samcdkey on Islam

Ahmed Osman said:
I was never really angry with you for your temperament - after all you had just been called a racist by another - and you were probably pretty hotheaded after that - actually it is a good thing to stand up and fight for , what you believe in ..... ;)

Whatever possesed you to think , that I do not know arabic ?
English is the language , that I have problems with - you probably have noticed my spellingerrors - and wrong constructions of sentences :)

All what you have just quoted , just says this :
ALLWAYS treat other people kindly and just - nonmuslims as well as muslims !!
It is not a freeticket to close intimate friendship with jews and christians !!

Anyway - do not take my word for it - samcdkey - contact your own Imam
in your own country - show him this website , and let him read the posts -
I am quite sure , he has a pure heart , and will guide you to the right path of our faith :)

Salaam ....

Hey Ahmed Osman

what part of Egypt are you from and whats the name of your mosque? just interested as i have a couple of friends from Eygpt.
 
Ahmed Osman said:
I was never really angry with you for your temperament - after all you had just been called a racist by another - and you were probably pretty hotheaded after that - actually it is a good thing to stand up and fight for , what you believe in ..... ;)

Whatever possesed you to think , that I do not know arabic ?
English is the language , that I have problems with - you probably have noticed my spellingerrors - and wrong constructions of sentences :)

All what you have just quoted , just says this :
ALLWAYS treat other people kindly and just - nonmuslims as well as muslims !!
It is not a freeticket to close intimate friendship with jews and christians !!

Anyway - do not take my word for it - samcdkey - contact your own Imam
in your own country - show him this website , and let him read the posts -
I am quite sure , he has a pure heart , and will guide you to the right path of our faith :)

Salaam ....

So how do you support the Quranic injunction that Muslim men may marry women who are Christians or Jews? Is that not an intimate relationship?
 
PsychoticEpisode said:
No disrespect intended here but I would like to know about the virgins that seem to part of the Islamic faith.

First, are virgins really a prize for martyrdom? Secondly, if they are, then where do they come from...are they Godmade on the spot or are they the souls of some dear departed virgins? Third...is sex after death part of the muslim faith...if so then this may be something worth looking into?

Martyrdom for eternal post mortem sex?...seems like either an advanced form of necrophilia or a real incentive to die.

Here is an excellent article by a Jewish Rabbi which I believe answers all your questions:

Islam Hijacked
Rabbi Reuven Firestone, author of "Jihad: The Origin of Holy War in Islam" and Professor of Medieval Judaism and Islam at Hebrew Union College in Los Angeles, offers his insights into the events of September 11.

The queries have come in steadily since the great increase in suicide bombings by Muslim Palestinians during the past year, but since Sept. 11, they have come virtually non-stop. "Does Islam condone suicide? Does Islam condone killing noncombatants? Does Islam teach that a martyr who enters heaven gets the pleasure of 70 virgins? Does Islam really teach the universal doctrine of ‘Islam or the sword?’ Does Islam hate Jews and Judaism?" or, "Does Islam fundamentally hate anyone and anything not Muslim or Islamic?"

Americans know almost nothing about Islam beyond what they pick up from films and novels and news reports (much of it erroneous). Israelis probably know even less, though many have the bad habit of claiming (with some swagger) that they know Muslims because they live with them. The truth of the matter is that Israelis don’t live with Muslims, hardly see them beyond what they see on their own televisions, and tend to have an extremely distorted view of Islam. We few who know something about Islam are bombarded with questions and asked for interviews, but given the hurry and the nature of media discourse, the short answers often confuse more than clarify.

Simplistic clarifications by so-called "Muslim scholars" often confuse the situation even more, because virtually any Muslim can claim to be a scholar and speak on behalf of Islam. From my own experience, many of them seem not to know what they are talking about.

So how do we arrive at the truth about Islam? Is it a fundamentally violent and hateful religion, as its detractors have claimed? Or is it a religion of compassion and reason, as its Muslim adherents insist? To answer this question, we must first look inward. How have its champions and its enemies characterized Judaism? We have suffered the abuse of religious character assassination by those who not only have hated us, but also by those who have feared us. Anyone who can read is able to find excerpts in translation from the Bible and from our Talmud and midrash that would curdle the blood of any innocent reader who doesn’t know the context of the citations. Our great King David arranged the murder of an innocent man because he lusted over the poor man’s wife (2 Samuel 11). Rabbis incinerate their opponents (Shabbat 34a, Sanhedrin 100a). The Torah even calls for mass extermination, for genocide of the native Canaanite inhabitants of the land (Deuteronomy 7). It is just as easy to find violent material in the Quran and in the second most important source of Islamic religious teaching: the Hadith literature (parallel to Oral Law in Judaism). It almost need not be said that one can just as well find material urging compassion for the needy, the poor, the homeless, the orphan and widow.

One of my criticisms of self-proclaimed pundits of Islam is that they do not cite their sources. Take a look at some of the key issues that lie at the core of the questions listed above.

About a week before the suicide massacres and destruction of the World Trade Center towers in New York, "60 Minutes" claimed to have interviewed a Palestinian working for and with suicide bombers intending to kill Israelis. Interviewed in Arabic, the English voice-over translation had the man claiming that a martyr who enters Paradise will enjoy the sexual pleasures of 70 or 72 virgin women.

A number of self-proclaimed Muslim scholars accused "60 Minutes" of distorting the transcript and demanded an apology. They claimed to have heard the original Arabic in spite of the loud English voice-over and emphatically stated that he said nothing of the sort. They even went further, to claim that Islam would never teach such a thing. This was clearly an attempt to avoid public embarrassment, but the truth is that according to Islamic lore and tradition, a male who enters heaven enters what we in the West would consider a hedonistic paradise full of physical and sensual pleasures. This is simply a fact. The origin of this view most certainly lies in the context of the extremely stark and difficult life of ancient Bedouin Arabia. Something as simple as the constant flow of water in a stream was considered miraculous, so it would be natural to imagine heaven as flowing with streams of water under the shade of huge trees.

But there are other delights as well, according to a Hadith in an authoritative collection called Sunan al-Tirmidhi, which would be on the shelves of any Muslim scholar. In my edition, published in Beirut, it can be found in a section called "The Book of Description of the Garden," chapter 23, titled "The least reward for the people of Heaven," Hadith number 2562. The Hadith reads literally as follows: "Sawda (Tirmidhi’s grandfather) reported that he heard from Abdullah, who received from Rishdin b. Sa’d, who in turn learned from Amr b. al-Harith, from Darraj, from Abul-Haytham, from Abu Sa’id al-Khudri, who received it from the Apostle of God [Muhammad]: The least [reward] for the people of Heaven is 80,000 servants and 72 wives, over which stands a dome of pearls, aquamarine and ruby, as [wide as the distance] between al-Jaabiyya and San’a." That these 72 wives are virgin is confirmed by Quran (55:74) and commentaries on that verse. Al-Jaabiyya was a suburb of Damascus, according to the famous 14th century commentator, Isma’il Ibn Kathir, so one personal jeweled dome would stretch the distance from Syria to Yemen, some 1,600 miles.

Was this tradition intended to be believed literally? Do Muslims believe it literally? Are they required to? This particular Hadith has technical weaknesses in its chain of transmitters and is therefore not considered impeccable, though it is listed in an authoritative collection. As a result, Muslims are not required to believe in it, though many inevitably do (but an even more respectable Hadith with virtually the same message can be found in Tirmidhi K. Fada’il al-Jihad 25:1663). I am sure that many believe that they will experience incredible physical pleasures when they enter heaven. I personally have no problem with that. Religions inevitably expect their adherents to believe things that would seem absurd to believers of other religions.

The more important question is, who is privileged to enter heaven according to Islam? Does a suicide bomber who kills innocent people merit entrance into heaven? The answer to this question would appear to be quite clear. Because Islam is a religious civilization that has been associated with political power for many centuries, its religious scholars have had the responsibility to deal with issues of state and with issues of war. Islam, therefore, has a lot to say on such issues. On the issue of suicide and harming innocents, Islam is unambiguous.

The four schools of Islamic law expressly forbid the harming of noncombatants. These include women, children, monks and hermits, the aged, blind and insane. In the most authoritative collection of Hadith, the Sahih al-Bukhari (The Book of Jihad, chapters 147-147, Hadiths 257-258), Muhammad expressly disapproves and then forbids the slaying of women and children. "A woman was found killed during one of the Apostle of God’s battles, so the Apostle of God forbade the killing of women and children." This message is found in a number of authoritative collections and has been formalized in the legal literature. Islam also expressly forbids suicide, the punishment for which is eternal reenactment of the act and revisitation of the pain. Sahih al-Bukhari (K. Jana’iz 82:445-446) has the following on the authority of the Prophet: "Whoever commits suicide with a piece of iron will be punished with the same piece of iron in Hell. Whoever commits suicide by throttling shall keep on throttling himself in Hell [forever], and whoever commits suicide by stabbing shall keep on stabbing himself in Hell [forever]."

On the other hand, martyrdom in war for Islamic cause is praised extensively throughout the literature. The Quran teaches (3:169): "Do not consider those killed [while engaging] in God’s cause dead. Rather, they live with their Lord, who sustains them!" The Quranic idiom, "killed while engaging in God’s cause" is a reference to martyrdom for acting on being a Muslim, whether as a persecuted and powerless individual or as a warrior fighting for the expansion of the world of Islam. Perhaps the most compelling expression is composed of the idioms found in the most authoritative sources and attributed to the Prophet, "Paradise is [found] under the shade of swords," or "Paradise is under the gleam of swords" (Sahih Bukhari, Jihad, 22:73). Muhammad’s companion, Abu Hurayra, said that he heard the Prophet say: "By the One in Whose hands is my soul [i.e., by God], I would love to be martyred [while engaged] in God’s cause, then be resurrected, then martyred, then resurrected, then martyred, then resurrected, and then martyred" (Sahih Bukhari, Jihad 7:54). A Hadith in Sunan al-Tirmidhi states that in contrast to the suicide, the martyr does not even feel the pain of his death (Fada’il al-Jihad, 26:1663). He is also forgiven all his sins and has the right to intercede on behalf of his own family to enter Heaven.

So suicide is forbidden, killing of noncombatants is forbidden, but martyrdom is rewarded with entrance into heaven and, therefore, with great material rewards in the world to come. We are beginning to uncover the complexity of the problem. It rests to a great extent on interpretation and the authority of those who make the interpretations. One stable person’s definition of suicide may be interpreted as martyrdom by a fanatic. All these categories may be easily manipulated by fanatical, desperate, or evil people. A reasonable person’s obvious identification of innocent noncombatants may be categorized as Satan’s hordes by someone who is desperate and confused. Add to this the fact that most, though not all, suicide bombers are in desperate economic straits.

We need to add one more ingredient to an already complex soup, and this is the perception of the West (and the West includes Israel) among many Muslims who live in the Middle East. The West prides itself with having brought many gifts to the civilized world: tolerance, democracy, pluralism, freedom. To the natives of many parts of the world that were exploited by colonialism, imperialism and today’s "globalism," these noble contributions are meaningless. Many Muslims in the Middle East see them as no more than slogans that attempt to hide the true intent of the West: political and religious domination and economic exploitation.

To a poor peasant or middle-class urban dweller who suffers the loss of children to disease, lacks opportunities for improvement, and has a grim and downtrodden daily existence while watching TV-movie portrayals of Western wealth and decadence, it is not a stretch to conceive of the United States and Israel as the greater and lesser Satans.

Of course, local corrupt leadership often takes advantage of such sentiment in order to prop up its own crooked regimes. In fact, the secular leaders of Muslim countries have always tried to manipulate Islamic symbols and images in order to manipulate their populations. Add this also to our soup. Islam is a noble and compassionate religion, but like all good things, Islam may be cynically used and manipulated. Misguided people may also manipulate it in good faith.

The outrageously unstable political situation in the Middle East, the terrible economic situation, the lack of freedoms and lack of a tradition of open inquiry for the past six centuries all contribute to an environment of suspicion and bitterness.

Whom can you trust, if not God? But God has also been manipulated, and this is the saddest aspect of the complex we call the Middle East. God has been hijacked by terrorists. Islam is not the problem. Terrorism is the problem, and terrorists have hijacked both Islam and God.

This article appeared originally in The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles, September 28, 2001
 
Additionally the words used in the verse are houri:

ḥūrīya, pl. ḥūrīyāt), or hour-ul-‘Ein, are described as "pure people of Paradise" awaiting devout Muslims. Though technically they are not human and are angels. The houri may have a connotation of gender but in Heaven the houri can be male or female since angels do not have genders. Therefore they are awarded to all people who enter Heaven.
The Islamic belief in an afterlife replete with houris is reinforced in the following hadith (source: [1]):

Collected by Imam at-Tirmidhi in "Sunan" (Volume IV, Chapters on "The Features of Heaven as described by the Messenger of Allah", Chapter 21: "About the Smallest Reward for the People of Heaven", hadith 2687) and also quoted by Ibn Kathir in his Tafsir (Koranic Commentary) of Surah Rahman (55), ayah (verse) 72:

"It was mentioned by Daraj Ibn Abi Hatim, that Abu al-Haytham 'Adullah Ibn Wahb narrated from Abu Sa'id al-Khudhri, who heard the Prophet Muhammad (Allah's blessings and peace be upon him) saying, 'The smallest reward for the people of Heaven is an abode where there are eighty thousand servants and seventy two wives, over which stands a dome decorated with pearls, aquamarine and ruby, as wide as the distance from al-Jabiyyah to San'a.

It should be pointed out that the above hadith comes from Imam at-Tirmidhi's Sunan, whose compilation of hadith, which while considered by most Sunni Muslims to be one of the six most authentic and canonical, is not considered the most authentic. That honor belongs to Imam Bukhari, who does not authenticate the claim of seventy-two wives in his work, the Sahih Bukhari[2]. See Sunni view of Hadith). As a hadith, it does not exist in the Qur'an either, which is used as the basis for all mainstream sects of Islam.

Ibn Kathir, who is mentioned above, compiled the works of many collectors of hadith, including Imam Bukhari, Imam Muslim, and Imam at-Tirmidhi, thus lending all of them countenance. [3] Some regard this as 'proof' of the hadith, disregarding the actual beliefs of the vast majority of Muslims, including Sunni Muslims.
 
Last edited:
Sam

The four schools of Islamic law expressly forbid the harming of noncombatants. These include women, children, monks and hermits, the aged, blind and insane. In the most authoritative collection of Hadith, the Sahih al-Bukhari (The Book of Jihad, chapters 147-147, Hadiths 257-258),

Who are the monks in Islam?

I thought they had no renounced order?
 
samcdkey said:
Where do the Russians come in? :confused:
from the cold war between russia and america. the oil rich middle east has been eyeballed by almost every country. just to name a few, britain, russia, germany, the USA. one of the primary reasons for americas involvement in iraq is not for their oil but for stability. astable economy is a productive economy, and a producetive economy is good for the people

Actually I suspect that there is a deliberate campaign of misinformation being propagated.
you guessed it. the question is by who? it has to be someone that is in fear of losing control.
What Arab leaders say is twisted in the Western media to give the worst possible connotation.
maybe you can provide some links to untainted arab sources?
Even like Vega has copy pasted here, the versions of Quranic verses with no reference to history or inclination, make it look like the Muslims are violent and want nothing more than to kill the Jews or Christians.
muslims aren't the only violent people. there have been plenty of christians to give them serious competition.
It is obvious that these people do not want the focus to be on the terrorists, but want to shift it away from the criminals for some reason.

Something is surely going on here.
the shitty part is that we may never uncover the truth
 
lightgigantic said:
Sam



Who are the monks in Islam?

I thought they had no renounced order?

This list is not of Muslims, but of the people who are protected in war.
 
leopold99 said:
from the cold war between russia and america. the oil rich middle east has been eyeballed by almost every country. just to name a few, britain, russia, germany, the USA. one of the primary reasons for americas involvement in iraq is not for their oil but for stability. astable economy is a productive economy, and a producetive economy is good for the people

Yes that makes sense; but I wish they would use diplomacy. Power is so addictive.

you guessed it. the question is by who? it has to be someone that is in fear of losing control.

Who has control right now?
maybe you can provide some links to untainted arab sources?

Unfortunately, even I cannot do so. There is so much secrecy, it is hard to know who owns the media. Like MEMRI, which is funded by the US government and owned by an ex-Colonel in the Israeli intelligence.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,773258,00.html
Memri's purpose, according to its website, is to bridge the language gap between the west - where few speak Arabic - and the Middle East, by "providing timely translations of Arabic, Farsi, and Hebrew media".

The reason for Memri's air of secrecy becomes clearer when we look at the people behind it. The co-founder and president of Memri, and the registered owner of its website, is an Israeli called Yigal Carmon.

Mr - or rather, Colonel - Carmon spent 22 years in Israeli military intelligence and later served as counter-terrorism adviser to two Israeli prime ministers, Yitzhak Shamir and Yitzhak Rabin.

Retrieving another now-deleted page from the archives of Memri's website also throws up a list of its staff. Of the six people named, three - including Col Carmon - are described as having worked for Israeli intelligence.

muslims aren't the only violent people. there have been plenty of christians to give them serious competition.

And targeting the religion rather than the criminals has the unfortunate effect of getting more young men as fodder.
the shitty part is that we may never uncover the truth

Yes, you are absolutely right.
 
samcdkey said:
And if Islam is so violent, why are only a few Muslims violent? Why not all 1.5 billion of them?

Islamic violence is not just intrinsic to suicide bombers.

If a form of violence was accepted as a part of a society, what would there be to report? And if reporting that violence did nothing but create more violence, what reason would someone have to report it?

Are you too ignoring the apostates, sam?

Of course, they MUST be a quiet bunch, though.
 
lightgigantic said:
on what basis or grounds would monks not be killed?

why would they be seen as worthy of protection?

If you look at the list carefully, it basically includes all people who are considered non-combatants (or civilians) in war.
 
(Q) said:
Islamic violence is not just intrinsic to suicide bombers.

Explain

If a form of violence was accepted as a part of a society, what would there be to report? And if reporting that violence did nothing but create more violence, what reason would someone have to report it?

I have lived in a Wahabi Islamic country for 5 years. I have lived in the US for two.

The comparison falls negatively on the American side.
Are you too ignoring the apostates, sam?

Only the ones using the internet for propaganda.
I know Taslima Nasreen, who was a victim of her community and I sympathise with her. But she is a victim of a patriarchial society, which includes all SE Asia, where religion is a convenient blanket for male dominance.

The others are nameless faceless creatures, who could be anybody.
Of course, they MUST be a quiet bunch, though.

Then you have not read Taslima's books.
 
Last edited:
Certain variant readings existed and, indeed, persisted and increased as the Companions who had memorised the text died, and because the inchoate (basic) Arabic script, lacking vowel signs and even necessary diacriticals to distinguish between certain consonants, was inadequate. ... In the 4th Islamic century, it was decided to have recourse (to return) to "readings" (qira'at) handed down from seven authoritative "readers" (qurra'); in order, moreover, to ensure accuracy of transmission, two "transmitters" (rawi, pl. ruwah) were accorded to each. There resulted from this seven basic texts (al-qira'at as-sab', "the seven readings"), each having two transmitted versions (riwayatan) with only minor variations in phrasing, but all containing meticulous vowel-points and other necessary diacritical marks. ... The authoritative "readers" are:

Nafi (from Medina; d.169/785)
Ibn Kathir (from Mecca; d.119/737)
Abu `Amr al-'Ala' (from Damascus; d.53/770)
Ibn `Amir (from Basra; d.118/736)
Hamzah (from Kufah; d.156/772)
al-Qisa'i (from Kufah; d.189/804)
Abu Bakr `Asim (from Kufah; d.158/778)

The predominant reading today, spread by Egyptian Koran readers, is that of `Asim in the transmission (riwayah) of Hafs (d. 190/805). In Morocco, however, the reading is that of Nafi` in the riwayah of Warsh (d. 197/812) and Maghrebin Korans are written accordingly.

It is known fact today, people hear the Quran or the Bible, and change the words that were said by twisting their tongues, but nowhere they changed the text. Interpretations are always abused by many, but the text remain protected. Textual corruption is easily detected in the Bible since originals are available. In the case of the verse above, it refers to an argument between Muhammad and the Jews of Madinah.

The Quran claims that the Jews tried to hide the prophecies of Muhammad in the Bible, but perverted it after they heard it (understood it). It is agreed among Muslims that textual corruption (Al-Tahreef Al-Lafthi), by adding, deleting, and substituting words to the Quran is impossible. However, making verbal changes, omitting, and twisting verses while reading and reciting the word of God is possible. No one can find verses in the Quran referring to textual corruption of the Bible. If that was true, Muslim scholars would have produced them. We could ask: Why was there no reference in the Quran for textual corruption? There are several reasons for that:

(1) Muhammad believed that he was mentioned in the Bible. How could he refer to a book that was corrupt, and speaking of him.
(2) Muhammad was tryingto reach to Jews and some Christian sects. It would be impossible for these people to be reached if he accuses their Bible as corrupt.
(3) It would be difficult to say that God's word can be corrupted, since the Quran testifies that God's words are protected by God. That is why the Bible's integrity and purity is evident the moment one reads the Arabic Quran.
 
Vega said:
Certain variant readings existed and, indeed, persisted and increased as the Companions who had memorised the text died, and because the inchoate (basic) Arabic script, lacking vowel signs and even necessary diacriticals to distinguish between certain consonants, was inadequate. ... In the 4th Islamic century, it was decided to have recourse (to return) to "readings" (qira'at) handed down from seven authoritative "readers" (qurra'); in order, moreover, to ensure accuracy of transmission, two "transmitters" (rawi, pl. ruwah) were accorded to each. There resulted from this seven basic texts (al-qira'at as-sab', "the seven readings"), each having two transmitted versions (riwayatan) with only minor variations in phrasing, but all containing meticulous vowel-points and other necessary diacritical marks. ... The authoritative "readers" are:

Nafi (from Medina; d.169/785)
Ibn Kathir (from Mecca; d.119/737)
Abu `Amr al-'Ala' (from Damascus; d.53/770)
Ibn `Amir (from Basra; d.118/736)
Hamzah (from Kufah; d.156/772)
al-Qisa'i (from Kufah; d.189/804)
Abu Bakr `Asim (from Kufah; d.158/778)

The predominant reading today, spread by Egyptian Koran readers, is that of `Asim in the transmission (riwayah) of Hafs (d. 190/805). In Morocco, however, the reading is that of Nafi` in the riwayah of Warsh (d. 197/812) and Maghrebin Korans are written accordingly.

It is known fact today, people hear the Quran or the Bible, and change the words that were said by twisting their tongues, but nowhere they changed the text. Interpretations are always abused by many, but the text remain protected. Textual corruption is easily detected in the Bible since originals are available. In the case of the verse above, it refers to an argument between Muhammad and the Jews of Madinah.

The Quran claims that the Jews tried to hide the prophecies of Muhammad in the Bible, but perverted it after they heard it (understood it). It is agreed among Muslims that textual corruption (Al-Tahreef Al-Lafthi), by adding, deleting, and substituting words to the Quran is impossible. However, making verbal changes, omitting, and twisting verses while reading and reciting the word of God is possible. No one can find verses in the Quran referring to textual corruption of the Bible. If that was true, Muslim scholars would have produced them. We could ask: Why was there no reference in the Quran for textual corruption? There are several reasons for that:

(1) Muhammad believed that he was mentioned in the Bible. How could he refer to a book that was corrupt, and speaking of him.
(2) Muhammad was tryingto reach to Jews and some Christian sects. It would be impossible for these people to be reached if he accuses their Bible as corrupt.
(3) It would be difficult to say that God's word can be corrupted, since the Quran testifies that God's words are protected by God. That is why the Bible's integrity and purity is evident the moment one reads the Arabic Quran.

It would help if there was a question asked.
 
(Q):

Taslima Nasreen:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/2218972.stm

Ms Nasreen told the BBC Bengali service there was no freedom of expression in the country.

"It is a democratic country but... there is no real democracy in Bangladesh.

"The political parties use religion for their own interests and whenever they find any criticism about religion, they can't tolerate it, so they ban the book."

Wild Wind is the sequel to My Girlhood, published in 1999, which was also banned in Bangladesh for blasphemy.

Ms Nasreen, a doctor-turned-writer, rose to prominence in 1993 after her first book, Shame, ran into similar problems.

She fled the country shortly afterwards because Muslim extremists put a price on her head.

They were incensed at comments she is said to have made to an Indian newspaper calling for changes in the Koran to give women more rights.

Ms Nasreen denies making the remarks.
 
I was there in Saudi Arabia during the suicide attacks over there.

We travelled so many times on those occasions.

There was no heightened security, no panic on the media or among the people.

Everything was the same as usual and the authorities caught the miscreants without any fan fare.



http://www.ict.org.il/spotlight/det.cfm?id=901
 
samcdkey said:
Only the ones (apostates) using the internet for propaganda.

The others are nameless faceless creatures, who could be anybody.

I suspected such a response from you, sam. How very dissapointing, yet, not surprisingly from one who uses propaganda to support their arguments.

Shameful, sam, and very saddening.
 
(Q) said:
I suspected such a response from you, sam. How very dissapointing, yet, not surprisingly from one who uses propaganda to support their arguments.

Shameful, sam, and very saddening.

And I expected better from you a so-called rationalist, who would pass judgements on 1.5 billion people and their culture on the basis of nameless and faceless people who will not stand up and be recognised; tell me, why is a woman like Taslima able to give her name and face and yet so many of the most virulent apostates (writing books and media articles and gaining financially from them) afraid to do so?
 
Ahmed Osman said:
Maybe you are older - I am 48 and Imam in Egypt ...
You probably also is more intelligent than me - but wiser in the Essence of
Islam ??? - perhaps you are, only Allah knows .....

Hi Ahmed,

I thought someone created a sockpuppet (not that it is common here)with the moniker "Ahmed Osman" the Egyptian author.

Now that i know of your true stature my future post's will reflect the same graciousness which you have afforded me.

Your should change your signature. :)
 
Back
Top