Customer Discussions > Islam forum

Ex-Muslims... Why ?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 101-125 of 540 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Feb 15, 2012 8:39:33 PM PST
Domenico says:
'''No one said she must be killed but you.''''

Fresh islamic lying ?

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 16, 2012 12:15:45 AM PST
\\atheists like Ali and her friends Dawkins and Hitchens\\

"Ayaan Hirsi Ali's Lurid Picture of Nigeria's Muslims in Newsweek"
by PATRICK J. RYAN, S.J.

http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/politics/5671/ayaan_hirsi_ali%E2%80%99s_lurid_picture_of_nigeria%E2%80%99s_muslims_in_newsweek/

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 16, 2012 8:15:51 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 16, 2012 8:47:34 AM PST
"No one said she must be killed but you."

A LIE. A COWARDLY LIE. PERIOD. I've seen photos of the death threat that was stuck into Theo Van Gogh's chest. I've seen police photos of the murder scene. I've seen photos of death-penalty rulings for apostasy. Cameras don't lie. Moral cowards who can't face the real world do. And speaking of dark forces, hasn't it ever occurred to you that your buddy Esposito is in bed with the Saudis, who are in bed with the Carlyle Group, the investment bank owned in part by the Bush dynasty? Or that the "spiritualist" metaphysical system you clearly believe in has absolutely nothing to do with the way the world actually works? That all this business of "financial manipulations" -- which is in part true --makes you able to put food in your stomach? You are SOOOO simpleminded -- you're just some half-educated hippie-wanna-be wishing it were Woodstock again, and you're carrying around a secret grudge against everyone on the planet as a result. Grow up. Woodstock's over. It was never anything but a bunch of drugged-out Utopian fantasists wading around in the mud.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 16, 2012 8:41:43 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 16, 2012 8:49:18 AM PST
Really? Newsweek's fact-checkers, I'm sure, did an adequate job of ensuring the source of the photos -- and they weren't NEARLY as "lurid" as some of the photos they could have shown. Machetes do terrible things to bodies -- too much so for a family publication like Newsweek. On the other hand, there was a rather lurid story in last month's "Humanist" on Boko Haram's predations in Nigeria. Boko Haram is killing moderate Muslims, to make examples of them, as well as Christians. "The Humanist" is a liberal magazine (they tentatively endorsed the Ground Zero mosque, as a matter of religious freedom) so there's no way anyone but a genuine psychotic could claim that its editors are conspiring with AEI, or Ayaan Hirsi Ali. That's DOUBLE-SOURCING, chum, and as anyone familiar with Edward R. Murrow's research techniques knows -- two inside sources, neither of whom have any reason to conspire with each other, clinches the matter. You'll grasp at any straw, won't you?

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 16, 2012 11:36:19 AM PST
Domenico says:
Dear Tiger,

You have this weird habit of offering supporting evidence to the other party. Hmm...

At the bottom of the offered article it was suggested that Ayaan could have learned something from the few folks at the table....

Looking over the article one wonders what would that be ? Maybe that Muslims get what they want by violence? That the good Muslims rush to give the ''bad'' Muslims all they want?

Eliminating the Non-muslims from a so-called ''islamic'' land is something wanted by all true Muslims. The ''bad'' ones do the work, the ''good'' ones 'complain' openly, rejoice secretly, and then start moving in into the now-empty ''abandoned'' Non-muslim homes.

Who knows... maybe the nice Muslim did want to help the Non-muslim widow.
Regardless... she's going to be OUT of the ''islamic'' area.

This GREAT COINCIDENCE, in which Non-Muslims suffer greatly at the hands of the well-known ''few'' Muslims, happens all over the world. These ''few'' bad Muslims manage to show up all over the world with amazing speed and efficiency !
Incredible coincidence!

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 16, 2012 1:58:01 PM PST
\\"No one said she must be killed but you."\\

Why be so cowardly? No one here said anything like that.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 16, 2012 1:59:00 PM PST
\\You'll grasp at any straw, won't you?\\

Why must you be so violent in your opposition to ideas from a Jesuit?

Posted on Feb 16, 2012 8:43:37 PM PST
Domenico says:
Tiger Bookish,

Why don't you contribute to this particular discussion?

Ex-Muslims... and why. :))

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 17, 2012 6:15:17 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 17, 2012 6:16:13 AM PST
Here's "What Sharia Does and Doesn't Do?" by Shaykh Abdullah Ali

http://youtu.be/JFCsHGxuejY

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 17, 2012 6:21:49 AM PST
Did you read this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 17, 2012 8:41:18 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 17, 2012 8:42:58 AM PST
I'm sure Domenico HAS -- as have I, several times. Essentially the article says that REAL Muslims only murder apostates when it can be done nice and legal-like, so the imams won't look like SMERSH-for-Allah. And this doesn't happen that often. Everyone on the planet who isn't a Muslim -- and that's most of us -- have every right to be horrified that this has ever happened, and still happens, AT ALL. Or that Muslims are still trying to defend the idea that sharia is God's law AT ALL. It says right there in the U. S. Constitution, and in the Universal Declaration, that people have every right to practice any religion they want, or none at all, as long as they're not interfering with anyone else's freedom, no matter what the Koran says.

You really will grasp at any straw, twist any argument, tell any lie, to ignore, and hence justify, murder in the name of your God. Because anyone who deliberately ignores this sort of barbarism really IS condoning it.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 17, 2012 9:00:00 AM PST
Domenico says:
Ok. I did. Shall we comment?

''Sharia guarantees the freedom of thought, conscience, and religion"

No. Freedom of thought? Conscience? IF you don't talk about. Religion? No. If not Islam = suffer consequences.

Guarantees the protection of life, honor,and property ownership.

And how it does that? Life, honor = islamic nightmare.

" Preservation of family "

Agree. But the price is too high. It's based on slavery for women and indirectly of men.
People resulting from psycho families are not good.

" Responsible adult interaction"

Universal claim. Show me the reality. "Responsible" meaning what exactly? She must do what she's being ordered. She can be beaten for disobedience... Etc. Cheap idealism.

''Economic justice and protection against predatory practices"

Universal claim. Show me the reality.

"Advocate communal consultation in politics"

Really! Who claims otherwise ?
Remember: Sharia forces you to accept a leader forever - regardless if he's good or bad.
Show me the reality so I can follow a good example.

Conclusion:

Very poorly done propaganda video. Seriously, there are some good ones out there.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 17, 2012 9:06:48 AM PST
Domenico says:
I'm not going to answer him on that. You know? Many, many times I feel bad telling him how a normal human should discern. I DO consider Muslims victims. How enjoys adding to the victim's mental suffering?

It's hard to watch such mentally maimed victims of islamic ideology, or any similar ideology.
It's the unfortunate fact that the islamic victims inflict harm on others that makes me react.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 17, 2012 9:08:49 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 17, 2012 9:09:22 AM PST
Domenico says:
The audacity of those like him to tell us :

"Don't say or do anything against Islam because it should NOT be the way IT IS in reality...."

Posted on Feb 17, 2012 11:32:58 AM PST
Sharia is a man made code of laws (that are not even actually codified..so can change depending on the judge sitting at the time and his whims and fancy) loosely based on arab cultural norms with some religious speak thrown in when it suits them. It is utterly and completely oppressive of women, non muslims, and non arabs. There is no fairness to it...those three I mentioned rarely ever come out the winners in a court case of any kind. I have personal experience plus watched for 20 years as the most bizarre, unfair, absolutely disgusting verdicts were inflicted on those 3 groups of people mentioned above...and yet arab men/nationals walked free or received very little punishment for their crimes. Shaming the family only extends to the females of that family and thus can be exposed...the males must be protected at all times. You think I exaggerate...I wish that I did. Check any arab/muslim newspaper. If the crime is committed by a foreigner, woman, non muslim...their name and nationality is broadcast to the country...if there is no name...just a "defendant" or "accused" then you know absolutely that it was an arab national that did it. Their names are rarely mentioned. Except in cases like this young Saudi man that is about to be beheaded for "insulting" the prophet and god...in this case he is being made an extreme example and thus his name can be broadcast because his blood will be shed and his family's honor restored. Sharia Law is absolute s h * t.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 17, 2012 9:31:52 PM PST
\\You really will grasp at any straw, twist any argument, tell any lie, to ignore, and hence justify, murder in the name of your God. Because anyone who deliberately ignores this sort of barbarism really IS condoning it.\\

Your barbarity is thinking that you can tell lies freely. None us can, and it catches up with us outside of any human agency -- which really drives you batty.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 17, 2012 9:34:14 PM PST
\\It's the unfortunate fact that the islamic victims inflict harm on others that makes me react.\\

It's unfortunate that you propagate hate and victimize hundreds of millions of people.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 17, 2012 9:38:25 PM PST
\\Sharia Law is\\

What you describe is not sharia law. Lets not pretend now that we don't know that.

Many Muslim converts will not live in certain Muslin countries because they ARE corrupt. As a small example, God forbid that a Saudi hit a non-Saudi with their car. I've heard that it's never a Saudi's fault.

Such corruption is against the sharia, if you did but know.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 18, 2012 12:07:16 AM PST
Domenico says:
I don't victimize them - Muslims do.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 18, 2012 12:08:52 AM PST
Domenico says:
Small examples are against the sharia, indeed.

Amazing ! No one knows how to practice shariah!

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 18, 2012 4:51:29 AM PST
\\Amazing ! No one knows how to practice shariah!\\

If you understood anything about the shariah or about Islamic scholarship, yours words might have some meaning...but you don't.

Posted on Feb 18, 2012 6:41:34 AM PST
Bookish...there is no codified set of rules for the practice of Sharia Law. There is a bare bones structure that is fleshed out by the training and education of the judge...but more importantly (and to the detriment of anyone that enters his court) he brings his own personal whims and fancy to his court room as well. It is a known fact that every judge rules based on his own understanding...not a collective understanding. So while one judge may rule in favor of this person because of this reason...another judge will rule against that person for the very same reason...depending on his own personal feelings about it. Sharia is MAN MADE...based on one man's practice. It's not holy, sacred or better than any other source of law...and in some ways it's the absolute worst set of laws a person can find the misfortune of having to be subject to. Now...I was a muslim for 20 years, studied islam, know arabic (not perfectly but still..I can speak it, read it averagely and write it slowly), I lived in an Islamic country for 23 years and stood in front of Sharia Court judges more times than I care to admit. So please tell me what part I have got wrong on this?

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 18, 2012 7:18:22 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 18, 2012 7:22:40 AM PST
Domenico says:
Says you! Fine.
Tell us why not one government can't implement Sharia the 'way it should be'... Is it The Great Coincidence?

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 18, 2012 7:22:22 AM PST
Domenico says:
Don't worry Leeann. He has a non-answer ready ... just like the one above.
He cannot admit that islam is a nightmare so he will find someone or something to blame it on.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 18, 2012 8:22:09 AM PST
Leeann,
From what I read and hear, Sharia is rule by man, not by law. It's like the bad old days when the law essentially was what the Chief, or Priest said it was, and the powerful, or connected could do pretty much as they pleased. Western society has progressed towards rule by law, not man. It's not perfect, but it's a lot better than the alternatives.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Islam forum
Participants:  19
Total posts:  540
Initial post:  Dec 22, 2011
Latest post:  May 6, 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 1 customer

Search Customer Discussions