A brief history of political islam

[R_not]

It has nothing to do with what is going through their minds. Their sins are wiped clean if they become martyrs. It is what they believe. If you heard the usual junk from muslims that ‘what they did was a sin’ - yes, it is a sin. But when they became a shahid - it didn’t matter anymore.

Now, if there was a muslim who did the things (sins) and didn’t follow through and become a shahid - well, that person was in my mind normal! But, according to islam he sinned.

They planned those hijackings for a very, long time. They trained and they planned. It just didn’t happen by a whim.

It is that same junk we got about ‘we don’t believe in suicide nor do we believe in the killing of innocents’. This is more junk from muslims because they never fill in the fact that they don’t look at unbelievers as innocent, nor do they consider dying while killing unbelievers an act of suicide. Only if a person kills him/herself without taking down an unbeliever with them is that a suicide. It is the same with the things these 17 hijackers - if they hadn’t killed some unbelievers they would have been sinners.

So little was known about islam at that time. And now that people have become aware of it - we get posts from you trying to bash the messenger. Go do some of your own research. I would post some links but they are ‘irrelevant’ for you.

Someone gave me this series of videos and it is an interview between to ex-muslim brothers talking about islam.
youtube.com/view_play_list?p=8362F3AAC4B6EBE8

It is a long series but what video #2 goes into proving what I wrote as true. I read the thing about martyrdom in some book, or article, and never kept it. This series has it said beautifully - what sin is in islam and what being a martyr is in islam.

 

[Verisimilitude]

Or is it simply an attempt to discredit my argument by discrediting me, in other words an ad hominem attack?

We are talking about what we as Catholics hold as true with regard to faith and what Islam holds as true. In this regard it is black and white with no grey areas.

You’ve been saying it, and I’ve been challenging it. Wouldn’t the worship of satan, or polytheism be the opposite of Christianity (or Islam for that matter)?

Get this if you haven’t already though I think I have been clear already: I believe (and can support this belief with logic and reason) the spirit that spoke to Mohammed was Satan, and Satan has misled Mohammed and all Moslems follow Mohammed. Mohammedans do not worship Satan but they worship the reflection Satan has painted of God and it is 100% false. Reject it all.

You’ve been doing more than that – you’ve been implying that there is something heretical or dissenting about my opinions. You want to make the argument about me, not the issue at hand. It won’t work if only because I haven’t said anything that is unorthodox or gives you the right to use this underhanded tactic.

An opinion is different than Doctrine and Dogma. The issue at hand is the politics of Islam though we have veered off that a bit since you want to discuss the similarities of Catholic and Islaimic practices. You said this:

Yeah, that quote from the catechism is ambiguously worded. On purpose, I think.

I think its quite clear and direct and goes to a purpose I think you are really trying to get at but don’t quite grasp yet.

Well, you’ve never explained why the only credible evidence has to be limited to hadiths or sura. But I’ll play along: How about “there is no compulsion in religion”. That’s surely good. Or how about the prohibition on drinking (that must be in the Quran somewhere). Some people who are opposed to drinking such as Prohibitionists would regard that as objectively good.

I’ll see if I can get us back on point: In post #37 when I asked algebra to provide something except that example of ‘no compulsion’ becasue it is an abrogated verse given at the time when Mohammed was a minority before fleeing to Medina. Islamic political history shows they do not embrace that verse in practice. If you can prove otherwise please do so. It would be good but again it is qualified by reality/history. Regarding alcohol- is it prohibited by God? Do you call that good? You even offered to buy me a drink remember?

This is where I think you’re talking non-sense. The “islamic god” doesn’t exist. What exists in Islam is an imperfect representation of the one true God (although a more truthful one than that found in polytheistic religions).

allah exists for over a billion Moslems. planten just posted a few to explain that. Why not argue with him? He disagree with both you and algebra.

It’s nonsense because you are saying that everything Islam teaches is false. Part of Islam is the belief that God is one. As Christians we believe God is one. Therefore that must be true. Therefore that part of Islam must be true. Therefore your conclusion is false.

You admitted allah and God are different on all points except a possibility allah may be Our Father God. You concluded that. Do you hang your hat on that slim possibility?

No, not my understanding, the Church’s understanding. That’s an orthodox statement of what the Church teaches about herself: the doctrines don’t change but the understanding of them may become more nuanced over time.

I think it is your misunderstanding. It isn’t a fault as you think exactly unless you are unwilling to correct yourself to it rather than the other way around.

 

[tomarin]

Regarding alcohol- is it prohibited by God? Do you call that good? You even offered to buy me a drink remember?

No, I don’t think it’s prohibited by God. There are some Protestant sects that believe it is though and to them the prohibition of alcohol would seem like a good thing.

Anyway, my offer of a drink still stands. I think we should wrap this up since we have never been completely on topic. Thank you for sharing your ideas with me. I enjoyed debating with you.

Tomarin

 

[Verisimilitude]

No, I don’t think it’s prohibited by God. There are some Protestant sects that believe it is though and to them the prohibition of alcohol would seem like a good thing.

We do not profess the Protestant or Islamic belief. Our US politics allows for freedom of religion which I support, but that does not mean their truths are true if you understand me.

Anyway, my offer of a drink still stands. I think we should wrap this up since we have never been completely on topic. Thank you for sharing your ideas with me. I enjoyed debating with you.

Tomarin

Fair enough. Let me know when you are in Colorado.

 

[sedonaman]

Again I am not hostile to muslims. I am married to a muslim woman.
I just dont agree with political islam. If islam was to give up on its political aspirations, I would have no problem with it, whatsoever.

No one else would either, because there wouldn’t be much left. “Even Hell is political. Only 6% of the people in Hell are there for moral failings – theft, lying, and so on. The majority, 94%, of the people in Hell are tortured for the simple reason of not believing Mohammed. That is a political and intellectual disagreement, not a moral failing. Allah’s Hell is a political prison for kafirs.”

Credit: [barga(name removed by moderator)rofessor.wordpress.com/2007/02/10/the-study-of-political-islam/?referer=sphere_related_content/](http://barga(name removed by moderator)rofessor.wordpress.com/2007/02/10/the-study-of-political-islam/?referer=sphere_related_content/)

 

[sedonaman]

… algebra, please note that there is zero politics in Islam. islam may have its own politics but it is not a political religion. It is all spiritual. Zero politics.

What did Thomas Jefferson John Adams learn when they went to see Tripoli’s ambassador to London in March 1785 to inquired by what right the Barbary states preyed upon American shipping, enslaving both crews and passengers? They were informed that, “It was written in the Koran, that all nations were sinners who should not have acknowledged their [Muslims’] authority, that it was their right and duty to make war upon whoever they could find and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Muslim who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.”

If making war and enslaving people are not politics, what are they?

 

[sedonaman]

If anything your pronouncements about Islam seem out of step with what the Vatican teaches.

What is your concept of what the Vatican teaches about Islam?

 

[R_not]

If one becomes incontinent - that constitutes a sin in islam too. Basically, getting urine on one’s self.

It isn’t planten that is making these things up - it is what is in islam. He is just chosing to follow that path. This is why we should all pray for muslims. So they can see the light and get out of islam. and no matter what planten tells you about apostasy - that is a very, real thing. At the VERY LEAST he would be exiled, ostracized from their family and friends if they are in the West and leave islam, and usually they are just killed in muslim lands.

And yes, muslims actually believe that waging jihad is fighting oppression and giving us the ideal society. No matter how disgusting we find it to be - they think that is the real deal.

Their mohammed wasn’t able to follow the 10 commandments so he made up halal, haram, and shirk - and even broke doing shirk several times. But, the muslims are told that there are scales and if they commit a sin or do something good - these scales tip either way. They are in constant remembrance of some phantom scale tipping this way or that way to determine whether they go to hell or heaven. And if they become a martyr - it is a straight pass to heaven.

But, none of this makes sense with predestination - not even the ex-muslims bring up predestination.

Former MUSLIMS Testify About ISLAM (this is a series of 11 videos - the 1st two talk about the scales, martyrdom bypassing the scales and a ticket straight to heaven, etc).

 

[inJESUS]

Absolutely agree. The purely religious, ie personal spiritual experience of a muslim with allah, is his/her own business. However, Mohammed as a person can be evaluated and criticised, and the non-religious aspects of Islam (the majority of the islamic doctrine) MUST be evaluated and given critical analysis.

exactly, and this is the problem while discussing Islam; people (Muslims generally) fail to see the distinction we are making between personal spiritual experience, and islamic ideologies. The slaughters done by Muhammad and his men to spread Islam, the Jizya and humiliation to non-Muslims, expelling non-Muslims from Arabia, cursing the Jews and Christians is what we are talking about. What they wear or what they eat or how they wash themselves affects no one, unless they want to impose it on others under " no religion but Islam in here", which takes us again to ideologies. And since Islam and political ideologies are one, people will always criticize muhammad and his violente.

PS: lest some as usual bring again the OT, i’ll say, stop the ignorance and read. No prophet EVER went through a war to convert others, nor were wars part of eternal teachings, nor is war prescribed on humanity so that people believe in Allah. All these are part of Muhammad’s “my religion is superior and must prevail” ideology.

 

[planten]

exactly, and this is the problem while discussing Islam; people (Muslims generally) fail to see the distinction we are making between personal spiritual experience, and islamic ideologies. The slaughters done by Muhammad and his men to spread Islam, the Jizya and humiliation to non-Muslims, expelling non-Muslims from Arabia, cursing the Jews and Christians is what we are talking about. What they wear or what they eat or how they wash themselves affects no one, unless they want to impose it on others under " no religion but Islam in here", which takes us again to ideologies. And since Islam and political ideologies are one, people will always criticize muhammad and his violente.

PS: lest some as usual bring again the OT, i’ll say, stop the ignorance and read. No prophet EVER went through a war to convert others, nor were wars part of eternal teachings, nor is war prescribed on humanity so that people believe in Allah. All these are part of Muhammad’s “my religion is superior and must prevail” ideology.

**My simple reply to you inJesus, " Muhammad never used any sword to convert people to Islam." He told his friends, never to do any such thing.

Tell me which sword had converted Ali or Abubakr or Umar or Uthman? The prophet lived a simple life before getting power. He lived the simplest life even after becoming most powerful. He did not make any palace or a big house for himself. He never used to sleep with any money in his house.

There never used to be lit any fire in his house for many months because there was nothing to cook or eat. When Muhammad passed away peacefully (year 632 A.D.), he did not leave any property to be divided amongst his relatives. There was nothing.

Thanks for discussing.**

 

[sedonaman]

The prophet lived a simple life before getting power.

There is a lot in this statement.

 

[R_not]

There is a lot in this statement.

He lived off of his rich wife! By the time she died they were broke. And he had to fund his continual warfare by some means - and he wasn’t used to working by that time.

And if you call dying by being poisoned by a woman - peaceful - well, it is no wonder we are told by muslims that islam is peaceful. The definition for the word ‘peaceful’ is also twisted in islam - why should that surprise us. He suffered with the consequences of being poisoned for quite some time before dying. The poison probably screwed up his liver, kidneys, stomach and/or intestines. He even mentioned when he was close to death - before or after cursing quite a number of people.

 

[inJESUS]

My simple reply to you inJesus, " Muhammad never used any sword to convert people to Islam." He told his friends, never to do any such thing.

right, that is why his “friends”, as soon as he died, started bloodsheds in the name of Islamic conquests, but am positive you’re not a fan of Islamic history. Even the Abubakr you name started wars to kill those who left Muhammad after his death .

he did not leave any property to be divided amongst his relatives. There was nothing.

 

[planten]

**There is no mention of any sword (Saif) in the Quran. Sword is never mentioned in the Quran. But it is planned in bibleNT. Jesus ordered his friends to buy swords even at the cost of selling clothes. Why was that program? Which could not materialise? Were the Roman Catholic soldiers of Caesor of Rome not armed with swords? They all had heavy equpiment, swords, spears and helmets.

They were very much armed with swords and on the scene 300 years before Muhammad. ( i.e. 325 A.D. TO 625 A.D.) Why they were carrying swords into Egypt and North Afrika and middle east?**

 

[inJESUS]

**There is no mention of any sword (Saif) in the Quran. Sword is never mentioned in the Quran. But it is planned in bibleNT. Jesus ordered his friends to buy swords even at the cost of selling clothes. Why was that program? Which could not materialise? Were the Roman Catholic soldiers of Caesor of Rome not armed with swords? They all had heavy equpiment, swords, spears and helmets.

They were very much armed with swords and on the scene 300 years before Muhammad. ( i.e. 325 A.D. TO 625 A.D.) Why they were carrying swords into Egypt and North Afrika and middle east?**

there is something called history. I know that you despise it, but you cannot change it. If you think 2 swords are enough weapons for a war, so be it but history again testifies that the ones who butchered and killed and massacred and enslaved and took sex slaves and booties were Muhammad and his caliphs, not Jesus and his disciples. i don’t want to confuse you with facts, but if you want to talk history, then talk history, not faiery tales not backed up by neither Quran nor history and if you do not like this history. you better look for what you consider good example of people who did not start war conquests to kill and spread ideologies, and these people are neither Muhammad nor his followers but if you want to stick to Muhammad, then do like what other Muslims do when they give all kind of reasons to back up Muhammad and the caliphs’ violence and bloodsheds…denying Islamic history is believing and rejecting Islam at the same time.

 

[planten]

there is something called history. I know that you despise it, but you cannot change it. If you think 2 swords are enough weapons for a war, so be it but history again testifies that the ones who butchered and killed and massacred and enslaved and took sex slaves and booties were Muhammad and his caliphs, not Jesus and his disciples. i don’t want to confuse you with facts, but if you want to talk history, then talk history, not faiery tales not backed up by neither Quran nor history and if you do not like this history. you better look for what you consider good example of people who did not start war conquests to kill and spread ideologies, and these people are neither Muhammad nor his followers but if you want to stick to Muhammad, then do like what other Muslims do when they give all kind of reasons to back up Muhammad and the caliphs’ violence and bloodsheds…denying Islamic history is believing and rejecting Islam at the same time.

**You should stick to the bible too. Jesus did not tell his followers to buy 2 swords. It just happened that they did not buy many swords. Otherwise the order was to buy swords even at the cost of selling clothes. That speaks much for the peaceful plan of Jesus.

Then go to history and tell all about the Roman Catholics conquests in Rome and Italy and North Afrika. Then come to the Muslims. I see that you had been the leaders in invading many peaceful lands.

Remember the wars with Persia, in which you Catholics, were defeated initially by the pagan persians and you had to give one of Your princess (Shireen) as ransom to the king of Persia. Then due to the prayers of the prophet Muhammad, you people overcame the persians within few years. You should be thankful to our prophet Muhammad for his prayers (Al-Quran ch.30). Otherwise the Roman Catholic army was not competent to face the Persians.

The Roman Catholics had very big army with swords and spears. They considered themselves as super power because they had beaten the Persian power. The Roman Catholic killers were indeed super power of that time. So they thought they could take on the weakling Muslim state of Madinah. But that was a fatal mistake.

King Soloman in his song had advised the catholics “Not to disturb his love (Muhammad) and not to wake him up until he would like to wake up himself.” (Songs 2:7)

BUt the Roman Catholics did not act on the advice of the King Soloman. That is why they were defeated. That is a lesson of history. **

 

[chrisse]

 

[R_not]

there is something called history. I know that you despise it, but you cannot change it. If you think 2 swords are enough weapons for a war, so be it but history again testifies that the ones who butchered and killed and massacred and enslaved and took sex slaves and booties were Muhammad and his caliphs, not Jesus and his disciples. i don’t want to confuse you with facts, but if you want to talk history, then talk history, not faiery tales not backed up by neither Quran nor history and if you do not like this history. you better look for what you consider good example of people who did not start war conquests to kill and spread ideologies, and these people are neither Muhammad nor his followers but if you want to stick to Muhammad, then do like what other Muslims do when they give all kind of reasons to back up Muhammad and the caliphs’ violence and bloodsheds…denying Islamic history is believing and rejecting Islam at the same time.

Keep in mind that in many muslim areas they are not taught history. They don’t have one iota of a clue about the history of islam. And if they get their way in our country - our kids won’t know it either. This is why Act for America, and others, are trying to change this. It is nuts to not teach history just because they worry about offending muslims. They don’t have a problem offending Christians, and JEws!

Anyway, I would suspect this is the case with planten. He is pulling his junk from the koran and even at that - he might be pulling more of his junk from his cleric. Many muslims don’t know their own texts either. This is why the pure garbage about Jesus we are always getting from him. He is actually trying to make out that Jesus was the bad guy while mohammed was the good guy. gag.

 

[R_not]

In faithfreedom.org/forums - there was this article: Undercover mosques today.

by Amil Imani

To all those Islam apologists who think that Islam is a “peaceful religion”, I urge you to take off your rose-colored glasses and watch

these videos. These are direct recordings from prominent Islamic leaders who openly advocate killing of ANYONE who is not a Muslim

and warn of future 9/11 , so please watch and decide for yourself.

To those friend who already know the brutality and violent nature of Islam, please distribute far and wide.

Undercover Mosque part 1:

tangle.com/view_video.php?viewkey=d7d9bf74191e006d8e24
Undercover Mosque part 2:

tangle.com/view_video.php?viewkey=b6df5b5e3f94d95b11da
Undercover Mosque part 3:

tangle.com/view_video.php?viewkey=b34375400904f03d8e6a
Undercover Mosque part 4:

tangle.com/view_video.php?viewkey=2576bd1ac5aaf16b3fca
Undercover Mosque part 5:

tangle.com/view_video.php?viewkey=28e489b44e954ec0b9bc
Undercover Mosque part 6:

tangle.com/view_video.php?viewkey=c962aa0d22ac97d69b79

 

[sedonaman]

There is no mention of any sword (Saif) in the Quran. Sword is never mentioned in the Quran. But it is planned in bibleNT. Jesus ordered his friends to buy swords even at the cost of selling clothes. Why was that program? Which could not materialise? Were the Roman Catholic soldiers of Caesor of Rome not armed with swords? They all had heavy equpiment, swords, spears and helmets.

They were very much armed with swords and on the scene 300 years before Muhammad. ( i.e. 325 A.D. TO 625 A.D.) Why they were carrying swords into Egypt and North Afrika and middle east?

[54.29] But they called their companion, so he took (the sword) and slew (her).

It is quite obvious that you are a fundamentalist.