NationStates Jolt Archive

"He's got I believe the knowledge and the judgment to attack one of the most difficult problems in current history and that is the rise of the Muslims, and make no mistake about it, this hasn't happened for a thousand years. These people are very, very dedicated and they're also very smart, in their own way. We need to keep the feet to the fire and keep pressing these people until we defeat or chase them back to their caves -- or in other words get rid of them."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/12/29/giuliani-surrogate-rudy-_n_78687.html

If this guy gets elected you can look forward to forced deportations, special identification cards and concentration camps.

Too bad he can't get rid of the jews. Oh wait...they run the world. They'd never allow it. :P

Sounds good to me. Maybe then we could do the same thing to xtian fundies.

Too bad he can't get rid of the jews. Oh wait...they run the world. They'd never allow it. :P

That's why the global cabal invented Islam, for when Jew-hating gets too repetitive. You know, give people some variety.

That's why the global cabal invented Islam, for when Jew-hating gets too repetitive. You know, give people some variety.

Hate me with your Jew sex.

Rudy is simply trying to play the 9/11 ebil islamist card again. It's pretty tired in many areas but obviously some will listen to it.

There is nothing to fear as the Muslim can't do much in this country. The Constitution stands in their way for any stuff like Shira.

Personally, I think Islam is the current fad in this country as was being a hippy, a buddist, that thing Madonna is into, Scientology, a communist, a facist, etc.

It will have it's rise and taper off just like the rest.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/12/29/giuliani-surrogate-rudy-_n_78687.html

If this guy gets elected you can look forward to forced deportations, special identification cards and concentration camps.

John Deady, a designated surrogate for Rudy Giuliani's presidential campaign, and a leader with a group called "Veterans for Rudy," was caught on video making some jaw-dropping comments about Muslims. Here's what Deady said about Giuliani:

"He's got I believe the knowledge and the judgment to attack one of the most difficult problems in current history and that is the rise of the Muslims, and make no mistake about it, this hasn't happened for a thousand years. These people are very, very dedicated and they're also very smart, in their own way. We need to keep the feet to the fire and keep pressing these people until we defeat or chase them back to their caves -- or in other words get rid of them."

*yawns*

Too bad he can't get rid of the jews. Oh wait...they run the world. They'd never allow it. :P

Oh don't think we are finished with you guys yet. You had land and we took it. Now you have casinos! :p

Oh, so it's just the guy Rudy designates to speak for him, who voices Rudy's policies and in whom Rudy trusts to say the right thing.

So this changes my point how?

Saying that "Oh, Rudy himself didn't say it" as a means of excuse is like saying "Oh, Hitler himself didn't execute anyone."

But you don't know if the two share the same sentiment.

*yawns*

Oh, so it's just the guy Rudy designates to speak for him, who voices Rudy's policies and in whom Rudy trusts to say the right thing.

So this changes my point how?

Saying that "Oh, Rudy himself didn't say it" as a means of excuse is like saying "Oh, Hitler himself didn't execute anyone."

That's why the global cabal

TINC.
Hey - someone needs to keep the tradition alive ;)

As of late last night, the Giuliani campaign said it would ask Deady to resign “if these quotes are accurate.” Stay tuned.


scary stuff but not necessarily what giuliani believes. he probably at least believes it shouldnt be said in public.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/12/29/giuliani-surrogate-rudy-_n_78687.html

If this guy gets elected you can look forward to forced deportations, special identification cards and concentration camps.

Rudy himself did no say these, a member of his campaign staff did but there is no certainty at all that he's speaking for the presidential candidate himself or speaking his own opinion... and honestly it sounds like his own damn opinion to me.

Yeah, maybe the guy is just making up random shit about his boss. On camera. Because people do that.

Well, he's not necessarily making it up, he might just have the wrong idea about what Rudy believes. I mean, if you insist on using the Nazis as an example, Rudolf Hess was Hitlers right hand man, and he certainly had very different views about diplomatic policy and war from Hitler.

But you don't know if the two share the same sentiment.

Yeah, maybe the guy is just making up random shit about his boss. On camera. Because people do that.

It's so refreshing in politics when somebody actually says what they think.

Refreshing and <shudder>.....

Oh, so it's just the guy Rudy designates to speak for him, who voices Rudy's policies and in whom Rudy trusts to say the right thing.

So this changes my point how?

Saying that "Oh, Rudy himself didn't say it" as a means of excuse is like saying "Oh, Hitler himself didn't execute anyone."

That's the new way they roll these days. You have all your outlandish shit said by surrogates-the people who that works for will eat it up, and the people who would find it obviously fucked you can disown as you didn't say that, just some cat on your behalf.

scary stuff but not necessarily what giuliani believes. he probably at least believes it shouldnt be said in public.

Oh yeah, no doubt. You don't generally want to tell people, "By the way, I will be a mass murdering dictator" as a campaign slogan. It's not politically tactful. Just honest.

Oh yeah, no doubt. You don't generally want to tell people, "By the way, I will be a mass murdering dictator" as a campaign slogan. It's not politically tactful. Just honest.

Well, to be fair, I will say that Guiliani is probably just trying to show off to get the crazy people vote, I doubt he'd act as such in office.

Oh, so it's just the guy Rudy designates to speak for him, who voices Rudy's policies and in whom Rudy trusts to say the right thing.

So this changes my point how?

Saying that "Oh, Rudy himself didn't say it" as a means of excuse is like saying "Oh, Hitler himself didn't execute anyone."

Rudy did not say it and it is quite clear he did not say it. Ergo, the thread is wrong. Thank you though for the laugh at making sure that you are saying that Rudy said it when he did not say it.

Rudy did not say it and it is quite clear he did not say it. Ergo, the thread is wrong. Thank you though for the laugh at making sure that you are saying that Rudy said it when he did not say it.

Thank you for the laugh for just being you. It's so cute when you try to sound intelligent.

Rudy did not say it and it is quite clear he did not say it. Ergo, the thread is wrong.

This thread isn't dependent on whether Rudy or his designated surrogate said it. The whole POINT of a surrogate is to speak FOR the person.

Thank you though for the laugh at making sure that you are saying that Rudy said it when he did not say it.

Don't you have some other forum you can troll at?

But he's a designated surrogate. The whole point is to speak for the person being "surrogated." It doesn't work if you can just disown people, the entire concept is completely nonsensical and the only way people can believe as Corneliu2 does if after massive, irreparable brain damage.

Yeah it's so nonsensicle that someone might have the wrong idea about their boss... :rolleyes:

That's the new way they roll these days. You have all your outlandish shit said by surrogates-the people who that works for will eat it up, and the people who would find it obviously fucked you can disown as you didn't say that, just some cat on your behalf.

But he's a designated surrogate. The whole point is to speak for the person being "surrogated." It doesn't work if you can just disown people, the entire concept is completely nonsensical and the only way people can believe as Corneliu2 does if after massive, irreparable brain damage.

Oh yeah, no doubt. You don't generally want to tell people, "By the way, I will be a mass murdering dictator" as a campaign slogan. It's not politically tactful. Just honest.

i dont find it likely that giuliani has mass murder in mind. he just doesnt seem to be that kind of guy to me. but his lacky sure does think that he is that kind of guy.

its hard to judge what is the expression of the opinions of the candidate and what is the expression of a supporter who assumes things about the boss that arent true.

i dont think we're going to have to worry about it. giuliani is passing on iowa and new hampshire so its going to be almost impossible for him to get enough enthusiasm going to win the nomination.

Yeah it's so nonsensicle that someone might have the wrong idea about their boss... :rolleyes:

did you actually just not read anything I wrote? Do me a favor next time, and do so, before responding, so that what you say is actually relevant and meaningful.

did you actually just not read anything I wrote? Do me a favor next time, and do so, before responding, so that what you say is actually relevant and meaningful.

Corneliu believes that there is no reason to assume that Rudy agrees entirely with his surrogate, you are saying that you have to have brain damage to think this. I don't think it's stupid to suggest that the surrogate might be wrong about Rudy, you bizarrely think it takes brain damage to.

Corneliu believes that there is no reason to assume that Rudy agrees entirely with his surrogate, you are saying that you have to have brain damage to think this. I don't think it's stupid to suggest that the surrogate might be wrong about Rudy, you bizarrely think it takes brain damage to.

No, Corny thinks he's proven the WHOLE THREAD WRONG END OF STORY!

It's hilarious how he constantly spouts off inane shit, and others come in, reconstruct it into something intelligible, then he comes back in and takes credit for it.

No, Corny thinks he's proven the WHOLE THREAD WRONG END OF STORY!

It's hilarious how he constantly spouts off inane shit, and others come in, reconstruct it into something intelligible, then he comes back in and takes credit for it.

Well, the premise of the thread is wrong, it would only be right if the title was "Rudy's possibly Final Solution to the Islamic Question".

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/12/29/giuliani-surrogate-rudy-_n_78687.html

If this guy gets elected you can look forward to forced deportations, special identification cards and concentration camps.

I don't believe that at all. The guy made some personal remarks...
"When I say get rid of them, I wasn't necessarily referring to genocide. What I was referring to is, stand up to them every time they stick up their heads and attack us. We can't afford to say, `We'll try diplomacy.' They don't respond to it. If you look into Islamic tradition, a treaty is only good for five years. We're not dealing with a rational mindset here. We're dealing with madmen."

When I asked Deady if this was also a reference to all Muslims, he said: "I am talking about Muslims in general."
...which it is not clear that Rudy "$9.11" Giuliani agrees with...
I asked Deady if he thinks Rudy shares his views of Muslims. Deady replied: "Does he see the Muslim problem [this way]? I can't honestly say that he does. I've heard him make statements that approach this type of thing, that we've got to stand up to these people. I don't think he's a cowboy, but I think he understands what he's up against."

At another point in our talk, Deady came out in favor of racial profiling when, for instance, searching airline passengers before boarding. "Instead of goosing every little old lady," Deady said, "why not take a look at those people who are between the ages of 18 and 38 and are acting strange?"

Deady also said at one point: "I'm not a bigot really. I may sound like one. But I'm only quoting what's factual."
(El linky) (http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/12/rudy_surrogate_stands_by_remarks_about_muslims_and_adds_more.php)
...and Deady subsequently resigned over the comments.
Rudy Giuliani's campaign said today it asked for -- and received -- the resignation of a leader of its New Hampshire Veterans for Rudy group after controversial remarks about Muslims.
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2007/12/giuliani_backer_1.html

To claim, based on the rather unsavory comments, that Giuliani will place muslims in concentration camps if elected, seems to me to be blatant fear-mongering and gross dishonesty. It makes the campaign look bad and rather incompetent for allowing Deady to have held his position, but please don't lose your grip on reality eh?

Giuliani said Islam is "a religion that many people follow and they follow faithfully and it leads to good lives," though "there is a small group of people who have misused it and turned it into a political ideology."
Last paragraph. (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2007/12/30/2007-12-30_giuliani_graces_iowa_with_prezence.html)

Judge him by his words, not by the remarks his surrogate made on his "own time".

I don't believe that at all. The guy made some personal remarks...

...which it is not clear that Rudy "$9.11" Giuliani agrees with...

Sigh. Well of course they were just personal remarks, and of course he was asked to resign because of a lack of tact, and of course Rudy would never agree with anything his personally-appointed surrogates might say if it got fewer votes.


To claim, based on the rather unsavory comments, that Giuliani will place muslims in concentration camps if elected, seems to me to be blatant fear-mongering and gross dishonesty.

Any presidential candidate will take those steps given the right circumstance. Say another 9/11 in which DC gets nuked. It's just some might be more quick to do it than others.

It makes the campaign look bad and rather incompetent for allowing Deady to have held his position

Or for appointing him as a surrogate in the first place. But I guess, like GW, Rudy was mislead. Deady's bigotry was a complete mystery and a shocking surprise, of course. Go about your normal lives, nothing to see here!

Judge him by his words, not by the remarks his surrogate made on his "own time".

That's horseshit. It's a surrogate. I'm going to pretend surrogates are surrogates. I'm not going to play this stupid convenient disavowal game just because, apparently, that's how it's supposed to play out.

The really disturbing thing is it's the 'rise of the Muslims', not the 'rise of Islamist extremism', he is just mindlessly dumping a massive religious group as all criminals and saying Rudy would 'chase them back to their caves'. I don't think I have seen this kind of petty sickening xenophobia in American politics for quite a while. But I guess it's how the saying goes, 'you get the politicians you deserve'.

What Islamic question?

There are no Muslims in America.

Sigh. Well of course they were just personal remarks, and of course he was asked to resign because of a lack of tact, and of course Rudy would never agree with anything his personally-appointed surrogates might say if it got fewer votes.
Yet it seems convenient for you to portray it as Deady is spelling out Giuliani's policy. He's not, and I've seen nothing to suggest otherwise.


Any presidential candidate will take those steps given the right circumstance. Say another 9/11 in which DC gets nuked. It's just some might be more quick to do it than others.
...and now you're changing your original statement, which promised forced deportation and concentration camps if he got elected. Not after DC gets nuked, but after the election.


Or for appointing him as a surrogate in the first place. But I guess, like GW, Rudy was mislead. Deady's bigotry was a complete mystery and a shocking surprise, of course. Go about your normal lives, nothing to see here!
I wouldn't know. However, Giuliani and his campaign can't shy away from the fact that they took him on board, and they did the right thing when asking him to resign.


That's horseshit. It's a surrogate. I'm going to pretend surrogates are surrogates. I'm not going to play this stupid convenient disavowal game just because, apparently, that's how it's supposed to play out.
Actually, it's not horseshit. You're dealing with a human being with opinions of his own. And he voiced them. Even if he was a surrogate, these remarks were his private ones - and for the love of Pete, he even said that he couldn't say if Giuliani shared his views so again, he's not describing a future policy. Stop playing the stupid blame-shift-and-fear-mongering game, which you are obviously playing for some reason.

So you want me to believe that because some elderly regional campaign whatever said that he wants to get rid of moslems when he didn't even sound like he knew what he was talking about it, that Rudy wants to get rid of moslems? I mean, considering his record on Abortion and Gay Marriage I don't think he's exactly a card carrying member of the Christian right!

That's why the global cabal invented Islam, for when Jew-hating gets too repetitive. You know, give people some variety.

How about we all hate Christians for once? Oh wait, we already do. :(

Look, there are plenty of reasons not to vote for Rudy Giuliani. You might even argue that the fact that morons like this Deady character support Rudy is a good reason for sane people not to support him. But it's just not legitimate to put Deady's words into Rudy's mouth. Deady was expressing himself, which maybe he should not have done while acting as surrogate for the Guiliani campaign, but still, they were his opinions, not Rudy's, very clearly.

Yet it seems convenient for you to portray it as Deady is spelling out Giuliani's policy.

That's the guy's occupation, and this is an instance where, "on his own time" or not, he was talking about Giuliani getting rid of the Muslim problem.

...and now you're changing your original statement, which promised forced deportation and concentration camps if he got elected. Not after DC gets nuked, but after the election.

No, the statements are not contradictory. I rather believe another "9/11" is more or less inevitable thanks to US policy. There might be some candidates who would in that event not abuse Muslims (or some other handily abusable group(s)), but it's obvious to me that Rudy is not one of them.

I wouldn't know. However, Giuliani and his campaign can't shy away from the fact that they took him on board, and they did the right thing when asking him to resign.

But it was the politically convenient thing to do as well, so it doesn't really alleviate concerns about the guy who hired him.

Actually, it's not horseshit. You're dealing with a human being with opinions of his own. And he voiced them. Even if he was a surrogate, these remarks were his private ones

And so false, incorrect, misleading, slanderous, contrary to the reality? Why should I dismiss these statements on account of their being "private" or not?

- and for the love of Pete, he even said that he couldn't say if Giuliani shared his views so again,

Afterward, perhaps.

Stop playing the stupid blame-shift-and-fear-mongering game, which you are obviously playing for some reason.

Did you actually just refer to something like "blame-shift?"

Look, there are plenty of reasons not to vote for Rudy Giuliani. You might even argue that the fact that morons like this Deady character support Rudy is a good reason for sane people not to support him. But it's just not legitimate to put Deady's words into Rudy's mouth. Deady was expressing himself, which maybe he should not have done while acting as surrogate for the Guiliani campaign, but still, they were his opinions, not Rudy's, very clearly.

I can assure you there are Deadies voting for every presidential candidate. Deady probably didn't really decide who he was voting for. Deady was probably coached by parents like so many voters and stuck with one party, one agenda, his entire life.

I can assure you there are Deadies voting for every presidential candidate. Deady probably didn't really decide who he was voting for. Deady was probably coached by parents like so many voters and stuck with one party, one agenda, his entire life.
You are certainly right about that. I've met all kinds of Deadies over the years. In fact, they are such a consistent type, I think we might coin the term Deady to describe them.

Not any different than what their(the muslims) leader did in the 7th century

It has been narrated by 'Umar b. al-Khattib that he heard the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) say: I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslim.

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/019.smt.html

;)

That's the guy's occupation, and this is an instance where, "on his own time" or not, he was talking about Giuliani getting rid of the Muslim problem.
It's not his occupation - he's still a volunteer. Heading a campaign outreach among New Hampshire veterans apparently, but volunteer nonetheless. And his personal views and desires does not reflect the policies of the Giuliani campaign.


No, the statements are not contradictory. I rather believe another "9/11" is more or less inevitable thanks to US policy. There might be some candidates who would in that event not abuse Muslims (or some other handily abusable group(s)), but it's obvious to me that Rudy is not one of them.
They aren't contradictory; I never claimed that they were. I'm saying your OP and the thread title is dishonest and outright false, and you're trying to distance yourself from your original statements by adding conditions such as a later new attack on the US.


But it was the politically convenient thing to do as well, so it doesn't really alleviate concerns about the guy who hired him.
The concerns about the guy who put him in that position should then be a concern about his ability to choose the right people for the job - not to speculate in forced deportation and concentration camps, fears that have no foundations in reality.


And so false, incorrect, misleading, slanderous, contrary to the reality? Why should I dismiss these statements on account of their being "private" or not?
Because him being a volunteer, surrogate or not, does not place him in a position where he can shape or create policy. What one campaign official says does not determine the official policies of the candidate in question, especially not when the official afterwards goes on record saying that he can't say that Giuliani shares his views on this subject and subsequently resigns.


Afterward, perhaps.
Afterwards should be sufficient, especially since you made this thread days after the original comments were made, after he had given the second statement, after Giuliani had distanced himself from the comments, and also after the volunteer had resigned.

More "convenient speech" from Giuliani, from today (http://www.newsday.com/news/local/politics/ny-usrudyiowa1231,0,6729812.story):
"I understand that the vast majority of people who are of the Islamic religion are good people," Giuliani said. "And I understand that the vast majority of people in the Middle East are good people. I even think we should do more business with them, have more cultural exchanges, and get to know each other better."


Did you actually just refer to something like "blame-shift?"
Why do you try to invoke the imagery of concentration camps (with all of the negative connotations attached to that term) and forced deportations of muslims?

Not any different than what their(the muslims) leader did in the 7th century



http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/019.smt.html

;)

Well why isn't he running then? Zombie Muhammad '08!

Well why isn't he running then? Zombie Muhammad '08!

Dude, Muslims also believe in a Zombie Christ,... Muhammad stays dead.

Dude, Muslims also believe in a Zombie Christ,... Muhammad stays dead.

Lies!

[4:157] And for claiming that they killed the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, the messenger of GOD. In fact, they never killed him, they never crucified him - they were made to think that they did. All factions who are disputing in this matter are full of doubt concerning this issue. They possess no knowledge; they only conjecture. For certain, they never killed him.

Lies!

[4:157] And for claiming that they killed the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, the messenger of GOD. In fact, they never killed him, they never crucified him - they were made to think that they did. All factions who are disputing in this matter are full of doubt concerning this issue. They possess no knowledge; they only conjecture. For certain, they never killed him.

The Qu'ran code?

What is this a hadith?

The Qu'ran code?

What is this a hadith?

Its a surah 4 ayat 157. Islam is notorious for denying the death and resurrection of Jesus. So they can't have zombie jesus.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/1...-_n_78687.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/12/29/giuliani-surrogate-rudy-_n_78687.html)

If this guy gets elected you can look forward to forced deportations, special identification cards and concentration camps.

I don't believe that at all. The guy made some personal remarks...

"When I say get rid of them, I wasn't necessarily referring to genocide. What I was referring to is, stand up to them every time they stick up their heads and attack us. We can't afford to say, `We'll try diplomacy.' They don't respond to it. If you look into Islamic tradition, a treaty is only good for five years. We're not dealing with a rational mindset here. We're dealing with madmen."

When I asked Deady if this was also a reference to all Muslims, he said: "I am talking about Muslims in general."
...which it is not clear that Rudy "$9.11" Giuliani agrees with...

I asked Deady if he thinks Rudy shares his views of Muslims. Deady replied: "Does he see the Muslim problem [this way]? I can't honestly say that he does. I've heard him make statements that approach this type of thing, that we've got to stand up to these people. I don't think he's a cowboy, but I think he understands what he's up against."

At another point in our talk, Deady came out in favor of racial profiling when, for instance, searching airline passengers before boarding. "Instead of goosing every little old lady," Deady said, "why not take a look at those people who are between the ages of 18 and 38 and are acting strange?"

Deady also said at one point: "I'm not a bigot really. I may sound like one. But I'm only quoting what's factual."
(El linky (http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/12/rudy_surrogate_stands_by_remarks_about_muslims_and_adds_more.php))
...and Deady subsequently resigned over the comments.

Rudy Giuliani's campaign said today it asked for -- and received -- the resignation of a leader of its New Hampshire Veterans for Rudy group after controversial remarks about Muslims.
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/..._backer_1.html (http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2007/12/giuliani_backer_1.html)

To claim, based on the rather unsavory comments, that Giuliani will place muslims in concentration camps if elected, seems to me to be blatant fear-mongering and gross dishonesty. It makes the campaign look bad and rather incompetent for allowing Deady to have held his position, but please don't lose your grip on reality eh?

Giuliani said Islam is "a religion that many people follow and they follow faithfully and it leads to good lives," though "there is a small group of people who have misused it and turned it into a political ideology."
Last paragraph. (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2007/12/30/2007-12-30_giuliani_graces_iowa_with_prezence.html)

Judge him by his words, not by the remarks his surrogate made on his "own time".

That's a thread win.

*applauds*

Greater Trostia's replies were inadequate.
Now, for the interminable "what it says in the Koran" discussion ...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/12/29/giuliani-surrogate-rudy-_n_78687.html

If this guy gets elected you can look forward to forced deportations, special identification cards and concentration camps.

Be fair.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2007/12/29/2007-12-29_get_rid_of_muslims_says_giuliani_booster.html

The campaign has already said that if this what Deady said, he will be asked to resign.

BTW nice clip making it look like GIULIANI said it directly.

I knew he was evil and I know he will draft me to Iran.

Giuliani may not want to stick all Muslims in concentration camps, but he did appoint this Deady guy as his surrogate. If he appoints such a rabidly bigoted xenophobe as his campaign surrogate, that says something about his character and beliefs. Giuliani hates Muslims, maybe just not as much as Deady.

Not any different than what their(the muslims) leader did in the 7th century



http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/019.smt.html

;)

From the same place:

[It is said that once at the time of conquest, a singing girl was brought to al-Muhajir b. Abu Umayya who had been publicly singing satirical poems about Hadrat Abu Bakr. Muhajir got her hand amputated. When the Caliph heard this news, he was shocked and wrote a letter to Muhajir in the following words:

" I have learnt that you laid hands on a woman who had hurled abuses on me, and, therefore, got her hand amputated. God has not sought vengeance even in the case of polytheism, which is a great crime. He has not permitted mutilation even with regard to manifest infidelity. Try to be considerate and sympathetic in your attitude towards others in future. Never mutilate, because it is a grave offence. God purified Islam and the Muslims from rashness and excessive wrath. You are well aware of the fact that those enemies fell into the hands of the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) who had been recklessly abusing him; who had turned him out of his home; and who fought against him, but he never permitted their mutilation." ]

[Western scholars have indulged in a good deal of mud-slinging on the question of the use of the sword in Islam. But if one were to reflect calmly on this point one would be convinced that the sword has not been used recklessly by the Muslims; it has been wielded purely with humane feelings in the wider interest of humanity. Utmost regard was always shown to human life, honour and property even on the battlefield. That is why in all the eighty-two encounters between the Muslims and the non-Muslims during the life of the Holy Prophet (may peace he upon him), only 1018 persons lost their lives on both sides. Out of this 259 were Muslims, whereas the remaining 759 belonged to the opposite camp. One wonders at the audacity of these writers only when one compares the religious wars of Charles the Great, in which 4300 pagan Saxons were killed in cold blood, when one recalls the" famous answer by which the Papal Legate, in the Albigensian war, quieted the scruples of a too conscientious general, 'Kill all, God will know His own'.... When we recall the Spanish Inquisition, the conquest of Mexico and Peru, the massacre of St. Bartholomew, and the sack of Magdeburg by Tilly." ]

The sort of thing you quote is in a time of war, where Muslims have been attacked, as an example:

[It has been reported from Sulaiman b. Buraid through his father that when the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) appointed anyone as leader of an army or detachment he would especially exhort him to fear Allah and to be good to the Muslims who were with him. He would say: Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war, do not embezzle the spoils; do not break your pledge; and do not mutilate (the dead) bodies; do not kill the children. When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. Then invite them to migrate from their lands to the land of Muhairs and inform them that, if they do so, they shall have all the privileges and obligations of the Muhajirs. If they refuse to migrate, tell them that they will have the status of Bedouin Muilims and will be subjected to the Commands of Allah like other Muslims, but they will not get any share from the spoils of war or Fai' except when they actually fight with the Muslims (against the disbelievers). If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them. When you lay siege to a fort and the besieged appeal to you for protection in the name of Allah and His Prophet, do not accord to them the guarantee of Allah and His Prophet, but accord to them your own guarantee and the guarantee of your companions for it is a lesser sin that the security given by you or your companions be disregarded than that the security granted in the name of Allah and His Prophet be violated When you besiege a fort and the besieged want you to let them out in accordance with Allah's Command, do not let them come out in accordance with His Command, but do so at your (own) command, for you do not know whether or not you will be able to carry out Allah's behest with regard to them.]

It goes on and on:

[It has been narrated on the authority of Abu Masa that when the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) deputed any of his Companions on a mission, he would say: Give tidings (to the people) ; do not create (in their minds) aversion (towards religion) ; show them leniency and do not be hard upon them.]

Its a surah 4 ayat 157. Islam is notorious for denying the death and resurrection of Jesus. So they can't have zombie jesus.
Jesus wasn't divine at all, just a regular guy with a good message, until the Rome Church needed a good unifying creed.

That's a thread win.

*applauds*

Greater Trostia's replies were inadequate.
Now, for the interminable "what it says in the Koran" discussion ...

Gravelin just worked GT over and completed the blowing up process of the thread.

Giuliani may not want to stick all Muslims in concentration camps, but he did appoint this Deady guy as his surrogate. If he appoints such a rabidly bigoted xenophobe as his campaign surrogate, that says something about his character and beliefs. Giuliani hates Muslims, maybe just not as much as Deady.

It says alot more that they have asked him to resign if the remarks were indeed true.

Gravelin just worked GT over and completed the blowing up process of the thread.

No, the adept use of the OP's own source, the addition of new sources, and the very nicely phrased admonition amount to a thread win.

I repeat the admonition Gravlen administered. It is neither excessive nor inadequate, it debunks the OP in perfect measure. In fact, I will trim the OP and reply down to their substance, without links or quotes. You could easily have done this, if you were not too busy *yawn*ing:


If this guy gets elected you can look forward to forced deportations, special identification cards and concentration camps.

To claim, based on the rather unsavory comments, that Giuliani will place muslims in concentration camps if elected, seems to me to be blatant fear-mongering and gross dishonesty. It makes the campaign look bad and rather incompetent for allowing Deady to have held his position, but please don't lose your grip on reality eh?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/12/29/giuliani-surrogate-rudy-_n_78687.html

If this guy gets elected you can look forward to forced deportations, special identification cards and concentration camps.

this man just lost the muslim vote in america

this man just lost the muslim vote in americaIt's been real hard for a Republican to get the muslim vote since September 11th, while the xenophobe crowd has gotten easier.

Let's not forget the fact that an elderly volunteer, who said these were not Giuliani's opinions, and who was asked immediately to resign and did so, is NOT GIULIANI HIMSELF.

Nor that Giuliani has never stated before that he had any plans for singling out Muslims, and in fact has gone out of his way to state before that most Muslims are decent law abiding and moral people, and that SOME are radical --

like Westboro Batshit Church doesn't reflect all Christians.

K?

It says alot more that they have asked him to resign if the remarks were indeed true.

No it doesn't. Giuliani didn't ask him to quit because Deady offended his moral code; he did it because it would be political suicide not to.

It's not his occupation - he's still a volunteer. Heading a campaign outreach among New Hampshire veterans apparently, but volunteer nonetheless.

What difference does this make? It's what he does.

And his personal views and desires does not reflect the policies of the Giuliani campaign.

The same Giuliani campaign who hired him to speak their views? Yeah I'm sure there's nothing in common politically there. Because usually a "campaign surrogate" has wildly opposing views to the man he "surrogates." Apparently.

I'm saying your OP and the thread title is dishonest

Yes yes yes, of course it is. Rudy has nothing to do with any of this. Hitler also. Claiming that Hitler murdered anyone is dishonest.

Do you think shit rolls downhill? Or do you prefer leaders are responsible for their followers, particularly ones who are designated surrogates for them?

and you're trying to distance yourself from your original statements by adding conditions such as a later new attack on the US.

I was trying to clarify my position.

The concerns about the guy who put him in that position should then be a concern about his ability to choose the right people for the job

And he chooses people who are racist, hateful bigots. This translates not to just a concern about personnel management, unless you really can't imagine how a politician choosing racist, hateful bigots as his subordinates might be a bad thing.

- not to speculate in forced deportation and concentration camps, fears that have no foundations in reality.

No foundations in reality, my ass. I can hardly believe you spew out this kind of, "It could never happen to the US. We're a democracy" naivete.

Because him being a volunteer, surrogate or not, does not place him in a position where he can shape or create policy.

That's largely irrelevant. I am talking indicators of policy, not shapers of it. I never claimed Deady was himself a policy maker and the fact that he isn't has no relevance to my points.

What one campaign official says does not determine the official policies of the candidate in question

True, and a CD player doesn't create the music. So?

especially not when the official afterwards goes on record saying that he can't say that Giuliani shares his views on this subject and subsequently resigns.

That was the only politically correct move that could be made. It indicates nothing more than an attempt at damage control.

Afterwards should be sufficient, especially since you made this thread days after the original comments were made, after he had given the second statement, after Giuliani had distanced himself from the comments, and also after the volunteer had resigned.

See above. Damage control, not ethics, not anything meaningful. You had a moment of honesty followed by more politics as usual, and you are choosing to believe the politics as usual and dismiss the bit of honesty.

More "convenient speech" from Giuliani, from today (http://www.newsday.com/news/local/politics/ny-usrudyiowa1231,0,6729812.story):

Indeed..

Why do you try to invoke the imagery of concentration camps (with all of the negative connotations attached to that term) and forced deportations of muslims?

Because that's what a lot of people seem to want, and what a lot of people would happily support given the right circumstance. It is the logical conclusion of Muslim-hating and Muslim fear-mongering combined with nationalistic populism. Now as I said, I believe another 9/11 is basically inevitable, and my concern is with who is in office when that happens. Someone who hires Muslim-haters to speak his political views raises a red flag to me. Not you? Huh. Must be an exceptionally nice world you live in.

Let's not forget the fact that an elderly volunteer, who said these were not Giuliani's opinions, and who was asked immediately to resign and did so, is NOT GIULIANI HIMSELF.

And let's conveniently forget he was a designated surrogate. Apparently designated at random and with no interviewing or discussion. Gosh darnit, yet another Republican politician, undone by malicious and misleading subordinates!

Nor that Giuliani has never stated before that he had any plans for singling out Muslims

If he did he would keep them hidden until necessary.

We would only hear about them from, for example, a surrogate who let one too many things slip.

, and in fact has gone out of his way to state before that most Muslims are decent law abiding and moral people, and that SOME are radical --

Even New Mitanni feeds people this shit sometimes.

like Westboro Batshit Church doesn't reflect all Christians.

Was the Westboro Baptist Church hired by, designated by, all Christians to speak the views of all Christians?

Gravelin just worked GT over and completed the blowing up process of the thread.

You look so cute, waving your pom poms. But I'm afraid I can't understand what you're saying. Could you remove the marbles or whatever they are from your mouth?

Let's not forget the fact that an elderly volunteer, who said these were not Giuliani's opinions, and who was asked immediately to resign and did so, is NOT GIULIANI HIMSELF.

Nor that Giuliani has never stated before that he had any plans for singling out Muslims, and in fact has gone out of his way to state before that most Muslims are decent law abiding and moral people, and that SOME are radical --

like Westboro Batshit Church doesn't reflect all Christians.

K?

Yeah, no, but see, when you have hundreds or thousands of people working for you, you have a responsibility to telepathicly moderate and filter everything they say and do.

This will be established in the future postcedent case "State of Luna v. Hivemind LK17-J" where it will have been found by a vote of 13 to pi that a candidate is culpable, jointly and severably with all cybernetically linked entities, for anything done by any staffer, anywhere, ever.

Seriously, Kat, wait 73 years and then look it up. I'm right on this one.

Eventually.

That's a thread win.

*applauds*

Greater Trostia's replies were inadequate.
Now, for the interminable "what it says in the Koran" discussion ...

no one is allowed paraphrase the koran/bible/torah since they all have been altered at one point or another

What Islamic question?

There are no Muslims in America.

yes there are, where do you think middleastern refugees go to, there is like 7,000,000 people who are muslim, including the nutjobs, Al Qaeda could just get a couple of extremist ones in america to work in gunshops and BAAM! instant Al Qaeda in America

It's been real hard for a Republican to get the muslim vote since September 11th, while the xenophobe crowd has gotten easier.

i still cant believe bush got the muslim vote, i'm waiting for a democratic candidate to say something about the 7 million muslims of america

Another reason for me to dislike neo-conservatives.

People need to stop worrying about the "Muslim Question" and worry about the real question. That is, the Jewish one.

Another reason for me to dislike neo-conservatives.

People need to stop worrying about the "Muslim Question" and worry about the real question. That is, the Jewish one.

The Jewish Question?

You mean "Have I told you were my son was accepted?"

Seriously, elaborate. What's the Jewish question?

Seriously, elaborate. What's the Jewish question?Wikipedia knows the answer. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_question)

Seriously, if you don't know what something is, look there. Most notable, and many non-notable things are stored there.

Wikipedia knows the answer. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_question)

Seriously, if you don't know what something is, look there. Most notable, and many non-notable things are stored there.

Cool, Wiki Answer to Jewish Question...or at least Wiki Answer to Jewish Question Question.

No it doesn't. Giuliani didn't ask him to quit because Deady offended his moral code; he did it because it would be political suicide not to.

I love how this keeps getting tossed about. The dude said something totally out of line and was asked and did resign. Grow up.

yes there are, where do you think middleastern refugees go to
Sweden.

Like Iraqi refugees - Sweden has accepted more Iraqi refugees than the rest of Europe and the US combined. Not that the US would swing the scales though, since they still have only accepted a few Iraqi refugees. What was it, fewer than 800 since 2003 (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18944557/) to may of this year, and then they promised to accept 7,000 by the end of September, but ended on 2,376 (http://www.pr-inside.com/countries-slow-to-take-in-iraqi-r344555.htm)?

Around 20,000 Iraqi aslylum seekers have reached Sweden this year, and according to UNHCR about 4 out of 5 were granted asylum. You do the rest of the math...

Another reason for me to dislike neo-conservatives.

People need to stop worrying about the "Muslim Question" and worry about the real question. That is, the Jewish one.

Like, "Why are you so jealous of them?"

i still cant believe bush got the muslim vote, i'm waiting for a democratic candidate to say something about the 7 million muslims of america

Bush only got the Muslim vote prior to September, 11th. Prior to that, I know many Muslims were rather conservative (at least socially). All the wars, especially Iraq, totally reversed that.

Yeah. The only reason it was "out of line" was because it's damaging to one's political career to support people who say that. Sorry, I'll be sure to "grow up" because I see thigns differently from you.

I'm glad you se things differently than me. Its good to see people in opposition.

I love how this keeps getting tossed about. The dude said something totally out of line and was asked and did resign. Grow up.

Yeah. The only reason it was "out of line" was because it's damaging to one's political career to support people who say that. Sorry, I'll be sure to "grow up" because I see thigns differently from you.

Rudy was in NY during 9/11!

Rudy was in NY during 9/11!

Really? He was?

Really? He was?


Terrorists!

9/11!

Democrats will make the terrorists let your babies grow up to be cowboys!

WMD!

Sweden.

Like Iraqi refugees - Sweden has accepted more Iraqi refugees than the rest of Europe and the US combined. Not that the US would swing the scales though, since they still have only accepted a few Iraqi refugees. What was it, fewer than 800 since 2003 (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18944557/) to may of this year, and then they promised to accept 7,000 by the end of September, but ended on 2,376 (http://www.pr-inside.com/countries-slow-to-take-in-iraqi-r344555.htm)?

Around 20,000 Iraqi aslylum seekers have reached Sweden this year, and according to UNHCR about 4 out of 5 were granted asylum. You do the rest of the math... uh ones before the iraq thing started up, you know palestianains, iranians, kuwaitis, saudis, jordanians, converts, people who came through a third country, like canada or UK

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/12/29/giuliani-surrogate-rudy-_n_78687.html

If this guy gets elected you can look forward to forced deportations, special identification cards and concentration camps.

OK, let's put this another way.

Prove it.

==========

No it doesn't. Giuliani didn't ask him to quit because Deady offended his moral code; he did it because it would be political suicide not to.

Prove it.

==========

What difference does this make? It's what he does.

*snip*

An ability to keep quibbling point-by-point will not rescue your original claim. Nor will Godwinning. Your claim that Guiliani will implement forced deportations or concentration camps needs to be backed by some quote from Guiliani or some reference to his record as mayor. Otherwise, it's just bullshit.

One more time: Deady does not speak for Guiliani. Deady has resigned from his (not very important) position: MSNBC. (http://news.google.com.au/news/url?sa=t&ct=au/0-2&fp=4779150112e0c3fc&ei=4Gp5R5aXHI7eqgPE2vm9Dg&url=http%3A//firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/12/29/538180.aspx&cid=1125484247)

As to the "special identification cards" there may be some truth in that, but still: prove it.

Prove it.

We're dealing with opinions here, and as I cannot see into Giuliani's mind, I cannot "prove it," as you doubtless realised when you made your post.

The thing is that shit sticks. This guy clearly relies on Giuliani to deal with the "Muslim Problem," and he is of a course a surrogate for his election campaign. He wouldn't be there if Giuliani did not share views with him to a decent extent, no?

EDIT: Here's an example. Yes, the article is biased, but the quote speaks for itself.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2007/08/10/gop_islam/

"During the last Republican debate, on Aug. 5, Rudolph Giuliani eagerly provided an example of this syndrome when he attacked the Democratic presidential candidates for failing to describe terrorism as Islamic. "During four Democratic debates," he complained, "not a single Democratic candidate said the word [sic] 'Islamic terrorism.' Now, that is taking political correctness to extremes." To him, the absence of that phrase in their speeches, no matter how tough their stance against terror, proved that Democrats are guilty of "weakness and appeasement."

EDIT: Here's an example. Yes, the article is biased, but the quote speaks for itself.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2007/08/10/gop_islam/

"During the last Republican debate, on Aug. 5, Rudolph Giuliani eagerly provided an example of this syndrome when he attacked the Democratic presidential candidates for failing to describe terrorism as Islamic. "During four Democratic debates," he complained, "not a single Democratic candidate said the word [sic] 'Islamic terrorism.' Now, that is taking political correctness to extremes." To him, the absence of that phrase in their speeches, no matter how tough their stance against terror, proved that Democrats are guilty of "weakness and appeasement."

Ok...so how is attacking his opponets for not mentioning "islamic terrorism" trying to prove your point?

uh ones before the iraq thing started up, you know palestianains, iranians, kuwaitis, saudis, jordanians, converts, people who came through a third country, like canada or UK

Before the Iraq thing? That would be the UK (92,000) or Germany (88,300) ahead of the US (83,200) in 2001. That's applications. Of these, 51,100 were allowed to stay in the UK while 39,900 were allowed to stay in the US.

That's not a one-time thing either. In the year 2000 42,200 asylum seekers were allowed to stay in the UK while 34,400 were allowed to stay in the US. That's all in absolute numbers - per capita the US would be far behind.

And over time?

For the the total number of asylum-seekers admitted between 1982-2001, both with Convention refugee status and persons admitted for humanitarian reasons, the US ranks 5th with a total of 196,800 admissions, behind France (209,000), Sweden (238,000), the UK (263,900), and Germany (267,600).

As a further comparison, the US received 3,568 Iraqi and 4,149 Iranian asylum applicants in the period between 1997 and 2001, while the UK received 18,450 and 11,710 during the same period, and Germany received 22,671 and 19,521.



Or, should I say: No, you're still wrong.


(All statistics source - UNHCR Statistical Yearbook 2001)

I am just imagining the Rudy ads on tv:

9/11

Terrorism.

Muslims.

Vote 1 Ghouliani.

What difference does this make? It's what he does.
It's what he did on a volunteer basis. As such, he's held to a somewhat lower standard then those who do it professionally. Nevermind that it would be factually wrong to call it his occupation, as that would be nitpicking.

The same Giuliani campaign who hired him to speak their views? Yeah I'm sure there's nothing in common politically there. Because usually a "campaign surrogate" has wildly opposing views to the man he "surrogates." Apparently.
Your cute sarcasm aside, you hit on two points: One, they asked him to speak their views. He didn't, he spoke about his own views. As such, he failed them - and resigned.

Two: While he obviously shares some political views with Giuliani, he does not necessarily share, nor do I believe that it is required of him as a surrogate to share, all of Giuliani's views.

I would add, if he had said that he believed that abortions should be outlawed, it would have been clear that he spoke against the stated policies of Giuliani - it would not indicate that Giuliani was sneakily trying to outlaw abortions, as he clearly has stated that he is pro-choice in that matter.


Yes yes yes, of course it is. Rudy has nothing to do with any of this. Hitler also. Claiming that Hitler murdered anyone is dishonest.
I could claim "Godwin" here, but since you've already Godwinned the OP, I shall refrain from doing so.

I'll rather point out that you, yet again, liken Giuliani to Hitler and invoke nazi imagery. You seem to have an agenda here...


Do you think shit rolls downhill? Or do you prefer leaders are responsible for their followers, particularly ones who are designated surrogates for them?
He is responsible - in the way that he looks bad when his surrogate fucks up, because his quality control in designating his as a "surrogate" has failed. That will stick with him. However, the fuck up of the surrogate should not the leader be held responsible for - i.e. Giuliani can not be held responsible for Deadys views, nor can Deadys statements be seen as a remark upon the future policies of Giuliani. That should be crystal clear.


I was trying to clarify my position.
Long after making the OP and the headline? And while still invoking nazi imagery during the debate? Well, you clearly failed in whatever clarification you set out to make.


And he chooses people who are racist, hateful bigots. This translates not to just a concern about personnel management, unless you really can't imagine how a politician choosing racist, hateful bigots as his subordinates might be a bad thing.
Actually, it does translate into a concern about personnel management - unless there's further evidence to support your theory that there's something deeper going on. If so, feel free to present it, because you haven't done so thus far.


No foundations in reality, my ass. I can hardly believe you spew out this kind of, "It could never happen to the US. We're a democracy" naivete.
Yet you have nothing to back up your nightmarish fantasies with, no indications that Giuliani is planning a new muslim Endlösung, nothing to support the idea that he would forcefully deport muslims or stick them in concentration camps (even the ones born and raised in the US apparently) - hence; Your claim still has no foundation in reality. And I'm not saying that it could never happen in the US - I'm just saying that there is nothing to indicate that Giuliani would ever dream of doing something like that, even after a new attack on the country.


That's largely irrelevant. I am talking indicators of policy, not shapers of it. I never claimed Deady was himself a policy maker and the fact that he isn't has no relevance to my points.
Yes it is, because you argue that his statements, statements of a volunteer that does not make policy, should be taken at face value and to mean that if Giuliani is elected we could look forward to forced deportations, special identification cards and concentration camps - despite Giuliani before and after the statement was made has made no negative remarks of that caliber towards muslims in general. As such, you place Deady higher than the actual policy maker, and give his statement more weight - even despite him saying that Giuliani perhaps would not agree with him - than the policymaker Giuliani himself.

And if the statement could be considered as an indicator of policy, it's been thoroughly refuted.


True, and a CD player doesn't create the music. So?
You indicated otherwise.


That was the only politically correct move that could be made. It indicates nothing more than an attempt at damage control.
That's simply not true. He has said nothing to indicate the will or desire to persecute muslims based on their religion before or after this, rather the opposite. Of course it's damage control, but it's also in line with his official, spoken policy.


See above. Damage control, not ethics, not anything meaningful. You had a moment of honesty followed by more politics as usual, and you are choosing to believe the politics as usual and dismiss the bit of honesty.
What would be the honesty part? The volunteer expressed his opinion, not Giuliani. The volunteer said that he couldn't say if Giuliani agreed with his statement. Period. Your position is absurd, and moreover dishonest.


Because that's what a lot of people seem to want, and what a lot of people would happily support given the right circumstance. It is the logical conclusion of Muslim-hating and Muslim fear-mongering combined with nationalistic populism. Now as I said, I believe another 9/11 is basically inevitable, and my concern is with who is in office when that happens. Someone who hires Muslim-haters to speak his political views raises a red flag to me. Not you? Huh. Must be an exceptionally nice world you live in.
No, I just live in the real world, not a made-up one. The red flag should not be concerning a baseless Hitler-fantasy that has been created in your own mind. There's enough real issues to have with Giuliani, enough real criticism to direct at him and his campaign - this particular piece of dishonest silliness is pointless and completely worthless however.

That's a thread win.
Thanks :)
Gravelin just worked GT over and completed the blowing up process of the thread.
You keep calling me that... :p
this man just lost the muslim vote in america
I hope not, not for this issue.
We're dealing with opinions here, and as I cannot see into Giuliani's mind, I cannot "prove it," as you doubtless realised when you made your post.

Yet you just said...
No it doesn't. Giuliani didn't ask him to quit because Deady offended his moral code; he did it because it would be political suicide not to.
...as if you could read his mind, or as if it was a provable fact.


The thing is that shit sticks. This guy clearly relies on Giuliani to deal with the "Muslim Problem," and he is of a course a surrogate for his election campaign. He wouldn't be there if Giuliani did not share views with him to a decent extent, no?
Not necessarily on this issue - there is nothing that would suggest that Giuliani agrees with him, quite the opposite in fact.


EDIT: Here's an example. Yes, the article is biased, but the quote speaks for itself.
Actually, it doesn't. Not in the way you seem to think, at least.

Too bad he can't get rid of the jews. Oh wait...they run the world. They'd never allow it. :P

You don't like the Jews?

(*is not a Jew himself, but supports the Jews; therefore, gives you a dirty look*)

Another reason for me to dislike neo-conservatives.

People need to stop worrying about the "Muslim Question" and worry about the real question. That is, the Jewish one.

The "Jewish Question"? Am I correct in deducing, from your use of this phrase, that you are an anti-Semite?

The Jewish Question?

You mean "Have I told you were my son was accepted?"

Seriously, elaborate. What's the Jewish question?

When I hear or see the phrase "the Jewish Question", I think of it in conjunction with Nazi Germany's ruthless slaughter of over 6,000,000 Jews, which was referred to as "the Final Solution to the Jewish Question".

From his/her use of the phrase in the quote at the top of this post, I tend to assume that Oakondra is anti-Semitic, and I hope that is NOT the case.

The "Jewish Question"? Am I correct in deducing, from your use of this phrase, that you are an anti-Semite?



When I hear or see the phrase "the Jewish Question", I think of it in conjunction with Nazi Germany's ruthless slaughter of over 6,000,000 Jews, which was referred to as "the Final Solution to the Jewish Question".

From his/her use of the phrase in the quote at the top of this post, I tend to assume that Oakondra is anti-Semitic, and I hope that is NOT the case.

I could be wrong, but I think it was a joke.

...



I know this is very random, but is there a fast way to dissect posts like that? The only way I can think of is the open close tag thing, but that takes me awhile.

Rudy was in NY during 9/11!

So was I. Where's my presidential campaign?

Hey, I want a turn on the anti-Semite!

It's not fair! I've been here over a year, I've seen people called anti-Semite many times. I've never met a real one, who comes out with the whole "Jewish conspiracy" shtick. A fair dinkum goose-stepping Nazi. There must be one or two out there.

Don't scare it away, Ohshucks. Please?

I could be wrong, but I think it was a joke.

Read some of his past posts. I do not think it was a joke.

I know this is very random, but is there a fast way to dissect posts like that? The only way I can think of is the open close tag thing, but that takes me awhile.

Not really... I copy the header [QUOTE=Zayun2;13335567] and paste in in front of each paragraph I respond to, and use the quote button and remove the first tag at the end of each paragraph. Simple, but takes a minute :)

I am just imagining the Rudy ads on tv:

9/11

Terrorism.

Muslims.

Vote 1 Ghouliani.
Ghouliani sounds like some kind of undead pasta dish.

I'd vote for that.

I hope not, not for this issue.


why not bush won muslim vote first time, when he said end to racial profiling, or was that the 2nd time?

The "Jewish Question"? Am I correct in deducing, from your use of this phrase, that you are an anti-Semite?


Arab and Jewish are Semites

Before the Iraq thing? That would be the UK (92,000) or Germany (88,300) ahead of the US (83,200) in 2001. That's applications. Of these, 51,100 were allowed to stay in the UK while 39,900 were allowed to stay in the US.

That's not a one-time thing either. In the year 2000 42,200 asylum seekers were allowed to stay in the UK while 34,400 were allowed to stay in the US. That's all in absolute numbers - per capita the US would be far behind.

And over time?

For the the total number of asylum-seekers admitted between 1982-2001, both with Convention refugee status and persons admitted for humanitarian reasons, the US ranks 5th with a total of 196,800 admissions, behind France (209,000), Sweden (238,000), the UK (263,900), and Germany (267,600).

As a further comparison, the US received 3,568 Iraqi and 4,149 Iranian asylum applicants in the period between 1997 and 2001, while the UK received 18,450 and 11,710 during the same period, and Germany received 22,671 and 19,521.
(All statistics source - UNHCR Statistical Yearbook 2001)

um then how is there 7 million muslims in america?
http://www.soundvision.com/info/yearinreview/2001/profile.asp

...as if you could read his mind, or as if it was a provable fact.

Egads...I'm a mind reader! Oh wait, no. That was just my opinion. As I already said.

Not necessarily on this issue - there is nothing that would suggest that Giuliani agrees with him, quite the opposite in fact.

Examples? And don't say "because he asked Deady to resign." Then I say what I said before, and we go back to square one.

Actually, it doesn't. Not in the way you seem to think, at least.

Thanks for providing your assessment of that quotation.

um then how is there 7 million muslims in america?
http://www.soundvision.com/info/yearinreview/2001/profile.asp

Ummm... You are able to read your own links, right?

Estimates of Muslim population in the US range from less than three million to nine million.
About two-thirds of all Muslims in the United States are immigrants and their descendants

Doesn't say over which time period they have immigrated. But, given these numbers, the lowest would be that less than 2 million muslims have entered the country or are children of immigrants that have come here since... It doesn't say, but I'd venture a guess and say the 1940's.

Doesn't say where they came from, doesn't say what status they had, doesn't really tell us anything useful with regards to what you said before.

So no, this link doesn't back up your assertion at all.

Why would Iraqis immigrate to the USA? It's fucking miles away.

Ummm... You are able to read your own links, right?
Doesn't say over which time period they have immigrated. But, given these numbers, the lowest would be that less than 2 million muslims have entered the country or are children of immigrants that have come here since... It doesn't say, but I'd venture a guess and say the 1940's.

Doesn't say where they came from, doesn't say what status they had, doesn't really tell us anything useful with regards to what you said before.

So no, this link doesn't back up your assertion at all.

um heres the wiki one then:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_the_United_States at least 1.1 mil thats a big constiuenty isnt it ?

Egads...I'm a mind reader! Oh wait, no. That was just my opinion. As I already said.
...after pretending to be a mind reader, and presenting your statement as uncontroversial fact, you suddenly retreat. How convenient for you.

So you admit that you have absolutely nothing to support your assertion that Giuliani didn't ask Deady to quit because he offended Giuliani's moral code but because it would be political suicide not to. Thank you.


Examples? And don't say "because he asked Deady to resign." Then I say what I said before, and we go back to square one.
asked Deady if he thinks Rudy shares his views of Muslims. Deady replied: "Does he see the Muslim problem [this way]? I can't honestly say that he does.
http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/12/rudy_surrogate_stands_by_remarks_about_muslims_and_adds_more.php
Giuliani said Islam is "a religion that many people follow and they follow faithfully and it leads to good lives," though "there is a small group of people who have misused it and turned it into a political ideology."
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2007/12/30/2007-12-30_giuliani_graces_iowa_with_prezence.html
"I understand that the vast majority of people who are of the Islamic religion are good people," Giuliani said. "And I understand that the vast majority of people in the Middle East are good people. I even think we should do more business with them, have more cultural exchanges, and get to know each other better."
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/politics/ny-usrudyiowa1231,0,6729812.story
As I said, quite the opposite.


Thanks for providing your assessment of that quotation.
You're welcome.





...what? You honestly believe that Giuliani pointing out that he feels it's 'Islamic terrorism' that's the issue somehow proves that he's out to wipe out islam? The quote in no way "speaks for itself", at least not in support of your assertions. Seen in context with the quotes I've presented above I'd rather say it makes complete sense, and that Giuliani goes a long way to differentiate between the problematic people - islamic terrorists - and the rest of the muslim world. He does not present any case against the muslims, only against the terrorists.

But, of course, you're welcome to try again.

um heres the wiki one then:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_the_United_States at least 1.1 mil thats a big constiuenty isnt it ?

What, are you now arguing against your own number? Okay, so if it's 1.1 million, and about 2/3 are immigrants or their descendants - that leaves a net immigration of about 733,000 - since ???


Still doesn't support your claim. If anything, it weakens it. You're doing my job for me!! :p

Why would Iraqis immigrate to the USA? It's fucking miles away.

That would be a good reason, no? ;)

What, are you now arguing against your own number? Okay, so if it's 1.1 million, and about 2/3 are immigrants or their descendants - that leaves a net immigration of about 733,000 - since ???


Still doesn't support your claim. If anything, it weakens it. You're doing my job for me!! :p

fine i give up, but you still have to admit there are a lot of muslims in america, no:D

...after pretending to be a mind reader, and presenting your statement as uncontroversial fact, you suddenly retreat. How convenient for you.

Sorry, but my grade 7 English teacher told me to never say "in my opinion." That is how I phrase my writing, and I'm not going to change it just for you. If you can't tell it's an opinion, ask instead of assuming.

So you admit that you have absolutely nothing to support your assertion that Giuliani didn't ask Deady to quit because he offended Giuliani's moral code but because it would be political suicide not to. Thank you.

Nope. I have all the reasons I've already stated.



http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2007/12/30/2007-12-30_giuliani_graces_iowa_with_prezence.html

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/politics/ny-usrudyiowa1231,0,6729812.story
As I said, quite the opposite.


You're welcome.

Thanks for proving my point. Now let's see here...The last two articles are just Giuliani trying to smooth things over after Deady made his little remarks. And I suppose you believe him? Do you simply love Giuliani so much that you can't imagine him being even slightly bigoted, or are you simply naive? He's trying to save his ass by distancing himself from the remarks.

However the first article was the kicker. Let's take a look.

"While the parallel isn't perfect, Deady's comments are more explosive than the act of forwarding the email is, and Deady is more than a mere volunteer to Rudy's campaign.

Indeed, Deady was designated by the campaign in a press release as the co-chair of Veterans for Rudy. "

"I asked Deady if he thinks Rudy shares his views of Muslims. Deady replied: "Does he see the Muslim problem [this way]? I can't honestly say that he does. I've heard him make statements that approach this type of thing, that we've got to stand up to these people. I don't think he's a cowboy, but I think he understands what he's up against."

Yeah, "you're welcome."

...what? You honestly believe that Giuliani pointing out that he feels it's 'Islamic terrorism' that's the issue somehow proves that he's out to wipe out islam? The quote in no way "speaks for itself", at least not in support of your assertions. Seen in context with the quotes I've presented above I'd rather say it makes complete sense, and that Giuliani goes a long way to differentiate between the problematic people - islamic terrorists - and the rest of the muslim world. He does not present any case against the muslims, only against the terrorists.

But, of course, you're welcome to try again.

Here's what Giuliani said. "In four Democratic debates, not a single Democratic candidate said the word 'Islamic terrorism,'" Giuliani observed with a degree of incredulity. "Now, that is taking political correctness to extremes."

Right. So I suppose it's only the "Islamic terrorism"? Oh no, watch out for the evil Islamic terrorists! Maybe the Democratic candidates didn't say "Islamic terrorism" because there are non-Islamic groups that practice or support terrorism? But Giuliani is trying to focus on the "Islamic terrorism."

Here's some more. [url]http://news.findlaw.com/prnewswire/20071107/07nov20071521.html (http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/12/rudy_surrogate_stands_by_remarks_about_muslims_and_adds_more.php)

Does anyone know if Giuliani has actually rejected that endorsement?

fine i give up, but you still have to admit there are a lot of muslims in america, no:D

That I won't argue :p

Sorry, but my grade 7 English teacher told me to never say "in my opinion." That is how I phrase my writing, and I'm not going to change it just for you. If you can't tell it's an opinion, ask instead of assuming.
OK, your English teacher sucked, thus affecting your education. Mystery solved.


Nope. I have all the reasons I've already stated.
Yes. Reasons not based in reality, only in your opinion. I understand now.


Thanks for proving my point. Now let's see here...
Prove your point? :confused: Man, I should slap your English teacher...

Let's sum up:

You: Deady wouldn't be there if Giuliani did not share views with him to a decent extent, no?
Me: there is nothing that would suggest that Giuliani agrees with him on this issue, quite the opposite in fact.
You: Examples?
Me: *Provides examples of Giuliani disagreeing with Deady*
You: You prove my point by supplying examples that originates from after Deady made his statement.

Me providing examples - as you asked for - that disproves your point does not prove your point. I'm sorry, it doesn't work that way.

The last two articles are just Giuliani trying to smooth things over after Deady made his little remarks. And I suppose you believe him? Do you simply love Giuliani so much that you can't imagine him being even slightly bigoted, or are you simply naive? He's trying to save his ass by distancing himself from the remarks.
Your point is disproven. Here's further evidence:


YouTube Debate: November 28, 2007 (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2007/11/28/us/politics/20071128_DEBATE_GRAPHIC.html#video)
Well, the most important thing to do is to make certain we remain on offense against Islamic terrorism. And -- and then make it clear that what that means is this is a small group of people -- Islamic terrorists -- who have defiled a great religion; that the vast majority of people who are Islamic, the vast majority of people who are Arab, the vast majority of people living in these countries are good people. We should be trading with them, we should have contact with them, we should expand our contacts with them.

YouTube Debate: November 28, 2007 (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2007/11/28/us/politics/20071128_DEBATE_GRAPHIC.html#video)
We should have cultural exchanges with them. The night of September 11th, 2001 when we were beginning to recover -- or not really recover, but maybe just first catch our breath after the attack of September 11th, you'll see one of the first things I said was -- I said to the people of my city and then probably to the people of America that we should not engage in group blame. We shouldn't do the thing that we're being attacked for. We shouldn't blame an entire group of people for the horrible acts of a few people who have distorted a great religion, and they've turned it into an ideology of hatred and an ideology of violence.
Woops! Waaaay before Deady came onto the public scene.


However the first article was the kicker. Let's take a look.

"While the parallel isn't perfect, Deady's comments are more explosive than the act of forwarding the email is, and Deady is more than a mere volunteer to Rudy's campaign.

Indeed, Deady was designated by the campaign in a press release as the co-chair of Veterans for Rudy. "

"I asked Deady if he thinks Rudy shares his views of Muslims. Deady replied: "Does he see the Muslim problem [this way]? I can't honestly say that he does. I've heard him make statements that approach this type of thing, that we've got to stand up to these people. I don't think he's a cowboy, but I think he understands what he's up against."
And? I've quoted that before. It doesn't strengthen your point.

The kicker would be
I asked Deady if he thinks Rudy shares his views of Muslims. Deady replied: "Does he see the Muslim problem [this way]? I can't honestly say that he does.
...that Deady himself says that Giuliani might not agree with him.


Yeah, "you're welcome."
Yeah, you fail.


Here's what Giuliani said. "In four Democratic debates, not a single Democratic candidate said the word 'Islamic terrorism,'" Giuliani observed with a degree of incredulity. "Now, that is taking political correctness to extremes."

Right. So I suppose it's only the "Islamic terrorism"? Oh no, watch out for the evil Islamic terrorists! Maybe the Democratic candidates didn't say "Islamic terrorism" because there are non-Islamic groups that practice or support terrorism? But Giuliani is trying to focus on the "Islamic terrorism."
And that is a point that you can attack. However, extrapolating from his statements that he's going to stick muslims in concentration camps or in any way persecute muslims in a dishonest leap of fantasy from you.


Here's some more. http://news.findlaw.com/prnewswire/20071107/07nov20071521.html

Does anyone know if Giuliani has actually rejected that endorsement?
He accepted it (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOsaT084BYw), and I don't like that.

OK, your English teacher sucked, thus affecting your education. Mystery solved.

Whine about your inability to comprehend English somewhere else.

Yes. Reasons not based in reality, only in your opinion. I understand now.

My opinion is backed up by reasoning. See below.

Prove your point? :confused: Man, I should slap your English teacher...

Let's sum up:

You: Deady wouldn't be there if Giuliani did not share views with him to a decent extent, no?
Me: there is nothing that would suggest that Giuliani agrees with him on this issue, quite the opposite in fact.
You: Examples?
Me: *Provides examples of Giuliani disagreeing with Deady*
You: You prove my point by supplying examples that originates from after Deady made his statement.

Me providing examples - as you asked for - that disproves your point does not prove your point. I'm sorry, it doesn't work that way.

Don't put words in my mouth. I did not say that his statements proved my point, I said that those statements prove a grand total of nothing.

The problem is that is about opinions and ideas. It's nigh impossible to prove these right or wrong, as you never know how much of the truth someone is speaking. Try submitting some of your own instead of throwing sources at me, because they say what he says, but don't try and use that to determine what he thinks.

Your point is disproven. Here's further evidence:



Woops! Waaaay before Deady came onto the public scene.

See below.

And? I've quoted that before. It doesn't strengthen your point.

The kicker would be

...that Deady himself says that Giuliani might not agree with him.

Yeah, you fail.

Nice how you missed his next sentence.

"I've heard him make statements that approach this type of thing, that we've got to stand up to these people."

And what was I saying? That Giuliani wants to chase Muslims back to their caves? No, that he isn't that extreme, but still does not like Muslims. Maybe enough to take action against them? How much do you want to bet he supported the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan?

And that is a point that you can attack. However, extrapolating from his statements that he's going to stick muslims in concentration camps or in any way persecute muslims in a dishonest leap of fantasy from you.


He accepted it (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOsaT084BYw), and I don't like that.

And I never said that he was intent on sticking Muslims in concentration camps. You're putting words in my mouth again.

And lastly, that little clip you showed there. Thanks for your honesty. It shows that Giuliani can make kind statements towards Muslims, and then do something like this. Thus proving that he's self-contradicting and a liar. Also known as a politician.

Whine about your inability to comprehend English somewhere else.
I'm complaining about your inability to use the language - and you brought it up, remember? As a defense to explain how your claims that he did something for a specific reason, which magically became your opinion since you suddenly had no insight into the workings of his mind after all.


My opinion is backed up by reasoning. See below.
Or lack thereof...


Don't put words in my mouth. I did not say that his statements proved my point, I said that those statements prove a grand total of nothing.
Of course you didn't...
Thanks for proving my point.
:rolleyes: Woopsie.


The problem is that is about opinions and ideas. It's nigh impossible to prove these right or wrong, as you never know how much of the truth someone is speaking. Try submitting some of your own instead of throwing sources at me, because they say what he says, but don't try and use that to determine what he thinks.
So we can't trust what he says, his words are worthless when it comes to determining what his policies will be - but your opinion and mine, and pure speculation, are better suited? You're funny :)

Throwing sources at you is the right thing to do, since there is no indication that he agrees with the statements put forward by Deady. He has distanced himself from them, he has said completely different things in the past and repeated his previous statements after Deady made his remarks, and he has asked Deady to retire. All of this can be shown by the sources. To back up your opinion that Deady was not asked to resign because his statement was against Giuliani's moral code you have... Your opinion, and a complete disregard for anything Giuliani has said or done. You have not shown a pattern, nor have you shown anything about his morals.


Nice how you missed his next sentence.

"I've heard him make statements that approach this type of thing, that we've got to stand up to these people."
And I deliberately left that out because it's not relevant or important. "statements that approach this type of thing" and "stand up to these people" - yes, he's been saying that he wants to stand up to Islamic terrorists. Is that a "statements that approach this type of thing"? It doesn't matter, because it's not "Statements that agree with what I'm saying." And you (and Deady for that matter) have yet to present a single statement to that effect.


And what was I saying? That Giuliani wants to chase Muslims back to their caves? No, that he isn't that extreme, but still does not like Muslims.
Your opinion again, I take it. That's not what I see, based on what he's said and done. Maybe he doesn't like muslims - if so, I'm still waiting for evidence of that. Any quote from him. Any discriminatory act. Anything at all? Nothing so far.


Maybe enough to take action against them? How much do you want to bet he supported the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan?
So... Do you have to not like muslims to have supported the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan? Wow.


And I never said that he was intent on sticking Muslims in concentration camps. You're putting words in my mouth again.
No, it's what this thread is about, according to the OP and the thread title. But, to be kind, let me state again:

"And that is a point that you can attack. However, extrapolating from his statements that he will in any way persecute muslims in a dishonest leap of fantasy from you."

There. I stand fully behind that.


And lastly, that little clip you showed there. Thanks for your honesty. It shows that Giuliani can make kind statements towards Muslims, and then do something like this. Thus proving that he's self-contradicting and a liar. Also known as a politician.
If accepting the endorsement means that he automatically subscribes to all of Pat Robertsons views or not is a seperate debate. I don't believe it does mean that, only that Giuliani again shows that he's a poor judge of character of his supporters.

As for honesty; This debate is all about that, contrary to the utterly dishonest OP. There are a lot of things to attack Giuliani for, policy wise - like the accepting of the endorsement. That he will start persecuting muslims when he's elected however, is rubbish. At least, there still isn't any indication of that happening. He's spending a lot of time making clear that he has no issues with muslims in general, only the minority who believe in a violent terrorist struggle. To convince me otherwise you'd need more than just your opinion - and thus far, that's the only thing you've brought to the table.

You don't like the Jews?

While not directed at me, I must admit I quite strongly dislike the Jewish faith. Since most Jews choose to adhere to a faith I somewhat despise, liking them must be a form of selfdelusional doublethink.

Fortunately I am good at that.

That I won't argue :p

so are they or are they not an important group to have supporting you, although after all the hate groups i think they stopped voting republican

so are they or are they not an important group to have supporting you, although after all the hate groups i think they stopped voting republican

I'm guessing they're somewhat important, but not too important either.

The guys a racist sort of like Neesika.

I mean he said "I'm talking about Muslims in general" meaning hes saying all Muslims are dangerous and irrational. WTF? Dude's just racist what can I say.

When he said "not necessarily genocide" I think he really means not genocide and wasn't trying to hide thoughts of kill 'em all. I don't know how he plans/wants to "get rid of them" but I don't think he means genocide.

I'm complaining about your inability to use the language - and you brought it up, remember? As a defense to explain how your claims that he did something for a specific reason, which magically [QUOTE=Gravlen;13336382]became your opinion since you suddenly had no insight into the workings of his mind after all.

Yes, of course. It's my fault that you're unable to tell the difference between opinion and scientific fact. I never try to pass my opinion off as fact, but if you can't tell the difference, that's no fault of mine.

Or lack thereof...


Of course you didn't...

:rolleyes: Woopsie.

Thanks for seeing things my way.

So we can't trust what he says, his words are worthless when it comes to determining what his policies will be - but your opinion and mine, and pure speculation, are better suited? You're funny :)

Is this how you argue with people? Continually make up arguments that your opponent is using until they quit out of frustration? Cute. I'm not restating what I actually said again. Use your tremendous knowledge of the English language to figure it out.

Throwing sources at you is the right thing to do, since there is no indication that he agrees with the statements put forward by Deady. He has distanced himself from them, he has said completely different things in the past and repeated his previous statements after Deady made his remarks, and he has asked Deady to retire. All of this can be shown by the sources.

We've covered this. And once again, this is not a scientific argument. This isn't about climate change or the big bang theory. We're talking about ideas and opinions.

To back up your opinion that Deady was not asked to resign because his statement was against Giuliani's moral code you have... Your opinion, and a complete disregard for anything Giuliani has said or done. You have not shown a pattern, nor have you shown anything about his morals.

Deady would have been asked to resign regardless of Giuliani's actual beliefs, because to show any sort of support for someone who says that about Muslims would be bad for his campaign. Do you deny that?

And I deliberately left that out because it's not relevant or important. "statements that approach this type of thing" and "stand up to these people" - yes, he's been saying that he wants to stand up to Islamic terrorists. Is that a "statements that approach this type of thing"? It doesn't matter, because it's not "Statements that agree with what I'm saying." And you (and Deady for that matter) have yet to present a single statement to that effect.

Yeah, it's left open to interpretation. Are you saying that you take it that Giuliani is only looking to deal with those bad old "Islamic terrorists"? Or that perhaps Deady respects him for something more?

Your opinion again, I take it. That's not what I see, based on what he's said and done. Maybe he doesn't like muslims - if so, I'm still waiting for evidence of that. Any quote from him. Any discriminatory act. Anything at all? Nothing so far.

And that's your opinion? That there is no evidence to show that Giuliani dislikes Muslims? The fact that people like Deady are attracted to him, and that they attain quite a high ranking in his campaign says nothing?

So... Do you have to not like muslims to have supported the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan? Wow.

There you go, putting words in my mouth again. How many times has it been? It's a smaller symptom of a whole.

No, it's what this thread is about, according to the OP and the thread title. But, to be kind, let me state again:

"And that is a point that you can attack. However, extrapolating from his statements that he will in any way persecute muslims in a dishonest leap of fantasy from you."

There. I stand fully behind that.

And I never said that I agreed with the OP's rather amusing statement. Nice how you can jump to such conclusions. Notice how I didn't say anywhere that Giuliani will necessarily discriminate against Muslims?

If accepting the endorsement means that he automatically subscribes to all of Pat Robertsons views or not is a seperate debate. I don't believe it does mean that, only that Giuliani again shows that he's a poor judge of character of his supporters.

So your excuse is that he's an idiot. So idiotic that he doesn't realise how bigoted people around him are? I suppose that is possible.

As for honesty; This debate is all about that, contrary to the utterly dishonest OP. There are a lot of things to attack Giuliani for, policy wise - like the accepting of the endorsement. That he will start persecuting muslims when he's elected however, is rubbish. At least, there still isn't any indication of that happening. He's spending a lot of time making clear that he has no issues with muslims in general, only the minority who believe in a violent terrorist struggle. To convince me otherwise you'd need more than just your opinion - and thus far, that's the only thing you've brought to the table.

Yep. See my above argument. You're assuming too much about me.

Yes, of course. It's my fault that you're unable to tell the difference between opinion and scientific fact. I never try to pass my opinion off as fact, but if you can't tell the difference, that's no fault of mine.
Actually, when you fail to articulate yourself on a written forum, the blame lies with you. When you present your opinion as fact, and get pissed when you're asked to prove your statement, you fail. You really should slap your old English teacher.


Thanks for seeing things my way.
Seriously. Go slap the teacher.


Is this how you argue with people? Continually make up arguments that your opponent is using until they quit out of frustration? Cute. I'm not restating what I actually said again. Use your tremendous knowledge of the English language to figure it out.
The scary part is that I'm not making anything up. I'm asking you why you won't trust his words, the best source we have to determine what ideas are floating around his head. Notice the question mark?


We've covered this. And once again, this is not a scientific argument. This isn't about climate change or the big bang theory. We're talking about ideas and opinions.
*sigh*

You refuse to realize that even ideas and opinions usually are grounded in something, and you refuse to accept that his own words are a good indicator of what his beliefs are. It's pointless to talk to you about this since you refuse to base your argument in reality.


Deady would have been asked to resign regardless of Giuliani's actual beliefs, because to show any sort of support for someone who says that about Muslims would be bad for his campaign. Do you deny that?
Actually, I do. If Giuliani actually hates muslims, and wants to persecute them, he may not have asked him to resign. It's all in the mindset and the motivation, but it's not impossible.


Yeah, it's left open to interpretation. Are you saying that you take it that Giuliani is only looking to deal with those bad old "Islamic terrorists"? Or that perhaps Deady respects him for something more?
I'm saying that I have yet to see anything to indicate that when Giuliani speaks about "standing up to these people" he means muslims in general, which would be contradictory to every other statement he's made on this issue.


And that's your opinion? That there is no evidence to show that Giuliani dislikes Muslims? The fact that people like Deady are attracted to him, and that they attain quite a high ranking in his campaign says nothing?
That's fact. I have seen no evidence to show that Giuliani dislikes muslims. You have provided no evidence to support the notion that he does.


There you go, putting words in my mouth again. How many times has it been? It's a smaller symptom of a whole.
There you go, being confused again. Notice the question mark? Again, I'm asking if that's what you believe.

Damn, your English teacher has got a lot to answer for.


And I never said that I agreed with the OP's rather amusing statement. Nice how you can jump to such conclusions. Notice how I didn't say anywhere that Giuliani will necessarily discriminate against Muslims?
Yet you seem to be claiming that he agrees with the sentiment that muslims should be "gotten rid of". If that's not discriminatory behaviour...


So your excuse is that he's an idiot. So idiotic that he doesn't realise how bigoted people around him are? I suppose that is possible.
Never underestimate the stupidity of your fellow man. Hell, look who's president...


Yep. See my above argument. You're assuming too much about me.
I don't think I am. And you're still not bringing anything new to the table, so I guess we're done here.

Actually, when you fail to articulate yourself on a written forum, the blame lies with you. When you present your opinion as fact, and get pissed when you're asked to prove your statement, you fail. You really should slap your old English teacher.


Seriously. Go slap the teacher.

Seriously. The English teacher thing was half a jest: I never put "in my opinion " on my papers in elementary school either. Which was also where we were taught how to read writing and understand it. I guess you were sick that day? Stop blaming my writing for your mistake. Had I said in any way that my opinions were fact, you might have half an argument.

The scary part is that I'm not making anything up. I'm asking you why you won't trust his words, the best source we have to determine what ideas are floating around his head. Notice the question mark?


*sigh*

You refuse to realize that even ideas and opinions usually are grounded in something, and you refuse to accept that his own words are a good indicator of what his beliefs are. It's pointless to talk to you about this since you refuse to base your argument in reality.


Actually, I do. If Giuliani actually hates muslims, and wants to persecute them, he may not have asked him to resign. It's all in the mindset and the motivation, but it's not impossible.

No, it's not impossible, but I doubt even Giuliani isn't such a fool that he would keep Deady, regardless of how he agrees with him. Yes, it's not impossible, but it's improbably.

You seem to think I have to provide a Holy Grail of truth, where Giuliani loudly proclaims his hatred for Muslims, and how they should be chased back into the caves they came from. I have presented my arguments, and instead of trying to answer them, you just go on about how I don't have that Holy Grail of truth. You're good at dismissing me as unrealistic, but seem to have to opinion of your own; nor do you attempt to present them against mine. I'm deducing, not proving.

I'm saying that I have yet to see anything to indicate that when Giuliani speaks about "standing up to these people" he means muslims in general, which would be contradictory to every other statement he's made on this issue.


That's fact. I have seen no evidence to show that Giuliani dislikes muslims. You have provided no evidence to support the notion that he does.

Oooo, right. Your making the word fact bold sure proves your point.

There you go, being confused again. Notice the question mark? Again, I'm asking if that's what you believe.

Damn, your English teacher has got a lot to answer for.

And I told you what I believe. I believe that it is a smaller symptom of a whole. I don't feel the need to answer a stupid question that you planted in your post to insult me.

Oh, and yes. Anytime someone accuses me of being an idiot I'll just blame my grade 7 English teacher. So long as there are plenty of people like you around, that should be quite often.

Yet you seem to be claiming that he agrees with the sentiment that muslims should be "gotten rid of". If that's not discriminatory behaviour...

Nope. Deady was saying that he too sees that there might be some sort of threat. I'm not saying that Giuliani will try to pass half a dozen new bills discriminating against Muslims if he gets in, or stick them in concentration camps as you were implying.

Never underestimate the stupidity of your fellow man. Hell, look who's president...

Yep.

I don't think I am. And you're still not bringing anything new to the table, so I guess we're done here.

Because you haven't answered the old stuff. There's really no need to. And if you can't say anything to that, then yes, we are done.

Agg give it up. You lost more so than the OP did. Understand English for once and move on. Geez...you are worse than I am. At least I know when I am beaten.

Agg give it up. You lost more so than the OP did. Understand English for once and move on. Geez...you are worse than I am. At least I know when I am beaten.

Yeah, you're right. I have a nasty tendency to make arguments and come to decisions based on my intuition.

Doesn't the Koran charge all Muslims with killing those not of their faith?
If so, then I'm tired of all this tripe about only a few "radical Muslims" becoming terrorists.

Doesn't the Koran charge all Muslims with killing those not of their faith?
If so, then I'm tired of all this tripe about only a few "radical Muslims" becoming terrorists.

Leviticus also says that disobedient children should be killed, but you don't see an epidemic of fatal child abuse rampant in the U.S. now do you?

Leviticus also says that disobedient children should be killed, but you don't see an epidemic of fatal child abuse rampant in the U.S. now do you?

Definitely not. I know the faults of the Bible (Exodus 21:7 is the one I show to all my friends who insist that the Bible is 100% true), there is no need to fill me in.
Naturally, there are a few small cases where there IS fatal child abuse by fundamentalists who take the Bible literally. You'll be happy to know I'm not biased. I don't like people defending the Bible in those cases anymore than the Koran. If someone reads: "If a child curses his father and mother, he should be dragged out and stoned to death," then they're not misguided or radical in thinking that the Bible supports child murder.
The Bible would be the worst book ever written were the Koran not written later. As a sort-of-maybe-a-little-bit Christian, I completely reject the Old Testament, since much of it is fiction and many of the laws are savage.
Nevertheless, Islam is a religion heavily associated with violence. And while you don't see an epidemic of fatal child abuse as a result of Leviticus, you do see an epidemic of suicide bombings as a result of the promises made in the Koran for martyrs.

Definitely not. I know the faults of the Bible (Exodus 21:7 is the one I show to all my friends who insist that the Bible is 100% true), there is no need to fill me in.
Naturally, there are a few small cases where there IS fatal child abuse by fundamentalists who take the Bible literally. You'll be happy to know I'm not biased. I don't like people defending the Bible in those cases anymore than the Koran. If someone reads: "If a child curses his father and mother, he should be dragged out and stoned to death," then they're not misguided or radical in thinking that the Bible supports child murder.
The Bible would be the worst book ever written were the Koran not written later. As a sort-of-maybe-a-little-bit Christian, I completely reject the Old Testament, since much of it is fiction and many of the laws are savage.
Nevertheless, Islam is a religion heavily associated with violence. And while you don't see an epidemic of fatal child abuse as a result of Leviticus, you do see an epidemic of suicide bombings as a result of the promises made in the Koran for martyrs.

Epidemic? Can you cite the actual percentage of Muslims globally that commit suicide bombings? Keep in mind that almost all of those attacks take place in Middle Eastern countries with regimes that are anything but democratic or representative to begin with. If what you said was anywhere near the truth, then there should be a spree of suicide bombings in the West as well considering there's a sizeable Muslim population in Europe, Britain and the United States.

[QUOTE]Epidemic? Can you cite the actual percentage of Muslims globally that commit suicide bombings?

No. But then, I'm sure many diseases could be called "epidemics" that only a small percentage of people globally actually have (or had, when they were epidemics). However, such diseases are still common enough to be well-known, and widespread enough to be dangerous to a large group of people. Can we agree that Muslim suicide bombings are common and widespread?
I mean, I guess it really depends on what you would define as an "epidemic."

[QUOTE=Gauthier;13337209]Keep in mind that almost all of those attacks take place in Middle Eastern countries with regimes that are anything but democratic or representative to begin with.

Okay. I'm sure if you want me to, I can find you some third-world Christian countries with very oppressive regimes that are still not producing the level of violence as Islamic countries.
Not that it matters, since I view this debate less as a "Christian vs. Islam" one than a debate over: "Is obeying the Koran really radical Islam?" I think not, but you seem to disagree.

If what you said was anywhere near the truth, then there should be a spree of suicide bombings in the West as well considering there's a sizeable Muslim population in Europe, Britain and the United States.

"What I said" being what exactly? Please use quotes and be more specific.

I just want to make sure we're on the same page here. I'm not suggesting that Muslims deserve to be universally persecuted. I'm just saying that it's ludicrous to insinuate that Muslims who go off killing people of other faiths and blowing themselves up with bombs are in any way "radical Muslims."
They're just doing what the Koran tells them. They are, if anything, the truest Muslims of all. People of Islam who spare the so-called infidels are disobeying the Koran.

I just want to make sure we're on the same page here. I'm not suggesting that Muslims deserve to be universally persecuted. I'm just saying that it's ludicrous to insinuate that Muslims who go off killing people of other faiths and blowing themselves up with bombs are in any way "radical Muslims."
They're just doing what the Koran tells them. They are, if anything, the truest Muslims of all. People of Islam who spare the so-called infidels are disobeying the Koran.

Show me where in the Quran it says that.

http://www.wvinter.net/~haught/Koran.html

I suppose before this goes any farther, I should let you know I'm a puppet nation of Isle de Tortue.
I really, really, don't want to get dragged into playing this link game of yours, Zayun2, where everything I say has to be verified by an outside source.

And you can verify the above link by reading the Koran on wikisource.
en.wikisource.org

I really, really, don't want to get dragged into playing this link game of yours, Zayun2, where everything I say has to be verified by an outside source.

Why not btw ? What is wrong with sourcing claims, especially strong claims ?
Perhaps one will learn the source is unreliable. Perhaps one will avoid being blown up by an offended person , just because one said "but I read it there !". Or perhaps others will even be convinced and see things your way.

Won't happen without sourcing ;)

*waits for the "source please" *

http://www.wvinter.net/~haught/Koran.html

I suppose before this goes any farther, I should let you know I'm a puppet nation of Isle de Tortue.
I really, really, don't want to get dragged into playing this link game of yours, Zayun2, where everything I say has to be verified by an outside source.

It seems I shall have to bring out the most holy Quran, tomorrow (as I hopefully have time) it is likely that you shall have answers.

Well Rudy's criticism is pretty ironic seeing as the Koran is a blatant and inept plagiarism of the Old Testament. I mean seriously read it, it's quite obvious.

I really, really, don't want to get dragged into playing this link game of yours, Zayun2, where everything I say has to be verified by an outside source.

Indeed, fate forfend against the day when talking complete shite about a billion or so people has to be based on facts, rather than personal bigotry.

Did you know that Americans ritually sacrifice children so that their TVs will work on Superbowl Sunday?

Can we agree that Muslim suicide bombings are common and widespread?

NO.

*tries not to laugh*

Doesn't the Koran charge all Muslims with killing those not of their faith?
If so, then I'm tired of all this tripe about only a few "radical Muslims" becoming terrorists.

um no that is what radical wahabi sects say, and since they are the most vocal, with all the oil money, they are the ones who convert the poorer muslims to wahabism/extremism
the koran and the prophet himself, said to respect other minorites unless they dont pay their taxes, then you just make them
like the IRS do :)

Agg give it up. You lost more so than the OP did. Understand English for once and move on. Geez...you are worse than I am. At least I know when I am beaten.

thats what i like about you;)

Can we agree that Muslim suicide bombings are common and widespread?

Reality says no. Over 20% of the worlds population - say 1.5 billion people - identifies itself as muslim and no more than a few dozen are suicide bombers.

Why not btw ? What is wrong with sourcing claims, especially strong claims ?
Perhaps one will learn the source is unreliable. Perhaps one will avoid being blown up by an offended person , just because one said "but I read it there !". Or perhaps others will even be convinced and see things your way.

Won't happen without sourcing ;)

*waits for the "source please" *

You've got good reason to say that, and I understand where you're coming from. But, in my experience, some people's (Zayun2 included) main style of debate involves first taking a stance with no knowledge of the subject, then pointlessly contradicting everything said in opposition to that stance. Rather than using a search engine, or reading a newspaper, or referencing a text, such a person will instead demand proof of every claim made that makes their argument look bad, banking that their opponent will be able to find none.
When proof is presented, it is dismissed and ignored so that this person can move on to another subject and keep the debate going.
It gets old. I've had a discussion like this a number of times in the last few days:

ME: (Insert fact here) is a fact.
SOMEONE ELSE: I have no idea as to whether or not you are right, but I think I'll contradict you anyway. Since I'm incapable of presenting a logical argument myself, I'll simply demand that you PROVE everything you say.
ME: Fine. Here's proof.
SOMEONE ELSE: Well that still doesn't prove (insert something we weren't talking about here), so you're wrong.
ME: No I'm not. I proved myself right.
SOMEONE ELSE: Prove it.

Like I said, I get tired of it. I'd much rather that people educate themselves on the topic of debate, rather than relying on me to educate them. They should know what they're talking about before they decide to say I'm wrong. If any of the people who disagreed with me had actually read the Koran, they would have reason to talk. But clearly, they haven't, (or I've been reading a bad translation) so they aren't qualified to be participating in this debate.

um no that is what radical wahabi sects say, and since they are the most vocal, with all the oil money, they are the ones who convert the poorer muslims to wahabism/extremism
the koran and the prophet himself, said to respect other minorites unless they dont pay their taxes, then you just make them
like the IRS do :)

Read my link.
Better yet, read the Koran.

Indeed, fate forfend against the day when talking complete shite about a billion or so people has to be based on facts, rather than personal bigotry.

Did you know that Americans ritually sacrifice children so that their TVs will work on Superbowl Sunday?

Really, I'd rather see the day where a man can make a rational claim about a group of people without being called a bigot.
I didn't say: "All Muslims are terrorists!!!!"
I said: "Muslims who do as the Koran says are not radical, they're following their faith."
How is talking about something that the Muslims have in their own holy book considered "talking shite"? If you view the things written in their religious text as offensive, then I'm not the bigot. You're the one who heard something you don't like. But whenever someone says something negative about a minority (and in this part of the world, they are a minority), you assume that the statement made must be somehow inspired by prejudice, rather than the truth. You, sir, are the one who has a narrow perception of the world, and you, sir, are the one who is not basing his logic on facts.
The only large group I have any prejudice for is idiots, which is why I probably won't be warming up to you anytime soon.

Well Rudy's criticism is pretty ironic seeing as the Koran is a blatant and inept plagiarism of the Old Testament. I mean seriously read it, it's quite obvious.

Well, duh. The Qu'ran is supposed to be a continuation and correction of both the old and new testament. The "newest" testament if you prefer.

And Muslims of course have a point when they claim the old and new testament have been mistranslated, modified and manipulated over the years. If their book truly is the final and "unpolluted" word of God is another matter, but noticing similarities between the books is obviously not surprising.

NO.

*tries not to laugh*

You and I have different definitions of widespread, my friend. As I stated almost immediately, I don't think all Muslims are terrorists, or even most of them, or even a significant percentage. I would like you better if you read my posts before criticizing them.
There are Muslims, however, who DO kill people as a result of their faith, and there are enough of them to provide the newspaper with a new story about once a week.
One or more suicide bombings per week is enough for me to call it widespread and common. It happens in a fairy large area.
Besides, how frequently terrorism occurs as a result of Islam is really irrelevant, and I regret bringing it up. The real point is: Muslims who commit suicide bombings against people of other faiths (whether there are a billion Muslim terrorists or just one), are not misinterpreting the Koran. They're not taking the Koran to an unjustifiable extreme. They're following its message.

Yet another reason why the fascist p.o.s. should never be elected.

Read my link.
Better yet, read the Koran.

what link?
and second of all i own a koran, you should know it is altered, over centuries, i spoke to an imam about a korans in mosques i read, and in the begining it said wipe out all christains and jews, and when i gave it for him to see, he said it was wrong, and he showed me all wrong parts in it and explained what they should be.

what link?
and second of all i own a koran, you should know it is altered, over centuries, i spoke to an imam about a korans in mosques i read, and in the begining it said wipe out all christains and jews, and when i gave it for him to see, he said it was wrong, and he showed me all wrong parts in it and explained what they should be.

The Koran is not allowed to change. Some Imams argue one is not even allowed to translate it from the original language, though that is generally tolerated provided a "translations are not the orginal" disclaimer is added.

I didn't say: "All Muslims are terrorists!!!!"
I said: "Muslims who do as the Koran says are not radical, they're following their faith."

Which is one big No True Scotsman Fallacy.

Your argument boils down to "Faithful Muslims kill all non-Muslims as the Qu'ran (allegedly) orders. Therefore any Muslim who does not kill non-Muslims are not true believers. Thus the only true Muslims are all terrorists."

I see you're trying to be Kimchi Lite.

what link?
and second of all i own a koran, you should know it is altered, over centuries, i spoke to an imam about a korans in mosques i read, and in the begining it said wipe out all christains and jews, and when i gave it for him to see, he said it was wrong, and he showed me all wrong parts in it and explained what they should be.

The link I posted earlier, citing all the areas in which the Koran condones the killing of people of other faiths.
It is possible that what your conversation with an imam actually happened, and I won't call you a liar. Even so, I'd like you to provide a link (might as well ask for one) about all the incorrect parts of the Koran and what the original version says. If no such site exists, then it would seem probable to me that most Muslims don't know that the Koran's been altered, either. If most Muslims don't realize it's been altered, then they are following the Koran that condones violence and bigotry. If that is the case, then my original argument- that is, that Muslim terrorists aren't radical- would still be correct.
However, I have good faith you can find such a site.
If the Koran is altered (and if most Muslims know it's been altered) then the terrorists who have chosen to accept an alternative, false version of the Koran really are radical. In which case, I would be wrong.

The Koran is not allowed to change. Some Imams argue one is not even allowed to translate it from the original language, though that is generally tolerated provided a "translations are not the orginal" disclaimer is added.

Such an obstinate insistence is going to result in Islam stagnating over centuries, if not years. There's all ready a movement within the religion itself pushing for an Islamic Reformation that includes re-interpreting or revising the Qu'ran to update it for modern times.

Which is one big No True Scotsman Fallacy.

Your argument boils down to "Faithful Muslims kill all non-Muslims as the Qu'ran (allegedly) orders. Therefore any Muslim who does not kill non-Muslims are not true believers. Thus the only true Muslims are all terrorists."



Hardly. I never said the non-murdering Muslims are not true believers. I only said that the Muslims who kill "heathens" and martyr themselves are true believers.
How would you define a true Muslim, anyway? Since Islam is based on the Koran, and the Koran orders its followers to kill people of alternative religions, wouldn't you say that the people who go out and kill people of alternative religions are faithful Muslims?
If you're not going by the principles of the Muslim faith, what makes you a Muslim?

The Koran is not allowed to change. Some Imams argue one is not even allowed to translate it from the original language, though that is generally tolerated provided a "translations are not the orginal" disclaimer is added.

its not supposed to happen but it does

Such an obstinate insistence is going to result in Islam stagnating over centuries, if not years.

Sure. I never said putting all your faith in an old book was a good thing.
But I do tend to agree with them that you should not corrupt it, and that realising a translation is not the same as an original is important.

Such an obstinate insistence is going to result in Islam stagnating over centuries, if not years. There's all ready a movement within the religion itself pushing for an Islamic Reformation that includes re-interpreting or revising the Qu'ran to update it for modern times.

If it needs re-interpreting or revising, something must've been wrong with it in the first place.
I honestly don't understand why people would revise the Koran, or Bible, or any holy text. If they're picking and choosing what to believe, then it seems like they already have a pretty clear idea of right and wrong, so why would they need an old book to tell them?
Just my two cents.

Such an obstinate insistence is going to result in Islam stagnating over centuries, if not years. There's all ready a movement within the religion itself pushing for an Islamic Reformation that includes re-interpreting or revising the Qu'ran to update it for modern times.

i support that movement :)

The link I posted earlier, citing all the areas in which the Koran condones the killing of people of other faiths.
It is possible that what your conversation with an imam actually happened, and I won't call you a liar. Even so, I'd like you to provide a link (might as well ask for one) about all the incorrect parts of the Koran and what the original version says. If no such site exists, then it would seem probable to me that most Muslims don't know that the Koran's been altered, either. If most Muslims don't realize it's been altered, then they are following the Koran that condones violence and bigotry. If that is the case, then my original argument- that is, that Muslim terrorists aren't radical- would still be correct.
However, I have good faith you can find such a site.
If the Koran is altered (and if most Muslims know it's been altered) then the terrorists who have chosen to accept an alternative, false version of the Koran really are radical. In which case, I would be wrong.

i'll look for it and get back to you, i would also like to state that the Imam in question studied from Mecca, and is Al-Bayt

i'll look for it and get back to you, i would also like to state that the Imam in question studied from Mecca, and is Al-Bayt

Are those the descendants of Mohammed?

If it needs re-interpreting or revising, something must've been wrong with it in the first place.
I honestly don't understand why people would revise the Koran, or Bible, or any holy text. If they're picking and choosing what to believe, then it seems like they already have a pretty clear idea of right and wrong, so why would they need an old book to tell them?
Just my two cents.

Anyone with half a brain cell intact realizes that all religious text will be factional in nature, written down by human beings with an agenda all their own who will take the words of their deities and reinterpret it to suit their personal tastes and desired effects. Words of God won't come out all egalitarian if they've been "transcribed" by some obstinate jackass who wants a Talibanesque/Levitican society to spread.

Anyone with half a brain cell intact realizes that all religious text will be factional in nature, written down by human beings with an agenda all their own who will take the words of their deities and reinterpret it to suit their personal tastes and desired effects. Words of God won't come out all egalitarian if they've been "transcribed" by some obstinate jackass who wants a Talibanesque/Levitican society to spread.

I'm sorry, aside from your ad hominem attack in the first sentence, did you make any point there?
All I was saying is that if people have made up their mind about what they think is right and wrong, shouldn't they be looking for a religion that agrees with them, rather than altering a religion that doesn't? Shouldn't people get to choose a faith that fits their worldview? I think Muslims that disagree with the Koran should stop being Muslims. It'd be like a Christian who wants to change the Bible to remove all mentions of Jesus. If you don't want to follow Christ... why are you calling yourself a Christian?
In fact, if people already know what's right and what's wrong, do they need a religion to tell them at all?

Are those the descendants of Mohammed?
yup :D
and here is what i could find in a short while
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/653wwewi.asp

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/000779.php

http://www.amina.com/article/wahabism.html

http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/1002.htm

these were what I could find, but not really helpful also I wanted to say this, thanks to American hunger for oil, which handed over lots of money to Wahhabi interests, which before that was a relatively small group, allowed it to expand and become the dominant portion of Sunni Islam.

Well, duh. The Qu'ran is supposed to be a continuation and correction of both the old and new testament. The "newest" testament if you prefer.
Not according to Jack Chick, but no one takes him seriously anymore.

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0029/0029_01.asp

Since all religious people are irrational and thus dangerous, rounding up one group isn't such a bad idea.

Not according to Jack Chick, but no one takes him seriously anymore.

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0029/0029_01.asp

Since all religious people are irrational and thus dangerous, rounding up one group isn't such a bad idea.

Wow. Your last name wouldn't happen to be "Stalin" would it?

yup :D
and here is what i could find in a short while
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/653wwewi.asp

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/000779.php

http://www.amina.com/article/wahabism.html

http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/1002.htm

these were what I could find, but not really helpful also I wanted to say this, thanks to American hunger for oil, which handed over lots of money to Wahhabi interests, which before that was a relatively small group, allowed it to expand and become the dominant portion of Sunni Islam.

VERY interesting, great links.
Now I only need to know how many of the Koran references I cited are found only in the extremist version (and which version do the people responsible for terrorist attacks read?)

VERY interesting, great links.
Now I only need to know how many of the Koran references I cited are found only in the extremist version (and which version do the people responsible for terrorist attacks read?)

well since there is this thing were terrorist are lead by wahabist taught leaders, Al Qaeda as an example i would assume that it would be the extremist version

Yes, but look at Chapter 2, Verse 191.
"And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith."

Then in Verse 216:
"Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not."

Then in 217, the most interesting one:
"They ask thee concerning fighting in the Prohibited Month. Say: "Fighting therein is a grave (offence); but graver is it in the sight of Allah to prevent access to the path of Allah, to deny Him, to prevent access to the Sacred Mosque, and drive out its members." Tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter. Nor will they cease fighting you until they turn you back from your faith if they can. And if any of you Turn back from their faith and die in unbelief, their works will bear no fruit in this life and in the Hereafter; they will be companions of the Fire and will abide therein."

The last part of 217 implies to me that those who do not fight are turning their backs on their faith and will go to Hell for it.


Verse 157-158 read:
157. And if ye are slain, or die, in the way of Allah, forgiveness and mercy from Allah are far better than all they could amass.

158. And if ye die, or are slain, Lo! it is unto Allah that ye are brought together.

These verses indicate that paradise awaits those who martyr themselves to Allah, fighting for his cause.

4:89
"They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks."

There's your killing of the infidels.


I'm sure no religion is completely absent of rules that we wouldn't agree with. But I think I've pretty much shown that the Koran (not the extremist Wahhabic version, mind you, these are excerpts from the real one) is just as violent as it's said to be.

Yes, but look at Chapter 2, Verse 191.
"And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith."

Then in Verse 216:
"Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not."

Then in 217, the most interesting one:
"They ask thee concerning fighting in the Prohibited Month. Say: "Fighting therein is a grave (offence); but graver is it in the sight of Allah to prevent access to the path of Allah, to deny Him, to prevent access to the Sacred Mosque, and drive out its members." Tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter. Nor will they cease fighting you until they turn you back from your faith if they can. And if any of you Turn back from their faith and die in unbelief, their works will bear no fruit in this life and in the Hereafter; they will be companions of the Fire and will abide therein."

The last part of 217 implies to me that those who do not fight are turning their backs on their faith and will go to Hell for it.



Part 1:

Let's look at context.

(190) Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors.

(191) And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith.

(192) But if they cease, Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

In other words, if you are attacked, then it is ok to defend yourself, if you are oppressed, it is ok to fight for your rights. Do you think Muslims should take it in the ass if we get rounded up into concentration camps as Deady would have us, should we sit and be slaughtered?

As well, in 192, if the attackers are willing for peace, then it is fine to have it, it's not commanding Muslims to go out and kill people, rather, to defend themselves if they are victims of aggression or oppression.

For verse 216, the same applies, we are looking at a string of ayats, not a single one. Basically, in times where one must protect themselves, fighting is sometimes necessary, even though most do not like to fight.

217 implies that Muslims who renounce their faith are not Muslims, in others words, you don't get credit for being a Muslim if you're not a Muslim when you die.

Verse 157-158 read:
157. And if ye are slain, or die, in the way of Allah, forgiveness and mercy from Allah are far better than all they could amass.

158. And if ye die, or are slain, Lo! it is unto Allah that ye are brought together.

These verses indicate that paradise awaits those who martyr themselves to Allah, fighting for his cause.



Which surah are these from?

4:89
"They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks."

There's your killing of the infidels.


I'm sure no religion is completely absent of rules that we wouldn't agree with. But I think I've pretty much shown that the Koran (not the extremist Wahhabic version, mind you, these are excerpts from the real one) is just as violent as it's said to be.

(88) Why should ye be divided into two parties about the Hypocrites? Allah hath upset them for their (evil) deeds. Would ye guide those whom Allah hath thrown out of the Way? For those whom Allah hath thrown out of the Way, never shalt thou find the Way.

(89) They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks;-

(90) Except those who join a group between whom and you there is a treaty (of peace), or those who approach you with hearts restraining them from fighting you as well as fighting their own people. If Allah had pleased, He could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you: Therefore if they withdraw from you but fight you not, and (instead) send you (Guarantees of) peace, then Allah Hath opened no way for you (to war against them).

Again, only in defense is violence being permitted, if enemies seek peace, it is to be given. It is also saying that there are those who shall not convert, so they should be left alone (quite the opposite of what you say the Quran suggests).

Whoops. I concede those.
I got my quotes from a site with a list of "infidel-killing" verses. However, as Zayun2's pointed out, those were taken out of context. I should've investigated further. My bad.
There are a few that I looked up and looked around with, and I think they actually fit better.

From the Eighth Sura:

38 Say to the Unbelievers, if (now) they desist (from Unbelief), their past would be forgiven them; but if they persist, the punishment of those before them is already (a matter of warning for them).

39 And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere; but if they cease, verily Allah doth see all that they do.


65 O Messenger. rouse the Believers to the fight. If there are twenty amongst you, patient and persevering, they will vanquish two hundred: if a hundred, they will vanquish a thousand of the Unbelievers: for these are a people without understanding.


66 For the present, Allah hath lightened your (task), for He knoweth that there is a weak spot in you: But (even so), if there are a hundred of you, patient and persevering, they will vanquish two hundred, and if a thousand, they will vanquish two thousand, with the leave of Allah. for Allah is with those who patiently persevere.


67 It is not fitting for an apostle that he should have prisoners of war until he hath thoroughly subdued the land. Ye look for the temporal goods of this world; but Allah looketh to the Hereafter: And Allah is Exalted in might, Wise.


From 9:3
And an announcement from Allah and His Messenger, to the people (assembled) on the day of the Great Pilgrimage,- that Allah and His Messenger dissolve (treaty) obligations with the Pagans. If then, ye repent, it were best for you; but if ye turn away, know ye that ye cannot frustrate Allah. And proclaim a grievous penalty to those who reject Faith.

9:5
But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

Whoops. I concede those.
I got my quotes from a site with a list of "infidel-killing" verses. However, as Zayun2's pointed out, those were taken out of context. I should've investigated further. My bad.
There are a few that I looked up and looked around with, and I think they actually fit better.

From the Eighth Sura:

38 Say to the Unbelievers, if (now) they desist (from Unbelief), their past would be forgiven them; but if they persist, the punishment of those before them is already (a matter of warning for them).

39 And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere; but if they cease, verily Allah doth see all that they do.


65 O Messenger. rouse the Believers to the fight. If there are twenty amongst you, patient and persevering, they will vanquish two hundred: if a hundred, they will vanquish a thousand of the Unbelievers: for these are a people without understanding.


66 For the present, Allah hath lightened your (task), for He knoweth that there is a weak spot in you: But (even so), if there are a hundred of you, patient and persevering, they will vanquish two hundred, and if a thousand, they will vanquish two thousand, with the leave of Allah. for Allah is with those who patiently persevere.


67 It is not fitting for an apostle that he should have prisoners of war until he hath thoroughly subdued the land. Ye look for the temporal goods of this world; but Allah looketh to the Hereafter: And Allah is Exalted in might, Wise.



From 9:3
And an announcement from Allah and His Messenger, to the people (assembled) on the day of the Great Pilgrimage,- that Allah and His Messenger dissolve (treaty) obligations with the Pagans. If then, ye repent, it were best for you; but if ye turn away, know ye that ye cannot frustrate Allah. And proclaim a grievous penalty to those who reject Faith.

9:5
But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

Remember that a precedent has already been set, to fight in defense. Then consider

(8:13) This because they contended against Allah and His Messenger. If any contend against Allah and His Messenger, Allah is strict in punishment.

(8:38) Say to the Unbelievers, if (now) they desist (from Unbelief), their past would be forgiven them; but if they persist, the punishment of those before them is already (a matter of warning for them).

(8:39) And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere; but if they cease, verily Allah doth see all that they do.

So if you are attacked, then a Muslim has the right to defend him/herself. If they capture unbelievers, and the unbelievers have truly been convinced of God, then they have been forgiven by God, apparently even for their attack. However, if they do not, they are not forgiven. Then 39 is saying that in war, enemies should be fought until the oppression ends (or if they seek peace (if they cease)).

(8:61) But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in Allah. for He is One that heareth and knoweth (all things).

(8:65) O Messenger. rouse the Believers to the fight. If there are twenty amongst you, patient and persevering, they will vanquish two hundred: if a hundred, they will vanquish a thousand of the Unbelievers: for these are a people without understanding.

(8:66) For the present, Allah hath lightened your (task), for He knoweth that there is a weak spot in you: But (even so), if there are a hundred of you, patient and persevering, they will vanquish two hundred, and if a thousand, they will vanquish two thousand, with the leave of Allah. for Allah is with those who patiently persevere.

(8:67) It is not fitting for an apostle that he should have prisoners of war until he hath thoroughly subdued the land. Ye look for the temporal goods of this world; but Allah looketh to the Hereafter: And Allah is Exalted in might, Wise.

Again, peace is the first thing to consider, unless it would be disadvantageous in other ways. Then there is essentially a rallying, that if the believers of God persist in war, they shall succeed. Finally, when it talks about prisoners of war being bad, the Quran is condemning those who go to war for profit and control, notice the words "Ye look for the temporal goods of this world".

(9:4) (But the treaties are) not dissolved with those Pagans with whom ye have entered into alliance and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor aided any one against you. So fulfil your engagements with them to the end of their term: for Allah loveth the righteous.

(9:5) But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

(9:6) If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah. and then escort him to where he can be secure. That is because they are men without knowledge.

The Quran is establishing that those who do not believe in God and break treaties/go against their word are enemies. In other words, lying cheating scumbags are lying cheating scumbags. If they repent and are good, spare them, and if they intend no harm/seek peace, spare them as well (9:6).

fine i give up, but you still have to admit there are a lot of muslims in america, no:D

1.1 million out of 300 million is.... not such a big percentage of them, no.

Did you know that Americans ritually sacrifice children so that their TVs will work on Superbowl Sunday?

DAMN! he knows! *sends out the secret police*

1.1 million out of 300 million is.... not such a big percentage of them, no.

I've seen estimates of around 3 million actually, but then, 1% still isn't a lot. (But just enough to freak out the crazies!)

I've seen estimates of around 3 million actually, but then, 1% still isn't a lot. (But just enough to freak out the crazies!)

Well, I was using RP's numbers. But true, even if it's 3 million, it's not a lot, proportionally.

I think the important point is that one can be a "good muslim" without following every word of the Koran. Just as one can be a "good christian" without following every word of the Bible.

In fact, we should respect a religious follower MORE, not less, for using their judgment to follow one verse rather than another, instead of quoting whichever suits them, to support whatever they were going to do anyway. To admit that their holy book prescribes some terrible vengeful behaviour, yet they will not follow that, is a brave step towards rational morality, towards a sense of right and wrong which is better than "we were just following orders."

I think the important point is that one can be a "good muslim" without following every word of the Koran. Just as one can be a "good christian" without following every word of the Bible.

As asked by someone else here before: if one believes to be able to decide for oneself which parts of the holy book to obey and which to ignore - why do you even need the book in the first place ? Why not be honest about living your life as you consider right, instead of pretending to follow the rules of a book while in reality you just follow the rules you like ?

As asked by someone else here before: if one believes to be able to decide for oneself which parts of the holy book to obey and which to ignore - why do you even need the book in the first place ? Why not be honest about living your life as you consider right, instead of pretending to follow the rules of a book while in reality you just follow the rules you like ?

I consider the rules set forth to be a sort of guideline for what is right.

Well, I was using RP's numbers. But true, even if it's 3 million, it's not a lot, proportionally.

yes but they are funded by saudi petro dollars

Remember that a precedent has already been set, to fight in defense. Then consider

(8:13) This because they contended against Allah and His Messenger. If any contend against Allah and His Messenger, Allah is strict in punishment.

(8:38) Say to the Unbelievers, if (now) they desist (from Unbelief), their past would be forgiven them; but if they persist, the punishment of those before them is already (a matter of warning for them).

(8:39) And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere; but if they cease, verily Allah doth see all that they do.

So if you are attacked, then a Muslim has the right to defend him/herself. If they capture unbelievers, and the unbelievers have truly been convinced of God, then they have been forgiven by God, apparently even for their attack. However, if they do not, they are not forgiven. Then 39 is saying that in war, enemies should be fought until the oppression ends (or if they seek peace (if they cease)).

(8:61) But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in Allah. for He is One that heareth and knoweth (all things).

(8:65) O Messenger. rouse the Believers to the fight. If there are twenty amongst you, patient and persevering, they will vanquish two hundred: if a hundred, they will vanquish a thousand of the Unbelievers: for these are a people without understanding.

(8:66) For the present, Allah hath lightened your (task), for He knoweth that there is a weak spot in you: But (even so), if there are a hundred of you, patient and persevering, they will vanquish two hundred, and if a thousand, they will vanquish two thousand, with the leave of Allah. for Allah is with those who patiently persevere.

(8:67) It is not fitting for an apostle that he should have prisoners of war until he hath thoroughly subdued the land. Ye look for the temporal goods of this world; but Allah looketh to the Hereafter: And Allah is Exalted in might, Wise.

Again, peace is the first thing to consider, unless it would be disadvantageous in other ways. Then there is essentially a rallying, that if the believers of God persist in war, they shall succeed. Finally, when it talks about prisoners of war being bad, the Quran is condemning those who go to war for profit and control, notice the words "Ye look for the temporal goods of this world".

(9:4) (But the treaties are) not dissolved with those Pagans with whom ye have entered into alliance and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor aided any one against you. So fulfil your engagements with them to the end of their term: for Allah loveth the righteous.

(9:5) But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

(9:6) If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah. and then escort him to where he can be secure. That is because they are men without knowledge.

The Quran is establishing that those who do not believe in God and break treaties/go against their word are enemies. In other words, lying cheating scumbags are lying cheating scumbags. If they repent and are good, spare them, and if they intend no harm/seek peace, spare them as well (9:6).

For the most part, I can see where you're coming from, though I think that the verses can be interpreted both ways, depending on what you're looking for. Admittedly, I was looking for verses that imply Muslims are meant to kill infidels. I did so because I've heard of verses like that existing, and from what little I remember of what little I had read of the Koran, I thought I had seen verses like it. You, on the other hand, were looking for a message of self-defense (which I can't condemn) in the writing, and you found one. When looking at it from your point of view, I see your point.
Except with the last example (9:4-9:6). You placed emphasis on honesty and the upholding of treaties; that people who break treaties should be punished. Once again, I tried to look at the verse looking for such a message. Didn't find it. The verse says that if Muslims make treaties with heathens, they have to honor them. That is true. But that's the only place where honoring treaties is important- it's the Muslims, not the pagans, who are asked to uphold their oaths. The emphasis is not placed on fighting and slaying oath-breakers, but slaying unbelievers.
And as soon as the treaty expires, Muslims are required to go out and slay the pagans as they would have done otherwise. The only condition under which the pagans can be spared is if they establish prayer (I assume Muslim prayer) and agree to accept the word of Allah. Furthermore, they must be escorted to "where he can be secure," which you can interpret how you want. I take it to mean some place where he cannot leave.
Keep in mind that Islam, like Christianity, spread by the sword. If it seemed reasonable for them to assume that they were following the word of the Koran, then I'm inclined to agree with them.

For the most part, I can see where you're coming from, though I think that the verses can be interpreted both ways, depending on what you're looking for. Admittedly, I was looking for verses that imply Muslims are meant to kill infidels. I did so because I've heard of verses like that existing, and from what little I remember of what little I had read of the Koran, I thought I had seen verses like it. You, on the other hand, were looking for a message of self-defense (which I can't condemn) in the writing, and you found one. When looking at it from your point of view, I see your point.
Except with the last example (9:4-9:6). You placed emphasis on honesty and the upholding of treaties; that people who break treaties should be punished. Once again, I tried to look at the verse looking for such a message. Didn't find it. The verse says that if Muslims make treaties with heathens, they have to honor them. That is true. But that's the only place where honoring treaties is important- it's the Muslims, not the pagans, who are asked to uphold their oaths. The emphasis is not placed on fighting and slaying oath-breakers, but slaying unbelievers.
And as soon as the treaty expires, Muslims are required to go out and slay the pagans as they would have done otherwise. The only condition under which the pagans can be spared is if they establish prayer (I assume Muslim prayer) and agree to accept the word of Allah. Furthermore, they must be escorted to "where he can be secure," which you can interpret how you want. I take it to mean some place where he cannot leave.
Keep in mind that Islam, like Christianity, spread by the sword. If it seemed reasonable for them to assume that they were following the word of the Koran, then I'm inclined to agree with them.

One can find justification for anything in the Quran if one chooses to ignore certain ayats, but it is the same with any book that covers a wide array of subjects. A general trend I have seen in both those that accuse Islam of seeking to kill infidels and those Muslims who seek to kill infidels is that they both choose to ignore important ayats.

Well, the Quran does not really instruct one on how to pray, just that it should be done, and besides that, there is not a single Muslim prayer. It is generally derived from Hadith (how the prophet supposedly prayed). But that isn't part of the big picture.

You define a place "where he can be secure" as a place where one cannot leave, however, I think it simply means a place where one is safe. A battlefield is certainly not a secure place, so would be necessary to take them to a nearby city or such.

I have shown you some verses early in 9, here's another.

(9:13) Will ye not fight people who violated their oaths, plotted to expel the Messenger, and took the aggressive by being the first (to assault) you? Do ye fear them? Nay, it is Allah Whom ye should more justly fear, if ye believe!


This sura, along with many others, is placing restrictions on aggression. Notice the bolded parts, these are what the Pagans the Quran is talking about have done. The earlier verses you have seen have placed restrictions, and simply because this sura does not discuss them as much does not mean that they do not apply. The Quran is encouraging battle between the unjust, the warmongers, those who oppress Muslims, but it is still a battle of defense.

In general, this sura describes the wrongs of the Pagans of Muhammed's time. It discusses how one can be forgiven by God for them, and how Muslims should react when threatened. A problem I see quite often is how Muslims today see polytheists as somehow more evil than all else, whereas the Quran is showing Muslims what sort of behavior is bad for the soul. There are polytheists today who would not fit these definitions, and monotheists (including so-called "Muslims") who would fit these definitions.

[QUOTE]A general trend I have seen in both those that accuse Islam of seeking to kill infidels and those Muslims who seek to kill infidels is that they both choose to ignore important ayats.

People other than me, you mean. I didn't ignore the verses (or ayats) surrounding the ones I used, and I'm not accusing all Muslims of seeking to kill infidels. I'm saying the ones who do aren't disobeying their faith or "misinterpreting" the Koran. Does no one get that, despite the fact that I keep repeating it?

Well, the Quran does not really instruct one on how to pray, just that it should be done, and besides that, there is not a single Muslim prayer. It is generally derived from Hadith (how the prophet supposedly prayed). But that isn't part of the big picture.

Then why the emphasis in prayer? Why would the verse mention that pagans need to pray to be saved? Who or what do you suppose the writers wanted captured pagans to pray to when they were at the mercy of Muslim captors?

You define a place "where he can be secure" as a place where one cannot leave, however, I think it simply means a place where one is safe. A battlefield is certainly not a secure place, so would be necessary to take them to a nearby city or such.

A place that is safe from what, exactly? The people killing them in this circumstance are the Muslims. I've found that the Wikisource version (which I've been forced to use since I won't be able to get my own copy till I go back to school) is slightly different than the version I've read previously. Words such as "slaughter" have been replaced with words such as "subdue," and I'm guessing that the words "secure place" could very well mean a prison for captives.

I have shown you some verses early in 9, here's another.

(9:13) Will ye not fight people who violated their oaths, plotted to expel the Messenger, and took the aggressive by being the first (to assault) you? Do ye fear them? Nay, it is Allah Whom ye should more justly fear, if ye believe!


This sura, along with many others, is placing restrictions on aggression. Notice the bolded parts, these are what the Pagans the Quran is talking about have done. The earlier verses you have seen have placed restrictions, and simply because this sura does not discuss them as much does not mean that they do not apply. The Quran is encouraging battle between the unjust, the warmongers, those who oppress Muslims, but it is still a battle of defense.

In general, this sura describes the wrongs of the Pagans of Muhammed's time. It discusses how one can be forgiven by God for them, and how Muslims should react when threatened. A problem I see quite often is how Muslims today see polytheists as somehow more evil than all else, whereas the Quran is showing Muslims what sort of behavior is bad for the soul. There are polytheists today who would not fit these definitions, and monotheists (including so-called "Muslims") who would fit these definitions.

Fine. But that's not what the verse I quoted said. It said to kill pagans. It didn't say: "if pagans stop being dishonest, leave 'em alone and let 'em be pagans." (Naturally that's not the style of writing you would expect in the Koran, but you get me ;) )
It just said that pagans must be slain.
It's possible that another verse in the Koran will prove me wrong, in which case I'll have to give up.
'Till then.

I have shown you some verses early in 9, here's another.

(9:13) Will ye not fight people who violated their oaths, plotted to expel the Messenger, and took the aggressive by being the first (to assault) you? Do ye fear them? Nay, it is Allah Whom ye should more justly fear, if ye believe!


This sura, along with many others, is placing restrictions on aggression. Notice the bolded parts, these are what the Pagans the Quran is talking about have done. The earlier verses you have seen have placed restrictions, and simply because this sura does not discuss them as much does not mean that they do not apply. The Quran is encouraging battle between the unjust, the warmongers, those who oppress Muslims, but it is still a battle of defense.




Actually, it seems mostly to be challenging Muslims to fight. Seriously. Look at it.

Actually, it seems mostly to be challenging Muslims to fight. Seriously. Look at it.

It is describing their deeds.

[QUOTE=Zayun2;13342038]

People other than me, you mean. I didn't ignore the verses (or ayats) surrounding the ones I used, and I'm not accusing all Muslims of seeking to kill infidels. I'm saying the ones who do aren't disobeying their faith or "misinterpreting" the Koran. Does no one get that, despite the fact that I keep repeating it?



Then why the emphasis in prayer? Why would the verse mention that pagans need to pray to be saved? Who or what do you suppose the writers wanted captured pagans to pray to when they were at the mercy of Muslim captors?



A place that is safe from what, exactly? The people killing them in this circumstance are the Muslims. I've found that the Wikisource version (which I've been forced to use since I won't be able to get my own copy till I go back to school) is slightly different than the version I've read previously. Words such as "slaughter" have been replaced with words such as "subdue," and I'm guessing that the words "secure place" could very well mean a prison for captives.

I have shown you some verses early in 9, here's another.



Fine. But that's not what the verse I quoted said. It said to kill pagans. It didn't say: "if pagans stop being dishonest, leave 'em alone and let 'em be pagans." (Naturally that's not the style of writing you would expect in the Koran, but you get me ;) )
It just said that pagans must be slain.
It's possible that another verse in the Koran will prove me wrong, in which case I'll have to give up.
'Till then.

Well, if they are being attacked or oppressed, and they defend themselves, then they are following the Quran. If they are merely acting as aggressors, then no, they are picking and choosing verses, while destroying context and ignoring other verses.

Quite simple, if they want redemption from God, then they are given redemption for belief and for prayer to God. It is telling Muslims that regardless of their past sins, they can be forgiven by belief in God.

My Quran at home says "their sanctuary" rather than "a safe place". Doesn't sound much like a prison, rather a home.

I will say this part for the last time, war is not simply sanctioned in the Quran. I have already provided you several ayats from the same sura which create prerequisites for such warfare (as well as general protection for any who seek peace). There are ayats from other suras that I have shown you from other suras which establish the same things. One must look at all the verses to understand what is truly being preached, and by simply taking one ayat, and forgetting those around it, before it, and after it, you destroy the true message, just as those that advocate slaughter do.

The Quran itself says to be merciful to those that seek mercy, to honor one's committments. So called Muslims who do not follow these ayats cannot claim to be doing what the Quran tells them. Extremists knowlingly ignore important verses and context to support their actions, and indoctrinate the uneducated with them, similar to how anti-Islamic sites take single verses from the Quran and pretend that these verses tell the entire story.

It is describing their deeds.

How do you figure? It first asks whether or not Muslims will stand against aggressors (which again, I don't condemn) and then asks if they're afraid of doing so. It says that they have no one to fear but Allah.
Of course, that's irrelevant, since it pertains to self-defense rather than unbelievers, which is what I am talking about. So, now that we've cleared that up, let's move on.

[QUOTE=Isle de Tortue;13342596]

[QUOTE]Well, if they are being attacked or oppressed, and they defend themselves, then they are following the Quran.

Okay. I'm fine with self-defense. EDIT: To a degree. Self-defense can be taken to an extreme, but there are verses in the Koran that are meant to check people against excessive violence. Just to clear that up.

If they are merely acting as aggressors, then no, they are picking and choosing verses, while destroying context and ignoring other verses.

Please clarify how they are doing this. I think that the verses I cited (9:4-9:6) are pretty clear about how pagans are to be treated. It mentions repentance and forgiveness, certainly, but repentance for what? The only "offense" mentioned therein is the offense of being pagan. No mention of treaty-breaking is made, save that Muslims shouldn't do it.

Quite simple, if they want redemption from God, then they are given redemption for belief and for prayer to God. It is telling Muslims that regardless of their past sins, they can be forgiven by belief in God.

Why do you mention that?

My Quran at home says "their sanctuary" rather than "a safe place". Doesn't sound much like a prison, rather a home.

Okay. Just seemed like awkward phrasing to me.

I will say this part for the last time, war is not simply sanctioned in the Quran. I have already provided you several ayats from the same sura which create prerequisites for such warfare (as well as general protection for any who seek peace). There are ayats from other suras that I have shown you from other suras which establish the same things. One must look at all the verses to understand what is truly being preached, and by simply taking one ayat, and forgetting those around it, before it, and after it, you destroy the true message, just as those that advocate slaughter do.

I would need some kind of verse that said, plain and simple: "Don't kill people just because they're different." You've given plenty of rules that address when it's acceptable to kill, and rules stating that enemies who surrender and hear the word of Allah should be spared. But 9:4-9:6 condone the killing of pagans, and only a direct contradiction would make that otherwise.

The Quran itself says to be merciful to those that seek mercy, to honor one's committments.

Where do they have to make a commitment not to kill people based on religion?

When you read the Qur'an, there are very peaceful verses written earlier in his life, followed by verses which encourage war on nonbelievers written later.
Muhammad was its lone "prophet", who made no prophecies. When you consider the guy had 12 marriages, one of which to a 6 year old girl...so we could also include pedophilia....raped and murdered. All of which is documented by arab historians....can we really trust the 'peace' of the Qur'an?

When you read the Qur'an, there are very peaceful verses written earlier in his life, followed by verses which encourage war on nonbelievers written later.
Muhammad was its lone "prophet", who made no prophecies. When you consider the guy had 12 marriages, one of which to a 6 year old girl...so we could also include pedophilia....raped and murdered. All of which is documented by arab historians....can we really trust the 'peace' of the Qur'an?

I know what you mean. Still, it's important we focus on the Koran itself, not the man who wrote it- otherwise we may miss the point. While Mohammed had no shortage of flaws, the only place where we can look for flaws in the Muslim faith itself is in its holy document.
Since the Koran was written over a period of thirty years, you could expect that there would be some contradiction in it (this, of course, would mean that if it was "revealed" by God, that God himself is inconsistent). So good point there.

My biggest problem so far is that though the Koran seems to have no shortage of good-sounding causes (Fight oppresion, stand up for yourself, etc.) the verses cited so far don't really define oppression.
Couldn't "radicals" like Osama bin Laden feel oppressed, therefore making 9-11 a Koran-approved attack?
I'll go looking for an ayat that clearly defines when you're being oppressed and what you're allowed to do about it.

[QUOTE=Zayun2;13342641][QUOTE=Isle de Tortue;13342596]



Okay. I'm fine with self-defense. EDIT: To a degree. Self-defense can be taken to an extreme, but there are verses in the Koran that are meant to check people against excessive violence. Just to clear that up.



Please clarify how they are doing this. I think that the verses I cited (9:4-9:6) are pretty clear about how pagans are to be treated. It mentions repentance and forgiveness, certainly, but repentance for what? The only "offense" mentioned therein is the offense of being pagan. No mention of treaty-breaking is made, save that Muslims shouldn't do it.



Why do you mention that?



Okay. Just seemed like awkward phrasing to me.



I would need some kind of verse that said, plain and simple: "Don't kill people just because they're different." You've given plenty of rules that address when it's acceptable to kill, and rules stating that enemies who surrender and hear the word of Allah should be spared. But 9:4-9:6 condone the killing of pagans, and only a direct contradiction would make that otherwise.



Where do they have to make a commitment not to kill people based on religion?

Let me put it this way, the Quran is not of much use today unless you use it as an example book. The Quran is filled with many historical examples, and what occurred. In essence, since this book is rather old, we must analyze it carefully if we are to gain any useful advice (nowadays) from it.

We have these Pagans, they deny that God exists, they have attacked Muslims before, and will possbily do so again. They have broken treaties with Muslims. They oppress Muslims. And so on and so forth.

So, to apply this sura to today, we can see that part of this sura essentially serves to tell Muslims when a war of aggression is justified. As it says later, hypocrites (those who claim to believe in God but don't) are as bad as unbelievers, which leads us to this...

-It must be a nation of hypocrites/nonbelievers (believers being suscribers of a monotheistic religion).

-They must be prone to breaking agreements.

-They must act oppressively to Islam.

-They must act aggressively (have attacked Muslims, likely to do so again).

-This list goes onwards, but these are some basic traits.

So we have some prior conditions for a just war, but also restrictions.

-Any that seek war (engage in battle, are captured) must be released/forgiven if they accept God.

-Any that seek peace should be told the word of God, but it is not compulsory that they convert.

-And so on...

So we have the groundwork of when it is ok to declare war.

However, in any case, suicide bombings would be illegal, based on two points.

-Suicide is illegal, and is not striving in the way of God (all wars should be fought in a way that is Islamic).

-Those that seek peace are killed, rather than those that seek battle. This is condemned by the Quran.

So while a war against the US could be justified (even that would be debateable), the attacks of 9-11 cannot be justified.

I will say this though, if you wish to continue this discussion, I have no problems, however, I request you to make a thread. The purpose of this thread is not to discuss what Islam condemns and allows. This hijacking must stop.

When you read the Qur'an, there are very peaceful verses written earlier in his life, followed by verses which encourage war on nonbelievers written later.
Muhammad was its lone "prophet", who made no prophecies. When you consider the guy had 12 marriages, one of which to a 6 year old girl...so we could also include pedophilia....raped and murdered. All of which is documented by arab historians....can we really trust the 'peace' of the Qur'an?

I have discussed this in your thread, perhaps you'd care to read it.

I could be wrong, but I think it was a joke.

I certainly hope so. I hope Llewdor's post below was also a joke.

Arab and Jewish are Semites

I know that, but most people think of "anti-Semite" as meaning only anti-Jewish and not anti-Arab.

While not directed at me, I must admit I quite strongly dislike the Jewish faith. Since most Jews choose to adhere to a faith I somewhat despise, liking them must be a form of selfdelusional doublethink.

Fortunately I am good at that.

Well...not liking the Jewish faith is a different matter; it's being biased against the Jewish people that I'm talking about.

Since all religious people are irrational and thus dangerous, rounding up one group isn't such a bad idea.

PLEASE tell me you're being sarcastic.

Religious people are NOT all irrational, NOR are they all dangerous.

Well...not liking the Jewish faith is a different matter; it's being biased against the Jewish people that I'm talking about.

The people adhere to the faith, right ?

PLEASE tell me you're being sarcastic.
I may have been employing hyperbole, but not sarcasm.
Religious people are NOT all irrational, NOR are they all dangerous.
Let's first establish that all irrational people are potentially dangerous as their behaviour is necessarily unpredictable, and wholly so.

Now, let's look at religion. Religion requires of its adherents a strong belief in the absence of evidence. That's irrational by definition.

Let's first establish that all irrational people are potentially dangerous as their behaviour is necessarily unpredictable, and wholly so.

Now, let's look at religion. Religion requires of its adherents a strong belief in the absence of evidence. That's irrational by definition.

All people are potentially dangerous, rational or otherwise.

Now, let's look at religion. Religion requires of its adherents a strong belief in the absence of evidence. That's irrational by definition. Faith. Thats is what it is. There are some things that can't be explained, yet many can through reason, logic, and science. And anyone who says religion perverts science is a lunatic. And those who claim science perverts religion are just as loony. It takes just as much faith to believe that the Big Bang occured as it does to believe that Jesus died for your sins and is the Son of God.

As for the topic: I will not yield to Islam. I will not submit to the dhimma, I view mohammed as a pedophilliac murder, and that the riots after the cartoon out of Denmark were released revealed their true nature.
Not to say that there aren't any good muslims out there. Quite to the contrary I've met several very decent people who follow the Koran. But I believe Islam is inherently flawed and dangerous.

[QUOTE=Isle de Tortue;13342766][QUOTE=Zayun2;13342641]


I will say this though, if you wish to continue this discussion, I have no problems, however, I request you to make a thread. The purpose of this thread is not to discuss what Islam condemns and allows. This hijacking must stop.


Heh. Hijacking. Nice word choice.
K you probably won't laugh at that, so sorry.
But in all seriousness, you're right. This debate is going nowhere, and I don't have the energy to keep it up or the desire to start a separate thread. So consider it finished.

I know that, but most people think of "anti-Semite" as meaning only anti-Jewish and not anti-Arab.


which shows they are racists who want our oil ;)

As for the topic: I will not yield to Islam. I will not submit to the dhimma, I view mohammed as a pedophilliac murder, and that the riots after the cartoon out of Denmark were released revealed their true nature.
Not to say that there aren't any good muslims out there. Quite to the contrary I've met several very decent people who follow the Koran. But I believe Islam is inherently flawed and dangerous.

you can believe whatever you want, and think of people whatever you want, you think that way about the prophet muhamad fine that how you think, you think that way about islam, fine thats how you think, people believe what they want to believe and thats that no good reason to try and change their minds *shrugs* :cool:

Sounds good to me. Maybe then we could do the same thing to xtian fundies.

Yeah, about that, the country was founded by Christian "fundies" so chances are without them, you wouldn't be here...

just out of curiosity, how do you think terrorist hijackings would unfold if honest citizens weren't barred from packing heat whilee flying?

contrary to urban legend, a bullet hole in the fuselage would not suck passengers out or cause the plane to disintegrate.

inagine the hijacker's face when he saw a dozen .45's and 9mm's with the buisness ends facing him? I don't think he'd get far.

I don't think we need to hunt them down. just let the suicidal ones die by the hands of free peole defending themselves. maybe a tad more dangerous for us, but less collateral damage against those we would otherwise invade.

feel free to abuse this. i'm not a pacifist or an isolationist, just a pistol-packing non-interventionalist.

just out of curiosity, how do you think terrorist hijackings would unfold if honest citizens weren't barred from packing heat whilee flying?

Very messily, since the terrorists would have an easier time getting guns on the plane. And they would have the element of surprise.

Yeah, about that, the country was founded by Christian "fundies" so chances are without them, you wouldn't be here...

Not really. Many of the founding fathers were deists, but not particularly Christian. The fundies have just hijacked the agenda since then.

Now, let's look at religion. Religion requires of its adherents a strong belief in the absence of evidence.

So does neoclassical economics. It offers a whole lot of rational "theory" without much real world evidence to back it up. Doesn't stop you from believing in it (or at least, aspiring to it).

As for the topic: I will not yield to Islam. I will not submit to the dhimma, I view mohammed as a pedophilliac murder, and that the riots after the cartoon out of Denmark were released revealed their true nature.
Not to say that there aren't any good muslims out there. Quite to the contrary I've met several very decent people who follow the Koran. But I believe Islam is inherently flawed and dangerous.

I think this post has revealed your true nature.

just out of curiosity, how do you think terrorist hijackings would unfold if honest citizens weren't barred from packing heat whilee flying?

contrary to urban legend, a bullet hole in the fuselage would not suck passengers out or cause the plane to disintegrate.

inagine the hijacker's face when he saw a dozen .45's and 9mm's with the buisness ends facing him? I don't think he'd get far.

I don't think we need to hunt them down. just let the suicidal ones die by the hands of free peole defending themselves. maybe a tad more dangerous for us, but less collateral damage against those we would otherwise invade.

feel free to abuse this. i'm not a pacifist or an isolationist, just a pistol-packing non-interventionalist.

I think that people staffing the plane (stewardesses, pilots, whatever) should have to take mandatory self-defense classes. I don't know about guns on planes, or even about snakes, but maybe you're right about the gun thing. If so, arm them. If not, tasers/mace/rubber bullets, that type of thing would be fine. Not just because it would make airplanes much safer, but because it would make stewardesses much hotter.
I disagree on your point that Average Joes should be locked and loaded on airplanes. I'm not sure how I feel about all forms of gun control, but on a plane... eh bad idea.

Rudy is simply trying to play the 9/11 ebil islamist card again. It's pretty tired in many areas but obviously some will listen to it.

There is nothing to fear as the Muslim can't do much in this country. The Constitution stands in their way for any stuff like Shira.

Personally, I think Islam is the current fad in this country as was being a hippy, a buddist, that thing Madonna is into, Scientology, a communist, a facist, etc.

It will have it's rise and taper off just like the rest.

do you know theres 1.5 billion muslims in the world compared to 14 million jews?and theres 9 million muslims keeping a low profile in the us?of course most of them do not hate americans

do you know theres 1.5 billion muslims in the world compared to 14 million jews?and theres 9 million muslims keeping a low profile in the us?of course most of them do not hate americans

After two years I'm sure he'll be thankful for the fucking update moron.

after two years i'm sure he'll be thankful for the fucking update moron.

lol

After two years I'm sure he'll be thankful for the fucking update moron.

Hehe :)

1st PAGE.

Christian Wedlock.

QUESTION:
Can a woman have more than two husbands?

ANSWER:
No, a woman cannot have more than two living husbands. A man has no choice, as he must be in wedlock with one wife. But a woman has three choices. Firstly, no wedlock with a husband. Secondly, wedlock with one husband. Or thirdly, wedlock with two husbands. That’s it, there are no further choices for a woman, and there is no choice at all for a man.

1 Corinthians 7:2 King James 1611.
Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

Yr. 1783. 10th George Prince of Wales Own Hussars. (King George III).
Yr. 1898. 19th Alexandra Princess of Wales Own Hussars. (Queen Victoria).

Therefore two women can own a regiment of cavalry, and two men can own a regiment of cavalry.

1 Corinthians 6:16 King James 1611.
What! know ye not that he which is joined to a harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.

Therefore in the New Testament a man and woman lying together are one flesh, as follows:

A husband and wife who lie together by carnal copulation shall be one flesh.

A man and courtesan/prostitute who lie together by carnal copulation shall be one flesh.

A man and common courtesan or common prostitute who lie together by carnal copulation shall be one flesh.

An adulterer and adultress who lie together by carnal copulation shall be one flesh.

An adulterer and fornicatress who lie together by carnal copulation shall be one flesh.

A fornicator and adultress who lie together by carnal copulation shall be one flesh.

A fornicator and fornicatress who lie together by carnal copulation shall be one flesh.

Clearly the New Testament lays down that a man must be in wedlock with his own wife, and a woman must be in wedlock with her own husband. Furthermore the New Testament specifically limits the number of wives that a man can have to only one, but sets no limit to the number of husbands a woman can have. But there must be some limit for a woman, or one woman could be in wedlock with thousands of men. Rationally, if one woman can satisfy the bodily lust of one man every day, and forty men can satisfy the bodily lust of one woman every day, then is one wife for every man and forty husbands for every woman what the New Testament requires? No, because the New Testament is a document of truth, not a document of reason.

2nd PAGE.

Luke 1:28 King James 1611.
Luke 1:31 King James 1611.
Luke 1:28-35 King James 1611.
In the New Testament, the angel Gabriel came in unto Mary, a virgin woman, and Mary conceived and delivered her firstborn son, Jesus, the son being God the Son, the father being God the Father. And when Mary’s womb delivered her firstborn son Jesus unto the world, then Mary was like all women delivered of a firstborn son unto the world, as a woman’s firstborn son can never belong to the mother but must belong to the Lord God.

Luke 2:23 King James 1611.
Exodus 13:2&12 King James 1611.
And so like all women delivered of a firstborn son, Mary was no longer a virgin woman, but like all said women, Mary was a holy woman.

Matthew 13:53-56 King James 1611.
Mark 6:1-4 King James 1611.
And husband Joseph Jacob came in unto Mary and husband Joseph Heli came in unto Mary, and Mary conceived and delivered Jesus’ brothers, James, Joses, Simon, Judas, and also Jesus’ sisters.

Matthew 1:6&16 King James 1611.
Luke 3:23&31 King James 1611.
Joseph Jacob was the descendent of King David’s son Solomon, and Joseph Heli was the descendent of King David’s son Nathan.

Genesis 38:16-18 King James 1611.
“Came in unto her” means congress or carnal copulation. In the Old Testament, Judah came in unto Tamar, his daughter-in-law, and Tamar conceived and delivered twin sons. Tamar had lain in wait for Judah on the side of a far away road, and Judah had been unable to recognize Tamar because she was wearing a veil, and only common harlots wore veils. Upon first seeing this strange woman wearing a veil, Judah bargained a payment of his personal signet ring, his personal wrist bangles, and his personal walking staff, for coming in unto her. Tamar had been in wedlock with Judah’s first son, who God had killed for being wicked. Tamar had then been in wedlock with Judah’s second son, who God had then killed when he saw the second son deliberately spill his seed on the ground during carnal copulation with Tamar. Judah then pledged Tamar that she could marry his third son when he became old enough for wedlock. But when his third son became old enough to marry, Judah broke his pledge and forbade his third son to marry Tamar. When Tamar was seen in her third month to be heavy with child, Judah was told that Tamar was with child through harlotry. Judah then summoned Tamar to him in order to be burnt to death for harlotry. Tamar came and Judah demanded that Tamar tell him by which man she was with child. Tamar then produced the signet ring, the wrist bangles, and the walking staff, and said the man who gave me these is the man by whom I am with child. Then Judah confessed to all that he had broken his pledge and sinned by going back on his word that Tamar could have wedlock with his third son when his third son became of age, and then denying such wedlock to her. Six months later Tamar safely gave birth to the twin sons conceived with Judah.

3rd PAGE.

Genesis 1:27-28 King James 1611.
Genesis 2:7&18-19 King James 1611.
Genesis 3:20 King James 1611.
The first man and first woman in this world were Adam and Eve. Adam means “man” in the hebrew tongue, and Eve means “life” in the hebrew tongue. Therefore a man is man, but a woman is life.

Romans 7:4-6 King James 1611.
Old Testament law dead and gives as an example that a woman can have more than one husband.

1 Timothy 3:2 King James 1611.
A bishop can have only one wife, and as he must be an example to other men, a man can have only one wife.

1 Timothy 3:12 King James 1611.
A deacon can have only one wife, and as he must be an example to other men, a man can have only one wife.

Titus 1:6 King James 1611.
An elder can have only one wife.

1 Timothy 5:4&9***King James 1611.***
Elders are not to provide for widows under three score years of age without children, who have only had one husband.

The Estate of Marriage. Martin Luther 1522.
Although Martin Luther confirmed that a woman could have two husbands, he nevertheless immediately restricted it to women who were in a marriage which had produced no children and who had then obtained permission from their first husband to take their second husband. Confusingly, Martin Luther did not make it clear as to how long a woman had to wait before taking her second husband.

To sum up, the New Testament upholds the example of deacons, elders, and bishops, for men to follow. That example is one wife. The New Testament also lays down that the Old Testament no longer applies to men or women, except for the 10 Commandments, and gives as an example of this that a woman is no longer bound to have only one husband. If men must follow the example of the male Christian leader, whether bishop, deacon, or elder, then surely women must follow the example of the female Christian leader. What leader is that? The primary one in the New Testament is Mary, the Mother of Jesus, God the Son.

Luke 1:35&41 King James 1611.
Mary had carnal copulation with three men. The Angel Gabriel, Joseph Jacob, and Joseph Heli. However, Mary was only in wedlock with two men, Joseph Jacob, and Joseph Heli. Furthermore, the Angel Gabriel was not a man of this world, and he seems not to have taken a fully visible male form when he had carnal copulation with Mary as ordered by God the Father, for it appears that at some stage God the Holy Ghost came upon or entered Mary. Either this was at the moment Mary conceived or immediately afterwards. After Mary conceived, she immediately went to visit her cousin Elisabeth, who was six months with child, a son, who also had been conceived when Elisabeth had been filled by God the Holy Ghost.

4th PAGE.

Accordingly it would be fully in accordance with the New Testament for a man to have one wife, and a woman to have two husbands. That the Angel Gabriel had carnal copulation with Mary is both interesting and theologically necessary, but it is not enough of an example for a woman to attempt to take a third husband in wedlock, whilst her first and second husbands still liveth.

Matthew 19:11-12 King James 1611.
The New Testament does not give man any choice; he must have wedlock with one woman. Although do bear in mind that Jesus, God the Son, was not in wedlock with any woman.

But the New Testament gives a woman three choices.

1st Choice:
Virgin woman without wedlock.

2nd Choice:
Virgin woman with one husband in wedlock without child.
Virgin woman with one husband in wedlock with female child or female children.
Holy woman with one husband in wedlock with firstborn male child.
Holy woman with one husband in wedlock with male child or children together with female child or children.

3rd Choice:
Holy woman with two husbands in wedlock with firstborn male child.
Holy woman with two husbands in wedlock with male child or children together with female child or children.

A number of denominations have a service for wedlock, but so far every one of them has inserted words that clearly say a woman may be in wedlock with only one man at a time. Even the State Lutheran Evangelical Church of Sweden states this, despite Martin Luther himself saying that a wife can be in wedlock with two living husbands.

But what do you expect. After all, Martin Luther stated in writing that under no circumstances was anyone to call himself a “Lutheran” and under no circumstances was any church to call itself a “Lutheran Church”. So what do all northern europeans called themselves? Lutherans! Ask them what church they belong to? The Lutheran Church!

A number of denominations do not have any service for wedlock, on the grounds that wedlock is not a church matter, as it is a state matter. But every such denomination has nevertheless inserted words in that denomination’s discussion of wedlock, that firmly says that a woman can only have one husband in wedlock at a time.

Nowhere do any of the denominations give any explanation for their defiance of the New Testament. Of course that just might be because there is neither any justifiable explanation or excusable explanation for such defiance.

Still, just looking at using only the principle of choice as a guide, all the above denominations are pointing in the right direction, even if they are not pointing down the correct path.

5th PAGE.

That is, a man has no choice, he must make efforts to be in wedlock with one wife at some stage of his life here in this world.

And a woman still has a choice, in that she may choose not to be in wedlock with a man in this world, or she may choose to be in wedlock with one husband at some stage of her life here in this world. This means that the principle of a woman having a choice remains intact.

The defiance of both the Lord God and the New Testament by the various denominations by the removal of a woman’s option to make efforts to be in wedlock with two husbands at the same time at some stage of her life in this world, still leaves intact the principle of choice for the woman and no choice for the man.

Constitution of The Spartans (Xenophon). 388 B.C.
League of The Iroquois (Lewis Henry Morgan). 1851 A.D.
Only two non-christian groups in the world have been known to practice New Testament wedlock. The Spartans and the Mohawk.

Only monandry and diandry, or New Testament style wedlock, was lawful among the Spartans, citizens of the greatest of the greek city-states, Sparta, and history’s final saviours of Western Civilization at Thermopylae (The Hot Gates) in 480 B.C.

And only monandry and diandry, or New Testament style wedlock, was lawful among the Mohawk, citizens of the greatest of the eastern woodland North American tribes, which forever blocked France’s attempt to seize New York so as to split England’s colonies in twain.

Much criticism of both the Spartans and the Mohawk, has been leveled by outsiders who complain of the extreme freedom of the females and the extreme militarism of the males. It must be noted that there is no record of any Spartan male, Spartan female, Mohawk male, or Mohawk female, complaining of female freedom or male militarism.

Whatever your point of view on Spartan life or Mohawk life, the New Testament lays down cast-iron guidelines for wedlock. The fact that the New Testament complies with Spartan law and Mohawk law is irrelevant.

Of absolutely no relevance to this discussion, the symbol of the United States of America is the bald headed eagle, which is a species that uses both monandry and diandry for conception, and where the one male or two males reside in the exactly the same nest as the one female. The one female and either the one male or two males, stay in the nest together and raise the chick together.

Mark 10:7 King James 1611.
Ephesians 5:31 King James 1611.
Both husbands must leave their families to go and become a member of the wife’s family, or the one husband must leave his family to go and become a member of the wife’s family.

THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS MOHAMMEDRY.
THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS POLYGAMY.
THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS CLITORECTI.
THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS MONKERY.
THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS POPERY.
THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS CASTRATI.

6th PAGE.

CAPITAL LAWES OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE MOHAWK.

1st. If any person within this Government of The Mohawk shall by direct, exprest, impious, or presumptuous ways, deny the true God and his Attributes; he shall be put to death.

2nd. If any person within this Government of The Mohawk shall maliciously and on purpose deny that any Mohawk person may have arms for his defence suitable to his condition and as allowed by law; he shall be put to death.

3rd. If any person shall commit any willful murder, which is manslaughter, committed upon malice, hatred, or cruelty, not in a man’s necessary or just defence, nor by mere casualty against his will; he shall be put to death.

4th. If any person shall slay, or cause another to be slain by guile or by poisoning or any such wicked conspiracy; he shall be put to death.

5th. If any man or woman shall lye with any beast or brute creature by carnal copulation; they shall be put to death, and the beast shall be burned.

6th. If any man lyeth with a man or mankind as he lyeth with a woman; they shall be put to death, unless the one party were forced or under fourteen years of age, in which case he shall not be punished.

7th. If any man forcibly stealth or carrieth away any woman or womankind; he shall be put to death.

8th. If any person shall bear false witness maliciously and on purpose to take away any person’s life; he shall be put to death.

9th. If any man shall traitorously deny his Clanmother’s right and titles to her Eagle Feathers and Dominions, or shall raise arms to resist her Authority; he shall be put to death.

10th. If any man shall treacherously conspire or publiquely attempt, to invade or surprise any town or towns, fort or forts, within this Government of the Mohawk; he shall be put to death.

11th. If any child or children, above sixteen years of age, and of sufficient understanding, shall smite his or their Natural Mother or Lodgemother, unless thereunto provoked and foret for the self preservation from death or mayming, then at the complaint of the said Mother and Lodgemother, and not otherwise, they being sufficient witnesses thereof; that child or those children so offending shall be put to death.

12th. If any stubborn and rebellious son or sons, above sixteen years of age, and of sufficient understanding, shall not obey the voice of his or their Natural Mother or Lodgemother, and that when the said Mother or Lodgemother have chastened such son or sons will not hearken unto them, then at the complaint of the said Mother and Lodgemother, and not otherwise, they being sufficient witnesses thereof; that son or those sons so offending shall be put to death.

7th PAGE.

13th. If any unmarryed man above twentyeight years of age and under fortytwo years of age shall maliciously and on purpose refuse wedlock for over fourteen days with any marryed woman under sixtythree years of age, said marryed woman having borne a son, or unmarryed woman under sixtythree years of age; he shall be put to death.

14th. If any person shall maliciously and on purpose deny any marryed woman wedlock with two husbands, said marryed woman having borne a son, or any unmarryed woman wedlock with one husband; he shall be put to death.

15th. If any marryed man shall lye with a woman by carnal copulation, other than his one wife; he shall be put to death.

16th. If any marryed woman shall lye with a man by carnal copulation, other than her two husbands or one husband; she shall be put to death.

17th. If any unmarryed man shall lye with a woman by carnal copulation; he shall be whipt thirteen strokes, unless he hath his Natural Mother and Lodgemother authorities, in which case he shall not be punished.

18th. If any unmarryed woman shall lye with a man by carnal copulation; she shall be whipt three strokes, unless she hath her Natural Mother and Lodgemother authorities, in which case she shall not be punished.

19th. If any person shall geld any man or mankind to take away generative power or virility; he shall be put to death.

20th. If any person shall geld any woman or womankind; he shall be put to death.

1st PAGE..

Its been done before...

Peachperry mate fuck off.