Allah Alone Will Be Worshipped

[red states rule]

Once again we see the love, kindness, and tolerance of the religion of peace



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hr0evIUlykY

[jafar00]

It's just a statue. The Prophet Abraham did the same thing. It also follows the Bible's "Do not worship graven images". What's your problem?

[aboutime]

Once again we see the love, kindness, and tolerance of the religion of peace



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hr0evIUlykY


VIDEO WAS TERMINATED due to third party..."ALLAH SNACKBAR" complaints????

[red states rule]

It's just a statue. The Prophet Abraham did the same thing. It also follows the Bible's "Do not worship graven images". What's your problem?

Yet the Quran is just a book. Yet you assholes riot, murder, rape and try to burn down entire cities when someone disrespects it

I have seen or heard about any Christians reacting in a similar manner after this act of disrespect

[Hanging Judge]

I'm not a fan of the Muslim religion for a number of reasons; however, I don't think they're all bad or violent. Just like not all Christians are good and non-violent. Laws is what keeps the wolves at bay. I myself would rather put a bullet through the head of a child abuser than feed and water him for a few months only to turn him loose to rape or beat another child. The law won't allow me too put him down like the rabid dog he is. Does that make me violent? I guess in some books it does. :P Am I a Christian, yes I am although obviously not a very good one.

[tailfins]

I just don't like this emotional obsession because it detracts from victory over militant Islam. Anyone wanting to help the war effort should instead highlight our victories and build confidence we are on our way to victory. To me all this hate is a signal that the haters aren't convinced we are going to win this.

[stevecanuck]

It's just a statue. The Prophet Abraham did the same thing. It also follows the Bible's "Do not worship graven images". What's your problem?The video can't be viewed any more, but the title, "Sheikh smashes virgin Mary" probably tells us all we need to know about it. The problem, Jafar, is that it is another example of a Muslim imposing his values on Christians. Do you really not consider that to be a problem? Consider the spectacular difference between how Muslims react to an insult versus the civilized world. This did not cause a single Christian to burn down a mosque in protest, but you know damned well that if the situation were reversed and someone had publicly stepped on the Qur'an, riots would have ensued and people would have died. It's only a matter of time before massive Muslim riots do occur because of some such "insult".

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I'm not a fan of the Muslim religion for a number of reasons; however, I don't think they're all bad or violent. Just like not all Christians are good and non-violent. Laws is what keeps the wolves at bay. I myself would rather put a bullet through the head of a child abuser than feed and water him for a few months only to turn him loose to rape or beat another child. The law won't allow me too put him down like the rabid dog he is. Does that make me violent? I guess in some books it does. :P Am I a Christian, yes I am although obviously not a very good one. They have proven many times that they ALL don't have to be bad to wage their campaign of worldwide murder. THEY USE THIS TACTIC TO PROTECT THE MAIN BODY. ITS A VERY OLD STRATEGY . To keep the head (main body) safe while the tail fights for if the tail loses and perishes then a new tail can be grown. This they learned from these two great defeats one of which (1683) cracked their faith for a few centuries. -Tyr



http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-most-important-battles-in-history.php industrially advanced, and wealthier North.

5. Battle of Tours, 732

Battle of Tours

Chances are you never heard of this battle, but had the Franks lost it, we might all be bowing towards Mecca five times a day and studying our Koran each night. The battle near the city of Tours pitted about 20,000 Carolingian Franks under Charles Martel against a Muslim force of up to 50,000 soldiers under Abdul Rahman Al Ghafiqi intent on bringing Islam to Europe. Though outnumbered, Martel proved to be an especially able commander and routed the invaders, driving them back into Spain and, ultimately (through his son, Pippin the Great) off the continent. Had Martel lost, Islam would probably have become the predominant faith of Europe and, eventually, the main religion around the world today. How this would have impacted western civilization can only be guessed at, but chances are it would have taken a dramatically different tact than it did.

4. Battle of Vienna, 1683

Battle of Vienna

In something of a remake of the earlier Battle of Tours (see no. 5) the Muslims were again on the march in an effort to claim all of Europe for Allah. This time, riding under the banner of the Ottoman Empire, somewhere between 150,000 to 300,000 troops under Kara Mustafa Pasha met a mixed force of some 80,000 troops under the Polish King John Sobrieski near Vienna one fine September in 1683 and somehow lost. The battle proved to be the end of Islamic expansion into Europe and resulted in their commander, Mustafa Pasha, being executed by the Turks for his mishandling of the siege and battles for Vienna. How close were things? Had Pasha attacked when he first arrived at the city earlier that July, Vienna probably would have fallen; in waiting until September, however, he gave time for the Polish Army and their allies to arrive to break the siege and provide the forces necessary to send the Turks packing. Still, you’d think that with a 2 to 1 or even 3 to 1 advantage, they should have something to show for their efforts.


Read more: http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-most-important-battles-in-history.php#ixzz2jyeuXzDR
Read more at http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-most-important-battles-in-history.php#x2xpRojTewEWWro6.99 History is ever bit as important to teach in school as is math , reading and writing. I am a huge fan of history myself and a full third of my rather large library consists of history books and biographies of great leaders, warriors and generals. Knowledge far more valuable than gold IMHO. --Tyr

[jafar00]

The video can't be viewed any more, but the title, "Sheikh smashes virgin Mary" probably tells us all we need to know about it. The problem, Jafar, is that it is another example of a Muslim imposing his values on Christians. Do you really not consider that to be a problem? Consider the spectacular difference between how Muslims react to an insult versus the civilized world. This did not cause a single Christian to burn down a mosque in protest, but you know damned well that if the situation were reversed and someone had publicly stepped on the Qur'an, riots would have ensued and people would have died. It's only a matter of time before massive Muslim riots do occur because of some such "insult".

Your own book says bowing down to a statue is forbidden. Despite the fact that this happened in a war zone where I'm sure a lot of other statues were broken, what in the following verse allows for Christians to make images of Jesus or his Mother and bow down to them?

Exodus 20
4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

[Drummond]

Your own book says bowing down to a statue is forbidden. Despite the fact that this happened in a war zone where I'm sure a lot of other statues were broken, what in the following verse allows for Christians to make images of Jesus or his Mother and bow down to them?

Exodus 20
4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

This is all very well, but you're still evading the point made to you. I hope/trust Steve won't object to my reposting this (in part, anyway) ...


Consider the spectacular difference between how Muslims react to an insult versus the civilized world. This did not cause a single Christian to burn down a mosque in protest, but you know damned well that if the situation were reversed and someone had publicly stepped on the Qur'an, riots would have ensued and people would have died.

Can you honestly not see that this is a very fair, not to mention ACCURATE, point ? Jafar, how do you answer it ?

[aboutime]

allah snackbar!!!!!

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Your own book says bowing down to a statue is forbidden. Despite the fact that this happened in a war zone where I'm sure a lot of other statues were broken, what in the following verse allows for Christians to make images of Jesus or his Mother and bow down to them?

Exodus 20
4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; Just how does that justify all the extreme and constant violence visited upon so many innocent people worldwide?? Should I go destroy a Quran because some muslims use it to justify their raping and murdering OF TOTALLY INNOCENT PEOPLE?? THERE IS A LOGICAL AND RATIONAL REASON WHY I DO NOT DO SO. We could turn a blind eye to all of Islam should it stop the violence and truly be a religion of peace. It does not do so because it needs the opposition to justify its goals! There has been no reformation in Islam precisely because its followers are commanded to murder its opposition and even its own members that attempt to change it. And that is because Islam is a religious, political and military ideology by design. That mixture gives it great strength but at the cost that its never had the ability to correct any fundamental mistakes, thus no reformation! --Tyr

[jafar00]

Can you honestly not see that this is a very fair, not to mention ACCURATE, point ? Jafar, how do you answer it ?

Is that all Muslims as a broadbrush generalisation, or the half dozen in deepest, darkest Peshawar who are so bored that they will light the American flag that the cameraman gave them so he can get some fun footage?

[aboutime]

Is that all Muslims as a broadbrush generalisation, or the half dozen in deepest, darkest Peshawar who are so bored that they will light the American flag that the cameraman gave them so he can get some fun footage?


Nice Try, again jafar. Making such statements designed to get us to forget all the other Defensive statements you have made...tongue-in-cheek. You know? The kinds of wordsmanship games you play with rhetorical trickery...much like Obama making promises we all know...he never intended to keep. Then pretending to apologize after being caught? That kind of pretend, coming from you jafar???

[tailfins]

Is that all Muslims as a broadbrush generalisation, or the half dozen in deepest, darkest Peshawar who are so bored that they will light the American flag that the cameraman gave them so he can get some fun footage?

That reminds me when anti-Somoza "reporters" threw money in a trash barrel to creating an image of "starving" Nicaraguans when people retrieved it.

[gabosaurus]

Yet the Quran is just a book. Yet you assholes riot, murder, rape and try to burn down entire cities when someone disrespects it

I have seen or heard about any Christians reacting in a similar manner after this act of disrespect

ONCE AGAIN, you fail to pick up the difference in beliefs. Not everybody worships in the same manner.
Is there a reason you feel the need to make the exact same points OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN?
Look, I know you are brain damaged and all, but your repetitive "Religion of Peace" bullshit is getting annoying. You and your geeky Christian terrorist friends are no better than Muslim extremists. You repeatedly spam this board with your hateful garbage.
RSR, if you REALLY want to show up your hate for all things Islam, perhaps you should strap on a bomb and blow yourself up in a Mosque. Then perhaps I will take you seriously.

[Kathianne]

ONCE AGAIN, you fail to pick up the difference in beliefs. Not everybody worships in the same manner.
Is there a reason you feel the need to make the exact same points OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN?
Look, I know you are brain damaged and all, but your repetitive "Religion of Peace" bullshit is getting annoying. You and your geeky Christian terrorist friends are no better than Muslim extremists. You repeatedly spam this board with your hateful garbage.
RSR, if you REALLY want to show up your hate for all things Islam, perhaps you should strap on a bomb and blow yourself up in a Mosque. Then perhaps I will take you seriously.

IMO Gabby, this was something you should have stayed out of, for the simple reason you don't wish to get into details.

RSR is going for a 'big agenda', with little to back him up. That doesn't mean it's without merit. Just no substantiation for his point of view. He chooses not to give any. You and I may disagree with his lack of willingness to do so, but the board rules allow for it.

OTOH, I've seen little to find he has any 'Christian terrorists friends,' which actually may be liable. To whom are you referring?

[tailfins]

ONCE AGAIN, you fail to pick up the difference in beliefs. Not everybody worships in the same manner.
Is there a reason you feel the need to make the exact same points OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN?
Look, I know you are brain damaged and all, but your repetitive "Religion of Peace" bullshit is getting annoying. You and your geeky Christian terrorist friends are no better than Muslim extremists. You repeatedly spam this board with your hateful garbage.
RSR, if you REALLY want to show up your hate for all things Islam, perhaps you should strap on a bomb and blow yourself up in a Mosque. Then perhaps I will take you seriously.

Being taken seriously by you would be a negative thing. Your hyperbole don't cover your ignorance very well. Most can still see it.

[stevecanuck]

Your own book says bowing down to a statue is forbidden. Despite the fact that this happened in a war zone where I'm sure a lot of other statues were broken, what in the following verse allows for Christians to make images of Jesus or his Mother and bow down to them?

Exodus 20
4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;First, I don't have a book. I'm an atheist. Second, the commands in Exodus are there for those who CHOOSE to follow them. They are not imposed by others on the unwilling.

[gabosaurus]

IMO Gabby, this was something you should have stayed out of, for the simple reason you don't wish to get into details.

RSR is going for a 'big agenda', with little to back him up. That doesn't mean it's without merit. Just no substantiation for his point of view. He chooses not to give any. You and I may disagree with his lack of willingness to do so, but the board rules allow for it.


https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/7891983616/h08697AC4/

[jafar00]

Nice Try, again jafar. Making such statements designed to get us to forget all the other Defensive statements you have made...tongue-in-cheek. You know? The kinds of wordsmanship games you play with rhetorical trickery...much like Obama making promises we all know...he never intended to keep. Then pretending to apologize after being caught? That kind of pretend, coming from you jafar???

Are you saying I should run for President?

[jafar00]

First, I don't have a book. I'm an atheist. Second, the commands in Exodus are there for those who CHOOSE to follow them. They are not imposed by others on the unwilling.

I believe the prohibition on graven images is one of the 10 commandments. Are they also optional for Christians?

[aboutime]

Are you saying I should run for President?


Sad to say. You are probably far more experienced for that job than the present pretender who also happens to think like you. Hate America, and everything it stands for if it doesn't comply with you.

[NightTrain]

I believe the prohibition on graven images is one of the 10 commandments. Are they also optional for Christians?

What he's saying, my obtuse Turban-Topped friend, is that you don't see Christians stoning people to death even if they break one of the commandments.

Christians don't riot and go batshit crazy insane when one of you muzzies do something that is extremely disrespectful to the Christian faith; whereas you certainly can't say the same.

Hope that clears it up for you, now do you want to answer honestly or continue your silly little insincere dance?

[stevecanuck]

I believe the prohibition on graven images is one of the 10 commandments. Are they also optional for Christians?I see you pretended to miss the point (again), so here it is in other words: It is none of the sheikh's business whether or not Christians follow the dictates of their own religion, and it's certainly not for him to destroy artifacts of someone else's faith. That seems to be a concept that just doesn't penetrate the skull of the average Muslim. It demonstrates that Muslims are anxious to follow verse 9:29 and impose Islam on the rest of us.

[aboutime]

Allah Snackbar.

[stevecanuck]

Allah Snackbar.Hah! That's almost exactly what I used to think whenever I heard the call to prayer in Egypt (which was all the fricken time). The way it sounds in person is like this, "Allllllllllllllaaaaaahhhh hu akbaaaarrrrrrr", and I always thought, "I'llllll, uhhhhh, have a snackbaaaarrrrrrrr".

[jafar00]

I see you pretended to miss the point (again), so here it is in other words: It is none of the sheikh's business whether or not Christians follow the dictates of their own religion, and it's certainly not for him to destroy artifacts of someone else's faith. That seems to be a concept that just doesn't penetrate the skull of the average Muslim. It demonstrates that Muslims are anxious to follow verse 9:29 and impose Islam on the rest of us.

Yet 9:29 is for a particular time and always has been.

[aboutime]

Hah! That's almost exactly what I used to think whenever I heard the call to prayer in Egypt (which was all the fricken time). The way it sounds in person is like this, "Allllllllllllllaaaaaahhhh hu akbaaaarrrrrrr", and I always thought, "I'llllll, uhhhhh, have a snackbaaaarrrrrrrr".


steve. I only use it because our Troops on the ground in Afghanistan use that expression whenever they avoid being the victim of the enemy, and it's their way of applauding those TEST suicide bombers...when their IED's blow up before they expect them to do so.

It also explains what the area looks like...following the explosion...as in SNACKBAR for the wild dogs who need to quench their HUNGER.

[Gaffer]

Yet 9:29 is for a particular time and always has been.

The whole book is for a particular time and always has been.

[stevecanuck]

Yet 9:29 is for a particular time and always has been.What a spectacular cop-out! That logic would negate the entire Qur'an. Either the word of God is meant forever or it isn't. Which is it, Jafar? :laugh:

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

What a spectacular cop-out! That logic would negate the entire Qur'an. Either the word of God is meant forever or it isn't. Which is it, Jafar? :laugh:ssssshhhhh , temporary religion is so convenient. Jafar could perhaps show us what other Quran verses are temporary!! Of course in most muslim nations if he speaks like this he'll lose his head rather quickly. Reckon Jafar is a radical apostate? ;) A radical reformist? What say ye Jafar, are you negating words that came from the perfect Prophet? How come the Sword verses are not ever considered to be temporary??????????????????????????????????-Tyr

[jafar00]

What a spectacular cop-out! That logic would negate the entire Qur'an. Either the word of God is meant forever or it isn't. Which is it, Jafar? :laugh:

Historical and literary context, are two things to consider when interpreting a verse of the Qur'aan. Two things you often ignore.


ssssshhhhh , temporary religion is so convenient. Jafar could perhaps show us what other Quran verses are temporary!! Of course in most muslim nations if he speaks like this he'll lose his head rather quickly. Reckon Jafar is a radical apostate? ;) A radical reformist? What say ye Jafar, are you negating words that came from the perfect Prophet? How come the Sword verses are not ever considered to be temporary??????????????????????????????????-Tyr

You mean like in Matthew 10:34?

34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

[red states rule]

ONCE AGAIN, you fail to pick up the difference in beliefs. Not everybody worships in the same manner.
Is there a reason you feel the need to make the exact same points OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN?
Look, I know you are brain damaged and all, but your repetitive "Religion of Peace" bullshit is getting annoying. You and your geeky Christian terrorist friends are no better than Muslim extremists. You repeatedly spam this board with your hateful garbage.
RSR, if you REALLY want to show up your hate for all things Islam, perhaps you should strap on a bomb and blow yourself up in a Mosque. Then perhaps I will take you seriously.

I see once again gabby I tapped into your liberal tolerance and civility.

So you consider what the Muslim did (smashing the statue of the Virgin Mary ("worshipping)

I pointed out how Muslims "worship" when they are insulted (and Kat said I did not provide proof) Well here a few examples:

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/afghanistan/2011-04-02-afghanistan-protest_N.htm

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/sep/13/kashmir-protesters-killed-quran-row

http://www.ucanews.com/story-archive/?post_name=/2001/03/20/riots-over-koran-burning-rumor-claim-16-lives&post_id=18089

and lets not forget how Theo van Gogh was murdered by Muslims over his anti Islam movie

Our government still has the maker of the online video Obama and Hilary blamed for the terror attack that killed 4 Americans in jail. And we all know that was a blatant lie. So why is he still in jail?

After a "artist" placed a crucifix in a jar of urine, here are the links to stories about Christians rioting and expressing their outrage over the "work of art"
can anyone post a link to where Christens rioted? Or when a painting of the Virgin Mary was covered in elephant sh** - did any Christians kill anyone in retaliation?

At no time have I ever said ALL Muslims were terrorists or would kill you over slighting Islam. However it is a fact that nearly all the terrorists that have been captured committing acts of terrorism have been young middle eastern men.

Gabby, maybe you are wiling to turn a blind eye to what is going on - that is your choice. But the truth is a growing segment of Muslims have launched a war on the US and on Christians. Ignoring it can be fatal. Perhaps you think appeasement is the answer. However appeasement has not worked over the last 35 years or so when terrorists took over the US embassy in Iran and there is no reason to believe appeasement will work now

[red states rule]

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/aria_c11349620131108120100.jpg

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

You mean like in Matthew 10:34?

34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. A sword used for defense is entirely different that a sword used for aggression and murder. Islam teaches its to be used to murder and force the will of its religion upon all people. That's pure aggression Jafar. Now show anywhere in the bible where Jesus ordered any of his disciples to engage in aggression and use the sword to advance Christianity. And don't think I missed out on you not answering my question but instead just asking one of your own in reply! I see this often when the opposition is not capable of defending a position or incapable because the position is impossible to logically defend. Islam's current crusade to conquer by Sword(murder) is just such a reality and position. Yet how can you condemn it when the Prophet and Allah /Quran command it? And that Sword spoken of in that verse was the Sword of Truth, of the Word of God not a metal cutting sword used by man to murder man. CLEARLY JESUS KNEW THAT TRUTH WHICH IS ALWAYS HATED BY THE WICKED WOULD BRING STRIFE AND VIOLENT OPOSITION FROM THE EVIL DOERS. That it would divide families and friends. As it does today when nobody here in USA are using swords. Your problem is current muslims are engaging in warfare to advance Islam and murder is the favorite method--awful damn hard to justify that but even harder for you to outright condemn it because it condemns Mohammad and the Quran too. -Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I see once again gabby I tapped into your liberal tolerance and civility.

So you consider what the Muslim did (smashing the statue of the Virgin Mary ("worshipping)

I pointed out how Muslims "worship" when they are insulted (and Kat said I did not provide proof) Well here a few examples:

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/afghanistan/2011-04-02-afghanistan-protest_N.htm

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/sep/13/kashmir-protesters-killed-quran-row

http://www.ucanews.com/story-archive/?post_name=/2001/03/20/riots-over-koran-burning-rumor-claim-16-lives&post_id=18089

and lets not forget how Theo van Gogh was murdered by Muslims over his anti Islam movie

Our government still has the maker of the online video Obama and Hilary blamed for the terror attack that killed 4 Americans in jail. And we all know that was a blatant lie. So why is he still in jail?

After a "artist" placed a crucifix in a jar of urine, here are the links to stories about Christians rioting and expressing their outrage over the "work of art"
can anyone post a link to where Christens rioted? Or when a painting of the Virgin Mary was covered in elephant sh** - did any Christians kill anyone in retaliation?

At no time have I ever said ALL Muslims were terrorists or would kill you over slighting Islam. However it is a fact that nearly all the terrorists that have been captured committing acts of terrorism have been young middle eastern men.

Gabby, maybe you are wiling to turn a blind eye to what is going on - that is your choice. But the truth is a growing segment of Muslims have launched a war on the US and on Christians. Ignoring it can be fatal. Perhaps you think appeasement is the answer. However appeasement has not worked over the last 35 years or so when terrorists took over the US embassy in Iran and there is no reason to believe appeasement will work now There is no example of appeasement working against the Islamists. All it ever got anybody was death or slavery when the enemy was Islamists. To them your appeasement is just the first step towards your eventual total unconditional surrender. After that they know your life belongs completely to them to do as they wish. If found to be in the position of --as they wish-- you will convert or die or live as a slave. That's been the only three choices allowed since Mohammad first created his thieving gang then converted it into an ideology to increase its size in order that he could survive to engage in his murdering, stealing and child molesting ways !--Tyr

[tailfins]

Historical and literary context, are two things to consider when interpreting a verse of the Qur'aan. Two things you often ignore.



You mean like in Matthew 10:34?

34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.


Your use of the term sword is incorrect:


Ephesians 6:17King James Version (KJV)

17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:

[jimnyc]

I noticed that the video in the OP is dead. Based on the title, I searched and found this - is this the same video?

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/u1pEHscO7aY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I noticed that the video in the OP is dead. Based on the title, I searched and found this - is this the same video?

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/u1pEHscO7aY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> Yet drawing a cartoon of Mohamboy warrants death according to these GD murdering scum WHILE THEY AND THEIR WRETCHED COWARDLY DEFENDERS DEFEND ANYTHING THEY DO TO DESTROY ANY OTHER RELIGION. I'D VERY LIKELY PICK THAT SCUM UP AND BREAK HIM LIKE THAT MYSELF IF GIVEN THE CHANCE!! Watching the video one can just tell what a punk the asshat is!! Let him stand in my presence and try his crap his Allah could not stop me from stomping his worthless ass.. That's a fact..-Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Yet Islam enjoys this kind of protection here . Jones arrested before burning 3,000 Korans in Florida.
http://abcnews.go.com/topics/news/koran-burning.htm We should each buy one and do as we please with it. After all the muslims destroy every bible they can find and destroy Christian symbols. There is only one book in the world that should be treated with utter contempt and it sure is not the bible. I despise that Jones guy but he makes a point when he is arrested on trump up charges to stop his burning those Korans. Had he been a muslim or a leftist going to burn bibles he would not have been arrested and that is the damn point!--Tyr

[aboutime]

Yet Islam enjoys this kind of protection here . Jones arrested before burning 3,000 Korans in Florida. We should each buy one and do as we please with it. After all the muslims destroy every bible they can find and destroy Christian symbols. There is only one book in the world that should be treated with utter contempt and it sure is not the bible. I despise that Jones guy but he makes a point when he is arrested on trump up charges to stop his burning those Korans. Had he been a muslim or a leftist going to burn bibles he would not have been arrested and that is the damn point!--Tyr

Tyr. Eventually, sometime next year. When the weather begins to warm up again. We plan on getting a new roof. 3000 Korans (Quoran) would probably be less expensive than SHINGLES, and they are thicker. Plus. According to jafar. Those books would provide the Safety of Peace for my home, and hopefully...prevent LEAKS.
Anyone have any problems with that?

[jafar00]

Yet Islam enjoys this kind of protection here . Jones arrested before burning 3,000 Korans in Florida. We should each buy one and do as we please with it. After all the muslims destroy every bible they can find and destroy Christian symbols. There is only one book in the world that should be treated with utter contempt and it sure is not the bible. I despise that Jones guy but he makes a point when he is arrested on trump up charges to stop his burning those Korans. Had he been a muslim or a leftist going to burn bibles he would not have been arrested and that is the damn point!--Tyr

Actually, we take the burning of holy books quite seriously.

A court in Egypt sentenced a Muslim cleric, who is known for his hate speeches against Coptic Christians, to 11 years in jail for tearing up and burning a Bible during a protest against an anti-Islam film outside the U.S. embassy last year. (http://www.christianpost.com/news/egypts-bible-burning-cleric-sentenced-to-11-years-98095/)

Yes. An ELEVEN YEAR jail sentence for defacing a BIBLE.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Actually, we take the burning of holy books quite seriously.

A court in Egypt sentenced a Muslim cleric, who is known for his hate speeches against Coptic Christians, to 11 years in jail for tearing up and burning a Bible during a protest against an anti-Islam film outside the U.S. embassy last year. (http://www.christianpost.com/news/egypts-bible-burning-cleric-sentenced-to-11-years-98095/)

Yes. An ELEVEN YEAR jail sentence for defacing a BIBLE. Sentenced was suspended waiting on appeal verdict. Ten to one says it will be overturned and neither he nor his son spend any time in prison. And even should they spend time how does that compare with the people whose punishment for disrespecting Islam is DEATH! 11 years in prison or death which one is worse. And in some cases the entire family is put to death when the crowd descends upon the house of the accused. Your comparison by citing a lone example of a suspended sentence falls far short of having any true merit in presenting Islam is held accountable for its systematic destruction of other religions and their symbols IMHO.-Tyr

[stevecanuck]

Jafar, simple question for you: Do you think Muslims have the right to destroy artifacts of other religions?

[stevecanuck]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by stevecanuck http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=673777#post673777) What a spectacular cop-out! That logic would negate the entire Qur'an. Either the word of God is meant forever or it isn't. Which is it, Jafar? :laugh:
Historical and literary context, are two things to consider when interpreting a verse of the Qur'aan. Two things you often ignore.


School is in session, Jafar. Please take your seat. Noted Islamic scholar al zamakhshari, who lived 500 years after Mohamed, describes the meaning of verse 9:29 regarding payment of the jizyah and humiliation of dhimmis as follows: "The jizyah shall be taken from them with belittlement and humiliation. (The dhimmi) shall come in person, walking not riding. When he pays, he shall stand, while the tax collector sits. The collector shall seize him by the scruff of the neck, shake him and say, 'Pay the jizyah!' and when he pays it, he shall be slapped on the nape of his neck". I guess he forgot to say it applied only in the days of Mohamed. In fact the jizyah was applied to all conquered lands and peoples throughout Islam's history of military conquest. The reason you're so damned easy to debate is because I have history and fact on my side.

[jafar00]

Jafar, simple question for you: Do you think Muslims have the right to destroy artifacts of other religions?

No. The first Mosque I ever went to was a good example. It was a converted convent complete with statues and crosses. The ornaments were simple boarded up so as not to be seen.


School is in session, Jafar. Please take your seat. Noted Islamic scholar al zamakhshari, who lived 500 years after Mohamed, describes the meaning of verse 9:29 regarding payment of the jizyah and humiliation of dhimmis as follows: "The jizyah shall be taken from them with belittlement and humiliation. (The dhimmi) shall come in person, walking not riding. When he pays, he shall stand, while the tax collector sits. The collector shall seize him by the scruff of the neck, shake him and say, 'Pay the jizyah!' and when he pays it, he shall be slapped on the nape of his neck". I guess he forgot to say it applied only in the days of Mohamed. In fact the jizyah was applied to all conquered lands and peoples throughout Islam's history of military conquest. The reason you're so damned easy to debate is because I have history and fact on my side.

Do you seriously expect me to accept the opinions of a Shia as gospel? Next you will expect me to believe Ayatollah Khomeini's book where it is ok to have sex with an animal as long as you kill it immediately and sell the meat to the next village.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

No. The first Mosque I ever went to was a good example. It was a converted convent complete with statues and crosses. The ornaments were simple boarded up so as not to be seen.



Do you seriously expect me to accept the opinions of a Shia as gospel? Next you will expect me to believe Ayatollah Khomeini's book where it is ok to have sex with an animal as long as you kill it immediately and sell the meat to the next village. Perhaps the next village will appreciate the spiced up meat.. I mean that's not as bad as having sex with one's dead wife the next day, is it?? A hard choice to decide which is the most gross. I can not fathom doing either nor can I fathom attempting to justify either perverted practice.. --Tyr

[gabosaurus]

stevecanuck, simple question for you: Do you think Westerners have the right to dictate how others observe their faith?

[jafar00]

I mean that's not as bad as having sex with one's dead wife the next day, is it??

Now I understand your problem Tyr. You are still hanging on to hoaxes and treating them as fact.

[red states rule]

I will let the Quran speak for itself





Quran (8:55) (http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/quran/verses/008-qmt.php#008.055) - Surely the vilest of animals in Allah's sight are those who disbelieveQuran (http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/quran/verses/048-qmt.php#048.029) (48:29) (http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/quran/verses/048-qmt.php#048.029) - Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard (ruthless) against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves
Quran (http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/quran/verses/009-qmt.php#009.030) (9:30) (http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/quran/verses/009-qmt.php#009.030) - And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah... Allah (Himself) fights against them. How perverse are they!
Quran (http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/quran/verses/008-qmt.php#008.012) (8:12) (http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/quran/verses/008-qmt.php#008.012) - I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them
Quran (http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/quran/verses/009-qmt.php#009.123) (9:123) (http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/quran/verses/009-qmt.php#009.123) - O you who believe! Fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness
Quran (http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/quran/verses/005-qmt.php#005.033) (5:33) (http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/quran/verses/005-qmt.php#005.033) - The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement



According to the Quran, non-believers...
Eat like beasts 47:12
Are apes 7:166, 5:60, 2:65
Are swines 5:60
Are asses 74:50
The vilest of animals in Allah's sight 8:55
Losers 2:27, 2:121, 3:85
Have a disease in their hearts 2:10, 5:52, 24:50
Are hard-hearted 39:22, 57:16
Impure of hearts 5:41
Are deaf 2:171, 6:25
Are blind 2:171, 6:25
Are dumb 2:171, 6:35, 11:29
Are niggardly 4:37, 70:21
Works shall be rendered ineffective 2:217, 47:1, 47:8
Are impure 8:37
Are scum 13:17
Are inordinate 5:68, 78:22
Are transgressors 2:26, 9:8, 46:20
Are unjust 29:49
Make mischief 16:88
Are the worst of men 98:6
Are in a state of confusion 50:5
Are the lowest of the low 95:5
Focus only on outward appearance 19:73-74
Are guilty 30:12, 77:46
Sinful liar 45:7
Follow falsehood 47:3
Deeds are like the mirage in a desert 24:39
also...
Allah does not love them 3:32, 22:38
Allah forsakes them 32:14, 45:34
Allah brought down destruction upon them 47:10
Allah has cursed them 2:88, 48:6
Allah despises them 17:18
Allah abases them 22:18

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Articles/Quran_Hate.htm

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Now I understand your problem Tyr. You are still hanging on to hoaxes and treating them as fact.

The muslims always thinks about sex & after having sex with 13 wives Mohammad slept with dead body of his beloved uncle's wife. Can anybody justifies his perverted behavior. Not all Muslims are going to do that but we must ask how many do it and justify because Mohammad did??

[red states rule]

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-mjXBLiPq75Q/T15BtHir_fI/AAAAAAAADdg/xyy8oTpuXWk/s1600/burningthequran.jpg

[stevecanuck]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by stevecanuck http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=673999#post673999) School is in session, Jafar. Please take your seat. Noted Islamic scholar al zamakhshari, who lived 500 years after Mohamed, describes the meaning of verse 9:29 regarding payment of the jizyah and humiliation of dhimmis as follows: "The jizyah shall be taken from them with belittlement and humiliation. (The dhimmi) shall come in person, walking not riding. When he pays, he shall stand, while the tax collector sits. The collector shall seize him by the scruff of the neck, shake him and say, 'Pay the jizyah!' and when he pays it, he shall be slapped on the nape of his neck". I guess he forgot to say it applied only in the days of Mohamed. In fact the jizyah was applied to all conquered lands and peoples throughout Islam's history of military conquest. The reason you're so damned easy to debate is because I have history and fact on my side.

Do you seriously expect me to accept the opinions of a Shia as gospel? The caliph's seemed to agree with his assessment of verse 9:29. Collection of the jiyah and humiliation of the dhimmi were practiced for centuries. Not only that, but the words of the verse say it very clearly. Again, your only "defense" is simple denial of clear fact.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-mjXBLiPq75Q/T15BtHir_fI/AAAAAAAADdg/xyy8oTpuXWk/s1600/burningthequran.jpg You see they -they almighty they get to ignore such as they murder each other and desecrate each others religious places. Sunni and Shia demand that the world abide by their holy laws that they ignore often in their age old fight.

[jimnyc]

stevecanuck, simple question for you: Do you think Westerners have the right to dictate how others observe their faith?

FACT - Muslims AND all other religions are free to practice here in the USA, and they are free to practice however they see fit so long as it is within the law. Religious practices, Islam included, has more freedom in the USA than likely anywhere else in the world.

[red states rule]

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Nz3XznhjjMI/ThpLddiRhqI/AAAAAAAAFhs/gbbTgGxqS8c/s1600/terrorists%2Band%2Bseals.jpg

[stevecanuck]

stevecanuck, simple question for you: Do you think Westerners have the right to dictate how others observe their faith?And playing far left field for the apologist side.......GAABBBBYYYYYYYYYYY! That question is apropos of what exactly?

[red states rule]

FACT - Muslims AND all other religions are free to practice here in the USA, and they are free to practice however they see fit so long as it is within the law. Religious practices, Islam included, has more freedom in the USA than likely anywhere else in the world.

It seems to me only the "religion" of Islam calls for the death of those who do not follow Islam (or those who walk away from Islam)

[jafar00]

The caliph's seemed to agree with his assessment of verse 9:29. Collection of the jiyah and humiliation of the dhimmi were practiced for centuries. Not only that, but the words of the verse say it very clearly. Again, your only "defense" is simple denial of clear fact.

His supposedly nasty opinion fits well with your agenda. It doesn't change the fact that Jizya was just a tax the same as any other tax we pay these days. Also, it hasn't been paid by anyone for many years and doesn't exist in the time we live in.


It seems to me only the "religion" of Islam calls for the death of those who do not follow Islam (or those who walk away from Islam)

Incorrect. The religion of Islam doesn't call for death. Stupid people maybe, but Islam does not.

[red states rule]

Incorrect. The religion of Islam doesn't call for death. Stupid people maybe, but Islam does not.

Liar. I have posted many links from the Quran clearly stating death to those who do not follow Islam. But you are an expert at ignoring the facts and lying like hell to defend murdering Muslims

[stevecanuck]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by stevecanuck http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=674135#post674135) The caliph's seemed to agree with his assessment of verse 9:29. Collection of the jiyah and humiliation of the dhimmi were practiced for centuries. Not only that, but the words of the verse say it very clearly. Again, your only "defense" is simple denial of clear fact. His supposedly nasty opinion fits well with your agenda. It doesn't change the fact that Jizya was just a tax the same as any other tax we pay these days. Also, it hasn't been paid by anyone for many years and doesn't exist in the time we live in. There is nothing "supposedly" about his assessment of verse 9:29. It says what it says. And calling the jizyah "just another tax" is the height of disingenuous BS. It's a poll tax designed for the express purpose of humiliating and subjugating the dhimmi. You obviously don't care that you're continually caught lying. After all, we're just a bunch of dirty infidels, so what does it matter if you lie to us?



http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by red states rule http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=674151#post674151) It seems to me only the "religion" of Islam calls for the death of those who do not follow Islam (or those who walk away from Islam)

Incorrect. The religion of Islam doesn't call for death. Stupid people maybe, but Islam does not.

Another post, another lie. This is truly a soft-ball. The first word in 9:29 is قَاتِلُواْ which is the plural imperative of the root قتل. Cut and paste that into any online dictionary of your choice. I've used 8, and they all agree قتل (pronounced "qatl" for the Arabically challenged) means kill. This verse is not alone. The command to kill occurs several times in the Qur'an. Keep the lies coming, Jafar, and I'll keep exposing them. Just out of curiosity, I wonder if the likes of Gaby read these threads and if they are starting to get the feeling that just maybe Jafar's a liar, and just maybe Islam isn't the peaceful religion that the liars and apologists like to claim it is. Jafar: Proving my signature line with every post.

[jafar00]

There is nothing "supposedly" about his assessment of verse 9:29. It says what it says. And calling the jizyah "just another tax" is the height of disingenuous BS. It's a poll tax designed for the express purpose of humiliating and subjugating the dhimmi. You obviously don't care that you're continually caught lying. After all, we're just a bunch of dirty infidels, so what does it matter if you lie to us?

Despite your opinions, Jizya guaranteed the rights of non Muslim citizens in a Muslim country and meant that they were not allowed to be conscripted into the army. The funds were also used to help the poor and those without the means to pay in the first place. It was not a subjugation and the poor didn't need to pay it at all.

All this is moot however since Jizya doesn't exist these days.

Another post, another lie. This is truly a soft-ball. The first word in 9:29 is قَاتِلُواْ which is the plural imperative of the root قتل. Cut and paste that into any online dictionary of your choice. I've used 8, and they all agree قتل (pronounced "qatl" for the Arabically challenged) means kill. This verse is not alone. The command to kill occurs several times in the Qur'an. Keep the lies coming, Jafar, and I'll keep exposing them. Just out of curiosity, I wonder if the likes of Gaby read these threads and if they are starting to get the feeling that just maybe Jafar's a liar, and just maybe Islam isn't the peaceful religion that the liars and apologists like to claim it is. Jafar: Proving my signature line with every post.

Sure, Qatil is fight (not kill!) but in a debating fashion, not physical. If it was Qital, it would mean physical fighting (Uqtulu instead of Qatilu).

Arabic is horribly complicated with all the conjugations that can greatly change the meanings of words when used in different sentences. In order to avoid wasting your time in these debates, you should study Arabic from Arabs. I'm lucky to have a native speaking Egyptian wife to help me out. :)

BTW, insults and accusations of lying have been ignored.

[stevecanuck]

Despite your opinions, Jizya guaranteed the rights of non Muslim citizens in a Muslim country and meant that they were not allowed to be conscripted into the army. The funds were also used to help the poor and those without the means to pay in the first place. It was not a subjugation and the poor didn't need to pay it at all.

All this is moot however since Jizya doesn't exist these days.


Sure, Qatil is fight (not kill!) but in a debating fashion, not physical. If it was Qital, it would mean physical fighting (Uqtulu instead of Qatilu).

Arabic is horribly complicated with all the conjugations that can greatly change the meanings of words when used in different sentences. In order to avoid wasting your time in these debates, you should study Arabic from Arabs. I'm lucky to have a native speaking Egyptian wife to help me out. :)

BTW, insults and accusations of lying have been ignored. Wow! You have reached new heights. Qatl means kill. Period. To say that 9:29 calls for Muslims to go out and DEBATE with infidels is such a whopper that it probably comes with fries and a drink. Here's the deal folks, if any of you were giving Jafar the benefit of the doubt regarding his different take on the Qur'an, this thread should dispel that notion. To deny the meaning of qatl as he has done is proof positive that his only purpose here is to lie to us. Gaby, seriously girl, do you buy any of his BS? I'd love to play nice with you and explain anything you want to know about Islam that lies within my knowledge. Jafar, if qatil and qital are different words, please provide the different spellings for me in Arabic (this should be good for a laugh).

[jafar00]

Wow! You have reached new heights. Qatl means kill.

So says you. The native Arabic speaker who is my wife says differently. Even Google translate says "fight".

If Matthew 10:34's sword can be words, so can 9:29's Qatilu.

[red states rule]

So says you. The native Arabic speaker who is my wife says differently. Even Google translate says "fight".

If Matthew 10:34's sword can be words, so can 9:29's Qatilu.

Jafar you remind me of the folks In Germany after WWII. After the death camps were made public (something you deny ever existed BTW) everyone the Allies spoke too knew nothing


Nobody they talked to was a Nazi

Nobody they talked to knew what was going on

Nobody they talked to knew a another Nazi

When they talked to members of the Germany military nobody knew who killed the inmates of the camps

Oh somebody did but it was not them. One somebody gave the order but it was not them

Or the classic excuse they were just following orders

The same with you. Despite the words from the Quran and how the terrorists kill in the name of Allah you continue to lie and deny the truth just as the Germans did

All the while you defend and condone the acts of terror and the murders just as the Germans did

[stevecanuck]

So says you. The native Arabic speaker who is my wife says differently. Even Google translate says "fight".

If Matthew 10:34's sword can be words, so can 9:29's Qatilu.

If your wife says قتل (qatl) doesn't mean kill, she's lying to you. Cut and paste that into any translation site you like and tell me what you get.

[jafar00]

If your wife says قتل (qatl) doesn't mean kill, she's lying to you. Cut and paste that into any translation site you like and tell me what you get.

Who uses the root in a sentence ever? Qaatiloo (قَاتِلُوا) as used in 9:29 does not mean kill.

I'll let this guy explain flighting for you anyway as he does a good job of it.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSoKyKJ8hTg

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Who uses the root in a sentence ever? Qaatiloo (قَاتِلُوا) as used in 9:29 does not mean kill.

I'll let this guy explain flighting for you anyway as he does a good job of it.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSoKyKJ8hTg Jafar , will you kindly send emails to all the thousands of muslims that are engaged in acts of murder around the globe daily and point out their error!?? So many confused murderers and such a big world..... Those that are murdered daily suffer the same results no matter if the murderers are right or wrong according to Koranic law.. They are just as dead either way.... --Tyr

[stevecanuck]

Jafar, you say you're not a native speaker of Arabic, which you just proved. Could you please tell me your heritage so I know to whom I am speaking? Were you born Muslim, or are you a convert? When I have time later today I'll post the 3-letter-root rules for you.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Jafar, you say you're not a native speaker of Arabic, which you just proved. Could you please tell me your heritage so I know to whom I am speaking? Were you born Muslim, or are you a convert? When I have time later today I'll post the 3-letter-root rules for you. I remember a post made here by Jafar in which he explained he was not a Muslim by birth but a convert later in his life. If I have erred he will correct it. -Tyr

[stevecanuck]

Very busy right now, then travelling across Canada for 4 days, so I probably won't get around to posting as I promised for at least a week, but I WILL get it done. Maybe tomorrow if I can break free for a bit.

[stevecanuck]

I've been thinking about it, and it's occurred to me that the proof is a simple matter of verb conjugation. Verse 9:111 uses the verb qatl 3 times, and leaves no doubt that qatl means "kill", and that when it's translated as "fight" it means "fight to kill" as in a war. The context could not be more clear. I've underlined the 3 conjugations of qatl in the Arabic, and the 3 translations of it in English(source - http://www.islaam.net which is clearly a Muslim site, not a "hate" site): They fight in the Way of Allah, slay, and are slain. قَاتِلُونَ فِي سَبِيلِ اللّهِ فَيَقْتُلُونَ وَيُقْتَلُونَ

[jafar00]

I've been thinking about it, and it's occurred to me that the proof is a simple matter of verb conjugation. Verse 9:111 uses the verb qatl 3 times, and leaves no doubt that qatl means "kill", and that when it's translated as "fight" it means "fight to kill" as in a war. The context could not be more clear. I've underlined the 3 conjugations of qatl in the Arabic, and the 3 translations of it in English(source - http://www.islaam.net which is clearly a Muslim site, not a "hate" site): They fight in the Way of Allah, slay, and are slain. قَاتِلُونَ فِي سَبِيلِ اللّهِ فَيَقْتُلُونَ وَيُقْتَلُونَ

You missed a bit.

يُقَاتِلُونَ فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ
Yuqaatiloona fee sabeeli Allahi - They fight in the way of Allah (within the strict limits mentioned elsewhere in the QUr'aan)
فَيَقْتُلُونَ وَيُقْتَلُونَ
Fayaqtuloona wa yuqtaloona - and slay and are slain

You are right. In that context it is one of fight|slay|are slain.

I've been saying all along. Context is everything. The same verb can also mean to alleviate, to mix, or to become a master of something depending on the context.

Arabic is really quite complex :)

[stevecanuck]

You missed a bit.
يُقَاتِلُونَ فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ
Yuqaatiloona fee sabeeli Allahi - They fight in the way of Allah (within the strict limits mentioned elsewhere in the QUr'aan)
فَيَقْتُلُونَ وَيُقْتَلُونَ
Fayaqtuloona wa yuqtaloona - and slay and are slain

You are right. In that context it is one of fight|slay|are slain.

I've been saying all along. Context is everything. The same verb can also mean to alleviate, to mix, or to become a master of something depending on the context.

Arabic is really quite complex :) No, I did not miss a bit. You added nothing that I didn't already include. As for the "strict limits" mentioned elsewhere in the Qur'an, did you mean verse 8:12, "I shall cast terror into the hearts of the unbelievers. Strike them above the necks, smite their finger tips." Then you mentioned other meanings depending on context, but you didn't give any examples. That's because you can't, and you know it.
<!-- RESULT ITEM END --> <!-- RESULT ITEM START -->

[stevecanuck]

Verse 2:191 is even better. It uses qatl as fight/kill 5 times: Kill them wherever you find them. Drive them out of the places from which they drove you. Dissension is greater than killing. But do not fight them by the Holy Mosque unless they attack you there; if they fight you, kill them. Like this is the recompense of the unbelievers, ( وَاقْتُلُوهُمْ حَيْثُ ثَقِفْتُمُوهُمْ وَأَخْرِجُوهُم مِّنْ حَيْثُ أَخْرَجُوكُمْ وَالْفِتْنَةُ أَشَدُّ مِنَ الْقَتْلِ وَلاَ تُقَاتِلُوهُمْ عِندَ الْمَسْجِدِ الْحَرَامِ حَتَّى يُقَاتِلُوكُمْ فِيهِ فَإِن قَاتَلُوكُمْ فَاقْتُلُوهُمْ كَذَلِكَ جَزَاء الْكَافِرِينَ ). Jafar, Can you show me just one verse in which qatl is not used to mean physical violence?

[jafar00]

Verse 2:191 is even better. It uses qatl as fight/kill 5 times: Kill them wherever you find them. Drive them out of the places from which they drove you. Dissension is greater than killing. But do not fight them by the Holy Mosque unless they attack you there; if they fight you, kill them. Like this is the recompense of the unbelievers, ( وَاقْتُلُوهُمْ حَيْثُ ثَقِفْتُمُوهُمْ وَأَخْرِجُوهُم مِّنْ حَيْثُ أَخْرَجُوكُمْ وَالْفِتْنَةُ أَشَدُّ مِنَ الْقَتْلِ وَلاَ تُقَاتِلُوهُمْ عِندَ الْمَسْجِدِ الْحَرَامِ حَتَّى يُقَاتِلُوكُمْ فِيهِ فَإِن قَاتَلُوكُمْ فَاقْتُلُوهُمْ كَذَلِكَ جَزَاء الْكَافِرِينَ ). Jafar, Can you show me just one verse in which qatl is not used to mean physical violence?

What about it? You do know the history behind this verse right? Context is everything.

[stevecanuck]

What about it? You do know the history behind this verse right? Context is everything. What about it? How about it shows your claim that qatl means "debate" is just another in the long list of your big fat lies.

[jafar00]

What about it? How about it shows your claim that qatl means "debate" is just another in the long list of your big fat lies.

Here is an example.

قتل الخمرة means to mix the wine (with water)

قتل الجوع أو البرد


means to lessen (mitigate) hunger.

Even by itself
قتله

means (in the right context) to humiliate or

أذله



Check here for more examples. It is an arabic Dictionary.



http://www.almaany.com/home.php?language=arabic&lang_name=%D8%B9%D8%B1%D8%A8%D9%8A&word=%D9%82%D8%AA%D9%84

Thanks again to my wife who has a degree as an Arabic translator. :)

Edit: Sorry I couldn't get the justification to work properly :/

[stevecanuck]

Here is an example.

قتل الخمرة means to mix the wine (with water)

قتل الجوع أو البرد


means to lessen (mitigate) hunger.

Even by itself
قتله

means (in the right context) to humiliate or

أذله



Check here for more examples. It is an arabic Dictionary.



http://www.almaany.com/home.php?language=arabic&lang_name=%D8%B9%D8%B1%D8%A8%D9%8A&word=%D9%82%D8%AA%D9%84

Thanks again to my wife who has a degree as an Arabic translator. :)

Edit: Sorry I couldn't get the justification to work properly :/So what? The Qur'an isn't talking about mixing anything, it's talking about fighting infidels, and in that context it means fight as in war. The fact that your wife isn't providing any proof otherwise speaks volumes. Islam teaches muslims to fight infidels. Period.

[stevecanuck]

This is worth an extra dig at Jafar. Mr. "context is everything" just gave us examples of how to use "qatl" in contexts that have absolutely nothing to do with it's usage in the Qur'an. This guy is so desperate to fool us (or maybe he's actually fooling himself - I consider that a real possibility) that he'll cling to any straw that floats by. I've already told him the reason he's so easy to debate is because I have the simple truth on my side. No desperation necessary here, just facts.

[jafar00]

So what? The Qur'an isn't talking about mixing anything, it's talking about fighting infidels, and in that context it means fight as in war. The fact that your wife isn't providing any proof otherwise speaks volumes. Islam teaches muslims to fight infidels. Period.

No. The Qur'aan teaches us to defend ourselves against our attackers. Some of the verses talking about fighting are historical, but include warnings to do so within limits. I never claimed anything else about those verses.


This is worth an extra dig at Jafar. Mr. "context is everything" just gave us examples of how to use "qatl" in contexts that have absolutely nothing to do with it's usage in the Qur'an. This guy is so desperate to fool us (or maybe he's actually fooling himself - I consider that a real possibility) that he'll cling to any straw that floats by. I've already told him the reason he's so easy to debate is because I have the simple truth on my side. No desperation necessary here, just facts.

Context IS everything. Both literary and historical. You are just clutching at straws.

[stevecanuck]

No. The Qur'aan teaches us to defend ourselves against our attackers.Then please tell us why the first Muslims made war against those who had never attacked them. Start with Mohamed. During his 12 years of preaching Islam in Mecca, neither he nor any other Muslim was physically harmed by the Meccans. The reason he left for Medina was because his ministry had completely stalled in Mecca. He wasn't chased out of town, he was ignored out of town. His followers in Medina were recruiting more converts than he was in Mecca, so he simply relocated to more fertile grounds. As proof, within a year he had amassed enough of a following to initiate a war against Mecca. He began raiding Meccan caravans and killing their merchants minus any self defense imperative. Then there's the question of the Islamic empire created within 100 years of his death. Their first victims were the Byzantines and Persians, who had been fighting against each other for 5 decades over control of the Fertile Crescent. Neither empire had so much as set one foot on Muslim territory. Exposing your lies is child's play.

[aboutime]

Then please tell us why the first Muslims made war against those who had never attacked them. Start with Mohamed. During his 12 years of preaching Islam in Mecca, neither he nor any other Muslim was physically harmed by the Meccans. The reason he left for Medina was because his ministry had completely stalled in Mecca. He wasn't chased out of town, he was ignored out of town. His followers in Medina were recruiting more converts than he was in Mecca, so he simply relocated to more fertile grounds. As proof, within a year he had amassed enough of a following to initiate a war against Mecca. He began raiding Meccan caravans and killing their merchants minus any self defense imperative. Then there's the question of the Islamic empire created within 100 years of his death. Their first victims were the Byzantines and Persians, who had been fighting against each other for 5 decades over control of the Fertile Crescent. Neither empire had so much as set one foot on Muslim territory. Exposing your lies is child's play.



steve, If what jafar says is true, and accurate. Wouldn't that mean they are making war against themselves as Muslim's.

And, if all of that is factual, and true. How long do we need to wait until they completely destroy themselves worldwide, and make a more PEACEFUL world????

Which also would mean "OPEN ALLAH SNACKBAR" for celebrations.

[stevecanuck]

Then please tell us why the first Muslims made war against those who had never attacked them. Start with Mohamed. During his 12 years of preaching Islam in Mecca, neither he nor any other Muslim was physically harmed by the Meccans. The reason he left for Medina was because his ministry had completely stalled in Mecca. He wasn't chased out of town, he was ignored out of town. His followers in Medina were recruiting more converts than he was in Mecca, so he simply relocated to more fertile grounds. As proof, within a year he had amassed enough of a following to initiate a war against Mecca. He began raiding Meccan caravans and killing their merchants minus any self defense imperative. Then there's the question of the Islamic empire created within 100 years of his death. Their first victims were the Byzantines and Persians, who had been fighting against each other for 5 decades over control of the Fertile Crescent. Neither empire had so much as set one foot on Muslim territory. Exposing your lies is child's play.

Bump for Jafar.

[jafar00]

Then please tell us why the first Muslims made war against those who had never attacked them. Start with Mohamed. During his 12 years of preaching Islam in Mecca, neither he nor any other Muslim was physically harmed by the Meccans. The reason he left for Medina was because his ministry had completely stalled in Mecca. He wasn't chased out of town, he was ignored out of town. His followers in Medina were recruiting more converts than he was in Mecca, so he simply relocated to more fertile grounds. As proof, within a year he had amassed enough of a following to initiate a war against Mecca. He began raiding Meccan caravans and killing their merchants minus any self defense imperative. Then there's the question of the Islamic empire created within 100 years of his death. Their first victims were the Byzantines and Persians, who had been fighting against each other for 5 decades over control of the Fertile Crescent. Neither empire had so much as set one foot on Muslim territory. Exposing your lies is child's play.

Where did you get your historical info from? The Blaze?

[stevecanuck]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by stevecanuck http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=675640#post675640) Then please tell us why the first Muslims made war against those who had never attacked them. Start with Mohamed. During his 12 years of preaching Islam in Mecca, neither he nor any other Muslim was physically harmed by the Meccans. The reason he left for Medina was because his ministry had completely stalled in Mecca. He wasn't chased out of town, he was ignored out of town. His followers in Medina were recruiting more converts than he was in Mecca, so he simply relocated to more fertile grounds. As proof, within a year he had amassed enough of a following to initiate a war against Mecca. He began raiding Meccan caravans and killing their merchants minus any self defense imperative. Then there's the question of the Islamic empire created within 100 years of his death. Their first victims were the Byzantines and Persians, who had been fighting against each other for 5 decades over control of the Fertile Crescent. Neither empire had so much as set one foot on Muslim territory. Exposing your lies is child's play. Where did you get your historical info from? The Blaze? Ok, now you're just embarrassing yourself. Let's try to resolve just one of my points by explaining to us exactly why the Muslims attacked the Byzantines and Persians.

[stevecanuck]

How's the history lesson coming along Jafar? Still waiting for you to set us straight.

[stevecanuck]

It looks like Jafar has retreated to his cave.

Here's a quick update:

1. Jafar claimed Muslims only fight in self defense.
2. I provided the undeniable historical record of Islamic conquests against nations who had never attacked the Muslims, primarily the Byzantines and Persians.
3. Jafar issued a vague, gratuitous denial.
4. I challenged Jafar to detail how, if I am wrong, the war against the Byzantines and Persians was a war of self defense.
5. Jafar has gone silent.

He did this before in other threads, and he's doing it again. Is there anyone out there who likes to take his side who is beginning to get a glimmer that just maybe he is being less then honest in his dealings here? Gabby? Arbo? A smidgen of intellectual honesty would be such a welcome change.

[aboutime]

It looks like Jafar has retreated to his cave.

Here's a quick update:

1. Jafar claimed Muslims only fight in self defense.
2. I provided the undeniable historical record of Islamic conquests against nations who had never attacked the Muslims, primarily the Byzantines and Persians.
3. Jafar issued a vague, gratuitous denial.
4. I challenged Jafar to detail how, if I am wrong, the war against the Byzantines and Persians was a war of self defense.
5. Jafar has gone silent.

He did this before in other threads, and he's doing it again. Is there anyone out there who likes to take his side who is beginning to get a glimmer that just maybe he is being less then honest in his dealings here? Gabby? Arbo? A smidgen of intellectual honesty would be such a welcome change.



Steve. By now. Most of us who do not take sides with jafar know...he's simply not worth it.

Like Obama. Once someone has been proven to be a liar. There's no further reason to argue, or find any reasons to continue any civil dialogue.
Ain't Worth It.

[Larrymc]

Once again we see the love, kindness, and tolerance of the religion of peace



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hr0evIUlykYWell surprise, they took it down.

[Fennec]

These posts about the Quran preaching hate and murder are a bit out of context. I am not a Muslim or Christian scholar so I am not going to attempt to translate what the holly words mean. It is a fact that both holly books were written during dark times, and both books contain stories that would make most of us un-comfortable. Open you bibles to "Psalm 137" if you don't believe me. Judging about a quarter of the world's population by saying "all Muslims are..." is completely ignorant!

[stevecanuck]

These posts about the Quran preaching hate and murder are a bit out of context. I am not a Muslim or Christian scholar so I am not going to attempt to translate what the holly words mean. It is a fact that both holly books were written during dark times, and both books contain stories that would make most of us un-comfortable. Open you bibles to "Psalm 137" if you don't believe me. Judging about a quarter of the world's population by saying "all Muslims are..." is completely ignorant!

Hello and welcome to the forum. You have taken a leap of logic. Discussing what Islam teaches versus the degree to which individual Muslims adhere to those teachings are completely different topics.

Since you haven't read the qur'an, you probably need a short primer. When mohamed was about 40 and living in Mecca he began preaching that the angel Gabriel had visited him with a direct message from god. This was to continue until his death 22 years later. In that time he "received" what we know today as the qur'an. Therefore it is not a story book like the bible is, but a verbatim sermon from god. It is nothing like the bible in either format, means of compilation, or, most importantly, tone and message. It is designed to create an "us vs. them" mindset as it denegrates non-muslims relentlessly from cover to cover. That's why those who hate us do so at the direct urging of god. Verse 2:98 says, "God is the enemy of infidels". That's what they're taught, and that's what I'm pointing out.

Remember, the first muslims tried the conquer the known world. Why do suppose that is if not as a result of obeying their god.

[aboutime]

These posts about the Quran preaching hate and murder are a bit out of context. I am not a Muslim or Christian scholar so I am not going to attempt to translate what the holly words mean. It is a fact that both holly books were written during dark times, and both books contain stories that would make most of us un-comfortable. Open you bibles to "Psalm 137" if you don't believe me. Judging about a quarter of the world's population by saying "all Muslims are..." is completely ignorant!


Welcome to the forum Fennec. But, I do have one, important question for you based on your assertions above. How much OUT OF CONTEXT was the attack on the United States on September 11th, 2001? Namely. Maybe you should explain the Context of the known Hijackers of those planes as being Muslim, and being heard to speak the words "ALLAH AKBAR" prior to the silence from the planes.?????

[jafar00]

Hello and welcome to the forum. You have taken a leap of logic. Discussing what Islam teaches versus the degree to which individual Muslims adhere to those teachings are completely different topics.

Since you haven't read the qur'an, you probably need a short primer. When mohamed was about 40 and living in Mecca he began preaching that the angel Gabriel had visited him with a direct message from god. This was to continue until his death 22 years later. In that time he "received" what we know today as the qur'an. Therefore it is not a story book like the bible is, but a verbatim sermon from god. It is nothing like the bible in either format, means of compilation, or, most importantly, tone and message. It is designed to create an "us vs. them" mindset as it denegrates non-muslims relentlessly from cover to cover. That's why those who hate us do so at the direct urging of god. Verse 2:98 says, "God is the enemy of infidels". That's what they're taught, and that's what I'm pointing out.

Remember, the first muslims tried the conquer the known world. Why do suppose that is if not as a result of obeying their god.

Then along came people like you who tried to rewrite history to fit their agenda and fit their agenda. Your use of 2:98 here for example, which in the context of the verse is about a particular group of Jews that became idolaters when they worshipped the calf.

It is a warning about idolatry.

[stevecanuck]

Then along came people like you who tried to rewrite history to fit their agenda and fit their agenda. Your use of 2:98 here for example, which in the context of the verse is about a particular group of Jews that became idolaters when they worshipped the calf.

It is a warning about idolatry.

Every single verse of the qur'an has "context". How could it not? The way it works is that god gives an example of those who disobey him, as in 2:98, then makes a proclamation that he is against such behavior/thought and is the enemy of those who practice such. He uses it as an example of that which is unacceptable to him, such as not believing the qur'an is from him and is his final word. He does not love, and is in fact the enemy of such people (ie: infidels). You happen to agree with me, but you try to word it to appear as though you don't. Conclusions such as "god is the enemy of infidels" are blanket statements. They are brought up by way of example, but they're still simply blanket statements.


Now, you have yet to tell us why mohamed's army attacked the Byzantines and Persians if not as an act of aggression. Don't think I'm going to let this slide.

[jafar00]

Every single verse of the qur'an has "context". How could it not? The way it works is that god gives an example of those who disobey him, as in 2:98, then makes a proclamation that he is against such behavior/thought and is the enemy of those who practice such. He uses it as an example of that which is unacceptable to him, such as not believing the qur'an is from him and is his final word. He does not love, and is in fact the enemy of such people (ie: infidels). You happen to agree with me, but you try to word it to appear as though you don't. Conclusions such as "god is the enemy of infidels" are blanket statements. They are brought up by way of example, but they're still simply blanket statements.

Yes, God hates the infidels. Is it any surprise to you?

The Bible is full of such stories too.

Little gems like Hosea 13:16 for example?


The people of Samaria must bear their guilt,
because they have rebelled against their God.
They will fall by the sword;
their little ones will be dashed to the ground,
their pregnant women ripped open.


Now, you have yet to tell us why mohamed's army attacked the Byzantines and Persians if not as an act of aggression. Don't think I'm going to let this slide.

Summarising from memory here. The Byzantines were invited to Islam. Their generals converted and the rest started a fight because they refused to pay jizya.

Likewise the Persian's response to being invited to Islam was to start a fight.

This is why we fight. While it is forbidden to start a fight in Islam, it is permitted to finish one.

2:190 for example which is a hard and fast rule.

Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors.

[red states rule]

Then along came people like you who tried to rewrite history to fit their agenda and fit their agenda. .

You mean like you try when you deny the existence of the Nazi concentration camps?

[red states rule]

Yes, God hates the infidels. Is it any surprise to you?

The Bible is full of such stories too.

Little gems like Hosea 13:16 for example?





Summarising from memory here. The Byzantines were invited to Islam. Their generals converted and the rest started a fight because they refused to pay jizya.

Likewise the Persian's response to being invited to Islam was to start a fight.

This is why we fight. While it is forbidden to start a fight in Islam, it is permitted to finish one.

2:190 for example which is a hard and fast rule.

Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors.

Again Jafar please cite ONE example of Christians being whipped, beheaded, or stoned to death for not converting to Christianity or trying switching to another religion

Seems Islam is like the Mafia. Once you are in- you are in for life (or else)

[jafar00]

Again Jafar please cite ONE example of Christians being whipped, beheaded, or stoned to death for not converting to Christianity or trying switching to another religion

Seems Islam is like the Mafia. Once you are in- you are in for life (or else)

Copts in Egypt are routinely abducted and kept hostage in Churches if they dare convert to Islam. Don't change the subject.

[red states rule]

Copts in Egypt are routinely abducted and kept hostage in Churches if they dare convert to Islam. Don't change the subject.

Link?

I am not changing the subject. I am pointing out what happens when one does not obey, conform, and bow down to those tolerant followers of the religion of peace

Speaking of bowing down


<TBODY>
Picture of the Week


http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index_files/syrian-islamists-execute.jpg
Radical Islamists in Syria praise their god as they
prepare to execute moderate Islamists in cold blood.
Devotion to Allah is often measured in bloo

</TBODY>


http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

[Drummond]

Welcome to the forum Fennec. But, I do have one, important question for you based on your assertions above. How much OUT OF CONTEXT was the attack on the United States on September 11th, 2001? Namely. Maybe you should explain the Context of the known Hijackers of those planes as being Muslim, and being heard to speak the words "ALLAH AKBAR" prior to the silence from the planes.?????:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

[red states rule]

http://static.fjcdn.com/pictures/allah+hu+akbar_cf33a0_3270502.jpg

[stevecanuck]

Yes, God hates the infidels. Is it any surprise to you?

The Bible is full of such stories too.

Little gems like Hosea 13:16 for example?





Summarising from memory here. The Byzantines were invited to Islam. Their generals converted and the rest started a fight because they refused to pay jizya.

Likewise the Persian's response to being invited to Islam was to start a fight.

This is why we fight. While it is forbidden to start a fight in Islam, it is permitted to finish one.

2:190 for example which is a hard and fast rule.

Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors.

How much kool-aid can one person drink? Being "invited to Islam" is just a euphemism for "convert or die". The Muslim army had to travel for many days across scorching desert to issue that "invitation". the Byzantines and Persians chose to fight the invaders rather than submit to them. You said it yourself, they refused to pay the jizyah and become second-class citizens. You're simply agreeing with what I'm saying, but trying to make it sound reasonable and perfectly acceptable. Un-frigging-believable.

[stevecanuck]

How much kool-aid can one person drink? Being "invited to Islam" is just a euphemism for "convert or die". The Muslim army had to travel for many days across scorching desert to issue that "invitation". the Byzantines and Persians chose to fight the invaders rather than submit to them. You said it yourself, they refused to pay the jizyah and become second-class citizens. You're simply agreeing with what I'm saying, but trying to make it sound reasonable and perfectly acceptable. Un-frigging-believable.

Ok, Jafar, let's play your silly game. Tell us what would have happened had the Byzantines and Persians simply refused to accept Islam, but without any fighting. Would the Muslim leader have said, "Right, lads, they've said, 'No thank you', so mount your camels and let's head home"?

[jafar00]

Ok, Jafar, let's play your silly game. Tell us what would have happened had the Byzantines and Persians simply refused to accept Islam, but without any fighting. Would the Muslim leader have said, "Right, lads, they've said, 'No thank you', so mount your camels and let's head home"?

Pretty much, but that's not what happened is it?

[stevecanuck]

Pretty much, but that's not what happened is it?

Ok, I think we're done here. This magnitude of lie is just too big to deal with. It truly is pointless talking to this guy.

[red states rule]

Pretty much, but that's not what happened is it?

Jafar your lies never change but you really should learn how to lie beter

[jafar00]

I have my history, and you have your (recently revised to support an agenda) history. I cant help it if you are blind to truth.

[stevecanuck]

If ever there were a thread that proves Jafar is only here to lie and obfuscate, this is it. How can his claim that the 7th century Muslim invading army would have turned around and gone home if politely asked to do so be greeted with any reaction other than gape-mouthed incredulity?

Then there were a couple of threads in which I supported my claims with direct quotes from hadiths, he said they weren't valid because they were single and unsupported, I supplied a couple more, and he simply ran away and never visited those threads again.

The only thing Jafar deserves is to be ignored.

[aboutime]

If ever there were a thread that proves Jafar is only here to lie and obfuscate, this is it. How can his claim that the 7th century Muslim invading army would have turned around and gone home if politely asked to do so be greeted with any reaction other than gape-mouthed incredulity?

Then there were a couple of threads in which I supported my claims with direct quotes from hadiths, he said they weren't valid because they were single and unsupported, I supplied a couple more, and he simply ran away and never visited those threads again.

The only thing Jafar deserves is to be ignored.


STEVE. Honestly speaking. And I have no need, nor desire to lie about this.

Whenever I see a thread, or post with jafar's name.

It becomes a welcome signal for me. In fact. It enables, and forces me to feel the welcome comfort of cleansing my intestines, and colon. Causing me to feel refreshed, and happy.
So...THANK YOU JAFAR.
Your words are DEEPLY appreciated.

[stevecanuck]

STEVE. Honestly speaking. And I have no need, nor desire to lie about this.

Whenever I see a thread, or post with jafar's name.

It becomes a welcome signal for me. In fact. It enables, and forces me to feel the welcome comfort of cleansing my intestines, and colon. Causing me to feel refreshed, and happy.
So...THANK YOU JAFAR.
Your words are DEEPLY appreciated.

A verbal enima? Sounds about right.

[aboutime]

A verbal enima? Sounds about right.


Thanks steve. I didn't want to go into too much detail, because the feeling is not like diarrhea (https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=diarrhea&spell=1&sa=X&ei=6STjUuL3JeGzyAGro4CQDA&ved=0CCcQvwUoAA&biw=1024&bih=621).

[Voted4Reagan]

Found a copy of it...





http://youtu.be/Hr0evIUlykY

[Voted4Reagan]

If ever there were a thread that proves Jafar is only here to lie and obfuscate, this is it. How can his claim that the 7th century Muslim invading army would have turned around and gone home if politely asked to do so be greeted with any reaction other than gape-mouthed incredulity?

Then there were a couple of threads in which I supported my claims with direct quotes from hadiths, he said they weren't valid because they were single and unsupported, I supplied a couple more, and he simply ran away and never visited those threads again.

The only thing Jafar deserves is to be ignored.

The Jackal runs away when the Lion approaches...

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

The Jackal runs away when the Lion approaches... Even snakes slither away when a man approaches.... Jackals and snakes are too words that aptly apply to the murdering cowardly thugs that are murdering for the glory of Allah.. -Tyr

[jlgray88]

I like many other on here am not a fan of Muslims....but as Christ said...... But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;.......very hard to do I'll be the first to admit that but I think we must

[aboutime]

I like many other on here am not a fan of Muslims....but as Christ said...... But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;.......very hard to do I'll be the first to admit that but I think we must



I would love to agree totally with you IF...."We could convince those who hate us, and advertise how they wish to destroy us...because they DO NOT BELIEVE as we do".

[bullypulpit]

It's just a statue. The Prophet Abraham did the same thing. It also follows the Bible's "Do not worship graven images". What's your problem?
RSR has a problem with anything which contradicts his narrow, blinkered view of reality. In other words he, like most of the knee-jerk, pseudo-conservatives who post here have but a distant and tenuous relationship with reason and fact.

[jimnyc]

RSR has a problem with anything which contradicts his narrow, blinkered view of reality. In other words he, like most of the knee-jerk, pseudo-conservatives who post here have but a distant and tenuous relationship with reason and fact.

Bully! First off, good to see you. Glad you're not dead! :)

You likely don't know most posting now, since you've been gone so long. And I haven't seen RSR in awhile. I don't think he likes me much more than you do! :(

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

RSR has a problem with anything which contradicts his narrow, blinkered view of reality. In other words he, like most of the knee-jerk, pseudo-conservatives who post here have but a distant and tenuous relationship with reason and fact. Really? Care to name a few of those pseudo-conservatives? -Tyr

[jimnyc]

Really? Care to name a few of those pseudo-conservatives? -Tyr

WTF is a pseudo conservative? Is 'ol Bully implying that we are fake? Maybe liberals in the waiting? :dunno:

[jimnyc]

I'm SHOCKED that Bully didn't come here to complain about Obama and his executive orders. He nearly committed Seppuku over GWB doing so. I've been searching high and low for Bully and his complaints since 2008, none to be found.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

WTF is a pseudo conservative? Is 'ol Bully implying that we are fake? Maybe liberals in the waiting? :dunno: Methinks Bully ran down a wrong path at some point in his?/her? life and now seeks to justify his/her previous error by condemning those that stand on moral principles . That is a first guess because I have so limited info on this member. -Tyr

[jimnyc]

Methinks Bully ran down a wrong path at some point in his?/her? life and now seeks to justify his/her previous error by condemning those that stand on moral principles . That is a first guess because I have so limited info on this member. -Tyr

Outside of politics he is a good man. He's a nurse, or higher, and helps a lot of people in need. He's been there for people in their last days, and if what he tells is is all true, I have an immense amount of respect for him as a result.

But he's still a liberal egghead outside of that! :)

[jimnyc]

Methinks Bully ran down a wrong path at some point in his?/her? life and now seeks to justify his/her previous error by condemning those that stand on moral principles . That is a first guess because I have so limited info on this member. -Tyr

Also, as an Fyi, he's been around also since the fairly early days of me owning USMB. After it sold in 2007, he eventually found his way over here, but was never a long time poster after that. He's quite intelligent, and a nurse as I stated. He can troll like the rest of us, but also contribute an awful lot of he puts his brain into it. I wouldn't mind having him around more often, to hear what he has to say, and to then beat him up a little. :laugh:

[Drummond]

RSR has a problem with anything which contradicts his narrow, blinkered view of reality. In other words he, like most of the knee-jerk, pseudo-conservatives who post here have but a distant and tenuous relationship with reason and fact.

Hello, 'Bully'. Welcome back here.

I am someone else curious to know the identities of the 'pseudo-conservatives' you suggest post here.

While you're sorting out what I must presume will be a list of them, I thought you might be interested in one particular thread which some real Conservatives have both created and contributed to, for a substantial time.

This link will take you to one recent post within it. I hope you 'enjoy' its contents, to say nothing of all 47 pages of it !!!

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?37131-Most-recent-muslim-terrorist-attacks&p=683087#post683087

Check it out, by all means ... and see the accounts of the horrors meted out by the adherents to the religion they all agree they're a part of !!!

If you can challenge the accuracy of any post you see, good luck in the attempt. But I'm sure that you find the evidence of sheer barbarism to be overwhelming.

[aboutime]

Outside of politics he is a good man. He's a nurse, or higher, and helps a lot of people in need. He's been there for people in their last days, and if what he tells is is all true, I have an immense amount of respect for him as a result.

But he's still a liberal egghead outside of that! :)


Jim. I suspect, you are aware of how Chicago's Al Capone ALSO helped a lot of people in need as well???:laugh:

I suspect we will all learn, fairly soon about remembering an old expression..."You can't judge a book by it's cover".

At least...that's what I intend to do...suspecting I would be one of those "pseudo-conservatives " bully referred to earlier.