense that people talk about "male violence." Referring to "male violence" is not to say that all men are violent. People should be capable of making the same distinction with the phrase "Islamic violence". No reasonable person would take the phrase "Islamic violence" to mean that all Muslims are violent.


Our president -- in a twisted inversion of values and interests -- is lecturing us when he should be lecturing the Muslim world. Unfortunately, he appears to have at least one Supreme Court justice who shares his supine and suicidal wish for therapeutic global acceptance

SteelCityMom
09-30-2010, 09:53 AM
http://www.worthynews.com/9539-ethiopian-muslims-burn-down-christian-homes-farms

http://www.thedailynewsegypt.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=123462&catid=1&Itemid=183

A couple more examples of non Taliban Islamic intolerance of others.

I hate the fact that I'm labeled ignorant and bigoted for refusing to ignore hatred, bullying, and intolerance, but that's a price I'm willing to pay.:coffee:

You're such a martyr. :chuckle:

Listen, I understand your vigilance, but you seem more concerned sometimes about what extremist Muslims are doing in other countries than what is actually going on in our own right in front of our faces. I'm more concerned with that stuff to be honest.

I'm wary of any organized religion. And I am very wary of extremist Islam. It's horrible, it's degrading to its people and I'd do anything to not let those evil bastards take over our country. BUT, when I wake up in the morning my first thought is not "have the Muslims taken over yet?"

And you have seemed to label the entire religion itself already based on the actions of a minority of that religion. Most people who practice Islam don't do so in a violent, hateful manner. They do it because they feel it brings them closer to God and betters their lives. I might not agree with them (or any other religious follower), but if it makes them happy, fine. I don't think all Catholics are child molesters just because the Church won't do anything about it when it concerns their priests. :noidea:

I just can't judge a whole people or the religion they practice based on the actions of a small sample of that religion.

Again, we'll probably never agree on this subject, and I'll probably never convince you to look for more than death, fear and hate concerning it, but I do respect your opinion. I just can't share it all the time.

jmk1977
09-30-2010, 03:23 PM
screw them, if they don't like it here GTFO

let them go be oppressed somewhere else.

I don't need them picking up the damned phone to tech support when i call, oh snap wait that's indians i was thinking of :banging:

zulater
09-30-2010, 07:42 PM
you seem more concerned sometimes about what extremist Muslims are doing in other countries than what is actually going on in our own right in front of our faces. I'm more concerned with that stuff to be honest.

.

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.7520/pub_detail.asp


A study (pdf) from Duke University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill maintains that the terrorist threat posed by radical Islam has been greatly exaggerated.

The study captured front page headlines in Arab News and newspapers throughout the Muslim world.

Charles Kurzman, one of the co-authors of the study, maintains that fewer than three dozen murders have been committed by American Muslims on American soil.

What Kurzman fails to take into account are the number of murders committed by non-American Muslims on American soil and the homicides perpetuated by members of the Nation of Islam.

The actual figures show that Islamophobia is a justifiable stance since Muslims have been responsible for the murders of 5,000 Americans in the past fifty years.

This number includes the nearly 3,000 Americans killed on 9/11 and the hundreds of victims of the so-called Zebra killings that took place in the 1970s.

Kurzman and his crew also neglect to point out that the number of Muslims in America, according to the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, is almost statistically insignificant. Of roughly 4.6 million Muslims in the Americas, more than half live in the United States and make up less than 0.8 percent of the population.

Yet Muslims have wreaked more death and destruction on American soil than the combined toll of all political, social, and religious hate groups, including the Ku Klux Khan.

The following is a very short list of incidents of Islamic violence that have taken place within America since 9/11:

Date: December 5, 2009- - Binghampton, New York - - A 46 year-old graduate student at Binghamton University stabs to death his Jewish professor and mentor because he was “persecuted as a Muslim.” The slain professor is the author of several books, including “Understanding Fundamentalism: Christian, Islamic, and Jewish Movements.” The killer, who was writing his dissertation on early Arab culture, once told one told his roommates: “I feel like destroying the world.”

Date: November 5, 2009 – Fort Hood, Texas - - Major Malik Nidal Hasan, 39, a Muslim American psychiatrist, opens fire on American troops at Fort Hood, Texas in a murderous rampage that leaves 13 soldiers dead and 38 wounded. The carnage begins as approximately 300 soldiers, in preparation for deployment to Afghanistan, line up to get vaccinations and to have their eyes examined at a Soldier Readiness Center. Hasan, who worshipped at the radical Dar al-Hijrah mosque in Falls Church, Virginia, with several of the 9/11 ops, screams “Allahu Akbar” before opening fire with his semi-automatic pistol. Six months before the massacre, Major Hasan drew the attention of law enforcement officials for his anti-American tirades and his statements of support for the global jihad. In an Internet posting, the Muslim Major equated suicide bombers to soldiers who throw themselves on a grenade to save the lives of their comrades. Reacting to the carnage, President Barack Obama says: “We don’t know all the answers yet. And I would caution against jumping to conclusions until we have all the facts.”

Date: November 2, 2009 - - A 20-year-old woman dies in Glendale, Arizona from injuries suffered when her Muslim father ran her down with his Jeep Cherokee for becoming too Westernized. The father had taken his daughter to Iraq under the pretense of visiting relatives only to marry her off to a man nearly three times her age. The young woman managed to scrape up enough to escape from her forced marriage and to make her way back to the U.S. After killing his daughter, the Muslim father sets fire to his house in Glendale. Nine people are inside the house when the fire starts.

Date: October 29, 2009 - - Brighton, New York - - A 37 year-old Muslim housewife slits the throat of her sleeping husband at the couple’s home in Brighton, New York. She tells the police that she was forced to commit the crime because her husband was not a devout Islamist. She says that he pressured her to eat pork and even attempted to give her a drink that contained alcohol.

Date: August 21, 2009 - - Three members of a Somali street gang travel from Columbus, Ohio to Grand Island, Nebraska, where they gun down two Sudanese men at the Autumn Wood Apartments. The local television station reports that the motive of the shootings, which leaves one dead and another critically wounded, is religious. The gunmen are Muslims; the victims Christians.

Date: June 1, 2009 - - A Muslim convert opens fire at a recruiting station in Little Rock, Arkansas, killing one young soldier and wounding another. The convert - - Carlos Bledsoe, 24 - - says that he “is mad at the U.S. military” because of what American soldiers “had done to Muslims in the past.” The killing, he says, was for the sake of Allah. “I do not feel I am guilty,” Bledsoe further tells Little Rock police officers. “I don’t think it was murder because murder is when a person kills another person without justified reason. U.S. soldiers are killing innocent Muslim men and women. We believe we have to strike back. We believe in an eye for an eye.”
Date: February 14, 2009 - - The founder of a Muslim TV station beheads his wife in the hallway of his studio in Buffalo, New York when he learns that she is seeking a divorce. Despite the heinousness of the crime, Muzzammil Hassan is only charged with second degree murder. Hassan had been hailed by the Buffalo community as a model example of a moderate Muslim. Bridges TV - - Hassan’s television station - - had been established “to fuse American culture with the values of Islam in a healthy, family-oriented way.”

Date: January 1, 2008 – A Muslim cabdriver in Irving, Texas shoots and kills his two teenage daughters in his taxi upon discovering they had dated non-Muslim boys. He had plans for Amina, his eldest daughter, to marry a man three times her age in Egypt. Discovering that she is no longer a virgin, he withdraws a 9 millimeter pistol and shoots her twice at point blank range in the chest, severing her spinal cord. Then he turns the pistol on Sarah, his younger daughter, who is sitting in the backseat of the taxi. He pumps nine bullets into her body before abandoning the cab in the parking lot of the Omni Mandalay Hotel. He escapes arrest and remains at large. Many believe that he has returned to the welcoming arms of his family and friends in Cairo.

Date: July 6, 2008 – A distraught Muslim smashes his daughter’s skull with an electric iron and strangles her to death with a bungee cord when she expresses her unhappiness over her arranged marriage. The incident takes place in Jonesboro, Georgia. Ajay Nair, Associate Dean of Multicultural Affairs at Columbia University, sugar-coats the killing by saying to CNN: “I think there are ways that we can rationalize it and make sense of it particularly in thinking about new immigrant communities in the U.S. and thinking about some of the struggles that they face.”

Date: February 12, 2007 - - An 18-year-old Muslim refugee goes on a shooting rampage at the Trolley Square Mall in Salt Lake City - - targeting shoppers who are buying Valentine’s Day cards. Five shoppers are killed; four more critically wounded. Witnesses say that the shooter - - Sulejman Talovic - - had a smile on his face every time he took aim, pulled the trigger, and cried out: “Allahu Akbar.” His aunt tells reporters: “We don’t know what happened, just like you guys. We know him as a good boy. He liked everybody, so we don’t know what happened.” Others claim to know what happened. Robert Spencer, noted author and journalist, says that Talovic is a victim of “sudden jihad syndrome” - - a malady increasing common among Muslim men, ranging in age from 14 to 40. The warning signs of this disorder are growing a beard, wearing long Islamic robes and skullcaps, going to mosques, and reading the Koran.

Date: October 6, 2006 – In Louisville, Kentucky, a Somali Muslim, clubs his estranged wife with a blunt object, leaving her for dead, and then proceeds to murder their four children for adopting American lifestyles. The children range in age from 8 to 3. The youngest of the children - - a boy and a girl - - are stabbed to death while sleeping in their bedroom; the other two girls are killed in the kitchen - - their bodies bearing defensive wounds on their hands and arms. The father tells the arresting police officers that he was compelled to kill his family because his wife had treated him with disrespect.

Date: September 20, 2006 – A self-professed Black Muslim shoots and kills a plain clothes police officer in Aurora, Colorado. He says that God wants him to kill. His mother later testifies that her son became transformed into a killer by reading the Koran.

Date: August 20, 2006 – An unemployed Muslim automobile worker uses his black Honda SUV to run down 18 pedestrians through the streets of San Francisco - one is killed. When the police arrive to take him into custody, the Muslim says: “I am a terrorist. I don’t care. Everyone needs to be killed.” A jury disagrees with the killer’s self assessment and rules that he is not guilty by reason of insanity.

Date: July 28, 2006 - - An angry Muslim American, making use of a 14 year-old girl as a hostage, breaks into a Jewish Center in Seattle, Washington. He selected his target by researching “something Jewish” on the internet and purchased two semi-automatic pistols from a local arms dealer. Upon entering the Center, he announces to the receptionist, “I’m a Muslim American and I’m angry at Israel” and shoots her. He proceeds to walk down the hallway, firing at women as they sit at their desks. Three of the workers are shot in the abdomen; one in the chest; and another in the head. He fires another shot at the stomach of an employee who is five months pregnant. The bullet misses and strikes the arm which she has raised for protection. He orders the pregnant woman to pick up her phone and to dial 911. He tells the operator: “I am tired of our people getting pushed around by the situation in the Middle East.” The police arrive at the scene and persuade the angry Muslim to surrender. In the wake of the carnage, six women are hospitalized - - three in critical condition - - one is paralyzed by a shot to the spine; another is near-death with wounds to the liver, pancreas, kidney, and heart. A seventh victim - - the director the Center - - is found dead at the scene. An FBI spokesperson later says that the shooting rampage was “the work of a lone gunman” who was “acting out his antagonism” against the system. Media coverage of the incident is eclipsed by the news of actor Mel Gibson’s DUI arrest.

Date: July 25, 2006 – A Muslim warehouse worker in Denver, Colorado - - announcing it is “Allah’s Choice - - shoots four of his co-workers and a police officer with a long-barreled handgun. One is dead, the others critically injured, before a SWAT team arrives to take out the shooter who greats them with a hail of gunfire. The Muslim’s sister later explains to the police that her brother was upset because people at the warehouse were making fun of his religion.

Date: June 16, 2006 - - A 24 year-old Muslim gunman goes to a movie theater on the outskirts of Baltimore and opens fire with his .367 Magnum at the packed audience as they watch “X-Men: The Last Stand.” One man – a 62 year-old Jewish medical supply salesman is dead at the scene. The Muslim lives in a multi-million dollar home and has no criminal record. He graduated with a degree in biology from Loyola College in Baltimore. He provides the police with no motive for his act. Tried for 1st degree murder, the Muslim receives no prison time. He is rather sent for an extended stay at a Maryland psychiatric clinic.

Date: March 3, 2006 – An irate Iranian Muslim, experiencing sudden jihad syndrome, presses the pedal of his SUV to the metal in order to mow down nine students on the campus of the University of North Carolina. After striking each victim, he cries aloud: “Allahu Akbar.” The Iranian explains his actions by saying: “Allah’s followers have permission to attack those who have waged war against them with eternal paradise as an expected reward.”

zulater
09-30-2010, 07:43 PM
Date: January 11, 2005 - - A quiet Muslim man, working as a housekeeper, at a retirement facility in Alexandria, Virginia, transforms into a homicidal maniac and commences to strangle, stab, and slash six elderly patients. One patient suffers a broken neck; another requires more than 200 stitches. Taken into custody, the Muslim, now subdued, reportedly recites the shahadah.

Date: August 6, 2004 – Houston, Texas - - A Saudi college student, upon receiving a so-called “religious awakening,” slashes the throat of his Jewish room-mate with a 4 inch butterfly knife, and nearly decapitates him. After the murder, the Saudi visits a mosque to give praise to Allah. Authorities refuse to treat the homicide as a hate crime. The Saudi is granted a deal which allows him to plead guilty to second degree murder and escape the mandatory death sentence. No motive for the crime is ever given.

Date: September and October 2002 - - Muslim snipers in the name of Allah killed ten people in suburban Washington D.C. for no apparent reason, save jihad. They critically wounded 3 more. Previous to this, the so-called Beltway snipers were responsible for additional murders in California, Georgia, Alabama, and the state of Washington.

Date: July 5, 2002 - - An Egyptian Muslim, living in Irvine, California, decides to celebrate his 41st birthday by going on a one-man jihad in order to gain martyrdom, entrance to 7th heaven, and the award of the 72 awaiting houris. He heads off to the Los Angeles International Airport, where he proceeds to shoot and kill a 24 year old ticket agent and a 61 year old diamond merchant. He critically wounds four more people before being gunned down and killed by security guards.

Date: September 11, 2001 - - Muslim terrorists conduct coordinated attacks that results in 2,993 deaths.

The carnage, listed above, could have been much worse, since of host of other attacks have been prevented by watchful law enforcement officials.

This list includes plots to set off radiological bombs in midtown Manhattan, to collapse the Brooklyn Bridge and the Sears Tower in Chicago, to down commercial American aircraft, to kill U.S. troops at Fox Dix, to attack National Guard facilities, to bomb transit systems and subway stops, and to ignite jet fuel arteries leading to the JFK Airport on the outskirts of New York.

Prior to 9/11, scores of additional eruptions of Islamic jihad have taken place throughout the country, including the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, the homicidal rampage of numbers of Jamaat ul-Fuqra, the assassination of Rabbi Meir Kahane, and the above-mentioned Zebra killings.

The new study also fails to take into account the fact that four Islamic attacks take place every day throughout the world; that Muslims have been responsible for 16,132 attacks since 9/11; and that every conflict within today’s world from China to Chechnya, from Somalia to the Sudan, from Afghanistan to Argentina, from the Balkans to the Philippines, from Indonesia to India, from Iran to Iraq, from Pakistan to Denmark, from Britain to Bangladesh involves a manifestation of Islam.

zulater
10-01-2010, 01:54 PM
http://tribune.com.pk/story/56578/lhc-upholds-death-for-blasphemy-accused/

LAHORE: A division bench of the Lahore High Court on Wednesday confirmed the death sentence handed down to a blasphemy convict and ordered that he be hanged till death.

This is the second case of its kind in the country when the death sentence of a blasphemy accused has been confirmed by the LHC since inception of the blasphemy law.

An Additional District and Sessions Judge Lahore on May 27, 2002 had awarded Wajihul Hassan death sentence for allegedly uttering blasphemous remarks against the Holy Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and other prophets. He was also accused of hurting religious sentiments of the complainant – Senior Advocate Muhammad Ismail Qureshi.

Allam Iqbal Town Police registered an FIR against Hassan under sections 295-C (use of derogatory remarks in respect of Holy Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), 295-A (malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings) and 298-A (use of derogatory remarks in respect of holy personages).

The session judge had awarded him death sentence and Rs0.2 million fine under section 295-C, 10 years’ imprisonment and Rs50,000 fine under section 295-A and two years’ imprisonment and Rs20,000 fine under section 298-A.

According to the complainant – Advocate Muhammad Ismail Qureshi – who had got Ahmadis declared non-Muslims by the Supreme Court, some unknown persons had been wiring him frequent letters carrying blasphemous remarks against the Holy Prophet (pbuh) and other prophets.

In the FIR he alleged that although the letters did not contain names of the senders, he was sure that Wajihul Hassan was behind these letters. He alleged that Wajihul Hassan was a Muslim but later converted to Christianity and was using derogatory remarks against the Holy Prophet (pbuh). The complainant could not produce any of these letters before the police and mentioned in the FIR that he had burnt all the six letters.

During the course of investigation, however, he handed over seven such letters to the authorities attributing them to accused Hassan. He also said that Nawaz Butt and Hassan are names of the same person.

During the trial, the complainant produced 10 prosecution witnesses to buttress his case against the accused. The witnesses said they had seen Hassan uttering blasphemous remarks.

Counsel for Hassan, Advocate Parvaiz Aslam Chaudhry, strongly rejected the prosecution story, saying that on the basis of extra-judicial confession of witnesses before the trial court, an accused could not be awarded death sentence.

He told The Express Tribune that in his statement under section 342 of CrPC his client had denied uttering any blasphemous remarks. He quoted Hassan as saying that he was a Muslim and believed in the last Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and never dared to utter or write any blasphemous remarks.

He said by birth he is a Muslim and never converted to Christianity. He said the complainant deliberately named him as Murshad Masih to strengthen his stance but it was not his name. They intend to file an appeal against the LHC order before the Supreme Court.

Advocate Chaudhry claimed that the motive behind registration of FIR was that complainant Qureshi had a grudge against former Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) chairperson Asma Jahangir.

Hassan and his father Safdar Hussain were employees at the office of Asma, he claimed, adding that Qureshi tried to use Hassan against Asma but over his refusal he implicated him in the case.

Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) chairman told The Express Tribune that the commission was against the capital punishment at first place, adding that blasphemy laws have long been misused in Pakistan.

He said, “Blasphemy laws have always been controversial. People have been using them to penalise their opponents and minorities. HRCP and other organisations have long been demanding that the blasphemy law should be repealed”.

He said that this government was considering abolishing capital punishment but hasn’t implemented it yet.

Asma Jahangir denied having any link with accused Hassan. She said he never had been her employee.

Published in The Express Tribune, September 30th, 2010.

zulater
10-01-2010, 01:57 PM
Hey Steeler in Ca. when was the last time you heard the Catholics executed someone for blasphemy? :coffee:

SteelersinCA
10-01-2010, 04:23 PM
I think you are confusing the issues by trying to oversimplify them. There are no Catholic nations, like there are Islamic ones. They don't have the same beliefs. That's the first problem, the Catholics, or any other religion to my knowledge, other than Israel, don't have control of a government. If they did there is no telling what kind of ridiculousness would ensue.

The second problem is there are all kinds of sins, crimes, atrocities, whatever you want to call them committed by religions everyday. You seem obsessed about Islam. How many hundreds of boys were molested by priests? How many thousands of lives were ruined? The difference is I don't need a bomb or something blown up to see the light, you, seemingly, do. No one has to die for me to see the wrong. I would imagine dying is a fate far better than living with the memories of molestation for many people.

Not to justify this at all but if a religion believes the penalty for a particular crime is death and they carry that out, fine as long as it doesn't break any other law. That's the religion you choose to partake in, fine by me. If you have a religion that believes you can only drink cherry kool-aid, what the hell do I care for? What was the crime for the Catholic boy being molested, being a boy, being in the wrong place at the wrong time? At least there is reasoning in Islam.

Thirdly, and I kind of got into this already, who are we to question another sovereign states laws? If Iraq wants to make smoking pot a felony, go for it. The dude broke a law, and paid the appropriate penalty. Whether you think it is right or wrong, what does it matter?

Personally, I think it's atrocious that Japan kills so many whales and dolphins. I think it's retarded that Mormons have special panties. I think it's laughable that Jews have curly sideburns and beanies on their head. I don't see the need to dump all over a football forum to talk about whales, beanies, and underwear. You clearly have an issue with Islam. You are certainly entitled to that opinion, but I don't see what you hope to accomplish by incessantly complaining about another nations laws? You think it's a ridiculous law? OK and?

SteelersinCA
10-01-2010, 05:53 PM
As an aside, I really care not either way your opinion takes you, nor do I care if you spam the Islam thread, I just don't want to see the same anti-Islam stuff in every thread. That's all. :drink:

MasterOfPuppets
10-01-2010, 06:15 PM
take a gander at this catholic looney ...:screwy:

Catholic Government ~ Michael Voris (Transcript) (http://www.romancatholicimperialst.com/2010/08/catholic-government-michael-voris.html)


Satan
Father of Modern Democracy
But by the envy of the devil, death came into the world: And they follow him that are of his side. Wisdom ii





The “Catholic” Vote
Vort-2010-08-12

Hello everyone .. and welcome to the Vortex .. where lies and falsehoods are trapped and exposed .. I’m Michael Voris.

There is an inherent problem with democracy. Actually .. it’s definitional .. it’s this.

Everyone gets to vote. That’s right. EVERYONE gets to vote. Consider for a moment ..

The informed get to vote. Those who have studied the candidates and issues and considered the impact on not only themselves .. but the society at large.

But in addition to the informed .. the ignorant get to vote as well. Those who have studied nothing and don’t care about anything except themselves and their own narrow interests.

Imagine the scene .. two voters .. walk into voting booths side by side .. one casts a vote with an eye to improving the society at large by rolling back abortion .. defending traditional marriage .. reducing government’s ability to rush families with heavy taxation etc.

Such a voter casts his vote with an eye to the “common good” – what’s best for the culture as a whole.

Right next to him is a voter who doesn’t give a hoot about society at large. All he cares about is his own selfish interest of ensuring abortion stays legal so he can have sex with no consequences .. or have his decision to have sex with another man celebrated as a right.

Such a voter exhibits little else than an adolescent pre-occupation with self-absorption.

And imagine .. he actually gets to vote! What a country! What a system!

And it is a system that will end in self-destruction. The nature of man is to be self absorbed.

That is because our nature is fallen. It no longer looks at God .. it looks
rather .. into a mirror.

In fact .. it STARES into the mirror .. totally absorbed .. and can think of little else. This is why .. if we are going to insist on a system where we elect leaders .. only virtuous people should be allowed to vote.

Ruthless men and women .. who .. knowing human nature very well and thereby the means to control and manipulate it .. wield great influence over the selfish masses.

They connive and scheme their way to power by appealing to the most base of level of human ignorance .. namely .. the appeal to a false sense of liberty.

They class everything in terms of “rights”. A “right” to marry your homosexual sex partner .. a “right” to kill your child .. a “right” to have others in society pay for your lack of effort .. your desire for contraception .. food .. housing .. medical services .. education .. clothes .. anything that be imagined.

Such societal parasites will cast their votes in such a way that will only hasten the destruction of the nation. It’s like a cancer destroying its host. It enjoys ravaging the body until the body is dead.

The cancer must be eliminated .. and the only way to prevent a democracy form committing suicide is to limit the vote to faithful Catholics.

Only a truly Catholic nation in fact will survive .. CAN survive .. because only a truly Catholic people will be the ones looking at God and NOT staring in the mirror.

When they cast their votes .. they cast them with an eye to what GOD desires .. not fallen human nature. But as the body politic continues to be ravaged by the cancer of ignorant self-centered voters .. it becomes more and more clear .. that a national euthanasia is occurring.

But in truth .. This is really why the whole idea of democracy is little else than an experiment doomed to failure from the outset. Eventually .. the evil in the heart of man overtakes him when he dismisses God.

No .. the only way to run a country is by benevolent dictatorship .. A Catholic monarch who protects his people from themselves and bestows on them what they need .. not necessarily what they want .. who protects their rights as human beings.

It was this political system that caused Europe to emerge from the morass of marauding barbarians and create Western Civilization .. A noble Catholic monarch advances the common good .. while loving and caring for his people.

If you think about it .. this is EXACTLY how the universe is governed .. isn’t it.

THY Kingdom Come .. on earth as it is in Heaven.

God Bless you.

I’m Michael Voris.


http://www.romancatholicimperialst.com/2010/08/catholic-government-michael-voris.html

zulater
10-01-2010, 06:18 PM
I think you are confusing the issues by trying to oversimplify them. There are no Catholic nations, like there are Islamic ones. They don't have the same beliefs. That's the first problem, the Catholics, or any other religion to my knowledge, other than Israel, don't have control of a government. If they did there is no telling what kind of ridiculousness would ensue.

The second problem is there are all kinds of sins, crimes, atrocities, whatever you want to call them committed by religions everyday. You seem obsessed about Islam. How many hundreds of boys were molested by priests? How many thousands of lives were ruined? The difference is I don't need a bomb or something blown up to see the light, you, seemingly, do. No one has to die for me to see the wrong. I would imagine dying is a fate far better than living with the memories of molestation for many people.

Not to justify this at all but if a religion believes the penalty for a particular crime is death and they carry that out, fine as long as it doesn't break any other law. That's the religion you choose to partake in, fine by me. If you have a religion that believes you can only drink cherry kool-aid, what the hell do I care for? What was the crime for the Catholic boy being molested, being a boy, being in the wrong place at the wrong time? At least there is reasoning in Islam.

Thirdly, and I kind of got into this already, who are we to question another sovereign states laws? If Iraq wants to make smoking pot a felony, go for it. The dude broke a law, and paid the appropriate penalty. Whether you think it is right or wrong, what does it matter?


WTF?!! He "blasphemed", that means he allegedly questioned the validity of the lord,, well actually he tried to leave the religion that's breaking a law to you? Death is the approiate penalty? Holy shit, what kind of weed you smoking out there in California these days anyway? :doh:



Personally, I think it's atrocious that Japan kills so many whales and dolphins.

Yeah nearly the same as executing an unbeileiver, maybe worse.http://draftsteel.com/ff/images/smilies/nohope.gif

I think it's retarded that Mormons have special panties. I think it's laughable that Jews have curly sideburns and beanies on their head.

I respect how people from different cultures choose to attire and groom themselves. I think it's small minded to judge people of different culturals based on such trivial things.


]I don't see the need to dump all over a football forum to talk about whales, beanies, and underwear. You clearly have an issue with Islam.

Did I start this thread, is this a football forum? I commented on Islam on the approriate place on this board, and I'll continue to do so. I don't care if you like it or not.


You are certainly entitled to that opinion, but I don't see what you hope to accomplish by incessantly complaining about another nations laws? You think it's a ridiculous law? OK and?

I believe all people in all countries are entitled to basic human rights that trump country, race and religion. Hitler shouldn't have been left alone to exterminate Jews, gays, gypsies, and whoever else got his crazy ire up that week. Stalin shouldn't have been left free to execute millions of people who he deemed as some kind of political threatmany who weren't. Pol Pot shouldn't have been allowed to operate the killing fields of Cambodia. I think all humanaty suffers when we ignore tyrants and mass murderers and hide behind our own borders because it's the easy and conveinant thing to do at the time.

I don't know what I hope to accomplish other than for people to take notice and open their eyes rather than pulling down the blinds and turning up the tv. .

zulater
10-02-2010, 09:50 PM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/8038820/British-schools-where-girls-must-wear-the-Islamic-veil.html

British schools where girls must wear the Islamic veil

I'll give credit where credit's due.

Islamic schools have introduced uniform policies which force girls to wear the burka or a full headscarf and veil known as the niqab.

Moderate followers of Islam said yesterday that enforcement of the veil was a "dangerous precedent" and that children attending such schools were being "brainwashed". :applaudit:

The Sunday Telegraph has established that three UK institutions have introduced a compulsory veil policy when girls are walking to or from school. They are:

Madani Girls' School in east London;
Jamea Al Kauthar in Lancaster;
Jameah Girls' Academy in Leicester.
All three are independent, fee-paying, single-sex schools for girls aged 11 to 18. Critics warned that the spectacle of burka-clad pupils entering and leaving the schools at the start and end of the day could damage relations between Muslim and non-Muslim communities.

Ed Husain, co-director of Quilliam, the counter-extremist think-tank, said: "It is absurd that schools are enforcing this outdated ritual – one that which sends out a damaging message that Muslims do not want to fully partake in British society.

"Although it is not the government's job to dictate how its citizens dress, it should nonetheless ensure that such schools are not bankrolled or subsidised by the British taxpayer."

He added: "The enforcing of the niqab on young girls is not a mainstream Islamic practice – either in Britain or in most Muslim-majority countries.

"It is a desert practice which belongs to another century and another world."

Dr Taj Hargey, an imam and chairman of the Muslim Educational Trust of Oxford, said: "This is very disturbing and sets a dangerous precedent.

"It means that Muslim children are being brainwashed into thinking they must segregate and separate themselves from mainstream society.

"The use of taxpayers' money for such institutions should be absolutely opposed. The wearing of the burka or niqab is a tribal custom and these garments are not even mentioned in the Koran."

Philip Hollobone, the Tory MP who has attempted to bring in a Private Members' Bill to ban wearing of the burka in public, also condemned the schools' uniform policies.

"It is very sad in 21st century Britain that three schools are effectively forcing girls as young as 11 to hide their faces," he said.

"How on earth are these young ladies going to grow up as part of a fully integrated society if they are made to regard themselves as objects at such a young age?"

On the positive side it's nice to see moderate Muslims speak out about this. On the minus side, it's very sad that this sort of thing can happen in a school in a progressive country such as the U.K.. to begin with. :redface:

SteelCityMom
10-02-2010, 10:08 PM
Hmmm...I thought they were going to be adopting a policy similar to France that was essentially going to ban the wearing of burkas and veils in public.

NVM....I just read the part at the bottom about the bill that is trying to get passed. That must have been what I read. I thought it was something that had already been passed, or was close to it.

I don't agree with it either. Not only do I think it's stupid, but it's a safety issue as well. For instance, when I was a manager at a Subway years ago, we wouldn't let a guy who had left his motorcycle helmet on when he walked into the store get very far until he went outside and took it off. Someone could do something like that and try to rob you w/o being seen clearly by a camera. There's a practical side to not allowing people do cover themselves from head to toe as well.

zulater
10-02-2010, 10:09 PM
:shake01:http://www.pakistanchristianpost.com/headlinenewsd.php?hnewsid=2322

http://www.bosnewslife.com/13994-news-alert-suspected-muslim-militants-kill-christian-family-attack-pastor

http://www.rudaw.net/english/kurds/3193.html

just tragic.:shake01:

zulater
10-02-2010, 10:21 PM
Hmmm...I thought they were going to be adopting a policy similar to France that was essentially going to ban the wearing of burkas and veils in public.

NVM....I just read the part at the bottom about the bill that is trying to get passed. That must have been what I read. I thought it was something that had already been passed, or was close to it.

I don't agree with it either. Not only do I think it's stupid, but it's a safety issue as well. For instance, when I was a manager at a Subway years ago, we wouldn't let a guy who had left his motorcycle helmet on when he walked into the store get very far until he went outside and took it off. Someone could do something like that and try to rob you w/o being seen clearly by a camera. There's a practical side to not allowing people do cover themselves from head to toe as well.

Like I said, I was very encouraged that prominent Muslims were speaking out so forcefully against it. That's the sort of thing that leads me to hope that we ( the world) can get through this phase of Islamic extemism eventually. Because imo the best hope to defeat Islamic extremism is within the Muslim community itself.

MasterOfPuppets
10-03-2010, 06:41 PM
http://static.nowpublic.net/graphics/sites/all/themes/nova/default/images/1px.gif Pakistan: Muslims burn Christian man as policeman rapes his wife


Washington, D.C. (March 23, 2010)– Travesty of justice does not fit the description of the events. This is simple barbarism.


International Christian Concern (ICC) has learned that a Christian man, Arshed Masih, died yesterday after Muslims burned him alive for refusing to recant his faith. Additionally, a Muslim policeman raped Masih’s wife.

Masih and his wife, Martha, worked and lived at the house of Sheik Mohammad Sultan, a powerful Muslim businessman in Rawalpindi, Pakistan, since 2005.

Pakistan's most powerful man, army chef General Ashfaq Pervez Kayani is from the Rawalpindi area and is visiting the U.S. capitol.

In January, Muslim religious leaders and Sheik Sultan asked Masih and his family to convert to Islam. Masih and his family refused to convert and informed Sheik Sultan that they were going to quit working for him. The Sheik became furious and warned Masih that he would kill him if he quit. Masih told his family and friends about the entire incident. Christian leaders tried to persuade the Sheik to let Masih and his family leave his house.

On March 14, Sheik Sultan`s house was robbed. He filed a case of theft of 500,000 Rupees ($ 5,952) against Martha. After taking them for questioning, the police assaulted Masih and raped Martha. Two days later, Sheik Sultan told the couple that he would ask the police to release them if they converted to Islam. The couple refused to recant their faith.

On March 19, Masih was set on fire in front of the police station. At the time, three Muslim religious leaders and three policemen were present at the scene. The perpetrators have not been identified.

Masih was taken to the Holy Family Hospital where he received treatment for three days before finally dying today.

Masih’s children Mary, 12, Nasir, 10, and Neha, 7, are deeply traumatized after witnessing acts of brutality against their family at the hands of Muslims.

ICC’s Regional Manager for South Asia, Jonathan Racho, said “We are outraged and deeply saddened by the murder of Masih and the rape of Martha by the police. As this case clearly indicates, Pakistani Christians are treated as less than animals by the Muslims. We urge the president of Pakistan, Asif Ali Zadari, and other high level government officials to bring the perpetrators of the attacks to justice.”

Dr. Nazir S Bhatti, president of Pakistan Christian Congress, condemned the killing of Masih and rape of his wife.“ Rape of Martha Bibi before her children by Muslim police officials and burning of her husband took place just a few miles from building of the Supreme Court of Pakistan where Muslim jusdges sitting on benches of justice have no sympathy with Christian victims. Perhaps in the eyes of these judges rape of an "infidel woman" is not a crime."

Please call the Pakistani Embassy in your country and demand of the officials of Pakistan to thoroughly investigate the heinous crime committed against Masih and Martha and bring all the perpetrators to justice.

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/pakistan-muslims-burn-christian-man-policeman-rapes-his-wife

SteelMember
10-05-2010, 01:43 PM
Muslims also perfected the production of alcohol through chemistry. True story. We can all get tanked because of Muslim contributions to the world.

Pass me the tequila!

Ok. As a Muslim, you're not even allowed to drink alcohol. So using this example as a microcosm of the conversation in this thread, the Muslims contributed this for one of the following reasons.

1. For sterilization purposes. In an effort to eliminate bacteria... reducing the chance of infection during surgical procedures.

2. For sterilization purposes. In an effort to eliminate the infidel through mass intoxication... just another weapon created in the attempt to take over the world.

When you look at it in these terms, we're not all that far apart. :noidea: :chuckle:

zulater
10-07-2010, 05:47 AM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/8042167/Pakistani-woman-killed-in-Italy-over-arranged-marriage.html

A Pakistani woman has died in Italy after her husband beat her with a brick for opposing the arranged marriage of her daughter, triggering a wave of outrage among Italian politicians on Monday.

Begum Shahnaz (left) was killed by her husband Ahmad Khan Butt because she defended her daughter Nosheen (right) who refused an arranged marriage. Photo: EPA The daughter, 20-year-old Nosheen Butt, was admitted to hospital with a cranial traumatism and a broken arm after her 19-year-old brother beat her with a stick in the courtyard of their building in Novi, near the north Italy city of Modena.

According to Modena prosecutors' initial findings, the father Ahmad Khan Butt, a 53-year-old construction worker, threw his wife to the ground and beat her with a brick while the brother Umair attacked his sister. .

"The mother and the daughter were on the same side and this could be called a 'cultural' homicide because in addition to domestic violence there is the issue of the traditions that may have motivated the crime," Ms Musti said.

The family's three other children have been taken in by Italian social services.

The Italian political class reacted with indignation at the incident which was highly similar to the cases of a girl of Pakistani origin in 2006 and a Moroccan girl in 2009 who wanted to lead Western lives with Italian boyfriends.

Livia Turco, a senior politician in the Democrats of the Left main opposition party, condemned "arranged marriages and violence against women" on the pretext of "ethnic traditions" that she blasted as "medieval practices".

Politician Isabella Bertolini in Italy's main conservative party said that the deceased woman, Beghm Shnez, was a "martyr for freedom, a victim of obscurantism and Islamic fundamentalism".

She said that the father had been in Italy less that 10 years and was the owner of the local mosque.

Conservative lawmaker Souad Sbai of Moroccan origin said that such "intolerable barbarism" was the "result of failed integration" of the father and brother into Italian society.

zulater
10-08-2010, 12:14 PM
Here's a silly hypothetical I'm going to offer just to see where it goes. If it gets an interesting responce I'll respond, otherwise I think I'm going to take time off on this subject on this board. I've got my opinion, you guys got yours and so be it.

Anyway suppose I built a time machine( told you it was silly :chuckle:) and I were to send you back in time to a town of the unconverted that either Jesus or Muhammed and their legions were to pay a visit to the following day, and you have no avenue of escape, which town would you choose to be in when the "Prophet" arrived?

SteelCityMom
10-08-2010, 01:39 PM
Here's a silly hypothetical I'm going to offer just to see where it goes. If it gets an interesting responce I'll respond, otherwise I think I'm going to take time off on this subject on this board. I've got my opinion, you guys got yours and so be it.

Anyway suppose I built a time machine( told you it was silly :chuckle:) and I were to send you back in time to a town of the unconverted that either Jesus or Muhammed and their legions were to pay a visit to the following day, and you have no avenue of escape, which town would you choose to be in when the "Prophet" arrived?

That's an interesting hypothetical, but not a fair one. Both were heavily persecuted for their beliefs when they went around preaching. Followers of both are historically recorded to be persecuted violently as well. Mohammed (as it was written in the Qu'ran) was supposedly told to not "lie down" against his persecutors though. He was told (supposedly by God) to fight for his beliefs and fight against his oppressors. Neither (historically) just randomly went into towns with the purpose of forcibly converting people.

Was Mohammed involved in wars? Yes. But understand the context of these wars. Mohammed emigrated to Medina (under invitation from 12 different clans) to act as arbitrator for the entire community. There had been much warring between different clans of pagans and Jews at this time, for roughly a hundred years. When it appeared that no working solution could be made, the 12 delegates then turned to Mohammed and pledged themselves and their fellow-citizens to accept Muhammad into their community and physically protect him as one of themselves. Muhammad then instructed his followers to leave Mecca and emigrate to Medina. The Meccans then began plotting to kill Mohammed.

Mohammed then drafted the Constitution of Medina. (see here for an overview of what the Constitution entailed...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Medina#cite_note-0) This is when many Medinans (not by force) chose to convert to Islam. This was effectively the first Islamic state.

The Meccans then began attacking Muslims and non-converted Medinans, and Mohammed quoted versed from the Qu'ran to allow the people under his faith and under his Constitution to fight back. This was the real beginning of the major war between Mecca and Medina. Of which Muslims, led by Mohammed, were ultimately successful. Had the Meccans just left well enough alone, there most likely would not have been a major war.

Now, to answer your question...I guess I could look at positives and negatives of whether or not I would want to be an inhabitant of a town that Jesus or Mohammed visited. I guess it would all depend on what faith I held.

Were I an inhabitant of a town that Jesus visited, most likely I would be killed if I tried to follow him. OTOH, I do enjoy a good rebel, so it might have been exciting at least.

Were I an inhabitant of a town that Mohammed visited, I guess it would depend if I were a Meccan or Medinan. Were I a Medinan (pagan or Jew), I guess I would feel fortunate because someone just stepped in and brought a working Constitution into our land that guaranteed religious and economic freedom. Were I a Meccan, well, I guess that would depend on whether or not I was trying to make war with a Medinan.

zulater
10-10-2010, 08:06 PM
That's an interesting hypothetical, but not a fair one. Both were heavily persecuted for their beliefs when they went around preaching. Followers of both are historically recorded to be persecuted violently as well. Mohammed (as it was written in the Qu'ran) was supposedly told to not "lie down" against his persecutors though. He was told (supposedly by God) to fight for his beliefs and fight against his oppressors. Neither (historically) just randomly went into towns with the purpose of forcibly converting people.

Was Mohammed involved in wars? Yes. But understand the context of these wars. Mohammed emigrated to Medina (under invitation from 12 different clans) to act as arbitrator for the entire community. There had been much warring between different clans of pagans and Jews at this time, for roughly a hundred years. When it appeared that no working solution could be made, the 12 delegates then turned to Mohammed and pledged themselves and their fellow-citizens to accept Muhammad into their community and physically protect him as one of themselves. Muhammad then instructed his followers to leave Mecca and emigrate to Medina. The Meccans then began plotting to kill Mohammed.

Mohammed then drafted the Constitution of Medina. (see here for an overview of what the Constitution entailed...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Medina#cite_note-0) This is when many Medinans (not by force) chose to convert to Islam. This was effectively the first Islamic state.

The Meccans then began attacking Muslims and non-converted Medinans, and Mohammed quoted versed from the Qu'ran to allow the people under his faith and under his Constitution to fight back. This was the real beginning of the major war between Mecca and Medina. Of which Muslims, led by Mohammed, were ultimately successful. Had the Meccans just left well enough alone, there most likely would not have been a major war.

Now, to answer your question...I guess I could look at positives and negatives of whether or not I would want to be an inhabitant of a town that Jesus or Mohammed visited. I guess it would all depend on what faith I held.

Were I an inhabitant of a town that Jesus visited, most likely I would be killed if I tried to follow him. OTOH, I do enjoy a good rebel, so it might have been exciting at least.

Were I an inhabitant of a town that Mohammed visited, I guess it would depend if I were a Meccan or Medinan. Were I a Medinan (pagan or Jew), I guess I would feel fortunate because someone just stepped in and brought a working Constitution into our land that guaranteed religious and economic freedom. Were I a Meccan, well, I guess that would depend on whether or not I was trying to make war with a Medinan.

I think you could get an award from the dept of sanitation for the clean up job you did on the life and actions of Muhammed. :chuckle:

zulater
10-10-2010, 08:08 PM
http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/ezra_levant/2010/10/08/15630946.html

If you think Amsterdam is the gay capital of Europe, you’re half-right, but 10 years out of date. Today it’s the gay-bashing capital of Europe.

Because Amsterdam isn’t just gay. Now it’s Muslim, too. A million Moroccans and Turks have immigrated to the Netherlands, and sharia law rules the streets.

If you doubt it, then you haven’t been paying attention. Actually, that’s not fair. Gay-bashing is front-page news only when it’s committed by a straight, white male.

The media is terribly uncomfortable writing about gay-bashing by minorities. It’s the same reason why Canadian feminists are so eerily quiet about honour killings of Muslim girls.

According to an “offender study” by the University of Amsterdam, there were 201 reports of anti-gay violence in that city in 2007 — and researchers believe for every reported case there are as many as 25 unreported ones. Two thirds of the predators are Muslim youths.

The violence couldn’t be more brazen. It’s not in the back alleys in the dark, it’s in the heart of the city, often in broad daylight. It’s a direct dare to the Dutch government to show who rules the streets.

In 2008, 10 Muslim youths broke into a fashion show, dragged gay model Michael du Pree off the stage and beat him bloody. Last month, several lesbians were hit by beer bottles thrown at their heads as they marched in a parade of thousands to protest violence against gays. There’s a gay community centre in Amsterdam — you’d think that would be safe. Wrong. It’s a target, with home-invasion style beatings. No one is immune. Last year Hugo Braakhuis, the founder of Amdsterdam’s gay pride parade, was attacked.

In 2005, Chris Crain, former editor of America’s leading gay magazine, Washington Blade, was swarmed by seven Moroccan youths. “I was really surprised,” Crain told reporters at the time. “I felt comfortable because it is San Francisco times 10.” Or it used to be.

This didn’t happen all at once. Ten years ago Pim Fortuyn rang the alarm. “I don’t hate Islam,” he said. “I consider it a backward culture.”

He wanted to halt Muslim immigration, at least until those in the country accepted Holland’s liberal values, such as its acceptance of him as an openly gay political leader. “How wonderful that that’s possible. And I’d like to keep it that way.”

Fortuyn was a Marxist professor, a champion of gay rights, women’s rights, liberal drug laws and euthanasia. Yet, because he opposed Muslim immigration, the CBC called him “right wing.”

Fortuyn was assassinated in 2002 by a leftist radical opposed to his views on Islam.

Next came Theo van Gogh, a descendant of artist Vincent van Gogh. He made a movie about Islam’s treatment of women, called Submission.

A 26-year-old Dutch-Moroccan named Mohammed Bouyeri shot him eight times and tried to cut his head off. Then Bouyeri stabbed a knife into van Gogh’s chest with a letter threatening Western governments, Jews, and van Gogh’s collaborator, a liberal Muslim named Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

Hirsi Ali was placed under police protection, until a judge ordered her out of her safe house. She now lives in the United States. Fortuyn, van Gogh and Hirsi Ali are gone from Holland, but the Moroccans and Turks aren’t.

Now comes Geert Wilders. Wilders is the leader of the Party for Freedom, the third-most popular party in Holland. The party joined the new government coalition in return for immigration cuts and a ban on burkas, the face-covering shrouds worn by some Muslim women.

His ideas are mainstream enough to become government policy. But this week, Wilders stood trial for “hate crimes” for those very same ideas.

Prosecutors say it’s a crime to compare the Qur’an to Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf, as Wilders has done, and that he has caused too much of the human emotion called hate.

Mohamed Rabbae supports the prosecution. He’s the chairman of the National Moroccan Council. He wants a judge to order Wilders to apologize. “We are for correcting him,” he said.

Rabbae is for a coerced apology and forced political re-education. And the Associated Press calls Rabbae a moderate.

These days, in Holland, unfortunately that’s true.

SteelCityMom
10-10-2010, 08:19 PM
I think you could get an award from the dept of sanitation for the clean up job you did on the life and actions of Muhammed. :chuckle:

Never said he was perfect. But I'm not getting my information from slanted sites either. I know that his affairs with the younger ladies was disgusting, and in this day and age, is unforgivable...BUT in keeping with your question, about the towns he went through (not his followers after he died), then what I've said is pretty accurate.

You could even say he was well regarded because he was able to bring a nation (that was fragmented and hostile) together under diplomacy and religion.

Try reading about him somewhere other than sites like religionofpeace and jihadwatch.org. The history of how the religion began and spread is quite interesting, and not nearly as violent as you seem to think it is.

SteelCityMom
10-10-2010, 08:24 PM
http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/ezra_levant/2010/10/08/15630946.html

If you doubt it, then you haven’t been paying attention. Actually, that’s not fair. Gay-bashing is front-page news only when it’s committed by a straight, white male.

The media is terribly uncomfortable writing about gay-bashing by minorities. It’s the same reason why Canadian feminists are so eerily quiet about honour killings of Muslim girls.

Could have fooled me. :noidea:

NEW YORK – Eight gang suspects arrested in the torture of two teenage boys and a man in an anti-gay attack were arraigned Sunday on hate crime charges, standing in a courtroom with their heads down and their hands cuffed behind them as their relatives wept.
At the hearing, Assistant District Attorney Theresa Gottlieb said that during the Oct. 3 attack each victim was asked before being beaten, "Is it true that you're a fag?"
The charges against the defendants include robbery, assault, sexual abuse and unlawful imprisonment as hate crimes. The defendants didn't enter pleas, and police were looking for a ninth suspect, who had been expected to turn himself in but didn't show up.
The nine members of the Latin King Goonies gang had heard a rumor one of their teenage recruits was gay and then found the teen, stripped him, beat him and sodomized him with a plunger handle until he confessed to having had sex with a man, police say. The gang members then found a second teen they suspected was gay and tortured him and the man, police say.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101010/ap_on_re_us/us_gang_hate_crime;_ylt=Ai4vPWlQgj8Hlo7L9XBjebqs0N UE;_ylu=X3oDMTFoOXJ2bDg4BHBvcwMyOARzZWMDYWNjb3JkaW 9uX3RvcF9zdG9yaWVzBHNsawM4Z2FuZ3N1c3BlY3Q-

Latinos are still minorities right?

As horrible as gay bashing is, it's nothing new. And it's not strictly a Muslim activity. Gay bashing is alive and well in the US (and not just in the Bible belt and the South). Religious zealots tend not to like them, in a most violent way sometimes. Not really a new phenomenon.

zulater
10-10-2010, 08:52 PM
Never said he was perfect. But I'm not getting my information from slanted sites either. I know that his affairs with the younger ladies was disgusting, and in this day and age, is unforgivable...BUT in keeping with your question, about the towns he went through (not his followers after he died), then what I've said is pretty accurate.

You could even say he was well regarded because he was able to bring a nation (that was fragmented and hostile) together under diplomacy and religion.

Try reading about him somewhere other than sites like religionofpeace and jihadwatch.org. The history of how the religion began and spread is quite interesting, and not nearly as violent as you seem to think it is.

I've read up on him a bit more than you think and not just on the sites you think I have. I still find him an extremely violent person, one that certainly practiced and preached forced conversions.

I also think he was a phoney, I don't believe for a second he was a prophet, and i think he knew it, but would kill you at the drop of a hat if you dared suggest as much and he got wind of it.

Perhaps that's partly true of Jesus as well, difference being you didn't have anything to fear from Jesus in the way of reprisal if you called his bluff. . I feel pretty confident I could have told Jesus to his face i didn't beleive his story and he wouldn't have had me put to death on the spot.

zulater
10-10-2010, 09:14 PM
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j7yDiGVNfsC4q4nWYUOUpbQQqVuAD9IOA8GO0?docId= D9IOA8GO0

These are priceless.:chuckle:

MasterOfPuppets
10-10-2010, 09:24 PM
Here's a silly hypothetical I'm going to offer just to see where it goes. If it gets an interesting responce I'll respond, otherwise I think I'm going to take time off on this subject on this board. I've got my opinion, you guys got yours and so be it.

Anyway suppose I built a time machine( told you it was silly :chuckle:) and I were to send you back in time to a town of the unconverted that either Jesus or Muhammed and their legions were to pay a visit to the following day, and you have no avenue of escape, which town would you choose to be in when the "Prophet" arrived?
the chance of you EVER aquiring a flux capacitor are nil ,....:coffee:

zulater
10-10-2010, 09:26 PM
the chance of you EVER aquiring a flux capacitor are nil ,....:coffee:

Maybe if I said a prayer to Budha? :chuckle:

SteelCityMom
10-10-2010, 09:36 PM
I've read up on him a bit more than you think and not just on the sites you think I have. I still find him an extremely violent person, one that certainly practiced and preached forced conversions.

I also think he was a phoney, I don't believe for a second he was a prophet, and i think he knew it, but would kill you at the drop of a hat if you dared suggest as much and he got wind of it.

Perhaps that's partly true of Jesus as well, difference being you didn't have anything to fear from Jesus in the way of reprisal if you called his bluff. . I feel pretty confident I could have told Jesus to his face i didn't beleive his story and he wouldn't have had me put to death on the spot.

You keep using phrases like "I think" and "perhaps" and then following them up with statements of certainty. You might be right, but you might be absolutely wrong as well.

Certainly, the jury is still out on Mohammads actual history. Doesn't seem anybody can get it exactly right being as there are 100s of different versions of how his life unfolded (meaning, whether or not he was a violent monster, or successful religious and diplomatic general). Some only use the writings in the Qu'ran as a reference point (on both sides of the argument), and even some Muslims feel that these references are muddied and false (meaning they feel verses in the Qu'ran were changed or corrupted over time).

In the end, I suppose the only thing I'll know for sure is that organized religion (of all kinds) breeds violence and hate. And yes, Islamic based violence surely is in the forefront right now, but don't expect it to stay that way forever.

zulater
10-11-2010, 08:43 PM
http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=41860

Here is the consequence of having a pedophile as prophet. Ya'd have thought when the angel Gabriel was having all those talks with Muhammed he'd have told him to lay off the 9 year olds.:doh:

Seriously I don't know how any educated person can accept such a flawed person to base their religion on? :noidea: I mean really, you think this man actually talked to the angel Gabriel and somewhere along the way it didn't occur to Gabriel to say dude, you can't do that to little girls. I know it was a different time back then, but let's not forget that Muhammed married his first wife ( who was filthy rich) when he was 25 and she was 40. So it's not as though he didn't know the difference between a woman and a little girl. And I know evolution has changed us slightly since the 7th century, but i don't think it has to the point that nine year old girls resembled mature young ladies back then.

zulater
10-11-2010, 09:29 PM
http://www.facebook.com/notes/tarek-fatah/did-prophet-muhammad-rape-a-nine-year-old-girl-called-aisha/378558502507
Now, if it is okay for the Jewish community to abandon child marriage despite evidence that it was permitted and practised in medieval times, then why is the standard set differently for Muslims? Even if I were to concede--and I do not-- that Muhammad married a nine-year old, isn't it more important that we work--both Jew and Muslim--to end this practise? However, it seems this does not fit the agenda of either the Islam-haters or the Islamists.

The Hollywood screenwriter and television producer Kamran Pasha (of Sleeper Cell fame) who has authored a brilliant fictional novel about the life of Aisha, Mother of the Believers, told me that in his research for the book, he had concluded that Aisha was at least in her early teens when she became Muhammad's bride. However, he chose to confront the critics head on. In the author's note to his fascinating novel, Pasha writes:


“In my novel, I have chosen to directly face the controversy over Aisha's age by using the most contentious account, that she was nine at the time she consummated her wedding. The reason I have done this is to show that it is foolish to project modern values on another time and world. In a desert environment where life expectancy was extremely low, early marriage was not a social issue--it was a matter of survival.”


As Islam-haters pummel the Muslim community with insults and mockery, our reaction feeds that hate. We burn books, threaten cartoonists or make a laughing spectacle of ourselves for the rest of the world. We simply refuse to indulge in retrospection and reflection. We refuse to discard the ossified books of the Hadith that justify so much of what is wrong in the Islamic world and which contributes to shame and embarrassment.

Muslim scholars are caught in their own predicament. Most are willing to concede that historical timelines suggest Aisha could not have been aged nine when she became Muhammad's bride. However, if they were to admit this flaw in the Hadith books, they would be opening a pandoras box. How many more laws of sharia, based on the hadith, are lies and need to be discarded? In the academia too, few Muslim scholars wish to be ostracized by the well-funded mosque establishment of North America-- the only likely place that could host a reformation in Islam.

Too much is at stake for the Islamic establishment to admit that Prophet Muhammad was not the husband of a child bride. They would rather see their leader mocked then to admit to the fallibility of the Hadith literature. Until that happens, Islam-haters will continue to have a field day. For the rest of us Muslims--moderate, liberal, secular or progressive, call it what you may--the challenge is simple: Retain the Hadith literature for historical value as texts from our common history, but no more than that. We need to detach ourselves from the man-made laws and traditions of the medieval world and step into the 21st century, like the rest of humanity, as believers in the strict separation of religion and state and universal human rights where all men and women are equal, irrespective of relgion or race. If we don’t, then we better be prepared to be be mocked with derision as stragglers in the caravan who are slowing down the progress of all humanity.

hmm, I'd like to see this mans views take root. If it did I think many of us so called "Islam haters" would drop our protests to it.

zulater
10-14-2010, 02:34 PM
Congressional Muslim Staffers Hosted Second Al-Qaeda Cleric on Capitol Hill (http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/congressional-muslim-staffers-hosted-second-al-qaeda-cleric-on-capitol-hill-pjm-exclusive/)

This is the sort of thing that leads many of us to our so called Islamaphobia or paranoia. When those that are trying to promote Islamic harmony can't tell the good guys from the bad ones where exactly does that leave us? :noidea:

MasterOfPuppets
10-14-2010, 07:43 PM
http://www.heavingdeadcats.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/imagephp.jpg

zulater
10-14-2010, 10:31 PM
http://zeldalily.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/bozo-statue.jpg

My clown is holier and more righteous than your clown! This is war! :rocket:

MasterOfPuppets
10-14-2010, 10:37 PM
http://www.bubbasikes.com/graphics/pins/GodPut.gif

http://www.cansesclasseled.com/images/clowns/clowns004.jpg

http://reconstitution.us/rcnew/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/god_beck.jpg

ricardisimo
10-14-2010, 11:35 PM
http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/ezra_levant/2010/10/08/15630946.html

If you think Amsterdam is the gay capital of Europe, you’re half-right, but 10 years out of date. Today it’s the gay-bashing capital of Europe.

Because Amsterdam isn’t just gay. Now it’s Muslim, too. A million Moroccans and Turks have immigrated to the Netherlands, and sharia law rules the streets.

If you doubt it, then you haven’t been paying attention.
Sharia rules the streets? According to the 2010 CIA World Factbook, the ethnic breakdown of the Netherlands consists of: Dutch 80.7%, EU 5%, Indonesian 2.4%, Turkish 2.2%, Surinamese 2%, Moroccan 2%, Netherlands Antilles & Aruba 0.8%, other 4.8% (2008 est.) In other words, 6.6% Muslim population. We'll assume here that all Turks, Moroccans and Indonesians living in the Netherlands are fundamentalist Muslims, and I'll spot you some of the "other" and we'll call it 8% even.

Yeah, sharia rules the streets. Hold on a minute while I try to scrape my eyes off the back of my head.

ricardisimo
10-15-2010, 12:40 AM
I take it back. Their Muslim population is only 6% (http://www.nationmaster.com/country/nl-netherlands/rel-religion). And if sharia is ruling the streets, then it appears to be doing a decent job, since their crime stats are considerably better than ours. What we need to do is kick all of the Catholics out, as Mom has insinuated.

zulater
10-15-2010, 05:07 AM
I take it back. Their Muslim population is only 6% (http://www.nationmaster.com/country/nl-netherlands/rel-religion). And if sharia is ruling the streets, then it appears to be doing a decent job, since their crime stats are considerably better than ours. What we need to do is kick all of the Catholics out, as Mom has insinuated.

Yeah and the trains always ran on time for Stalin and Mussolini too. So obviously that says they were good?

ricardisimo
10-15-2010, 05:00 PM
What's your point then, zu? If you're posting articles about how sharia "rules the streets" in Amsterdam, and I counter with stats, it's bad faith to then criticize discussing how the streets roll in the Netherlands. Either it's pertinent or it isn't. You don't get to decide based on whether the facts agree with you or not.

If there were all Christians and no crime, you'd think it was a dream state; but an Islamic state with no crime is obviously Stalinist. Is that more or less your stance? It would be an honest stance, at least, and it would give us a peak into your soul, to be sure.

SteelCityMom
10-15-2010, 05:40 PM
To be fair, the crime in the Netherlands is highest in Amsterdam, but that's expected, Amsterdam is the largest city. And yes, there is a problem with gay bashing (mostly from teenage Muslims), so much so that the tourist board warns visitors about it.

Gay bashing is certainly not a Sharia only feature though, and it is certainly not exclusive to Amsterdam. I highly doubt it's even the worst in Amsterdam. And it's virtually impossible to get clear statistics on whether that is true or not.

Example:

But the sad fact is that in America, some victims are more equal than others. Crimes against gay, lesbian, and transgendered people are significantly underreported, but from FBI statistics we know them to be on the rise, at least 24% since 2005, and yet they are the only hate crimes excluded from federal and many state statues, making proper investigation and prosecution difficult, if not impossible.

Such is the case in Ohio, where Nathan was attacked. His assault won't officially be considered a hate crime by the authorities, nor will it be included in statistics.

The past two months have seen a surge in brutal attacks against gay, lesbian and transgendered people, or those just perceived to be so. Moses "Teish" Cannon was shot and killed in Syracuse, NY, for being gay and identifying as female in November. In December, Ecuadoran immigrant Jose Sucuzhanay was beaten to death with a baseball bat in Brooklyn by three men yelling anti-gay and anti-Latino slurs. A 28-year-old woman in San Francisco was assaulted and gang-raped by four men for being a lesbian. And just after Christmas, in Dayton, Ohio, Nathan became a target.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mikko-alanne/a-hate-crime-you-wont-see_b_155665.html

I live in New York, and in this metropolitan area alone we’ve had a startling level of gay bloodshed in recent years. There was 15-year-old Sakia Gunn, a black teen who was stabbed to death in 2003 at a Newark bus stop, after she rebuffed a guy’s flirtations by outing herself and her friends as lesbians. And there was 19-year-old Rashawn Brazell, whose dismembered black body the cops found scattered around Brooklyn in February 2005, his limbs shoved into a plastic bag and tossed onto the subway tracks, his torso similarly deposited in a recycling plant near the East River waterfront. They never found his severed head, or his killer.

The victims are not all teens. There’s 29-year-old Michael Sandy, whom three white guys lured into a rendezvous by posing as a single gay man on a chat site in October 2006; they jumped him and chased him into highway traffic, where he was struck and killed. Then there's 27-year-old Dwan Prince, who was stomped into a coma at a Brooklyn bus stop because, in his attackers’ words, “he came at me wrong.” And just two days before Lawrence was gunned down in the computer lab for having a crush, 25-year-old Sanesha Stewart was stabbed to death in the Bronx, reportedly by a date who discovered she was transgender.

That’s all just in the New York area—and just a handful of the cases. In 2006 alone (the most recent data available), the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs counted 11 people murdered for being gay around the country. The organization's tally is considered a vast undercount, as it culls only incidents in the dozen or so states in which it has chapters. But the group's research is enough to make clear that anti-gay murders are far more commonplace than we acknowledge as a society.

http://www.kaiwright.com/new_more.php?id=367_0_30_0_M

Keep in mind as well, there are countries (that have little or no Islamic influence) where it is illegal to be gay. For a long time in Zimbabwe, if they found out you were gay, it could lead to a violent and horrific death or imprisonment. In Belize, you face a 10 year prison sentence for homosexual activity...but only for males. It's legal for females there. In Antigua and Barbuda, it is a 15 year prison sentence. Life sentence in Barbados. (in fact, a lot of the Caribbean Islands have very strict anti-gay laws...the price is a harsh one if you are gay, even if you are not imprisoned).

In Uganda (a nation that is 84% Christian) they just passed a bill that made the current anti-gay laws even harsher. The death penalty is now legal for repeat offenders.

So yes, it sucks that gay bashing is going on anywhere (Amsterdam included), but let's not pretend that Muslims are making it any worse or that Sharia is ruling the streets of cities because gays are being targeted. They were already being targeted.

SteelCityMom
10-15-2010, 05:43 PM
This also bears mentioning as well. It does not serve to argue that Muslims are drastically increasing the crime rate in Amsterdam (or anywhere in the Netherlands) when they are closing 8 prisons due to lack of crime.

Netherlands Closing 8 Prisons Due To Plummeting Crime Rates

Sep 6th, 2010 | By Contributor | Category: Health Politics

The Dutch government has announced that it does not have enough prisoners to fill its prisons, and as a result is closing down 8 prisons. Currently, the Netherlands has the capacity for 14,000 prisoners, but only has 12,000 people to fill those jails. The shutting down of these prisons are being attributed to an ever decreasing crime rate in the Netherlands.

http://www.lifemeanshealth.com/health-videos/health-politics/netherlands-closing-8-prisons-due-to-plummeting-crime-rates.html

MasterOfPuppets
10-15-2010, 05:53 PM
EJKRF2uB8xU

MasterOfPuppets
10-15-2010, 07:30 PM
Ric we enjoy bashing religions here thanks to freedom of speech. what would you think if you found yourself in court one day , possibly facaing jail time for doing so ?

All eyes are on the war on free speech, the one that Dutch powers-that-be are waging inside an Amsterdam courtroom. That's where Geert Wilders is standing trial for his increasingly popular political platform, based on his analysis of the anti-Western laws and principles of Islam, that rejects the Islamization of the Netherlands.
But don't stop there. There's much more to see in the trial of Wilders, whose Partij voor de Vrijheid (Party for Freedom) is the silent partner in the Netherlands' brand new center-right coalition government. That camel in the courtroom is the tip off.
You haven't noticed it? I've been watching it since last year, when sometime after Dutch prosecutors announced in January 2009 that Wilders would go to trial for "insulting" Muslims and "inciting" hatred against them, Stephen Coughlin, famous in national security circles in Washington for his airtight and exhaustive briefs on jihad, clued me in to his analysis of the Wilders trial to date.
What we know now we knew then: that this trial presented a watershed moment. Wilders, leader of a growing democratic movement to save his Western nation from Islamization, risks one year in prison for speaking out about the facts and consequences of Islamization. Such speech is prohibited not by the Western tradition of free speech Wilders upholds, but rather by the Islamic laws against free speech that he rejects. Wilders' plight demonstrates the extent to which the West has already been Islamized.
"It is irrelevant whether Wilder's witnesses might prove Wilders' observations to be correct," the public prosecutor stated back at the beginning. "What's relevant is that his observations are illegal." Since when are observations "illegal"? Under communist dictatorships is one answer. Under Sharia is another.
Writing in Wilders' defense in the Wall Street Journal, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, herself a former Dutch parliamentarian, reported that Dutch multiculturalist parliamentarians, "spooked" by Wilders rising political star, modified the Dutch penal code in the fall of 2009 to fit Wilders' alleged crimes. They crafted what Hirsi Ali went on to call "the national version of what OIC diplomats peddle at the U.N. and E.U." when trying to criminalize defamation (criticism) of religion (Islam).
This is a crucial point to understand, and one that takes me back to what Stephen Coughlin posited last year. Everywhere the OIC (Organization of the Islamic Conference) goes, it peddles Islamic law. In effect, then, to build on Hirsi Ali's point, the Dutch modified their laws to conform with Islam's. This gibes precisely with how Coughlin saw the trial from the start: as an attempt to apply Islamic law, as advanced by the OIC, in the Netherlands.

ricardisimo
10-15-2010, 08:04 PM
Very few people enjoy bashing religion more than I do, MoP. It's taken over chess as my number three pastime, and is fast gaining on masturbation and glue sniffing. However, the point is to bash religion as religion. They are all mind-numbingly pointless, although there is some argument that the numbing of the mind is itself the point.

However, making questionable or even outright false arguments about Islam for the benefit of Christianity is not bashing religion. What it is, among other things, is buying into some very bad propaganda and division politics. At this point in our history, our instincts should tell us automatically: if something like this is on the TV more than once (let alone all day every day) it's almost certainly a lie. We're being used, and probably also softened in advance of something bigger.

zulater
10-15-2010, 09:24 PM
Very few people enjoy bashing religion more than I do, MoP. It's taken over chess as my number three pastime, and is fast gaining on masturbation and glue sniffing. However, the point is to bash religion as religion. They are all mind-numbingly pointless, although there is some argument that the numbing of the mind is itself the point.

However, making questionable or even outright false arguments about Islam for the benefit of Christianity is not bashing religion. What it is, among other things, is buying into some very bad propaganda and division politics. At this point in our history, our instincts should tell us automatically: if something like this is on the TV more than once (let alone all day every day) it's almost certainly a lie. We're being used, and probably also softened in advance of something bigger.

I guess you missed the series of post's a page back where MOP and myself skerwered all religions? ( the clown posts) We're not trying to prop up Cristianity or any other religion, we're just pointing out that there are some terrible things currently being done in the name of Islam or by Islamic radicals. Maybe you don't see the proportion that I'm seeing, or perhaps you think Western culture is inferior of inherenty more violent than Islamic culture. That's fine, but i disagree. With few exceptions I think woman and minorities enjoy more freedoms and rights in our society than in theirs. And I'll continue to point out inequity where i see it, as you're welcome to do as well. .

SteelCityMom
10-15-2010, 09:43 PM
Americans’ Role Seen in Uganda Anti-Gay Push
By JEFFREY GETTLEMAN
Published: January 3, 2010

KAMPALA, Uganda — Last March, three American evangelical Christians, whose teachings about “curing” homosexuals have been widely discredited in the United States, arrived here in Uganda’s capital to give a series of talks.

The theme of the event, according to Stephen Langa, its Ugandan organizer, was “the gay agenda — that whole hidden and dark agenda” — and the threat homosexuals posed to Bible-based values and the traditional African family.

For three days, according to participants and audio recordings, thousands of Ugandans, including police officers, teachers and national politicians, listened raptly to the Americans, who were presented as experts on homosexuality. The visitors discussed how to make gay people straight, how gay men often sodomized teenage boys and how “the gay movement is an evil institution” whose goal is “to defeat the marriage-based society and replace it with a culture of sexual promiscuity.”

Now the three Americans are finding themselves on the defensive, saying they had no intention of helping stoke the kind of anger that could lead to what came next: a bill to impose a death sentence for homosexual behavior.

One month after the conference, a previously unknown Ugandan politician, who boasts of having evangelical friends in the American government, introduced the Anti-Homosexuality Bill of 2009, which threatens to hang homosexuals, and, as a result, has put Uganda on a collision course with Western nations.

Donor countries, including the United States, are demanding that Uganda’s government drop the proposed law, saying it violates human rights, though Uganda’s minister of ethics and integrity (who previously tried to ban miniskirts) recently said, “Homosexuals can forget about human rights.”

The Ugandan government, facing the prospect of losing millions in foreign aid, is now indicating that it will back down, slightly, and change the death penalty provision to life in prison for some homosexuals. But the battle is far from over.

Instead, Uganda seems to have become a far-flung front line in the American culture wars, with American groups on both sides, the Christian right and gay activists, pouring in support and money as they get involved in the broader debate over homosexuality in Africa.

“It’s a fight for their lives,” said Mai Kiang, a director at the Astraea Lesbian Foundation for Justice, a New York-based group that has channeled nearly $75,000 to Ugandan gay rights activists and expects that amount to grow.

The three Americans who spoke at the conference — Scott Lively, a missionary who has written several books against homosexuality, including “7 Steps to Recruit-Proof Your Child”; Caleb Lee Brundidge, a self-described former gay man who leads “healing seminars”; and Don Schmierer, a board member of Exodus International, whose mission is “mobilizing the body of Christ to minister grace and truth to a world impacted by homosexuality” — are now trying to distance themselves from the bill.

“I feel duped,” Mr. Schmierer said, arguing that he had been invited to speak on “parenting skills” for families with gay children. He acknowledged telling audiences how homosexuals could be converted into heterosexuals, but he said he had no idea some Ugandans were contemplating the death penalty for homosexuality.

“That’s horrible, absolutely horrible,” he said. “Some of the nicest people I have ever met are gay people.”

Mr. Lively and Mr. Brundidge have made similar remarks in interviews or statements issued by their organizations. But the Ugandan organizers of the conference admit helping draft the bill, and Mr. Lively has acknowledged meeting with Ugandan lawmakers to discuss it. He even wrote on his blog in March that someone had likened their campaign to “a nuclear bomb against the gay agenda in Uganda.” Later, when confronted with criticism, Mr. Lively said he was very disappointed that the legislation was so harsh.

Human rights advocates in Uganda say the visit by the three Americans helped set in motion what could be a very dangerous cycle. Gay Ugandans already describe a world of beatings, blackmail, death threats like “Die Sodomite!” scrawled on their homes, constant harassment and even so-called correctional rape.

“Now we really have to go undercover,” said Stosh Mugisha, a gay rights activist who said she was pinned down in a guava orchard and raped by a farmhand who wanted to cure her of her attraction to girls. She said that she was impregnated and infected with H.I.V., but that her grandmother’s reaction was simply, “ ‘You are too stubborn.’ ”

Despite such attacks, many gay men and lesbians here said things had been getting better for them before the bill, at least enough to hold news conferences and publicly advocate for their rights. Now they worry that the bill could encourage lynchings. Already, mobs beat people to death for infractions as minor as stealing shoes.

“What these people have done is set the fire they can’t quench,” said the Rev. Kapya Kaoma, a Zambian who went undercover for six months to chronicle the relationship between the African anti-homosexual movement and American evangelicals.

Mr. Kaoma was at the conference and said that the three Americans “underestimated the homophobia in Uganda” and “what it means to Africans when you speak about a certain group trying to destroy their children and their families.”

“When you speak like that,” he said, “Africans will fight to the death.”

Uganda is an exceptionally lush, mostly rural country where conservative Christian groups wield enormous influence. This is, after all, the land of proposed virginity scholarships, songs about Jesus playing in the airport, “Uganda is Blessed” bumper stickers on Parliament office doors and a suggestion by the president’s wife that a virginity census could be a way to fight AIDS.

During the Bush administration, American officials praised Uganda’s family-values policies and steered millions of dollars into abstinence programs.

Uganda has also become a magnet for American evangelical groups. Some of the best known Christian personalities have recently passed through here, often bringing with them anti-homosexuality messages, including the Rev. Rick Warren, who visited in 2008 and has compared homosexuality to pedophilia. (Mr. Warren recently condemned the anti-homosexuality bill, seeking to correct what he called “lies and errors and false reports” that he played a role in it.)

Many Africans view homosexuality as an immoral Western import, and the continent is full of harsh homophobic laws. In northern Nigeria, gay men can face death by stoning. Beyond Africa, a handful of Muslim countries, like Iran and Yemen, also have the death penalty for homosexuals. But many Ugandans said they thought that was going too far. A few even spoke out in support of gay people.

“I can defend them,” said Haj Medih, a Muslim taxi driver with many homosexual customers. “But I fear the what? The police, the government. They can arrest you and put you in the safe house, and for me, I don’t have any lawyer who can help me.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/04/world/africa/04uganda.html?_r=1

ricardisimo
10-16-2010, 01:00 AM
I guess you missed the series of post's a page back where MOP and myself skerwered all religions? ( the clown posts) We're not trying to prop up Cristianity or any other religion, we're just pointing out that there are some terrible things currently being done in the name of Islam or by Islamic radicals. Maybe you don't see the proportion that I'm seeing, or perhaps you think Western culture is inferior of inherenty more violent than Islamic culture. That's fine, but i disagree. With few exceptions I think woman and minorities enjoy more freedoms and rights in our society than in theirs. And I'll continue to point out inequity where i see it, as you're welcome to do as well. .
I don't think that our society is inherently more violent. In fact, I think that we could be a much, much uglier place - a la Stalinist Russia - but that our democratic ideals and secularism have tempered much of that.

But make no mistake: we are a violent culture, and growing more so as our nation's power increases and our secularism fades. There's no other way to be an empire than with violent muscle flexing. Most of that flexing is done abroad, but it's starting to happen at home now too, with immigrants, gays, Muslims, anarchists and sundry other freaks and weirdos. Eventually they'll get around to norms like you and MoP.

MasterOfPuppets
10-16-2010, 02:35 AM
wow.... the only time i've ever heard the word "norm" directed at me is when i walk into the bar ..:chug:

zulater
10-16-2010, 06:14 AM
I don't think that our society is inherently more violent. In fact, I think that we could be a much, much uglier place - a la Stalinist Russia - but that our democratic ideals and secularism have tempered much of that.

But make no mistake: we are a violent culture, and growing more so as our nation's power increases and our secularism fades. There's no other way to be an empire than with violent muscle flexing. Most of that flexing is done abroad, but it's starting to happen at home now too, with immigrants, gays, Muslims, anarchists and sundry other freaks and weirdos. Eventually they'll get around to norms like you and MoP.

Man is violent by nature, as are most predatory animals, and after you strip off the veneer that's still what we are, and what we strive to overcome.

And I really don't think our secularism is fading, perhaps it's profile is heightened? But I think when you get right down to it the vast majority of our country is looking for nothing more than balance and common sense in how we approach matters.

SteelCityMom
10-16-2010, 10:41 AM
I guess you missed the series of post's a page back where MOP and myself skerwered all religions? ( the clown posts) We're not trying to prop up Cristianity or any other religion, we're just pointing out that there are some terrible things currently being done in the name of Islam or by Islamic radicals. Maybe you don't see the proportion that I'm seeing, or perhaps you think Western culture is inferior of inherenty more violent than Islamic culture. That's fine, but i disagree. With few exceptions I think woman and minorities enjoy more freedoms and rights in our society than in theirs. And I'll continue to point out inequity where i see it, as you're welcome to do as well. .

I don't think any one of us will ever argue with you about what atrocities are committed by radical Islamists. And I'll certainly never argue with you that our western culture (with a few exceptions) enjoys more freedoms than their extremist Islamic states. Ric makes a good point though, there is A LOT of propaganda and political division going on in regards to this topic though.

There's horrible things going on in many parts of the world, but they aren't pushed to the forefront like "The War on Terror" are right now. If you've never wondered why that is, you need to start wondering. It's not because radical Islamists are generating the majority of the worlds violence either.

Why do you hear about gay bashing in Amsterdam (or other European nations or cities) from radical Islamists, but rarely ever hear about the fact that many Christian African nations are leaning towards life in prison or death for being gay? Or that gay bashing in many US cities and rural areas is still a national pastime for some?

Why do you only hear about radical Islamists horrible treatment of women? Why do you never hear about the rampant violence and discrimination of women in Brazil (for one)?

The recent assassination of a woman by the alleged father of her baby, and a promising young Brazilian goalkeeper, has been on the media spotlight, shocking the country for the level of violence involved in the crime. At the same time, Instituto Sangari [pt], a non profit for social awareness on scientific culture based in São Paulo, published its 2010 Map of Violence in Brazil [pt] stating that 10 women are assassinated everyday in the country. Inevitably, the blogsphere put the two together and condemnation of such crimes became a hot topic beyond the sensationalist broadcasting of mainstream media, which has been limited to the footballer's crime.

According to Nilcéa Freire, minister of women policies, violence against women is in fact largely ignored by the media [pt]:

more here...
http://globalvoicesonline.org/2010/07/20/brazil-daily-violence-against-women/

Caught in the crossfire: women’s experiences of violence in shanty towns (Brazil)
“We can’t go on living under these conditions. We live in fear.” Paola, a seamstress and mother of one, lives at the entrance to the favela (shanty town) in Rio de Janeiro. As she was being interviewed by Amnesty International in 2005, a voice echoed through the street: “Everyone indoors by 6:00 pm! All shops close tomorrow!” as the traffickers announced that evening’s curfew.

Women living in ‘favelas’ in Brazil do so against a backdrop of constant violence by the police and criminal gangs. Amnesty International has documented how, in the absence of protection from the state, women are vulnerable to violence within the home and from criminal gangs that dominate every aspect of life in the community. Women may be punished violently for breaking the "rules" set out by the gangs or factions or for their relatives having done so.

http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/news/human-rights-violations-in-cities-around-the-world-20081006

Simply said, I think that it is a detriment to focus solely on Islamic based violence. There's horrible things going on all over the world. To pinpoint one religion and one faction of people as being the main perpetrators of much of the worlds violence and injustice is completely absurd and wrong.

ricardisimo
10-16-2010, 12:41 PM
What she said.

zulater
10-16-2010, 02:37 PM
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5hjP-cmLJrFCOOlxAJBIWJoHNxYEg?docId=B3087421287147189A0 0

This is almost laugh out loud funny. If he gets the death penalty I don't have a great deal of sympathy for him, after all it appears that he brutally murdered his manservant /lover. But the irony of course that the bass ackward form of sharia law the Saudi's practice would have him put to death for the act of being gay.

Oh brother, right verdict, wrong crime.:doh:

Sorry SCM and ric, but I'm fascinated with the archaic instution of Sharia law. :toofunny:

SteelCityMom
10-16-2010, 03:08 PM
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5hjP-cmLJrFCOOlxAJBIWJoHNxYEg?docId=B3087421287147189A0 0

This is almost laugh out loud funny. If he gets the death penalty I don't have a great deal of sympathy for him, after all it appears that he brutally murdered his manservant /lover. But the irony of course that the bass ackward form of sharia law the Saudi's practice would have him put to death for the act of being gay.

Oh brother, right verdict, wrong crime.:doh:

Sorry SCM and ric, but I'm fascinated with the archaic instution of Sharia law. :toofunny:


Of course it's archaic and wrong, but your obsession is only serving to blind you from what's going on in the rest of the world as well. You treat this like radical Muslims are the only ones doing this. They aren't. I don't know if you don't believe what I've been posting, or if you're just ignoring it and moving on, but the problem of violence against gays and women (at a government and societal level) is much bigger than Islam.

I get your hatred for Sharia and radical Islamists, but your views (IMO) are absurdly biased and one-sided....to the point of becoming dangerously delusional.

Christian, multi-religious and secular nations across the world are filthy with racial, sexist and anti-homosexual violence. Again, I think it's dangerous to focus on one religion and one society and say they are the main problem.

And this may sound ignorant, but it's probably a little bit true too...but I have a sneaking suspicion that some uber Christians in this country (and in other "westernized" countries) only have a problem with some aspects or Sharia law because it comes from brown people. I distrust these types more than I distrust some radical Muslims in a fundamental Islamic state in the Middle East because these people are already here and doing what they can to push these kinds of laws on Americans under the guise of "Biblical Laws". Religious nuts are dangerous people, no matter what book they read. I have to say I'm more concerned about the ones who are already here and running for office than I am about the ones over there.

SteelCityMom
10-16-2010, 03:32 PM
Yay to this guy, (R) Carl Paladino, for bringing in the anti-gay speech into his platform! This guy's running for Governor too. Wonderful.

17ERPr5W13s

MasterOfPuppets
10-16-2010, 08:28 PM
Of course it's archaic and wrong, but your obsession is only serving to blind you from what's going on in the rest of the world as well. You treat this like radical Muslims are the only ones doing this. .
when hindu's attack ...

y0FLW_OSKdA

ehzOnu85k10

ricardisimo
10-16-2010, 08:36 PM
I also feel like I'm having to repeat another point over and over again: our responsibility is to look critically at ourselves. Patting ourselves undeservedly on the back while judging others in whose shoes we haven't walked even two seconds serves no purpose. It's quite dangerous, actually.

MasterOfPuppets
10-16-2010, 09:00 PM
Why do Christians not obey the Old Testaments commands to kill homosexuals and disobedient children?


by Matt Slick (http://carm.org/more-stuff/about-carm/matt-slick)
Critics of the Bible often cite Old Testament instances of slavery, violence against homosexuals, wiping out nations, etc., as evidence of a morally inadequate set of rules. They will also often ask why present-day Christians don't follow these "barbaric" teachings today. They complain that Christians are inconsistent, and say that if we really follow the Bible then why don't we advocate such things as killing both homosexuals (Lev. 20:13 (http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Lev.%2020.13)) and disobedient children (Deut. 21:18-21 (http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Deut.%2021.18-21)).
The reason we don't is because the Old Covenantal system, that involved such harsh punishments, has been done away with. We are under a new covenant. Jesus said in Luke 22:20 (http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Luke%2022.20), "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood."
This new covenant was prophecied in the Old Testament in Jer. 31:31 (http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Jer.%2031.31), “Behold, days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah." It is referenced in 1 Cor. 11:25 (http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/1%20Cor.%2011.25), 2 Cor. 3:6 (http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/2%20Cor.%203.6), Heb. 8:8 (http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Heb.%208.8), 9:15 (http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Heb%209.15); and 12:24 (http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Heb%2012.24).
Of particular importance to our topic is Heb. 8:13 (http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Heb.%208.13) which says, "When He said, 'A new covenant,' He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear." The Old Covenant with its harsh judicial judgments is no longer in effect because we are under a New Covenant.
Part of the reason the Old Testament covenantal system was so harsh is because first, the Old Testament law demonstrates the severity of righteousness and the requirement of perfection before a holy God. Galatians 3:24 (http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Galatians%203.24) says that the law is what points us to Christ. It does this by showing us that we are not able to keep the law and that the only way of obtaining righteousness before God is through the sacrifice of Jesus, who was God in flesh (John 1:1 (http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/John%201.1),14 (http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/John%201.14); Col. 2:9 (http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Col.%202.9)).
Second, the Old Testament times were very difficult and there were many nations that warred against Israel. Also, the devil and his demonic horde was constantly working to destroy Israel in order to invalidate the prophecies of the coming Messiah, to therefore prevent the Messiah from being born and delivering his people. Therefore, God instituted laws, as difficult as they were, that were consistent with the culture of the times, that ensured the survival of the Jewish nation, that helped to maintain social structure, and also reflected the harshness of the law.
The New Testament covenantal system says that we are to "be at peace with one another," (Mark 9:50 (http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Mark%209.50)) and "with all men," (Rom. 12:18 (http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Rom.%2012.18)). Rom. 14:18 (http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Rom.%2014.18) says, "pursue the things which make for peace and the building up of one another." After all, "God has called us to peace," (1 Cor. 7:15 (http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/1%20Cor.%207.15)).
However, this does not mean that we are to approve of such sins as homosexuality, adultery, lying, and stealing. We are to not participate in the sins of the world. Instead, we are to avoid them. We are not to be violent to anyone since the old theonomic, covenantal system has been done away with (Heb. 8:13 (http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Heb.%208.13)). Instead, we are to be kind to them (2 Tim. 2:24-25 (http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/2%20Tim.%202.24-25)) and show them love (1 Cor. 16:14 (http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/1%20Cor.%2016.14); 2 Cor. 5:14 (http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/2%20Cor.%205.14)). But the moral condemnation of immorality still stands -- as is clearly taught in 1 Cor. 6:9-10 (http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/1%20Cor.%206.9-10) and Rom. 1:26-28 (http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Rom.%201.26-28).
So, the reason Christians are not obligated to stone homosexuals, disobedient children, and adulterers, is because we're no longer underneath the Old Testament covenantal system. It has been fulfilled and done away with (Heb. 8:13 (http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Heb.%208.13)).
What right do you have to judge?

In order for someone to raise a valid objection against the moral statutes of the Old Testament, he or she must provide a standard by which such judgments can be made. While people may not agree with the moral judgments of the Old Testament, not agreeing does not invalidate them or mean they are wrong; nor does simply saying "they were obviously barbaric rules" mean that they were. Likewise, saying that "society has evolved" is a meaningless statement. By what standard does the critic offer morally objective criteria by which he or she can judge another culture's morals?
We have to ask what right does a person in a present-day culture have to judge any ancient culture which existed in a completely different economic, militaristic, judicial, and geographical configuration? Of course, people are entitled to their opinions and they don't have to like what the Bible teaches, but not liking it has no bearing on whether or not it is good. So, those critics who insist that the Old Testament laws were wrong need to provide an objective standard (not their own opinions) by which they can make moral judgments.


http://carm.org/why-do-christians-not-obey-old-testaments-commands-to-kill-homosexuals

SteelCityMom
10-16-2010, 09:36 PM
I read some of that site MOP....I've been really bad I think. :nervous:

zulater
10-16-2010, 09:37 PM
I get your hatred for Sharia and radical Islamists, but your views (IMO) are absurdly biased and one-sided....to the point of becoming dangerously delusional.

.

This is what i see, I see South Park lampoon every major religion, and even some not so major. And of course they've drawn more than a little negative reaction. Some boycotts have been called for, but not followed through on, of course Chef ( Isaac Hayes) unfortunately quit after they took on the Scienetologists, and obviously they've got more than a little hate male. But only once have they had the plug pulled on them, guess what religion that was in reference to? Who scared Comedy central to the point of censorship?


They murder or threaten to kill cartoonists, authors ( Rushdie) or anyone else who dares to call their religion into question. Sorry but I'm not seeing this out of the rest of the world's religions. "Respect me or else!"

Call me when the Pope or BillyGraham issue a fatwa demanding the death of Trey Parker and Matt Stone. :coffee:

SteelCityMom
10-16-2010, 09:45 PM
This is what i see, I see South Park lampoon every major religion, and even some not so major. And of course they've drawn more than a little negative reaction. Some boycotts have been called for, but not followed through on, of course Chef ( Isaac Hayes) unfortunately quit after they took on the Scienetologists. But only once have they had the plug pulled on them, guess what religion that was in reference to?


They murder or threaten to kill cartoonists, authors ( Rushdie) or anyone else who dares to call their religion into question. Sorry not seeing this out of the rest of the worlds religions.

Call me when the Pope or BillyGraham issue a fatwa demanding the death of Trey Parker and Matt Stone. :coffee:

:rolleyes: Again...I'm not saying I agree with any of that, but really, are you just going to deny all the violence in the world that has nothing to do with Islam? I just can't do that. Again, I'm more concerned about what goes on within our own borders than with what goes on in the Middle East. It's a big distraction on keeping our freedoms strong and keeping the RIGHT people in office. Europe got too comfortable with their freedoms and now they are paying the price I guess. That's the best lesson I can take away from the Islamic violence there. What I suppose I mean is this...take care of your own house (country) and you don't have to worry about others (invaders) taking it away from you.

More to the point of your post though, religious nuts (from here and other countries) don't bother going after petty cartoonists. They go for the higher ups. I'm vigilant of them all, but try to keep a better eye on the religious nuts already in the country, the ones that will actually do something given the chance.

A bit off topic...but found this article interesting. Enjoy.

The Most Homophobic Place on Earth?
By TIM PADGETT/KINGSTON Wednesday, Apr. 12, 2006

Brian wears sunglasses to hide his gray and lifeless left eye—damaged, he says, by kicks and blows with a board from Jamaican reggae star Buju Banton. Brian, 44, is gay, and Banton, 32, is an avowed homophobe whose song Boom Bye-Bye decrees that gays "haffi dead" ("have to die"). In June 2004, Brian claims, Banton and some toughs burst into his house near Banton's Kingston recording studio and viciously beat him and five other men. After complaints from international human-rights groups, Banton was finally charged last fall, but in January a judge dismissed the case for lack of evidence. It was a bitter decision for Brian, who lost his landscaping business after the attack and is fearful of giving his last name. "I still go to church," he says as he sips a Red Stripe beer. "Every Sunday I ask why this happened to me."
Though familiar to Americans primarily as a laid-back beach destination, Jamaica is hardly idyllic. The country has the world's highest murder rate. And its rampant violence against gays and lesbians has prompted human-rights groups to confer another ugly distinction: the most homophobic place on earth.
In the past two years, two of the island's most prominent gay activists, Brian Williamson and Steve Harvey, have been murdered — and a crowd even celebrated over Williamson's mutilated body. Perhaps most disturbing, many anti-gay assaults have been acts of mob violence. In 2004, a teen was almost killed when his father learned his son was gay and invited a group to lynch the boy at his school. Months later, witnesses say, police egged on another mob that stabbed and stoned a gay man to death in Montego Bay. And this year a Kingston man, Nokia Cowan, drowned after a crowd shouting "batty boy" (a Jamaican epithet for homosexual) chased him off a pier. "Jamaica is the worst any of us has ever seen," says Rebecca Schleifer of the U.S.-based Human Rights Watch and author of a scathing report on the island's anti-gay hostility.
Jamaica may be the worst offender, but much of the rest of the Caribbean also has a long history of intense homophobia. Islands like Barbados still criminalize homosexuality, and some seem to be following Jamaica's more violent example. Last week two CBS News producers, both Americans, were beaten with tire irons by a gay-bashing mob while vacationing on St. Martin. One of the victims, Ryan Smith, was airbused to a Miami hospital, where he remains in intensive care with a fractured skull.
Gay-rights activists attribute the scourge of homophobia in Jamaica largely to the country's increasingly thuggish reggae music scene. Few epitomize the melding of reggae and gangsta cultures more than Banton, who is one of the nation's most popular dance-hall singers. Born Mark Myrie, he grew up the youngest of 15 children in Kingston's Salt Lane — the sort of slum dominated by ultraconservative Christian churches and intensely anti-gay Rastafarians. Banton parlayed homophobia into a ticket out of Salt Lane. One of his first hits, 1992's Boom Bye-Bye, boasts of shooting gays with Uzis and burning their skin with acid "like an old tire wheel."
Banton's lyrics are hardly unique among reggae artists today. Another popular artist, Elephant Man (O'Neil Bryant, 29) declares in one song, "When you hear a lesbian getting raped/ It's not our fault ... Two women in bed/ That's two Sodomites who should be dead." Another, Bounty Killer (Rodney Price, 33), urges listeners to burn "Mister Fagoty" and make him "wince in agony."
Reggae's anti-gay rhetoric has seeped into the country's politics. Jamaica's major political parties have passed some of the world's toughest antisodomy laws and regularly incorporate homophobic music in their campaigns. "The view that results," says Jamaican human-rights lawyer Philip Dayle, "is that a homosexual isn't just an undesirable but an unapprehended criminal."
Meanwhile, gay-rights activists say Jamaican police often overlook evidence in anti-gay hate crimes, such as the alleged assault by Banton in 2004. His accuser, Brian, says cops excised Banton's role from their reports of the 2004 beating. A police spokesman denies that. But in dismissing the case earlier this year, the judge in the trial warned Banton to avoid violence and "seek legal recourses" when he has complaints against gays in the future. Banton refused TIME's request for an interview. His manager, Donovan Germain, insists that the singer is innocent and that "Buju's lyrics are part of a metaphorical tradition. They're not a literal call to kill gay men."
There are some signs that Jamaica may soften its approach. Jamaica's ruling party last month elected the nation's first female Prime Minister, Portia Simpson Miller, a progressive who gay-rights supporters hope will eventually move to decriminalize homosexuality. She hasn't yet said that, but Jamaica's beleaguered gays say they at least have reason now to hope their government will change its tune before their reggae stars ever do.


Read more: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1182991,00.html#ixzz12a2gKubM

SteelCityMom
10-16-2010, 10:17 PM
P.S. I still :heart: you Zu. Don't want you to think I don't value your opinion on the matter, I really do...I just look at it differently. I actually tend to agree with you a bit on the matter as a whole, I just don't see it as the thing Americans should be focusing on most. I really believe that we need to take care of our government first and protect our freedoms from the politicians already in office (or running for office) before we worry about outside forces taking them over. Strengthen our freedoms now, and we won't need to worry about them. That's my philosophy.

zulater
10-16-2010, 10:33 PM
P.S. I still :heart: you Zu. Don't want you to think I don't value your opinion on the matter, I really do...I just look at it differently. I actually tend to agree with you a bit on the matter as a whole, I just don't see it as the thing Americans should be focusing on most. I really believe that we need to take care of our government first and protect our freedoms from the politicians already in office (or running for office) before we worry about outside forces taking them over. Strengthen our freedoms now, and we won't need to worry about them. That's my philosophy.

We're cool, I've never had a problem with anything you've directed towards me. :drink:

Trust me, I've had more than my share of battles with Catholics and Baptists over the years too. :chuckle:

ricardisimo
10-17-2010, 05:21 AM
I read some of that site MOP....I've been really bad I think. :nervous:
You're keeping slaves again, aren't you? That poor fiancé of yours...

As for Jamaica, you'd think they'd be a little more laid back what with the spliffage and all.

zulater
10-21-2010, 09:21 AM
NPR fires Juan Williams for saying "Muslim's make him nervous." (http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/npr-fires-analyst-juan-williams-for-saying-muslims-make-him-nervous/19683232?icid=main%7Cmain%7Cdl1%7Csec4_lnk2%7C1791 25)

I'm not defending what Williams said. Well actually the content of what he said shouldn't bother people, he was only being honest. But he should have been smart enought to know some truths ( as in his opinion) are better left unsaid. But regardless, anyone familiar with this man and his writings know that NPR fired him because of his assocciation with Fox news and to me that's sad and unfortunate. I could see a reprimand, even a suspension, but firing him without at least offering him the chance to apoligize is excessive.

chacha
10-21-2010, 03:19 PM
maybe he's a pain in the ass and they were looking to get rid of him, who knows. I do know he tends to talk out of both sides of his mouth, one way for NPR and a different attitude when he's on Fox. He should be able to say what he thinks, too bad he changes it for different audiences

steelax04
10-21-2010, 03:49 PM
NPR fires Juan Williams for saying "Muslim's make him nervous." (http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/npr-fires-analyst-juan-williams-for-saying-muslims-make-him-nervous/19683232?icid=main%7Cmain%7Cdl1%7Csec4_lnk2%7C1791 25)

I'm not defending what Williams said. Well actually the content of what he said shouldn't bother people, he was only being honest. But he should have been smart enought to know some truths ( as in his opinion) are better left unsaid. But regardless, anyone familiar with this man and his writings know that NPR fired him because of his assocciation with Fox news and to me that's sad and unfortunate. I could see a reprimand, even a suspension, but firing him without at least offering him the chance to apoligize is excessive.

Here's his response...

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/10/21/juan-williams-npr-fired-truth-muslim-garb-airplane-oreilly-ellen-weiss-bush/

zulater
10-22-2010, 12:36 AM
Here's his response...

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/10/21/juan-williams-npr-fired-truth-muslim-garb-airplane-oreilly-ellen-weiss-bush/

Good read and very revealing to the slanted mindset at NPR. Saying they have journalistic objectivity or integrity is a joke.

chacha
10-22-2010, 10:55 AM
I think the guys over at NPR are acting like fools over the whole thing, but NPR is still a million times less slanted than Fox, and let's face it has absolutely no where near the audience, so why is anyone's panties in such a bunch? Nobody really cares except Fox lovers can say "they aren't as tolerant as us". Puleeze. Now the Fox devotees get Williams more since he's been upgraded to full time Fox contributor! More face time for Williams, I bet he's happy.

zulater
10-22-2010, 01:06 PM
I think the guys over at NPR are acting like fools over the whole thing, but NPR is still a million times less slanted than Fox, and let's face it has absolutely no where near the audience, so why is anyone's panties in such a bunch? Nobody really cares except Fox lovers can say "they aren't as tolerant as us". Puleeze. Now the Fox devotees get Williams more since he's been upgraded to full time Fox contributor! More face time for Williams, I bet he's happy.

Two things, one NPR is partially publicly financed, so if you're going to take the taxpayers money you damn well best not show a bias. Two, they're 'effing hypocrites .

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/lachlan-markay/2010/10/21/nprs-glaring-double-standards-beg-question-juan-williams-next-shirle#ixzz136zdP44F

chacha
10-22-2010, 01:20 PM
I think they're hypocrites too and acting incredibly stupid in this case, but have you really ever even listened to NPR or are you just running with this news item? As for the funding, hmmmm...It's too bad they cant get an Australian tycoon to fund them. Someone who controls other stations and newspapers, I wonder where we could find such a person?

zulater
10-22-2010, 01:29 PM
I think they're hypocrites too and acting incredibly stupid in this case, but have you really ever even listened to NPR or are you just running with this news item? As for the funding, hmmmm...It's too bad they cant get an Australian tycoon to fund them. Someone who controls other stations and newspapers, I wonder where we could find such a person?


http://www.minnpost.com/braublog/2010/10/18/22459/npr_offering_soros_money_for_political_coverage_wi ll_mpr_take_it


Gee I guess they'll have to scrape by on George Soros' money, poor souls. :coffee:

chacha
10-22-2010, 01:38 PM
are they owned by Soros? No, I thought not :coffee:

zulater
10-22-2010, 02:00 PM
are they owned by Soros? No, I thought not :coffee:

Does Fox accept public funding? No, I thought not. :coffee:

chacha
10-22-2010, 02:03 PM
I noticed you never answered if you've ever even listened to NPR.
I also don't like paying for cable especially knowing that some of the money may go to one of Murdoch's many stations

zulater
10-22-2010, 02:14 PM
I noticed you never answered if you've ever even listened to NPR.
I also don't like paying for cable especially knowing that some of the money may go to one of Murdoch's many stations

Well then don't pay for it. No one requires you to subscribe to cable last I checked. I don't have the same choice for paying my taxes though.


btw I don't listen to NPR, or Fox, difference is I'm not required to help support Fox.


( I get my news from papers and the internet, in the event of a huge story I usually switcch back and forth between the networks I used to watch NBC before Tim Russert died though. He was the best. .)

chacha
10-22-2010, 02:32 PM
Well then don't pay for it. No one requires you to subscribe to cable last I checked. I don't have the same choice for paying my taxes though.


btw I don't listen to NPR, or Fox, difference is I'm not required to help support Fox.


( I get my news from papers and the internet, in the event of a huge story I usually switcch back and forth between the networks I used to watch NBC before Tim Russert died though. He was the best. .)

Actually I do have to get cable to get tv reception here. So I'm stuck with the many stations of Murdoch. So you really are basing any perception you have on NPR from internet stories and not from actually listening to it, It actually has some interesting cultural stuff on, (but it can be a bit boring too). BTW I agree with you about Tim Russert he was great and went too soon.

zulater
10-22-2010, 02:47 PM
Actually I do have to get cable to get tv reception here. So I'm stuck with the many stations of Murdoch. So you really are basing any perception you have on NPR from internet stories and not from actually listening to it, It actually has some interesting cultural stuff on, (but it can be a bit boring too). BTW I agree with you about Tim Russert he was great and went too soon.

I don't have to listen to NPR to know right from wrong, and in the way they handled the situation with Juan williams they came off poorly. At worst he should have been suspended with the chance to clarify his remarks to those he might have offended. Viewed in their entirety his comments weren't anti Islamic whatsoever. I don't know that CAIR and those that were demanded action against him even bothered to see what context his "offensive" remarks were made in.

BTW I'm not a huge fan of Alec Baldwin's politics, but it doesn't stop me from enjoying 30 rock. I can seperate politics from entertainment.

SteelCityMom
10-22-2010, 03:05 PM
You asked for this Zu.

udS6losK7Ts

zulater
10-22-2010, 04:16 PM
You asked for this Zu.

udS6losK7Ts

:chuckle:

You know if there's a video of the "dick, *****, and assholes" speech from that movie on the net? :toofunny:

SteelCityMom
10-22-2010, 04:28 PM
:chuckle:

You know if there's a video of the "dick, *****, and assholes" speech from that movie on the net? :toofunny:

Lol...yeah, I have a couple of them in my favorites.

j6jHIT88IbE

qEiB4qazq4k

Arec Bardwin has officially hijacked your thread. BOOM! :chuckle:

MACH1
10-22-2010, 08:01 PM
NPR = National Progressive Radio

ricardisimo
10-22-2010, 11:05 PM
NPR = National Progressive Radio
I wish.

MasterOfPuppets
10-29-2010, 03:34 PM
looks like the french have already surrendered..:chuckle:

P4j1pvqs508

ricardisimo
10-29-2010, 04:29 PM
looks like the french have already surrendered..:chuckle:

P4j1pvqs508
From the 700 Club, no less. I guess I'll just have to concede the point, in that case. Wow. The French are allowing Muslims to worship in the streets. It's over. Goodbye, France.

Thankfully we haven't made stupidity illegal in this country yet, or else we'd be missing out on some deeply satisfying entertainment.

RgrsUloLpCU

Arec Bardwin is a devil worshipper, isn't he?

MasterOfPuppets
10-29-2010, 06:43 PM
did you catch the part about it being illegal in france ? or the part where the police were told to look the other way despite it being ILLEGAL IN FRANCE ?
Ric i thought you were all for seperation of religion and politics. if this isn't an example of religion changing policies than i don't know what is.
would you be pissed of if you were denied access to YOUR home just so someone else wouldn't be offended ?
should the illegal activity of a group trump your rights as a citizen .?
tolerance is fine, but it's gotta have its limits, breaking the laws and interfering with the daily lives of other citizens should be those limits.

ricardisimo
10-30-2010, 01:49 AM
did you catch the part about it being illegal in france ? or the part where the police were told to look the other way despite it being ILLEGAL IN FRANCE ?
Ric i thought you were all for seperation of religion and politics. if this isn't an example of religion changing policies than i don't know what is.
would you be pissed of if you were denied access to YOUR home just so someone else wouldn't be offended ?
should the illegal activity of a group trump your rights as a citizen .?
tolerance is fine, but it's gotta have its limits, breaking the laws and interfering with the daily lives of other citizens should be those limits.
The French are ****ing retarded, dude. Like it takes Voltaire to figure out how counterproductive outlawing hijabs and public ceremonies is. All they've done is give the clerics amunition. "You see? They are trying to silence us!" You don't need to crucify people to get their martyr's dander up.

Let people do what they want to do, and go about your business. It's obvious to everyone - including numerous commentators in France - that these laws don't work, and are facilitating quite the opposite results from what was supposedly intended. So why enact them?

If I were a betting man I'd say it's for all the same reasons as always. Nothing brings people together quite like division. [Like that? That's a Ricardo original] Division politics is what the folks up top go to instinctively whenever their seats get the least bit hot.

zulater
03-03-2011, 01:32 PM
http://www.aolnews.com/2011/03/03/police-calif-girl-jesse-bender-ran-away-to-avoid-pakistan-marr/?icid=maing%7Cmain5%7Cdl3%7Csec1_lnk3%7C47959
Calif. Girl, 13, Ran Away to Avoid Pakistan Marriage, Police Say

Investigators who spent more than a week searching for a 13-year-old girl her family feared had run away with someone she met online found her unharmed in a hotel Wednesday, where she said she had been hiding to avoid being forced into an arranged marriage in Pakistan.

Jesse Bender was taken into child protective custody as authorities decide whether to recommend filing charges against her family, San Bernardino County sheriff's spokeswoman Cindy Bachman said.

What's to decide, arrest them already. If we go into a Muslim country we're beholden to their laws, so if they want to come live in this country they better understand that they're children aren't livestock.

SteelersinCA
03-03-2011, 02:27 PM
http://www.aolnews.com/2011/03/03/police-calif-girl-jesse-bender-ran-away-to-avoid-pakistan-marr/?icid=maing%7Cmain5%7Cdl3%7Csec1_lnk3%7C47959
Calif. Girl, 13, Ran Away to Avoid Pakistan Marriage, Police Say

Investigators who spent more than a week searching for a 13-year-old girl her family feared had run away with someone she met online found her unharmed in a hotel Wednesday, where she said she had been hiding to avoid being forced into an arranged marriage in Pakistan.

Jesse Bender was taken into child protective custody as authorities decide whether to recommend filing charges against her family, San Bernardino County sheriff's spokeswoman Cindy Bachman said.

What's to decide, arrest them already. If we go into a Muslim country we're beholden to their laws, so if they want to come live in this country they better understand that they're children aren't livestock.

What charges exactly would you file? The marriage was to take place in Pakistan, not America. You can't be charged in California for something you do in another country. Crazy Californians....

zulater
03-03-2011, 02:41 PM
What charges exactly would you file? The marriage was to take place in Pakistan, not America. You can't be charged in California for something you do in another country. Crazy Californians....

Haven't we locked up pedophiles who went to Vietnam or the Phillipines to score young children once they came back inside our borders? I'm pretty sure we have. So what's the difference here? If they want to live inside our borders shouldn't they be required to abide by our laws?

I'm sorry, but regardless of race, religion or creed a child of 13 shouldn't ever be forced into marriage with a stranger. In fact a 13 year old shouldn't be allowed to marry period.

SteelersinCA
03-03-2011, 02:54 PM
You are telling me we have locked up American citizens who have gone to another country, had sexual relations with a minor in said country and then arrested them when they came back and charged them with crimes in America???

Prove it. I don't believe it. Every single crime has a jurisdictional element. If a crime occurs in Los Angeles, for instance, the prosecutor always, always, always asks the police officer, "was that in the city or county of Los Angeles?"

You cannot be charged with committing a crime in another country in America. The laws of America do not apply. If they are charged with a crime in the Philippines and held for extradition that is completely different.

I'm not arguing about whether a 13 year old should be married, I'm simply asking, charge them with what?

SteelersinCA
03-03-2011, 03:02 PM
Apparently you are correct, you can be charged with having sex with a child for commercial purposes while on foreign soil, via the PROTECT Act. It appears to be a specially carved out exception for sex tourism.

Still doesn't answer the question of what to charge the parents with here since they are not engaging in sex with any minors.

zulater
03-03-2011, 06:26 PM
Apparently you are correct, you can be charged with having sex with a child for commercial purposes while on foreign soil, via the PROTECT Act. It appears to be a specially carved out exception for sex tourism.

Still doesn't answer the question of what to charge the parents with here since they are not engaging in sex with any minors.

Well at least they're looking, so hopefully they'll find something.

I'm actually probably more pro immigrant than most people. I've got no problem with anyone coming to this country providing two things.

1. I don't want to support you. In other words get a job. Most immigrants seem to have no problem complying with this one, so no problem by me.

2. Obey our laws! You can practice any religion you wish just as long as you comply with the laws of our country while doing so. That applies to your kids too. If you don't want them to get too Americanized, leave them back where you came from.

ricardisimo
03-03-2011, 07:29 PM
How did this thread get hijacked away from Arec Bardwin? Mods! Intervention, please?

Wallace108
03-03-2011, 10:57 PM
I'm not arguing about whether a 13 year old should be married, I'm simply asking, charge them with what?
How about contributing to the delinquency of a minor? Child abuse? :noidea:

SteelersinCA
03-03-2011, 11:20 PM
How about contributing to the delinquency of a minor? Child abuse? :noidea:

I think if you look at the statutory language of those charges you'll see why.

273ab. (a) Any person, having the care or custody of a child who is
under eight years of age, who assaults the child by means of force
that to a reasonable person would be likely to produce great bodily
injury, resulting in the child's death, shall be punished by
imprisonment in the state prison for 25 years to life. Nothing in
this section shall be construed as affecting the applicability of
subdivision (a) of Section 187 or Section 189.
(b) Any person, having the care or custody of a child who is under
eight years of age, who assaults the child by means of force that to
a reasonable person would be likely to produce great bodily injury,
resulting in the child becoming comatose due to brain injury or
suffering paralysis of a permanent nature, shall be punished by
imprisonment in the state prison for life with the possibility of
parole. As used in this subdivision, "paralysis" means a major or
complete loss of motor function resulting from injury to the nervous
system or to a muscular mechanism.

(a) Any person who willfully inflicts upon a child any cruel
or inhuman corporal punishment or an injury resulting in a traumatic
condition is guilty of a felony and shall be punished by imprisonment
in the state prison for two, four, or six years, or in a county jail
for not more than one year, by a fine of up to six thousand dollars
($6,000), or by both that imprisonment and fine.
(b) Any person who is found guilty of violating subdivision (a)
shall receive a four-year enhancement for a prior conviction of that
offense provided that no additional term shall be imposed under this
subdivision for any prison term served prior to a period of 10 years
in which the defendant remained free of both prison custody and the
commission of an offense that results in a felony conviction.
(c) If a person is convicted of violating this section and
probation is granted, the court shall require the following minimum
conditions of probation:
(1) A mandatory minimum period of probation of 36 months.
(2) A criminal court protective order protecting the victim from
further acts of violence or threats, and, if appropriate, residence
exclusion or stay-away conditions.
(3) (A) Successful completion of no less than one year of a child
abuser's treatment counseling program. The defendant shall be ordered
to begin participation in the program immediately upon the grant of
probation. The counseling program shall meet the criteria specified
in Section 273.1. The defendant shall produce documentation of
program enrollment to the court within 30 days of enrollment, along
with quarterly progress reports.
(B) The terms of probation for offenders shall not be lifted until
all reasonable fees due to the counseling program have been paid in
full, but in no case shall probation be extended beyond the term
provided in subdivision (a) of Section 1203.1. If the court finds
that the defendant does not have the ability to pay the fees based on
the defendant's changed circumstances, the court may reduce or waive
the fees.
(4) If the offense was committed while the defendant was under the
influence of drugs or alcohol, the defendant shall abstain from the
use of drugs or alcohol during the period of probation and shall be
subject to random drug testing by his or her probation officer.
(5) The court may waive any of the above minimum conditions of
probation upon a finding that the condition would not be in the best
interests of justice. The court shall state on the record its reasons
for any waiver.

SteelersinCA
03-03-2011, 11:22 PM
Contributing to the delinquency is basically persuading or assisting a minor in breaking the law. What law would they be encouraging her to break?

Wallace108
03-03-2011, 11:34 PM
Contributing to the delinquency is basically persuading or assisting a minor in breaking the law. What law would they be encouraging her to break?

You got me there. I'll drop that charge. But I think they could still go for child abuse.
I don't know how these arranged marriages work, but would it take place immediately? Are they getting something in return? If so, could you get them for child prostitution? I'm reaching. I don't know much about the case (or how those marriages work), but it seems there's SOMETHING they could be charged with.

SteelersinCA
03-03-2011, 11:36 PM
You got me there. I'll drop that charge. But I think they could still go for child abuse.
I don't know how these arranged marriages work, but would it take place immediately? Are they getting something in return? If so, could you get them for child prostitution? I'm reaching. I don't know much about the case (or how those marriages work), but it seems there's SOMETHING they could be charged with.

If they did it in the U.S., yes. But you have to realize contrary to popular belief we aren't the world police. I would put this at a 2 on a scale of 1-10 of human atrocities.

Wallace108
03-03-2011, 11:46 PM
If they did it in the U.S., yes. But you have to realize contrary to popular belief we aren't the world police. I would put this at a 2 on a scale of 1-10 of human atrocities.

I agree that we're not the world police. Had he done this in Pakistan, there's not much we could do. But I'm assuming he's a U.S. citizen. And since he's here, and planned it here, wouldn't U.S. laws apply?

ricardisimo
03-04-2011, 12:11 AM
I agree that we're not the world police. Had he done this in Pakistan, there's not much we could do. But I'm assuming he's a U.S. citizen. And since he's here, and planned it here, wouldn't U.S. laws apply?
Unfortunately, you might have something there, Wally. I say unfortunately, because whenever prosecutors in the U.S. have nothing else, they always go for conspiracy.

I was in college participating in protests regarding our Central American policy when I was informed that although blocking streets and public buildings is a misdemeanor, conspiracy to commit a misdemeanor is a felony. How ****ing brilliant is that? The long and the short of it is that if they really want you, they can probably get you.

Wallace108
03-04-2011, 12:24 AM
Unfortunately, you might have something there, Wally.

Sweet! I should probably quit while I'm ahead. :sofunny:

Ric, you said what I was thinking much better than I did.
Although arranging a marriage involving a 13-year-old might be legal in Pakistan, it's not legal here. And since he is here and was planning on taking her there from here, I'm thinking they could get him for child abuse, conspiracy, or something along those lines.

Oh, and as far as this ...

I was in college participating in protests regarding our Central American policy

The only thing I ever protested in college is when they closed the bars early during daylight savings time. :chuckle:

zulater
03-04-2011, 05:41 AM
If they did it in the U.S., yes. But you have to realize contrary to popular belief we aren't the world police. I would put this at a 2 on a scale of 1-10 of human atrocities.

It would be more like a 4, maybe even 5 on my scale. Because basically I think many of the world at large's problems stem from the treatment of woman. You find a society that extends full equality to it's female citizenry and usually that will be a country that's all around standard of living will be high.

SteelersinCA
03-04-2011, 10:26 AM
Unfortunately, you might have something there, Wally. I say unfortunately, because whenever prosecutors in the U.S. have nothing else, they always go for conspiracy.

I was in college participating in protests regarding our Central American policy when I was informed that although blocking streets and public buildings is a misdemeanor, conspiracy to commit a misdemeanor is a felony. How ****ing brilliant is that? The long and the short of it is that if they really want you, they can probably get you.

Conspiracy to commit what in this case though? Follow the laws of Pakistan?

Sweet! I should probably quit while I'm ahead. :sofunny:

Ric, you said what I was thinking much better than I did.
Although arranging a marriage involving a 13-year-old might be legal in Pakistan, it's not legal here. And since he is here and was planning on taking her there from here, I'm thinking they could get him for child abuse, conspiracy, or something along those lines.

Oh, and as far as this ...



The only thing I ever protested in college is when they closed the bars early during daylight savings time. :chuckle:

You went to Ohio U, huh?

It would be more like a 4, maybe even 5 on my scale. Because basically I think many of the world at large's problems stem from the treatment of woman. You find a society that extends full equality to it's female citizenry and usually that will be a country that's all around standard of living will be high.

I'm presuming they are in arranged marriages with men? So aren't they being just as "abused?"

zulater
03-04-2011, 01:40 PM
I'm presuming they are in arranged marriages with men? So aren't they being just as "abused?"

I'm not quite sure I'm following you here?

I'm against arranged marriage's, but I also understand they are part of some people's culture. So I can respect that so long as the bride and groom are old enough to make the decision for themselves and are willing participants. In some cases I'm sure that would be true, and remarkably enough I'm sure some of those marriages actually work out ok.

But if you're forcing kids into that sort of arrangement, or worse yet, if you're forcing a child to marry an adult, that's just sick and indefensible.

Obviously the U.S. can't work as world police and stop that sort of thing from happening outside it's borders. But if a person(s) choose to reside in this country then they should be aware and subject to our laws concerning child welfare.

ricardisimo
03-04-2011, 08:07 PM
Conspiracy to commit what in this case though? Follow the laws of Pakistan?
I'm thinking RICO-ish nonsense, where it seems they can get people just for lingering together in smoky rooms a bit too long.

SteelersinCA
03-04-2011, 09:48 PM
I'm not quite sure I'm following you here?

I'm against arranged marriage's, but I also understand they are part of some people's culture. So I can respect that so long as the bride and groom are old enough to make the decision for themselves and are willing participants. In some cases I'm sure that would be true, and remarkably enough I'm sure some of those marriages actually work out ok.

But if you're forcing kids into that sort of arrangement, or worse yet, if you're forcing a child to marry an adult, that's just sick and indefensible.

Obviously the U.S. can't work as world police and stop that sort of thing from happening outside it's borders. But if a person(s) choose to reside in this country then they should be aware and subject to our laws concerning child welfare.

You said 4 or 5 because of the world's treatment of women. I was merely pointing out it takes 2 to tango! :drink: