Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts


God: An Anatomy by France...
by zeca
Today at 01:04 PM

Do humans have needed kno...
by zeca
Today at 08:02 AM

مدهش----- لماذا؟؟؟؟
by akay
Yesterday at 07:13 PM

What music are you listen...
by zeca
September 23, 2021, 11:00 AM

The essence of the facts
by akay
September 21, 2021, 05:40 AM

Qur'anic studies today
September 19, 2021, 10:26 PM

Freely down loadable Boo...
September 15, 2021, 10:15 PM

Apostasy Alternative
September 14, 2021, 09:25 PM

Random Islamic History Po...
by zeca
September 12, 2021, 01:14 PM

ركن المتحدثين هايد بارك ل...
by akay
September 11, 2021, 11:02 AM

NayaPakistan...New Pakist...
September 01, 2021, 05:58 PM

AMRIKAAA Land of Free .....
September 01, 2021, 11:41 AM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Clarifying the Council's position: Against Political Islam not Muslims

 (Read 94224 times)
  • Previous page 1 23 4 ... 11 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Re: Clarifying the Council's position: Against Political Islam not Muslims
     Reply #30 - January 16, 2008, 04:29 PM

    Yeah, I'm cool with it, although as I said, don't expect me to agree with all of your views.  Or indeed, any of them, lol. Tongue


    Well I've always have MPAC for that.
  • Re: Clarifying the Council's position: Against Political Islam not Muslims
     Reply #31 - January 16, 2008, 06:10 PM

    Quote
    Its my basic human right to have a belief in Islam, you can't push your totalitarian agenda and tell us what to believe by mentally trying to bully us.

     

    Absolutely, it is your basic human right and I would never FORCE you to believe anything. Islam, on the other hand, would force us to believe in it or else be killed/burn in hell forever.

    Life is a sexually transmitted disease which is invariably fatal.
  • Re: Clarifying the Council's position: Against Political Islam not Muslims
     Reply #32 - January 16, 2008, 06:15 PM

    Quote
    I mean would you all be acting so innocent and peaceful if there was no laws in Europe protecting individual Muslims? Or would you be actually attacking Muslims as opposed to using the pretext of Islam to attack them?

    In other words, the only reason you are saying you are not against Muslims is because its illegal to discriminate against someone for having religious beliefs.

     

    Quote
    So having Muslim friends proves, you're not attacking Muslims - the Nazis had Jewish friends going by your logic I guess they (the Nazis) were innocent? your arguments conclusion doesnt follow logically from your argument premise. 

     

    Your accusation is completely baseless and very nasty. How on earth can you accuse me of wanting to attack all Muslims or being like a Nazi?Huh?
    Let me put this very clearly, in plain and simple English: I believe in freedom of belief for everyone, and freedom NOT to believe. Now what is your objection to that?

    Life is a sexually transmitted disease which is invariably fatal.
  • Re: Clarifying the Council's position: Against Political Islam not Muslims
     Reply #33 - January 16, 2008, 06:56 PM

    Quote
    Its my basic human right to have a belief in Islam, you can't push your totalitarian agenda and tell us what to believe by mentally trying to bully us.

     

    Absolutely, it is your basic human right and I would never FORCE you to believe anything. Islam, on the other hand, would force us to believe in it or else be killed/burn in hell forever.


    don't tell lies, there is no compulsion in Islam. This is clearly stated in the Quran.
  • Re: Clarifying the Council's position: Against Political Islam not Muslims
     Reply #34 - January 16, 2008, 06:58 PM

    don't tell lies, there is no compulsion in Islam. This is clearly stated in the Quran.


    Quran only muslim King Tut?  how many times do we need to walk you through the proof that there is nothing BUT compulsion in Islam?

    Inhale the good shit, exhale the bullshit.
  • Re: Clarifying the Council's position: Against Political Islam not Muslims
     Reply #35 - January 16, 2008, 07:07 PM

    don't tell lies, there is no compulsion in Islam. This is clearly stated in the Quran.


    Quran only muslim King Tut?  how many times do we need to walk you through the proof that there is nothing BUT compulsion in Islam?


    You have no proof, other then using speculative hadith. We obey the Quran over the hadith, you be a Muslim by believing in the Quran you don't need to except the hadith, its just like Christians not accepting everything in the OT.

    Islam gives honor and dignity to women and protects them from slander. My wife is happy to wear a niqqaab out in public, its her choice as she understands it protects her modesty.
  • Re: Clarifying the Council's position: Against Political Islam not Muslims
     Reply #36 - January 20, 2008, 01:35 AM

    You have no proof, other then using speculative hadith.


    Who are you to decide which hadith are 'speculative' and which aren't?

    I think Imam Bukhari and Imam Muslim were more well-informed than you.

    Muhammad said this...

    'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.'
    (Bukhari - 4:52:260)


    He also said...

    'Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'
    Bukhari 9:84:57


    And there are many more hadith in which he mandated the death penalty for apostasy.  Which is precisely why ALL five major schools of Islamic jurisprudence agree that the punishment for apostasy is death.

    The "no-compulsion" line was contradicted in the very next verse and abrogated by many later verses.  You can't hide behind the "no-compulsion" snippet forever.

    Verse 2:256 says this:

    2:256
    Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things.

    now lets read the very next verse...

    2:257
    Allah is the Protector of those who have faith: from the depths of darkness He will lead them forth into light. Of those who reject faith the patrons are the evil ones: from light they will lead them forth into the depths of darkness. They will be companions of the fire, to dwell therein (For ever).

    So as you can see, verse 256 gives the impression that there should be no compulsion in religion.... but the very next verse says that those who "reject faith" will dwell in the hellfire forever.


    We obey the Quran over the hadith


    ^ You obey the Quran AND the hadith.


    you be a Muslim by believing in the Quran you don't need to except the hadith


    ^ Nonsense.  If you don't have to accept the hadith then can you show me, for example, where it tells you in the Quran how to pray your salah?  Where are the instructions on how to do this?  They're certainly not in the Quran.


    Islam gives honor and dignity to women and protects them from slander.  My wife is happy to wear a niqqaab out in public, its her choice as she understands it protects her modesty.


    ^ Mashallah I'm glad to hear that your wife is happy to wear a niqab and that it's her choice.

    Now spare a thought for the millions of women who DON'T want to wear the niqab or hijab, but are forced to wear it because their pious husbands or fathers are trying to follow their religion... which says that the veil is compulsary for women and that if they fear disobedience from their wives then they can beat them.

    .
  • Re: Clarifying the Council's position: Against Political Islam not Muslims
     Reply #37 - January 24, 2008, 09:49 PM

    Quote
    Who are you to decide which hadith are 'speculative' and which aren't?


    It's my opinion based on logic. The hadith are hearsay, they were written 200 years after the death of Mohamed. The hadith contain internal and external contradictions.


    Quote
    I think Imam Bukhari and Imam Muslim were more well-informed than you.


    Hearsay, their evidence was based on the testimony of others, can Imam Bukhari and Muslim, cannot prove, someone was telling the truth. There was no protocol to to verify if the person who was relating a hadith was telling the truth, on many occasions, hadiths from Mohammed's blood line were never questioned, there was not a questioning process to determine the validity of a adith, it was only based on if another person corroborated the same adith then it was accepted that adith must be true, yet we know truth cannot be measured in mass appeal.

     
    Quote
    And there are many more hadith in which he mandated the death penalty for apostasy.  Which is precisely why ALL five major schools of Islamic jurisprudence agree that the punishment for apostasy is death.

    The "no-compulsion" line was contradicted in the very next verse and abrogated by many later verses.  You can't hide behind the "no-compulsion" snippet forever.


    Lets accept for the sake of argument Mohammad did indeed say "KILL" anyone who leaves Islam... Yet, we see that if a woman apostates from Islam, she is not "KILLED" she is imprisoned until she accepts Islam as true. Now do you understand how this is actually inconsistent with what Mohammad supposedly said according to the hadith, and what we have to day as "Sharia" - this makes your argument weak at best.

    Quote
    So as you can see, verse 256 gives the impression that there should be no compulsion in religion.... but the very next verse says that those who "reject faith" will dwell in the hellfire forever.


    Note, firstly, ALLAH says no compulsion in "religion" but the next verse says those who would be condemned to hell are those who "reject FAITH" now this has a different meaning, if you ask me.

    Religion in Arabic is:
    Means to have belief in god or gods.

    Faith in Arabic is:
    Honesty.

    Now if we look at the first verse bearing in my the right definition we get the following:
     
    2:256
    Let there be no compulsion in the belief of god or gods: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things. - King Tut Translation.


    Next verse would read:
    2:257
    Allah is the Protector of those who have honesty: from the depths of darkness He will lead them forth into light. Of those who reject honesty (knowingly) the patrons are the evil ones: from light they will lead them forth into the depths of darkness. They will be companions of the fire, to dwell therein (For ever). - King Tut Translation.

    You see now it makes sense. It means those who reject honestly will be put into hell. The emphasis is on honesty. And not the belief in god, the problem is the translations we have currently are poor at best.

    Quote
    You obey the Quran AND the hadith.


    I use my own intelligence, I truly believe in Allah, he is just and forgiving.

    Quote
    ^ Nonsense.  If you don't have to accept the hadith then can you show me, for example, where it tells you in the Quran how to pray your salah?  Where are the instructions on how to do this?  They're certainly not in the Quran.


    LOl, so for 200 years after Mohammed had died, Muslims didn't pray until Bakari came and showed them? lol your argument is nonessential. It is illogical. 
    Quote
    Now spare a thought for the millions of women who DON'T want to wear the niqab or hijab, but are forced to wear it because their pious husbands or fathers are trying to follow their religion... which says that the veil is compulsary for women and that if they fear disobedience from their wives then they can beat them.


    Well you can blame Islam for the actions of a few ignorant individuals. But I blame the women for being lax, and not reading the scriptures thierselfs and challenging the men.





  • Re: Clarifying the Council's position: Against Political Islam not Muslims
     Reply #38 - January 29, 2008, 01:10 PM

    Its incredible !

    This forum has its own CLOWN !!!

    If I didn't read all this tootsie nonsense, I wouldn't believe somebody like this guy is for real !

  • Re: Clarifying the Council's position: Against Political Islam not Muslims
     Reply #39 - January 29, 2008, 06:23 PM

    Apart from the last point about women not excercising their right to question harder, which will no doubt be frowned upon here, I think your interpretation sounds good Tut and if you live your life according to your interpretation then you  are winning. I don't understand why those that hate Islam would want to criticise you or take the piss when if all muslims  interpreted the Koran like you, there wouldn't be a problem, which only goes to emphasise the suspicion that there is a certain mindset that is not interested in anything other than confrontation for it's own sake. I also think 'Truth' is a good analogy but I disagree that anyone could reside in 'hell' for eternity for that would  undermine the 'righteousness'  of truth. Truth will out.



    Ha Ha.
  • Re: Clarifying the Council's position: Against Political Islam not Muslims
     Reply #40 - January 29, 2008, 07:02 PM

    Apart from the last point about women not excercising their right to question harder, which will no doubt be frowned upon here, I think your interpretation sounds good Tut and if you live your life according to your interpretation then you  are winning. I don't understand why those that hate Islam would want to criticise you or take the piss when if all muslims  interpreted the Koran like you, there wouldn't be a problem, which only goes to emphasise the suspicion that there is a certain mindset that is not interested in anything other than confrontation for it's own sake. I also think 'Truth' is a good analogy but I disagree that anyone could reside in 'hell' for eternity for that would  undermine the 'righteousness'  of truth. Truth will out.





    WTF?  Shocked

    Have you ready every post by this guy? 



    In Islam it wrong to attack anyone innocent period. Even enemy children - unless of course they've reached puberty then you can kill them or enslave them.


    This is what you call a good and winning interpretation?

    You have no idea what King Tut is all about, I have known him for well over across the net at many different forums, with may different names, and he has said raping captives is fine, he has praised the kill them mentality.  He has said things that are disgusting, and supported barbarism, and many of the members here who you see who give him stick do so because of how long we have known him.

    The fact that you offer out support to someone who supports the things this guy does, and who thinks enslaving and killing young children who have just grown one pube illicits "this is a winning interpretation" from you, makes you support the same beliefs.

    Disgusting.

    Inhale the good shit, exhale the bullshit.
  • Re: Clarifying the Council's position: Against Political Islam not Muslims
     Reply #41 - January 29, 2008, 07:29 PM

    Apart from the last point about women not excercising their right to question harder, which will no doubt be frowned upon here, I think your interpretation sounds good Tut and if you live your life according to your interpretation then you  are winning. I don't understand why those that hate Islam would want to criticise you or take the piss when if all muslims  interpreted the Koran like you, there wouldn't be a problem, which only goes to emphasise the suspicion that there is a certain mindset that is not interested in anything other than confrontation for it's own sake. I also think 'Truth' is a good analogy but I disagree that anyone could reside in 'hell' for eternity for that would  undermine the 'righteousness'  of truth. Truth will out.




    Besides of what BerberElla has rightfully rightfully pointed out - have you read what this... person writes, and YOU applaud him for exactly this spoiled-brat-NONSENSE...

    Pfffff.......

    Other than that, you're back with the same old boring broken-record repeats... ?

    Whow !

    What a "come-back" !
  • Re: Clarifying the Council's position: Against Political Islam not Muslims
     Reply #42 - January 29, 2008, 07:36 PM

    Have you ready every post by this guy? 



    No. I was responding to this one, I already know he also spouts rubbish sometimes and seems somewhat naive, so what? I was going to PM him, but he'd only post what I said, so sorry Homo, no comeback, feel free to continue acting like a twat in my absence. Cheesy

    Ha Ha.
  • Re: Clarifying the Council's position: Against Political Islam not Muslims
     Reply #43 - January 29, 2008, 07:45 PM

    I guess you picked the right nick for yourself.

    You are a very confused/mixed-up guy.

    Just like the "Jack Torrance" we know... REDRUM !
    I mean, the movie "shining" was a hammer, did you pick up on the character a bit... maybe...

  • Re: Clarifying the Council's position: Against Political Islam not Muslims
     Reply #44 - January 29, 2008, 08:04 PM

    I guess you picked the right nick for yourself.

    You are a very confused/mixed-up guy.

    Just like the "Jack Torrance" we know... REDRUM !
    I mean, the movie "shining" was a hammer, did you pick up on the character a bit... maybe...

    (Clicky for piccy!)




    It's actually a complete coincidence.

    Ha Ha.
  • Re: Clarifying the Council's position: Against Political Islam not Muslims
     Reply #45 - January 29, 2008, 10:29 PM

    Apart from the last point about women not excercising their right to question harder, which will no doubt be frowned upon here, I think your interpretation sounds good Tut and if you live your life according to your interpretation then you  are winning. I don't understand why those that hate Islam would want to criticise you or take the piss when if all muslims  interpreted the Koran like you, there wouldn't be a problem, which only goes to emphasise the suspicion that there is a certain mindset that is not interested in anything other than confrontation for it's own sake. I also think 'Truth' is a good analogy but I disagree that anyone could reside in 'hell' for eternity for that would  undermine the 'righteousness'  of truth. Truth will out.





    WTF?  Shocked

    Have you ready every post by this guy? 



    In Islam it wrong to attack anyone innocent period. Even enemy children - unless of course they've reached puberty then you can kill them or enslave them.


    This is what you call a good and winning interpretation?

    You have no idea what King Tut is all about, I have known him for well over across the net at many different forums, with may different names, and he has said raping captives is fine, he has praised the kill them mentality.  He has said things that are disgusting, and supported barbarism, and many of the members here who you see who give him stick do so because of how long we have known him.

    The fact that you offer out support to someone who supports the things this guy does, and who thinks enslaving and killing young children who have just grown one pube illicits "this is a winning interpretation" from you, makes you support the same beliefs.

    Disgusting.


    Taking my comments out of context and trying to project me out as some psycho is just silly.

    I said killing innocents is wrong PERIOD! yet you convienietly manged to over look this. How do you defend yourself, and from spending so much time on a website which has genocidial views about Muslim, and its members talking about nuking Muslims? and this is same website on which you have posted over 12,000+ posts.

    And as I recall I've never said raping captives is fine - I would like to see my comment in context where I said this.

    I sprout barbarism? that's fucking ironic coming from you who names herself after a fictional character going around the Galaxy having sex.
  • Re: Clarifying the Council's position: Against Political Islam not Muslims
     Reply #46 - January 29, 2008, 11:03 PM

    Quote
    I sprout barbarism? that's fucking ironic coming from you who names herself after a fictional character going around the Galaxy having sex.


    Here, no offence but have you gone stone mad??  You once advocated raping your wife as an essential male right, and then tried to soften it by saying you didn't mean violence, just lock 'em up and refuse food and water until she submits.  Don't be getting all indignant when someone says your views are a bit crap, because objectively speaking, some of them are.

    And she is BerberElla, not Barbarella.  I think you might find the lady you are referring to somewhere in here....

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SM80f4QTDF4

    "Befriend them not, Oh murtads, and give them neither parrot nor bunny."  - happymurtad's advice on trolls.
  • Re: Clarifying the Council's position: Against Political Islam not Muslims
     Reply #47 - January 29, 2008, 11:39 PM

    How can I say rape, my wife, when I don't believe in a concept as 'martial rape' how can agree to something I don't even acknowledge. In Islamic marriage, a women gives her consent to sex when she signs the nikkah form. You can't rape someone who's given you consent to have sex with them.
  • Re: Clarifying the Council's position: Against Political Islam not Muslims
     Reply #48 - January 29, 2008, 11:48 PM

    How can I say rape, my wife, when I don't believe in a concept as 'martial rape' how can agree to something I don't even acknowledge. In Islamic marriage, a women gives her consent to sex when she signs the nikkah form. You can't rape someone who's given you consent to have sex with them.


    Exactly, that's why I said you shouldn't whine when people say your views are barbaric.  You think there is no such thing as a wife's right to say no to sex with her husband.  Even if he forces her against her will, it is not rape in your eyes.

    The minute a wife signs her marriage form, she signs away her right to sexual autonomy for life in your eyes.  So, therefore, your views are barbaric, and stop whining when you get told so, baby.

    "Befriend them not, Oh murtads, and give them neither parrot nor bunny."  - happymurtad's advice on trolls.
  • Re: Clarifying the Council's position: Against Political Islam not Muslims
     Reply #49 - January 30, 2008, 12:29 AM

    How can I say rape, my wife, when I don't believe in a concept as 'martial rape' how can agree to something I don't even acknowledge. In Islamic marriage, a women gives her consent to sex when she signs the nikkah form. You can't rape someone who's given you consent to have sex with them.


    Exactly, that's why I said you shouldn't whine when people say your views are barbaric.  You think there is no such thing as a wife's right to say no to sex with her husband.  Even if he forces her against her will, it is not rape in your eyes.

    The minute a wife signs her marriage form, she signs away her right to sexual autonomy for life in your eyes.  So, therefore, your views are barbaric, and stop whining when you get told so, baby.


    Firstly you are trying to dumb down my position, as your limited intellect (this is the nicest possible way I can put it) doesnt have the mental acumen to comprehend my argument. There are times when a wife says no and the man has to accept this, i.e. when she is on her period, or when she is ill  etc.. I am not talking about her saying no to sex if there is a valid and logical reason. I'm talking about if there is no valid and logical reason for her to refuse sex... Then she needs disciplining, as this is ill conduct and emotional abuse of the husband, he has a right to defend his health from this mental abuse. 
  • Re: Clarifying the Council's position: Against Political Islam not Muslims
     Reply #50 - January 30, 2008, 12:39 AM

    How can I say rape, my wife, when I don't believe in a concept as 'martial rape' how can agree to something I don't even acknowledge. In Islamic marriage, a women gives her consent to sex when she signs the nikkah form. You can't rape someone who's given you consent to have sex with them.


    Exactly, that's why I said you shouldn't whine when people say your views are barbaric.  You think there is no such thing as a wife's right to say no to sex with her husband.  Even if he forces her against her will, it is not rape in your eyes.

    The minute a wife signs her marriage form, she signs away her right to sexual autonomy for life in your eyes.  So, therefore, your views are barbaric, and stop whining when you get told so, baby.


    Firstly you are trying to dumb down my position, as your limited intellect (this is the nicest possible way I can put it) doesnt have the mental acumen to comprehend my argument. There are times when a wife says no and the man has to accept this, i.e. when she is on her period, or when she is ill  etc.. I am not talking about her saying no to sex if there is a valid and logical reason. I'm talking about if there is no valid and logical reason for her to refuse sex... Then she needs disciplining, as this is ill conduct and emotional abuse of the husband, he has a right to defend his health from this mental abuse. 


    Yes, yes, I know little Tutsie.  That is why I have copied your post, so you cannot delete/edit it, and hopefully as many women out there as possible will read it.  And yet again, you will prob'ly try and claim it was a joke. That excuse is wearing increasingly thin though.....

    "Befriend them not, Oh murtads, and give them neither parrot nor bunny."  - happymurtad's advice on trolls.
  • Re: Clarifying the Council's position: Against Political Islam not Muslims
     Reply #51 - January 30, 2008, 12:47 AM

    How can I say rape, my wife, when I don't believe in a concept as 'martial rape' how can agree to something I don't even acknowledge. In Islamic marriage, a women gives her consent to sex when she signs the nikkah form. You can't rape someone who's given you consent to have sex with them.


    Exactly, that's why I said you shouldn't whine when people say your views are barbaric.  You think there is no such thing as a wife's right to say no to sex with her husband.  Even if he forces her against her will, it is not rape in your eyes.

    The minute a wife signs her marriage form, she signs away her right to sexual autonomy for life in your eyes.  So, therefore, your views are barbaric, and stop whining when you get told so, baby.


    Firstly you are trying to dumb down my position, as your limited intellect (this is the nicest possible way I can put it) doesnt have the mental acumen to comprehend my argument. There are times when a wife says no and the man has to accept this, i.e. when she is on her period, or when she is ill  etc.. I am not talking about her saying no to sex if there is a valid and logical reason. I'm talking about if there is no valid and logical reason for her to refuse sex... Then she needs disciplining, as this is ill conduct and emotional abuse of the husband, he has a right to defend his health from this mental abuse. 


    Yes, yes, I know little Tutsie.  That is why I have copied your post, so you cannot delete/edit it, and hopefully as many women out there as possible will read it.  And yet again, you will prob'ly try and claim it was a joke. That excuse is wearing increasingly thin though.....


    So one should not defend himself from physical and mental abuse?

    If a kid picks up a toy and starts smashing that in your head, will you sit around and take the abuse or will you restrain the child, and discipline him? the discipline doesn't necessarily have to be physical. Some women listen with words. Just for the record, I despise men who ABUSE their wives, this is completely against the spirit and teachings of Islam. 
  • Re: Clarifying the Council's position: Against Political Islam not Muslims
     Reply #52 - January 30, 2008, 12:52 AM

    Quote
    I despise men who ABUSE their wives, this is completely against the spirit and teachings of Islam.


    Yes, yes, it is also against the basic morals of any decent human being.  So is coercing your wife into sex against her will, by any means at all.  But, sadly, Islam obviously didn't teach you that.

    "Befriend them not, Oh murtads, and give them neither parrot nor bunny."  - happymurtad's advice on trolls.
  • Re: Clarifying the Council's position: Against Political Islam not Muslims
     Reply #53 - January 30, 2008, 01:02 AM

    Lets not forget that refusing sex is one of the things a woman can be beaten for:

    >>Beat her if she says no*link<<

    Inhale the good shit, exhale the bullshit.
  • Re: Clarifying the Council's position: Against Political Islam not Muslims
     Reply #54 - January 30, 2008, 01:09 AM

    Lets not forget that refusing sex is one of the things a woman can be beaten for:

    >>Beat her if she says no*link<<



    Hay I can take out context, quotes from a harry potter book start a religious war. Talking verse out of context in your futile quest to prove Islam mistreats women is foolish. You don't know Arabic, you're not an expert you have a negative partisan opinion of Islam, your opinion of Islam is not objective, we have to dismiss your childish conclusion of Islam. 

    Barbs, I understand your Muslim husband abused you (allegedly) but please don't contaminate your opinion of the scriptures based on the actions of a Muslim who poorly followed and understood his religion.
  • Re: Clarifying the Council's position: Against Political Islam not Muslims
     Reply #55 - January 30, 2008, 01:17 AM



    Hay I can take out context, quotes from a harry potter book start a religious war. Talking verse out of context in your futile quest to prove Islam mistreats women is foolish. You don't know Arabic, you're not an expert you have a negative partisan opinion of Islam, your opinion of Islam is not objective, we have to dismiss your childish conclusion of Islam. 


    The scholar is saying it, not me lol the scholar says that refusal to share the bed is ILL CONDUCT and the three step beat programme can be put into effect.

    You're not dismissing me, you are dismissing a better educated scholar than yourself.

    Quote
    Barbs, I understand your Muslim husband abused you (allegedly) but please don't contaminate your opinion of the scriptures based on the actions of a Muslim who poorly followed and understood his religion.


    Conduct unbecoming a poster - Guilty of Petulance (Childish behaviour)

    http://councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=135.0

    I do not allow people to dismiss someones personal experiences or mock their suffering by implying that it never happened, especially when it deals with abuse.

    You are on a warning, mess up in this manner again and it will be a smite.

    Oh and it is Berbs, get it right.

    Inhale the good shit, exhale the bullshit.
  • Re: Clarifying the Council's position: Against Political Islam not Muslims
     Reply #56 - January 30, 2008, 01:35 AM



    Hay I can take out context, quotes from a harry potter book start a religious war. Talking verse out of context in your futile quest to prove Islam mistreats women is foolish. You don't know Arabic, you're not an expert you have a negative partisan opinion of Islam, your opinion of Islam is not objective, we have to dismiss your childish conclusion of Islam. 


    The scholar is saying it, not me lol the scholar says that refusal to share the bed is ILL CONDUCT and the three step beat programme can be put into effect.

    You're not dismissing me, you are dismissing a better educated scholar than yourself.

    Quote
    Barbs, I understand your Muslim husband abused you (allegedly) but please don't contaminate your opinion of the scriptures based on the actions of a Muslim who poorly followed and understood his religion.


    Conduct unbecoming a poster - Guilty of Petulance (Childish behaviour)

    http://councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=135.0

    I do not allow people to dismiss someones personal experiences or mock their suffering by implying that it never happened, especially when it deals with abuse.

    You are on a warning, mess up in this manner again and it will be a smite.

    Oh and it is Berbs, get it right.


    Firstly, you argument is based on a appeal to authority or popularity fallacy.

    Secondly, you've gave me a warring on a dubious assertion - I neither denying or agree you were beaten, I used allegedly to make my neutral position clear. Its wrong for you to use your position to bullying me into accepting your statements as true. I only know your husband beat you from you, be using alledgely doesn't mean I am mocking your suffering, it means I am staying neutral until. By the way I will be contesting this warning, as its dubious.   
  • Re: Clarifying the Council's position: Against Political Islam not Muslims
     Reply #57 - January 30, 2008, 01:38 AM

    By the way, you know I am dyslexic I told you sometime back, so stop being so patranizing just because I mixed up a stupid letter. Geez.
  • Re: Clarifying the Council's position: Against Political Islam not Muslims
     Reply #58 - February 21, 2008, 02:10 PM


    You have no idea what King Tut is all about, I have known him for well over across the net at many different forums, with may different names, and he has said raping captives is fine, he has praised the kill them mentality.  He has said things that are disgusting, and supported barbarism, and many of the members here who you see who give him stick do so because of how long we have known him.

    The fact that you offer out support to someone who supports the things this guy does, and who thinks enslaving and killing young children who have just grown one pube illicits "this is a winning interpretation" from you, makes you support the same beliefs.

    Disgusting.

    Dear BerberElla,

    This is one of the reasons why I do not understand why the moderator team has not banned Tut. Trolls do not change their spots as a rule. Banning infamous trolls on sight saves everyone a lot of time and frustration. 

    Jack Torrance does not seem to be interested in entering into any genuine discussion. He feels that ex-Muslims should not discuss their apostasy and that is about it. He is not a troll at this time though. If he would be willing to acknowledge what kind of person Tut is after reading his posts in this thread, then there is hope for him yet.

    Kind regards,

    If we could live without passion, maybe we would know some kind of peace. But we would be hollow. Empty rooms, shuttered and dank. Without passion, we would be truly dead.

    -
    The Quickest Path to Hate is True Love Betrayed.
  • Re: Clarifying the Council's position: Against Political Islam not Muslims
     Reply #59 - February 21, 2008, 02:15 PM

    By the way, you know I am dyslexic I told you sometime back, so stop being so patranizing just because I mixed up a stupid letter. Geez.

    By the way, " Geez" , comes from "Jesus."  You are insulting one of the prophets of your supposed former religion by using his name as a swearword.


    If we could live without passion, maybe we would know some kind of peace. But we would be hollow. Empty rooms, shuttered and dank. Without passion, we would be truly dead.

    -
    The Quickest Path to Hate is True Love Betrayed.
  • Previous page 1 23 4 ... 11 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »