God Protect Us Against Islam

[firdroirich]

By throwing such remarks at Islam, you infact win people to their defence. Not because they are neccessarily Islamic, or even religious - but they respect the right to worship. A right you exercise.
If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.

 

[Leo Volont]

By throwing such remarks at Islam, you infact win people to their defence. Not because they are neccessarily Islamic, or even religious - but they respect the right to worship. A right you exercise.
If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.

More than anyone else, Islams rejects the 'right to worship'. You see any 'right' granted to any two or more opposing 'Faiths' presupposes that All Religions are Equally False. Certainly Islam rejects this. In supposing themselves the OnlyTrue and Valid Religion they certainly deny any contention that other Truths exist and would see their Assertion within their Societies as Corruptions and Pollutions. One reason for their Terrorists find to blow up all those innocent babies is that they object to Western Missionary efforts to religiously compete with Islam. This does not speak to their appreciating any 'right to worship'.

Indeed, they do have a point. Societies cannot allow any and all Religions and Philosophies. Where some Religions and Political Philosophies would prove to be Enemies of Humanity, they should be quickly and completely eradicated. Islam sees this threat from any Religion but their own. They are fighting for the Survival of their Civilization.

But you can see the Viewpoint of the Greater World Civilization. With Islam fighting for their Survival, they wish to destroy everyone else. They went from a perhaps justifiable defense on their own ground to a generalized attack on the Entire Civilized World. As sympathetic as I can be concerning their motivations, it is they who have declared War. Let them have it, then.

Now, if Islam did have the Truth, I would join them in their fight. But, hmmmm, lets look at it... Mohammed was a Camel Driver who married some old Widow -- the Dead Bosses Wife -- to get her money. Being established in leisure, he decided to make a Religious Guru of himself. He startes out, nobly enough by condemning the Idolatry of Mecca, where they all routinely bow down to some Big Black Rock. The Meccans confront him, and he runs away to another city where he can be safe. Do we hear about what happened to his followers who stayed in Mecca. No. We are informed of a Doctrine from Mohammed himself which says that Muslims can say whatever it takes to escape from Religious Persecution. This would have been a wonderful Tacit Understanding, but as soon as anything like that is written down, it becomes an excuse for almost any lie and deception for almost any reason. Mohammed should have known that, but obviously didn't. Finally, when the Meccans were able to defeat him in battle, he willingly surrendered away all the principles on which his Personal Religion had been founded. He bargained his Believers away for all eternity, and now every Muslim is ordered as per Mohammeds Bargain of Cowardice to travel to Mecca and in token of acknowledging their Prophets Defeat to Worldly Forces, to bow before the Big Black Rock that they originally were instructed to hate. Does this not describe a Silly Religion of a Silly and Frightened Man? Such is not a Religion one would cross a Cultural Line to fight for. However, if they threaten our Babies with their bombs, I would annihilate them all with a snap of my fingers, if only I could. Snap, Snap, Snap.

 

[Tiassa]

More than anyone else, Islams rejects the 'right to worship

Ironically, as an American, I don't see what's so special about this idea. Exploiting a "right" that one would refuse another is the habit of the ruling trend. Sure, it sucks. But for the first twenty years of my life, Christians tried to lay down the law about everything from what one thought to what one said to what music one listened to ... all the way up to controlling how one governs their body. Over the last ten, the general political movement of Christianity drifted toward a habit of claiming persecution when society refused to accede to such injustice: "My rights are being violated if someone else's are not being taken away. My equality is violated if I am not superior." Take a look at the gay fray in the U.S. The Judeo-Christian objection to homosexual unions depends on that very idea: "American virtue is violated if Christian virtues are not held as law." Gays aren't "redefining" marriage. Marriage was already "redefined." Homosexuals merely ask to be recognized according to equal protection under the law. Specific churches will not be forced to approve of gay marriages. But the social presumption based in Christian superstition is what is being undermined inasmuch as Christianity itself is no longer reason enough in the US to deny people equal protection under the law--a guaranteed right according to the US Constitution.

Now, admittedly it comes into stark contrast when the situation is so polarized that people are dying en masse. But in the new world era of the United Nations and international cooperation and so forth, Muslims have never been treated equally. They literally have no compelling reason to join us in this venture, and every reason under the sun to be wary, frightened, or even paranoid.

It is extremely difficult in light of the Western sociomoral example, to advise with any straight face that Muslims should undertake such a soul-chillingly total apostasy in order to save themselves from themselves.

I look at it like a dialogue between the Judeo-Christian Westerner and the International Muslim:

JCW: Things are a mess over there.

IM: Tell me about it.

JCW: You're going about it the wrong way, you know.

IM: When we figure the right way, we'll let you know.

JCW: Look at us. We've managed to come a long way since the days of killing one another and everyone else over our opinions of God.

IM: And in the meantime your sons and daughters think less and less of themselves; you stand in luxury atop mountains of corpses and broken lives; you depend on a massive poverty class; most of your people are medicating in some form or another, be it Prozac, liquor, cigarettes, marijuana--

JCW: Now wait just a minute! You know, you all are selling us the heroin and the hashish.

IM: You buy it. You want it. Look at your own country. The crack wars. In poor neighborhoods, people were so desperate to get out they would kill and die over cocaine. You have a fashion called "chic heroin". Your efforts to keep children away from drugs makes them more likely to do drugs. Ask yourself: Why are you so unhappy?

JCW: Who says I'm unhappy?

IM: Your Christians--they're so civilized that they don't kill one another as our poor, uneducated people do. But they still like to hurt people; they just do it in other ways.

JCW: Bullshit.

IM: How, bullshit? A decade ago, Christians tried to strip the legal rights of gays.

JCW: No, they didn't.

IM: They were stopped at the ballot box except in Colorado. In Colorado, they were stopped by the courts.

JCW: At least we have courts. At least we have a justice system. And besides, I don't see you all being nice to gays.

IM: As you point out, our justice system does not accord with your idea of human rights. Then again, we have bigger things to worry about than inventing new ways to punish gays.

JCW: Yeah. The ones you have are bad enough. Join the twenty-first century, bub.

IM: Don't take that tone with me. Every time we start catching up, you fuck with us.

JCW: Bullshit. No we don't.

IM: You overthrew a popularly-elected Prime Minister in support of a brutal tyrant in Iran.

JCW: We didn't install Khomeni!

IM: What?!

JCW: Never happened, dammit.

IM: Right, but--

JCW: But nothing! Get off it. Overthrew a popularly-elected Prime Minister in support of a brutal tyrant in Iran. Never happened! Why do you Muslims always lie about history? The Jews this, the Americans that! We never overthrew a popularly-elected Prime Minister! We did not install Khomeni!

IM: I was talking about Mossadeq, dammit!

JCW: Calm down! Why are you yelling? There's no need to yell, dammit!

IM: Why am I yelling?

JCW: Yes! Why are you yelling? I'm just trying to have a conversation here! I'm just trying to be polite, dammit! Why is it so hard for all you Muslims to be polite?

IM: What are you talking about? Where did that come from?

JCW: Well, first you lie and say we installed Khomeni. Then you start yelling for no reason. What the hell is your problem?

IM: I never said you installed Khomeni. I said we did.

JCW: See? Like I said. And why the hell would you install Khomeni if you're not evil?

IM: If we're ... Whatever. We had nobody else to turn to.

JCW: Why? Why not organize and democratize?

IM: You know, we did elect a Prime Minister who you overthrew.

JCW: Goddamit! How many times do I have to tell you we didn't install Khomeni?

IM: Why are you yelling?

JCW: Because you keep lying and accusing us of installing Khomeni.

IM: Now listen! I'm telling you about Mossadeq! His name was Mohammad Mossadeq! He was elected by the people of Iran to the office of Prime Minister! The United States government helped overthrow him in order to bolster Shah Reza Pahlavi! The man brutalized his own people. Forced them to wear suits and ties, and shave their beards and act like Americans--

JCW: Oh, God help you, more American!

IM: Forced them to wear suits and ties and shave their beards and act like Americans and he built the thrid-largest army in the world, and the most feared secret-police organization since the Nazis, and all with your help! We overthrew him and--

JCW: And installed Khomeni. Good for fucking you. Why the hell did you do that in the first place?

IM: We had nowhere else to turn.

JCW: Why didn't you organize? Democratize? Take hold of your own destiny? Nobody can do it for you, you know.

IM: You're impossible. I mean--

JCW: Oh, I'm impossible? That's it? I'm impossible? What are you going to go strap some dynamite to your chest? Huh? Why is it that all you Muslims can do is threaten people and try to kill them? Jesus Christ, man! I'm just trying to have a fucking conversation! I'm just trying to be polite, goddamit! Jesus, I just want to help! And here you get all fucking terrorist! What's your goddamn problem? We want to help you, but all you Muslims ever do is lie and accuse us of installing Khomeni and threaten to blow us up! It's no fucking wonder nobody likes you!

IM: I mean, we haven't even gotten to Iraq, Palestine, Saudi Arabia--

JCW: Yeah. Saddam Hussein, "Hezbollah", some idiot king--all Muslims, I might remind you. Why do all you Muslims hate freedom?

IM: I--

JCW: The Taleban! They were Muslims, you know.

IM: Orthopraxically speaking, yes. But they, like Calvin, defined God in their own image.

JCW: Who's Calvin?

IM: (bangs own head against wall three times) You know, if you don't like the Taleban, why did you spend so much effort training them and then supporting their political authority?

JCW: How dare you blame us for their actions!

IM: We don't blame you for their actions. We blame you for your contribution to the authority that justified those actions.

JCW: What? We don't justify the Taleban. We just knocked them out. Stomped them. Crushed them. God, that's low. They blew up our towers, dammit! How dare you disparage the innocent!

IM: You trained them. You funded them.

JCW: I did not! I was a child, then. Why are all you Muslims so ridiculous?

IM: I had thought we were speaking in general terms here.

JCW: Why do all you Muslims just generalize and hate people?

IM: What?!

JCW: I mean, we're just trying to help you people since you can't help yourselves. Show a little gratitude. We're trying to be nice, dammit!

IM: Is that what you call it?

JCW: You know, that's just sick. Here I am trying to be polite. Trying to be helpful. And all you can do is accuse me of lying. Why--

IM: What?!

JCW: Why is it that all you Muslims ever do is accuse people of lying? That's just so wrong!

IM: You're kidding, right?

JCW: What do you mean, I'm kidding? What? Lying is a holy thing for Muslims.

IM: O ... kay. Whatever you say.

JCW: Damn right. And another thing, it's rude to lie like that. I mean, I'm just trying to be polite here and you get all rude and shit. What the hell is your problems? Why are all you Muslims so rude?

IM: I don't think there's anything left to discuss here.

JCW: Oh, is that the way it is? No more time for talk? What are you going to go strap some dynamite to your chest? Why are you Muslims always threatening to blow people up?

IM: Gosh, it's a mystery to me.

In addition to the tradeoff that comes with apostasy, which is in itself generally unpalatable to the monotheist, there is a certain incoherence about the Western outlook that only complicates the effort of trying to pitch apostasy as a solution to what ails the Islamic world.

It took Christians nearly two millennia to figure out how to reconcile apostasy with faith and pretend happiness. And they've been on a steady gain until the last century, and some would say those gains continue. Yet we're asking for Muslims to go from a broken people amid the tatters of a former empire to world's whipping boy to twenty first century savant in an impossibly short period, and throwing monkeys at the wrench the entire time.

Even in America, we understand--or at least did even into the Clinton era--that money does not buy happiness; rather, it only numbs the pain of unhappiness for a short while. Yet money is pretty much all we have to offer. We're a nearly-psychotic nation, largely drugged out of our skulls, wrapped up in ridiculous fights over how much of our traditional morality is actually moral, and frightened so senseless of the world that we're lashing out with the largest, most powerful army in the history of humanity. Muslim children who kill do so for family, for God, or for some larger identity politic. In the US, children who kill often do it for drugs, money, or psychosis. While I think a Palestinian would probably, in the moment, appreciate a Los Angeles drive-by with a MAC-10 to an Israeli rocket up the ass, I won't assert that it's a compelling invitation. In the Camusite misery of the Absurd, there is no comfort to be found in God; certes, I prefer our Western problems to the Islamic world's problems, but I don't pretend a doctrinal assertion against is an attractive option from the outside.

Right-to-worship issues (beyond prayer in school debates) have existed in the US into my lifetime. We were still arresting witches in the 1970s. I believe it was the British who finally axed the last of their old witchcraft laws in the early 1990s, but I don't actually recall at the moment.

In the end, yes, there are some right-to-worship issues in the Islamic world that demand immediate address. But there are deeper, more important issues to work with. Its tedious, and the pitch for apostasy as a solution is only complicated by the poor sociomoral example we set in the United States, which certainly gives the Islamic world every reason to think thrice before trusting us.

It's not so much a matter of making things "easy" for us and our Islamic neighbors. Rather, it's a matter of not going out of our way to make things harder.

 

[Leo Volont]

It took Christians nearly two millennia to figure out how to reconcile apostasy with faith and pretend happiness.

Actually not. Many scholars who have studied the Dynamics of Civilization can only see a progressive disintegration in the West since the Overthrow of Catholicism as its Central Guiding Force. The Revolutions and Wars of each subsequent Century after the Protestant Rebellion grow worse. There was a certain Moral Inertia as people kept Catholic Moral Values after they had rejected Catholicism, but with each new Generation the Moral Momentum slows down. Christian Fairness in Business is being replaced by a Universal h Ambition for Shrewdness. Christian Partnership is being abandoned for Heartless Usury. We are trading Christian Values for Christ-Killer Values.

There have been 21 Civilizations and 20 of them have declined and fallen. In each fallen Civilization there arose a Skepticism which denied the Truths of the Religions which were necessary for their Foundation. And be sure that no Civilization can form without a Religious Moral Foundation. Civilization requires Sharing and Cooperation, which are not exactly values entertained by Conservative Barbarian Secular Skeptics who rather propose that each man be every other man's Enemy, in a non-system where life can only be 'solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short'. The Urge for Each Westerner to screw over every other Westerner will certainly result in the Fall of the West.

I would say that Islam's Teachings on Brotherhood would save Islam, but I believe that the Religion is better then the People who profess it. Islam has always been striking in the way in which infighting and backstabbing has ecllipsed any Religious Tendency to Cooperate. Islam could not unite to oppose the Crusades. They could not unite to oppose the Mongols or the Turks. They could not unite to oppose the British. Right now the Saudis unite with the Bushes to screw over every other Arab Nation. Mononco, Algiers, Sudan and Egypt spend their strength fighting each other while the West destroys each Arab Nation one at a timie. Yes, the Islamic Scholars never tire of telling us that Islam is Brotherhood, but so far in its History of 14 Centuries it cannot be demonstrated that any two Muslims ever acted in Good Faith for the interests of the other. Barbarism is in their Blood.

 

[everneo]

awww.. it hurts eh? all the bhindians are the same. Banyas.

Most probably your great,great,...great grand-grand father could have been a Banya. May the souls of his fore-fathers rest in peace.

 

[surenderer]

Mohammed was a Camel Driver who married some old Widow -- the Dead Bosses Wife -- to get her money.

Where does it say that is why they got married especially since the Prophet(pbuh)lived a simple lifestyle

He startes out, nobly enough by condemning the Idolatry of Mecca, where they all routinely bow down to some Big Black Rock.

Actually it was the thousands of Idols inside the Kabla that was the issue

The Meccans confront him, and he runs away to another city where he can be safe. Do we hear about what happened to his followers who stayed in Mecca

No because he ensured their safe passage 1st before he even left

Finally, when the Meccans were able to defeat him in battle, he willingly surrendered away all the principles on which his Personal Religion had been founded

Huh?? show me a muslim prayer that says worship anything other than God

Such is not a Religion one would cross a Cultural Line to fight for

Well over 1 billion people (and growing) disagree with you

However, if they threaten our Babies with their bombs, I would annihilate them all with a snap of my fingers, if only I could. Snap, Snap, Snap.

Who is the real terrorist now Leo...and just like them you hear angels(devils in disguise actually) telling you what to do.....murder innocents

 

[everneo]

Well ...? When you lie, you are being dishonest.

I don't lie, tiaasa. When i say you have a little fly on your fore-head you should not reply that its a lie since you could not see the fly.

When you called me a liar it included all the worst things in this world already, no matter what are you going to add with it.

You don't generalize and club them with faulters?

Whatever you say, Everneo:

• Taliban hanged fags (whether they were really fags or otherwise, God only knows) . Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and Ali and other close companions discussed the issue and the fatwa issued : "Burn the fags alive. As what God had done to Sodom." heheheh.. i like Islam (1)

• Don't say Taliban are not muslims. (2) ”

Whatever you say.

You are missing lot of my posts.

I alerady posted who is generalizing :

In (1), you were unable to differentiate between the Taliban fundies and the rightly guided Caliphs, will you ever ? I don't think so.

In (2), those muslims you don't like, become non-muslims in your dictionary. In another post you meant shias are different from muslims. Disagree ?

Again in (1), the 2 opposite ends of the spectrum have a common opinion about homosexuality. Other than that you should be able find out a lot of differences.

To make it still clear to you, Muslims are not a single entity. They are like a contiuous spectrum where at one end you could find out nuts, loonies, hypocrites and the other end are the close companions, rightly guided caliphs and the prophet.

As far (2) is concerned, well here is your post on another thread :

So is this about Shiites or Muslims in general?

Are you even capable of understanding the difference?

- http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=645285

(you were replying to another poster in another thread )

Now, tell me tiassa, who is dishonest ? Do you isolate shiites from muslims / 'muslims in general' since it is convenient to you ? Did you not keep on saying that Islamist terror is Islamic struggle / muslim cause and since muslims are humans islamists are also human ? Call me a liar now if you want, things are clear and out.

We can continue with disrespect if it gets you off, but if you're going to attempt to insult my intelligence, you need to be smarter about it.

If any one resorts to name calling with the words liar, cheap cheat hater etc instead of an intelligent debate & giving clear cut answers then it shows how smart one could be. Why do you think i insult your intelligence ?

 

[Tiassa]

Everneo:

Try again.

You're not making any sense.

In (1), you were unable to differentiate between the Taliban fundies and the rightly guided Caliphs, will you ever ? I don't think so.

What the hell are you talking about?

• In (2), those muslims you don't like, become non-muslims in your dictionary. In another post you meant shias are different from muslims. Disagree ?

• As far (2) is concerned, well here is your post on another thread :

• Now, tell me tiassa, who is dishonest ? Do you isolate shiites from muslims / 'muslims in general' since it is convenient to you

That's really disappointing, Everneo. I was hoping you would come up with something better than that.

I mean, really:

• Shiites are Muslims
• Not all Muslims are Shiites

If you're not capable of figuring that out ... well, stop making your ignorance my problem.

 

[Leo Volont]

Dear Tiassa,

I would really love to take sides in the whole Sunni vs. Shia thing. It must be terribly important since the Hatred the difference engenders totally over-rides the whole 'Islam is Brotherhood' thing. What is it that makes it worth them killing themselves over?.... oh, well, now that I think about it for a second... it might not be important at all, since Muslims don't seem to need much of an excuse to justify their killing, which I suspect they do rather out of inclination then reason.

 

[Tiassa]

(Go ahead, baby ... Title me!)

Everneo

Why do you think i insult your intelligence

Take your Shiite vs. Muslim issue as an example.

I doubt you're as stupid as you represent yourself to be. Stop playing the dolt for political purposes.

 

[Zero]

More than anyone else, Islams rejects the 'right to worship'. You see any 'right' granted to any two or more opposing 'Faiths' presupposes that All Religions are Equally False. Certainly Islam rejects this. In supposing themselves the OnlyTrue and Valid Religion they certainly deny any contention that other Truths exist and would see their Assertion within their Societies as Corruptions and Pollutions. One reason for their Terrorists find to blow up all those innocent babies is that they object to Western Missionary efforts to religiously compete with Islam. This does not speak to their appreciating any 'right to worship'.

Oh. And Catholicism doesn't? I highly doubt if the local Catholic priest, if he isn't busy fucking little boys, would protect one's "right to worship". I guess all the missionaries are just there for adventure? What's up with the Inquisition? What's up with the crusaders going off to slaughter people just because some book said the land was holy? Yes. The bible is merely "some book". Less than the average book, actually, since the average book doesn't usually lie, encourage the kidnapping and rape of random women you meet on the street, or advocate slaughtering all of your family just because some invisible voice in your head said "I'm god, listen to me, kill your family and I'll reward you".

Whoops. Your point proven wrong.

Whoops. You never had a point.

Whoops. You're a nutcase: nutcases can't have a point.

 

[everneo]

• Shiites are Muslims
• Not all Muslims are Shiites

If you're not capable of figuring that out ... well, stop making your ignorance my problem.

I did not ask you who are Shiites. I am asking why do you selectively differentiate Shiites and muslims in general, Here :

So is this about Shiites or Muslims in general?
Are you even capable of understanding the difference?

Are you capable of figuring out what you rant then and there ?

__________

Now your subsequent rant :

Take your Shiite vs. Muslim issue as an example.

I doubt you're as stupid as you represent yourself to be. Stop playing the dolt for political purposes.

Yeah, i am as stupid as i appear to you. Now, try to explain yourself.

 

[786]

I did not ask you who are Shiites. I am asking why do you selectively differentiate Shiites and muslims in general, Here :



Are you capable of figuring out what you rant then and there ?

__________

Now your subsequent rant :


Yeah, i am as stupid as i appear to you. Now, try to explain yourself.

I'm a Muslim so I try to tell you the difference.

In order to be a Muslim, you have to say a verse which says that There is no other god but God (Allah), and Muhammad is the messenger of God.

The Shi'ites added on, to this verse, that There is no other god but God(Allah), and Muhammad is the messenger of God, and Ali is the loved one of God.

I'll explain about Ali, since most people don't know who he is.

Ali was Muhammad's brother-in-law. Ali had two son Hassan and Hussien.

Yazeed was a harsh ruler, a tyrant. He didn't let anyone drink water or anything. Yazeed, killed his sons so Ali was very angry at him. He swore that he will not put his sword down until blood reached to the ankels of his horse. In other words Ali was going to kill Yazeed and his army. Ali started a rampage of killing Yazeed's army. Later on God rained down blood, so then blood reached the ankel of his horse. Then God told Ali to lay down his sword because the blood reached the ankels of the horse. Then the army killed him.

So in other words, Yazeed killed the whole family of the prophet. That is why they morn. Shi'ites are descendants of Yazeed (unless people converted to Shi'ites, don't know if anyone did). ON this day every shi'ite hit themselves with chains and other stuff and morn on their deaths, they say that Yazeed did wrong. So now they over-praise Ali. Harming oneselves body is forbidden in Islam, unless it was done for God. Like going to war, for justice and other stuff.
Another difference is that Shi'ites believe that only the blood line of Ali can be Caliphs (Muslim leaders). ON the other hand Sunni (another sect) believe that anyone who knew (like Jesus desciples) the prophet could be Caliph.

Sunni's follow the Quran, and the hadiths. But Quran is the main thing.
Shi'ites have added things to their traditions that are not in the Quran or the hadiths. They haven't changed the Quran or anything. They just made up stuff on their own by writting books and other methods.

I think everything I said is correct but do your own research to be completely sure, because I might be wrong in something. I'm not a Shi'ite so that is why I can't guarentee these points to be 100% accurate.

 

[everneo]

I'm a Muslim so I try to tell you the difference.

Thanks. Actually i did not ask the difference. It is a specific question to tiassa, for some reasons.

Yazeed was a harsh ruler, a tyrant. He didn't let anyone drink water or anything. Yazeed, killed his sons so Ali was very angry at him. He swore that he will not put his sword down until blood reached to the ankels of his horse. In other words Ali was going to kill Yazeed and his army. Ali started a rampage of killing Yazeed's army. Later on God rained down blood, so then blood reached the ankel of his horse. Then God told Ali to lay down his sword because the blood reached the ankels of the horse. Then the army killed him.

I am not sure whether you are talking of the same Ali here, can you give any source ?

What i remember is, Caliph Ali was martyred during prayer at Kufa mosque by a fanatical Kharijite. That was around 10 years before Yazeed's army massacred Imam Hussien and almost all of Prophet's family. Ali was not alive when that happened ; Hassan too was not alive during that massacre.

Shi'ites are descendants of Yazeed (unless people converted to Shi'ites, don't know if anyone did).

That is funny. Shia (partisans of Ali) could not be descendants of Yazeed. Please check for yourself in moderate sunni sources. In fact Shia were against not only Yazeed but also his father Muwaviya, a trickster but powerful governor of Syria, who aspired for Caliphate and gave much trouble to Ali. After Ali's death, he became Caliph and started his disinformation compaign against Ali, that was big story. In short, unscrupulous Muwaviya's political success over the great Ali was an indication of more serious inherant weakness in Ummah. That is a different but important topic and requires another thread.

As for the self-infliction episodes of Shias on Muharram 10th - it is an over-sentimental issue, i don't want to comment on.

 

[Tiassa]

Yeah, i am as stupid as i appear to you. Now, try to explain yourself.

Well, if you're too stupid to figure it out for yourself, I don't see what explaining it to you will do. Explaining actually takes more words than the original point.

But the topic you cited was a vicious and, as I have demonstrated with a later post, unfounded attack against Islam and Muslims. At the point you refer to, Vincent attempted to blanket all Muslims with a problem restricted to a number of Shi'a in Iraq.

The difference that Vincent was overlooking, and that you have admitted yourself too stupid to figure out, is that while Shiites are Muslims, not all Muslims are Shiites.

For comparison: I was raised by Lutherans. Now, Lutherans are Christians, but not all Christians are Lutherans.

Similarly: I am a "man." Men are human beings. Not all human beings are men.

Or agriculture: An apple is a fruit, but not all fruits are apples.

Or my shirt: Key-lime green is a color; not all colors are key-lime green.

Easy enough? Or does the concept still escape you?

Do you claim that all Muslims are Shi'a?

 

[bbk1]

I'll explain about Ali, since most people don't know who he is.

Ali was Muhammad's brother-in-law. Ali had two son Hassan and Hussien.

Yazeed was a harsh ruler, a tyrant. He didn't let anyone drink water or anything. Yazeed, killed his sons so Ali was very angry at him.

Ali was long dead before Yazeed ordered the killings of Hussain and his family. Hussain refusal to recognize Yazeed as the ruler was the reason for the killings that folowed.
Hussain was urged by the Shi'ites to travel from Mecca to Iraq under the promise that they'll support him against the tyrant ruler Yazeed. However, when Hussain arrived in Iraq, the Shi'ites were so terrified of the army that Yazeed sent to fight Hussain that they didn't help defend Hussain against Yaseed army's onslaught. Hussain, his family and a few of his folowers were killed and the Shi'ites didn't help as they promised. That is the reason for their morning and for beating themselves on the anniversary of Hussain's death every year.

Shi'ites are descendants of Yazeed

Not correct. Shi'ite were those that supported Caliphate Ali in his war against Ma'awia, Yazeed's father.

Another difference is that Shi'ites believe that only the blood line of Ali can be Caliphs (Muslim leaders). ON the other hand Sunni (another sect) believe that anyone who knew (like Jesus desciples) the prophet could be Caliph.

Sunni's follow the Quran, and the hadiths. But Quran is the main thing.
Shi'ites have added things to their traditions that are not in the Quran or the hadiths. They haven't changed the Quran or anything. They just made up stuff on their own by writting books and other methods

Correct.

 

[786]

Ali was long dead before Yazeed ordered the killings of Hussain and his family. Hussain refusal to recognize Yazeed as the ruler was the reason for the killings that folowed.
Hussain was urged by the Shi'ites to travel from Mecca to Iraq under the promise that they'll support him against the tyrant ruler Yazeed. However, when Hussain arrived in Iraq, the Shi'ites were so terrified of the army that Yazeed sent to fight Hussain that they didn't help defend Hussain against Yaseed army's onslaught. Hussain, his family and a few of his folowers were killed and the Shi'ites didn't help as they promised. That is the reason for their morning and for beating themselves on the anniversary of Hussain's death every year.


Not correct. Shi'ite were those that supported Caliphate Ali in his war against Ma'awia, Yazeed's father.


Correct.

You maybe right. As I said I wasn't sure.

 

[everneo]

Well, if you're too stupid to figure it out for yourself, I don't see what explaining it to you will do. Explaining actually takes more words than the original point.

Am i too stupid to figure out your non-sense ? Yeah, explaining yourself would be too difficult task even for you.

But the topic you cited was a vicious and, as I have demonstrated with a later post, unfounded attack against Islam and Muslims. At the point you refer to, Vincent attempted to blanket all Muslims with a problem restricted to a number of Shi'a in Iraq.

The poster referring to a car bomb blast that said to be killed 51 muslims. He stated shias killing fellow muslims which is not factually correct. But you dumb fuck went along with his accussations and washed your hands off saying it was a Shiite work not muslims' in general. Now also you are saying it was a problem restricted to a number of shia in Iraq. Where is it said that shias were responsible for the blast ? The iraqi resistance carrying out bombing compaign against coalition forces, their own fellow iraqis who are sunnis as well as shias for months now. What made you to opt for an easy way out ? Shias are not worth defending ?

The difference that Vincent was overlooking, and that you have admitted yourself too stupid to figure out, is that while Shiites are Muslims, not all Muslims are Shiites.

Dumb ass, i am not asking whether shiites are muslims or all muslims are shiites. Why did you wash off your hands with the 'lesser'(!) muslims like shia ? Are they not as entertaining as your wahabi/salafi heroes ?

For comparison: I was raised by Lutherans. Now, Lutherans are Christians, but not all Christians are Lutherans.

Similarly: I am a "man." Men are human beings. Not all human beings are men.

Or agriculture: An apple is a fruit, but not all fruits are apples.

Or my shirt: Key-lime green is a color; not all colors are key-lime green.

Easy enough? Or does the concept still escape you?

Oh right, still playing dumb ? Let me give you another one :all dumb-asses like you are stupids; not all stupids like me are dumb-asses like you.

Do you claim that all Muslims are Shi'a?

Read above.

 

[Tiassa]

Everneo - what's up with the attitude problem, boy?

The poster referring to a car bomb blast that said to be killed 51 muslims. He stated shias killing fellow muslims which is not factually correct. But you dumb fuck went along with his accussations and washed your hands off saying it was a Shiite work not muslims' in general

Right. Let's look at that again:

• He stated shias killing fellow muslims which is not factually correct.

• Defend your barbaric religion Muslims killing 51 Muslims in the name of Allah all to create a Shiah state of hate.

"Barbaric religion," "Muslims killing Muslims," and "Shiah state".

All I'm getting at is that he should be thematically consistent, as Shiites may be Muslims but not all Muslims are Shiites. Throughout the whole topic he slammed on Muslims and then took a sweeping jab at the "religion" (e.g. Islam) by citing a Shiite issue in Iraq.

Of all the things Sunnis have to answer for, murders in the name of a Shiite cause are generally not on the list.

Now also you are saying it was a problem restricted to a number of shia in Iraq. Where is it said that shias were responsible for the blast ? The iraqi resistance carrying out bombing compaign against coalition forces, their own fellow iraqis who are sunnis as well as shias for months now. What made you to opt for an easy way out ? Shias are not worth defending ?

What the hell are you going on about?

Woo-hoo! It's not the Shi'a. Great. Whatever you want to find important, boy. If you have a problem with me trying to correct an ignoramus' mistake of thinking all Muslims are Shiite, I really don't care.

In the meantime, none of it changes the lie you told when you claimed to not generalize about Muslims. Which is, as I recall, the most recent point of departure for your latest illiterate temper tantrum.

Dumb ass, i am not asking whether shiites are muslims or all muslims are shiites. Why did you wash off your hands with the 'lesser'(!) muslims like shia ? Are they not as entertaining as your wahabi/salafi heroes ?

Everneo, you've got a real problem understanding what's going on in any given conversation. I don't give a fuck what you think you're asking. You demonstrate with your words that you have no clue what you're talking about.

You think I treat Muslims poorly around here? Take a fucking survey, boy, and ask a few.

Oh right, still playing dumb ? Let me give you another one :all dumb-asses like you are stupids; not all stupids like me are dumb-asses like you.

(chortle!)

Read above

Where? I asked you if you claim all Muslims are Shi'a, and you do not appear to have answered.

Let's see ... read above. Was it:

• He stated shias killing fellow muslims which is not factually correct.

Couldn't be, since you're actually inaccurate, as examining the link you provided to my post will demonstrate. Besides, that's a small thing, overall. Maybe it's ...,

• Dumb ass, i am not asking whether shiites are muslims or all muslims are shiites.

Nope. Can't be. Has nothing to do with anything but your foul mouth and narrow mind.

Perhaps it's ...,

• Let me give you another one :all dumb-asses like you are stupids; not all stupids like me are dumb-asses like you.

Nope, that's just downright infantile.

Perhaps, Everneo, you should learn that a conversation, discussion, exchange between two people does not consist of you simply screaming like a ninny. That's why it's called a dialogue.

When you're ready to stop tilting windmills, boy, let me know.

 

[everneo]

All I'm getting at is that he should be thematically consistent, as Shiites may be Muslims but not all Muslims are Shiites. Throughout the whole topic he slammed on Muslims and then took a sweeping jab at the "religion" (e.g. Islam) by citing a Shiite issue in Iraq.

Instead of dancing around his thematic inconsistency why don't you simply point out the factual incorrectness & tell the facts :
(1) that iraqi blasts were rather political than religious and (2) that the persons behind the blasts were not shias as incorrectly stated by the poster ?

Of all the things Sunnis have to answer for, murders in the name of a Shiite cause are generally not on the list.

So murder in the name of sunni cause only can be taken up for your consideration ? I thought you are a wahabi/salafi. I still doubt you are a sunni.

Now also you are saying it was a problem restricted to a number of shia in Iraq. Where is it said that shias were responsible for the blast ? The iraqi resistance carrying out bombing compaign against coalition forces, their own fellow iraqis who are sunnis as well as shias for months now. What made you to opt for an easy way out ? Shias are not worth defending ?

What the hell are you going on about?

Read above, again.

Woo-hoo! It's not the Shi'a. Great. Whatever you want to find important, boy. If you have a problem with me trying to correct an ignoramus' mistake of thinking all Muslims are Shiite, I really don't care.

That is obvious even to the dumbest, including you.

In the meantime, none of it changes the lie you told when you claimed to not generalize about Muslims. Which is, as I recall, the most recent point of departure for your latest illiterate temper tantrum.

You dumb fuck still do not realise that moderate sunnis are different from your wahabi fundies as far as 'islamism' and 'innocent killings' are concerned.
You generalize, at your convenience, all the muslims with your fancy, pet, wahabi fundamentalist shit. If you refuse this or dance around the topic i could show your posts where you were doing the humping.

Read above

Where? I asked you if you claim all Muslims are Shi'a, and you do not appear to have answered.

Your question is no different than your rant. Ofcourse, all muslims are not shia, but not all muslims get your pathetic defending.

Dumb ass, i am not asking whether shiites are muslims or all muslims are shiites.

Nope. Can't be. Has nothing to do with anything but your foul mouth and narrow mind.

Perhaps it's ...,

That confirms that you are a DA indeed.

Perhaps, Everneo, you should learn that a conversation, discussion, exchange between two people does not consist of you simply screaming like a ninny. That's why it's called a dialogue.

When you're ready to stop tilting windmills, boy, let me know.

Screaming like a nanny is your business, tiassa. Like calling me "Liar, Cheeeeeeeeap un-adulterated Liaaaaarrrrr".