Resolution On Being Faithful Muslims and Loyal Americans

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ahimsa
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Well…Our Lady of Fatima said more go to hell on account of sins of the flesh more than any sin…and where I live…we are at the top for casual sex…I have spent most of my time trying to keep my own on the straight and narrow…most did so far…
 
Well about Reuters…on the 2006 Lebanon War photos…en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adnan_Hamm_photographs_controversy…

Then there was the one of Reuters admitting cropping photos on the Palestinian activist ship, Mari Marmara, where the pictures are taken out that showed an Isreali soldier being disembowelled by the pacifists…2010/06/08…Fox News brought it up…

Yes, I watch Fox News to get info I don’t get on others…we had a local channel show the excesses of Chinese communism and recalled the 54 million who were killed under the regime…as well as Fox News showing Pro Life causes. That is why it is consistently highest rated…and emphasizes that for society to be successful, we all have to contribute to it the best each one of us can…
 
Well about Reuters…on the 2006 Lebanon War photos…en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adnan_Hamm_photographs_controversy…

Then there was the one of Reuters admitting cropping photos on the Palestinian activist ship, Mari Marmara, where the pictures are taken out that showed an Isreali soldier being disembowelled by the pacifists…2010/06/08…Fox News brought it up…

Yes, I watch Fox News to get info I don’t get on others…we had a local channel show the excesses of Chinese communism and recalled the 54 million who were killed under the regime…as well as Fox News showing Pro Life causes. That is why it is consistently highest rated…and emphasizes that for society to be successful, we all have to contribute to it the best each one of us can…
Sorry I don’t take Wikipedia or Fox as evidence. It might be true it might not, but these aren’t credible sources
 
Well…Our Lady of Fatima said more go to hell on account of sins of the flesh more than any sin…and where I live…we are at the top for casual sex…I have spent most of my time trying to keep my own on the straight and narrow…most did so far…
God bless you and may we all follow your good example 👍
 
By that standard, the great Bernard Lewis is worthless since he is a westerner who is NOT (gasp!) Muslim and he is not afraid to talk about certain things that Islam is.

Very illuminating, what you just said. Only quote sources to you that agree with your religious/political viewpoint. Gotcha. 👍👍
I find Robert Spencer’s own books to be a bit amateurish, but definitely more accurate than most of the tripe out there on Islam - certainly not “ultra-right-wing propaganda”. “Ultra-right-wing propaganda” is what happened during World War II to try and get the Arabs and Muslims (and the rest of the world) to join in on the final solution.

However, his books are amateurish, I think, mainly because they’re written for a general audience. Every book he writes, he has to sketch the entire background of his subject (again) and then sketch the outline of what he’s writing about. By the time he’s done that, he’s up to 300 pages, and Average Joe isn’t going to stick around for a 750-page brick: it’s not going to sell.

However, John Wansbrough (The Sectarian Milieu), Patricia Crone (Hagarism, Slaves on Horses), Michael Cook (The Koran: A Very Short Introduction, Commanding Right and Forbidding Wrong in Islamic Thought), Ibn Warraq (Why I Am Not a Muslim, Virgins? What Virgins?), and Bat Ye’or (Jihad and Dhimmitude: The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam, 7-20th Century, Eurabia: the Euro-Arab Axis, etc.) and her husband David Littman (The World Union of Progressive Judaism) are not amateurs: they’re some of the few academics who speak historical truth in the face of Orientalism (Edward Said) and, dare I say it, The Myth of Islamic Tolerance (Edited by Robert Spencer), of a paradise of equanimity for all creeds, colors, and sexes, typified by the illustration of two words, “al Andalus”, 1000 years before the rest of the world caught up.

The historical truth of al Andalus - and of must other places in Islamic history - is much less rosy. However, there were khans and regional rulers, and rarely, even a Caliph, here and there, that saw in the Jews and Christians more value in using them than in oppressing them; during these times, dhimmis were relatively well-treated, not because of their human dignity, but because of value-added. Some very rare rulers (I believe Akbar the Great comes to mind) were extraordinarily tolerant, by their days’ standards, and not horribly intolerant by today’s standards, in their own right: these were generally heretics or apostates, and never in the heart of the Empire (Akbar was in India); and, universally, their heir or replacement was twice as harsh as even the harshest ruler anywhere else, as usually was the one preceding the tolerant ruler, putting the dhimmis in an even greater day-to-day swing of fear and uncertainty: a most potent method of striking terror in to their hearts and crushing their will, is it not?
 
Also he doesn’t make any references to what might be called scholarly works in his books (the couple I’ve read), so this suggests he doesn’t know them.
Just because he’s not an academic doesn’t mean he can’t tell the truth. If you teach a babe to say “E=mc^2 when nothing is in motion” doesn’t make it less true than the Lucasian Chair of Mathematics saying the same words.

He’s writing for a general audience. In my last post, I gave a sizable list of what would be called academics that don’t follow the drummer drumming the beat of Said’s Orientalism and the Islamist lobby of self-censorship and unwillingness to criticize anything but the West, and an irrational self- and self-cultural hatred and “post-Imperial guilt” complex, that drums the tune followed of so many so-called “academics” today.
 
It’s true the anti-Semitic card is a rubbishy defence. I used it to just make people think a bit.
I think we should be clear that Zionism is a fascist political movement that wants one thing: all Palestinians out (Muslim Christian no matter).
This is ridiculous. My jaw literally dropped when I hear “Zionism is a fascist political movement”. Let alone the Palestinian debate. The PLO and PA don’t take kindly to Christians or Jews: their numbers have been dwindling steadily ever since the establishment of Israel. That leaves over Muslims, who, succinctly, want to “drive the sons and brothers of apes and pigs [Jews] in to the sea”, as expressed by the words of the leaders of virtually every Islamic movement and state in the Middle East. The Israelis aren’t terrorists; the Palestinians are.

I think this entire situation is illuminated quite nicely by the recent event of Israel trading 1,047 Palestinian prisoners for 1 (that’s ONE) Israeli soldier. That’s a “no man left behind” ethic. The Palestinian ethic seems to me, “we’ll strap a bomb on you, man, woman, or child, or girl-child, tell you to walk, and we’ll keep the detonator and use it ourselves in case you decide to turn back, to make sure you’re unable to”.

Israel filled up so quickly not because of a Jewish conspiracy, but because of every government of Islamic nations expelling the Jews under pain of death; most were not allowed to take their property, as is, and in some countries, the Jews were forced to leave and then stopped by the military. The newly-established Israel, in concert with sympathetic governments, then staged military operations - peaceful ones - to get their co-religionists to safety, such as “Operation Magic Carpet”. As soon as Israel was formed, the Jews weren’t welcome anywhere else: a land where a people can live free of oppression and fear is the right of every person and people, and Islamic lands don’t provide that for Jews, or for Christians.

Look at the number of Jewish and Christian inhabitants then and now in every Islamic land (modern Turkey is secular): look at the “Arab Spring” (which is quick turning in to an Islamist Winter, and also illustrates my point about the popular support that “traditional” Islam has) that toppled autocratic governments, and put even more autocratic governments - that are now even more intolerant and Islamist - in their place. The Jews have a right to Israel - a homeland of peace, prosperity, and freedom - as does every other people.

Israel was a wasteland for 1700 years. It was a backwater and wasteland even of the Ottomans. It was as backwards as the rest of the surrounding countries. Once the modern State of Israel was formed, it performed so amazingly, it advanced so quickly, and came up to speed with the rest of the world with such proficiency, it truly is amazing, almost beyond belief. For every Nobel Prize awarded - look, there’s an Israeli! or at least a Jew! and if there’s not an Israeli awarded the prize, there is surely one close by. In 50 years, Israel went from part of the most backwards, forgotten, waste of a land in to the second-greatest economy, in terms of science, achievement, development, and technological advancement in the world, next to America. Of course, Japan is excellent too - but Japan hasn’t been oppressed for every day of its existence, with every leader in the region trying to get the Bomb to wipe them out and push them in to the Pacific.

Israel is an amazing story of oppression to freedom, poverty to riches, death to life, failure to success - no thanks to the rest of the Islamic Middle East, which attempts to thwart, if not destroy, them at every turn.

To non-Zionists: just think, even if you’re not a Zionist for religious reasons (like many Jews and Dispensationalist Protestants), would you rather have Israel ruled by Jews, or an Islamic hegemony across the entire Middle East, that has no greater desire than to wipe out or subjugate, or, as a last choice, convert, every single Jew, Christian, Hindu and Buddhist alive? I’d rather have the Jews there - displaying amazing bravery, almost bordering on chutzpah, thinking they can stick around and succeed - and then actually do it! - if for no other reason than to provide a bulwark against the rising tide of Islamism, and a check to it. From a level lower even than the Muslim world to competitive with the best the West has to offer. The Israelis, even the West Bank Settlers, live every day with the fear of a cowardly Palestinian Islamic terrorist attack. I can do nothing but admire them, and support the cause of Zionism.
 
Well…Our Lady of Fatima said more go to hell on account of sins of the flesh more than any sin…and where I live…we are at the top for casual sex…I have spent most of my time trying to keep my own on the straight and narrow…most did so far…
Well, in fact, with the pedophilia, wife-beating, and bigamy so prevalent in Islamic areas, I think it’s at the top of the list for sins of the flesh as well. Having relations with one wife may not be sinful, but claiming you’re married to four women and having relations with them all is no better than a person marrying one woman and fornicating with three others in the West. Not to mention many of those wives are under 14 or 15, and many as young as 9 (after Muhammad’s example, of course), the forced sequestration of the wives, and the inevitable beating that comes down after the slightest infraction against a husband’s command - even when he’s married to three others. And then there’s the legalized prostitution. Sunnis and Shi’a use different theological justifications for it, but legalized prostitution for Sunnis is nikah misyar, and for Shi’a it’s nikah mut’ah.

Jesus said something about the splinter and the log in the eye: which nation has the splinter, and which the log? Just because it is within the realm of civil law, or false “religious” law, to do a thing - such as to take four pre-pubescent wives and have relations with them before their menarche - or to beat those wives - doesn’t make it not a sin. Abortion, homosexuality, fornication, and even adultery are legal, or at least not criminal, in America: does that make them less sinful?
 
Sorry I don’t take Wikipedia or Fox as evidence. It might be true it might not, but these aren’t credible sources
How about the BBC and Reuters itself?

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5254838.stm

I’m not sure what’s better, that your first reaction to hearing about this was “sounds like Israeli propaganda” or that despite the face that the BBC and Reuters are (apparently) your two primary sources of news, you completely missed this story.

Also, look at the doctored photo with all the extra, fake smoke. It’s not even a very good fake. It looks like something a third grader would do after a ten-minute Photoshop tutorial. And yet it somehow managed to pass through all those oh-so-very rigorous and completely professional editorial standards they have at Reuters.
 
I’m British or more specifically English
I suggest you listen to some Pat Condell. He’s irreverent, completely irreligious, and a militant atheist, and a comedian to boot, but he has worthwhile things to say, and is much more penetrating than any political commentator or pundit I can remember hearing.

Pat Condell’s Godless Comedy:

www.youtube.com/user/patcondell
 
My daughter had a close friend from Catholic high school, a Jordanian Muslim, whose father is a diplomat. We loved her; she wouldn’t eat pork…sophisticated, well mannered.
Jordan is very progressive compared to most Islamic countries. It’s one of only two to have recognized in law the existence of the Israeli state, and is not governed by Shariah. The people are also rather Westernized, and, due to the lack of Shariah, women have a good deal more rights and equality than they do in the rest of the Islamic world. Have you seen how the Jordanian Queen dresses? It’s definitely not Shariah-compliant.
 
Right–that was my initial reaction. But Khalid responded to my challenges with detailed, careful, and modest posts that fleshed out his position. I am very impressed with his answers, and I’ve learned a lot, especially about the different schools of fiqh (which I knew about on a very general level, but he’s given me a lot more detail).

Edwin
Reading the Koran itself (even if done by reading two different translations) will show you many of the key points of Kalid’s assertions.

The hadith are seldom translated… some have been translated into English… but really, the few that have been translated into English are not translated for academic honesty, but to lure infidels to convert by careful muslim apologists.

Many muslims seem to believe that the beauty of the Koran is sufficient to make converts of christians, and once converted, they can then be shown the way to real jihad, and if not them, their children.
 
There’s a relatively accurate translation of the Sunan Abu Dawood out there, published by Sh Muhammad Ashraf of Lahore, Pakistan, translated by Ahmad Hassan. There’s also a pretty accurate translation of Sahih al-Bukhari published by Darussalam of Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, translated by Muhammad Muhsin Khan.

If anyone wants a list of Islamic reading from the Islamic sources, or an attempt to find a good English translation (or to verify that a translation is accurate), of the Koran, Hadith, Sira, Tafsir, etc., ask me.
 
Thanks, Khaled…

I have been reading about Islam for a number of years…your beginning posts touched on the different philosophies and perspectives that come from the many faces of Islam.

I came across Bat Y’eor in Oilforimmigration.org…explaining it was France’s DeGaul who got the oil by allowing the influx of Islam, not reading his fellow Frenchman’s book,‘Moslem’ by Hillaire Belloc.

There was a timeline may be about 2002 that showed the history of Islam…and it seemed like every 3 years or so someone was starting a war or skirmish in the name of Islam. And yes, I also read of benevolent Islamic rulers who did see value in Jews and Christians and utilized them well. But there always remains this distant tolerance…I would say many Muslims could possibly share the same attitude of former Islamic leaders…they see value in Jews and Christians, but keep their dislike to themselves, tolerating us. How many? I don’t know. Again, I see that perspective in the very devout Muslims who wear Middle Eastern clothes and immigrate for political/economic reasons.
 
I find Robert Spencer’s own books to be a bit amateurish, but definitely more accurate than most of the tripe out there on Islam - certainly not “ultra-right-wing propaganda”. “Ultra-right-wing propaganda” is what happened during World War II to try and get the Arabs and Muslims (and the rest of the world) to join in on the final solution.

However, his books are amateurish, I think, mainly because they’re written for a general audience. Every book he writes, he has to sketch the entire background of his subject (again) and then sketch the outline of what he’s writing about. By the time he’s done that, he’s up to 300 pages, and Average Joe isn’t going to stick around for a 750-page brick: it’s not going to sell.

However, John Wansbrough (The Sectarian Milieu), Patricia Crone (Hagarism, Slaves on Horses), Michael Cook (The Koran: A Very Short Introduction, Commanding Right and Forbidding Wrong in Islamic Thought), Ibn Warraq (Why I Am Not a Muslim, Virgins? What Virgins?), and Bat Ye’or (Jihad and Dhimmitude: The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam, 7-20th Century, Eurabia: the Euro-Arab Axis, etc.) and her husband David Littman (The World Union of Progressive Judaism) are not amateurs: they’re some of the few academics who speak historical truth in the face of Orientalism (Edward Said) and, dare I say it, The Myth of Islamic Tolerance (Edited by Robert Spencer), of a paradise of equanimity for all creeds, colors, and sexes, typified by the illustration of two words, “al Andalus”, 1000 years before the rest of the world caught up.

The historical truth of al Andalus - and of must other places in Islamic history - is much less rosy. However, there were khans and regional rulers, and rarely, even a Caliph, here and there, that saw in the Jews and Christians more value in using them than in oppressing them; during these times, dhimmis were relatively well-treated, not because of their human dignity, but because of value-added. Some very rare rulers (I believe Akbar the Great comes to mind) were extraordinarily tolerant, by their days’ standards, and not horribly intolerant by today’s standards, in their own right: these were generally heretics or apostates, and never in the heart of the Empire (Akbar was in India); and, universally, their heir or replacement was twice as harsh as even the harshest ruler anywhere else, as usually was the one preceding the tolerant ruler, putting the dhimmis in an even greater day-to-day swing of fear and uncertainty: a most potent method of striking terror in to their hearts and crushing their will, is it not?
I mostly agree with you, Khalid. 👍👍
 
How about the BBC and Reuters itself?

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5254838.stm

I’m not sure what’s better, that your first reaction to hearing about this was “sounds like Israeli propaganda” or that despite the face that the BBC and Reuters are (apparently) your two primary sources of news, you completely missed this story.

Also, look at the doctored photo with all the extra, fake smoke. It’s not even a very good fake. It looks like something a third grader would do after a ten-minute Photoshop tutorial. And yet it somehow managed to pass through all those oh-so-very rigorous and completely professional editorial standards they have at Reuters.
:bowdown2::bowdown:👋
 
How about the BBC and Reuters itself?

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5254838.stm

I’m not sure what’s better, that your first reaction to hearing about this was “sounds like Israeli propaganda” or that despite the face that the BBC and Reuters are (apparently) your two primary sources of news, you completely missed this story.

Also, look at the doctored photo with all the extra, fake smoke. It’s not even a very good fake. It looks like something a third grader would do after a ten-minute Photoshop tutorial. And yet it somehow managed to pass through all those oh-so-very rigorous and completely professional editorial standards they have at Reuters.
No need for mockery on this point. Like I said I don’t really follow ‘the news’ as it can give you a distorted perspective; if you want to find out about a topic then read a decent book.
Anyway in terms of news these two are considered the best mainly due to their apolitical stance. Perhaps the fact that they publish this story about themselves shows their probity.
So thanks for the link.
 
This is ridiculous. My jaw literally dropped when I hear “Zionism is a fascist political movement”. Let alone the Palestinian debate. The PLO and PA don’t take kindly to Christians or Jews: their numbers have been dwindling steadily ever since the establishment of Israel. That leaves over Muslims, who, succinctly, want to “drive the sons and brothers of apes and pigs [Jews] in to the sea”, as expressed by the words of the leaders of virtually every Islamic movement and state in the Middle East. The Israelis aren’t terrorists;.
I think you need to expand your library my friend, a bit mono tone. The first three you mentioned are worth a read for anyone looking for the whole spectrum. The rest aren’t!
I did wonder if ultra right wing propaganda was a bit harsh for Spencer, but since his political views are described as ‘ultra right wing’ and he’s inciting fear to try and get people on to his political side by being amateurish and just downright misrepresentative then it seems fair. Whether you like islam or not is completely irrelevant, his works are a joke!
Well I can see your political stance 😃 Maybe fascist for the movement is a little unfair as with many its a spectrum, but ots not far off being right wing and nationalistic. Since the Zionist movement sought in the late nineteenth century to create an overwhelmingly, if not homogeneously, Jewish state in Palestine (no more than 15%). Once the Zionist movement gained a foothold in Palestine through Great Britain’s issuance of the Balfour Declaration, the main obstacle to realizing its goal was the indigenous Arab population. For, on the eve of Zionist colonization, Palestine was overwhelmingly not Jewish but Muslim and Christian Arab! Since these Arabs wouldn’t aquies then two choices ensued exportation or an apartheid regime.
Anyway, I won’t continue on since it’s going to be futile. I just think what is ‘truly amazing’ is that your silent about probing question into your Islamic knowledge and then when a fairly common (albeit negative) opinion of Israel is expressed you quickly respond in a way that makes it sound like your crying whilst singing the Israeli national anthem! Truly amazing! What’s your Islamic background again? :rolleyes:
Btw The Chirch doesn’t agree with the Zionist movement on the whole
 
POC,

I’m sorry… I just want to be clear about your last point. You’re accusing Khalid of lying about his background and hiding the fact that he’s actually a Jew? Or, at least, an Israeli?

That’s really what’s happening? Really?

Should we check his posts against this chart to see how he checks out?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nuremberg_laws.jpg
 
I mostly agree with you, Khalid. 👍👍
I guess I’ve automatically become a Melkite since professing my Catholic faith and leaving Orthodoxy, since I was told (on these forums at least) since I would transfer to whatever Eastern Catholic Church matched my heritage. So three Melkites agree.

I’ve been accused of being a Jew, an Israeli, and, most often, a paid Zionist operative by nearly every Muslim I’ve debated. I’m not sure whether Peace is serious, but I know many have been, and have honestly deluded themselves - truly - in to believing that I must be paid by an anti-Islamic, Masonic Jewish conspiracy to disagree with Islam or speak against it, and believe that I am paid with every word I speak.

I know the Church doesn’t agree with the Zionist movement - the Vatican and France were two of the prime opponents of it, preferring to side with the Muslims. However, I don’t believe this is dogmatic, and I disagree with the Church on this point, both practically and theologically, at this point in time (300 years ago there may have been a little more warrant for the received beliefs about the Jews and/in Jerusalem). We have Britain and Protestantism to thank for helping make Zionism as reality, one of its [Protestantism’s] great successes. I’m pretty certain that without the establishment of Israel, there would be no Jews left alive today outside of America, and maybe some secular or underground Jews in Russia that survived 60 or 70 years of anti-religious pogroms against people of all faiths.

My Islamic background is Egyptian, the only area in the world, as far as I know, where there is a great diversity of Sunni Islam, as no one school dominates (almost every other region is dominated by one school, or, at most, two schools, one each of Sunni and Shi’a, with one sect or the other generally being a supermajority) but it exists at the crossroads of the Shafi’i, Hanafi, and Maliki, and each has a sizable percentage of adherents; not to mention the foremost school of the Islamic traditional sciences in the world.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top