Radio KFWB 980 in LA broadcasting "Muslim Call to Prayer" and in need of some SERIOUS FReeping

Self ^ | 11/22/2003 | Self

[EUPHORIC]

I had just left Lenscrafters in San Bernardino and was enjoying my new bifocals and a nice cold Coke when something happened that made me spew my coke all over my dashboard. KFWB broadcast a MUSLIM CALL TO PRAYER complete with the Imam wailing away and some local Muslim cleric explaining thet it was a call to prayer for Muslims. Guy then goes into the standard spiel about how Islam is the "most tolerant of religions" and respects other religions and Jesus and we all worship the same God etc etc. And we all know what a crock of lies that is.

This happened just before 5:00 pm today and it sounded like they've been doing it all through Ramadan.

To each his own but I went to their contact page (link below and above) and shotgunned everyone on it with my feelings about them hawking Islam (Ramadan or no) and enlightened them with the TRUTH about Islam and I encourage everyone who feels the same to do the same. Just click below and fire away!

http://www.kfwb.com/inside_contact.asp

[Lady Heron]

So, a call to prayer is an evil act in your world?

Islam is evil. Yes, a call to muslim prayer is supporting this religion by this station, then I will speak out about it. A call to satanic prayer is evil also (though in my mind he is the father of islam so no difference), if the radio station had a call for satinic prayer I would also speak out against it. You can twist words whith your cute logic it does not change the religion and its evil, nor will it keep me quiet.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"Islam is evil."

Islam is only that which its practicioners wish to make it...just like Christianity.

Groups like the Klu Klux Klan, The World Church Of The Creator, The Church of True Israel, The Church Of Jesus Christ Christian; and other adherents to Christian Identity's version of the Bible to justify their hatred are no different than the radical Muslims who are behind the current world situation.

[Luis Gonzalez]

The one doing the twisting here is you, and since you think I use "cute logic", I'll not mince words this time:

"A call to satanic prayer is evil also (though in my mind he is the father of islam so no difference)"

YOUR MIND is not in charge, and you don't get to define someone else's religion any more than they get to define yours.

That's not only logical, it's also a fact.

Usama bin Laden's attacks on the US were no more about religion, than our attack on Iraq was about oil.

[bonfire]

Damn, I was hoping for Kim Philby or someone dramatic!

[Chad Fairbanks]

Yes, a call to muslim prayer is supporting this religion by this station, then I will speak out about it.

If it wasn't paid for by your money, or the airing of it was demanded by government, then I'd wish you luck. However, since this is a private radio station, then we - that is you and I - have the option of turning to a different station. Ain't it cool how America is so cool that way?

[Chad Fairbanks]

No such luck, I'm afraid. ;0)

[SauronOfMordor]

If you were versed enough in Islam, you would know that the moment that we equate the religion itself with the violence, as these terrorists want you to do, and act on that belief, you will in fact unite the Muslim world by taking the sort of action that the Qu'ran explicitly tells them to fight to the death to avoid...the aggressive repression of their religion by non-Muslims.

Here's the thing: I am well-versed in Islam. I HAVE read the Qu'ran and the Sunnah. I DO know exactly that this will happen.

It's just that I think that a final conflict is inevitable, and would prefer to have it happen while the West is still strong. I have no desire to think my grandchildren will live in dhimmitude in an Islamic society

"If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves." -- Winston Churchill

[SauronOfMordor]

Paul Hill killed in the name of God. Should Christianity have been outlawed "temporarily" because of that?

If Paul Hill belonged to a sect whose clergy mostly declined to condemn the act, and who had many clergy applaud the act to their congregations, then I would have approved of having that sect suppressed

[Luis Gonzalez]

"It's just that I think that a final conflict is inevitable"

It isn't, if it was, then our Bible would have prophesized it, and if you think that Islam is the anti-Christ of Revelation, then the defeat of Christianity is inevitable to a degree.

If you truly believe in God, then you must also believe that He is in absolute control, and no amount of strength will avoid what He has willed.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"If Paul Hill belonged to a sect whose clergy mostly declined to condemn the act, and who had many clergy applaud the act to their congregations, then I would have approved of having that sect suppressed."

Then I would suggest that you get a move on.

http://www.armyofgod.com/PHillMessageBoard.html

[SauronOfMordor]

Toy hand grenades sit at a street vendor as people shop in preparation for the Muslim holiday of Eid al-Fitr in the main market in Gaza City, Monday, Nov. 24, 2003. (Yahoo news)

[missyme]

Luis,
You have written so many posts standing up for ISLAM, you are wrong, I can see you standing up for individual rights for people, but ISLAM is a faith of false witness a G-d of unknown origin, it is nothing like Judiasm and Christianity
it was founded by a prophet named Mohammed, and there have been many Muslims who have converted out of that evil faith and feel that they are finally free to worship the true G-d of Israel. This faith does not give women rights, you have never lived in Muslim countries to witness the horrible treatment most of them live under in the nmae of ISLAM. If you think it it so great why don't you convert to there faith?

[SauronOfMordor]

Way back at post 377, I said:

As such, I feel no need to be any more "tolerant" of Islam than I would be to the "Christian Identity" movement, or to a self-professed Klansman.

Being a member of the Klan was not, of itself, evidence that you personally engaged in lynching. However, being a member WAS an indicator that you were in alignment with the ideology of the movement. Similarly, being a Muslim does not mean that you personally are in favor of terrorism or applauded 9/11. But it does indicate that in any conflict between Muslims and non-Muslims, you would be unlikely to take the side of non-Muslims against fellow Muslims. As such, they can and should be considered to have the status of enemy sympathisers

Any self-professed "Christian" sect that advocates violence against innocents has crossed the line. Your move

[missyme]

If you beleive that then you woud know that the Palestians
have no right to Jerusalem, and every ARAB nation would support Israel because it's G-d's word that he gave the Jews there land. The Jews were G-d's chosen children not the ARABS.

Jesus came as a Jew and spoke to the Jew first then the Gentile. As a christian I believe in G-d's word not a version of people's version about ISALM because they feel Muslims have some right that does not come from G-d.

[vladog]

Another brick in the wall! The coffee is perking, but most of the country has lost its sense of smell.

[missyme]

Chad,
This is how nice MUSLIMS are to there female muslims:
THIS IS HAPPENING NOW

But it is in the matter of female genital mutilation that Islam allows its women to be most grievously abused. The process involves cutting away the girl's labia and clitoris and sewing up the vulva till only a small hole is left for the passage of menstrual blood. This operation is performed not by surgeons but by local peasants, without anaesthetics. Often the perpetrators are members of the victim's own family. The operation often takes place in unhygienic conditions giving rise to infections from which death sometimes results.

The figures are alarming. The World Health Organisation estimates that some 100 million Muslim women who are alive today are mutilated in this way and that each year a further two million Muslim girls are added to the total. This thus constitutes an unacknowledged Crime Against Humanity

[missyme]

IT IS ALSO A WELL KNOWN FACT THAT THE PROPHET MOHAMMED WAS A KNOW PEDOHILE, A SEXUAL PREDATOR OF YOUNG GIRLS A RAPIST
AN ADULTERER, PRACTICED POLYGAMY, PERFORMED SEXUAL MUTILATIONS.

If he were around today he would be thrown in the meaniest hardest prison in the country and we would throw away the key.

THIS IS ISALM.

[Chad Fairbanks]

Ok. Now, name one instance where religious-based genital mutilation has occurred in THIS country, sanctioned by religious figures IN THIS COUNTRY (not counting male circumcision).

Just one.

[Cultural Jihad]

MFI Pamphlet #1

 FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATION: AN ISLAMIC PERSPECTIVE

 by Imad-ad-Dean Ahmad, Ph.D.

Minaret of Freedom Institute

THE MFI PAMPHLET SERIES, initiated by the Minaret of Freedom Institute aims to make widely available, at a minimal cost, a summary of authentic Islamic positions on important issues of the day. These pamphlets are directed to a general audience, yet present positions backed by scholarly research presented elsewhere either in academic papers or conferences or based on opinions issued by qualified scholars.

MFI Pamphlet #1: Female Genital Mutilation: An Islamic Perspective

© 2000 Minaret of Freedom Institute, 4323 Rosedale Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814 (www.minaret.org) phone: 301-907-0947; e-mail: mfi@minaret.org. Printed by International Graphics, Beltsville, MD.  To order this pamphlet in bulk send $30 for 50 copies postpaid to: Minaret of Freedom Institute, 4323 Rosedale Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814-4750.

A war is raging, with extremists on both sides, over the issue of circumcision. On one side are fanatic secularists whose antipathy to religion has induced them to engage in a crusade against all forms of circumcision, including male circumcision, as a form of child abuse. On the other side are ignorant traditionalists who have ascribed to religious belief cultural traditions involving horrific forms of female genital mutilation (FGM, which they defend as a form of "female circumcision"). In between the extremes are many well-meaning people confused about the actual nature of the scientific evidence and the religious prescriptions regarding all sorts of practices involving any form of cutting in the genital areas.

In this pamphlet we shall concentrate on female genital mutilation. Male circumcision is clearly a Muslim tradition. Although it is not prescribed in the Qur'an, it was definitely approved of by the Prophet and he was himself circumcised. The beneficial health consequences of male circumcision are widely known, although some medical groups have begun to waver as to whether they are sufficiently great to justify the fact that infants are circumcised "against their will." We leave this debate for another time and place and mention it here only so that the lay reader may be aware that there is a broader context to the debate over female genital mutilation, which is the debate over whether any form of infant mutilation, including male circumcision constitutes child abuse. We restrict ourselves here to the subject of female genital mutilation and leave the debates over male circumcision and the piercing of infant girl's ears to another time and place.

A concise discussion of the main subject requires a detailed prolog to clarify some issues regarding both the nature of Islamic law and the medical terms used to identify the various forms of FGM. Understanding the background of the matter will permit the reader to understand the Islamic position on this question.

It must be understood that Islamic law has a well-defined tradition of jurisprudence. The sources of Islamic law include both revelation and reason. The efforts of scholars to attain understanding of the sharî`ah (i.e., the Divine Law) through various tools (which we shall not detail here) is called ijtihâd.

One fundamental of the Islamic law is that what is not prohibited is allowed. This makes for a great deal of tolerance in the religious law. As a result of this tolerance many pre-Islamic practices were not immediately eradicated by Islam. When such practices came to be unpopular (or unfashionable) in future centuries, the tolerance of Islamic jurisprudence was mischaracterized by those inimical to Islam as "backward." It was as if someone from a genteel class of society were to condemn America's toleration for body piercing among its young people as proof of the "barbarism" of American law. It would be wise to remember that there is a great burden of proof that Islam puts upon those who wish to prohibit a practice, and that the requirement for such proof is a strength of the Islamic law. Toleration is a strength, not a weakness.

  In this discussion I shall refer to any form of permanent cutting the genitals as "genital mutilation." Some may feel this is prejudicing the case, since the words certainly sound pejorative. I think the term is fair, however, since the purpose of all the procedures under discussion–and the purpose of male circumcision and of the now commonly practiced forms of body piercing, including the piercing of the ears done by almost every Western female–is unquestionably to mutilate those parts of the body cut or pierced. The issue of interest, then, is not whether mutilation is involved but rather whether it is religiously (or morally) and/or medically desirable or contraindicated.

Although there is no reference to circumcision at all in the Qur'an, there is a well-established tradition of male circumcision in Islam as a "sunnah" act. In the Abrahamic tradition this act is understood as a fulfillment of a covenant with God, but there are numerous health reasons for the practice. There is no mandate at all for female circumcision, however, neither in the Qur'an, the traditional reports (called hadith), nor medical theory.

Although female circumcision is not mandated, one tradition of disputed authenticity permits (but does not encourage) the removal of a minuscule segment of skin from the female prepuce, provided no harm is done:

A woman used to perform circumcision in Medina [Madîna]. The Prophet (peace be upon him) said to her: 'Do not cut severely as that is better for a woman and more desirable for a husband.'–Sunan Abu Dawûd, Book 41, #5251.One does not want to make too much of this tradition, as it is classified as "weak" by Abu Dawud (the compiler) himself. Nonetheless, it clearly forbids severity in circumcision and bases such limitation on both the potential to harm the woman and the potential to make her less desirable to her husband. Yet, despite the restriction against severity, the Prophet did not here prohibit circumcision completely.

Permitting such a ritual constitutes an act of tolerance by Islamic law for pre-Islamic practices, and may be overruled by the Islamic prohibition against harmful acts. Consider, for example, that Islamic law protects a woman's right to sexual enjoyment, as demonstrated by the fact that a woman has the right to divorce on the grounds that her husband does not provide sexual satisfaction. It follows that Islamic law prohibits clitorodectomy (partial or complete removal of the clitoris) or infibulation (excision of part or all of the external genitalia and stitching/narrowing of the vaginal opening), or any genital mutilation which impairs the woman's ability to enjoy sexual relations. Such prohibitions are consistent with the hadithic warning against severity in female circumcision.

  If the Islamic law does not mandate female genital mutilation and tolerates only the most mild form of circumcision (and that only if it produces no adverse effects in the child), then how does it come about that so many people from certain countries with large Muslim populations insist that savage acts which exceed these limits are not only permitted, but required by Islamic law? The answer becomes obvious when one realizes that Christians from many of these countries also insist that the tradition is mandated by their religion as well. People often confuse traditions rooted in local culture with religious requirements.

Immigrants from such countries now residing in the United States stand between the culture of their heritage and the American culture of their environment. They cannot and should not be expected to abandon their religion. There should be no doubt, however, that the young amongst them, at least, will be willing to abandon old-world cultural practices at odds with their adopted culture when such practices are unsupported by religion. (This is because they carry no cultural bias towards such practices. On the contrary, they may absorb biases against them from their adopted culture.)

For Muslims, cliterodectomy and infibulation should be considered harâm (prohibited) practices and opposition to it should be part of our ongoing mandate to fight against superstition and oppression. As to the mildest form of female circumcision, the risks to the girl's future ability to enjoy sexual relations with her husband must place it at best in the category of makrûh (disliked) practices. Since it has neither hygienic nor religious value, there is no justification for Muslims to engage in this painful and potentially harmful practice and it would be best to avoid it completely.

Wa Allahu a`lam. (And God knows best.)

http://www.minaret.org/fgm-pamphlet.htm

[missyme]

The Mutilations are happening in IRAN and parts f India

Torture of women under the Islamic Republic regime
This picture was sent to Dr. Homa Darabi from a woman in Iran.This picture was taken 20 days after she was lashed fifty times for being present at a family gathering where men other than her father and brother were present. Her crime? She is a single woman. It is forbidden for women to be present under the same roof with men other than their close relatives (father, brother and son) without proper hijab.