Guest views are now limited to 12 pages. If you get an "Error" message, just sign in! If you need to create an account, click here.

Jump to content
  • CRYPTO REWARDS!

    Full endorsement on this opportunity - but it's limited, so get in while you can!

ISIL coercing Sunni Iraqi girls to divorce their Shia husbands


Recommended Posts

Just as the majority of Americans do not follow the fundamentalist religious zealots, whom I'm sure get lots of airtime in Islam.... See: Westboro Baptist Church, FLDS...

 

The majority of Muslims do not follow the extremist over there...

in fact a true Muslim following their faith denounces all terrorism.

 

The extremist are getting most of the airtime here...but that is not a true picture of who the majority of these people are.

 

Stop The Hate!!!

As I see it the extremists run with fear tactics. Everyone else is afraid to denounce and publicly outcry against them! Where are all the so called Muslim leaders of the world. I don't see them standing up. I don't see it in the news here or there! Also, as a world we don't ban together and fight against these terrorists. It should be quick and swift. The message against this kind of violence should be sharp and fast. Not because I agree with violence but unfortunately this is the only way to save lives. By sending a quick message with unequal force swiftly and strong.

Yet, the world and forces against this brutal evil is slow and so the extremists gain footholds. They gain power and hide in cracks coming out in the night. This problem is going to take many more lives and many years due to the slow response against it. And in the front of this are their own people, who say the least and do the least to stop it!

This is a world problem... It grows like cancer.

In the end I truly believe in PEACE but you can't reason with generations of uneducated hate.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would seemingly be important to understand what exactly is meant when using the word infidel in characterizing another... So I went in search of contextual renderings, and was surprised to find the word infidel as having a place in both the Jewish and Christian religions which proceeded the Islam religion chronologically.... I guess it makes sense the word would carry over.... Then again, I'm always surprised to find that many people don't know that you can find much more in-depth discussion of some of the major Biblical characters and their lives in the Qur'an.... For example, the Qur'an gives much greater depth in discussing Mary, the mother of Jesus..
Of course I'm equally surprised that many don't know that Jesus is referenced in the Qur'an (not as the Son of G-d... but a major prophet) And this is of course not to engage debate as to whether or not Jesus is the Son of G-d, and instead is a notation that Jesus as a man is acknowledged as living and real.... Indeed, as a historical record, the Qur'an clearly corroborates that Jesus was real and His historical record of existence is clearly recorded in documenting that reality as an independent source...... but I digress and back to the characterization of another as an infidel....
The below reference is a bit confusing (to me) in being out of chronological order in terms of when the developed religions emerged  and would have been more accurate to reference them in the order of Jewish, Christian, and Islam and I'm sure why Catholic was thrown in as separate from Christian.... but there is some interesting info....  
Here is some of what I found...:
 
 
Infidel (literally "one without faith") is a term used in certain religions, especially Christianity and Islam, for one who has no religious beliefs, or who doubts or rejects the central tenets of the particular religion.%5B1%5D%5B2%5D%5B3%5D
Infidel is an ecclesiastical term in Christianity around which the Church developed a body of theology that deals with the concept of infidelity, which makes a clear differentiation between those who were baptized and followed the teachings of the Church versus those who are outside the faith.%5B4%5D The term infidel was used by Christians to describe those perceived as the enemies of Christianity. When applied to non-monotheists, the usage of the word is similar to the appellations heathen or pagan.%5B5%5D As such, the term infidel has often been applied to atheists, whose disbelief is viewed negatively in both Christianity and Islam.%5B6%5D%5B7%5D%5B8%5D
After the ancient world the concept of otherness, an exclusionary notion of the outside by societies with more or less coherent cultural boundaries, became associated with the development of the monotheistic and prophetic religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. The conception of infidelity as a theological condition is a result of their strict conformity to monotheism, as well as their rejection and condemnation of pagan rites.%5B4%5D
The origins of the word Infidel date to the late 15th century, deriving from the French infidèle or Latin īnfidēlis, from in- "not" + fidēlis "faithful" (from fidēs "faith", related to fīdere 'to trust'). The word originally denoted a person of a religion other than one's own, specifically a Christian to a Muslim, a Muslim to a Christian, or a Gentile to a Jew.%5B3%5D Later meanings in the 15th century include "unbelieving", "a non-Christian" and "one who does not believe in religion" (1527).
Christian
Christians have historically referred to people outside their religious group as infidels, somebody who has actively rejected the Christian religion. It only became a well established notion in English sometime in the early sixteenth century, when Jews or "Mohammedans", were described as active opponents to Christianity, and as such infidel was seen as term of contempt. In Catholic doctrine, an infidel is one who does not believe in the doctrine at all and is thus distinct from a heretic, who is one seen as having fallen astray from true doctrine, i.e. by denying the divinity of Jesus. Similarly, the ecclesiastical term was also used by the Methodist Church,%5B9%5D%5B10%5D in reference to those "without faith".%5B11%5D
Today, the usage of the term infidel has declined;%5B12%5D the current preference is for the terms non-Christians and non-believers (persons without religious affiliations or beliefs), reflecting the commitment of mainstream Christian denominations to engage in dialog with persons of other faiths.%5B13%5D Nevertheless, some apologists have argued for the usage of the term, stating that it does not come from a disrespectful perspective, but is similar to using the term orthodox for devout believers.%5B14%5D
Moreover, some translations of the Bible, such as the Authorized Version, which is still in vogue today, employ the word infidel, while others supplant the term with nonbeliever; the term is found in two places:

And what concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? —2 Corinthians 6:15 KJV


But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel. —1 Timothy 5:8 KJV

Islamic
Ambox_content.png
This article contains weasel words: vague phrasing that often accompanies biased or unverifiable information. Such statements should be clarified or removed. (June 2014)
Infidel is an English language word commonly used to translate the equivalent Arabic language word for non-Muslims; kafir (sometimes "kaafir", "kufr" or "kuffar"), and the equivalent Turkish loanword gâvur, literally the one who "covers" and "conceals", is usually translated as "disbeliever"; i.e. in English translations of the Quranic verse, 109:1,%5B15%5D%5B16%5D%5B17%5D Other terms sometimes synonymously used in Islamic literature for infidel are shirk, mushirk, and mushrikun.%5B18%5D%5B19%5D
In the earliest recited verses of the Qur'an, such as Al-Kafirun, the term kafir simply divided the Meccan community into believers and unbelievers. In later recited verses, particularly those recited after the Hijra in 622 AD, the concept of infidel - kafir - was expanded upon, with Jews and Christians included.%5B20%5D The expanded term kafir refers to anyone who satisfies one or more of the following conditions - practices idolatry of any form, does not accept the absolute oneness of God, denies Muhammed as Prophet, ignores God's ayah (evidence or signs), or rejects belief in resurrection and final judgment. Jews were condemned as infidels for their disbelief in God's ayah, Christians were condemned as infidels for their belief in the Trinity, which the Qur'an declared as a form of polytheism.%5B20%5D%5B21%5D%5B22%5D%5B23%5D Certain sects of Islam, such as Wahhabism, include as kafir those Muslims who undertake Sufi shrine pilgrimage and follow Shia teachings about Imams.%5B24%5D%5B25%5D%5B26%5D
The usage of kafir, and related words with root k-f-r for infidel and unbelievers is very common in the Qur'an and Hadith.%5B23%5D Under Islam, an infidel (kafir) is considered unclean and ritually impure (najasat).%5B27%5D Many scholars claim Islam's original sources (Qur'an and Hadith) and derived sources (Ijma, Qiyas and Qitabs) speak of violence against infidel unbelievers living in Dar al-Harb - countries where Islamic law is not in force[weasel words], as a matter of religious duty of the Muslim community (fard ala'l kifāya).%5B27%5D Other scholars disagree.%5B28%5D%5B29%5D Yet other scholars refer to the historical sequence of the verses, suggesting verses from early Meccan period recommend waiting and living apart from unbelievers. Later recited verses, such as Surah 2:191 recommend violence against unbelievers.[weasel words]%5B20%5D%5B27%5D
The sunnah in various hadiths, which record the teachings and actions of Muhammad, similarly recommend violence against kafir (disbelievers) .For example, three different hadiths record the following action against infidels by the Prophet and his companions:
Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors. And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers.
People of the Book (Ahl al-kitab)".%5B32%5D%5B33%5D%5B34%5D Other Islamic scholars, however, consider Jews and Christians as kafir. Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, for example, claims, "it is well known among the Muslims, and they are unanimously agreed that the Christians are kaafirs, and even that those who do not regard them as kaafirs are also kaafirs."%5B35%5D%5B36%5D Similarly, Abdul Aziz bin Abdullah bin Baz suggests, "The Jews and Christians are both kafirs and mushrikeen. They are kafirs because they deny the truth and reject it. And they are mushrikeen because they worship someone other than Allah."%5B37%5D%5B38%5D Sheikh Ahmad Kutty, and other scholars, consider annual religious holidays celebrated by Christians such as Christmas as a celebration of the belief in the "Son of God" which in Islam is blasphemy and kafir.%5B39%5D%5B40%5D%5B41%5D
Kafir, like the term infidel, has also come to be regarded as offensive.%5B42%5D
Jewish
Judaism has a notion of pagan gentiles who are called acum (an acronym of Ovdei Cohavim u-Mazzaloth or, literally, those who are "star-and-constellation worshippers") or idolaters. The Hebrew term, kofer, cognate with the Arabic kafir, is reserved for apostate Jews.%5B4%5D
Infidels under Canon Law Right to rule
In Quid super his, Innocent IV, asked the question "s it licit to invade a land that infidels possess or which belongs to them?" and held that while Infidels had a right to dominium (right to rule themselves and choose their own governments), however the pope, as the Vicar of Christ, de jure possessed the care of their souls and had the right to politically intervene in their affairs if their ruler violated or allowed his subjects to violate a Christian and Euro-centric normative conception of Natural law, such as sexual perversion or idolatry.%5B43%5D He also held that he had an obligation to send missionaries to infidel lands, and that if they were prevented from entering or preaching, then the pope was justified in dispatching Christian forces accompanied with missionaries to invade those lands, as Innocent stated simply "If the infidels do not obey, they ought to be compelled by the secular arm and war may be declared upon them by the pope, and nobody else."%5B44%5D This was however not a reciprocal right and non-Christian missionaries such as those of Muslims could not be allowed to preach in Europe "because they are in error and we are on a righteous path."%5B43%5D
A long line of Papal hierocratic canonists, most notably those who adhered to Alanus Anglicus's influential arguments of the Crusading-era, denied Infidel dominium, and asserted Rome's universal jurisdictional authority over the earth, and the right to authorize pagan conquests solely on the basis of non-belief because of their rejection of the Christian god.%5B45%5D In the extreme hierocractic canonical discourse of the mid-twelfth century such as that espoused by Bernard of Clairvaux, the mystic leader of the Cisertcians, legitimized German colonial expansion and practice of forceful Christianisation in the Slavic territories as a holy war against the Wends, arguing that infidels should be killed wherever they posed a menace to Christians.%5B46%5D When Frederick the II unilaterally arrogated papal authority, he took on the mantle to "destroy convert, and subjugate all barbarian nations." A power in papal doctrine reserved for the pope. Hostiensis, a student of Innocent, in accord with Alanus, also asserted "... by law infidels should be subject to the faithful." and the heretical quasi-Donatist John Wyclif, regarded as the forefather of English Reformation, also held that valid dominium rested on a state of grace.%5B46%5D
The Teutonic Knights were one of the by-products of this papal hierocratic and German discourse. After the Crusades in the Levant, they moved to crusading activities in the infidel Baltics.%5B47%5D Their crusades against the Lithuanians and Poles however precipitated the Lithuanian Controversy, and the Council of Constance, following the condemnation of Wyclif, found Hostiensis's views no longer acceptable and ruled against the knights. Future Church doctrine was then firmly aligned with Innocents IV's position.%5B47%5D
The development of counter arguments later on the validity of Papal authority, the rights of infidels and the primacy of natural law, led to various treatises such as those by Hugo Grotius, John Locke, Immanuel Kant and Thomas Hobbes, which in turn led to the transformation of international law's treatment of the relationship between Christian and non-Christian societies and the development of human rights.
Colonization of the Americas
During the Age of discovery, the Papal Bulls such as Romanus Pontifex and more importantly inter caetera (1493), implicitly removed dominium from infidels and granted them to the Spanish Empire and Portugal with the charter of guaranteeing the safety of missionaries.%5B48%5D Subsequent English and French rejections of the bull refuted the Popes authority to exclude other Christian princes. As independent authorities such as the Head of the Church of England, they drew up charters for their own colonial missions based on the temporal right for care of infidel souls in language echoing the inter caetera.%5B48%5D The charters and papal bulls would form the legal basis of future negotiations and consideration of claims as title deeds in the emerging Law of nations in the European colonization of the Americas.%5B48%5D
The rights bestowed by Romanus Pontifex and inter caetera have never fallen from use, serving as the basis for legal arguments over the centuries. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the 1823 case that as a result of European discovery and assumption of ultimate dominion, Native Americans had only a right to occupancy of native lands, not the right of title. This decision was upheld in the 1831 case Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, giving Georgia authority to extend state laws over Cherokees within the state, and famously describing Native American tribes as "domestic dependent nations." This decision was modified in Worcester v. Georgia, which stated that the U.S. federal government, and not individual states, had authority in Indian affairs, but it maintained the loss of right to title upon discovery by Europeans.
Native American groups including the Taíno and Onondaga have called on the Vatican to revoke the bulls of 1452, 1453, and 1493.[citation needed]
Marriage
According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, the Church views Marriage as forbidden and null when conducted between the faithful (Christians) and infidels, unless a dispensation has been granted.%5B49%5D This is because marriage is a sacrament of the Catholic Church, which infidels are deemed incapable of receiving.%5B49%5D
As a philosophical tradition
Some philosophers such as Thomas Paine, David Hume, George Holyoake, Charles Bradlaugh, Voltaire and Rousseau earned the label of infidel or freethinkers, both personally and for their respective traditions of thought because of their attacks on religion and opposition to the Church. They established and participated in a distinctly labeled, infidel movement or tradition of thought, that sought to reform their societies which were steeped in Christian thought, practice, laws and culture. The Infidel tradition was distinct from parallel anti-Christian, sceptic or deist movements, in that it was anti-theistic and also synonymous with atheism. These traditions also sought to set up various independent model communities, as well as societies, whose traditions then gave rise to various other socio-political movements such as secularism in 1851, as well as developing close philosophical ties to some contemporary political movements such as socialism and the French Revolution.%5B50%5D
Towards the early twentieth century, these movements sought to move away from the tag "infidel" because of its associate negative connotation in Christian thought, and is attributed to George Holyoake's coining the term 'secularism' in an attempt to bridge the gap with other theist and Christian liberal reform movements.%5B50%5D
In 1793, Immanuel Kant's Religion within the Boundaries of Mere Reason
, reflected the Enlightenment periods' philosophical development, one which differentiated between the moral and rational and substituted rational/irrational for the original true believer/infidel distinction.%5B4%5D
Implications upon medieval civil law
Laws passed by the Catholic Church governed not just the laws between Christians and Infidels in matters of religious affairs, but also civil affairs. They were prohibited from participating or aiding in infidel religious rites, such as circumcisions or wearing images of non-Christian religious significance.%5B49%5D
In the Early Middle Ages, based on the idea of the superiority of Christians to infidels, regulations came into place such as those forbidding Jews from possessing Christian slaves; the laws of the decretals further forbade Christians from entering the service of Jews, for Christian women to act as their nurses or midwives; forbidding Christians from employing Jewish physicians when ill; restricting Jews to definite quarters of the towns into which they were admitted and to wear a dress by which they might be recognized.%5B49%5D
Later during the Victorian era, testimony of either self declared, or those accused of being Infidels or Atheists, was not accepted in a court of law because it was felt that they had no moral imperative to not lie under oath because they did not believe in God, or Heaven and Hell.%5B50%5D
These rules have now given way to modern legislation and Catholics, in civil life, are no longer governed by ecclesiastical law.%5B49%5D
 
 
And as a further observation... and to be very crystal clear, I am not defending Islam or its beliefs nor am I denying what it does or does not say in context about killing infidels.... indeed I have references totaling over 109 that make this reference... However, I can't even begin to comment on its context... on its exegesis... and in my world of Biblical scholarship, one would be shooting in the dark in making bold proclamations unless they were a scholar speaking both ancient and current Arabic IF those were the languages of origination...That I do not know. And as Nelg points the Bible is an eastern book  And likewise  was NOT initially written in English  coming to us from the middle east of the same general area that produced the Qur'an and was translated at least 5 times before it got to us in English)

 

In any event,  I don't see the degree of scholarship in here (yet) that would be credible from a strictly accurate perspective in commentary either way. Having opinions is great, though I'm not sure any of them have sufficient foundation to be held as any more credible than another... (yeah, I'm looking for the scholar). Then again, I admit to very strict criterion in bestowing credibility when it comes to the exegesis of a Holy book.

 

That notwithstanding, it seems a bit out of line with history if not less than honest with ourselves, to claim  that Christianity did not kill, maim and torture hundreds upon thousands of infidels who did not embrace Christianity. To make that claim, one would have to completely deny the decades of widespread Christian Crusades. The Crusades was not one really long lasting Rose Parade.Hundreds upon thousands were killed over many many years... And yeah its over and done... and that was then, we just can't pretend it never way when pointing a finger at another... It was part of that culture of Christianity.... As was the murder of hundreds of women who were killed as witches many years later here in this country as part of deeply held Christian beliefs... And in current times, deeply held Christian beliefs lead to killing doctors / health providers who are deemed to be adversarial to Christianity in their abortion work....

 

And please, again be clear I am not defending or advocating or any position as to  whether or not it is okay to kill another person out of one's religious beliefs....What I am saying is any honest conversation about doing so, is only honest to the degree we acknowledge and perhaps examine our own history of doing the same, and not pretending it did not or does not happen in order to point the finger at another who believes differently ...

 

Not all Muslims are the same, not all Christians are the same, not all Jews are the same, and the extent to which we lump them all together, and deny there are zealots in every religious group, is the extent to which we get further from the truth about who is G-d and who we are in relation to Him as the individuals we are. Deal with the zealots as who they are and treat them as such... recognize them for what they are, and consider them outside the devout worship of people seeking to know G-d...

 

And obviously this will not appeal to everyone, and many will disagree... Equally obvious, is that I come from a Jewish scholarship perspective and exegesis, which is not always consistent with some Christian exegesis, and in that we are likely to differ...which is totally cool...  I've also spent considerable time in the sand, and all over the ME  and may be returning... Just like anywhere you go, how you view a people is a matter of personal perspective, and that's all it is... mine included... If there was only one way to view the world and we could all see it from that one view, things would be so much easier... and that is not how it is... G-d is a G-d of free will, so its up to us as individuals as to how we see the world... and live in the world in relationship to our G-d....  
 

Edited by Rayzur
  • Upvote 4
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good information, Ms Raysur.  Well written summation.  

I will address a couple of things you said in a later post.  I have two classes to prepare and teach today, so time is limited.  One thing I will say in brief.  My defining any word or phrase coming from the Bible will be from biblical scholars versed in Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, etc.   I find that many of the theological definitions are replete with information from their particular brand of scholarship, which is not without bias.  Also, the progressive changing of the meaning of words by culture hinders one coming to the meaning of that word in a biblical context (time, culture, usage). Carrying a meaning "back from the future" usage can and does do harm to an understand of the biblical meaning and true intent of the writer.  

JMO.  

Got to go.  

Thanks again.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh yeah yeah Nelg... for sure I'm good with our discussions  and in some cases repartee on the fly we've had in the past... and certainly did not mean to either relive those, and hopefully did not put words or imply meanings into your current discussion.. I probably should have just left it at "as Nelg says, the Bible is an eastern book... and disconnected that from my further discussion....

I'm actually leaving in the next few hours for the next 6 weeks, and am  doing some quick wrap up online...popping in here for a few seconds. I'll likely not be back here for a few days, if then and won't have public access to internet for much of that time... so doubt I will be in here to see your reply.... but its all good for me and if I distorted something you meant, it was not my intention as I was actually agreeing with your statement about the genesis of the Bible.... 

See ya all later... .  

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just as the majority of Americans do not follow the fundamentalist religious zealots, whom I'm sure get lots of airtime in Islam.... See: Westboro Baptist Church, FLDS...

 

The majority of Muslims do not follow the extremist over there...

in fact a true Muslim following their faith denounces all terrorism.

 

The extremist are getting most of the airtime here...but that is not a true picture of who the majority of these people are.

 

Stop The Hate!!!

 

Who knew my statement would raise so much decent.... sometimes I think people like to disagree to disagree.

 

For those with limited reading comprehension notice I said "Muslims following their faith"... Not The Qur'an.

Those who say fear them because of what the Qur'an says... They are missing what our own Christian Bible says.

 

So why would a Muslim believe us when we say that Christianity represents Love? What have we shown them?

The Muslims have plenty of reasons to hate all of us... our actions have put them in real peril... believe it or not.

It always leaves me gobsmacked when folks say they should be "Grateful To Us". They need to do some reading.

 

Anyways our own Bible can be twisted by the Zealots for their own agendas... also true of the Qur'an.

I can say with full confidence that the majority of Christians and Muslims do NOT follow the Zealots.

Folks who say that need to pause a moment and think about the Crusades... Is that our current goal??? NOPE

I do not believe that is a current goal nor even on the radar of any goals made by the majority of the Muslims there.

To stereo type them in that way... "Because the Qur'an says so"... is just plain stupid.... There... I said it!!! :)

 

The Majority Of Christians AND Muslims Are Following Their Faith In God/Alla... They Do Not Take Every Word In The Good Books Literally And Apply Those Passages To Our Times And To Our Modern Lives...

 

Hence To Paint ALL Muslims With The Same Terrorist Brush Strokes Because Of What The Qur'an May Or May Not Say...

Is Simply Not Right And Certainly Does Not Show Much In Faith Or One's Wisdom Of What God Truly Represents ...

The Only Thing Accomplished By Us Adding More Fear And Hatred To The Situation... Is To Breed More Fear And Hatred.

 

PS. Just to be careful... just to be ever so much more clear... I'd like to assure my condescending pals here ...

I fully recognize that the ISIS TERRORIST need to be culled out and dealt with.  That Is A Given. Alrighty???

 

 

Quoting Rayzur:

 

"And please, again be clear I am not defending or advocating or any position as to  whether or not it is okay to kill another person out of one's religious beliefs....What I am saying is any honest conversation about doing so, is only honest to the degree we acknowledge and perhaps examine our own history of doing the same, and not pretending it did not or does not happen in order to point the finger at another who believes differently ...

 

Not all Muslims are the same, not all Christians are the same, not all Jews are the same, and the extent to which we lump them all together, and deny there are zealots in every religious group, is the extent to which we get further from the truth about who is G-d and who we are in relation to Him as the individuals we are. Deal with the zealots as who they are and treat them as such... recognize them for what they are, and consider them outside the devout worship of people seeking to know G-d..."

 

Thank You Rayzur... Your whole post was very interesting and informative. What I most admire is the way you clarified and distilled this all down to the crux of the matter we were trying to discuss in a coherent way... and failing miserably in doing so. Lol I Very Much Appreciate Your Contributions Here Rayzur And Have A Safe Journey.

 

 

The only one I can speak for... the only one I have control over... is myself.

 

~~~ "Peace Begins With Me" ~~~

Edited by Maggie123
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're correct Rochester about some religious groups that espouse Christianity. However, all those that make a claim to being Christian or not Christian. Terrible things have been accepted, demanded, and twisted in the name of religion; mainly because "religion" is the emotional way to manipulate and control the people. If the people think that they are obeying the mandates of their "faith," then it is easier to get them to do other things as well. Aka. Jim Jones, etc.

True Christians and the faith of Christ do not act in this way.

I actually agree with this to some extent

The truth of Christianity is love and kindness yet so much hate is tossed around in the name of Christ.

I believe most religions share the same philosophy at their core - and each is a metaphor for these truths so that the people in those areas at that time can wrap their heads around it. Prayer and mediation are very similar and both put the brain in a powerful state to access our internal wisdom, energy and intuition. It is the human - the not so perfect man- who distorts religion to match their twisted perceptions and actions in the name of God.

I don't think God follows all of if...I think the universal intelligence just IS.

The majority of Muslims do not follow the extremist over there...

in fact a true Muslim following their faith denounces all terrorism.

The extremist are getting most of the airtime here...but that is not a true picture of who the majority of these people are.

Stop The Hate!!!

Agreed! Open your eyes people. The majority of Muslim are kind and want the same things you do - to live in peace and be in the Bisson of family.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maggie I have friends who are also Muslim and confirm what you are saying-

dragonchylde your perceptions are distorted by rhetoric, hate and distortion. To believe all Muslim people want to kill you is ridiculous. Most Muslim people are peaceful and loving. Truth.

Dragon, like you I have read some of the Quran. I stopped when I got to the part about the man giving his wife an allotment to buy her beauty aids, (Makeup) is what the brother told me it meant. Maggie, I would certainly not get into a religious debate with you about Islam just like I wouldn't involve myself with a debate with Billy Graham on Christianity. I can tell you I've been living in the middle east since 2004 an what you see on TV is only a part of what really goes on over here. Trust me when I say...They HATE Americans, LOVE your money...It's preached weekly in their Mosque's over here about the corrupt an evil infidel. I will repeat myself, Islam is NOT a religion, it is a CULT...Ma'am that's not hate, that's fact...

Wouldn't you hate people who came into your country and tried to bully you in the name of their religion and philosophy? Not to mention the arrogance of many Americans around ownership of global resources as demonstrated by the documentary "Why We Did It?". Chaney has an agenda and it had nothing to do with human beings - neither Muslim not American...it had to do with GREED.

I am ashamed of many of the actions the US has taken in the name of democracy covering a grab for resources. It's brain washing to think we are all good and no evil. I would certainly oust person out of my house for trying to steal my stereo or my clothes. If they raped me and forcably destroyed my home I would hate them as these people hate us. Time to take responsibility-we asked for it. We did not demonstrate love, we demonstrated hate. And hate begets hate.

That doesn't mean that some are not blind sided and bigoted / but I see the same thing coming from the opposite side (us) in this very thread.

http://youtu.be/Sbey4hPlrX0

He who throws the first stone needs to be free of all sin...so look in the mirror folks. We are not innocent as we would like to believe...

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And as a further observation... and to be very crystal clear, I am not defending Islam or its beliefs nor am I denying what it does or does not say in context about killing infidels.... indeed I have references totaling over 109 that make this reference... However, I can't even begin to comment on its context... on its exegesis... and in my world of Biblical scholarship, one would be shooting in the dark in making bold proclamations unless they were a scholar speaking both ancient and current Arabic IF those were the languages of origination...That I do not know. And as Nelg points the Bible is an eastern book And likewise was NOT initially written in English coming to us from the middle east of the same general area that produced the Qur'an and was translated at least 5 times before it got to us in English) [/i]

In any event, I don't see the degree of scholarship in here (yet) that would be credible from a strictly accurate perspective in commentary either way. Having opinions is great, though I'm not sure any of them have sufficient foundation to be held as any more credible than another... (yeah, I'm looking for the scholar). Then again, I admit to very strict criterion in bestowing credibility when it comes to the exegesis of a Holy book.

That notwithstanding, it seems a bit out of line with history if not less than honest with ourselves, to claim that Christianity did not kill, maim and torture hundreds upon thousands of infidels who did not embrace Christianity. To make that claim, one would have to completely deny the decades of widespread Christian Crusades. The Crusades was not one really long lasting Rose Parade.Hundreds upon thousands were killed over many many years... And yeah its over and done... and that was then, we just can't pretend it never way when pointing a finger at another... It was part of that culture of Christianity.... As was the murder of hundreds of women who were killed as witches many years later here in this country as part of deeply held Christian beliefs... And in current times, deeply held Christian beliefs lead to killing doctors / health providers who are deemed to be adversarial to Christianity in their abortion work....

And please, again be clear I am not defending or advocating or any position as to whether or not it is okay to kill another person out of one's religious beliefs....What I am saying is any honest conversation about doing so, is only honest to the degree we acknowledge and perhaps examine our own history of doing the same, and not pretending it did not or does not happen in order to point the finger at another who believes differently ...

Not all Muslims are the same, not all Christians are the same, not all Jews are the same, and the extent to which we lump them all together, and deny there are zealots in every religious group, is the extent to which we get further from the truth about who is G-d and who we are in relation to Him as the individuals we are. Deal with the zealots as who they are and treat them as such... recognize them for what they are, and consider them outside the devout worship of people seeking to know G-d...

And obviously this will not appeal to everyone, and many will disagree... Equally obvious, is that I come from a Jewish scholarship perspective and exegesis, which is not always consistent with some Christian exegesis, and in that we are likely to differ...which is totally cool... I've also spent considerable time in the sand, and all over the ME and may be returning... Just like anywhere you go, how you view a people is a matter of personal perspective, and that's all it is... mine included... If there was only one way to view the world and we could all see it from that one view, things would be so much easier... and that is not how it is... G-d is a G-d of free will, so its up to us as individuals as to how we see the world... and live in the world in relationship to our G-d....

Rayzor you ROCK! I couldn't have said it better. Thank you.

Who knew my statement would raise so much decent.... sometimes I think people like to disagree to disagree.

For those with limited reading comprehension notice I said "Muslims following their faith"... Not The Qur'an.

Those who say fear them because of what the Qur'an says... They are missing what our own Christian Bible says.

So why would a Muslim believe us when we say that Christianity represents Love? What have we shown them?

The Muslims have plenty of reasons to hate all of us... our actions have put them in real peril... believe it or not.

It always leaves me gobsmacked when folks say they should be "Grateful To Us". They need to do some reading.

Anyways our own Bible can be twisted by the Zealots for their own agendas... also true of the Qur'an.

I can say with full confidence that the majority of Christians and Muslims do NOT follow the Zealots.

Folks who say that need to pause a moment and think about the Crusades... Is that our current goal??? NOPE

I do not believe that is a current goal nor even on the radar of any goals made by the majority of the Muslims there.

To stereo type them in that way... "Because the Qur'an says so"... is just plain stupid.... There... I said it!!! :)

The Majority Of Christians AND Muslims Are Following Their Faith In God/Alla... They Do Not Take Every Word In The Good Books Literally And Apply Those Passages To Our Times And To Our Modern Lives...

Hence To Paint ALL Muslims With The Same Terrorist Brush Strokes Because Of What The Qur'an May Or May Not Say...

Is Simply Not Right And Certainly Does Not Show Much In Faith Or One's Wisdom Of What God Truly Represents ...

The Only Thing Accomplished By Us Adding More Fear And Hatred To The Situation... Is To Breed More Fear And Hatred.

PS. Just to be careful... just to be ever so much more clear... I'd like to assure my condescending pals here ...

I fully recognize that the ISIS TERRORIST need to be culled out and dealt with. That Is A Given. Alrighty???

Quoting Rayzur:

"And please, again be clear I am not defending or advocating or any position as to whether or not it is okay to kill another person out of one's religious beliefs....What I am saying is any honest conversation about doing so, is only honest to the degree we acknowledge and perhaps examine our own history of doing the same, and not pretending it did not or does not happen in order to point the finger at another who believes differently ...

Not all Muslims are the same, not all Christians are the same, not all Jews are the same, and the extent to which we lump them all together, and deny there are zealots in every religious group, is the extent to which we get further from the truth about who is G-d and who we are in relation to Him as the individuals we are. Deal with the zealots as who they are and treat them as such... recognize them for what they are, and consider them outside the devout worship of people seeking to know G-d..."

Thank You Rayzur... Your whole post was very interesting and informative. What I most admire is the way you clarified and distilled this all down to the crux of the matter we were trying to discuss in a coherent way... and failing miserably in doing so. Lol I Very Much Appreciate Your Contributions Here Rayzur And Have A Safe Journey.

The only one I can speak for... the only one I have control over... is myself.

~~~ "Peace Begins With Me" ~~~

Fully agree with all of this. And for the record - ISIS IS EVIL - all muslims are not. Let's treat the infection at its site rather than chopping an entire leg off...each branch is a part of humanity.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maggie,  Though you started a whole thread in it self.  It sure was some nice reading.  All I can say to all of it, religion itself has divided people, and the message of every holy book out there is love.  Some have a funny way of showing it, and there are prejudices in each and every one.  Everyone's spirtuality depends on them.  I am a firm believer if you seek you will find truth in spirit and in love.  Your awesome!   And Rayzur, your awesome intellectual mind gives us all an expansion on our minds.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Diarian64,

Of course that's what it was about, OIL. Nothing else other than that and fiat currencies. Saddam didn't have anything other than the US and Russia sold to him. I don't think they could make a hand grenade by themselves, they buy all their weapons from foreign countries.

Wm13

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maggie I have friends who are also Muslim and confirm what you are saying-

dragonchylde your perceptions are distorted by rhetoric, hate and distortion. To believe all Muslim people want to kill you is ridiculous. Most Muslim people are peaceful and loving. Truth.

Wouldn't you hate people who came into your country and tried to bully you in the name of their religion and philosophy? Not to mention the arrogance of many Americans around ownership of global resources as demonstrated by the documentary "Why We Did It?". Chaney has an agenda and it had nothing to do with human beings - neither Muslim not American...it had to do with GREED.

I am ashamed of many of the actions the US has taken in the name of democracy covering a grab for resources. It's brain washing to think we are all good and no evil. I would certainly oust person out of my house for trying to steal my stereo or my clothes. If they raped me and forcably destroyed my home I would hate them as these people hate us. Time to take responsibility-we asked for it. We did not demonstrate love, we demonstrated hate. And hate begets hate.

That doesn't mean that some are not blind sided and bigoted / but I see the same thing coming from the opposite side (us) in this very thread.

http://youtu.be/Sbey4hPlrX0

He who throws the first stone needs to be free of all sin...so look in the mirror folks. We are not innocent as we would like to believe...

 

 

Dinarian Thank You... Good Posts My Dear. :)

 

With regard to Dragon's responses... she/he acted as though I had a quick chat in line at the gas station.

 

These people were my daughter's close friends, we knew them well and they were in our home many times. They actually didn't meet each other as they were both here for University at different times... they both were wonderful, honest and trusted individuals that both said the same things about the stupid misconceptions that Americans have about Muslims. I found them very enjoyable.

 

 

 

Thank You So Much Uncirculd... Coming from you it means a lot. :)

Edited by Maggie123
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who knew my statement would raise so much decent.... sometimes I think people like to disagree to disagree.

 

For those with limited reading comprehension notice I said "Muslims following their faith"... Not The Qur'an.

Those who say fear them because of what the Qur'an says... They are missing what our own Christian Bible says.

 

So why would a Muslim believe us when we say that Christianity represents Love? What have we shown them?

The Muslims have plenty of reasons to hate all of us... our actions have put them in real peril... believe it or not.

It always leaves me gobsmacked when folks say they should be "Grateful To Us". They need to do some reading.

 

Anyways our own Bible can be twisted by the Zealots for their own agendas... also true of the Qur'an.

I can say with full confidence that the majority of Christians and Muslims do NOT follow the Zealots.

Folks who say that need to pause a moment and think about the Crusades... Is that our current goal??? NOPE

I do not believe that is a current goal nor even on the radar of any goals made by the majority of the Muslims there.

To stereo type them in that way... "Because the Qur'an says so"... is just plain stupid.... There... I said it!!! :)

 

The Majority Of Christians AND Muslims Are Following Their Faith In God/Alla... They Do Not Take Every Word In The Good Books Literally And Apply Those Passages To Our Times And To Our Modern Lives...

 

Hence To Paint ALL Muslims With The Same Terrorist Brush Strokes Because Of What The Qur'an May Or May Not Say...

Is Simply Not Right And Certainly Does Not Show Much In Faith Or One's Wisdom Of What God Truly Represents ...

The Only Thing Accomplished By Us Adding More Fear And Hatred To The Situation... Is To Breed More Fear And Hatred.

 

PS. Just to be careful... just to be ever so much more clear... I'd like to assure my condescending pals here ...

I fully recognize that the ISIS TERRORIST need to be culled out and dealt with.  That Is A Given. Alrighty???

 

 

Quoting Rayzur:

 

"And please, again be clear I am not defending or advocating or any position as to  whether or not it is okay to kill another person out of one's religious beliefs....What I am saying is any honest conversation about doing so, is only honest to the degree we acknowledge and perhaps examine our own history of doing the same, and not pretending it did not or does not happen in order to point the finger at another who believes differently ...

 

Not all Muslims are the same, not all Christians are the same, not all Jews are the same, and the extent to which we lump them all together, and deny there are zealots in every religious group, is the extent to which we get further from the truth about who is G-d and who we are in relation to Him as the individuals we are. Deal with the zealots as who they are and treat them as such... recognize them for what they are, and consider them outside the devout worship of people seeking to know G-d..."

 

Thank You Rayzur... Your whole post was very interesting and informative. What I most admire is the way you clarified and distilled this all down to the crux of the matter we were trying to discuss in a coherent way... and failing miserably in doing so. Lol I Very Much Appreciate Your Contributions Here Rayzur And Have A Safe Journey.

 

 

The only one I can speak for... the only one I have control over... is myself.

 

~~~ "Peace Begins With Me" ~~~

 

 

Maggie, I don't mean to bemoan you but a muslim who follows their faith MUST follow their Quran and Hadiths. A muslim cannot choose to not follow bits and pieces of the Quran because it suits them as the very nature of the Quran is that the Quran is from the voice of Allah via the angel of light who appeared to Mohammed in the cave and when he would have his convulsive fit visions to come up with a new verse in the Quran.  

 

Islam has seven pillars, what are those seven pillars? These are the very tenets of Islam. While it is very true that the founder of Islam took the words of the Quran from the Bible and Torah, you cannot necessarily use Christianity as an apple to apple comparison to Islam. This is what propagandists in Islam want Christians to do, use this comparison of Christianity towards Islam to convince the world Islam is just like Christianity and thus like Christianity with all of its faults nonetheless peaceful. Its not and never will be until all the infidels have converted and Islam is in the House of Peace -  Dar Al Salam. A faithful muslim WILL apply the Quran and Hadith messages to today's conflicts in hopes for a resolution. Whether or not that can be done, I won't go that far as that is a discussion for another time. All too frequently a non-muslim will bring up from the quran a book and verse number (e.g. 9:5) and 100% of the muslims I have ever talked to and I have talked to a great deal, will say you are not muslim and you are taking that out of context. Even when you know the history and context of the verse, they will tell you its simply out of context to defeat the argument.

 

I have spoken to many many muslims since before 2001 and long after. I have spoken to apostates of Islam, I have spoken to converts to Islam and I have spoken to muslims who put on the charming smile and demeanor and you find out later, with their own words that come from their own lips, that they are really something else in disguise. I have spoke to the victims of Islam, I have spoken with Assyrians and Copts, I have spoken with Christian Palestinians (who by the way no longer live in Isreal). I grant you not all muslims want to kill infidels, but isn't a muslim who committed shirk nothing but an infidel? And in Islam according to Al Sharia what are you supposed to do with those who commit shirk? The Ottomna Empire was almost destroyed by a sect of Islam called the Wahabis who went through the middle east killing those who committed and shirk. It is from this movement in the mid to late 1800's, that came the phrase push the Jews into the sea. You think because the news speaks about radicals those are few in number? Take a look at how many muslims are in the world? The world has what 5 to 6 billion people and Islam claims to have 2.03 Billion devotees and only 10% to 25% of those devotees are radicals? So what is 2.03 billion multiplied by 10% to 25%? Anything over 1 million is way more than a few even on a whole. A few is a couple of people coming to your house for dinner. A mob is anything more than 10 to 20 people.

 

Let me ask you this, of those remaining, how many pays the zakat ( a tenet of Islam (pillar) found within the Quran which you claim a muslim following his faith but does not follow the Quran)?

 

Here let me ask you this in another way, I drive a car for a two people who go in and rob a bank. In the process of robbing the bank three people in the bank are killed. The two robbers then run out of the bank into the car I have waiting for them and we all take off with the spoils of our conquest.

 

Why am I just as responsible for the killing of those three people as if I went into the bank and pulled the trigger? Am I just as guilty or am I not? 

 

So why are the so-called moderate muslims, faithfully following their faith but not the quran,  who pay zakat to the mosque in which it has been shown that money flows towards terrorists hands not guilty? Before you say there are people who do not pay the zakat, the zakat is also removed from employees paychecks in places like Saudi Arabia and other muslim countries.

 

A lot of people say go to the source, so I have. I am sure you have heard of a website called www.memri.org ? Have you been? Has anyone on here been to this site? Another a little bit biased but its called jihadwatch.org. MEMRI - stands for Middle East Research Institute has videos that have been translated into English from the mouths of everyday people from the Middle East. Most of the people in these videos are not even considered extremists by any sense of the word but listen to what the advocate for and how they want to accomplish what they advocate for. Would you claim the television shows in the Middle East that portray jews eating babies and drinking their blood as extremist? But yet it is a popular theme over in the middle east in what we would call soap operas.

 

Before I end this, I once called and talked to a person from CAIR. We had a discussion over the telephone in which she proceeded to tell me the Western version of Islam was the correct version - peace, love etc. She then proceeded to tell me that the version found in the Middle East (the birthplace of Islam) - hate the kafir, jews are the sons of apes and pigs, slay all the infidels (my translation from KSA says infidels) as it states in 9.5 etc. - was incorrect. I have to ask you which version of Islam do you prescribe to and if Islam is in a continual state of Dal Ar Harb <sp?> , then isn't taqquiya (According to the hadiths, Mohammed said it was okay to lie in three circumstances, the practice of taqquiya is said to be due to one of those circumstances) perfectly acceptable here in the United States an kafir country?

 

Before you respond, please know that I have forgotten way more than I remember about the intricacies of Islam, Quran, Sunnahs and the Hadiths. Second, please do not respond in kind thinking I am a Christian because I am neither Christian nor Jew. Do not use Christianity nor Judiasm to justify the ills and achievements of Islam. If Islam cannot stand on its own two feet, then how does it ever stand a chance to become the dominant religion in the world knowing that it is a descendant from two other religions? Shouldn't it be from Allah? If Islam must use Christianity and Judaism to justify its very tenets, doesn't that in itself go against the teachings of Allah in which Allah never changes his words?

 

Well this might not get posted but here goes...

 

Side note: why are these arabic numbers 1,2,3 but yet in the Quran it uses a numbering system from India? 

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see where you are coming from... Your rhetorical hateful BS won't work with me.

 

You toss the "fear" and "hate mongering" cards out and will try the next... let me guess... intimidate... belittle... anger???

 

Really you should save your (insert description here) for someone else...  I have no time for you Theseus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Theseus, thank you for your insightful post. I did not have time to go pulling the chapter and verses out for Maggie today. Your post and the response shows me how futile the effort would have been. I appreciate the time you put into your post.

Maggie, your spilling of vitriolic acid is unwarranted and a clear sign you know you have been shown to be wrong. It amuses me to see Christians proclaiming peace and love to the exclusion of logic turn to this sort of low class posturing.

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW Theseus... the "little bit biased" website you recommended confirmed all I needed to know...

 

I Googled it and here is what I found...

 

Jihad Watch

 

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 

Organization[edit]

The site features commentary by multiple editors, although its most notable and frequent publisher of content is Robert Spencer. It has been affiliated with the David Horowitz Freedom Center, as a subsidiary project.

 

[15]Dhimmi Watch was a blog on the Jihad Watch site, also maintained by Spencer, focusing on allegations of acts by non-Muslims in defence of the Muslim world.

 

Legal actions have been proposed against the site based on allegations of hate speech; however most of these actions have proven to be unsuccessful.[16][17]

 

Funding[edit]

The Horowitz Freedom Center has paid Spencer, as Jihad Watch's director, a $132,000 salary (2010). Jihad Watch has also received funding from donors supporting the Israeli right,[15] and a variety of individuals and foundations, like Bradley Foundation and Joyce Chernick, wife of Aubrey Chernick.[18]

 

Opposition[show]

Jihad Watch has been criticized for its portrayal of Islam as a totalitarian political doctrine,[9] and has been accused of Islamophobia.[10][11][12][13][14]

 

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) called Jihad Watch an "Internet hate site" and claimed it is "notorious for its depiction of Islam as an inherently violent faith that is a threat to world peace."[32]

 

Guardian writer Brian Whitaker described Jihad Watch as a "notoriously Islamophobic website",[33] while other critics such as Dinesh D'Souza,[34]Karen Armstrong,[35] and Cathy Young,[36] pointed to what they see as "deliberate mischaracterizations" of Islam and Muslims by Spencer as inherently violent and therefore prone to terrorism. Spencer has denied such criticism.[37]

 

Former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, in her book Reconciliation: Islam, Democracy, and the West, wrote that Spencer uses Jihad Watch to spread misinformation and hatred of Islam. She added that he presents a skewed, one-sided, and inflammatory story that only helps to sow the seed of civilizational conflict.[38]

 

Robert Spencer has been described by some civil rights organizations including the Southern Poverty Law Center [39] and Anti-Defamation League [40] as a “hate group leader.”

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad_Watch#cite_note-Kundnani-9


Theseus, thank you for your insightful post. I did not have time to go pulling the chapter and verses out for Maggie today. Your post and the response shows me how futile the effort would have been. I appreciate the time you put into your post.

Maggie, your spilling of vitriolic acid is unwarranted and a clear sign you know you have been shown to be wrong. It amuses me to see Christians proclaiming peace and love to the exclusion of logic turn to this sort of low class posturing.

 

I don't associate with haters... Have a lovely evening Dragon. :) 

Edited by Maggie123
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once again, Maggie, you astound me. Any competent and reliable researcher knows not to trust/quote Wikipedia. It is user editable and often wrong. If you wish to engage in meaningful dialogue based on sound logic and reasoning using reliable information (as you claim to demand) start by providing it yourself. Beyond this, Theseus told you it was a biased website in his post. Attempting to discredit an entire post based on one reference the author told you ahead of time was biased is truly throwing the baby out with the bath water. I don't think you would like me throwing out your post because you quote something highly Christian.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... And what, be forced to marry another monster?

 

I am not saying that ALL marriages are arranged or that ALL young girls there are forced to marry, however, I would say that it happens a lot and their communities/religion/tribes are seemingly okay with it.

 

Didn't they or weren't they just recently considering changing the law so that men could marry girls as young a 8 or 9 now? It is pure evil perversion and child sexual abuse. It's so disheartening that parents would allow this to happen... and that they would actually encourage it.

 

Why would ISIS, ISIL, IS or whatever they are calling themselves today care about who these women/girls are married to anyway? Not like they have time to play marriage counselor. They are a little busy wreaking havoc, murdering, stealing, raping and taking over cities. Wouldn't it just be easier to kill all of the husbands that they seem to have a problem with? They certainly don't have a problem murdering anyone else (even their so-called OWN).

 

Let us who don't live in the Middle East and other countries who allow the men and their religions to suppress, degrade, abuse and completely dominate their women thank YHWH/God that we don't.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Theseus, thank you for your insightful post. I did not have time to go pulling the chapter and verses out for Maggie today. Your post and the response shows me how futile the effort would have been. I appreciate the time you put into your post.

Maggie, your spilling of vitriolic acid is unwarranted and a clear sign you know you have been shown to be wrong. It amuses me to see Christians proclaiming peace and love to the exclusion of logic turn to this sort of low class posturing.

Interesting I didn't see venom coming from Maggie on contrary it was a response to vitriol...perception is projection.

Maggie has been the embodiment of peace

Maggie has been the embodiment of peace

I did find this interview insightful regarding the extremist attitudes which unfortunately are what the comments against Muslims are justifyably based. I refrain from taking a hard stance that all come from this place of hatred and low values. This kind of attitude and practice reflects ISIS and those who walk in the line of evil - but it is not the majority.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Djorgie wrote"

"Didn't they or weren't they just recently considering changing the law so that men could marry girls as young a 8 or 9 now? It is pure evil perversion and child sexual abuse. It's so disheartening that parents would allow this to happen... and that they would actually encourage it."

 

Djorgie, it has always been the way of Islam that a girl may marry after she has had her initial menses. However, if we take the words from the Hadiths and use the Mother of Islam, Aisha's own words that appears there (I will paraphrase here but it will be as close I remember)  Aisha stated she was 9 when she consummated the marriage with Mohammed. (Maggie might claim this is a weak hadith but the contrary is that Aisha is one of more authortative figures when it comes to the traditions and translations of Islam.) Before people rant and rave this is a hot button topic because people who do not understand the culture like to throw the "pedophilia" word around when this discussion comes up. Also, it has been proven that the Hadiths were changed to reflect current views on the subject and to hide the truth. The point of Islam, Sharia and god knows what else, is that they submit to Allah but follow in the steps of their prophet, Mohammed who is their intercessor. Thus the question then becomes, if it was okay for Mohammed to marry and consummate the marriage to Aisha at such a young age is it okay for a follower to also do so? The answer is a resounding yes. While you or I may think this totally disgusting and immoral, the opposition to this will point out the fact that here in our own western society our women too married young. For example, Juliet of Romeo and Juliet was said to be the age of 14 in the play. I know that is a play, but it is a reflection of the time period. Even today we see laws in which the age of marriage is 14 in the United States under certain circumstances. To understand the motive one must understand the culture. We cannot look through the eyes of our current culture to form an opinion on the culture of what has happened in the past. Do I condone this, heck no I do not. 

 

Let me respond to Maggie. See Maggie it is much easier to claim someone is a hater (racist, Islamophobe etc.throw in the nom du jour) than it is to concede to the truth. I have heard all the talking points you could use to oppose me in the arguments I posted above. Wikipedia, in itself is biased by the authors whom add to the article. Jihadwatch itself is biased but I pointed to that website because they highlight terrorist attacks that usually go unoticed, such as Honor Killings. I can point to many pages on the Wikipedia site that have a revisionist history that are not even related to this discussion. I purposely robbed you of your talking points to respond to these points I mention and I knew where you would head. You want to claim because, shown in a civilized discussion, I disagree with you and that I claim your argument is basically wrong that I must be a hater or an Islamophobe (btw I am neither in case you are wondering) or whatever hateful label you want to throw out. That doesn't work with me as I have way more experience in this than you could ever imagine. I still think I have a fatwah on my head. Everything I have said in my posts is truthful. It can be backed up by facts. I can show you the verses in the Quran where it states that Jews are the descendants of Apes and Pigs. I have seen the unfettered clips on memri.org of the Mullahs in the Mosque on a Friday night rile the congregation up and spew vile hate towards Jews and Christians. Here is a surprise for you, MEMRI.org is run by Muslims not by Christians, not by Jews but Muslims who live in the Middle East.

 

I have heard hate towards Islam from an apostate whose family was killed because that single person chose to disavow Islam and become an apostate. That person spent many nights and many days running for their life. No where on this Earth is that person safe from the tentacles of Islam who preaches that the punishment for apostasy (after three days given the chance to repent) is death.  I did not make these laws. These laws come from the Quran. I always find it amazing the only thing a person can do when confronted with cold hard truth is say you are a hater. They never try to discredit the argument but instead launch an attack on the person. I guess its easier to discredit the person and allow the lies to continue for the cause. Whatever it takes. Right? 

 

So let me ask this of you Maggie, which Islamic countries are not considered extremist in Islam? If a country's laws are that of Al Sharia and a country can only be Islamic if they follow Al Sharia, is that country extremist? Do you pick and choose what laws to follow in Al Sharia as you pick and choose to follow certain verses of the Quran? Remember the Quran and Sharia law come from Allah. The Hadiths are man's interpretation of the words of Allah.

 

Because you refuse to see the apple, does not mean the apple does not exist. Nor does it mean the apple is anything but an apple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thesus,

 

Thanks for your response. However, I am not looking at the situation through the eyes of any country or culture because I don't care what their so-called reasoning or beliefs are which really just simply allow them excuses to do the evil things they do. The child sex trade/pedophilia affects every country on the planet. It's a worldy problem. It is a worldy sin. I follow my Heavenly Father's word and law and anything against that or his son Yahushua/Jesus is antichrist which is of satan plain and simple. YHWH makes it very clear what happens to those who harm any of these little ones.

 

YHWH/God created Adam and Eve as full grown human beings not as children. Doesn't that in and of itself tell you something? Children are not physically, emotionally or spiritually mature enough to be in these kind of situations... and that is a fact! even if you deduct religious, cultural or moral beliefs from it.

 

As for Islam and Mohammad they are pedophiles and murderers. This is a fact because that is what they believe and that is what they teach and follow. Yes, there may be some who are of, guess I'll call it a softer nature who say that they don't believe in killing and all of that, however, the Quran states these things clearly and if they are really following that and what their great pedophile prophet did then YES, they are the same.

 

I am not judging anyone here. That is not my place, but the truth is the truth. IMO and I have stated it before, ALL religions are for the purpose of separating, confusing and misguiding the masses and Islam just happens to be one of the more prominent in-your-face types. They aren't the only one's promoting these sick agendas by any means. I mean look at all of the catholic priests who are raping little boys and even Rabbis being caught in bath houses committing sodomy on little boys and T.V. evangelists being brought up on charges for sexual assaults on young girls, all of the apostasies committed against our Father,  etc....

 

Please people stop being so deluded and influenced by man because man is controlled by satan in this world and unless you have been born anew in Yahushua/Jesus you will continue to walk in blindness.

 

Satan the great deceiver is working over time and if you are not under the seal of YHWH/God and walking in Yahushua Ha Mashiach/Christ then you will fall. A great falling away is taking place right now and it is according to the word of the only true God. All should take heed because Yahushua/Christ will return and if you aren't ready you will suffer the ultimate fall right along with the adversary and all of these people who are taking little girls as their wives and molesting children and murdering people in the name of Allah or whoever they think they are worshiping (because it is really satan) will be cast into the lake of fire as well.

 

Prayers and blessing to all in Yahushua Ha Mashiach/ Jesus Christ!

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.