Parallellism between Mani and Muhammad

[Khalfan]

Continued.

That’s why vast majority of the Middle Eastern and North African Christians, in particular, Maronites, Assyrians, Chaldeans and Copts hate Islam and call it a racist and apartheid ideology.

Yaa… I think that is why it is still growing in all these countries and specially in europe.

Khalfan, I am a Pakistani (ie Indian Muslim) and Pakistan unlike India does not provide freedom of religion and has compulsion. India is free because it is a KAFIR COUNTRY which is predominantly Hindus. Muslims when they are majority never have shown toleration and force people to enter Islam.

That is the whole problem, that you are a Pakistani. You people there have your own rules and Islam. In last 50 years could you ever make a peaceful government? Could you ever follow what Islam teaches? Could you ever be educated? The peple weren’t different in India or Pakistan before independence. But India and the Muslim in India have growne, not becuse Hindus let us grow, but we wanted to grow. You still follow tribes and illogical laws like happened in the case Mukhthar Mai. As part of existing uneducation, you don’t have enough sources to learn Quran or Islam too. There is no wonder if you or any Pakistani is a ‘Murtad’.

You know why Hindus hate Muslims more than British? That’s because Muslims are oppressors of Indians under the Mughal Sultanate while British saved India like they save Iraq from Saddam Hussein.

I am a proud Indian. Don’t teach me what Hidus do and how we are living. Mughals ruled India for about 900 years. If they wanted, they could convert each and every Hindu in India. They had enough time, but they didn’t. Today’s British people itself shameful about those british who invaded India, and you say they saved us? British or U.S were not saving Iraq from Saddam, but were searching something. A one rupee coin, no… no… I think 50 gram pack of Nuclear weapon. Have they got it yet? Its been long time, I read today’s news paper.

Remember, of the Hindu slaughters by Muslims? That’s why Pakistanis (Indian Muslims) and Indians hate one another so much. Look in Kashmir and you can see how Muslims show their true violent nature! Muslims hate equality with non Muslims, in particular Hindus or other non Muslims, even Catholics.

Slaughters happened in both side, while the christians were doing the spy work for British. There was indeed a time when people believed in the stories of muslim slughters, compulsion and conversions while it was the agenda of British to divide and rule. They wrote the history of India and injected what they wanted into it. Once they realised the truth, they got together and fought for the freedom. But there was some in both side who could never realise the truth. It ended up in dividing of India. Still, even today, in our school we teach the same stories they wrote since we don’t have another source to know our history.

In Kashmir, there was some military actions later which provoked the people to stay against India. Now they are against Pakistan too. Not all but some want it to be a seperate country. And that some get help from wherever it is available which most of the time the terrorists in Pakistan. The majority in India, Kashmir and in Pakistan doesn’t want any problem but peace in everywhere. But until the educated Pakistanis aware the uneducated people, nothing gonna change.

Don’t continue this topic, since we are talking on something else.

 

[BelFarfalla]

Then that is contradicting the prophecy of Jesus (pbuh). He said it won’t come until he go.

Jesus (pbuh) never said God is a trinity. Infact 1 John 5:7 thrown out of Bible as fabrication.

Is there any correct translated version of Bible ever made? KJV itself revised 5 times. RSV and NIV were not made by any school children. Read the commentory page it will tell you, how many scholars have worked for it.
The Catholic bibles are good translations.

There are differences in every translation of the Qur’an, huge differences.

Quran is available in the same language it revealed. We don’t have to rely on translations. Translations are just a support. Translations are not at all considered as Quran. No translators have ever claimed the accuracy. We all learn Arabic to understand Quran. But the Bible translations always do that and when any mistake is pointed, you say it is a translation mistake. That is what I call hypocrisy. Unfortunately, most of you doesn’t have the access to the ‘original’ Bible.

There is no original Qur’an as all of he divergent originals of the Qur’an were destroyed. Actually that’s not quite true as in recent years archeologists have found a stash of ancient Qur’ans in a Mosque in Yemen. They predate the supposed ‘original’ that you speak of. They all differ from each other and from the one you call the ‘original’ in very significant ways. Just because Islam has tried to create a fantasy that there exists an ‘original’ Qur’an does not make it so. It’s a lie.

As for everyone learning Arabic to understand the existing ‘original’, anyone familiar with the development of language knows that this is silly. The meaning of many of the words of the Qur’an were lost within a few decades of its being written. So today anyone who learns Arabic to read the Qur’an still will not know the original meaning. When a person learns a language they only learn what they are told a word means. It is no different than translations.

 

[Khalfan]

The tribes who were attacked under these commands were worshipers of Baal. They sacrificed humans. The favorite sacrifices were young boys and virgin girls. They also practiced ritualistic sex and rapes in their worship. I have no problem with executing those how sacrifices and rape children as part of their religion. There were no innocent adults in this society as they were all worshipers of Baal. The young boys were probably killed so that they could not seek revenge later as was the norm at that time. Actually at the time, killing every living thing was not usual in warfare.

Compulsion and invades are not supposed to be allowed in any religion. How did you make many allegation against Islam on the same thing, and it can be reasonable in your case? isn’t that hypocracy?

You have a filthy mind. But I can understand why since Muhammad allowed his men to rape war captives and even raped some himself.

But this is not what the Bible was talking about. The girls were brought into the homes of Jewish families and raised as Jewish girls. Basically they were adopted. When they came of age they were married and lived normal lives.

So get you mind out of the filthy gutter.

Truth hurts, right? where it said what happened to those virgin girls which was the share of GOD (of Bible)?

I think the writers of OT and those who believe in those blood shed stories got filthy gutter mind.

 

[BelFarfalla]

Compulsion and invades are not supposed to be allowed in any religion. How did you make many allegation against Islam on the same thing, and it can be reasonable in your case? isn’t that hypocracy?

The only thing that I can justify is stopping the followers of Baal from the sacrificing and ritualistic rapes of children and other humans. I was not justifying the invation but instead explaining the context.

Truth hurts, right? where it said what happened to those virgin girls which was the share of GOD (of Bible)?
The laws of Judeism say what happened to them. There are some records of this. I read some of it once but am not sure where to find it again. I have not given my personal opinion of things like this in the OT.

Rape was forbidden and punishable by death, even if the rape victim was a war captive.

Islam on the other hand makes rape of war captives legal.

I think the writers of OT and those who believe in those blood shed stories got filthy gutter mind.

Well then, you must find the Qur’an full of filth too because it is filled with horrible stories.

 

[Khalfan]

Not so. We went into Iraq and Afghanistan to remove governments that were our enemies. We have no interest in colonizing those countries. We offered to leave both countries a few years ago. Their governments went to the UN and negotiated treaties to keep us there to help them fight of terrorists and insurgents who want to put in Taliban-like regimes.

If Saddam had not broken the ceasefire treaty we would not have gone into Iraq. Remember that the Qur’an states clearly that if someone breaks a treaty, attacking them is a valid option. This option holds true for Muslims as well as non-Muslims right? Saddam was attacking forces… we have a right to fight those who attack us right? Or do only Muslims have the right to defend themselves?

The whole reason was, the fear of nuclear weapons in Iraq. U.S army invaded Iraq to search and capture that even after the U.N tried to stop. Iraq (Saddam Government) was ready to accept U.N to search in Iraq. But U.S was supposed to vito the order of U.N and invaded, killed many civilians and then what? Have they got something? Not YET. Except oil and a an army base in Middle east area. Read news paper. It may help.

Don’t argue on this. The whole world knows what happened.

In Afghanistan we asked them to turn over bin Laden and his people since they attacked us on 9/11. Actually Bin Laden declared war on the USA in about 1995 and attacked us many times killing thousand of Americans over the years. We ask the Afghani government to turn over bin Laden; they refused and gave him support. Hence they were also our enemy.

If 9/11 attack was done by Bin Laden or not, is still under study.

Watch fr.youtube.com/watch?v=m3JmXQ-z8S4

Read news papers. Any terrorist group have a common nature. If they do plan an attack and sucseeds, they claim the responsibility and its reason. In the case of 9/11 attack, Al Qaeda never made such a claim clearly. Bush had to act (since it is biggest shame in the history of America, if it was an attack) and he assumed it is Al Qaeda and started hunting Laden. As per the assumption, he assumed Laden is in Afghan. And started attacking and killing civilians.

I don’t support Al Qayeda or Taliban government, but for what couse U.S attacked Iraq and Afghan is still not fulfilled. Any nuclear weapon never found in Iraq yet. Bin Laden is not found in Afghan. Both countries are full of U.S army and they don’t know why they are there. Bush may be giving stupid reasons for invades once he realised what he wanted will never get. As far as there is people like you to believe, any story will survive.

You’re just angry that infidels are standing up for ourselves. Tell me how much you cared about the people in Afghanistan and Iraq when they were being slaughtered by the thousands by their own leaders? Not one whit I’ll bet. Why didn’t the other Middle Eastern countries take care Saddam and the Taliban? Because no one cared.

the people of the country have think of it. Until and unless they want a change, no one can help it.

The reason for invade wasn’t care of people, but care of OIL and an army base in middle east and that is what fulfilled by the invade.

Did you know that the USA offered to not attack Iraq if Saddam found asylum elsewhere? And all his loving Muslim brothers turned him down. They did not want to prevent an attack on Iraq… I wonder why???

Ha… Ha… don’t you read news at all? Is that why the U.S army getting killed everyday in Iraq because they love them?

 

[Khalfan]

So now you trying to justify atrocities and invasions by Muslims by something that is happening today? Why don’t you just be honest and admit that you ancestors were brutal, invaded a good part of the world killing and enslaves hundreds of millions of innocent people? Christians have admitted the terrible things our ancestors did. Why don’t you just admit those that your ancestors did? Honesty is a very good thing.

I don’t have to, since we never did that. There was invades for political reasons. I see all wars as happened as part of political. Because none of the religion teaches violence and war on innocents. What Quran teaches is,

Sura 109: Say: O disbelievers! (1) I worship not that which ye worship; (2) Nor worship ye that which I worship. (3) And I shall not worship that which ye worship. (4) Nor will ye worship that which I worship. (5) Unto you your religion, and unto me my religion. (6)

Sura 2:256 There is no compulsion in religion.

Until these verse exists in Quran, no Muslim is a Muslim who break these rules. (It includes if there was any war happened in the cause of converting from Muslim side)

I know many kingdoms in my own country where Muslims or Christians not at all involved. The culture and living style was of invades and capturing. It was happening all over the world despite of any religion. Unless and until we see those wars in that way, the verbal crusades will continue.

What we need today is not war, but peace. Turn these forums to discuss issues that can bring peace in between religions, not to criticize any religion. I know what I am doing is wrong, but I am here because the topic is to criticize my faith.

I realize what is Christianity, because I live with them. You won’t realize what is Islam until you live with one.

 

[BelFarfalla]

The whole reason was, the fear of nuclear weapons in Iraq. U.S army invaded Iraq to search and capture that even after the U.N tried to stop. Iraq (Saddam Government) was ready to accept U.N to search in Iraq. But U.S was supposed to vito the order of U.N and invaded, killed many civilians and then what? Have they got something? Not YET. Except oil and a an army base in Middle east area. Read news paper. It may help.

Don’t argue on this. The whole world knows what happened.
You apparently listen to those who spout Anti-American propaganda. There were many reasons given for the invasion of Iraq. The concern about nuclear weapons was only one of them. So why do you concentraite on only one of the reasons? Is ti because it serves your purpose?

The USA gave Iraq 12 years to comply with the cease fire treaty. The first gulf war never ended. A cease fire is not the end of a war. It just says that the fighting stopped while the treaty is followed. No Saddam was not ready to accept any inspections. The inspectors went in one more time and he denied them access one more time.

Actually there were chemical weapons found in Iraq. People just down play it. Several of Saddams generals have said that Saddams moved his WMD’s to Syria. There are satalite photos of truck convoys moving things to Syria where they were hidden underground.

The USA never had to go to the UN for permission from the UN to invade Iraq as there already existed an UN resolution that gave any UN member state the right to invade Iraq. When the USA went to the UN at the request of Tony Blair the UN tried to stop it. Why? Because leading members of the UN and UN member nations like France, Germany and Russia were making billions from payoffs from Iraq. They just did not want to loose their access to the cookie jar.

The USA does not have the Iraqi oil. The Iraqi people have complete control over the Iraqi oil. Anyone who claims we went into Iraq for oil is ignoring two things: 1) it would be cheaper to just buy the oil on the open market as we are already doing; 2) the USA has more oil than the Middle East. In our Rocky Mountains we have many hundred times more oil then there is in the Middle East. It is charity to the middle east that we buy their oil because we really do not need it. I however think that we should stop buying any oil from the middle east. The place will fall into greater poverty then it is now. But why we buy anything from our enemies I don’t know. The only we spend on oil is funding terrorism.

You are upset that we have a military base in the Middle East? Oh my our dirty infidel feet are there. We have bases in the Middle East are there because the local governments want us there. There has to be a treaty in place in order for us to have a base.

If 9/11 attack was done by Bin Laden or not, is still under study.

Watch fr.youtube.com/watch?v=m3JmXQ-z8S4

Read news papers. Any terrorist group have a common nature. If they do plan an attack and sucseeds, they claim the responsibility and its reason. In the case of 9/11 attack, Al Qaeda never made such a claim clearly. Bush had to act (since it is biggest shame in the history of America, if it was an attack) and he assumed it is Al Qaeda and started hunting Laden. As per the assumption, he assumed Laden is in Afghan. And started attacking and killing civilians.
Ben Laden did indeed take credit for it. I have seen film footage from before the attack where he and his men are discussing it. Then after the attack they are celebrating.

We did not attack Afganistand and start killing civilians. Some civilians were most likely killed by accident as they often are in war. We fought those who fought. Here’s what has you and others upset.

Here’s the point. IF we are attacked we will fight back. Get it?

 

[BelFarfalla]

I don’t support Al Qayeda or Taliban government, but for what couse U.S attacked Iraq and Afghan is still not fulfilled. Any nuclear weapon never found in Iraq yet.

Bin Laden is not found in Afghan. Both countries are full of U.S army and they don’t know why they are there. Bush may be giving stupid reasons for invades once he realised what he wanted will never get. As far as there is people like you to believe, any story will survive.
You are wrong. Our men know exactly why they are there. As far as people like are you, you will believe anything that makes the USA and non-Muslims look bad.

The reason for invade wasn’t care of people, but care of OIL and an army base in middle east and that is what fulfilled by the invade. /quote]

If it was oil then why haven’t we taken control of the oil in Iraq? The reality of the situation disproves this nonsense.

As for us getting a base in the middle east… all the Iraqi government need do is to ask us to leave and we will.

Ha… Ha… don’t you read news at all? Is that why the U.S army getting killed everyday in Iraq because they love them?

Very few American soldiers are being killed. Mostly is it hundreds of civilians who are being killed by the terrorists. More and more the Iraqi people are working the Coalition troops to hunt down the terrorists and get rid of them. If the terrorists stop their fighting, the USA and coalition will not fire another shot. The terrorists are the ones who keeping the fight going. And the Iraqi people are getting more and more to hate the terrorists more then they don’t like the Americans.

 

[Khalfan]

The Catholic bibles are good translations.

Name one version?

There are differences in every translation of the Qur’an, huge differences.

Can you quote one huge difference from two (accepted by Muslims) translation?

There is no original Qur’an as all of he divergent originals of the Qur’an were destroyed. Actually that’s not quite true as in recent years archeologists have found a stash of ancient Qur’ans in a Mosque in Yemen. They predate the supposed ‘original’ that you speak of. They all differ from each other and from the one you call the ‘original’ in very significant ways. Just because Islam has tried to create a fantasy that there exists an ‘original’ Qur’an does not make it so. It’s a lie.

Origianl Quran is not in book. It is is our memory. We learn that every day. We teach that every day. Generations to generations. Even if there is no even a single copy of Quran is available, it is very easy to recreate copies of Quran from all over the world at the same time, without even a single spelling mistake. I personnally know many who memorise Quran completely. I am living in a country called United Arab Emirates. Here the government do cunduct a Quran reciting competition. people from 7 year old onwards from all over the world participate in that. The main condition is, should be Hafid (Memorised full Quran).

As for everyone learning Arabic to understand the existing ‘original’, anyone familiar with the development of language knows that this is silly. The meaning of many of the words of the Qur’an were lost within a few decades of its being written. So today anyone who learns Arabic to read the Qur’an still will not know the original meaning. When a person learns a language they only learn what they are told a word means. It is no different than translations.

We have hadeeses and centuries old tafseers for references. No meaning is ever lost. That is just another anti Islamic claim, but not true.

 

[Khalfan]

The only thing that I can justify is stopping the followers of Baal from the sacrificing and ritualistic rapes of children and other humans. I was not justifying the invation but instead explaining the context.

The laws of Judeism say what happened to them. There are some records of this. I read some of it once but am not sure where to find it again. I have not given my personal opinion of things like this in the OT.

Fine. Anyway, you wont get it in OT.

Rape was forbidden and punishable by death, even if the rape victim was a war captive.

Islam on the other hand makes rape of war captives legal.

No. What Islam allowed is the rights on slaves. Periodically, the war captives freed before making into slaves and freeing all slaves announced as a rightoues deed. That is how men and woman slaves became into great positions in the history of Islam. And rape announced as one of the greatest sin that can be punishable as stoning into death.

Well then, you must find the Qur’an full of filth too because it is filled with horrible stories.

Can you quote one?

 

[BelFarfalla]

Fine. Anyway, you wont get it in OT.

Of course you will not find it all in the OT. IT is not all there is to the Jewish faith.

No. What Islam allowed is the rights on slaves. Periodically, the war captives freed before making into slaves and freeing all slaves announced as a rightoues deed. That is how men and woman slaves became into great positions in the history of Islam. And rape announced as one of the greatest sin that can be punishable as stoning into death.

How you play with words.

Yes Islam allowed rights on salves… it makes all war captives slaves. And it gives the Muslim men the legal right to have sex with female salves. The female slave has no right to says no. If a woman has no right to say no, it is rape. Hence Islam allows rape of salves and war captives. Thanks for backing that up.

Rape of Muslim women is punishable by stoning. Rape of salves and non-Muslims is not punishable.

Can you quote one?

Sure I will, but a bit later. I have to go to the doctor right now.

 

[Khalfan]

You apparently listen to those who spout Anti-American propaganda. There were many reasons given for the invasion of Iraq. The concern about nuclear weapons was only one of them. So why do you concentraite on only one of the reasons? Is ti because it serves your purpose?

I was listening to Bush at that time. Is he an anti american?!! What he claimed is the nuclear weapons in Iraq. As soon as he realised there is nothing, he made other claims of saving the country.

The USA gave Iraq 12 years to comply with the cease fire treaty. The first gulf war never ended. A cease fire is not the end of a war. It just says that the fighting stopped while the treaty is followed. No Saddam was not ready to accept any inspections. The inspectors went in one more time and he denied them access one more time.

Its not only Saddam, any self respecting man will not be ready to bow in front of America. Just like Chavez and Castro.

Saddam never denied any UN inspectors.

Actually there were chemical weapons found in Iraq. People just down play it. Several of Saddams generals have said that Saddams moved his WMD’s to Syria. There are satalite photos of truck convoys moving things to Syria where they were hidden underground.

I think only you and Bush saw that. Anyway, the invasion and search for those weapons were useless.

The USA never had to go to the UN for permission from the UN to invade Iraq as there already existed an UN resolution that gave any UN member state the right to invade Iraq. When the USA went to the UN at the request of Tony Blair the UN tried to stop it. Why? Because leading members of the UN and UN member nations like France, Germany and Russia were making billions from payoffs from Iraq. They just did not want to loose their access to the cookie jar.

You find some reasons here and there to invade a country? A country is belong to its people. There is no rule or any right that can give USA to invade any other country unless the government itself claims a war.

Just I wonder. Do USA keep Nuclear weapons? How they can warn any other country not to keep it since they keep it and they are the only one country in the world, in the history, who used it against another country?

The USA does not have the Iraqi oil. The Iraqi people have complete control over the Iraqi oil. Anyone who claims we went into Iraq for oil is ignoring two things: 1) it would be cheaper to just buy the oil on the open market as we are already doing; 2) the USA has more oil than the Middle East. In our Rocky Mountains we have many hundred times more oil then there is in the Middle East. It is charity to the middle east that we buy their oil because we really do not need it. I however think that we should stop buying any oil from the middle east. The place will fall into greater poverty then it is now. But why we buy anything from our enemies I don’t know. The only we spend on oil is funding terrorism.

I read in news everyday how much thirsty americans are for oil.

You are upset that we have a military base in the Middle East? Oh my our dirty infidel feet are there. We have bases in the Middle East are there because the local governments want us there. There has to be a treaty in place in order for us to have a base.

Local government means, the government in Iraq and Afghan? No they never did. Neither the nighbours did. Isn’t it the same USA who helped Iraq with weapons and trining during Iraq Iran war?

Ben Laden did indeed take credit for it. I have seen film footage from before the attack where he and his men are discussing it. Then after the attack they are celebrating.

I am sorry but you misunderstood. They never said they will attack Trade centre building. They are in war and they are doing it for quite a long time. They were indeed happy and have celebrated becasue they saw the fall of their enemy by someone. I too saw those celebration but they never said they did it.

We did not attack Afganistand and start killing civilians. Some civilians were most likely killed by accident as they often are in war. We fought those who fought. Here’s what has you and others upset.

I said what the world saw. You might have seen only CNN and BBC.

Here’s the point. IF we are attacked we will fight back. Get it?

Yaa I got that. Sometimes it is “One man working in a laundry in — country (probably any Islamic) said he will attack the white house. Lets go fight the whole country”. I get that too. I still hope, next president won’t be much thirsty for blood and oil. And I respect those americans who is against the present government.

 

[Khalfan]

How you play with words.

Yes Islam allowed rights on salves… it makes all war captives slaves. And it gives the Muslim men the legal right to have sex with female salves. The female slave has no right to says no. If a woman has no right to say no, it is rape. Hence Islam allows rape of salves and war captives. Thanks for backing that up.

Read the Bible. It says a lot about the slavery system exised.

Rape of Muslim women is punishable by stoning. Rape of salves and non-Muslims is not punishable.

There is no slaves in Islam anymore. Non-Muslims cases also punishable in the same way. If you don’t want to agree, that is upto you.

 

[Khalfan]

You are wrong. Our men know exactly why they are there. As far as people like are you, you will believe anything that makes the USA and non-Muslims look bad.

I read that too. The cry of the family members of those poor soldiers. The resignations of army chiefs. Stop watching CNN and BBC. Just do that much and you will get better.

If it was oil then why haven’t we taken control of the oil in Iraq? The reality of the situation disproves this nonsense.

How you think they can, when the whole middles east countries are discussing the same and watching them? I am living in one of those countries. I know what is happening here.

As for us getting a base in the middle east… all the Iraqi government need do is to ask us to leave and we will.

Which government? the doll of USA? It should be the people and they are asking it from the begenning. It was Shiites that supported to destroy Saddam government. Now they too are asking the army to leave the country. But what they do than extending? Shameless.

Very few American soldiers are being killed. Mostly is it hundreds of civilians who are being killed by the terrorists. More and more the Iraqi people are working the Coalition troops to hunt down the terrorists and get rid of them. If the terrorists stop their fighting, the USA and coalition will not fire another shot. The terrorists are the ones who keeping the fight going. And the Iraqi people are getting more and more to hate the terrorists more then they don’t like the Americans.

My dear, don’t say anything like you are talking to a school child. I am living in a nighbour country of Iraq. I know very well how many soldiers, terrorists, civilians getting killed everyday.

 

[BelFarfalla]

Khalfan:
I am sorry but you misunderstood. They never said they will attack Trade centre building. They are in war and they are doing it for quite a long time. They were indeed happy and have celebrated becasue they saw the fall of their enemy by someone. I too saw those celebration but they never said they did it.

You are wrong.

Here is an Al Jazeera report & video tape where Al Qaeda took credit . It shows some footage of the planning of the attack.

Al-Qaeda video takes credit for 9/11

english.aljazeera.net/English/archive/archive?ArchiveId=35762

The 90-minute video apparently shows bin Laden, the leader of al-Qaeda, taking part in the planning and preparation of the attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people.

The footage, first aired on Thursday, also shows Abu Hafsa al-Masri, al-Qaeda’s then military leader, and Ramzi bin al-Shaiba, co-ordinator of the 9/11 attacks, meeting in al-Qaeda’s training camps in Taliban controlled Afghanistan.

The tape also says that a previous unknown Arab Islamist, Abu al-Turab al-Urduni, supervised the training for the attacks.

The video said the preparation for the attacks included not only flight training but also lessons in street-fighting and how to forge official documents.

 

[BelFarfalla]

How you think they can, when the whole middles east countries are discussing the same and watching them? I am living in one of those countries. I know what is happening here.

You may live in a near by country but it sounds like you do not know what is going on with the oil. The Iraqi

Despite claims by some critics that the Bush administration invaded Iraq to take control of its oil, the first contracts with major oil firms from Iraq’s new government are likely to go not to U.S. companies, but rather to companies from China, India, Vietnam, and Indonesia.
money.cnn.com/2007/04/05/news/international/iraq_oil/index.htm

 

[BelFarfalla]

Khalfan:
Isn’t it the same USA who helped Iraq with weapons and trining during Iraq Iran war?

You, as most people, make this mistake.

The USA did not sponsor Saddam. IT was the Soviet Union which provided Saddam with weapons, munitions, training and advisors. Do you recall the first Gulf War? Do you recall how fast the USA was able to defeat Saddam’s Army? Saddam’s army was the 4th largest army in the world. It was also considered to be one of the best trained and equipped. So how did the USA wipe them out so fast? All of their equipment and training was from the Soviet Union. These factors went into the defeat. The Soviet equipment, even the best and newest was so inferior to the US equipment that they had no chance. The second major reason for their defeat is that the Iraqi Army had the best of Soviet training…. Very inferior military training. The USA had spent several decades studying soviet equipment, training and policies. The USA knew exactly how to defeat the min-soviet Iraqi army.

If Saddam was a puppet of the USA as you suggest, he would have had US training and equipment. What the USA did do is to once in a while support one side or the other to ensure that neither of them won. The idea of Iran or Iraq gaining control of the Middle East say scary of not only the USA but also the other Arab states.

 

[BelFarfalla]

Read the Bible. It says a lot about the slavery system exised.

Again you have to look not only at the OT but also at Jewish law. The laws were such thier goal was to eventually outlaw slavery. IT worked. The laws pertaining to slaves in the Bible were givnig right to the slaves and forcing slave owners to treat well.

The point is that it is now outlawed.

There is no slaves in Islam anymore. Non-Muslims cases also punishable in the same way. If you don’t want to agree, that is upto you.

Yes, in the 1960’s most Muslm countries outlaws salvery. But today it is still practiced openly in many Muslim countries. It is going on openly in Muslim countries in Africa.

I think that all laws that allow salvery in Islam should be removed from Shariah. What do you think about this idea?

Slavery in Pakistan
bbc.co.uk/worldservice/specials/1357_slavery_today/page4.shtml

gvnet.com/humantrafficking/Pakistan.htm

csmonitor.com/2003/1215/p08s01-wosc.html

 

[John_Lawrence]

I think the entire concept of “shariah” itself is backwards and outdated and oppressive, not to mention it tramples all over and disregards human dignity.

 

[Khalfan]

You, as most people, make this mistake.

The USA did not sponsor Saddam. IT was the Soviet Union which provided Saddam with weapons, munitions, training and advisors. Do you recall the first Gulf War? Do you recall how fast the USA was able to defeat Saddam’s Army? Saddam’s army was the 4th largest army in the world. It was also considered to be one of the best trained and equipped. So how did the USA wipe them out so fast? All of their equipment and training was from the Soviet Union. These factors went into the defeat. The Soviet equipment, even the best and newest was so inferior to the US equipment that they had no chance. The second major reason for their defeat is that the Iraqi Army had the best of Soviet training…. Very inferior military training. The USA had spent several decades studying soviet equipment, training and policies. The USA knew exactly how to defeat the min-soviet Iraqi army.

If Saddam was a puppet of the USA as you suggest, he would have had US training and equipment. What the USA did do is to once in a while support one side or the other to ensure that neither of them won. The idea of Iran or Iraq gaining control of the Middle East say scary of not only the USA but also the other Arab states.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran-Iraq_war This may tell you something on it.