Anyone need a fatwa?

http://the-gathering-storm.blogspot.com/2007/11/fatwa-for-you.html

Posted by: Elric66 at November 5, 2007 10:10 AM

National Socialism promoted similar social views.

It seems strange to us kuffar that these seemingly otherwise assimilated people have redefined the very meaning of humanity, stripping it universal application and inherent value, just to justify the incomprehensibly irrational, far from self-evident "Truths" of Islam.

Posted by: John C at November 5, 2007 10:14 AM

National Socialism promoted similar social views.

It seems strange to us kuffar that these seemingly otherwise assimilated people have redefined the very meaning of humanity, stripping it of universal application and inherent value, just to justify the incomprehensibly irrational, far from self-evident "Truths" of Islam.

Posted by: John C at November 5, 2007 10:15 AM

The Islam concept of "Walaa wal Baraa" -- Hatred and Love -- must be clearly grasped. The Hatred is for the Infidels, for the Unbelievers, all those who reject Islam, and the Love is for the Fellow Believers only, the members of the Umma, to whom, and to Islam, sole loyalty must be owed by the good Muslim.

Many Muslim websites discuss this, and it goes hard with the occasional Muslim who suggests, for example, that sometimes the Kuffar (the Unbelievers) are not always to be regarded with such hatred, or fooled with outward smiles, and inward contempt.

Here's one bit taken recently from such an English-language site for Muslims:

• Walaa wal Baraa
October 26th, 2007 at 4:22 pm
Aaisyah was right! Even if we don’t know all of Allah’s will, we know what He has told us. What do you think walaa wal baraa is? Something made up? A mistake of Ibrahim (alayhi salam)?

Bunch of coffee shop Muslims you all are. And yes, maybe Indonesia was hit because of the hijabs not being worn, among other sins. An Indonesian himself told me that’s why it was hit. Gulf Coast African told us that New Orleans was hit because of its corruption, so was Mississippi. Turks themselves Turkey was hit because they were so sinful. This is a pattern, so why are you all closing your eyes to it?

The Islam of many of you is a joke, even if Allah decides mine was a joke on Judgment Day, that’s why I didn’t greet you all with “salam alaykum”. You’re not careful to avoid negating your shahada, and if you negate a condition of it, you negate it. One of those conditions is walaa wal baraa. And that means you don’t feel sorry for the kuffar when Allah punishes them. Even if you feel like giving them charity, you don’t feel sorry for them, and you really shouldn’t give them charity and help from a position of weakness, it only reinforces them against Islam. They’ll only conclude that you’re doing PR work because you want to undo the damage of 9/11. Now, when you seize power and authority in the land and Islam has the upper hand, mercy goes a long way to impress them into Islam. Otherwise, this weak Islam you (Umar Lee, Tariq Nelson, and Abu Sinan, and your fans) promote only makes the kuffar happy with their kufr and not impressed with Islam as the true revelation from Allah. I see a lot of potential for good in you and I see you misusing it to make the wrong powers happy. Sorry, guys, Sameer Khan was right and you all were wrong. Look up the evidences and you’ll see. If you want to impress kuffar with kindness, get the upper hand for the Shariah first.
• Walaa wal Baraa
October 26th, 2007 at 4:31 pm
Here’s how he supporteed what he said below. Now, how do you all support your positions of loving the kuffar while hating the most serious of Muslims?
……
1. Hanifan - October 25, 2007
I think its permissible to be happy at the punishment that befalls the disbelievers.
Allah says:
“But when he saw their hands went not towards the (meal), he felt some mistrust of them, and conceived a fear of them. They [Angels] said: “Fear not: We have been sent against the people of Lut.”. And his wife [Sara, wife of Prophet Ibrahim (pbuh)] was standing (there), and she laughed: But we gave her glad tidings of Isaac, and after him, of Jacob.” [Hud:70-71]
Scholars say, Sara laughed when she heard of the punishment that was about to befall the people of Lut. She was happy. However at the same token, prophet Ibrahim (pbuh) was pleading for the people of Lut:
“When fear had passed from (the mind of) Abraham and the glad tidings had reached him, he began to plead with us for Lut’s people. For Abraham was, without doubt, forbearing (of faults), compassionate, and given to look to Allah. ” Hud:74-75.
It seems both options are permissible.

2. inshallahshaheed - October 26, 2007
To Hanifan -
Yes that is correct, however the Shaykh, Abu ‘Aasim Muhammad al-Maqdisi argues in his brilliant treatise “Millat Ibraaheem” that this pleading for the nation (Qawm) of Loot (’alayhis salaam) by Ibraaheem (’alayhis salaam) was originally for the nation (Qawm) of Loot, but when the Angels said,
“Verily, we are going to destroy the people of this [Loot’s]
town…” (29:31)

Ibraaheem (’alayhis salaam) then changed his pleading to the believers amongst Loot’s nation, especially for Loot himself, and this change of pleading was when Ibraaheem said (as was recorded by Allah),
He (Ibraaheem) said: “But there is Loot in it.” They said: “We know better who is there, we will verily save him [Loot] and his family…” (29:32)
And the Shaykh uses the tafaseer of Ibn Katheer (2/594), and at-Tabari’s narration from Sa’eed ibn Jubayr (15/403) to support this argument.
He also then argues that even if this wasn’t true, then the notion that the Prophets - because of their mercy - to wish for the guidance of their people before their imminent destruction is understood. However, the point shouldn’t be forgotten regarding the Prophets and that is, “And they (i.e. the Prophets) were the ones who were not sent in the first place, except to show their open enmity and disavowal towards the polytheism (Shirk) and its people.”

As for America and its people, then they are much worse in comparison to the nation of Loot (’alayhis salaam); in fact, there is no comparison considering that there are cases of rape every 3 minutes (or so) and all the other horrendous statistics.

Posted by: Hugh at November 5, 2007 10:25 AM

These two sentences say it all:

The kaffir (kuffur) are the enemies of islam. They are less than human unless they revert to the one true way.

The West (and other non-Muslims) will not lose their "enemy of Islam" status by changing foreign policy, by sacrificing Israel, by giving more aid to Islamic nations, on and on.

Submission to Islam is the only drink that will quench the thirst.

Posted by: kamala at November 5, 2007 10:26 AM

Those JW readers who are practicing Christians must find loving neighbors like this woman quite a challenge.

Posted by: MP at November 5, 2007 10:34 AM

Hmm, I may have to change my name to "Happy Subhuman" because I am indeed delighted not to be in this cult with the master race mentality.

Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at November 5, 2007 10:47 AM

MP,

True, it is not easy to love those who hate both the Christian faith and Christian believers, but this is why Christian believers pray that such folks repent and come to faith in Jesus Christ.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at November 5, 2007 10:56 AM

Unless the children of these new Americans learn reciprocity and learn to repay good for good, and forebear repaying evil for evil, and do this not merely for calculated advantage, they are not likely to go far in this New World, I think.

Posted by: John C at November 5, 2007 11:01 AM

"The kaffir (kuffur) are the enemies of Islam. They are less than human unless they revert to the one true way"

I put one pant leg on at a time just as any other human being on the face of the planet does.

It is ridiculous thinking like this that appears so much less than childish, as well as pitifully and sadly warped.

It is as if commonsence has become non-existent for those who bury their heads completely into the teachings of Quran which unfortunatley is the case among so many radicals.

And to think that for the most part we are all born equal and of pure innocense and innocent thought (blessed are the children) until we are braiwashed into such outragous thinking.

Posted by: Mackie at November 5, 2007 11:08 AM

What was posted a few posts back by kamala proves there is no LOVE for others to be found in either Islam, the Koran, or the Hadith, period.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at November 5, 2007 11:08 AM

"They are less than human unless they revert to the one true way."

Amazing! This is magic! One minute you're less than..the next minute " There is no god, blah, blah..POOF ! - a you'e a human!

Me Tarzan, you Jane!

Posted by: allat at November 5, 2007 11:12 AM

"The kaffir (kuffur) are the enemies of islam. They are less than human unless they revert to the one true way."

Proof of no LOVE shown here.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at November 5, 2007 11:15 AM

"They are less than human unless they revert to the one true way."

Amazing! This is magic! One minute you're less than..you say " There is no god but...blah, blah.." the next minute- POOF ! -(Ellen look- alike waving the smoke away) your'e a human!

Now I ask you guy..there's IS magic in the world! There is...There is! "

Posted by: allat at November 5, 2007 11:18 AM

Whoever does not believe that the kaafirs are kaafirs is himself a kaafir

Question:
Is it true that anyone who does not accept that kuffaar are kuffaar is a kaafir himself, even if he prays, believes in the Qur'aan, and the Prophet Muhammad ( )? If so, what is the proof for this? Can a person insist on believing that Jews and Christians can be believers and go to heaven after being shown clear evidence against this, and still be considered a Muslim?

Answer:

http://islamqa.com/index.php?ref=6688&ln=eng&txt=kaafir

http://islamqa.com/index.php?ref=974&ln=eng&txt=judging

Posted by: GrennBeck at November 5, 2007 11:26 AM

"Bunch of coffee shop Muslims you all are."

That's an interesting turn of phrase.

It's stunning the way some of these Muslims "intellectualize" bigotry and hatred.

Well, it all goes back to the Islamic texts, doesn't it? After all, if it's in the Koran, or if Mohammed said so, it must be the perfect way to think and act, even in the year 2007.

I'm reminded of the serious blog discussion about Islam's rules governing the keeping of slaves.

Do they not realize how bizarre their thinking is? (Of course not.)

The problem is the millions of people who think the same way and follow the same guidebook for world domination.

I need some cheering up. I need to watch that Star Trek movie in which Picard and Data defeat the Borg.

Posted by: Josephine at November 5, 2007 11:43 AM

Just for the record, from what I'm finding, "walaa" means "allegience" and "baraa" means "enmity."

"Al-Hubb" means "love" and "al-Bughoud" means "hatred."

New terms for me, though not new concepts.

Posted by: Shy Guy at November 5, 2007 11:47 AM

Josephine,

We are Umma. Resistance is futile. You WILL be Islamicized.

Posted by: John C at November 5, 2007 11:52 AM

LOL.

Fight Global Jihad. Embrace Islamomisia.

Posted by: John C at November 5, 2007 11:58 AM

Shy guy -- You are right. Loyalty to Believers. Hostility to Unbelievers. I was taking liberties in translating, because both the "Loyalty" and the "Hostility" are much stronger than the English can convey. So to make clear, that the Loyalty is sole and unswerving loyalty, owed to Believers no matter what, in our view, unacceptable things those fellow Believers may do (as long as it is to further the cause of Islam), and the Hostility toward Unbelievers both permanent and unrelieved and fierce., I used "Love" and "Hate." Perhaps I should have explained all that above.

Posted by: Hugh at November 5, 2007 12:17 PM

How in the heck can the Democratic Party stand to accept this religion when those who follow it are against the other major tenets of their party?

Sometimes the enemy of my enemy is my enemy, not my friend.

We found that out with Saddam. Never mind where we might be right now if Carter had supported the Shah. Sheesh. Can't ask THAT question, can we Mr. Anti-Apartheid (unless it's happening in other countries that the U.S. doesn't support)

Posted by: V.I.N.C.E.N.T. at November 5, 2007 12:21 PM

As a devout, practicing kuffar/kuffur/kaffir/etc/etc/etc of long (and future) standing ... I would like to know how it's spelled. I may want it tatooed on my chest.

... Along with the obligatory dashed line and "cut here" around my neck.

Posted by: Havoc at November 5, 2007 12:22 PM

Havoc, see Wikipedia.

Posted by: Shy Guy at November 5, 2007 12:34 PM

The sweet muslims have these private little bloody communications but they don't dare express that kind of crap in front of the "kuffur", at least not the ones I know...and love.

Posted by: pismopal at November 5, 2007 12:37 PM

Naseem -- bless her heart -- once referred to me as her "kaffir sister". At the time I thought that she was stating something sweet and endearing because 'NAIVE ME' didn't know what a kaffir was, maybe it was something cute & furry; but that's the beauty of getting to know Muslims & Islam over time, as it's just one evil revelation after another.

Funny how our English word "coffin" sounds a tad-bit familiar to the death cults kaffir/kaffur.

Posted by: champ at November 5, 2007 12:41 PM

It seems strange to us kuffar that these seemingly otherwise assimilated people have redefined the very meaning of humanity, stripping it universal application and inherent value, just to justify the incomprehensibly irrational, far from self-evident "Truths" of Islam.
Posted by: John C

Many things pre-date islam, yet are intrinsically embedded in it. For example, murder, rape, misogyny and military and demographic conquest all pre-date islam, but all have been incorporated into islamist doctrine simply because they are manifestations of the most base instincts of Man to which islam appeals.

Whereas Christianity faces an uphill battle by exhorting the individual to go against his baser instincts, islam preaches that the individual do quite the opposite - to surrender to the innate violent and sexual urges that men have. And you can see why.

History, and common sense, both indicate that conquest is better achieved through aggression, both sexual and military, than through appeals to saintly virtue as the early Christians advocated. Since mohammad was a warlord, his system of governance reflects this logic. Had it not been for the Roman Emperor Constantine making Christianity the official religion of the Roman empire, and by extension, giving it the gravitas of the world's most powerful institution, Christianity might very well not have survived to this day, based as it is on self-sacrifice and sexual restraint, both counter-instinctual for survival. Islam, on the other hand, went the other way.

Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at November 5, 2007 12:42 PM

@topic

HMMMmmmmmmmm...they screed islamophobia ad nauseum, complaining how WE are at war with islam...all the while THIS entry is perfectly ok for THEM to use against US as one of an infinite number of justifications to attack us.
Nope, no hypocrisy there!
(/sarc)

So CAIR, AAI, MPAC et.al.,...your point IS...???

Posted by: jcom972 at November 5, 2007 12:44 PM

Excellent point/post Ynkedoodl2!

Posted by: champ at November 5, 2007 12:47 PM

Islam in this as revealed in this eye-opening (to the uninitiated anyway)interview is revealed to be well and truly reminiscent of such 'B' fright flicks as "Night of the Living Dead" or the pod people such as those seen in the subtle but frightening "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" (the 1956 version). A snicker-snack that devours human beings with gusto at the slightest hint of that codeword "unbeliever" or "infidel."

The Muslim, as we see with this happy housewife of Islam, is literally stripped by Islam of every vestige of his or her identity (as evinced by this Islamic female in the interview); the person's capacity to think and feel are copmpletely and utterly destroyed too. The result is the creation of an ex-human being that has been programmed to slaughter selected members of humanity while living in an unreal world and existence--a zombie-esque killing machine without peer.

Diabolical in the truest sense of the word. I don't think it would be stretching the truth to claim that Islam's origins are non-human (and anti-human) and predate Muhammad by several thousand years.

Posted by: pythagoras at November 5, 2007 1:16 PM

From the poem I saw on the #*#^@'s site, she is probably a native to the Americas.

Good that our deaths are so amusing to this skank. (armadillo)

Posted by: interestinconundrum at November 5, 2007 1:18 PM

The New Testament Books after the Gospels are full of intolerance toward non-Christians and especially toward Jews. Many, many verses demean non-believers. Thanks to Paul.

What mainstream Christian leader still preaches this kind of intolerance? Imagine if Fred Phelps of the Westboro Baptist Church had ten million devout followers. Fortunately creatures like him are very rare and will hopefully stay that way.

The religious climate in America of 2007 is nothing at all similar to America of 1907. American Christians seem to have re-evaluated the religion over the past hundred years; can Muslims do the same with theirs?

Posted by: Pelayo at November 5, 2007 1:21 PM

Enlightened self-interest, objective analysis, and self-revealing introspection don't seem to come easily to a Muslim, saddled as he is with a fixed (albeit inconsistent) set of answers to the nature of everything; Islam is the epitome of cognitive dissonance, IMO.

Posted by: John C at November 5, 2007 1:35 PM

You could have also quoted
“Lo! the worst of beasts in Allah's sight are the ungrateful who will not believe.” (8:55)
“And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah. That is their saying with their mouths. They imitate the saying of those who disbelieved of old. Allah (Himself) fighteth against them. How perverse are they! “ (9:30)

The Koran by itself explains the surprising arrogance of so many Muslims living in the West. They really do look down their nose at the infidel indigent population as lowlifes – their cult essentially instructs them to do so. So we shouldn’t be surprised that they make demands, sneer at you in public places or become outraged that such lowlifes would criticize them or Islam – the nerve!

Allowing Muslim immigrants into your Western countries is not bringing in multicultural diversity but one-culture supremacism!

Posted by: FM at November 5, 2007 1:50 PM

Psychologists have been studying the Stockholm syndrome for years, for why a captive would fall in live with his/her captors.

A far more worthy field of study might be the Islamo-Bimbo syndrome, as to why Muslim women fall in love with being treated as a piece of properity by their Male relatives.

Posted by: rational at November 5, 2007 1:51 PM

Pelayo,

Pained condescension and moral reproach, yes; but dehumanizing, demonizing intolerance? I don't think so.

[I'm suprised you don't label the Gospel of John antisemitic.]

And Fred Phelps is over-the-top and beyond the pale by any historic standard of Christianity--whatever he is, Christian he ain't.

Posted by: John C at November 5, 2007 1:58 PM

Yet another example of how Christianity and Islam are not the same but exact opposites:

Christianity: Love thy neighbor. Love your enemy.

Islamist: The kaffir (kuffur) are the enemies of islam. They are less than human unless they revert to the one true way. It is acceptable to be rude to them - regardless of where you live, for they are less than us.

Posted by: CrazyFool at November 5, 2007 2:03 PM

" The Muslim, as we see with this happy housewife of Islam, is literally stripped by Islam of every vestige of his or her identity (as evinced by this Islamic female in the interview); the person's capacity to think and feel are copmpletely and utterly destroyed too. The result is the creation of an ex-human being that has been programmed to slaughter selected members of humanity while living in an unreal world and existence--a zombie-esque killing machine without peer."

--------

That's because there's a koranic verse - I'M TRYING TO FIND OUT THE EXACT WORDING - which says something like:

"and do not listen to your heart to have compassion for the unbeliever. Rather obey the words of allah...."

Would someone be able to tell me the actual wording of the verse?

That's why the islamics are pod-people.

Posted by: allat at November 5, 2007 2:04 PM

I'll wager a pita chip that her husband works for DoD and is some kind of manager!

Probably got the job because American citizens are too expensive, too stupid, and don't want those kind kind of jobs anyway.

Okay, speculation on my part; but such obsurdities as described would not come as a shock if they pan out -- that is the sadest part of all.

Posted by: witness at November 5, 2007 2:29 PM

I'll wager a pita chip that her husband works for DoD and is some kind of manager!

Probably got the job because American citizens are too expensive, too stupid, and don't want those kind kind of jobs anyway.

Okay, speculation on my part; but such obsurdities as described would not come as a shock if they pan out -- that is the sadest part of all.

Posted by: witness at November 5, 2007 2:29 PM

No matter how inferior her position as chattel in Islam, the muslimah has one little compensation: she can feel herself superior to us.

Having said that, and I think I read this in Ibn Warraq, the woman has the worst fate of all:
a slave can be set free, a dhimmi may convert and gain status, but the woman is stuck (unless she gets a sex change of course!)

Posted by: Silvester at November 5, 2007 2:35 PM

FM stated this verse:
“Lo! the worst of beasts in Allah's sight are the ungrateful who will not believe.” (8:55)

It's amazing how different Allah and the God of the Bible are. Allah sounds harsh and intolerant of the non-believer; whereas in the Bible there are countless verses that describe Gods patient and immeasurable love for non-believers.

One such example of God's love is told in The Parable of the Prodigal Son, found in Luke 15:11-32. The parable is an illustration of how God, who is played by the earthly Father, is demonstrating such patient and sacraficial love towards his wayward son, who represents wayward mankind.

Parable of the Prodigal Son:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2015:11-32&version=50;

Allah is not the God of the Bible.

Posted by: champ at November 5, 2007 2:36 PM

Pelayo wrote:

"The religious climate in America of 2007 is nothing at all similar to America of 1907. American Christians seem to have re-evaluated the religion over the past hundred years."

Please remember that the 13 colonies that conceived of, adopted, accepted & guarded the fundamental freedoms enshrined in the Bill of Rights, including the freedom of religion, were overwhelmingly Christian & considerably more devout than Americans, even Christian ones, are today. I don't care much if many, or even most, of the Founding Fathers were only nominally Christian. I would think it extremely unlikely that they forced their notions of religious freedom on a devoutly Christian populace that would have preferred state restrictions on the practice of religion. Rather, it seems reasonable to assume that from their experiences with religiously-based colonies, such as Rhode Island, Massachusetts & Connecticut, the American people realized that religious freedom had to become a fundamental right.

Posted by: sheik yer booty at November 5, 2007 2:38 PM

Also, her slogan "We do not think there is anything better for two people who love one another than to get married." LOL, let's make that five. Muslim marriages are inherently unstable.

Posted by: Silvester at November 5, 2007 2:39 PM

Funny how the more ignorant one is, the more superior they think they are.

Like the angry teenager that thinks they know more than their parents...

Posted by: Peter_Wiggin at November 5, 2007 2:46 PM

This forced conversion thing has been on my mind lately. I often here of persons that were forced to convert, or revert as some prefer. The headline usually reads something like "Young person was repeatedly raped and forced to convert to Islam." That seems so final... you know "Severely beaten, raped repeatedly, and forced to convert. Very hostile anointing to be sure. You would guess that this recruitment method would not yield a long retention. "I decided I no longer want to be a muslim. See...... I just said that stuff because I wanted the pain to stop."

Or, perhaps it could turn to a "do onto others" sort of thing in some cases. Kind of sounds like one of those west coast fraternity hazings. You know like joining "Tapa Mia Assa" and your forever one of the liberal bois serving for the means of great visionaries, including the likes of ward churchill and noam chomsky. Once you go left, you can never go back.

Sometimes I just get so, so, so............. Argh!

Posted by: Abrog8 at November 5, 2007 2:48 PM

I am not posting to start a flame war. But some comments made about Christianity are not based upon facts or are stretched at best.

Ynkedoodl2
Whereas Christianity faces an uphill battle by exhorting the individual to go against his baser instincts

The way it really works it that a person acknowledges his 'baser instincts' as sin. Realizing that we are all that way and but for the grace of God in Jesus death there is no solution. We cannot win the 'uphill battle' we only accept the gift that he won the battle for us.

Had it not been for the Roman Emperor Constantine making Christianity the official religion of the Roman empire, and by extension, giving it the gravitas of the world's most powerful institution, Christianity might very well not have survived to this day

It wasn't Constantine's actions only that protected Christianity. It was how lives are changed that keeps true Christianity alive. Constantine became a Christian first then he made it the official religion. Let's give God the credit for changing his life first.

A modern day example of this grace of God in action are the Amish families that forgave the killer of their children. They even went to the killers family in reconciliation. AMAZING if you recall.

@Pelayo
The New Testament Books after the Gospels are full of intolerance toward non-Christians and especially toward Jews. Many, many verses demean non-believers. Thanks to Paul.

Without getting into a bible study. You are quite wrong and because you did not mention any verses proves the point. If you are referring to the list of things non-believers do as demeaning then you are falling into the trap that Muslims do when we call them on their actions. I think if you revisit the text you we see something to the effect, "and so were we" in there.

Gal 2:20
I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me.

غال 2:20
لقد كنت مع المسيح المصلوب ؛ فهو لم يعد لي من العيش ، ولكن لي في حياة المسيح ؛ وحياة الذي انا نعيش الآن في اللحم أعيش بها الايمان في ابن الله ، الذي احب ، وقدم لي نفسه بالنسبة لي.

Posted by: Im.mad.as.HELL! at November 5, 2007 2:58 PM

Allat,

Perhaps you were thinking of 60:1

SHAKIR: O you who believe! do not take My enemy and your enemy for friends: would you offer them love while they deny what has come to you of the truth, driving out the Messenger and yourselves because you believe in Allah, your Lord? If you go forth struggling hard in My path and seeking My pleasure, would you manifest love to them? And I know what you conceal and what you manifest; and whoever of you does this, he indeed has gone astray from the straight path.

Yet another admonition to Muslims to hate non-believers, even if inclined to be their friend.

Yes, Islam does remind one of the old sci-fi classic: Invasion Of The Body Snatchers.

Pod-people indeed.

Posted by: FM at November 5, 2007 3:00 PM

They should make a t-shirt that says, "Proud to be an INFIDEL." It could be a whole new line of clothing--Kaffir Wear or Infidel Wear or something. I know I'd wear it!

Posted by: RoobartSbunsar at November 5, 2007 3:01 PM

I think this comment (from the comment section) says it all...

"At Monday, April 03, 2006 8:46:00 PM, jersey niqaabi said…

Asalaam alaikum wa rahmatullah
A way I learned about being a wife was to talk to my husband when we first got married about things he likes. Communication is the KEY
Walaikum asalaam wa rahmatullah"

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at November 5, 2007 3:02 PM

Assalamau Laikum all,

Today has certainly been a different one in Lahore, lots of peoples out to see the lawyers confronting the police here is Lahore...ofcourse one has to be careful particularly as an Ahmadi...you don't want to be arrested by the police.

The time has come for Mushi to be gone....and no self respecting musliuma like me wants to see some pathetic corrupt "almost kaffur" ugly woman like Benazir to take power.

No the time has come for Shariat ...how can a country with a name like PAKistan ...pure and arguably the most powerful muslim country in the world to be pseudo secular....there are too many contradictions....and it has shown for 60 years.

If the Amerike does not want to know us...well there's always China....

I don't know why muslims hate kaffur so....to hate them means that they cannot learn to love Allah Paak ....champ to proclaim a kaffur as a sister is the ultimate accolade that one could give ...but like a real kaffur you misunderstood and throw it back in my face...you are gonna have to change your attitude ...sharia lite is on it's way...

Posted by: Naseem at November 5, 2007 3:08 PM

Considering there is only one perfected person in Islam, would that not make everyone else a Kaffer? Everyone Judges the level of Piety because they can.

It is easy for the non-Islamic to be at direct risk. If they are not avaliable, their own will do.

Endless Violence all wrapped up in pretty Green Paper.

Posted by: flowerknife_us at November 5, 2007 3:09 PM

Naseem is a fake and a liar. Ignorne him.

Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at November 5, 2007 3:15 PM

"Ignorne"?

Posted by: RoobartSbunsar at November 5, 2007 3:15 PM

They should make a t-shirt that says, "Proud to be an INFIDEL." It could be a whole new line of clothing--Kaffir Wear or Infidel Wear or something. I know I'd wear it!
Posted by: RoobartSbunsar

Google Infidel t-shirt, there are tons of them.

http://www.cafepress.com/americaneagle04/844377

Posted by: interestinconundrum at November 5, 2007 3:29 PM

Proud to be an infidel
http://www.cafepress.com/rightnation/272331

Posted by: interestinconundrum at November 5, 2007 3:32 PM

Naseem states: "....champ to proclaim a kaffur as a sister is the ultimate accolade that one could give ...but like a real kaffur you misunderstood and throw it back in my face...you are gonna have to change your attitude ...sharia lite is on it's way..."

Ah yes, our dysfunctional FRIENDSHIP wars on. Thanks Mom, but my attitude is fine; but even if sharia makes it's way to the US, then I will not concede. Guess I'll just be one more Outlaw on my Family Tree who's a fugitive on the run from the law, because sharia lite, or any other kind of sharia, will not govern my life.

But thanks for clearing up the confusion over what you meant by "kaffir sister". But if that was a compliment, then I would hate to hear an insult.

Posted by: champ at November 5, 2007 3:37 PM

"some pathetic corrupt "almost kaffur" ugly woman like Benazir..."
-- from a posting by "Naseem," an Ahmadiya (non?) Muslim above

Benazir Bhutto is no more corrupt than any of the other children of the ruling elite of generals and zamindars in Pakistan, and possibly less so than many. If by "almost kaffur" you mean that she once lived in Briggs Hall, and then for a year in Eliot House, as an undergraduate, and got along just fine with most of her non-Muslim classmates, even goodnaturedly baking a cake with two hockey pucks inside it, as a joke, for a member of the hockey team. She's not perfect, but she's about the best in the Ataturk line -- unless Musharraff has other plans, and now thinks he can pull that off, or has to try, has to go for broke -- and, by the way, she's not ugly.

Posted by: Hugh at November 5, 2007 3:38 PM

John C -- LOL!

"We are all unique. We are all individuals."

"I'm not!"

Posted by: Josephine at November 5, 2007 3:55 PM

Bhutto is corrupt, that I won't deny. But everyone is corrupt in Pakistan. Few politicians there have clean hands. As it is, she's still the best choice for the country, in my opinion.
*sigh* if only Jinnah had lived longer...

Posted by: RoobartSbunsar at November 5, 2007 3:55 PM

"Kuffur are the enemies of Islam"
from above

And don't you forget it!

..............................
"If Amerike (sic) doe not want to know us...well there is always China".
naseem

I would rather be a mao suit wearing, underpaid proof reader in a fortune cookie factory, located in some dusty rural Chinese village, bereft of my right to vote and female company, than be the richest muslim on the planet

Posted by: pismopal at November 5, 2007 3:57 PM

Another?

http://organicmuslimah.blogspot.com/2007/03/confessions-my-extreme-side.html

Posted by: Abrog8 at November 5, 2007 4:04 PM

"I don't know why muslims hate kaffur so"

Try reading your Qur'an

Posted by: Elric66 at November 5, 2007 4:05 PM

A person expressing this kind of ill-will is in touch with people with a similar willingness. The Dept. of Homeland Security might have a lead here.

Posted by: Frank at November 5, 2007 4:07 PM

and, by the way, she's not ugly.

Posted by: Hugh at November 5, 2007 3:38 PM

You bet.

Posted by: Frank at November 5, 2007 4:09 PM

In the writing of "Muslim Wife" there's a childish attempt to validate her existence as a human, and especially her role as wife. By denigrating the kaffir she (in her eyes) gains importance, and reinforces her sense of superiority. Her enthusiasm doesn't ring true. There's a desperation there as she sits home alone waiting for the return of the "master" to make her life complete. Sad -- for her, but dangerous for the rest of us. The frustration of thwarted lives can easily turn to violence, verbal(as in her blog) or physical as shown daily in Muslim actions around the world.

Posted by: Jen at November 5, 2007 4:10 PM

It's the veil that makes Bhutto look ugly. She is actually not bad-looking at all.

...also, every time I read Muslims ranting about Western civilization and how bad the kuffar are, what comes across is an intense sense of jealousy. They want all of it--but since their religion forbids it, it's only natural that they'll blame the source (instead of blaming the religion itself, which would be far more logical). Muslims WANT the alcohol, the women, etc. And if they can't have it, no one can; that's why they destroy.

Posted by: RoobartSbunsar at November 5, 2007 4:15 PM

No the time has come for Shariat

Didn't you forget the "inshallah" at the end?

Of course, you and many other Muslims no doubt believe shariat to be Allah's perfect will....which begs the question: Why then hasn't it come? What's taking Allah so long? What if the time for shariat doesn't come as you expect? Could you accept the uncomfortable thought that it may be Allah's perfect will that corrupted "almost-kaffurs" continue to rule over Pakistan? Such are his mysterious ways, one might surmise.

Posted by: yadayada at November 5, 2007 4:20 PM

From Abrog8's link,
I used to cover my face all the time. I would feel guilty if a colleague of the opposite gender spoke with me for any matter. I believed that as a Muslim woman Allah made me "less" than a man. My only way to Jannah was to obey my male Mahram, and hope that he won't turn against me one day and throw me in hell.

That is why we hear all the "I love my husband" crap. The husband can decide to throw his wife into hell for burning his breakfast.

Posted by: interestinconundrum at November 5, 2007 4:26 PM

A Muslim man: "Yes, of course women are equal in Islam--they're all equally able to go into the kitchen and make me a sandwich!"

Posted by: RoobartSbunsar at November 5, 2007 4:28 PM

As an aside, I understand that Roman Emperor Constantine's Edict of Milan, in 313 A.D., was an edict of toleration; that he favored Christianity but was baptized on his deathbed; and that, while his dynasty was Christian, Christianity didn't formally become the state religion until 381 A.D., under Emperor Theodosius. [I hope my memory has it right.]

Posted by: John C at November 5, 2007 4:36 PM

John C, I believe you're right--most historians agree that Constantine's commitment to Christianity was not very strong, though he certainly realized its ability to unify the Roman Empire.

Posted by: RoobartSbunsar at November 5, 2007 4:48 PM

John C and Im.mad.as.HELL!

We deride and criticize those Muslims who claim that jihadists and Bin Laden aren’t real Muslims. Now the situation is reversed concerning Rev. Phelps. Phelps is just as much a Christian as Osama is a Muslim.

There is too much name calling in the New Testament to deny.

Count how many times John blames Jews for killing Jesus in his Gospel.

Do the following verses contain mere condescension and moral reproach?.

Romans 1:31 & 32 - homosexuals are “worthy of death.” (Is this where Phelps gets his justification?)

In several places the instructions are to stay away from and shun unbelievers. Romans 16:17 is just one. 2nd Corinthians 6:14 thru 17 is another.

Titus 1:12 is a good one; Cretians are "always liars, evil beasts, slow bellies." I do not know what a slow belly is, but I do not think it is a complement.

1st John states that every non-Christian is liar and an antichrist, 2:22

Hebrews 3:12, every skeptic and nonbeliever has an evil heart.

Posting all of the verses like these would take hours and would be piling on.

This whole point is to show that the New Testament has verses that can be used to create intolerance. If it can be illustrated how Christian interpretations have evolved, perhaps that knowledge can be used as a guide to show willing Muslims how Islam can be re-interpreted.

Posted by: Pelayo at November 5, 2007 4:49 PM

About the t-shirts, you can Google just about any phrase....{infidel t-shirt / any phrase} and you will find it, no matter how bad you think it is....

Posted by: interestinconundrum at November 5, 2007 4:55 PM

I'll have to look up a few of those t-shirts--some of the sites are a bit too conservative for my taste, but I guess the t-shirts are good regardless. I'll have to buy a few and wear them. I'm in London right now, so it should be interesting to see how people will react.

Posted by: RoobartSbunsar at November 5, 2007 5:00 PM

Jen,

I think you're right. Thanks for your insight.

Posted by: John C at November 5, 2007 5:01 PM

Pelayo -- what you would call name calling, I would call truth telling. There's a difference.

Posted by: champ at November 5, 2007 5:07 PM

How in the heck can the Democratic Party stand to accept this religion when those who follow it are against the other major tenets of their party?
from a post by V.I.N.C.E.N.T

George Bush doesn't make much sense either. He, of the party that wants complete deregulation and the freedom of people to do business with others around the globe, also champions the "religion of peace". Republicans complain (justifiably) about the aversion of some Democrats to religion, and of those who seek to strip Christ from Christmas. What do they think will become of Christmas when the jihad is complete?
What does the future hold for the American Civil Liberties Union once we all "revert to the one true way"?
Does Walt Disney World have a future in a Muslim society?

Posted by: PMK at November 5, 2007 5:13 PM

"Does Walt Disney World have a future in a Muslim society?"

...are you kidding? "Jihad Mouse" will be the next great character!

Posted by: RoobartSbunsar at November 5, 2007 5:16 PM

"Murder: non-Muslim: Haha. Muslim: du'a [prayer]"

Now she is one serious piece of filth. Note how none of her commenters complained about it either, no embarassment, no censure. We should have learned by now, that the way we were brought up to be, is not universal. The muslims are, by and large, not "just like us". If they were, we would not be having this edgy nervous international conversation. This is crazy. It is like being too polite to make a fuss when your clothes have caught fire.

Posted by: Monty at November 5, 2007 5:16 PM

Champ, perhaps you are right but it is still more than just condescension and moral reproach as JohnC stated. It sounds contrary to Jesus' statement, "judge ye not lest ye be judged."

Posted by: Pelayo at November 5, 2007 5:17 PM

"Count how many times John blames Jews for killing Jesus in his Gospel."

It may sound like John is "blaming" the Jews, but he's merely telling the truth, as some of the Jews before Christ was crucified were in fact asking that Jesus be put to death. The Roman soldiers were the ones who carried out the sentence of death, but this was all part of God's plan.

Your assertion that John was name calling is very short sighted because you are talking what John said out of context. You would need to read the entire Gospel of John to get the full picture.

Posted by: champ at November 5, 2007 5:17 PM

correction....TAKING (not talking)

Posted by: champ at November 5, 2007 5:20 PM

Christianity is not perfect--far from it, and I'm not a Christian personally. Still, I think it's more conducive to peaceful existence simply by virtue of the fact that it enjoins separation from the state. Islam does not--although, in practice, there was usually a de facto separation. What bothers me about Christianity is the fact that many Gospels were excluded from the Bible--not by a higher power, but by flawed human beings. It strikes me as a power struggle among different factions, and I'm averse to that kind of thing.

Posted by: RoobartSbunsar at November 5, 2007 5:25 PM

...all the same, if I absolutely had to choose, I'd choose Christianity over Islam--no hesitation.

Posted by: RoobartSbunsar at November 5, 2007 5:29 PM

Champ, full picture? Jews are blamed for Jesus' death throughout the New Testament, that's the full picture.

Before I posted that at 4:49 I thought about putting the statement about John and the Jews above the name calling sentence. I guess I should have.

Posted by: Pelayo at November 5, 2007 5:30 PM

Naseem is ugly. Ugly on the inside that is. Ugly and vapid, but a constant reminder to us all to be thankful that we have not wilfully embraced the ideology of mental and physical slavery.

Naseem, as always, is to be pitied.

Posted by: awake at November 5, 2007 5:31 PM

Islam always viewed Christianity as its main threat, so they generally allowed Jews to exist. For a long time, it must be admitted that Jews lived better under Islam than under Christianity--let's not forget that the reconquista resulted in the expulsion of Jews from Spain (in addition to the Muslims, which was fully justified). There are still some mildly anti-Semitic strands in Christianity--but NOTHING compared to the filth spouted in Arab newspapers about Jews. I spent two years in Egypt--that's all I needed.

Posted by: RoobartSbunsar at November 5, 2007 5:34 PM

Muslims WANT the alcohol, the women, etc. And if they can't have it, no one can; that's why they destroy.
--RoobartSbunsar

You named that tune, perfectly!!!

Short, succinct, and spot on!!!!

Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at November 5, 2007 5:36 PM

Thanks Roob!

Christian motto: Convert and live! ...out of your own free will, you choose.

Islams motto: Convert or die! ...those are the only two choices.

Posted by: champ at November 5, 2007 5:42 PM

"Christian motto: Convert and live! ...out of your own free will, you choose.

Islams motto: Convert or die! ...those are the only two choices."

That pretty much sums it up. In Christianity, you take it or leave it; it's your choice. In Islam, you take it or you die. I suspect this is the reason why the number of Muslim converts to Christianity is growing. Given that the next major waves of immigration to Europe will consist of Christian Africans, I suspect Christianity is nowhere near dead just yet. I'm agnostic, but I'd rather live in a culture influenced by Christianity than otherwise. I suppose that makes me a hypocrite in some ways, but oh well.

Posted by: RoobartSbunsar at November 5, 2007 5:45 PM

Assalamau Laikum all,

Roobartsunburnt says (says of Benazir) "It's the veil that makes Bhutto look ugly. She is actually not bad-looking at all".

LoL...which TV screens have you been watching...you Lund!

I think that after watching "yo' fat mammas" on Jerry Springer ...anything will look prettier than that trash!

Kaffur to the end eh!!

Posted by: Naseem at November 5, 2007 5:55 PM

Champ, full picture? Jews are blamed for Jesus' death throughout the New Testament, that's the full picture.

Jesus was born to die on the cross. He gave his life n propitiation for the sins of mankind. The Jews were instrumental in God's eternal plan, they should not be "blamed".
When Christ scolded Peter in the Garden of Gethsemane, it was for trying to stop the soldiers from taking Jesus to complete His purpose. Notice He said "you know not what spirit you are of"....to stop the death of Christ was Satan's plan.
Then you know all that, don't you?

Jews are not to blame for Jesus' death, they are simply in the plan of God. They are the apple of God's eye.

Posted by: interestinconundrum at November 5, 2007 5:57 PM

"I think that after watching "yo' fat mammas" on Jerry Springer ...anything will look prettier than that trash!"

...how dare you insult the great Jerry Springer?!

I CURSE THEE, JERRYPHOBE!!!

Posted by: RoobartSbunsar at November 5, 2007 5:58 PM

Hi Pelayo -- what I meant by the "full picture" is that the Jews weren't the only ones responsible for Christ's death; they weren't the only players involved. One of Jesus' own disciples, Judas, was also to blame, as were the Romans too. The new testament also teaches that "all of us" are to blame for Christ being crucified because Jesus died for the sins of the world.

Posted by: champ at November 5, 2007 6:02 PM

Naseem: Go ahead and post here all you like, but it should be obvious even to you that you're convincing no one who posts here regularly of your points of view. But I'd like to offer you a point of view of mine and here it is. Islam has much that's rotten in it and it starts with the founder. Mohammed was a psychopath, a fraud and a sexual pervert (a middle-aged man having sexual intercourse with a nine-year old girl is about as perverted as you can get). My detestation for this monstrosity of a human being is complete. And yet Muslims across the world look upon him as the model man. See, at least in part, why I consider all Muslims confused individuals?

Let me put this point of view another way. If I could go back in time and kill three persons while they were still young and before they influenced world history, my three choices would be Adolf Hitler, Karl Marx and Mohammed. Nothing left to say here except that I'm a kaffir, have always been a kaffir and will always remain a kaffir------proudly so. I want nothing to do with Islam. Nothing.

Posted by: Wellington at November 5, 2007 6:07 PM

Regarding the FRAUD calling himself Naseem

"Robert is sun burnt!"

And this from a "woman" who writes "Amrike" and "peoples"????????

bizarre, ain't it, how "her" English can be so rudimentary and yet at the same time, so colloquial and fluent.

Does anyone here on this watch seriously believe in the entity known as Naseem??????

Can we finally ignore him so that he'll go away and come back with a different identify that's, hopefully, not so annoying?

Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at November 5, 2007 6:09 PM

'Not ugly' in a Christiane Amanpour sort-of way?

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at November 5, 2007 6:12 PM

Champ, OK, now I get what you meant.

Interestinconundrum, why is it that from Acts to Revelation there are so many unqualified passages that say that the Jews killed Jesus?

My whole purpose was to use Christianity as an example of a religion that has changed, in hopes that it can be understood and used as a blueprint to apply to Islam.

Christian anti-Semitism has waned; I think. Christians appear to have become more tolerant of homosexuals. Slavery has been eliminated. In the US we have eliminated blue laws, local censorship boards, anti-gambling and alchohol laws. Life in the US in no way resembles life as it was fifty years ago. Those of you who pray, pray that fifty years from now there will be a Synagogue in Riyadh or Mecca.

Posted by: Pelayo at November 5, 2007 6:40 PM

Naseem:

Polls have shown that Osama Bin Laden is more popular than Musharraf,Bhutto,and President Bush combined in Pakistan.

Which camp do you fall in?

Posted by: Mackie at November 5, 2007 6:43 PM

Roob -- you're not a hypocrite, just an honest guy who can spot a phony-prophet and evil a mile away.

Hey, I can be a hypocrite because I DO call myself a Christian, but sometimes I sure don't act like one :-)

Posted by: champ at November 5, 2007 6:45 PM

Ynkedoodl2, Naseem is of the female variety. Naseem has been here for a while and her comments are consistent if nothing else.

Posted by: Pelayo at November 5, 2007 6:47 PM

Naseem

"I think that after watching "yo' fat mammas" on Jerry Springer ...anything will look prettier than that trash!"

Hahahahaa..no wrong again Naseem although is was funny I will give you that. It seems American TV has taught the fine art of "trash talking".

See the problem Naseem in American we have choices. It is sort of like an ice cream store that sells 31 flavors vs. one that sells 1 flavor. That is why American men are happy and muslim men are always angry. Even the left wing nuts in America have nothing that can compare to "rage boy"...

Really Naseem...you are so repressed. That is why you post here.

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at November 5, 2007 6:49 PM

@Pelayo
Your last statement about the need for the Muslims to be guided from error is what we all wish. The only problem is that you are making two assumptions. One, Christian interpretation has evolved. Two, your interpretation is correct. This will not work to help the Muslims. I don’t know how to reform Muslims except to explain the Gospel to them and hope they believe. The words and context of the Bible are simple and the simple reading usually means what it says. You’re inferring that Christian in the past are no better than Muslims today. That is absolutely not true.

A little group of men in a third world backwater country turned the whole world on its ear in the span of their life times. And two thousand years late, we are still reading, talking, learning and interested in what happened. The Muslims have tried to pirate Christ, as has every cult and religion since he came. Some are like Phelps, which I strongly disagree do the same thing.

What you call name-calling is you interpretation. Without specific examples it is a broad-brush statement and only points at you bias.

The only the statements found in John’s gospel were statements of fact that they sought to kill him. John records that Jesus knew before anyone they wanted him dead and he called them on it; the average Jew knew that the authorities wanted him dead. One verse (John 7:1) clearly states that they were planning to kill him. Are you saying the John made it up?

I have looked up all of the verses you identified as being condescending and a moral reproach. You have taken them out of context or you don’t like what they say. I agree that some can be seen in various lights but I see you are assuming before hand what it means. As I stated on my earlier post, Christians are no better or different than non-Christian except they have been forgiven and been given the power to change and be like Christ.

I will not respond further on this thread because it is OT and the real problem is ISLAM not Christianity. Just trying to keep the discussion from introducing error that gets us no where and we play into the hands of those that mean no good.

I John 5:11-12
And this is the testimony: that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life.

انا جون 5:11-12
وهذه هي الشهاده : ان الله اعطانا الحياة الابديه ، وهذه الحياة هي في ابنه. لديه ابن له الحياة ؛ وقال ان من لا يملك ابن الله ليس لديها الحياة.

Posted by: Im.mad.as.HELL! at November 5, 2007 6:53 PM

I, for one, welcome Naseem if only for the occasional reference to wild slutty womens. Just thinking of those nymphs, along with other fleshly delights such as a bbq pork sammich and a cold frosty Heineken convice me that God loves me and wants me to be happy. (apologies to Ben Franklin)

Posted by: MP at November 5, 2007 6:58 PM

Ynkedoodl2, Naseem is of the female variety. Naseem has been here for a while and her comments are consistent if nothing else.
Posted by: Pelayo

Pelayo-

Naseem is a consistent liar.
Naseem's English is not consistent.

Naseem is a fraud. Naseem is not what she seems. It's not a she.

Naseem is a shit-stirrer who laughs at everyone for taking him seriously. I ignore him.

Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at November 5, 2007 6:59 PM

Now you've gone and done it, Nasseem--insulted Jerry Springer PBUH--I hope you realize how blasphemous this is when enraged followers of the Prophet of Trash pour into the streets and riots break out throughout the Western world! When World War III follows on your account, Pakistan is likely to be incinerated first (barring a Pakistani first strike--won't save 'em) and then you'll be sorry!

LOL

[RoobartSUNBURNT?--low blow, Naseem.]

Posted by: John C at November 5, 2007 7:00 PM

If I have missed the point about an evolving Christianity, then life in the United states has changed drastically since 1789 for some other reason. Maybe all of you know, but I do not.

Posted by: Pelayo at November 5, 2007 7:07 PM

I know, I know. Sorry--"DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS."

Posted by: John C at November 5, 2007 7:15 PM

Ynkedoodle2 -- since we're on the subject of male or female posters I've always wondered what you are. I don't mean that sarcastically, but I really have no idea. Most people think I'm a guy because of my username, but I haven't been able to tell which sex you are by reading your posts over the past year. ?????? Sorry! :-)

Posted by: champ at November 5, 2007 7:19 PM

Good thing Jihad Jill is not the type to bake a Cake and Great the new Neighbors.

"she's not ugly"- Hugh

No point in covering up all the way, knowing it drives Men crazy.

Posted by: flowerknife_us at November 5, 2007 7:26 PM

Do we have a GPS fix on Naseem yet?

Posted by: RalphInfidel at November 5, 2007 7:27 PM

Naseem states from the comfort of her dole-infused, Western (UK, no doubt) home:

"...how can a country with a name like PAKistan ...pure and arguably the most powerful muslim country in the world..."

Ha! What a joke. "PAKistan" is the "land of the pure" (sh*t heads), you mean.

Posted by: Aiken Bryce at November 5, 2007 7:54 PM

Pelayo,

The important point is that Christian and Muslim foundational texts ARE qualitatively different in what they enjoin upon the respective followers of each. Thus follows the profoundly different approach to engaging the larger world that each creed's followers exhibit.

These verses you cite are not the categical statements you imply they are, and you draw broader meanings than the text alone yields. I also don't think you grasp the meaning of hyperbole, as in the passages of Corinthians or Titus you mention.

I referred to the verses you cited, to see if they demonstated your point, and was underwhelmed; I invite others to check for themselves.

Yours cordially,

Posted by: John C at November 5, 2007 8:19 PM

Pelayo,

The important point is that Christian and Muslim foundational texts ARE qualitatively different in what they enjoin upon the respective followers of each. Thus follows the profoundly different approach to engaging the larger world that each creed's followers exhibit.

These verses you cite are not the categorical statements you imply they are, and you draw broader meanings than the text alone yields. I also don't think you grasp the meaning of hyperbole, as in the passages of Corinthians or Titus you mention.

I referred to the verses you cited, to see if they demonstated your point, and was underwhelmed; I invite others to check for themselves.

Yours cordially,

Posted by: John C at November 5, 2007 8:20 PM

And finally:

I know of no Christian precedent for picketing funerals of fallen soldiers, for taunting mourners (Blessed are they who mourn, for they shall be... afficted?), for presuming to publicly call the dead and the grieving "damned" and "going to hell." If that's Christian, then I'm a Zen Zoroastrian Aztec Sun Worshipper.

[Typos in earlier post: "categORical" and "demonstRated"]

Posted by: John C at November 5, 2007 8:40 PM

Typo: "affLicted."

Posted by: John C at November 5, 2007 8:44 PM

Pelayo

I think your reference to Romans 1:31 - 32 is faulty, as a number of sins are mentioned as "worthy of death," but in what sense? Clearly, in a metaphysical sense, as this is no legal warrant; rather, it's a moral judgment.

Posted by: John C at November 5, 2007 8:58 PM

"should make a t-shirt that says, "Proud to be an INFIDEL"

- I don't consider myself a "kuffer" or an "unbeliever" in my own country - the U.S. or any Westerner country. It is the islamic who is that.

2 -NOT a good idea! I think we've reached the point here NOT to draw attention to ourselves - UNNECESSARILY - to function UNDER the radar - to be able to be non-descript in order to work for Freedom. Like Zorro aka the limp-wristed Diego de la Vega

Posted by: allat at November 5, 2007 9:54 PM

Romans 1:31 & 32 - homosexuals are “worthy of death.” (Is this where Phelps gets his justification?)

Pelayo,
Paul is speaking of what God will do. He is not calling on Christians to take it upon themselves to kill homosexuals. That is the main difference.
God will judge us. In this world, we render unto Caesar.

"Shunning" is a long way from "killing".

Any verse can be pulled from the Bible and made to seem intolerant, and maybe it is. But who is trying to use it today as a reason for violence and not being called to answer for it by his fellow citizens? Wouldn't you want us to shun the person who would blow up the abortion clinic, regardless of how we feel about abortion? He's not a hero. Why must every Muslim call to kill the non-believer be answered by pointing to the New or Old Testaments? They are what they are.

Instead of comparing apples and oranges, compare apples to apples. Rather than point to the book, why not point to the people who are using the book in the same way Muslims are using the Koran? In the modern world, who outside of Islam ever cared about what the Koran said until jihadists started quoting it to justify blowing people up? Before that, it was just another book that few people read.

Posted by: PMK at November 5, 2007 10:11 PM

"should make a t-shirt that says, "Proud to be an INFIDEL"

- I don't consider myself a "kuffer" or an "unbeliever" in my own country - the U.S. or any Westerner country. It is the islamic who is that.

2 -NOT a good idea! I think we've reached the point here NOT to draw attention to ourselves - UNNECESSARILY - to function UNDER the radar - to be able to be non-descript in order to work for Freedom. Like Zorro aka the useless Diego de la Vega.

http://classicmoviefavorites.com/power/power1022.jpg

Diego: Did I say something wrong? I am so sorry. Excuse me, senor.

We must also appear dumb and ignorant.

Posted by: allat at November 5, 2007 10:13 PM

"should make a t-shirt that says, "Proud to be an INFIDEL"

- I don't consider myself a "kuffer" or an "unbeliever" in my own country - the U.S. or any Westerner country. It is the islamic who is that.

2 -NOT a good idea! I think we've reached the point here NOT to draw attention to ourselves - UNNECESSARILY - to function UNDER the radar - to be able to be non-descript in order to work for Freedom. Like Zorro aka the utterly, useless Diego de la Vega.

Diego to Captain Pasquale:
Did I say something wrong? I am so sorry. Excuse me, Capitan:
http://classicmoviefavorites.com/power/power1022.jpg

In like manner, we must also appear inept and ignorant, but prepare ourselves inwardly.

Posted by: allat at November 5, 2007 10:23 PM

"should make a t-shirt that says, "Proud to be an INFIDEL"

- I don't consider myself a "kuffer" or an "unbeliever" in my own country - the U.S. or any Westerner country. It is the islamic who is that.

2 -NOT a good idea anymore to wear tshirts! I think we've reached the point here NOT to draw attention to ourselves - UNNECESSARILY - to function UNDER the radar - to be able to be non-descript in order to work for Freedom. Like Zorro aka the utterly, useless Diego de la Vega.

Diego to Captain Pasquale:
Did I say something wrong? I am so sorry. Excuse me, Capitan:
http://classicmoviefavorites.com/power/power1022.jpg

In like manner, we must also appear inept and ignorant, but prepare ourselves inwardly.

Posted by: allat at November 5, 2007 10:25 PM

"should make a t-shirt that says, "Proud to be an INFIDEL"

- I don't consider myself a "kuffer" or an "unbeliever" in my own country - the U.S. or any Westerner country. It is the islamic who is that.

2 -NOT a good idea anymore to wear tshirts! I think we've reached the point here NOT to draw attention to ourselves - UNNECESSARILY - to function UNDER the radar - to be able to be non-descript in order to work for Freedom. Like Zorro aka the utterly, useless Diego de la Vega.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOrqwB32PlE

After that exhilirating dance, Diego takes out his hankie, wipes his forehead limply, and says:

"Excuse me, Senorita, that dance has tired me."

The girl is disgusted.

Diego to Captain Pasquale:
Did I say something wrong? I am so sorry. Excuse me, Capitan:
http://classicmoviefavorites.com/power/power1022.jpg

In like manner, we must also appear inept and ignorant, but prepare ourselves inwardly.

Posted by: allat at November 5, 2007 10:33 PM

Oh, my God! I put in a comment 3 x. Sorry, Sorry. Can 2 be deleted.

Posted by: allat at November 5, 2007 10:39 PM

Well, no one agrees that the practice, interpretations, and beliefs of Christians have changed since the Reformation. Therefore, there is no example by which we can expect Muslims to reform theirs. Some of you thought I was comparing Christianity to Islam instead of what I was trying to do and that was showing that some parts of the Bible have revised meanings or have been completely ignored. Paul wrote one thing about women and now we have churches with women deacons and Sunday School teachers.

I was once told by a Minister that Christians must understand the New Testament letters in the context of the time. He told a much younger Pelayo that Paul was giving advice to small, struggling, often persecuted religious minorities and some of this advice had no applicability to current times. If Islam can put the Quran in that same context, that is a start.

With nothing which to make a comparison, there is practically no hope that Islam can ever be reformed. This conflict will continue until non-Muslims literally have their backs against the wall and the only conclusion is the logical conclusion - a war that will make WWII look like a little skirmish. I and all of you will be long gone and a future generation will have to shed the blood.

This is the last word from me on this subject.

Don't everyone cheer at once.

Posted by: Pelayo at November 5, 2007 11:00 PM

To err is human, allat.

Besides, you are only heeding your own closing bit of advice.

I feign ineptitude myself all the time; really quite good at it, too.

ContraJihadistas Rule!

Posted by: John C at November 6, 2007 12:44 AM

Kaffir of the world, unite!

Posted by: Wimbledon Womble at November 6, 2007 12:47 AM

As I posted elsewhere that applied to this...
Anyone whose messiah is prophesied to emerge from the depths of the earth...I mean *ahem* a well (which should be a REALLY BIG CLUE to those with common sense) is of no God of Abraham (whose prophecies say the direction in question is from the other direction entirely).

Then again, it's not news...
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/9/24/152943.shtml

LAN ASTASLEM!

Posted by: jcom972 at November 6, 2007 3:53 AM

John C: To err is human, but I want to be Supra human.

As to ineptitude, "Senor, did I do something wrong? I'm so sorry. Excuse me, Senor."

Actually, I suppose you're referring to my itchy fingers in the multitude of one comment. It happened that I thought I was only doing Previews.

Posted by: allat at November 6, 2007 8:48 AM

"I don't think it would be stretching the truth to claim that Islam's origins are non-human (and anti-human) and predate Muhammad by several thousand years."
Posted by: pythagoras

Absolutely, the submissive monkeys to the alpha male prostrate themselves just like the muslims do...

Posted by: eloivsdiablo at November 6, 2007 9:38 AM

As I posted elsewhere that applied to this...
Anyone whose messiah is prophesied to emerge from the depths of the earth...I mean *ahem* a well (which should be a REALLY BIG CLUE to those with common sense) is of no God of Abraham (whose prophecies say the direction in question is from the other direction entirely).

Amazing isn't it jcom? The total opposite of God's truth....from the love of murder and lust, to the Mahdi rising from the bowels of the Earth...strong delusion.

Posted by: interestinconundrum at November 6, 2007 10:14 AM

"male prostrate themselves just like the muslims do... "

Among other things...And I suppose they must be quite accustomed to each other's odors...among other unpleasant things...which I won't mention. Ugh!

Posted by: allat at November 6, 2007 10:33 AM

@champ

ynkedoodl2 is a male.

Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at November 6, 2007 11:31 AM

OK -- mystery solved :-)

Posted by: champ at November 6, 2007 11:42 AM

Why not call this Islamic woman an "infidelophobe."

Two can play at this game!

Posted by: pythagoras at November 6, 2007 3:21 PM

yes, 'conundrum,,
it is amazing, in a macabre kind of way.

Perhaps another reason "reform" isn't even possible, as those who do wise up, and finally "get it", suddenly walk away sayin' "awww, to hell with THAT BS!" and their entire power & control racket collapses in on itself.

Reality has a harsh way of correcting things.

Posted by: jcom972 at November 6, 2007 8:35 PM

and while we're at it...back to topic.
Here's a question the hypocrites of the NH degree called islam do NOT want to answer:
Can you name ONE page, place, chapter or verse, where Jerusalem, or the dome of the rock, is even mentioned in the koran?

Point...how can such *ahem* people call us anything, lay claim to something so significant as the Temple Mount (let alone jerusalem), claiming their "prophet" rose of the Rock of Abraham, IN that very same Jerusalem, when their own "scriptures" don't even mention Jerusalem at all?
If said prophet-in-question rose up to heaven from said rock in that very same Jerusalem as claimed, then mentioning the city of Jerusalem would be of tantamount importance in said scripture-in-question, thus said religion-in-question.

(rhetorical question as I already know the answer)
Why is that?
HhhmmmmmmMMMMMMMMMMMMM??????

Posted by: jcom972 at November 7, 2007 3:58 AM