Sure, I'll do what Osama says!

[Wolseley]

Abu Ismail:

This is pure fantasy. The Qur’an is clear on this point, there is no compulsion in religion. All classical scholars agree that accepting Islam is only valid if a person believes it to be the truth in the heart.

Or that he truly believes it’s the only way to keep his head connected to his shoulders.
Abu Ismail:

I myself have many Bibles at home, as well as commentaries and illustrations, and they are on the same bookshelf as I keep my Qur’ans.

I take it you don’t live in Riyadh.

Oh, wait:
Abu Ismail:

Just the other night my friends and I were discussing whether or not we should vote for the “Family First” party here in Australia

Ah. It suddenly becomes clear. No wonder you can keep Bibles on your bookshelf next to your Qu’rans.
Abu Ismail:

I lived in Malaysia for a few years, and in Kuala Lumpur it’s easier to find a Church than it is a mosque.

You know, it’s easier to find a church in Dublin than a mosque, too. But how about in Djakarta? Or Damascus? Or Teheran?

See how this works?

 

[JimG]

Did UBL manage to get Ted Kaczynski as a speechwriter? I read through the whole transcript and the rantings seemed similar. The sort of things that would be dismissed as part of the lunatic fringe had the person spouting them not proved himself to be a dangerous character.

Again he gives a favorable review to Noam Chomsky, and also promotes Michael Scheuer’s books—maybe he should be on Book TV. (But wait, Book TV allows for opposing viewpoints—can’t have that.)

He also critizes us for believing in the Trinity–it’s just polytheism. And he also takes credit for the fall of the Soviet Union. And invites us to embrace Islam, where the taxes are low—only
2 ½ %. What an offer! But, said to say, he mentions that none of us are innocent—because we failed to prosecute Rumsfeld for war crimes. So, since we’re all guilty, I guess we’re still not safe.

 

[xmydreamsfadex]

i was reading a Chick Tract and Islam was a creation from the Vatican to conquer Jerusalem for the Pope.

yep.

 

[Abu_Ismail]

Or that he truly believes it’s the only way to keep his head connected to his shoulders.

Crude insults to my religion will get you nowhere.

I take it you don’t live in Riyadh.

No, I don’t, and I’m happy I don’t. If you’re arguing that Saudi Arabia is puritanical in their views then you’ll get no argument from me there. Although I doubt you’ve ever been there either.

You know, it’s easier to find a church in Dublin than a mosque, too. But how about in Djakarta? Or Damascus? Or Teheran?

Yes, they all exist. As to how easy they are to find, I’m not sure since I’ve never been to those places. Have you? I do know however that Iran has a Jewish member of parliament, so I assume Christians are also represented.

See how this works?

Yes… it’s becoming all too clear.

 

[Montalban]

What absurd rules Islam has. You cannot dye your hair black but you can dye it red with henna like Muhammad used to do.

Well spotted!

 

[Montalban]

Although I doubt you’ve ever been there either.

Not a strong counter remark!
Heard of the Saudi Tourist Board?*

You’ve got a better chance than most here, for although you might consider them puritanical, as a Moslem, you’re allowed to pilgrimage there.

Note, although there exists this site they say
Tourist visas to Saudi Arabia are not typically granted
tripadvisor.com/Travel-g293991-s602/Saudi-Arabia:Crossing.The.Border.html

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia receives hundreds of thousands of visitors each year, but few enter as tourists.
wordtravels.com/Travelguide/Countries/Saudi+Arabia/

 

[GregoryPalamas]

This is pure fantasy. The Qur’an is clear on this point, there is no compulsion in religion. All classical scholars agree that accepting Islam is only valid if a person believes it to be the truth in the heart.

I know you to be wrong. But let’s say you are correct. If you are correct why in h…l have so many Muslims been killing so many people for so long a time because they won’t convert?

CDL

 

[Montalban]

I know you to be wrong. But let’s say you are correct. If you are correct why in h…l have so many Muslims been killing so many people for so long a time because they won’t convert?

CDL

They’ve been reading it backwards?

 

[Abu_Ismail]

I know you to be wrong. But let’s say you are correct. If you are correct why in h…l have so many Muslims been killing so many people for so long a time because they won’t convert?

I disagree with the premise of your argument that Muslims killing someone because they didn’t convert is anywhere near as prevalent as you’re making out, and secondly I reject totally that it is part of Islamic doctrine. I’m not saying that it has never happened, just as similar things happened in the history of Christianity, but I deny that it is how you are presenting it.

Not a strong counter remark!
Heard of the Saudi Tourist Board?*

You’ve got a better chance than most here, for although you might consider them puritanical, as a Moslem, you’re allowed to pilgrimage there.

Muslims also performed pilgrimage when Mecca was ruled by the idolators, so what’s your point? And the non-existence of tourism to Saudi is nothing but a red herring, and irrelevant. If they don’t want tourists or the money they bring, that’s up to them.

 

[Montalban]

Muslims also performed pilgrimage when Mecca was ruled by the idolators, so what’s your point? And the non-existence of tourism to Saudi is nothing but a red herring, and irrelevant. If they don’t want tourists or the money they bring, that’s up to them.

You’re the one who made the ‘point’ about someone not having been to Saudi Arabia!

 

[Montalban]

I disagree with the premise of your argument that Muslims killing someone because they didn’t convert is anywhere near as prevalent as you’re making out, and secondly I reject totally that it is part of Islamic doctrine. I’m not saying that it has never happened, just as similar things happened in the history of Christianity, but I deny that it is how you are presenting it.

Then you’re rejecting what a majority of Moslem commentators have said over the life of Islam!

You’re of course entitled to your novel interpretation of Islam

 

[Abu_Ismail]

You’re the one who made the ‘point’ about someone not having been to Saudi Arabia!

And he is the ones making claims like he’s been there in the first place

 

[Abu_Ismail]

Then you’re rejecting what a majority of Moslem commentators have said over the life of Islam!

You’re of course entitled to your novel interpretation of Islam

Not interested in what “commentators” have to say, more what Muslim theologians and scholars have to say on the matter.

Everyone in this thread who’s posted is also a commentator. It makes for very poor evidence.

 

[Tim_Kirchoff]

I just remembered this- Please explain if you can.

In Afghanistan, there was a former Muslim who became Christian over a decade ago. More recently, he was brought to trial for this “offense” and was all but executed, and he would have been if not for international outcry.

The judge didn’t care that at the time he had converted, it had not been illegal (the Afghan constitution has a clause that says that no law may be contrary to the Quran).

 

[thedavidwilson]

Well, not all muslims are exetremists. SOme are very good people. Every religion has its share of murderers and crazies, whether it be buddhist or catholic.

Yes but in islam there is justification in the koran, hadith, Sira and actions of muhammed for these extremists. The koran verses that al qaeda quotes are not made up, they exist and have been used througout the ages to justify violence.

 

[Montalban]

And he is the ones making claims like he’s been there in the first place

I understand that you think this, but you’re objecting to his ideas of Saudi Arabia based on him not having gone there - which is near impossible for non-Moslems (see my rebuttal re: tourism).

Therefore it’s not a rebuttal for you. It’s like he’s saying something about Neptune and you demanding that he only give such evidence if he’s been there.

He doesn’t need to have gone there to have formed an opinion of it.

The same would be true of history; you’d object to historical evidence based on the fact the person citing evidence was not an eye-witness to it.

Your objection is illogical.

My rebuttal to you - you rejected as a ‘red-herring’ which further shows your distance from logical debate.

Our information from Saudi Arabia has not been made false by your concerns.

 

[Montalban]

Not interested in what “commentators” have to say, more what Muslim theologians and scholars have to say on the matter.

Now you’re being pedantic. If you will, replace the word commentator, with theologian and I’ve still offered evidence from them, and you’ve still not!

Everyone in this thread who’s posted is also a commentator. It makes for very poor evidence.

So does your evasion.

 

[Montalban]

I just remembered this- Please explain if you can.

In Afghanistan, there was a former Muslim who became Christian over a decade ago. More recently, he was brought to trial for this “offense” and was all but executed, and he would have been if not for international outcry.

The judge didn’t care that at the time he had converted, it had not been illegal (the Afghan constitution has a clause that says that no law may be contrary to the Quran).

Abu Ismail would object on the basis you’ve probably not been to Afghanistan.

The logical extension of this is he’s no longer allowed to discuss events outside his own experience, either.

 

[porthos11]

As much as I dislike Islam, and although I disagree with Abu Ismail, I can’t help but notice that Abu Ismail is easily the most coherent and logical of the Muslims who post on these forums.

 

[Montalban]

As much as I dislike Islam, and although I disagree with Abu Ismail, I can’t help but notice that Abu Ismail is easily the most coherent and logical of the Muslims who post on these forums.

That’s the Aussie part!