Posted on 04/26/2005 7:55:09 AM PDT by jan in Colorado
"SEE # 96."
SEE # 96. Run
Run #96. Run
( You might not get this, it's from just about every Americans first reader, take my word for it, you'ld be rolling on the floor )
"Without a study of the ahadith, it is impossible to have an accurate understanding of Islam and its laws."
Since the earliest collection of hadiths dates from 1.5 to 2 centuries after Muhammad's death, and since the Koran specifically states "[6:115] The word of your Lord is complete, in truth and justice " ANY dependance on the hadiths as a source of truth or law is suspect.
As a historian, sure, study every facet ... you might even be the one to figure out how they get sucked into the perversion and find a solution.
I suspect though it is much like the church before printing, the leaders were the one who held the books and control - none of the flock was about to argue with them.
"The kind of anti-Catholic hysteria of then is pretty similar to the anti-Muslim hysteria of today. I'm not saying that caution is unwarranted with some Muslims--it IS. But it's important to note that accusations that a group (now "Muslims") is more tied to their religion than our country is not a new complaint."
"That lone nut worked with Al-Qaeda, that was a Clinton coverup. That lone nut was a Muslim sypmpathizer who thought the US was abusing the Muslim world. "
COOL ! its tin-foil hat time ! Got link ?
That doesn't mean "unnatural"...the instinct to teach hunting/killing is there. Hmmm..what does THAT say?
God stated emphatically that killing is absolutely unacceptable since mankind is created in the image of God.
But God kills.
For all others, it's our gift and requirement to find Salvation through the Jews. God's Word is unchanging and God's Nature is not fickle. You won't find a similar nature in Allah.
Then why is the standard response to massacres of the Old Testament: "That was then, but those commands don't apply now that Jesus has come."
. Jesus never swung a sword at his enemies. His Words were enough and powerful enough ...
What about His actions in the temple with the moneychangers? Words weren't enough, huh? Of course, He also told the apostles to buy swords.
And regardless of your thoughts on the Quran, there are many who "fall for it"...just as many read trashy romance novels. Quality of the work doesn't equate with popularity.
I'm an Aussie. Care to explain 96? It means nothing to me.
OK, so now I have the message. Islam THINKS the hadith, the sayings and doings of mohammad have meaning, but you know different.
Care to share that information with the clerics? And while you are at it, how about you tell them that all the nice 'verses' in the koran are fine, but the later, nasty ones, which abrogate the nice ones, have to be disregarded, removed, stripped out of the koran. OUT! FINITO! NO MORE!
I want to see the 'kill the jews hiding behind rocks' removed, get it? And that business about kuffar being filthy dirty etc, I want that out. All of it. Just the nice bits remain, and we all get along. Off you go, you have work to do.
Thanks for that, I'll print out the instructions so it doesn't happen again.
"Run #96. Run "
ROTFLMHO! You're right!
Actually, the same thought went through my mind. AIEEEE Dick and Jane and Spot brainwashing!
You gotta be tweaking my nose. Why wasn't he killed? Let me guess. Because there's nothing in the koran about talking to the newspaper?
You know as well as I do, if a fatwa is issued, it has to be based upon the life of the divine and sinless mohammad. The cleric is probably still looking...he can't call it apostasy, what's a poor angry cleric to do?
Glad to be of service!
Saddest of all is that it's taking place on a site called "FreeRepublic"...with supposedly conservative members. :-(
They expected the Pope to take over the Western US. Lyman Beecher wrote that he went to Cincinnati from Boston "to battle the Pope for the garden spot of the world."
To give you some perspective, well more than 80% of our country lies to the west of Cincinnati, and the Vatican DID have a history of conquest way back when. So...the similarities are there.
Sorry again, it's just not something that makes sense to an aussie, it sounds like the entire US was on the edge of it's seat, yelling THE CATHOLICS ARE COMING!
What YEAR was this?
"...but the later, nasty ones, which abrogate the nice ones, have to be disregarded, removed, stripped out of the koran."
Oops, watch it... a historian knows the later ones are NOT part of the Koran - thats a rookie mistake.
But at least, as someone interested in it from a historical perspective, you seem to agree that the nasty bits come later, a minimum of 150 years later...
Yes, truth_seeker, it's time for action!
And there I was thinking everyone knew that the nasty bits came later because in the beginning, the 'prophet' had to behave himself or get thrown out of town. He didn't start with the stand-over tactics until he had some followers and the contents of a few camel caravans under his belt. But I guess you don't know that because you haven't read the biography. I have been asking you why not for a very long time, so I don't expect an answer now. Methinks it's maybe against your religion to read a biography written by a Christian. Too bad. It would certainly provide you with a wider perspective, particularly as the book, The Life of Muhammad, is based upon ancient arabic and greek sources, extensively quoted in the footnotes.
So where are we now? The 'bad bits' aren't part of the koran? Someone put them in there 150 years later? Goodness me, what a mess! You mean Osama didn't know? He made a mistake? Those 3,000 people didn't need to die to pay the price for what the Great Shaytan supposedly did to the muslims ( I still haven't figured out what that was ) something to do with filthy kuffar infidels setting foot on the holy lands of islam, wasn't it?
The islam you and I are talking about must be two totally different 'religions' ... no wonder the muslims are confused, pray do tell me, how is a poor muslim to tell which one he/she belongs to?
And now we have 'militant' clerics! A good koran, a bad koran, and moderate and militant clerics. It's really more than one mind can handle. Btw, I heard from my friends up North, to whom I posed the question of same-sex marriage in Oz. No, they are NOT legal. Not recognized. So the imam apparently did lie. (But that's OK, because he was 'militant' and what else would one expect from a militant cleric' but lies. )
You take the cake. And the icing. Hey, you might as well take the cake-tray!
My advice to you hasn't changed. Read the Biography of the 'prophet' and have a nice day.
Your pathetic attempts at crafting insults are what can be considered most predictable. If I cut and paste verses from the Qur'an, it is simply because I do not have my own copy sitting on the bookshelf. Not that it undermines the veracity of my arguments, or detracts from the structure of them being my own, but when critiquing the overall argument depends upon such nitpicking rather than refuting the basis for the argument itself, it is obvious that there is reaching - but not grasping.
You have thus far found fault with two verses of the Koran being cited out of context, and complained about whether or not I chose to link to sources of information.
If so much of what I have cited is really out of context to the extent that my points about the true basic nature of Islam and its long- held mainstream beliefs, then why aren't the pages of this thread overflowing with people rushing to correct or contradict my assertions? Perhaps it is because I am fundamentally correct about muhammadanism, its tenets, and its lengthy and bloody history. Really, as a force of war, death, destruction, rape, brutality, and land grabbing - Islam has no single peer since its inception. No one should have to give a fully footnoted history lesson every time they raise a point or support it. You have relied more on picking at a few minute loose ends, and questioning how I gathered information - which did not sufficiently undermine the crux of any of the major points (and they were major, all things considered) I raised.
If you find me boring, it may be because, despite reams of evidence which contradicts the concept of presenting Islam as a religion of peace, and supports the fact that if practiced, it is the primary precepts thereof, not only the alleged fanatics which pose a significant threat to America and other countries...you stubbornly refuse to wrap your mind around the truth.
Simply stated, that deficiency lies neither with me, nor the facts available.
If this information about Islam is incorrect, then some peaceful muslims with no hatred of America and no designs on overthrowing our Constitutional representative republic are at risk for having their loyalties challenged during a time of war in a similarly discriminatory fashion to Italian, German, and Japanese Americans who preceded them.
They might be insulted or even offended by it. I could care less - they'll get over it. If they love America, they should understand that we have a more legitimate basis for placing them under scrutiny than any of the other aforementioned groups, given that none of the other groups successfully executed an act of war/terror on the mainland U.S.A. (When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, Hawaii was only a territory, more than a decade away from statehood.)
If this information about Islam is correct, however, we are placing ourselves in the crosshairs of further mortal risk by choosing to ignore it, and hope the "better angels" of Islam's nature prevail in peace, after failing to do so through 1,381 years up to the present.
Notice I neutrally specified "this information", rather than placing things in an adversarial context of 'you versus me' or 'us versus them'.
FReegards
A.A.C.
Okay, I'm going to have to call you on that. First of all, the Axis contained Japan, also (not exactly a minor combatant). Secondly, there were 1/2-million Italian-Americans in the service, which is less than the total number of Italians we interned in this country during the war (about 600,000, including Joe DiMaggio's father)! You'd have to claim an awfully large officer corps to claim 40% of the enlisted were Italian-American, with our forces numbering several million.
I drew the information from a PBS program recently rebroadcast, so the numbers ought to be checked through them, but I stand by what I heard in the program, because it so astonished me.
A.A.C.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.