Real World Event Discussions

The High Price of Telling the Truth About Islam

POSTED BY: AURaptor
UPDATED: Monday, February 6, 2017 02:51
VIEWED: 11703
PAGE 7 of 8

Tuesday, July 3, 2012 5:49 AM

Good points Magon's, if someone wants to build a new mosque in my city I wouldn't be complaining or protesting it, its their right to worship as they see fit.

I have Kathy Bates on speed dial, mwa ha ha ha (in exaggeratedly evil voice)

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya.

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Tuesday, July 3, 2012 8:20 PM


Don't look now, but the " religion of peace " is at it again.

Quote:


Posted: Today 2:19 PM
Timbuktu's ancient monuments pillaged by Islamists

An Islamic faction seized control of the city in the West African nation of Mali and is razing Sufi tombs and other cultural sites.

By RUKMINI CALLIMACHI

Beyond the tombs, the manuscripts are considered to be the real treasure of the region ... (July 3, 2012, by
DAKAR, Senegal — Muslim extremists continued destroying the heritage of the ancient Malian city of Timbuktu on Monday, razing tombs and attacking the gate of a 600-year-old mosque, despite growing international outcry.
The International Criminal Court has described the destruction of the city's patrimony as a possible war crime, while UNESCO's committee on world heritage was holding a special session this week to address the pillaging of the site, one of the few cultural sites in sub-Saharan Africa that is listed by the agency.

The Islamic faction, known as Ansar Dine, or "Protectors of the Faith," seized control of Timbuktu last week after ousting the Tuareg rebel faction that had invaded northern Mali alongside Ansar Dine's soldiers three months ago. Over the weekend, fighters screaming "Allah Akbar" descended on the cemeteries holding the remains of Timbuktu's Sufi saints, and systematically began destroying the six most famous tombs.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/travel/2018589317_webmali03.html



Perhaps they should refer to themselves as the Religion of PIECES, because that's what they'll turn all of mankind's relics into , if given half a chance.






" We're all just folk. " - Mal

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Tuesday, July 3, 2012 9:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:

That number might be well under what the firebombing of places like Dresden and Tokyo wrought, but it's also far higher than the civilian death toll "radical Muslims" have racked up in the U.S.



And there you have it, comparing apples to oranges.

We weren't TRYING to kill civilians, the Muslim terrorists were.



That should come as great comfort to the families of the dead.

Quote:


We didn't declare war on the 'non believers' of Christ. Religion had zero to do w/ our attacking of Iraq.



Prove it.

Quote:


Where do you think said Jihadists would set off a dirty bomb, given a choice, between a naval yard, where any random US warship may be docked, or in Times Square ?



So you DO agree that in wars past, the U.S. has behaved as terrorists, intentionally targeting known civilian populations (Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Tokyo, etc.) rather than concentrating solely on military installations!

Game, set, and match indeed - you've just proved once again the very point you've been so vehemently arguing against.

You really should stop shooting yourself in the foot. Or at least stop reloading.





"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero


"I've not watched the video either, or am incapable of intellectually dealing with the substance of this thread, so I'll instead act like a juvenile and claim victory..." - Rappy

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Tuesday, July 3, 2012 9:32 PM


The burden of proof is upon you to show we HAVE attacked Iraq or anywhere in the middle East in the name of Christ, not for others to validate YOUR delusion.

And, if anything, I buried YOUR notion that we're engaging in terrorism NOW, by contrasting it to what a Democratic President did, back in WW2. You know, the same guy who rounded up US citizens and put them in camps, simply because they were of Japanese ancestry ?

Game, set, match, tournament. Hand me the big ass gold plated platter now, and let me nod to the Queen.


" We're all just folk. " - Mal

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Tuesday, July 3, 2012 9:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by RionaEire:
Good points Magon's, if someone wants to build a new mosque in my city I wouldn't be complaining or protesting it, its their right to worship as they see fit.

I have Kathy Bates on speed dial, mwa ha ha ha (in exaggeratedly evil voice)

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya.



see above for rappy's post, how he desparages all of Islam because of the acts of some followers. Never mind, once again, that Islam makes up a fifth of the world's population, and spreads over many cultures in the world.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Tuesday, July 3, 2012 10:19 PM

You can't just lump them all together



Muslim children in South Africa, a minority people in that country.



Two political candidates in Australia



Flood victims queue for food in India



Huiger people, persecuted minority in China



Afghanistan women wearing Burkha



Benazir Bhutto, assasinated president of Pakistan



Uzbekistan woman



Tunisian man



Kenyan man



Malaysian social activist



Young Malaysian women

http://islam44.blogspot.com.au/2011/06/10-most-famous-muslim-football-
players.html

Muslim footballers



NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Tuesday, July 3, 2012 10:41 PM

Islam and banking.

Sharia laws require a much more ethical approach to banking than in the west. hey, what am I saying, the western banking system has no ethics!!!

From wiki

Islamic banking has the same purpose as conventional banking: to make money for the banking institute by lending out capital. Because Islam forbids simply lending out money at interest (see riba), Islamic rules on transactions (known as Fiqh al-Muamalat) have been created to avoid this problem. The basic technique to avoid the prohibition is the sharing of profit and loss, via terms such as profit sharing (Mudharabah), safekeeping (Wadiah), joint venture (Musharakah), cost plus (Murabahah), and leasing (Ijar).

In an Islamic mortgage transaction, instead of loaning the buyer money to purchase the item, a bank might buy the item itself from the seller, and re-sell it to the buyer at a profit, while allowing the buyer to pay the bank in installments. However, the bank's profit cannot be made explicit and therefore there are no additional penalties for late payment. In order to protect itself against default, the bank asks for strict collateral. The goods or land is registered to the name of the buyer from the start of the transaction. This arrangement is called Murabahah.

Divorce
An unhappy wife is complaining to the Qadi about her husband's impotence. Ottoman miniature, 18th century.

The laws governing divorce vary substantially between sects, schools, states and cultures. The following outline is general in nature.

A marriage can be terminated by the husband in the talaq process, or by the wife seeking divorce through khul'. Under faskh a marriage may be annulled or terminated by the qadi judge.

Men have the right of unilateral divorce under classical sharia. A Sunni Muslim divorce is effective when the man tells his wife that he is divorcing her, however a Shia divorce also requires four witnesses.[107] Upon divorce, the husband must pay the wife any delayed component of the dower. If a man divorces his wife in this manner three times, he may not re-marry her unless she first marries, and is subsequently divorced from, another man. Only then, and only if the divorce from the second husband is not intended as a means to re-marry her first husband, may the first husband and the woman re-marry.[Quran 2:230]

In practice, unilateral divorce is only common in a few areas of the Islamic world. It is much more common for divorces to be accomplished by mutual consent.[107]

If the wife asks for a divorce and the husband refuses, the wife has a right, under classical sharia, to divorce by khul'. Although this right is not recognized everywhere in Islam, it is becoming more common. In this scenario, the qadi judge will effect the divorce for the wife, and she may be required to return part, or all, of her dowry.[107]

Under faskh, a qadi judge can end or annul a marriage.[107] Apostasy, on the part of the husband or wife, ends a Muslim marriage in this way. Hardship or suffering on the part of the wife in a marriage may also be remedied in this way. This procedure is also used to annul a marriage in which one of the parties has a serious disability.[108]

Except in the case of a khul' divorce initiated by a woman, the divorced wife generally keeps her dowry from when she was married. A divorced woman is given child support until the age of weaning. The mother is usually granted custody of the child.[109] If the couple has divorced fewer than three times (meaning it is not a final divorce) the wife also receives spousal support for three menstrual cycles after the divorce, until it can be determined whether she is pregnant. Even in a threefold divorce, a pregnant wife will be supported during the waiting period, and the child will be supported afterwards.[110


Child custody

In a divorce, the child will stay with its mother until he or she is weaned,[111] or until the age of discernment, when the child may choose whom he or she lives with. The age of discernment is seven or eight years.[111]

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Wednesday, July 4, 2012 5:57 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:

The burden of proof is upon you to show we HAVE attacked Iraq or anywhere in the middle East in the name of Christ, not for others to validate YOUR delusion.



Wow. Just wow. So now, according to you, the burden of proof is on ME to prove something I didn't say, and NOT on you to back up what you DID say. Awesome.

RappyWorld™: Logic Need Not Apply.


As always, when you've got nothing at all, you throw out accusations, demand proof while refusing to provide ANY evidence at all to support your own ridiculous claims, and then run away.


Quote:


And, if anything, I buried YOUR notion that we're engaging in terrorism NOW, by contrasting it to what a Democratic President did, back in WW2. You know, the same guy who rounded up US citizens and put them in camps, simply because they were of Japanese ancestry ?



How, by showing how we're doing the same thing now, and how we round up U.S. citizens (or kill them) simply because they are Muslim? The only thing you "buried" was your head, in your own ass. I guess you like the taste of shit, you swallow so much of it!




"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero


"I've not watched the video either, or am incapable of intellectually dealing with the substance of this thread, so I'll instead act like a juvenile and claim victory..." - Rappy

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Wednesday, July 4, 2012 3:37 PM

I had to think of this thread when I read this:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-18703171

Quote:


Kenyan Muslim groups 'to protect churches'
4 July 2012

Muslim leaders in Kenya have agreed to form self-defence groups to protect churches following a deadly attack on Sunday.

Fifteen people were killed in the raids on churches in Garissa, a town near the border with Somalia.

Kenya's border region has been tense since it sent troops into Somalia to pursue al-Shabab Islamist militants.

Adan Wachu, head of the Supreme Council of Kenyan Muslims, told the BBC the attacks were acts of terrorism.

(...)


Mr Wachu said that at a meeting the Inter-Religious Council of Kenya on Tuesday it was unanimously agreed the church attacks were acts of "terrorists and terrorism".

"Therefore we all resolved to stand together as one united front," he said.

"We decided as solidarity that the Muslim youth will provide a vigilante service to the churches not only in Garissa but in any other places that the Christians may deem fit."


He said that it was now up to the Muslim leaders in Garissa to organise out how the estimated 30 churches in the town would be protected.

"Muslims felt that because those Christians are a minority in their domain they must be protected at all cost."

Most of the people living in and around Garissa are ethnic Somalis and Muslims.






I wonder what is wrong with these muslims. Surely they need to be reminded that their primary focus is hating the infidel?

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Wednesday, July 4, 2012 4:02 PM

Quote:

One side's military tactic is another ones terrorist act. If you have the military technology and might, you employ similar tactics as the US does in armed conflict, if you do not, you might use guerrilla or terror tactics. That also happened in WW2 and we call them resistence fighters.
There it is in a nutshell.

As to Raptor and Muslims, I think he should go work for Allen West. Never was there such a Islamophobe more in keeping with his mentality, and neither of them will ever be able to see reality. Bear in mind, again, that the insane never think THEY'RE insane.

Raptor will always, always look for anything he can find to put up and sneer "THAT for your religion of peace", despite knowing no actual truths about Islam or anything ELSE. It's his own private paranoia, I say leave him to it, it keeps him happy. RWA's are only content when there are conspiracies and things to fear that they can focus on. Why bother trying to show them reality?

Just for the amusement of others, however, yeah, Bush thought of it partly as a religious war on Islam, it kinda snuk out in his choice of wording:


Quote:

First he called it a "Crusade" on 9/16/2001, a word that brings to mind the early Christian Crusades where Christian's waged war on Muslim's and other "heretics" to convert them to Christianity. Despite the "faux pas", he's been describing his wars in Religious terms ever since (suggesting it was no mistake).

Speaking before the conservative Heritage Foundation (the only place left on Earth that still thinks Bush is doing a great job) on Nov 1st, 2007, President Bush again refers to his "War on Terror" in religious terms. Naturally, Muslims can't help but interpret this as a "holy war on Islam".



NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME