VIBEELEVEN

iTrader: (2)

www.prophetofdoom.net

Thoughts...

Salty

iTrader: (14)

Not too sure about that site but I do know of a great as of recently.

The website is of a Muslim leader in Italy who makes the point on how many Muslim groups in Europe and the US use "political correctness" to protect their insane agendas (the whole cartoon debacle for instance). He makes extremely good arguments and the best part is the left cannot can't accuse him of blind Muslim hatred since he's a Sheikh... except maybe Dre and Lojasmo. But some of his points may tickle their fancy too, so...

http://www.amislam.com/

http://www.amislam.com/radler.htm

His bio: http://www.jewishmag.com/75mag/palazzi/palazzi.htm

dr3d1zzl3

iTrader: (1)

i am the left?

awesome

pull the cork out of your *** and let some air get in there so you can breath better. You might start seeing and thinking a bit clearer.

Salty

iTrader: (14)

I never have any idea what the hell you're referring to anymore. Did you read anything in my links? What's life like in Dreland? Very solid points are often made by people you never seem to agree with and you always have some ridiculous comment to contribute. How’s your idiot death ray coming along? You better be wearing a mirror suit when you decide to fire it.

VIBEELEVEN

iTrader: (2)

No doubt.

It's funny how he denies being a liberal. His denial just makes his opinions more and more unbelievable.

At least it's not filled with stars.

jvick125

iTrader: (2)

If you take everything that is written in the Qu'ran, Bible, etc, etc. literally then it is ok for Christians to own slaves. It says so in the Bible. I'll have to find it, but it does.


You can't take everything that's written in religious literature literal.

VIBEELEVEN

iTrader: (2)

Exactly. The bible and hebrew texts are different though, there were written thousands of years ago and passed on through word of mouth, so nobody knows what exactly was said, or how it has been twisted throughout thre years. The koran is the gospel of mohammed who wrote it literally. Nothing has changed or been molested by various interpetations over time.

There's a reason Islam, wich is the youngest of all major religons, is practiced by more people worldwide, what do you think it is?

If you search history of islam you will repeatedley come across the words "conquest, seige, attack and battle".

Salty

iTrader: (14)

Incorrect. I'd almost go so far to say it's as bad or worse for Islam.

Many Hadiths are interpretations of the Qur’an. Guess who does the interpreting? The Qur’an is so loosely put together and vague that Islamic leaders (of different sects) had to decipher the meanings of the text. You’ll see what I mean if/when you read it. I seriously laughed inside when I read it. Hell, they didn’t even know how many times to pray and came to a consensus on five times even though the Qur’an makes references to a handful of large and small figures.

This was precisely the point I was trying to make with that askmuslims guy that truly meant well HERE. When you get different interpretations of the text you’re bound to stray down different avenues of meaning, especially down the ones that meet and fulfill your motives.

Unlike Catholicism, Islam lacks a decent governing body. At least with Catholicism you have mandates and a series of figureheads like the Pope and everyone below him. As for other branches of Christianity that do not have a governing body like Catholicism, we can be thankful they focus on more peaceful teachings that aren’t nearly as violent as Islam, or teachings that can be loosely interpreted to mean violence. I’m not trying to put all forms of Christianity on a pedestal because have decided to molest little boys. But let’s face it, turning the cheek doesn’t come close to the few Hadith that directly encourage violence, and the multiple scriptures within the Qur’an and other Hadith that suggest contractual violence.

With the numerous questionable/interpretable and irrefutable passages in Islam that suggest violence, we could only hope for a large governing official to keep everything in check. In that there is no recognized authority structure or governing body, Muslims follow the Qur’an. Since it's a book, and not a person, you get all kinds of widely divergent groups with their own ideas of what the religion is, and none is required by any "Mosque council" or anything similar to listen to anyone else. This is the problem.

VIBEELEVEN

iTrader: (2)

You can't really say that a central governing body is what makes christianity(catholicisim) more tolerant than Islam. It's the fact that it has evolved and opened up to let other thoughts and theory be incorperated. Look what the "organized" catholic church was doing to those who questioned them in the 15th century.

The Ottomans, who were Sunni, respected it's subjects language, religons and cultural values, so you can't even really say that the sect of Islam being practiced is what leads to the hate and complete intolerance for other cultures that we see with the brand of fundamental islam being practiced today. I think the key is progression and interpretation.

Salty

iTrader: (14)

Of course. It's a combination of many variables beyond the central governing body that include progression and interpretation. I just happen to think that it's a main part of the problem. Another issue would be based on the era and what's acceptable behavior. What all religions have done in the past shows that they've evolved today. But I believe it's a combination of these variables maturing together that makes a peaceful and tolerant religion.

Let's lay it down into the basics of what's acceptable for a given era (1), contractual violence and direct violence taught (2), and a peaceful governing body or figurehead (3).

Catholicism: 1) Has had a sketchy past (especially with their governing body regarding politics), and part of what was acceptable practice of centuries past is no longer accepted, 2) Turn your cheek, 3) Has had a steadily increasing peaceful and stable governing body/Papacy since the 16th century.

Forms of Christianity in a nutshell: 1) Somewhat sketchy past that is relatively proportional to the era (For example, the ideals of Joseph Smith helped him gather strong following and ridicule whereas him doing the same things among 16th century English Protestants would have gotten him nothing but ridicule and death.), 2) Turn your cheek, 3) Had a considerably peaceful Prophet along with past and present leaders.

Islam: 1) Had a sketchy past much like Catholicism, and what was acceptable practice of centuries past is, for the most part, still accepted, especially in Middle Eastern and African countries and/or countries under more conservative Sharia Law (it isn’t uncommon to have a Christian killed in cold blood in public for no other reason besides religion), 2) has contractual violence (in all Islam) and direct violence taught (in some sects of Islam as reflected by Hadith), 3) Not a well structured governing body, or governing body no longer exists or never existed - and those that are/where considered Mosque council or founders of the more notorious sects still believe/believed in #2 (For example, the ideals of Joseph Smith don’t hold a candle to the ideals of Sayyid Qutb and Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab in regards to violence).

So which one of those three aren't meshing very well?

My point is imagine if there were one peaceful figurehead for Islam that people actually listened to. As a peaceful figurehead, he could take the questionable text and mandate it much like the Pope does for Catholism.

MVWRX

iTrader: (1)

This seems to speak to the points Salty makes about internal responsibility within the Muslim religion...


http://www.ijtihad.org/memo.htm


I'm not trying to make any point with this, I just happened to find this and found it relevant. I beleive the author is trying to act as a responsible Muslim-American and provide some sort of peaceful leadership in a religious structure that doesn't allow central power.

TheRude1

Stop shot photos don't do it justice
Michealsavage.com, All the beheading vids-see the action of our enemy.
Just like gang members they keep thier faces hidden. If you don't have the guts or the nuts to show your face than you are a wooooooossssss.