Pirate 4x4 banner

241 - 260 of 539 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
69,483 Posts
^Was talking the quoted verse in the article.

One can find just as many egregious examples in the old testament.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
69,483 Posts
Jesus said he was "the way and the truth and the life" and "nobody cometh unto the father except through me".

If you are "open to the ideas of other faiths" you are NOT a Christian.
I respectfully disagree.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
642 Posts
From the Hadith:



Bukhari (52:269) - "The Prophet said, 'War is deceit.'" The context of this is thought to be the murder of Usayr ibn Zarim and his thirty unarmed men by Muhammad's men after he "guaranteed" them safe passage (see Additional Notes below).

Bukhari (49:857) - "He who makes peace between the people by inventing good information or saying good things, is not a liar." Lying is permitted when the end justifies the means.

Bukhari (84:64-65) - Speaking from a position of power at the time, Ali confirms that lying is permissible in order to deceive an "enemy."

Muslim (32:6303) - "...he did not hear that exemption was granted in anything what the people speak as lie but in three cases: in battle, for bringing reconciliation amongst persons and the narration of the words of the husband to his wife, and the narration of the words of a wife to her husband (in a twisted form in order to bring reconciliation between them)."


Bukhari (50:369) - Recounts the murder of a poet, Ka'b bin al-Ashraf, at Muhammad's insistence. The men who volunteered for the assassination used dishonesty to gain Ka'b's trust, pretending that they had turned against Muhammad. This drew the victim out of his fortress, whereupon he was brutally slaughtered despite putting up a ferocious struggle for his life.

From Islamic Law:

Reliance of the Traveler (p. 746 - 8.2) - "Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible (N:i.e. when the purpose of lying is to circumvent someone who is preventing one from doing something permissible), and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory... it is religiously precautionary in all cases to employ words that give a misleading impression...

"One should compare the bad consequences entailed by lying to those entailed by telling the truth, and if the consequences of telling the truth are more damaging, one is entitled to lie.

Additional Notes:

Muslims are allowed to lie to unbelievers in order to defeat them. The two forms are:

Taqiyya - Saying something that isn't true.

Kitman - Lying by omission. An example would be when Muslim apologists quote only a fragment of verse 5:32 (that if anyone kills "it shall be as if he had killed all mankind") while neglecting to mention that the rest of the verse (and the next) mandate murder in undefined cases of "corruption" and "mischief."

Though not called Taqiyya by name, Muhammad clearly used deception when he signed a 10-year treaty with the Meccans that allowed him access to their city while he secretly prepared his own forces for a takeover. The unsuspecting residents were conquered in easy fashion after he broke the treaty two years later, and some of the people in the city who had trusted him at his word were executed.

Another example of lying is when Muhammad used deception to trick his personal enemies into letting down their guard and exposing themselves to slaughter by pretending to seek peace. This happened in the case of Ka'b bin al-Ashraf (as previously noted) and again later against Usayr ibn Zarim, a surviving leader of the Banu Nadir tribe, which had been evicted from their home in Medina by the Muslims.

At the time, Usayr ibn Zarim was attempting to gather an armed force against the Muslims from among a tribe allied with the Quraish (against which Muhammad had already declared war). Muhammad's "emissaries" went to ibn Zarim and persuaded him to leave his safe haven on the pretext of meeting with the prophet of Islam in Medina to discuss peace. Once vulnerable, the leader and his thirty companions were massacred by the Muslims with ease, belying the probability that they were mostly unarmed, having been given a guarantee of safe passage (Ibn Ishaq 981).

Such was the reputation of Muslims for lying and then killing that even those who "accepted Islam" did not feel entirely safe. The fate of the Jadhima is tragic evidence for this. When Muslim "missionaries" approached their tribe one of the members insisted that they would be slaughtered even though they had already "converted" to Islam to avoid just such a demise. However, the others were convinced that they could trust the Muslim leader's promise that they would not be harmed if they simply offered no resistance. (After convincing the skeptic to lay down his arms, the unarmed men of the tribe were quickly tied up and beheaded - Ibn Ishaq 834 & 837).

Today's Muslims often try to justify Muhammad's murder of poets and others who criticized him at Medina by saying that they broke a treaty by their actions. Yet, these same apologists place little value on treaties broken by Muslims. From Muhammad to Saddam Hussein, promises made to non-Muslim are distinctly non-binding in the Muslim mindset.


Leaders in the Arab world routinely say one thing to English-speaking audiences and then something entirely different to their own people in Arabic. Yassir Arafat was famous for telling Western newspapers about his desire for peace with Israel, then turning right around and whipping Palestinians into a hateful and violent frenzy against Jews.

The 9/11 hijackers practiced deception by going into bars and drinking alcohol, thus throwing off potential suspicion that they were fundamentalists plotting jihad. This effort worked so well, in fact, that even weeks after 9/11, John Walsh, the host of a popular American television show, said that their bar trips were evidence of 'hypocrisy.'

The transmission from Flight 93 records the hijackers telling their doomed passengers that there is "a bomb on board" but that everyone will "be safe" as long as "their demands are met." Obviously none of these things were true, but these men, who were so intensely devoted to Islam that they were willing to "slay and be slain for the cause of Allah" (as the Qur'an puts it) saw nothing wrong with employing Taqiyya in order to facilitate their mission of mass murder.

The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) insists that it "has not now or ever been involved with the Muslim Brotherhood, or supported any covert, illegal, or terrorist activity or organization." In fact, it was created by the Muslim Brotherhood and has bankrolled Hamas. At least nine founders or board members of ISNA have been accused by prosecutors of supporting terrorism.

Prior to engineering several deadly terror plots, such as the Fort Hood massacre and the attempt to blow up a Detroit-bound airliner, American cleric Anwar al-Awlaki was regularly sought out by NPR, PBS and even government leaders to expound on the peaceful nature of Islam.

The Quran says in several places that Allah is the best at deceiving people. An interesting side note is verse 7:99, which says that the only people who feel secure from Allah are actually those who will perish in Hell. Taken literally, this would mean that those Muslims who arrogantly assume that they will enter heaven are in for a rude surprise (such are the hazards of worshipping an all-powerful deceiver).

The near absence of Qur'anic verse and reliable Hadith that encourage truthfulness is somewhat surprising, given that many Muslims are convinced that their religion teaches honesty. In fact, it is because of this ingrained belief that many Muslims are quite honest. When lying is addressed in the Qur'an, it is nearly always in reference to the "lies against Allah" - referring to the Jews and Christians who rejected Muhammad's claim to being a prophet.

Finally, the circumstances by which Muhammad allowed a believer to lie to a non-spouse are limited to those that either advance the cause of Islam or enable a Muslim to avoid harm to his well-being (and presumably that of other Muslims as well). Although this should be kept very much in mind when dealing with matters of global security, such as Iran's nuclear intentions, it is not grounds for assuming that the Muslim one might personally encounter on the street or in the workplace is any less honest than anyone else.
 

·
Change is good.
Joined
·
35,188 Posts
I'm french and in France, I'll try to keep you guys posted with what's happening with official news from quality sources.

BBC and Fox had been very unreliable with their coverage of the previous attacks in January.

So far 42 deaths are confirmed, terrorists still at large.

So far, my personal biggest concern is that :



I was supposed to take a plane early next week to go to the US. Idk if it's gonna happen.
Bebop,

I specifically remember the French Government condemning the attacks of 9/11, and of public memorials by the French people for those that died that day. So if you need any A10's, or extra cruise missiles to help them on their way back to 700AD, just ask.:mad3:

Sorry for your losses, and stay safe.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
108,054 Posts
Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing...
but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)"

There is one example.

also:
Let me quote from Umar ibn Kathir (1301-1373) a foremost Tafsir(interpreter) writer, (another source to illustrate that this concept is not unique or bigoted or modern.) [3] :

So, strictly speaking, verse 5:32 is only applicable to the children of Israel (the verse says it). Any way, to be fair, we shall ignore this limitation and concentrate on the wider meaning:

On the surface of it, the first sentence (Islamists often quote only the first sentence, conveniently hiding the next sentence) of verse 5:32 seems very munificence and non-violent. What does the next sentence say? It says clearly that even when Allah sent His messengers many people disbelieved them. Muhammad was one of such messengers, the best and the last. Therefore, “those who disbelieve in Muhammad and Allah (i.e. the non-Muslims) are the transgressors. Evidently, the non-Muslims are the mischief-makers on earth. Logically, these non-Muslims do not fall under the purview of the merciful provisions of verse 5:32. In simple language, this means: verse 5:32 is applicable only to the Muslims. To confirm this, let me quote ibn Kathir the foremost Tafsir writer:

Beginning of Kathir’s quote

(if anyone killed a person not in retaliation of murder, or (and) to spread mischief in the land – it would be as if he killed all mankind, and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of all mankind.) Saving life in this case occurs by not killing a soul that Allah has forbidden (A Muslim.) So this is the meaning of saving the life of all mankind, for whoever forbids killing a soul without justification, the lives of all people will be saved from him.” Similar was said by Mujahid;
The quote came from 5:32 and it specifically mentions the Jews.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
339 Posts
^Was talking the quoted verse in the article.

One can find just as many egregious examples in the old testament.
Well speaking of just the quoted verse:

Quran 5:32, Nazam, and Neglecting Context
Nazam is a regular on our blog and an active proponent for Islam in the UK. I met Nazam this past summer in London; he's very congenial and I really like the guy.

All affability aside, he has struck a nerve that I simply cannot ignore. In the comment thread of a recent post, he refers to the would-be Times Square bomber and the man who initially pointed out the danger to the police. Nazam said this:
Just a little quote from the Quran, the holy book of the Muslims.

“…if any one killed a person, it would be as if he killed the whole of mankind; and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole of mankind…” - The Holy Quran (Chapter Five, Verse 32).

Just think who gets the reward, Fahad, the allege bomber or Aliou Niasse? =)
What bothers me is Nazam has ripped 5:32 out of context, and being a Muslim apologist, he probably knows it full well. In fact, 5:32 is the most ripped-out-of-context verse of the Qur'an in the West. Muslims (and even news organizations) often refer to this verse in order to show that Islam teaches murder is wrong and saving lives is the prescribed action for all people.

But this is absolutely not what this verse says. In fact, it says almost the exact opposite: that Muslims can kill those who are their enemies! The only way you can conclude as Nazam has concluded is to ignore the verses that immediately follow 5:32, as well as to ignore parts of the verse itself.

Here is 5:32 in its context, with all words included (emphasis mine):
On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our apostles with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land.
Salient points:

1 - It explicitly states that this was a commandment to the Children of Israel, i.e. the Jews! This is not a commandment to all people, and it certainly should not be misused as if this is Allah's command to Muhammad's people.

2 - Even if this were a command to the Muslims, there's still an escape clause: "unless it be for murder or spreading mischief in the land." If someone is "spreading mischief", he can still be killed. Now let's think for a moment. The would-be Times Square bomber considers Americans to be spreading mischief in Palestine and around the world (practically all Muslims I know think this, even the ones who are American citizens). Accordingly, even if this verse were to apply to someone like Faisal Shahzad, he would still be justified in his slaughter.

As if this weren't obvious enough from the verse itself, the Qur'an further expounds this point in the very next verse. 5:33 says
The punishment of those who wage war against God and His Apostle, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter.
This verse is referring to the Muslims, not the Jews anymore, as we can tell in the shift from past tense to present tense. And here, the punishment for mischief is clearly prescribed: execution, crucifixion, mutilation, or at the least, exile. This is the command given to the Muslims. Quite clearly, it does not teach what the Muslims proclaim it teaches; in fact, it teaches almost the exact opposite.

It is undeniably clear that, in order to make Islam seem peaceful, Nazam and many other Muslims rip this verse out of its context, take words out of the very verse itself, changing the entire message for something else. I wonder if they know they are guilty of Surah 5:13. In any case, we should not let ourselves (or anyone who might be interested) be deceived by the popular Muslim interpretation of these verses.
 

·
Gravity Works!
Joined
·
30,945 Posts
and one of the musie lovers speaks up. :shaking:

Its coming, and acts like what was pulled in France will have a backlash. People will get sick of it and at some point *boom* muslim holy places blown up, children slaughtered in 'muslim' schools. You can only push society so far before it snaps back the other direction and my ignorant friend...that band is stretched to its max right now. I would venture to say in France over the next month there will be a sudden uptick in assaults on muslims by non muslims.
How about you tool on over there and help them out... Yaknow, put your money where your mouth is. Put up or shut up.
 

·
Damn kids
Joined
·
14,329 Posts
No real "perhaps" about it my friend. It has gone far beyond that at this point. That snap to the other direction is coming fast, and when it does go it will be an almost overnight thing.
OB, I must say that I disagree with you on this point. I don't see one Western leader or overarching public sentiment even close to being at that point.

This is going to be ten or twenty more years of the same. A few months of calm, some horrible acts, a bunch of outrage, but not much more than a few drones and a lot of lip service.

We are no where near a tipping point. I think part of the problem is that the Western world is facing an enemy that is an idea, as opposed to an enemy that is another nation.

Nations we know how to fight.

Ideas, not so much. In fact, the track record is that 'ideas' tend to take hold. For example: gay tolerance in the US is way different today than it was 20 years ago. It happened by a continual media message in the news, TV shows and movies that 'gay is cool'. And it worked.

I am not commenting on whether any particular 'idea' is good or bad. I have observed that they tend to take hold over time, and maybe part of that is that no one really knows how to handle them.

Hitler tried to kill an idea by attempting to exterminate a race. It did not work.

I don't have an answer. I am concerned that the extremist muslim Sharia terrorist 'idea' is taking root, and unlike you, I expect it to continue unless someone with balls and smarts figures out how to stop it.

EDIT: Actually, I do have an answer - maybe not an answer, but a tactic. Effective immediately every Western nation should encourage the arming and training of its populace, who in turn should be encouraged to dispatch a terrorists actively trying to wound, kill or hold hostage innocents, with no fear of legal retaliation.

So, Bebop, you would not be guilty of premeditated murder if you took a shot at the creep across the street holding hostages.

Something like this is a major paradigm shift. It would never happen. But big thoughts like this are what is going to be needed, because there will never be enough cops or soldiers. And when seconds count, cops and soldiers are minutes or hours away.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,216 Posts
and one of the musie lovers speaks up. :shaking:

Its coming, and acts like what was pulled in France will have a backlash. People will get sick of it and at some point *boom* muslim holy places blown up, children slaughtered in 'muslim' schools. You can only push society so far before it snaps back the other direction and my ignorant friend...that band is stretched to its max right now. I would venture to say in France over the next month there will be a sudden uptick in assaults on muslims by non muslims.
I agree that if things continue over there, society's going to reach a breaking point.

What's going to happen at that point is anyone's guess.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
69,483 Posts
I want some of that Afghani Kush he's been smoking. :smokin:
Its Afghani Kief, dumbass.:flipoff2:

Come on up and we'll break out the hooka.:smokin:

Haven't had it since my 50th B-day in Amsterdam, but that's another story. I dare you to bump the thread so I can tell it.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,102 Posts
Jesus said he was "the way and the truth and the life" and "nobody cometh unto the father except through me".



If you are "open to the ideas of other faiths" you are NOT a Christian.

Did Jesus really say that? Or did someone say he said it?



Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
622 Posts
Bebop,

I specifically remember the French Government condemning the attacks of 9/11, and of public memorials by the French people for those that died that day. So if you need any A10's, or extra cruise missiles to help them on their way back to 700AD, just ask.:mad3:

Sorry for your losses, and stay safe.
I was pretty young during 9/11 (I'm 24 now) but I still have a vivid memory of everything happening at that moment. It's was an absolute shock for everyone.

Thanks.

I'm moving to the US next week. Man it's gonna be hell at customs...
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
69,483 Posts
I'm moving to the US next week. Man it's gonna be hell at customs...
Meh, just leave the turban at home and you'll be fine.

Welcome, I guess, you job-taking foreign prick.:flipoff2:

:laughing:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,604 Posts
Landslide:34224729 said:
Junior, I have done more about the islam problem in one day than you have seen titties since you were born.

We get it, you are a muslim lover. Ain't you the prick married to one?
How's that? Running your cum spewing full of cock mouth?
More better.

And if taking a cock in the ass and/or having balls bouncing off his chin is Alains idea of bettering the human race, well...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,555 Posts
My bet is you'll see a race war try to start up first.
Appears to me it's a Religious war. :confused: I've been warning people it WILL begin over there and draw us in, again. Too much is happening in Europe right now that you people are not aware of.
Pieces are being moved and put into place.
 
241 - 260 of 539 Posts
Top