Our attitude concerning mockery of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon

GeoffP said:
Hey Sam: I wonder why her family were searching for her? Or why her sister warned her about it? Were they going to take away her charge card? So odd.
Click to expand...

Uh, you're supporting misinformation with further misinformation? She admitted that she lied. :rolleyes:


Ms Hirsi Ali had admitted the falsifications in several media interviews since 2002 and also informed her party, the liberal-conservative VVD, before standing for parliament in 2003.

But where the documentary seems to have hit her reputation hardest is in interviewing members of her family who contested her claim that she was fleeing a forced marriage when she arrived in the Netherlands aged 22.

The MP has previously explained not giving her real name, Ayaan Hirsi Magan, and saying she was born in 1967, not 1969, because she was afraid her family would find her.

She also told officials she had come directly from Somalia, rather than via Kenya and Germany, thus accelerating her claim for asylum.

Ms Verdonk said in May that the falsifications made her application for citizenship, granted in 1997, invalid.

But a month later, Ms Verdonk wrote to the Dutch parliament saying she had found a loophole which made it legitimate for Ms Hirsi Ali to have used her grandfather's name in her asylum claim.
Click to expand...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4985636.stm
 
GeoffP said:
Haw! She leaves her forced marriage, which to you - and only you - is disloyalty. And her family despises her because she chose her own way.

I'm sure there's a conservative religious parallel here. I wonder what it could be.
Click to expand...

More BS. Her father was an atheist who had lived in the West. She was as free to pick her religion as her brother, who picked Christianity. She was never a "devout" Muslim and she invited her "abusive" husband and "abusive" family to Netherlands to visit her.

Professor Jytte Klausen of Brandeis University, author of The Islamic
Challenge: Politics and Religion in Western Europe, who knows Hirsi Ali
and has followed her case closely, said in a telephone interview
Thursday:
"She wasn't forced into a marriage. She had an amicable relationship
with her husband, as well as with the rest of her family. It was not
true that she had to hide from her family for years."
Why, then, has her estranged/former husband not spoken up?

"Because Hirsi Ali has asked him not to. They parted company amicably."
The revelation, Klausen said, proved the last straw for Ali's
colleagues in government.
Click to expand...

http://hirsi-ali-news.newslib.com/story/8425-48/

But there are plenty of patsies like you that provide her with an audience. So she is as free to feed off them as any other politician. Considering she works with the conservative AEI in the US, I'd say she preaches directly to the choir.
 
Last edited:
SAM said:
You're kidding right? Hirsi Ali and honesty? She's pure politician.
Click to expand...
She argues more honestly than Arsalan, in my experience on this little screen here.

And he brought her into this, not for her life story however fictionalized, but as justification for his assertions about what atheists on this forum "always" do - namely, defend Christianity.

The advantage of merely dealing with honesty in argument is that it's visible - it's right here on the screen. I don't have to bother with Ms Ali's family background, or other stuff troublesome and uncertain always.
 
Arsalan said:
It brought peace in that region for a very long time.


What promises exactly?

I don’t believe religion has brought as much or more conflict or oppression than any other political ideology, be it imperialism or revolution.

Exactly how did they wield that instead of bringing peace?

The core of my belief system is the Quran. I have provided you with what I believe to be the core message of Islam from the Holiest Book in Islam: gaining nearness to God, and thereby enlightenment, through worship and knowledge.

That’s only one of the many concepts in Islam

Not for anyone outside of the house of Israel i.e. just for the Jews. And yeah, they are preaching it in every corner of the world. Which shows that they are not following the message.


Thank you. It is nice to hear you say that.

But did they believe it was the same God as theirs?

Which is an interesting debate and for another time and place. I personally believe that Jesus went all the way to India, because that’s how far the exiled tribes of Israel were living then and it was his mission to preach to them, and he also became the Metteya for the Buddhists and therefore has been recorded in their history books. But I don’t believe that Buddhism generally speaks out on matters regarding other religions’ divinity or Divine Being.

How long have those shrines been there? And what exactly is the Shinto teaching on Universalism? Got some extracts for us?

The vast majority of Arabia accepted Islam of their own free will.

There are still some left who choose to be polytheistic.

No I don’t agree to that. You would have to ask that vile House of Saud why they are acting unIslamic and forbidding non-Muslims. I think you should be able to contact them; they are great friends of the US government and kept in power by them. Funnily enough, it’s this friendship between the US and the House of Saud which means that there are US bases in Muslim Holy Lands which is the main reason for Bin Laden’s terrorism.

Universality is a central message in Islam. The actions of some governments of some countries do not make that message null and void.

I don’t recall putting Christianity to any test except saying that the message in their core Holy Books is that the Message sent to them was not meant for anyone outside of the House/Tribe of Israel. The Quran on the other hand claims that its Message is for everyone, not just the Arabs or any particular group. It also claims that, as prophesied in the Torah and Bible, it is the final message.

Mr. Hubbard taught a message that was completely alien to the vast majority of religious messages in this world. Furthermore, his message is completely separate from any message by the Abrahamic Prophets. As a Muslim I believe that, as Prophesied in various earlier Holy Books and religious songs around the world, the Quran contains the final message for mankind. Therefore, I don’t believe he was a real prophet but being a Muslim I respect him, his followers and their religion.

In my eyes, Mormonism is part of Christianity and its teachings and since the Quran confirms Jesus as a Prophet.... Furthermore, since the Torah and Bible had prophesied that they were not the final message but rather that that message would be brought by someone in Faran (Region in Arabia where the Prophet of Islam comes from), whose name in the Hebrew version of the Song of Solomon is Muhammad-im and the Quran teaches that it is the final and universal message, not the Bible or Torah, I don’t believe in him as a Prophet but being a Muslim I respect him, his followers and their religion.

I myself am an Ahmadi. I believe that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was the Mujaddid (As is recognized by the vast majority of Muslims) and I also believe he was the Promised Messiah and Mahdi. I believe this because Islamic teaching says that the Promised Messiah, the 2nd coming of Jesus Christ, will be from the Ummah of the Prophet of Islam and follow his teachings. But that’s another debate.

Bahaism is a part of Shia Islam. And since Bahá'u'lláh laid claim to divinity and tried to write a whole new Sharia, something totally against any Islamic teaching, I don’t believe he was a real prophet. But, being a Muslim, I respect him, his followers and their religion.

I do believe Prophets will continue to come. But I believe that they will come from the Muslim Ummah. That doesn’t make the message of Universality void as I believe that the core of the teachings by for example Joesph Smith was the Bible and therefore from Divine Origin.

Strange that isn’t it?

The vast majority of people in that list aren’t actually worshipped as Gods you know.

Grecoe-Buddhism spread from what are now India, Pakistan and Afghanistan to the East. It had no connection or influence to the area Jesus lived in. Furthermore, it is highly unlikely that a young boy would know anything about it, let alone leave for India alone and then come back.

Actually, I say and accept both.

It’s not pure propaganda. The reason it’s called the Islamic Golden Age is because it spanned over an extremely large region which included numerous countries, cultures and races. Their sole connection being that they were Muslim. Whether you were on the far east side of the Muslim Empire or in Spain, the one thing that connected these people were that they were Muslims. You say that it’s called the Chinese Golden Age and not the Shamanistic Golden Age. The reason is because that was just one country. Granted, it was divided up into various little kingdoms and what not, but it was still one country. You cannot compare China to the Muslim Empire which stretched far and wide, including many races, not just the Arabs.

Furthermore, since people don’t have any trouble calling terrorism Islamic terrorism or Islamic militancy and terrorists as Muslims or Islamists, regardless of whether the terrorists are actually Arabs, Chinese, Moroccan, American or English, they shouldn’t have any trouble calling it the Islamic Golden Age. Let me put it this way: a certain Ibn Haytham, born in Spain, blows himself up in a train. He is Muslim. Now, does the world call him a Spanish terrorist or a Muslim terrorist?

Hmm, ok then, I pick.............. the Scientific Method

What if they themselves attribute it to religion?

I’m not saying you’re being hateful, just picky. And besides, I’m not an ancient Polytheistic Greek so I wouldn’t know if it is offensive. On the other hand I am a Muslim and know what offends me.

Or concentration. But seriously, if stuff like this brainwashes people, then Marx was right about education and work, and so does keeping a schedule, and voting and bla and bla....

Some people say that yes but when asked for proof they go silent. Even the staunchest critics of Islam acknowledge that he didn’t kill anyone who stood in his way just so he could bring about a “revolution”.

I think I messed up with the quoting function there :(

Actually no, no religious script did I think. If it did, then the Muslims would act like the Christians and Buddhists in Afghanistan and India who converted to Islam and convert to Scientology.

I don’t think its tripe tbh. I have seen too many things being foretold in the Holy Books, not just small prophecies or prophecies that can be taken to mean anything, but particular and specific prophecies which have come true, to believe it’s all tripe and man-made. When a religious Book over 2500 years old foretells the coming of a certain Muhammad-im in Faran (A part of Arabia) who would have 10000 people with him (The number that came to Mecca at the Conquest of Mecca) etc. then I don’t believe it is a coincidence. When a religious Song over 5000 year old foretells the coming of a certain Mahammad who would dwell in a desert and bring a great message, I don’t believe it is a coincidence. Nor do I believe it is a coincidence when it says that his followers would be known for keeping the beard.

That sounds interesting. Could you ask him for the verses? Tnx in advance.

I would have to know which verses before I can answer this question.

Not really. Islam, not Mohammadanisn, is part of the same Abrahamic family though and a fulfilment of the prophecies of Christianity and Judaism.

Nope they don’t, but the ones that do and or did converted to and still convert to Islam. Hence the vast majority of Arabia becoming Muslim in a very small period of time. Hence the areas of Afghanistan converting to Islam.

Nah, I’m not going to do this again. If you want the main message, it’s in my old post. If you want to debate it, please use what I posted there.

It means that these Messengers, Buddha or Jesus were real Prophets of God who brought a divine message.

Plus the acceptance that they are from the same God as yours.

I never said that. I only said that their own teachings say that the Message was not to be eternal and that another Message was to be revealed which was to be both eternal and universal.

And yet, he would always connect them with the Gods he knew and always acknowledge 1 God as the King of Gods.

And Muslims believe that it is the same God as theirs.

Wrong. I’ve only ever seen Muslims use the religious Books and teachings of other religions to point out that it mentions Islam. That doesn’t mean it’s being disrespectful to them and saying to them your religion is wrong. Muslims place great importance on the Message of a religion instead of focusing all their attention to who brought it and why they aren’t real. And if a religion teaches that it is not eternal ,and that another Messenger will come with the final Message, and the followers of that religion do not follow these teachings, what do you call them? Are they staying true to their religion or have they now abandoned that teaching and made up their own?

Look at it another way: Muslims are questioning religion. If they see that the message of another religion tells something and its followers aren’t following that message, surely they are allowed to question as to why? Isn’t that what you are doing here? Questioning religion? Shouldn’t people do that? Or should we all just behave as the fictional polytheistic Greek in your fable and not question any religion or teaching whatsoever?

In what way? In its origin or in eternal message? Shintoism is an extremely ethnic religion at its core. Comparing that religion, or rather a way of life, to a religion which teaches complete Universality is a fallacy in itself.

I see where you are trying to go with this. It’s something I’ve seen over and over again when I bring up Universality. It stems from a misunderstanding which itself stems from a lack of knowledge about the Ahle Kitab, i.e. People of the Book. People seem to assume that with the People of the Book the Quran just means Christians and Jews. Unfortunately, those people don’t read what the great scholars of Islam have to say on the subject, although you in particular could be forgiven since that literature is in Arabic. In short: The Ahle Kitab (People of the Book) includes Jews and Christians but also includes Buddhists, Hindus and Confucists among others.

Don’t worry, I couldn’t give a rats’ anymore whether you respond or not. My point has been proven.

Funny this, ever since that post of mine you have not once looked at the evidence I have laid before you. Instead, you keep going on and on about me being a fundie. Let’s get the facts straight here:

1) You called me a fundie before I accused you of wearing shades of hate

2) You ascribed to me a symptom of schizophrenia before I said you were wearing shades of hate

3) I have told you the difference between hatred, which I didn’t attribute to you, and shades of hate

4) I replied to Geoff about the cartoon and after that I started a new paragraph where I wrote about Atheists defending Christianity while attacking Islam. In case you still don’t know what the hell I’m talking about, and I have a strong suspicion you don’t, let me quote what WordNet says:

If you would kindly go back to the particular post that seems a bit too complex for your understanding, you will see that I begun a whole new paragraph, according to the rules, where I said that Atheists attack Islam while defending Christianity. The only other option for me would have been to make a whole new post and since I have already been warned for making too many posts which can be fitted in one post, I am not going to make a new post just so I can satisfy you.

5) I have given you proof, including links, supporting my view. If you want it again, kindly go back a few pages and check it out yourself. Although I highly doubt you will considering your history of evading the issue in this regard.

6) You claimed that Christians claim the same thing. I asked for proof. You have still not provided me with proof.

It is quite clear that you are not in the least interested in finding out the truth. Rather, when a religious person makes a point which you disagree with, you just call him a fundie and keep calling him a fundie in the hope that this repetition will make others see that person as a fundie as well. You can call me whatever you want, I have given you links to Wilder’s words, told you about Hirsi Ali, about FFI.com and Manji. Anyone interested in finding the truth would go to those links and look up the stuff and either try to prove me wrong or acknowledge that what I said was true. You did neither which leads me to believe you have not even bothered and probably never will.

If you want to, start a poll and ask people to go over our posts and pick out the person who is evading the issue. One thing is clear to everyone now; you are not bothered about my post or my argument. The only thing you are bothered about is that a religious person is saying something against Atheists. The only recourse available to you? Call him a fundie. Simple.
Click to expand...

Arsalan bhaiya, I agree completely with your statements. You really understand this situation quite well. Allah balla.
 
S.A.M. said:
Uh, you're supporting misinformation with further misinformation? She admitted that she lied.
Click to expand...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4985636.stm[/QUOTE]

Are you being deliberately foolish? She lied about how she got into the country. Where in that article does it say she admitted to lying about her family threatening her? Honestly - and you have the audacity to attempt to label me with the accusation of poor reading comprehension. :rolleyes: Ah, but in your world of liberated female ideology (subverted occasionally by societal pride) she was just some wayward minx. Rightie-O.

Your link:

http://hirsi-ali-news.newslib.com/story/8425-48/
Click to expand...

came up as:

Sorry, the page you were looking for is not available.
Click to expand...

You have another link? But no matter: the link goes to the Toronto Star, and a noted apologist there named Haroon Siddiqui.

Haroon Siddiqui,"Why the jig is up for Hirsi Ali in Holland", The Toronto Star, 21 May 2006

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayaan_Hirsi_Ali
Click to expand...

And what is it about Haroon that makes him dump on Hirsi Ali?

Could it be this?

Siddiqui courts controversy. Writing in Toronto Life in June 2001, Robert Fulford maintained that "Siddiqui makes the most strenuous effort to bathe Third World countries in a soft light. No matter how outrageous its actions, a non-Western government can usually count on him for a little understanding." HonestReporting Canada, a media watchdog group that monitors and reports on what it perceives as anti-Israel bias, accuses him of "one-sided criticism of Israel" in columns on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict [1].

Critics also charge that Siddiqui harbors anti-American bias, is too quick to dismiss the threat of Islamic terrorism and when he does acknowledge Islamic terrorism he blames the west for it's "root causes"[2]. Aidan Maconachy via Daniel Pipes refers to Siddiqui's attempt to deflect blame away from Muslims for the 2005 riots in France as "Siddiqui spin bowling" [3]. Describing him as "the Toronto Star's resident Islamist," critics accuse him of exploiting latent anti-Americanism in Canada to promote Islamist goals both there and abroad[4][5].

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haroon_Siddiqui
Click to expand...

A person after your own heart. :D

So Siddiqui's second- or third-hand report is sufficient confirmation for you. Does he mention the letters that the NYT saw fit to back? Of course not. That would be a truth too inconvenient.

On May 23, 2006, Ayaan Hirsi made available to the The New York Times some letters she believed would provide insight into her 1992 asylum application.[45][46] In one letter, her sister, Haweya, warned her that the entire extended family was searching for her (after she had fled to the Netherlands), and in another letter her father denounced her.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayaan_Hirsi_Ali
Click to expand...

S.A.M. said:
More BS. Her father was an atheist who had lived in the West. She was as free to pick her religion as her brother, who picked Christianity. She was never a "devout" Muslim and she invited her "abusive" husband and "abusive" family to Netherlands to visit her.
Click to expand...

Proof?

Geoff
 
FelixC said:
I'm just trying to understand Islam, so I was looking & found this, I think its interesting. I wonder what changes this might have?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/2/hi/europe/7264903.stm
Click to expand...

It's not really going to impact Turkey, because the country is secular enough as it is. Perhaps some of Turkey's neighbours would do well to follow in their footsteps for certain aspects of this idea, though. We don't need a radical reformation; a general cleanup would suffice. Of course, practically no government in the Middle East is sanctioned under Islamic recommendings, so I'm not entirely sure if changing interpretations on various hadiths will significantly alter things in the region for the better. Of course, baseless and weak hadiths really should be removed from the mainstream perception of religion. Not destroyed, mind you - they still serve as interesting historical information.
 
Right - she lies about how she gets in the country, which means she can't possibly be telling the truth about her family. And it explains the letters from her sister warning her that the family was looking for her, which the NYT apparently considered genuine. But please muddy the waters with the 'terrorists' bit. Sure saves thinking about the issue, dunnit?
 
“
Originally Posted by Kadark
Of course, practically no government in the Middle East is sanctioned under Islamic recommendings
”

Unfortunately, I must agree with your statement.

This is the major problem facing us today.
Click to expand...

He said "practically no government". There is a good chance he means just ones he does not really care for have.
 
I really hate this trend among people on this forum to try to twist another person's posts. I find it very disappointing in trying to have an honest discussion.
 
DiamondHearts said:
Unfortunately, I must agree with your statement.

This is the major problem facing us today.
Click to expand...

Of course, your sanctions enjoin such open-minded ordnances as stoning apostates too.

It's hard to say which would be the better of the two evils. It makes little difference what one calls a country when any bellicosity is belied by intent and action.
 
GeoffP said:
Right - she lies about how she gets in the country, which means she can't possibly be telling the truth about her family. And it explains the letters from her sister warning her that the family was looking for her, which the NYT apparently considered genuine. But please muddy the waters with the 'terrorists' bit. Sure saves thinking about the issue, dunnit?
Click to expand...

Anyone who can find an article that is no longer online but cannot find what Hirsi lied about, is not worth the effort, in my opinion. On my side, anyone who can use her husbands money to come to the Netherlands and on request, get him to come there and grant her a divorce (and gets it), and anyone who first looks up her relatives when she gets to the Netherlands, has a liberal father and a Christian brother, has some audacity expecting people to believe in abusive husband/family. But hey, George Bush was elected twice, so anything is possible.
 
S.A.M. said:
Anyone who can find an article that is no longer online but cannot find what Hirsi lied about, is not worth the effort, in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Awww, me so evil.

On my side, anyone who can use her husbands money to come to the Netherlands and on request, get him to come there and grant her a divorce (and gets it), and anyone who first looks up her relatives when she gets to the Netherlands, has a liberal father and a Christian brother, has some audacity expecting people to believe in abusive husband/family.
Click to expand...

OK, and all your information comes from where, then? I have the NYT. What you got?
 
You could start with the Economist review of her book, the Dutch film Zembla or the details of how she retained her Dutch citizenship. Or you could address her inconsistensies in her stories about her family. Whatever you choose, you are free to make up your own mind. Currently she is a "fellow" of an anti-abortion, anti-homosexual neoconservative organisation. That alone speaks volumes to me about her opportunistic nature.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top