4. does a muslim woman have to not pluck eyebrows?
5. does a muslim have to eat with right hand?
Posted by *Dalia* (Member # 13012) on :
Are you serious? Posted by 'Shahrazat (Member # 12769) on :
Dalia once an American tourist woman asked me 'do women work in your country?' while I was GUIDING her as a tour guide in Istanbul And the second question was 'do women smoke here?' Posted by Pamela in Blue (Member # 16741) on :
serious answers only plz.
Posted by *Dalia* (Member # 13012) on :
OK. May ask your reason for asking those questions, Pamela?
Posted by paradise_seekers (Member # 14095) on :
hi
1. does a muslim have to pray in arabic?
quote: So the worshipper must recite it properly in Arabic, because we are commanded to read and recite the Qur’aan as it was revealed.
Whoever is unable to pronounce it properly because of some defect in his tongue or because he is not an Arabic-speaker must learn to correct his pronunciation as much as he can.
If he cannot, then he is relieved of this obligation, because Allaah does not burden people with more than they are able to bear.
Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“Allaah burdens not a person beyond his scope”
[al-Baqarah 2:286]
If a person is unable to recite al-Faatihah at all or is unable to learn it, or he has just become Muslim and the time for prayer has come and there is not enough time for him to learn it, then he is given a way out in the following hadeeth:
Ibn Qudaamah (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:
If a person does not know any Qur’aan, and he cannot learn it before the time for prayer is over, then he must say Subhaan-Allaah wa’l-hamdu Lillaah wa laa ilaaha ill-Allaah wa Allaahu akbar wa laa hawla wa la quwwata illa Billaah (Glory be to Allaah, praise be to Allaah, there is no god except Allaah, Allaah is Most great and there is no power and no strength except with Allaah), because Abu Dawood narrated that a man came to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and said, “I am not able to learn anything of the Qur’aan, so teach me something that will suffice me.” He said, “Say, Subhaan-Allaah wa’l-hamdu Lillaah wa laa ilaaha ill-Allaah wa Allaahu akbar wa laa hawla wa la quwwata illa Billaah.” The man said, “This is for my Lord, what is there for me?” He said, “Say: Allaahumma ighfir li warhamni warzuqni wahdini wa ‘aafini (O Allaah, forgive me, have mercy on me, grant me provision, guide me, and give me good health).” But he does not have to do more than say the first five phrases, because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) only said that, and he only told him more when he asked for more.
(end of Ibn Qudaamah’s words)
But if a person is able to recite part of al-Faatihah only, he should recite that which he is able to recite. And he has to repeat what he can recite well (i.e., so that the total number of what he recites will be seven verses, equivalent to the number of verses in al-Faatihah).
Ibn Qudaamah said:
It may be sufficient for him to say alhamdu-Lillaah (praise be to Allaah), laa ilaaha ill-Allaah (there is no god but Allaah) and Allaahu akbar (Allaah is most great), because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Whatever you know of Qur’aan, recite it, otherwise praise Allaah, proclaim His Oneness and magnify Him.” (Narrated by Abu Dawood)
What you have read about the prayer being invalid if the worshipper mispronounces a single letter of al-Faatihah cannot be taken as general in meaning. Not every mistake in al-Faatihah invalidates the prayer; rather it cannot be invalidated unless something is omitted from al-Faatihah, or the pronunciation is changed in a way that distorts the meaning. Moreover, this ruling on the prayer becoming invalid applies to those who are able to recite al-Faatihah correctly or who are able to learn it but do not.
As for those who are unable to do so, they should recite it as best as they can, and that does not affect them, because Allaah does not burden a soul beyond its scope. One of the basic principles established by the scholars is that nothing is obligatory when a person is unable to do it. See al-Mughni, 2/154.
In this case a person should recite al-Faatihah as best as he is able, and then glorify Allaah, praise Him, magnify Him and proclaim His Oneness (by saying Subhaan-Allaah wa’l-hamdu Lillaah wa Allaahu akbar wa laa ilaaha ill-Allaah), so that this will make up for whatever he has missed out of al-Faatihah.
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allaah have mercy on him) was asked:
Is the prayer of one who mispronounces al-Faatihah valid or not?
He replied:
If a person mispronounces al-Faatihah in a way that does not distort the meaning, his prayer is valid, whether he is leading others in prayer or is praying alone.
But with regard to the kind of mispronunciation that distorts the meaning, if the person knows the meaning, such as if he says ‘Siraat allaadheena an’amtu ‘alayhim [meaning “The way of those on whom I have bestowed my grace”, instead of the correct version an’amta (The way of those on whom You have bestowed Your Grace)], and he knows that this verbal form is wrong, then the prayer is not valid. But if he does not know that he is distorting the meaning, and he thinks that this form is second person singular rather than first person, then there is a difference of scholarly opinion on this point. And Allaah knows best.
So you must try hard and keep practising it. You can do this by reciting it to another Muslim sister who can recite it well, and by listening to soorahs recited by skilled reciters on tapes or broadcasts.
There is no need to feel nervous and anxious, because Allaah knows what is in people’s hearts, and He knows who is trying hard and making the effort, and who is lazy and heedless.
The difficulty that you find in reciting Qur’aan will increase your hasanaat (good deeds) and rewards. It was narrated that ‘Aaishah (may Allaah be pleased with her) said: The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “The one who is skilled in reciting Qur’aan will be with the noble and obedient scribes (i.e., the angels?) and the one who reads the Qur’aan and struggles with it because it is difficult for him will have two rewards.”
(Narrated by Muslim, 798)
Al-Nawawi (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:
The one who struggles with it is the one who is hesitant in his recitation because he is not able to memorize it well. He will have two rewards: the reward for reciting it and the reward for his efforts in reciting it.
..waswaas (whispers from the Shaytaan), detracts from the prayer, makes you lose your focus, distracts you from pondering the meaning of the verses and makes the Shaytaan happy, because from that he can find a way to make you suffer so that you will ultimately give up praying. But Allaah is Most Gracious and Most Merciful, and He is more merciful towards us than we are to ourselves, and He does not burden us with more than we can bear .
2. does a muslim have to not smoke cigarettes?
quote: Perhaps you know that all nations of the world – Muslim and kaafir alike – have now started to fight smoking, because they know that it is very harmful. Islam forbids everything that is harmful, because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “There should be no harming or reciprocating harm.”
Secondly: it was narrated that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Allaah forbids you to trade gossip, to ask too many questions and to waste money.” And Allaah forbade wasteful extravagance when He said (interpretation of the meaning):
“and eat and drink but waste not by extravagance, certainly He (Allaah) likes not Al Musrifoon (those who waste by extravagance) [al-A’raaf 7:31]
The whole world now knows that the money spent on smoking is to be considered as money wasted, from which no benefit is gained; indeed, it is money spent on something harmful. If the money which is spent on smoking worldwide were to be collected, it could have saved entire populations who have died of starvation. Is there anyone more foolish that one who holds a dollar bill and sets fire to it? What is the difference between him and the one who smokes? Indeed, the smoker is more foolish, because the folly of the one who burns a dollar bill ends there, whilst the one who smokes burns his money and also harms his body.
Thirdly: how many disasters have been caused by smoking, because of cigarette butts which are thrown away and cause fires. Other disasters have been caused in other ways, as when a house was burned down with its occupants inside, when a man lit his cigarette when there was a gas leak.
Fourthly: how many people are offended by the smell of smokers, especially when you are unfortunate enough to have one of them standing next to you in the mosque. Probably any nasty smell is easier to bear than the smell of the smoker’s mouth when he has just woken up. It is amazing how many women can put up with the smell of their husbands’ mouths! The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) forbade those who had eaten garlic or onions from coming to the mosque so that they would not offend their fellow-worshippers with their smell. The smell of onions and garlic is easier to bear than the smell of the smoker and his mouth.
These are some of the reasons why smoking is haraam.
3. does a muslim woman have to not where makeup?
quote: In principle it is permissible for women to use cosmetics, but when saying it is permissible it is essential to pay attention to a number of things, such as:
1.
This beautification should not be for non-mahram men. The one for whom she should beautify herself first and foremost is her husband. If she uses cosmetics so that her husband will see her in the best shape, or she appears thus beautified before other women or her mahrams, that is permissible for her, because the basic principle is that she should cover all of her body in front of non-mahram men, so how can it be permissible for her to beautify herself for them in addition to that?
2.
The materials used for cosmetic purposes should be permissible, such as henna and kohl. It is not permissible for her to use fat from dead meat (i.e., from animals that have not been slaughtered in accordance with sharee’ah) or impure (naajis) substances, because Islam forbids using impure and haraam things.
3.
The materials used for cosmetic purposes should not be harmful to her body. It is not permissible for her to use harmful chemical substances, whether the harmful effect will occur immediately or in the future, because Islam forbids harming oneself, as the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “There should be neither causing harm nor reciprocating harm.”
4.
The cosmetic effect on the body should be temporary. It is not permissible for her to use those substances that change the creation of Allaah, as some women do by having lip treatments, face peeling and tattoos which change the colour of the skin permanently.
4. does a muslim woman have to not pluck eyebrows?
quote:
Plucking the eyebrows is haram and removing facial hair is also but can we remove hair above the lip and in between the eyebrows??
With regard to removing hair or not removing it, the scholars divide hair into three categories:
1 – Hair which we are commanded to remove or shorten. This is known as Sunan al-Fitrah, such as removing the pubic hairs, trimming the moustache and plucking the armpit hairs. That also includes shaving or cutting the hair of the head during Hajj or ‘Umrah.
The evidence for that is the hadeeth of ‘Aa’ishah (may Allaah be pleased with her) who said: The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Ten (actions) are part of the fitrah [natural inclinations of man]: trimming the moustache, letting the beard grow, using the siwaak (tooth-stick), rinsing the nose with water, clipping the nails, washing the finger joints, plucking the armpit hairs, shaving the pubes and washing oneself with water after relieving oneself.”
Zakariyya said: Mus’ab said: And I forgot the tenth but it may have been rinsing the mouth with water.
Narrated by Muslim, 261
2 – Hair which we are forbidden to remove, which includes the eyebrows. The action of removing the hair of the eyebrows is called al-namas. It is also forbidden to remove the hair of the beard.
The evidence for that is the hadeeth of ‘Abd-Allaah ibn Mas’ood (may Allaah be pleased with him) who said: I heard the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) say: “Allaah has cursed the woman who does tattoos and the one who has them done, the woman who plucks eyebrows (al-naamisah) and the one who has it done (al-mutanammisah), and the one who files her teeth for the purpose of beauty, altering the creation of Allaah.”
And it was narrated that ‘Abd-Allaah ibn ‘Umar said: I heard the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) say: “Be different from the mushrikeen: let your beards grow and trim your moustaches.”
al-Nawawi (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:
The naamisah is the woman who removes hair from the face and the mutanammisah is the one who asks to have that done. This action is haraam, unless a woman develops a beard or moustache, in which case it is not haraam to remove it, rather that is mustahabb in our view.
3 – Hair concerning which the texts are silent and do not say whether it is to be removed or left as it is, such as hair on the legs, hands, cheeks or forehead.
There is some difference of scholarly opinion concerning this.
Some said that it is not permissible to remove it, because removing it implies changing the creation of Allaah, as Allaah tells us that the Shaytaan said:
“ ‘and indeed I will order them to change the nature created by Allaah’”[al-Nisa’ 4:119 – interpretation of the meaning]
Some said that this is one of the things concerning which nothing was said, so the ruling is that it is allowed. It is permissible to leave it or to remove it, because whatever is not mentioned in the Qur’aan or Sunnah is permissible.
It says in Fataawa al-Lajnah al-Daa’imah:
(a) There is no sin on a woman if she removes hair on her upper lip, thighs, calves and arms. This is not part of the tanammus (plucking) that is forbidden.
(b) The Committee was asked:
What is the Islamic ruling on plucking the hair between the eyebrows?
They replied:
It is permissible to pluck it, because it is not part of the eyebrows.
The Standing Committee was asked:
What is the ruling on a woman removing hair from her body?
They replied:
It is permissible for her to do that, apart from the hair of the eyebrows and head. It is not permissible for her to remove the hair of her head or to remove any part of the eyebrows, whether by shaving or any other means.
As for plucking the eyebrows, this is haraam and is a major sin, because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) cursed those who do it.
But as for removing facial hair, there is a difference of opinion among the scholars as to whether it is permissible to remove it. This is based on their various understandings of the word al-namas.
Some scholars said that al-namas means removing any facial hair, and they did not limit it to the eyebrows. Others were of the view that al-namas refers to removing the hair of the eyebrows only. This was the view favoured by the Standing Committee as is clear from the fatwas quoted above.
It says in Fataawa al-Lajnah al-Daa’imah:
Al-namas means plucking the hair of the eyebrows, which is not permissible because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) cursed the woman who plucks eyebrows (al-naamisah) and the one who has it done (al-mutanammisah).
5. does a muslim have to eat with right hand?
quote: Why the right hand is preferred over the left.
It is part of Allaah’s complete blessing upon us and the perfection of this great religion, that Islam organizes all aspects of our lives. There is nothing good but it has shown it to us, and there is nothing bad but it has warned us against it. As well as beliefs, acts of worship, interactions with others and morals and manners, that also includes our private affairs in which Islam shows us the way that is befitting to man’s noble status and the way in which Allaah has honoured him. That includes the way the Muslim eats and drinks, and so on.
This is an established principle in sharee’ah: that which has to do with honour and nobility, such as putting on one's garment and pants and shoes, entering the mosque, using the siwaak, putting on kohl, clipping the nails, trimming the moustache, combing the hair, plucking the armpit hair, shaving the head, saying salaam at the end of prayer, washing the limbs when purifying oneself, exiting the toilet, eating and drinking, shaking hands, touching the Black Stone, etc are all things which it is mustahabb to start on the right or use the right hand. As for things which are the opposite, such as entering the toilet, exiting the mosque, blowing one’s nose, cleaning oneself after using the toilet, taking off one’s garment, pants and shoes, and so on, it is mustahabb to start on the left or use the left hand. All of that is because the right hand is more noble and honoured. This was stated by al-Nawawi in Sharh Saheeh Muslim. There is a great deal of evidence to support this principle, such as the following:
In al-Saheehayn it is narrated that ‘Umar ibn Salamah (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “O young boy, say the name of Allaah and eat with your right hand, and eat from what is nearest to you.” Narrated by al-Bukhaari (5376) and Muslim (2022).
In Sunan Abi Dawood (33) it is narrated that ‘Aa’ishah (may Allaah be pleased with her) said: The right hand of the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) was for his purification and food, and his left hand was for using the toilet and anything that was dirty
Muslim (262) narrated that Salmaan (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: He (meaning the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him)) forbade any one of us to clean himself with his right hand.
And Muslim (2020) narrated from Ibn ‘Umar (may Allaah be pleased with him) that the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “No one among you should eat with his left hand or drink with it, for the shaytaan eats with his left hand and drinks with it.”
Allaah has warned us against disobeying the commands of the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), as He says (interpretation of the meaning):
“And let those who oppose the Messenger’s (Muhammad’s) commandment (i.e. his Sunnah __ legal ways, orders, acts of worship, statements) (among the sects) beware, lest some Fitnah (disbelief, trials, afflictions, earthquakes, killing, overpowered by a tyrant) should befall them or a painful torment be inflicted on them”
[al-Noor 24:63]
This applies if one is able to eat with the right hand. But if one is unable to do so, there is no sin in that. Al-Nawawi said in Sharh Muslim (13/191): The objection to eating and drinking with the left hand applies so long as there is no excuse. If there is an excuse which prevents one from eating and drinking with the right hand because of sickness, injury etc, then it is not makrooh. End quote.
Al-Ghazaali said in al-Ihya’ (4/93): Then the One Who gave you two hands to do things with, some of which are noble, such as picking up the Mus-haf, and some are ignoble, such as removing impurities. So if you pick up the Mus-haf with your left hand, and you remove impurities with your right hand, then you have used that which is noble to do something ignoble, and you have neglected its rights and wronged it, and turned away from what is proper. End quote.
To sum up what the scholars have said about the reasons why the right hand is preferred for things that are noble:
1- That is differing from the shaytaan, as in the case of eating and drinking.
2- It is honouring the right hand over the left.
3- It is using proper etiquette with people, so that one does not shake hands with them, take things from them or give things to them with the hand with which one removes impurities.
4- It is a sign of hope that Allaah will make us among those who are on the right hand (ahl al-yameen).
And Allaah knows best.
Islam Q&
Posted by *Dalia* (Member # 13012) on :
Pamela, Islam-QA is the worst page you can go to when looking for information on anything relating to Islam.
It's a Salafi / Wahhabi site, run by scholars from Saudi Arabia, and the ideology being spread there is closer to fascism than religion. The scholars giving fatwas there propagate hatred for anyone who is not a Muslim, they propagate physical jihad and claim that women are inferior beings, that they should be beaten, circumsized, hidden behind the walls of their homes and submit to their husbands' every whim.
They brainwash people into believing that they are not allowed to think for themselves, their scholars twist the message of the Qur'an in order to suit their propaganda, and their idelogy is a very sick one.
This cult is spreading like cancer around the globe, funded by petrodollars, that's why when you do a google search on any question relating to Islam, you are highly likely to come upon their sites first. I would suggest you do some deeper research and get more balanced opinions.
Plucking eyebrows is a "major sin"?!? You don't need to be an expert on Islam to see that this is major BS. Just use your brain and ask yourself whether any divine being would have nothing worse to worry about than women plucking their eyebrows. Posted by Pamela in Blue (Member # 16741) on :
im asking for my friend who is learning of islam and thinks thse things true.
Posted by Ayisha (Member # 4713) on :
quote:Originally posted by *Dalia*: Pamela, Islam-QA is the worst page you can go to when looking for information on anything relating to Islam.
It's a Salafi / Wahhabi site, run by scholars from Saudi Arabia, and the ideology being spread there is closer to fascism than religion. The scholars giving fatwas there propagate hatred for anyone who is not a Muslim, they propagate physical jihad and claim that women are inferior beings, that they should be beaten, circumsized, hidden behind the walls of their homes and submit to their husbands' every whim.
They brainwash people into believing that they are not allowed to think for themselves, their scholars twist the message of the Qur'an in order to suit their propaganda, and their idelogy is a very sick one.
This cult is spreading like cancer around the globe, funded by petrodollars, that's why when you do a google search on any question relating to Islam, you are highly likely to come upon their sites first. I would suggest you do some deeper research and get more balanced opinions.
Plucking eyebrows is a "major sin"?!? You don't need to be an expert on Islam to see that this is major BS. Just use your brain and ask yourself whether any divine being would have nothing worse to worry about than women plucking their eyebrows.
Agree with every word!!
Posted by *Dalia* (Member # 13012) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pamela in Blue: im asking for my friend who is learning of islam and thinks thse things true.
Oh dear. Posted by Pamela in Blue (Member # 16741) on :
are all not true?
Posted by Ayisha (Member # 4713) on :
quote:Originally posted by paradise_seekers: hi
1. does a muslim have to pray in arabic?
So the worshipper must recite it properly in Arabic, because we are commanded to read and recite the Qur’aan as it was revealed.
No, you are commanded not to add anything to it like you have added to it here:
quote:Whoever is unable to pronounce it properly because of some defect in his tongue or because he is not an Arabic-speaker must learn to correct his pronunciation as much as he can.
If he cannot, then he is relieved of this obligation, because Allaah does not burden people with more than they are able to bear.
Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“Allaah burdens not a person beyond his scope”
[al-Baqarah 2:286]
If a person is unable to recite al-Faatihah at all or is unable to learn it, or he has just become Muslim and the time for prayer has come and there is not enough time for him to learn it, then he is given a way out in the following hadeeth:
Ibn Qudaamah (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:
If a person does not know any Qur’aan, and he cannot learn it before the time for prayer is over, then he must say Subhaan-Allaah wa’l-hamdu Lillaah wa laa ilaaha ill-Allaah wa Allaahu akbar wa laa hawla wa la quwwata illa Billaah (Glory be to Allaah, praise be to Allaah, there is no god except Allaah, Allaah is Most great and there is no power and no strength except with Allaah), because Abu Dawood narrated that a man came to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and said, “I am not able to learn anything of the Qur’aan, so teach me something that will suffice me.” He said, “Say, Subhaan-Allaah wa’l-hamdu Lillaah wa laa ilaaha ill-Allaah wa Allaahu akbar wa laa hawla wa la quwwata illa Billaah.” The man said, “This is for my Lord, what is there for me?” He said, “Say: Allaahumma ighfir li warhamni warzuqni wahdini wa ‘aafini (O Allaah, forgive me, have mercy on me, grant me provision, guide me, and give me good health).” But he does not have to do more than say the first five phrases, because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) only said that, and he only told him more when he asked for more.
(end of Ibn Qudaamah’s words)
But if a person is able to recite part of al-Faatihah only, he should recite that which he is able to recite. And he has to repeat what he can recite well (i.e., so that the total number of what he recites will be seven verses, equivalent to the number of verses in al-Faatihah).
Ibn Qudaamah said:
It may be sufficient for him to say alhamdu-Lillaah (praise be to Allaah), laa ilaaha ill-Allaah (there is no god but Allaah) and Allaahu akbar (Allaah is most great), because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Whatever you know of Qur’aan, recite it, otherwise praise Allaah, proclaim His Oneness and magnify Him.” (Narrated by Abu Dawood)
What you have read about the prayer being invalid if the worshipper mispronounces a single letter of al-Faatihah cannot be taken as general in meaning. Not every mistake in al-Faatihah invalidates the prayer; rather it cannot be invalidated unless something is omitted from al-Faatihah, or the pronunciation is changed in a way that distorts the meaning. Moreover, this ruling on the prayer becoming invalid applies to those who are able to recite al-Faatihah correctly or who are able to learn it but do not.
As for those who are unable to do so, they should recite it as best as they can, and that does not affect them, because Allaah does not burden a soul beyond its scope. One of the basic principles established by the scholars is that nothing is obligatory when a person is unable to do it. See al-Mughni, 2/154.
In this case a person should recite al-Faatihah as best as he is able, and then glorify Allaah, praise Him, magnify Him and proclaim His Oneness (by saying Subhaan-Allaah wa’l-hamdu Lillaah wa Allaahu akbar wa laa ilaaha ill-Allaah), so that this will make up for whatever he has missed out of al-Faatihah.
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allaah have mercy on him) was asked:
Is the prayer of one who mispronounces al-Faatihah valid or not?
He replied:
If a person mispronounces al-Faatihah in a way that does not distort the meaning, his prayer is valid, whether he is leading others in prayer or is praying alone.
But with regard to the kind of mispronunciation that distorts the meaning, if the person knows the meaning, such as if he says ‘Siraat allaadheena an’amtu ‘alayhim [meaning “The way of those on whom I have bestowed my grace”, instead of the correct version an’amta (The way of those on whom You have bestowed Your Grace)], and he knows that this verbal form is wrong, then the prayer is not valid. But if he does not know that he is distorting the meaning, and he thinks that this form is second person singular rather than first person, then there is a difference of scholarly opinion on this point. And Allaah knows best.
So you must try hard and keep practising it. You can do this by reciting it to another Muslim sister who can recite it well, and by listening to soorahs recited by skilled reciters on tapes or broadcasts.
There is no need to feel nervous and anxious, because Allaah knows what is in people’s hearts, and He knows who is trying hard and making the effort, and who is lazy and heedless.
The difficulty that you find in reciting Qur’aan will increase your hasanaat (good deeds) and rewards. It was narrated that ‘Aaishah (may Allaah be pleased with her) said: The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “The one who is skilled in reciting Qur’aan will be with the noble and obedient scribes (i.e., the angels?) and the one who reads the Qur’aan and struggles with it because it is difficult for him will have two rewards.”
(Narrated by Muslim, 798)
Al-Nawawi (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:
The one who struggles with it is the one who is hesitant in his recitation because he is not able to memorize it well. He will have two rewards: the reward for reciting it and the reward for his efforts in reciting it.
..waswaas (whispers from the Shaytaan), detracts from the prayer, makes you lose your focus, distracts you from pondering the meaning of the verses and makes the Shaytaan happy, because from that he can find a way to make you suffer so that you will ultimately give up praying. But Allaah is Most Gracious and Most Merciful, and He is more merciful towards us than we are to ourselves, and He does not burden us with more than we can bear .
[/b] [/QB]
Im sure to you it makes perfect sense that if someone not fluent in Arabic and cant learn Al Fatiha (a mere 7 small verses) in time for prayer they would of course immediately be able to learn the rest of the ARABIC you have quoted here!! Sadly to me that makes no sense at all. Contrary to popular Arab belief, God/Allah is NOT Arab and understands ALL languages as He is the one that gave ALL languages.
The reciting in Arabic is learnt by rote and recited by rote. The 'advantage' of learning it in Arabic is that you will recite the same as every muslim in the world no matter what language they have as native.
012.002 YUSUFALI: We have sent it down as an Arabic Qur'an, in order that ye may learn wisdom. PICKTHAL: Lo! We have revealed it, a Lecture in Arabic, that ye may understand. SHAKIR: Surely We have revealed it-- an Arabic Quran-- that you may understand.
013.037 YUSUFALI: Thus have We revealed it to be a judgment of authority in Arabic. Wert thou to follow their (vain) desires after the knowledge which hath reached thee, then wouldst thou find neither protector nor defender against Allah. PICKTHAL: Thus have We revealed it, a decisive utterance in Arabic; and if thou shouldst follow their desires after that which hath come unto thee of knowledge, then truly wouldst thou have from Allah no protecting friend nor defender. SHAKIR: And thus have We revealed it, a true judgment in Arabic, and if you follow their low desires after what has come to you of knowledge, you shall not have against Allah any guardian or a protector.
016.103 YUSUFALI: We know indeed that they say, "It is a man that teaches him." The tongue of him they wickedly point to is notably foreign, while this is Arabic, pure and clear. PICKTHAL: And We know well that they say: Only a man teacheth him. The speech of him at whom they falsely hint is outlandish, and this is clear Arabic speech. SHAKIR: And certainly We know that they say: Only a mortal teaches him. The tongue of him whom they reproach is barbarous, and this is clear Arabic tongue.
020.113 YUSUFALI: Thus have We sent this down - an arabic Qur'an - and explained therein in detail some of the warnings, in order that they may fear Allah, or that it may cause their remembrance (of Him). PICKTHAL: Thus we have revealed it as a Lecture in Arabic, and have displayed therein certain threats, that peradventure they may keep from evil or that it may cause them to take heed. SHAKIR: And thus have We sent it down an Arabic Quran, and have distinctly set forth therein of threats that they may guard (against evil) or that it may produce a reminder for them.
026.195 YUSUFALI: In the perspicuous Arabic tongue. PICKTHAL: In plain Arabic speech. SHAKIR: In plain Arabic language.
039.028 YUSUFALI: (It is) a Qur'an in Arabic, without any crookedness (therein): in order that they may guard against Evil. PICKTHAL: A Lecture in Arabic, containing no crookedness, that haply they may ward off (evil). SHAKIR: An Arabic Quran without any crookedness, that they may guard (against evil).
041.003 YUSUFALI: A Book, whereof the verses are explained in detail;- a Qur'an in Arabic, for people who understand;- PICKTHAL: A Scripture whereof the verses are expounded, a Lecture in Arabic for people who have knowledge, SHAKIR: A Book of which the verses are made plain, an Arabic Quran for a people who know:
041.044 YUSUFALI: Had We sent this as a Qur'an (in the language) other than Arabic, they would have said: "Why are not its verses explained in detail? What! (a Book) not in Arabic and (a Messenger an Arab?" Say: "It is a Guide and a Healing to those who believe; and for those who believe not, there is a deafness in their ears, and it is blindness in their (eyes): They are (as it were) being called from a place far distant!" PICKTHAL: And if We had appointed it a Lecture in a foreign tongue they would assuredly have said: If only its verses were expounded (so that we might understand)? What! A foreign tongue and an Arab? - Say unto them (O Muhammad): For those who believe it is a guidance and a healing; and as for those who disbelieve, there is a deafness in their ears, and it is blindness for them. Such are called to from afar. SHAKIR: And if We had made it a Quran in a foreign tongue, they would certainly have said: Why have not its communications been made clear? What! a foreign (tongue) and an Arabian! Say: It is to those who believe a guidance and a healing; and (as for) those who do not believe, there is a heaviness in their ears and it is obscure to them; these shall be called to from a far-off place.
043.003 YUSUFALI: We have made it a Qur'an in Arabic, that ye may be able to understand (and learn wisdom). PICKTHAL: Lo! We have appointed it a Lecture, in Arabic that haply ye may understand. SHAKIR: Surely We have made it an Arabic Quran that you may understand.
These verses CLEARLY say WHY it was revealed in Arabic, because Muhammed was ARAB. If he had been French then Quran would be in French, but it would not make French some holy language anymore than it does Arabic, and nowhere in these verses does it say one HAS to recite it in Arabic for it 'to be valid'. You throw yourself on the floor and worship in punjabi and it will be valid! You really think the Creator is going to make a genuine prayer invalid because you didnt get 'ayn right in the verse?? You believe that then you really have NO concept of Allah at all. Posted by Ayisha (Member # 4713) on :
quote:Originally posted by paradise_seekers: 2. does a muslim have to not smoke cigarettes?
Perhaps you know that all nations of the world – Muslim and kaafir alike – have now started to fight smoking, because they know that it is very harmful. Islam forbids everything that is harmful, because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “There should be no harming or reciprocating harm.”
Secondly: it was narrated that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Allaah forbids you to trade gossip, to ask too many questions and to waste money.” And Allaah forbade wasteful extravagance when He said (interpretation of the meaning):
“and eat and drink but waste not by extravagance, certainly He (Allaah) likes not Al Musrifoon (those who waste by extravagance) [al-A’raaf 7:31]
The whole world now knows that the money spent on smoking is to be considered as money wasted, from which no benefit is gained; indeed, it is money spent on something harmful. If the money which is spent on smoking worldwide were to be collected, it could have saved entire populations who have died of starvation. Is there anyone more foolish that one who holds a dollar bill and sets fire to it? What is the difference between him and the one who smokes? Indeed, the smoker is more foolish, because the folly of the one who burns a dollar bill ends there, whilst the one who smokes burns his money and also harms his body.
Thirdly: how many disasters have been caused by smoking, because of cigarette butts which are thrown away and cause fires. Other disasters have been caused in other ways, as when a house was burned down with its occupants inside, when a man lit his cigarette when there was a gas leak.
Fourthly: how many people are offended by the smell of smokers, especially when you are unfortunate enough to have one of them standing next to you in the mosque. Probably any nasty smell is easier to bear than the smell of the smoker’s mouth when he has just woken up. It is amazing how many women can put up with the smell of their husbands’ mouths! The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) forbade those who had eaten garlic or onions from coming to the mosque so that they would not offend their fellow-worshippers with their smell. The smell of onions and garlic is easier to bear than the smell of the smoker and his mouth.
These are some of the reasons why smoking is haraam.
The prophet forbade people entering the Mosque??
No prophet would EVER forbid someone entering a Mosque or forbid them from praying!
003.094 YUSUFALI: If any, after this, invent a lie and attribute it to Allah, they are indeed unjust wrong-doers.
002.085 YUSUFALI: After this it is ye, the same people, who slay among yourselves, and banish a party of you from their homes; assist (Their enemies) against them, in guilt and rancour; and if they come to you as captives, ye ransom them, though it was not lawful for you to banish them. Then is it only a part of the Book that ye believe in, and do ye reject the rest? but what is the reward for those among you who behave like this but disgrace in this life?- and on the Day of Judgment they shall be consigned to the most grievous penalty. For Allah is not unmindful of what ye do.
005.087 YUSUFALI: O ye who believe! make not unlawful the good things which Allah hath made lawful for you, but commit no excess: for Allah loveth not those given to excess.
010.059 YUSUFALI: Say: "See ye what things Allah hath sent down to you for sustenance? Yet ye hold forbidden some things thereof and (some things) lawful." Say: "Hath Allah indeed permitted you, or do ye invent (things) to attribute to Allah?"
016.116 YUSUFALI: But say not - for any false thing that your tongues may put forth,- "This is lawful, and this is forbidden," so as to ascribe false things to Allah. For those who ascribe false things to Allah, will never prosper.
Life is sacred, we (all mankind) are not to take life. Smoking can be harmful to your life but to say it is haram is biddah IMO.
Posted by Ayisha (Member # 4713) on :
quote:Originally posted by paradise_seekers: 3. does a muslim woman have to not where makeup?
In principle it is permissible for women to use cosmetics, but when saying it is permissible it is essential to pay attention to a number of things, such as:
1.
This beautification should not be for non-mahram men. The one for whom she should beautify herself first and foremost is her husband. If she uses cosmetics so that her husband will see her in the best shape, or she appears thus beautified before other women or her mahrams, that is permissible for her, because the basic principle is that she should cover all of her body in front of non-mahram men, so how can it be permissible for her to beautify herself for them in addition to that?
2.
The materials used for cosmetic purposes should be permissible, such as henna and kohl. It is not permissible for her to use fat from dead meat (i.e., from animals that have not been slaughtered in accordance with sharee’ah) or impure (naajis) substances, because Islam forbids using impure and haraam things.
3.
The materials used for cosmetic purposes should not be harmful to her body. It is not permissible for her to use harmful chemical substances, whether the harmful effect will occur immediately or in the future, because Islam forbids harming oneself, as the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “There should be neither causing harm nor reciprocating harm.”
4.
The cosmetic effect on the body should be temporary. It is not permissible for her to use those substances that change the creation of Allaah, as some women do by having lip treatments, face peeling and tattoos which change the colour of the skin permanently.
[/b]
4. does a muslim woman have to not pluck eyebrows?
quote:
Plucking the eyebrows is haram and removing facial hair is also but can we remove hair above the lip and in between the eyebrows??
With regard to removing hair or not removing it, the scholars divide hair into three categories:
1 – Hair which we are commanded to remove or shorten. This is known as Sunan al-Fitrah, such as removing the pubic hairs, trimming the moustache and plucking the armpit hairs. That also includes shaving or cutting the hair of the head during Hajj or ‘Umrah.
The evidence for that is the hadeeth of ‘Aa’ishah (may Allaah be pleased with her) who said: The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Ten (actions) are part of the fitrah [natural inclinations of man]: trimming the moustache, letting the beard grow, using the siwaak (tooth-stick), rinsing the nose with water, clipping the nails, washing the finger joints, plucking the armpit hairs, shaving the pubes and washing oneself with water after relieving oneself.”
Zakariyya said: Mus’ab said: And I forgot the tenth but it may have been rinsing the mouth with water.
Narrated by Muslim, 261
2 – Hair which we are forbidden to remove, which includes the eyebrows. The action of removing the hair of the eyebrows is called al-namas. It is also forbidden to remove the hair of the beard.
The evidence for that is the hadeeth of ‘Abd-Allaah ibn Mas’ood (may Allaah be pleased with him) who said: I heard the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) say: “Allaah has cursed the woman who does tattoos and the one who has them done, the woman who plucks eyebrows (al-naamisah) and the one who has it done (al-mutanammisah), and the one who files her teeth for the purpose of beauty, altering the creation of Allaah.”
And it was narrated that ‘Abd-Allaah ibn ‘Umar said: I heard the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) say: “Be different from the mushrikeen: let your beards grow and trim your moustaches.”
al-Nawawi (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:
The naamisah is the woman who removes hair from the face and the mutanammisah is the one who asks to have that done. This action is haraam, unless a woman develops a beard or moustache, in which case it is not haraam to remove it, rather that is mustahabb in our view.
3 – Hair concerning which the texts are silent and do not say whether it is to be removed or left as it is, such as hair on the legs, hands, cheeks or forehead.
There is some difference of scholarly opinion concerning this.
Some said that it is not permissible to remove it, because removing it implies changing the creation of Allaah, as Allaah tells us that the Shaytaan said:
[b]“ ‘and indeed I will order them to change the nature created by Allaah’”[al-Nisa’ 4:119 – interpretation of the meaning]
Some said that this is one of the things concerning which nothing was said, so the ruling is that it is allowed. It is permissible to leave it or to remove it, because whatever is not mentioned in the Qur’aan or Sunnah is permissible.
It says in Fataawa al-Lajnah al-Daa’imah:
(a) There is no sin on a woman if she removes hair on her upper lip, thighs, calves and arms. This is not part of the tanammus (plucking) that is forbidden.
(b) The Committee was asked:
What is the Islamic ruling on plucking the hair between the eyebrows?
They replied:
It is permissible to pluck it, because it is not part of the eyebrows.
The Standing Committee was asked:
What is the ruling on a woman removing hair from her body?
They replied:
It is permissible for her to do that, apart from the hair of the eyebrows and head. It is not permissible for her to remove the hair of her head or to remove any part of the eyebrows, whether by shaving or any other means.
As for plucking the eyebrows, this is haraam and is a major sin, because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) cursed those who do it.
But as for removing facial hair, there is a difference of opinion among the scholars as to whether it is permissible to remove it. This is based on their various understandings of the word al-namas.
Some scholars said that al-namas means removing any facial hair, and they did not limit it to the eyebrows. Others were of the view that al-namas refers to removing the hair of the eyebrows only. This was the view favoured by the Standing Committee as is clear from the fatwas quoted above.
It says in Fataawa al-Lajnah al-Daa’imah:
Al-namas means plucking the hair of the eyebrows, which is not permissible because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) cursed the woman who plucks eyebrows (al-naamisah) and the one who has it done (al-mutanammisah).
It amazes me that in all this BS you can only site ONE small verse from Quran which if you use your BRAIN you will see this is nothing to do with plucking eyebrows or wearing make up. If it WAS anything to do with that then shaving calves and underarms and men shaving at all would be the SAME.
As normal from this site it is ALL about hadith and mans word to oppress women and NOTHING to do with Quran or what Allah actually said!! Posted by Ayisha (Member # 4713) on :
quote:Originally posted by paradise_seekers: 5. does a muslim have to eat with right hand?
Why the right hand is preferred over the left.
It is part of Allaah’s complete blessing upon us and the perfection of this great religion, that Islam organizes all aspects of our lives. There is nothing good but it has shown it to us, and there is nothing bad but it has warned us against it. As well as beliefs, acts of worship, interactions with others and morals and manners, that also includes our private affairs in which Islam shows us the way that is befitting to man’s noble status and the way in which Allaah has honoured him. That includes the way the Muslim eats and drinks, and so on.
This is an established principle in sharee’ah: that which has to do with honour and nobility, such as putting on one's garment and pants and shoes, entering the mosque, using the siwaak, putting on kohl, clipping the nails, trimming the moustache, combing the hair, plucking the armpit hair, shaving the head, saying salaam at the end of prayer, washing the limbs when purifying oneself, exiting the toilet, eating and drinking, shaking hands, touching the Black Stone, etc are all things which it is mustahabb to start on the right or use the right hand. As for things which are the opposite, such as entering the toilet, exiting the mosque, blowing one’s nose, cleaning oneself after using the toilet, taking off one’s garment, pants and shoes, and so on, it is mustahabb to start on the left or use the left hand. All of that is because the right hand is more noble and honoured. This was stated by al-Nawawi in Sharh Saheeh Muslim. There is a great deal of evidence to support this principle, such as the following:
In al-Saheehayn it is narrated that ‘Umar ibn Salamah (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “O young boy, say the name of Allaah and eat with your right hand, and eat from what is nearest to you.” Narrated by al-Bukhaari (5376) and Muslim (2022).
In Sunan Abi Dawood (33) it is narrated that ‘Aa’ishah (may Allaah be pleased with her) said: The right hand of the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) was for his purification and food, and his left hand was for using the toilet and anything that was dirty
Muslim (262) narrated that Salmaan (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: He (meaning the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him)) forbade any one of us to clean himself with his right hand.
And Muslim (2020) narrated from Ibn ‘Umar (may Allaah be pleased with him) that the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “No one among you should eat with his left hand or drink with it, for the shaytaan eats with his left hand and drinks with it.”
Allaah has warned us against disobeying the commands of the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), as He says (interpretation of the meaning):
“And let those who oppose the Messenger’s (Muhammad’s) commandment (i.e. his Sunnah __ legal ways, orders, acts of worship, statements) (among the sects) beware, lest some Fitnah (disbelief, trials, afflictions, earthquakes, killing, overpowered by a tyrant) should befall them or a painful torment be inflicted on them”
[al-Noor 24:63]
This applies if one is able to eat with the right hand. But if one is unable to do so, there is no sin in that. Al-Nawawi said in Sharh Muslim (13/191): The objection to eating and drinking with the left hand applies so long as there is no excuse. If there is an excuse which prevents one from eating and drinking with the right hand because of sickness, injury etc, then it is not makrooh. End quote.
Al-Ghazaali said in al-Ihya’ (4/93): Then the One Who gave you two hands to do things with, some of which are noble, such as picking up the Mus-haf, and some are ignoble, such as removing impurities. So if you pick up the Mus-haf with your left hand, and you remove impurities with your right hand, then you have used that which is noble to do something ignoble, and you have neglected its rights and wronged it, and turned away from what is proper. End quote.
To sum up what the scholars have said about the reasons why the right hand is preferred for things that are noble:
1- That is differing from the shaytaan, as in the case of eating and drinking.
2- It is honouring the right hand over the left.
3- It is using proper etiquette with people, so that one does not shake hands with them, take things from them or give things to them with the hand with which one removes impurities.
4- It is a sign of hope that Allaah will make us among those who are on the right hand (ahl al-yameen).
And Allaah knows best.
Islam Q&
Lots more BS and again only ONE verse from Quran but lets see what it really says, because what is quoted here is different
024.063 YUSUFALI: Deem not the summons of the Messenger among yourselves like the summons of one of you to another: Allah doth know those of you who slip away under shelter of some excuse: then let those beware who withstand the Messenger's order, lest some trial befall them, or a grievous penalty be inflicted on them. PICKTHAL: Make not the calling of the messenger among you as your calling one of another. Allah knoweth those of you who steal away, hiding themselves. And let those who conspire to evade orders beware lest grief or painful punishment befall them. SHAKIR: Do not hold the Messenger's calling (you) among you to be like your calling one to the other; Allah indeed knows those who steal away from among you, concealing themselves; therefore let those beware who go against his order lest a trial afflict them or there befall them a painful chastisement.
again nothing to do with how its quoted here. The messenger abided by Quran, he did not invent his own extension to the Quran and did not provide us with his own religion, he followed that which Allah told him IN Quran. There is NOTHING in Quran about what hand to eat with.
The reason ARABS eat with their right hand is because they eat with their hands! They do not use utensils and certainly didnt back then and most dont now. The left hand is used to clean yourself after using the toilet as toilet paper is not used and one washes after the toilet and so the right hand became the 'clean' hand to eat with.
Posted by Sub-zero (Member # 9691) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ayisha: It says in Fataawa al-Lajnah al-Daa’imah:
It takes a committie to decide about plucking eye brows? Posted by *Dalia* (Member # 13012) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ayisha: It amazes me that in all this BS you can only site ONE small verse from Quran which if you use your BRAIN you will see this is nothing to do with plucking eyebrows or wearing make up. If it WAS anything to do with that then shaving calves and underarms and men shaving at all would be the SAME.
You know what amazes me the most? That the very same scholars who claim that it is forbidden to pluck the eyebrows because that means "changing God's creation" claim in other fatwas that it is obligatory or recommended to cut off a woman's clitoris.
Insanity!
Posted by Ayisha (Member # 4713) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sub-zero:
quote:Originally posted by Ayisha: It says in Fataawa al-Lajnah al-Daa’imah:
It takes a committie to decide about plucking eye brows?
subz it takes a committee and a number of fatwa to decided which foot to enter a bathroom with or whether to wash or wipe and a whole book of scholars to decide on what is 'pure' water By the time you get through all the rules you've crapped yourself and there aint no fatwa or hadith on that!!
talk about not seeing the wood for the trees Posted by Ayisha (Member # 4713) on :
quote:Originally posted by *Dalia*:
quote:Originally posted by Ayisha: It amazes me that in all this BS you can only site ONE small verse from Quran which if you use your BRAIN you will see this is nothing to do with plucking eyebrows or wearing make up. If it WAS anything to do with that then shaving calves and underarms and men shaving at all would be the SAME.
You know what amazes me the most? That the very same scholars who claim that it is forbidden to pluck the eyebrows because that means "changing God's creation" claim in other fatwas that it is obligatory or recommended to cut off a woman's clitoris.
Insanity!
I know!! Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
Mohammad
Pee be upon him
Posted by Ayisha (Member # 4713) on :
your post has been reported
Obviously you are not MAN enough or HUMAN enough to have a discussion or debate, you are marely a sick racist turd.
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
So I should report the demeaning, insulting things you post....right? I'll be sure and do that.
Muslims are a trip. they get indignant when they think their precious religion has been insulted but just insult the hell out of everyone else and that is OK.
Posted by Ayisha (Member # 4713) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: So I should report the demeaning, insulting things you post....right? I'll be sure and do that.
Muslims are a trip. they get indignant when they think their precious religion has been insulted but just insult the hell out of everyone else and that is OK.
please show where I have insulted you. The truth is not meant as an insult. You are a racist, if you see that as an insult prehaps you should rethink being one.
you are free to report any post of mine or anyone elses and it is VERY rare I have ever reported a post but you have shown yourself to be childish because you were losing an argument and looking stupid on another thread (well thats on about every thread you post on really) Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
You do not think calling someone a racist is an insult, or calling someone a turd? Go back and read some of your posts. Look stupid, childish? You do not call that an insult?
It is some of the funniest stuff I have read. Then you have the nerve, the gall to call someone else insulting. Now do you see why some Brits want you people thrown out of the country?
Posted by Whatbox (Member # 10819) on :
quote:Originally posted by *Dalia*:
quote:Originally posted by Ayisha: It amazes me that in all this BS you can only site ONE small verse from Quran which if you use your BRAIN you will see this is nothing to do with plucking eyebrows or wearing make up. If it WAS anything to do with that then shaving calves and underarms and men shaving at all would be the SAME.
You know what amazes me the most? That the very same scholars who claim that it is forbidden to pluck the eyebrows because that means "changing God's creation" claim in other fatwas that it is obligatory or recommended to cut off a woman's clitoris.
Insanity!
Great catch!
Posted by unfinished thought. (Member # 16076) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: America is a part of western civilization. The Indians do not count as they were defeated and British settlers founded governments and societies here. The Indians now live on reservations or have been absorbed into the larger population.
quote:Originally posted by Ayisha: Do not COUNT?? Listen you Nazi asswipe, people COUNT whatever their colour, race or religion.
racist pig [/QB]
quote:Originally posted by Ayisha: Clear you talk out your arse hammer.
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
Ayisha, "you Nazi asswipe" and she calls me insulting? Looks like others are on to her as well.
the cool part is that Ayisha truly believes it is ok for her to do this BUT not for the rest of us. The amazing part is that i did not even insult her but rather some guy who has been dead for 1200 years.
Posted by Ayisha (Member # 4713) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: You do not think calling someone a racist is an insult, or calling someone a turd? Go back and read some of your posts. Look stupid, childish? You do not call that an insult?
It is some of the funniest stuff I have read. Then you have the nerve, the gall to call someone else insulting. Now do you see why some Brits want you people thrown out of the country?
It pains you that I am British doesnt it
and they are not insults, just a few home truths mr racist Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
That is your double standard Ayisha. When someone else says something it is an insult, what YOU say is truth. It is some of the funniest stuff I have read here.
Posted by unfinished thought. (Member # 16076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pamela in Blue: are all not true?
The truth is not difficult to find. All we have to do is to read the original history of Islam written by the early historians, read the Hadith for historical information, and read the Quran. When you do that, you get to know the true Islam. Then, when you read the books written by these modern apologists of Islam, you can see that they are concealing the truth.
To find the truth we have to go to the source. The sources are the original histories written by Ibn Is-haq, al Waquidi, al Tabari and the Hadith. These are the early books on the history of Islam written by Muslim historians. All the later scholars must, or should have, consulted these books. There are no other sources on the history of Islam. So if what the modern Islamic writers say is contrary to what the above books say, are they telling the truth?
Why would they lie? The answer is complex. Some of them actually have never read the original sources that I mentioned. They rely on what other, contemporary apologists have written. Many Muslims terrorize those who criticize Islam. In such a repressive atmosphere, deceit is applied and truth is the casualty.
There is also another factor that has to be taken into consideration: Political Correctness. In the last century, the Europeans started to dislike Christianity and found every other culture better than their own. Romanticizing Indian culture, Chinese culture, or Islamic culture became the vogue. To qualify as an intellectual, all one had to do was to criticize Judeo-Christianity and pay tribute to other cultures. This mentality actually gave birth to a cult that is now permeating the western mindset. It is called Political Correctness. To fit in the society you must belong to this cult. And to belong you must not tell the truth if that truth could offend someone from another culture. You are supposed to say things that are "nice" lest you hurt other people's sensibilities.
In other words, Political Correctness means expediently lying when truth is hurtful. Of course criticizing Judeo-Christianity is not considered to be politically incorrect. You can offend the Jews or the Christians but not others. Thus, influenced by this culture of self-deceit, many Westerners, and especially the Europeans, produced a lot of revisionist nonsense, lying about the historical facts.
Emerging from the dark ages of colonialism, when the newspapers started revealing the brutalities perpetrated by their own governments in the colonized countries, especially in Americas, the Europeans were shocked. They were disgusted at the inhumanity of their own ethos. Therefore, lauding other cultures and slandering their own was a form of repentance.
Subsequently a new ethos was created, as oppressive as a cult, where the apostates are labeled as racists and scorned. To be politically correct, they produced factually incorrect literature and even taught those lies to their children. Textbooks were rewritten to accommodate the non-Judeo-Christian mores. The idea was to educate the new generations to be tolerant and accepting of other cultures. The idea was noble; something that Muslims would not be able even to understand. However, the sad reality is that by doing so, the truth was sacrificed at the altar of Political Correctness. This provided the milieu for Islam to expand in the West. Islam thrives in an environment where truth is suppressed.
Political Correctness is the brainchild of the people with good intention. However, as they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
Can you inmagine if you did not come home for several days and then told your wife that you were in a frickin cave talking to an angel. If you were trying to write total farse you could not do a better job.
Posted by Ayisha (Member # 4713) on :
UT get yer coat girl, you pulled Posted by Dzosser (Member # 9572) on :
[QUOTE]Originally posted by unfinished thought.: The truth is not difficult to find. All we have to do is to read the original history of Islam written by the early historians, read the Hadith for historical information, and read the Quran. When you do that, you get to know the true Islam. Then, when you read the books written by these modern apologists of Islam, you can see that they are concealing the truth.
To find the truth we have to go to the source. The sources are the original histories written by Ibn Is-haq, al Waquidi, al Tabari and the Hadith. These are the early books on the history of Islam written by Muslim historians. All the later scholars must, or should have, consulted these books. There are no other sources on the history of Islam. So if what the modern Islamic writers say is contrary to what the above books say, are they telling the truth?
Why would they lie? The answer is complex. Some of them actually have never read the original sources that I mentioned. They rely on what other, contemporary apologists have written. Many Muslims terrorize those who criticize Islam. In such a repressive atmosphere, deceit is applied and truth is the casualty.
There is also another factor that has to be taken into consideration: Political Correctness. In the last century, the Europeans started to dislike Christianity and found every other culture better than their own. Romanticizing Indian culture, Chinese culture, or Islamic culture became the vogue. To qualify as an intellectual, all one had to do was to criticize Judeo-Christianity and pay tribute to other cultures. This mentality actually gave birth to a cult that is now permeating the western mindset. It is called Political Correctness. To fit in the society you must belong to this cult. And to belong you must not tell the truth if that truth could offend someone from another culture. You are supposed to say things that are "nice" lest you hurt other people's sensibilities.
In other words, Political Correctness means expediently lying when truth is hurtful. Of course criticizing Judeo-Christianity is not considered to be politically incorrect. You can offend the Jews or the Christians but not others. Thus, influenced by this culture of self-deceit, many Westerners, and especially the Europeans, produced a lot of revisionist nonsense, lying about the historical facts.
Emerging from the dark ages of colonialism, when the newspapers started revealing the brutalities perpetrated by their own governments in the colonized countries, especially in Americas, the Europeans were shocked. They were disgusted at the inhumanity of their own ethos. Therefore, lauding other cultures and slandering their own was a form of repentance.
Subsequently a new ethos was created, as oppressive as a cult, where the apostates are labeled as racists and scorned. To be politically correct, they produced factually incorrect literature and even taught those lies to their children. Textbooks were rewritten to accommodate the non-Judeo-Christian mores. The idea was to educate the new generations to be tolerant and accepting of other cultures. The idea was noble; something that Muslims would not be able even to understand. However, the sad reality is that by doing so, the truth was sacrificed at the altar of Political Correctness. This provided the milieu for Islam to expand in the West. Islam thrives in an environment where truth is suppressed.
Political Correctness is the brainchild of the people with good intention. However, as they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Where'd you copy that from ? Put in the source, I'm curious to learn about the future of Islam in the west since obviously it stands on solid ground. Posted by Dzosser (Member # 9572) on :
Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: Can you inmagine if you did not come home for several days and then told your wife that you were in a frickin cave talking to an angel. If you were trying to write total farse you could not do a better job.
The farse is the world's only true best seller, it even refers to all time farseurs, like Abraham et al. Posted by Dzosser (Member # 9572) on :
Dalia, where on earth did you get the notion that female circumcision ever existed in Saudi Arabia ? It never did nor do they call for it..this ritual is purely African. You missed that one..ma3lish. Posted by Dzosser (Member # 9572) on :
[QUOTE]Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: Mohammad
Pee be upon him
Man you really hate us Muslims !! What did we do to you personally, so as to make you so mad at the one and only Muhammad PBUH ? Allah doesn't like it when His creations insult His prophet, He has like a fire burning for such low lives. Posted by Ayisha (Member # 4713) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dzosser: Dalia, where on earth did you get the notion that female circumcision ever existed in Saudi Arabia ? It never did nor do they call for it..this ritual is purely African. You missed that one..ma3lish.
we know it never existed there Dzosser, which makes the so called hadith even more suspect Dalia's point is that these 'scholars' that advocate FGM are the same ones that call eyebrow plucking 'changing what Allah made' Posted by Dzosser (Member # 9572) on :
You forgot to mention that the ones who are tattooed are cursed by Allah.. now lots of the Arab women (muslima) get their eyebrows tattooed. Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
Dzosser, I am not one of his creations. Islam? Where do we start? Have you been reading the papers for the past thirty years? You might also start with the barbaric way Muslims treat their women. I have said for years that it is a cult and not a religion and thus should not be protected in the west under our freedom of religion laws.
Posted by unfinished thought. (Member # 16076) on :
FGM falls within the category of the "permissible"
In Yemen and Saudi Arabia the custom takes place, but in Saudi Arabia it is common only in the south of the kingdom.
In 2001, Lashkar Jihad used FGM as a tool in its forced conversion of 3,928 Christians living on six islands in the Moluccas (the Spice Islands). The converts, male and female, were forcibly circumcised without anesthetic. Researchers from Ambon island stated that those who carried out the circumcisions were Muslim clerics. Young girls, pregnant women, and even elderly women up to the age of 70 were forced to endure the procedure.
quote:Originally posted by Dzosser: You forgot to mention that the ones who are tattooed are cursed by Allah..
oooh thats me buggered then Posted by Kalila : ) (Member # 14517) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ayisha:
quote:Originally posted by Dzosser: You forgot to mention that the ones who are tattooed are cursed by Allah..
oooh thats me buggered then
Oops me too Posted by Dzosser (Member # 9572) on :
[QUOTE]Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: Dzosser, I am not one of his creations. Islam? Where do we start? Have you been reading the papers for the past thirty years? You might also start with the barbaric way Muslims treat their women. I have said for years that it is a cult and not a religion and thus should not be protected in the west under our freedom of religion laws.
Ahh ! So you're one of those 'nature' beings that happen like a repercussion of something..oh well then, no wonder all the hatred to religion.. well anyway in that case its no use talking sense with you and yes I guess 1.3 billion Muslims world wide are all about rag heads that torture their 4 oppressed wives and plot to take over the western world. Dang! How didn't I notice that for the past 30 years. Posted by Ayisha (Member # 4713) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: Dzosser, I am not one of his creations.
something we can agree on Posted by Dzosser (Member # 9572) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kalila : ):
quote:Originally posted by Ayisha: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Dzosser: You forgot to mention that the ones who are tattooed are cursed by Allah..
oooh thats me buggered then
Oops me too
Now that you know, you can't be going on the wrong way take a turn or do something..dammit Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
Dzosser, I have no problem with religion. I do have a problem with cults and that is what Islam is.
Posted by *Dalia* (Member # 13012) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dzosser: Dalia, where on earth did you get the notion that female circumcision ever existed in Saudi Arabia ? It never did nor do they call for it..this ritual is purely African. You missed that one..ma3lish.
*sigh*
I would really appreciate it if you could read my posts correctly and not misinterpret them, Dzosser. And I don't understand why you are constantly trying to mock me and find fault with what I'm saying.
I haven't said anywhere that female circumcision is a tradition in Saudi Arabia, I know it's not.
My statement was referring to the scholars from Islam-QA; they forbid the plucking of eyebrows but claim that female circumcision is either obligatory or a good thing to do. And, yes, they happen to be Saudi. The late Sheikh Ibn Uthaimeen who used to be the grand mufti of Saudi Arabia claims it is "obligatory in the case of men and Sunnah in the case of women". Sheikh Salid al-Munajjid who is responsible for the contents of the Islam-QA website is also from Saudi.
Sunnah in case of women ???!!! Dih out khaless ba'a !!!
Posted by Elegantly Wasted (Member # 8386) on :
Arabs/Egyptians to this day try to pull bullshit like that with their wives.
"You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do."
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: Can you inmagine if you did not come home for several days and then told your wife that you were in a frickin cave talking to an angel. If you were trying to write total farse you could not do a better job.
Posted by unfinished thought. (Member # 16076) on :
Posted by Pamela in Blue (Member # 16741) on :
dang i step out for dinner and a movie and the place explodes!
Posted by Ayisha (Member # 4713) on :
thats ES for ya Pamela
who has the popcorn??
Posted by Lady Ferret (Member # 15263) on :
Who am I throwing out of what country?
I am confused, are the British throwing Ayisha out of Egypt??? All of us for one lady? Wow... I will get my giant catapult out the closet!
Hey Ayisha, do you have my 'parcel'???
For the record, smoking is disgusting and foul Posted by Ayisha (Member # 4713) on :
LF you are way off!!
The racist American is backing the BNP. Hes not British or even IN UK but hes backing them anyway and thinks because I am muslim I am not British, even though I was born in UK by British parents that I should be thrown out of the country (UK)
I have your 'parcel' Posted by Lady Ferret (Member # 15263) on :
Who backs the BNP these days, didn't they go out of fashion?
You are a Muslim, in Britain, from the Mids.. are the newspapers aware there are British Muslims in the Midlands
We need to do a deal with the 'parcel'
Posted by Ayisha (Member # 4713) on :
Apparently the BNP have its support from Americans these days, they got laughed out of most of UK
I think The Sun and The News of the World may have an idea their are a few Muslims hidden away in the Midlands
Are you planning on coming for the 'parcel' anytime soon? I may be visiting your neck of the woods but not sure when yet or it can be passed on Posted by *Dalia* (Member # 13012) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dzosser: Sunnah in case of women ???!!! Dih out khaless ba'a !!!
I'm glad you're shocked about that statement, so at least we seem to agree on something for a change. Posted by Lady Ferret (Member # 15263) on :
I associate the BNP with low class chavs So 2005!!! They are a joke...
I think there are 9 Muslims in the Midlands now, I have a feeling this number will rise now the BNP have gone trans atlantic.
I may be your way in Oct... there is no rush.
Have you tried what's in the parcel... ??? Once you try I think you may be hooked
Posted by Dzosser (Member # 9572) on :
quote:Originally posted by *Dalia*: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Dzosser: Sunnah in case of women ???!!! Dih out khaless ba'a !!!
I'm glad you're shocked about that statement, so at least we seem to agree on something for a change.
Lol Aywa keda..khaleeki laziza. Posted by unfinished thought. (Member # 16076) on :
Nick Griffin, the leader of the far right British National Party and newly elected Member of European Parliament, is in the news again after he told a Channel 4 reporter that “Islam is a cancer, requiring global chemotherapy.”
The BNP leader Nick Griffin has described Islam as a “cancer” that should be removed from Europe by “chemotherapy”.
In an interview with Channel 4 News, Mr Griffin, who has just been elected to the European Parliament, said there was “no place in Europe for Islam”.
He added: “Western values, freedom of speech, democracy and rights for women are incompatible with Islam, which is a cancer eating away at our freedoms and our democracy and rights for our women and something needs to be done about it”.
The BNP leader said he agreed with a candidate for the Flemish far right party, Vlaams Belang, who had declared: “We urgently need global chemotherapy against Islam to save civilisation.”
The good news for Muslims is that Griffin is having no success forming a coalition with other European right wing parties - which means that the BNP will not receive funding from the EU.
quote:Originally posted by Lady Ferret: I associate the BNP with low class chavs So 2005!!! They are a joke...
I think there are 9 Muslims in the Midlands now, I have a feeling this number will rise now the BNP have gone trans atlantic.
is that 9 since I left? didnt realize there were that many
quote:I may be your way in Oct... there is no rush.
Have you tried what's in the parcel... ??? Once you try I think you may be hooked
not tried, cant get that other thing I need to make it useful, you could bring some down with you though, cant wait to try Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
an interview with Channel 4 News, Mr Griffin, who has just been elected to the European Parliament, said there was “no place in Europe for Islam”.
Exactly, these people do to a nation what lung cancer does to the human body. They'll be removed at some point. The only question is how nasty is it going to be. France and some others are stating to get it.
Posted by Ayisha (Member # 4713) on :
quote:Originally posted by unfinished thought.: Nick Griffin, the leader of the far right British National Party and newly elected Member of European Parliament, is in the news again after he told a Channel 4 reporter that “Islam is a cancer, requiring global chemotherapy.”
The BNP leader Nick Griffin has described Islam as a “cancer” that should be removed from Europe by “chemotherapy”.
In an interview with Channel 4 News, Mr Griffin, who has just been elected to the European Parliament, said there was “no place in Europe for Islam”.
He added: “Western values, freedom of speech, democracy and rights for women are incompatible with Islam, which is a cancer eating away at our freedoms and our democracy and rights for our women and something needs to be done about it”.
"Equity law, which developed in England, emphasized the principle of equal rights rather than tradition. Equity law had a liberalizing effect upon the legal rights of women in the United States. For instance, a woman could sue her husband. Mississippi in 1839, followed by New York in 1848 and Massachusetts in 1854, passed laws allowing married women to own property separate from their husbands. In divorce law, however, generally the divorced husband kept legal control of both children and property. "
"During the 1960s several federal laws improving the economic status of women were passed. The Equal Pay Act of 1963 required equal wages for men and women doing equal work. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited discrimination against women by any company with 25 or more employees. A Presidential Executive Order in 1967 prohibited bias against women in hiring by federal government contractors. "
"Until well into the 20th century, women in Western European countries lived under many of the same legal disabilities as women in the United States. For example, until 1935, married women in England did not have the full right to own property and to enter into contracts on a par with unmarried women. Only after 1920 was legislation passed to provide working women with employment opportunities and pay equal to men. Not until the early 1960s was a law passed that equalized pay scales for men and women in the British civil service. "
...all real property which a wife held at the time of a marriage became a possession of her husband. He was entitled to the rent from the land and to any profit which might be made from operating the estate during the joint life of the spouses. As time passed, the English courts devised means to forbid a husband's transferring real property without the consent of his wife, but he still retained the right to manage it and to receive the money which it produced. As to a wife's personal property, the husband's power was complete. He had the right to spend it as he saw fit.
Only by the late nineteenth Century did the situation start to improve. "By a series of acts starting with the Married women's Property Act in 1870, amended in 1882 and 1887, married women achieved the right to own property and to enter contracts on a par with spinsters, widows, and divorcees." As late as the Nineteenth Century an authority in ancient law, Sir Henry Maine, wrote: "No society which preserves any tincture of Christian institutions is likely to restore to married women the personal liberty conferred on them by the Middle Roman Law."
In the Mosaic Law, the wife was betrothed. Explaining this concept, the Encyclopedia Biblica states: "To betroth a wife to oneself meant simply to acquire possession of her by payment of the purchase money; the betrothed is a girl for whom the purchase money has been paid." From the legal point of view, the consent of the girl was not necessary for the validation of her marriage. "The girl's consent is unnecessary and the need for it is nowhere suggested in the Law."
As to the right of divorce, we read in the Encyclopedia Biblica: "The woman being man's property, his right to divorce her follows as a matter of course." The right to divorce was held only by man. "In the Mosaic Law divorce was a privilege of the husband only .... "
030.021 YUSUFALI: And among His Signs is this, that He created for you mates from among yourselves, that ye may dwell in tranquillity with them, and He has put love and mercy between your (hearts): verily in that are Signs for those who reflect.
equality: 033.035 YUSUFALI: For Muslim men and women,- for believing men and women, for devout men and women, for true men and women, for men and women who are patient and constant, for men and women who humble themselves, for men and women who give in Charity, for men and women who fast (and deny themselves), for men and women who guard their chastity, and for men and women who engage much in Allah's praise,- for them has Allah prepared forgiveness and great reward.
Muslim women have these rights AND the right to own property of their own AND the right to be fully supported financially by their husbands, and have had these rights over 1400 years.
1. The right and duty to obtain education.
2. The right to have their own independent property.
3. The right to work to earn money if they need it or want it.
4. Equality of reward for equal deeds.
5. The right to express their opinion and be heard.
6. The right to provisions from the husband for all her needs and more.
7. The right to negotiate marriage terms of her choice.
8. The right to obtain divorce from her husband, even on the grounds that she simply can't stand him. (pls note that God deeply frowns upon divorce as a solution unless there is hardly any other alternative but it does not mean that men have more right to divorce their wives than women do.)
9. The right to keep all her own money (she is not responsible to maintain any relations).
10. The right to get sexual satisfaction from her husband.
11. custody of their children after divorce.
12. to refuse any marriage that does not please them
and more...
quote:The BNP leader said he agreed with a candidate for the Flemish far right party, Vlaams Belang, who had declared: “We urgently need global chemotherapy against Islam to save civilisation.”
so he cant even think for himself and has to use someone elses words?
quote:The good news for Muslims is that Griffin is having no success forming a coalition with other European right wing parties - which means that the BNP will not receive funding from the EU.
of course they wont. The British faught against people like him in the last war, no way are they going to vote him in, hes outdated and a racist, British dont like racism although there are a few like him left. The man is nothing more than a thug
Posted by Ayisha (Member # 4713) on :
Americanparrot, why dont you believe in human rights, equality, freedom, all the things your country faught for?
Posted by Tibe still working (Member # 16647) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ayisha: Americanparrot, why dont you believe in human rights, equality, freedom, all the things your country faught for?
Because they are only suppose to be for people with the right political opinion, the right religion and the right skin colour. If thats freedom i'll rather live without it !
Posted by Ayisha (Member # 4713) on :
got it in one tibe!!
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
Islam and human rights are not compatible, they are oxymorons. We fought for all of the things you mentioned Ayisha but the same tyranny we defeated is now back in the form of Islam.
Many of us are being pushed further right than we would normally be but so be it if human freedom is to be maintained and western civilization advanced.
Posted by Tibe still working (Member # 16647) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: Islam and human rights are not compatible, they are oxymorons. We fought for all of the things you mentioned Ayisha but the same tyranny we defeated is now back in the form of Islam.
The bible is not much different from the quaran. Why judge the masses because of a minority????
Posted by Ayisha (Member # 4713) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: Islam and human rights are not compatible, they are oxymorons. We fought for all of the things you mentioned Ayisha but the same tyranny we defeated is now back in the form of Islam.
Many of us are being pushed further right than we would normally be but so be it if human freedom is to be maintained and western civilization advanced.
read my post above mr racist. Islam had more freedom and human rights long before the 'west' ever did. Posted by Ayisha (Member # 4713) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tibe still working:
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: Islam and human rights are not compatible, they are oxymorons. We fought for all of the things you mentioned Ayisha but the same tyranny we defeated is now back in the form of Islam.
The bible is not much different from the quaran. Why judge the masses because of a minority????
because thats what small minded people do tibe Posted by Tibe still working (Member # 16647) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ayisha:
quote:Originally posted by Tibe still working:
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: Islam and human rights are not compatible, they are oxymorons. We fought for all of the things you mentioned Ayisha but the same tyranny we defeated is now back in the form of Islam.
The bible is not much different from the quaran. Why judge the masses because of a minority????
because thats what small minded people do tibe
His not any better than the muslim fanatics. He is rambeling on and on and on and spread fear and hate. There is no difference between him and a radical islamist person. Both believe very strongly in what they are saying and both thinks that violence is the only answer. The world is coming to an end if people keep digging the gaps insted op closing them.
Posted by Ayisha (Member # 4713) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: Islam and human rights are not compatible, they are oxymorons. We fought for all of the things you mentioned Ayisha but the same tyranny we defeated is now back in the form of Islam.
Many of us are being pushed further right than we would normally be but so be it if human freedom is to be maintained and western civilization advanced.
you cant see the contradiction here can you? You want your freedom but Islam is not taking away your freedom yet you will take away other peoples freedom in the name of your freedom which you havent even lost?
You are a joke mr racist and the sad thing is you cant even see it. Posted by Dzosser (Member # 9572) on :
Originally posted by Tibe still working:
quote:Originally posted by Ayisha: Americanparrot, why dont you believe in human rights, equality, freedom, all the things your country faught for?
Because they are only suppose to be for people with the right political opinion, the right religion and the right skin colour. If thats freedom i'll rather live without it !
Tibe are you for real ??!! I hope your hubby doesn't know about this. Posted by Tibe still working (Member # 16647) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dzosser: Originally posted by Tibe still working:
quote:Originally posted by Ayisha: Americanparrot, why dont you believe in human rights, equality, freedom, all the things your country faught for?
Because they are only suppose to be for people with the right political opinion, the right religion and the right skin colour. If thats freedom i'll rather live without it !
Tibe are you for real ??!! I hope your hubby doesn't know about this.
Ayisha can y please teach Drozzer what ironi is....?????
Really - how old are y Drozzer???? Posted by Dzosser (Member # 9572) on :
I'm old enough to realise that your command of the English language is that of a five year old. That's taking into consideration that you are educated of course. BTW not because you happened to be Danish should this by necessity classify you as 'La crème de la crème,' although Denmark is only good for milking cows and producing dairy products, you should fit into the general pattern, but sometimes a fly could fall into the cream Posted by Tibe still working (Member # 16647) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dzosser: I'm old enough to realise that your command of the English language is that of a five year old. That's taking into consideration that you are educated of course. BTW not because you happened to be Danish should this by necessity classify you as 'La crème de la crème,' although Denmark is only good for milking cows and producing dairy products, you should fit into the general pattern, but sometimes a fly could fall into the cream
You start with that childish stuff again. Y totally misunderstood my post which shows that you are just out to pick a fight with me. Please grow up.
Posted by Dzosser (Member # 9572) on :
Childish stuff is more fun than growing up, I don't want to start a fight with a racist person..what post and what misunderstanding ? Posted by Dzosser (Member # 9572) on :
Oh! I get now, there's a post where you said that freedom, human rights and equality shouldn't be given to anybody else except the 'right' people..that's obviously not the rest of the world other than the 'white supreme race'..Right ? Posted by Ayisha (Member # 4713) on :
Dzosser, Tibe was being sarcastic about Americanparrots racism! tibe is nto the racist, he is
I Danish Biscuits are good too!!
Posted by Tibe still working (Member # 16647) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ayisha: Dzosser, Tibe was being sarcastic about Americanparrots racism! tibe is nto the racist, he is
I Danish Biscuits are good too!!
Thank you!
Drozzer try look up ironi in your dictionary!
Posted by Ayisha (Member # 4713) on :
better still, look up irony Posted by Dzosser (Member # 9572) on :
Her English just doesn't sound like it should, then I misinterpreted her remark, and apologize for that Tibe. Nevertheless what's ironi ?? Posted by Tibe still working (Member # 16647) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ayisha: better still, look up irony
*Smacks Ayisha* - and slams her to the floor for NOT being DANISH. Steps on her fingers and puts danish produced cream cheese in her hair!
That should teach you - bloody arab wanna be Posted by Tibe still working (Member # 16647) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dzosser: Her English just doesn't sound like it should, then I misinterpreted her remark, and apologize for that Tibe. Nevertheless what's ironi ??
I dont accept your apoligy because its not sincere! Your just trying to pick a fight with me and would have continued unless Ayisha stepped in. You on purpose totally ignored all my lines like :
"If thats freedom i'll rather live without it !"
"The bible is not much different from the quaran. Why judge the masses because of a minority???? "
"His not any better than the muslim fanatics. He is rambeling on and on and on and spread fear and hate. There is no difference between him and a radical islamist person. Both believe very strongly in what they are saying and both thinks that violence is the only answer. The world is coming to an end if people keep digging the gaps insted op closing them. "
Please stay out of my way. I will ignore you and expect y to return that favour! Salaam!
Posted by Ayisha (Member # 4713) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tibe still working:
quote:Originally posted by Ayisha: better still, look up irony
*Smacks Ayisha* - and slams her to the floor for NOT being DANISH. Steps on her fingers and puts danish produced cream cheese in her hair!
That should teach you - bloody arab wanna be
*makes note not to buy anymore Danish Butter Cookies at Christmas even if the tins are good for storage *
Posted by Ayisha (Member # 4713) on :
*bangs Tibes and Dzossers heads together and locks them in a room together for being naughty*
Posted by Dzosser (Member # 9572) on :
Tibe, you are mostly welcome to ignore me..I wasn't planning on taking one step further with any of your postings, so feel free to insult Arabs as much as you want..you're Danish after all. Posted by Tibe still working (Member # 16647) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ayisha: *bangs Tibes and Dzossers heads together and locks them in a room together for being naughty*
Never knew y where that cruel She/he/it would kill me within an hour. It would start already when i say HI. Then she/he/it would think i said Fcking arab. Then i use 40 minutes on explaining that i only said hi.
Posted by unfinished thought. (Member # 16076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tibe still working: The bible is not much different from the quaran. Why judge the masses because of a minority????
The Bible is very different from the Quran. The Quran is a book of guidence for ALL times, a politico-religious system of total control of society, where all sovereignty belongs to Allah. For example, the Quran says that a thief’s hand must be cut off. "As for the thief, both male and female, cut off their hands. It is the reward of their own deeds, an exemplary punishment from Allah."
This is a fixed law for all times. Muslims understand the Quran to be the unchanging word of God.
The Bible is nothing like that. It's not a book that is concerned with issuing laws on people's wealth and its distribution, punishment for crimes etc. In fact it emphasises: "Give back to Ceasar what is Cesar's and to God what is God's", and "My Kingdom is not of this world"
Posted by Tibe still working (Member # 16647) on :
quote:Originally posted by unfinished thought.:
quote:Originally posted by Tibe still working: The bible is not much different from the quaran. Why judge the masses because of a minority????
The Bible is very different from the Quran. The Quran is a book of guidence for ALL times, a politico-religious system of total control of society, where all sovereignty belongs to Allah. For example, the Quran says that a thief’s hand must be cut off. "As for the thief, both male and female, cut off their hands. It is the reward of their own deeds, an exemplary punishment from Allah."
This is a fixed law for all times. Muslims understand the Quran to be the unchanging word of God.
The Bible is nothing like that. It's not a book that is concerned with issuing laws on people's wealth and its distribution, punishment for crimes etc. In fact it emphasises: "Give back to Ceasar what is Cesar's and to God what is God's", and "My Kingdom is not of this world"
And if i dont get married as a virgin i should be stoned to death as a whore says my precious bible. Or if i dont cover my hair it should be shaved...... Religious crap - doesnt matter which book it comes from.
Posted by unfinished thought. (Member # 16076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ayisha: Islam had more freedom and human rights long before the 'west' ever did.
Your comparison with the West of the past is very silly. How can you compare man-made laws with the unchangeable 'divine' laws of the Quran? Human society progresses, but Islam stays the same. That's the difficulty. The Word of the Creator is the basis of life itself, and makes its context rather than existing within a context. A humanly-written text would be expected to reflect the state of knowledge as it stood during its time. The Quran is unashamedly of its time.
A belief-system is a little like a map. Ordinary, everyday people use their map to read the real geography of the territory through which they pass, revising it in the light of evidence and experience. Islam cannot do this: the untouchable status of its text inverts the importance of world and map. The map is eternally true, yet the earth, distressingly, does not fit it, and so must be altered. This earth-moving work is arduous. Not only does the believer have to contend with the earth's changing of its own accord: he must also contend with all the changes, which the unbeliever is making through an evidence-based science. As time elapses, the less accurate becomes the terrain (compared with the enduring accuracy of the map) and the more difficult the task. Actually, like the scripture itself, it becomes eternal.
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
The idea that Islam promotes human rights is insane. These ladies go to a mosque segregated by gender with their heads covered up and listen to some dried up old man tell them how to live. All one has to do is look at the application of Shira law in muslim nations to see how repressive these people are. Iran sticks out at us like a sore thumb. No, they have nothing to do with our values and would set back human advancement 500 years.
Posted by Tibe still working (Member # 16647) on :
How boring and self loving can people be??????
Now where down to who was most civilized first and who destroyed it. Which book is most correct and who knows most about it Posted by unfinished thought. (Member # 16076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tibe still working: And if i dont get married as a virgin i should be stoned to death as a whore says my precious bible.
Before making inane remarks about things you are clueless about, I suggest you read the basics of Christianity. The fact that stoning has never been practised by Christians should give you a clue or two.
Jesus showed us how to deal with sins such as adultery and fornification. He made it clear that sexual sin is NOT a civil crime.Jesus, goes to the heart of the sin. Adultery and other sexual sins begin in the mind, so the solution to them must also begin in the mind.
Muhammad, on the other hand, believes in imposing sexual holiness from the outside of a person’s mind by flogging and stoning. But this has never worked throughout human history because sexual sin is too deeply entrenched in human nature. Moreover, Muhammad’s harsh punishments do not bring healing to a family and subsequently to society, but they tear the family and society apart. Also, it is only logical that such punishments would drive the sin underground; indeed, according to reliable hadiths that Maududi cites, Muhammad encouraged his early followers to keep their sins or "crimes" a secret. This is no long-lasting solution, either.
Jesus goes beyond pointing out the spiritual root cause, and offers a spiritual solution, which is clarified in the Gospel of John 8:1-11. Jesus never intended to reinstitute the punishment of stoning sinners, or even their flogging, as Muhammad would like to reinstitute. Jesus intended to rise above such shallow solutions.
Posted by Tibe still working (Member # 16647) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: The idea that Islam promotes human rights is insane. These ladies go to a mosque segregated by gender with their heads covered up and listen to some dried up old man tell them how to live. All one has to do is look at the application of Shira law in muslim nations to see how repressive these people are. Iran sticks out at us like a sore thumb. No, they have nothing to do with our values and would set back human advancement 500 years.
Have a twin brother called Narcissos?????
Posted by Tibe still working (Member # 16647) on :
quote:Originally posted by unfinished thought.:
quote:Originally posted by Tibe still working: And if i dont get married as a virgin i should be stoned to death as a whore says my precious bible.
Before making inane remarks about things you are clueless about, I suggest you read the basics of Christianity. The fact that stoning has never been practised by Christians should give you a clue or two.
Jesus showed us how to deal with sins such as adultery and fornification. He made it clear that sexual sin is NOT a civil crime.Jesus, goes to the heart of the sin. Adultery and other sexual sins begin in the mind, so the solution to them must also begin in the mind.
Muhammad, on the other hand, believes in imposing sexual holiness from the outside of a person’s mind by flogging and stoning. But this has never worked throughout human history because sexual sin is too deeply entrenched in human nature. Moreover, Muhammad’s harsh punishments do not bring healing to a family and subsequently to society, but they tear the family and society apart. Also, it is only logical that such punishments would drive the sin underground; indeed, according to reliable hadiths that Maududi cites, Muhammad encouraged his early followers to keep their sins or "crimes" a secret. This is no long-lasting solution, either.
Jesus goes beyond pointing out the spiritual root cause, and offers a spiritual solution, which is clarified in the Gospel of John 8:1-11. Jesus never intended to reinstitute the punishment of stoning sinners, or even their flogging, as Muhammad would like to reinstitute. Jesus intended to rise above such shallow solutions.
That was strange. This is what my bible says:
For a woman who is not a virgin on her wedding night
If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her ... and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid: Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate: And the damsel's father shall say ... these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city. ... But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die. Deuteronomy 22:13-21
Looks like something i once read in the quaran. Both very good tails but hardly more than that.
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
Tibe. You are one of those people who ragged on America and President Bush incessantly. Your convaluted thinking would say that it would be better for Iraq to have Saddam in power today instead of the government they now have. In light of that please spare us quibs about Islam and human rights.
Posted by unfinished thought. (Member # 16076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ayisha: From the legal point of view, the consent of the girl was not necessary for the validation of her marriage. "The girl's consent is unnecessary and the need for it is nowhere suggested in the Law."
Muhammad married a six year old. How can a six year old girl consent to marriage? Without a consent, how can we call this relationship between a 51 years old man and a 6-years old child marriage?
The Prophet said, “A virgin should not be married till she is asked for her consent; and the matron should not be married till she is asked whether she agrees to marry or not.” It was asked, “O Allah’s Apostle! How will she(the virgin) express her consent?” He said, “By keeping silent.”
What many Muslims do not know is that the OT makes a reference to the general age of a girl considered for marriage. The reference is found in a parable where God likens Israel to a baby girl whom Yahweh took in and then eventually married. The parable proceeds to liken Israel’s dabble with idolatry to a wife who commits adultery and prostitution.
Not only does this specific parable present the marriageable age of a girl, the parable also assumes that this is a fact that was already well known and observed by the peoples, specifically Israel.
"On the day you were born your cord was not cut, nor were you washed with water to make you clean, nor were you rubbed with salt or wrapped in cloths. No one looked on you with pity or had compassion enough to do any of these things for you. Rather, you were thrown out into the open field, for on the day you were born you were despised. Then I passed by and saw you kicking about in your blood, and as you lay there in your blood I said to you, ‘Live!’ I made you grow like a plant of the field. You grew up and developed and became the most beautiful of jewels. Your breasts were formed and your hair grew, you who were naked and bare. Later I passed by, and when I looked at you and saw that you were old enough for love, I spread the corner of my garment over you and covered your nakedness. I gave you my solemn oath and entered into a covenant with you, declares the Sovereign LORD, and you became mine. I bathed you with water and washed the blood from you and put ointments on you. I clothed you with an embroidered dress and put leather sandals on you. I dressed you in fine linen and covered you with costly garments. I adorned you with jewelry: I put bracelets on your arms and a necklace around your neck, and I put a ring on your nose, earrings on your ears and a beautiful crown on your head. So you were adorned with gold and silver; your clothes were of fine linen and costly fabric and embroidered cloth. Your food was fine flour, honey and olive oil. You became very beautiful and rose to be a queen. And your fame spread among the nations on account of your beauty, because the splendor I had given you made your beauty perfect, declares the Sovereign LORD." Ezekiel 16:4-14
Bible Translations
I made you thrive like plants of the field. You grew up and matured and became very beautiful. Your breasts were formed and your hair grew, but you were stark naked. Then I passed by you and saw you, and you were indeed at the age for love... Holman Christian Standard Bible
and grow up like a plant of the field. And you grew up and became tall and arrived at full maidenhood; your breasts were formed, and your hair had grown; yet you were naked and bare. When I passed by you again and looked upon you, behold, you were at the age for love; ... RSV
And I made you grow like the gross of the fields. You developed, you, you reached marriageable age. Your breasts became firm and your hair grew richly, but you were stark naked. New Jerusalem Bible
I made you grow like a plant in the field. You grew up, matured, and became a young woman. Your breasts developed, and your hair grew. Yet, you were naked and bare. I went by you again and looked at you. You were old enough to make love to... GOD's WORD Translation
I took care of you, like someone caring for a tender, young plant. You grew up to be a beautiful young woman with perfect breasts and long hair, but you were still naked. When I saw you again, you were old enough to have sex… CEV
In light of the foregoing we conclude that the Bible does set forth the acceptable age of marriage. Both Jews and Christians have understood this to be the case. For instance, an early Christian writer and Church Father, Clement of Alexandria, wrote:
It is not only fornication, but also the giving in marriage prematurely, that is called fornication; when, so to speak, one not of ripe age is given to a husband, either of her own accord or by her parents. (Clement of Alexandria, IX.-Fragment of the Treatise on Marriage, Early Church Fathers - Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume II; online edition;)
Also I find the following citation interesting:
"When you go out to battle against your enemies, and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take them away captive, and see among the captives a beautiful woman, and have a desire for her and would take her as a wife for yourself, then you shall bring her home to your house, and she shall shave her head and trim her nails. She shall also remove the clothes of her captivity and shall remain in your house, and mourn her father and mother a full month; and after that you may go in to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. It shall be, if you are not pleased with her, then you shall let her go WHEREVER SHE WISHES; BUT YOU SHALL CERTAINLY NOT SELL HER FOR MONEY, YOU SHALL NOT MISTREAT HER, because you have humbled her." Deuteronomy 21:10-14
Islam, however, allows for the raping and selling of captive women even if they are married! (Cf. Sura 4:24) When Muhammad’s troops attacked Kheibar and brought Safia to the Prophet as part of his share of the booty, Muhammad ordered Kinana, the young husband of Safia to be tortured to death to make him reveal the whereabouts of the treasure of the town. On the very night of that murder, he took Safia to his bed and claimed that young girl as his trophy. This story is reported by Tabari in detail. It can also be found in Sira of Ibn Ishaq. Muhammad did not pay Safiyah her Mahr because he had to pay it to himself for manumitting her. Of course the irony is that he did not buy her but enslaved her by raiding her town. This story is significant because it gives us an insight into the moral and ethical values of the Prophet of God (Peace be upon his immaculate soul). Safiyya the Jewish wife of the Prophet Posted by Ayisha (Member # 4713) on :
Tibe, some people in here dont class the Old Testement as 'The Bible', except when it suits them of course. These prefer the stuff written by Paul and call it Christianity and only accept the New Testement as 'The Bible', except when it suits of course.
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
The Bible says many things we do not subscribe to today. Unlike Islam we do not live in 7th century.
Posted by Ayisha (Member # 4713) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: Tibe. You are one of those people who ragged on America and President Bush incessantly. Your convaluted thinking would say that it would be better for Iraq to have Saddam in power today instead of the government they now have. In light of that please spare us quibs about Islam and human rights.
Did Iraq become another American State? What business is it of the Americans who is in power in another country? You make it your business because of OIL and because America thinks it can police the entire world by terrorism tactics. You call it 'liberation', they call it terrorism. How many MORE have died in Iraq since you the super terrorists invaded that country?? Posted by Tibe still working (Member # 16647) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ayisha: Tibe, some people in here dont class the Old Testement as 'The Bible', except when it suits them of course. These prefer the stuff written by Paul and call it Christianity and only accept the New Testement as 'The Bible', except when it suits of course.
A book that has been re written so many times looses its value. In 20 years there will be a 3. testament where there will be free tickets to the swingerclubs and its okay to wanna go for a free ride on your neighbour but just not on sundays
That said - the quaran is oldfashion and belong in the stoneage in many ways.
People get further with genuine compassion and common sense.
Posted by Ayisha (Member # 4713) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: The Bible says many things we do not subscribe to today. Unlike Islam we do not live in 7th century.
so you dont follow what God said so everyone else shouldnt have the freedom to do so?
You havent got the first clue what Islam is about yet you think you can destroy it? You will NEVER destroy peoples faith no matter how hard you try.
Dont you wonder why Islam is the fastest growing religion and why mostly WOMEN choose to convert?
Is your name Patrick by any chance? Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
It is our business Tibe because we have peckers 12 inches long. When are you going to figure out the way the world actually works. You are one of those people who would rather have Uday and Kusay Hussein putting women in wood chippers than support the United States.
Posted by Tibe still working (Member # 16647) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: It is our business Tibe because we have peckers 12 inches long. When are you going to figure out the way the world actually works. You are one of those people who would rather have Uday and Kusay Hussein putting women in wood chippers than support the United States.
Where did y come up with that idea???? I LOVE democracy and freedom for all. I like think US went in Iraq with the right motives but wouldnt want them to continue the raid they are on unless they come up with better proofs that what they had against Iraq. Otherwise we end up in WW 3.
Posted by unfinished thought. (Member # 16076) on :
quote:That was strange. This is what my bible says...the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die. Deuteronomy 22:13-21
Those were the customs of ANCIENT Jews, 4000 years ago. Nowhere in the Bible it says that we should adopt those ANCIENT JEWISH customs as ETERNAL laws, laws for all places and people and time. They were meant for a specific people for a specific time.
Christians honor and revere the Old Testament as inspired by God in its own era, and they can learn timeless truths from it, but they also believe that Jesus Christ has fulfilled this sacred text, so people no longer have to be stoned to death for a sin like adultery. Sins are dealt with in a new way under the New Covenant—forgiveness and restoration. Jesus is Our Law.
Christianity offers humans dignity. It treats their sins through spiritual transformation in accordance with Christ’s death on the Cross. No longer do we have to undergo the severe physical punishments outlined in the Old Testament, for such sins as adultery and homosexuality. Now, under the New Covenant, the Church seeks sinners, not to punish them by hitting them with rocks or crushing them with stonewalls, but with the message of repentance, forgiveness, and restoration. But if they refuse, then they are free to go their own way. That is the risk of freedom, but the Church does not persecute them by reinstituting the penalties in the Old Covenant.
In contrast, sharia ultimately degrades society and diminishes freedom. It does not promote human rights or simple justice. Islam would drag all of us backwards to a diluted old law, enslaving us under judgment and severity.
Posted by Ayisha (Member # 4713) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tibe still working:
quote:Originally posted by Ayisha: Tibe, some people in here dont class the Old Testement as 'The Bible', except when it suits them of course. These prefer the stuff written by Paul and call it Christianity and only accept the New Testement as 'The Bible', except when it suits of course.
A book that has been re written so many times looses its value. In 20 years there will be a 3. testament where there will be free tickets to the swingerclubs and its okay to wanna go for a free ride on your neighbour but just not on sundays
That said - the quaran is oldfashion and belong in the stoneage in many ways.
People get further with genuine compassion and common sense.
Yes, thats what Quran says too, you just have to read it with open eyes and heart, not something many manage to do Posted by Tibe still working (Member # 16647) on :
quote:Originally posted by unfinished thought.:
quote:That was strange. This is what my bible says...the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die. Deuteronomy 22:13-21
Those were the customs of ANCIENT Jews, 4000 years ago. Nowhere in the Bible it says that we should adopt those ANCIENT JEWISH customs as ETERNAL laws, laws for all places and people and time. They were meant for a specific people for a specific time.
Christians honor and revere the Old Testament as inspired by God in its own era, and they can learn timeless truths from it, but they also believe that Jesus Christ has fulfilled this sacred text, so people no longer have to be stoned to death for a sin like adultery. Sins are dealt with in a new way under the New Covenant—forgiveness and restoration. Jesus is Our Law.
Okay - god develops too so that he fits into our century??? NICE - i would love to see his life strategy coach Posted by Ayisha (Member # 4713) on :
quote:Originally posted by unfinished thought.:
quote:That was strange. This is what my bible says...the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die. Deuteronomy 22:13-21
Those were the customs of ANCIENT Jews, 4000 years ago. Nowhere in the Bible it says that we should adopt those ANCIENT JEWISH customs as ETERNAL laws, laws for all places and people and time. They were meant for a specific people for a specific time.
Christians honor and revere the Old Testament as inspired by God in its own era, and they can learn timeless truths from it, but they also believe that Jesus Christ has fulfilled this sacred text, so people no longer have to be stoned to death for a sin like adultery. Sins are dealt with in a new way under the New Covenant—forgiveness and restoration. Jesus is Our Law.
Christianity offers humans dignity. It treats their sins through spiritual transformation in accordance with Christ’s death on the Cross. No longer do we have to undergo the severe physical punishments outlined in the Old Testament, for such sins as adultery and homosexuality. Now, under the New Covenant, the Church seeks sinners, not to punish them by hitting them with rocks or crushing them with stonewalls, but with the message of repentance, forgiveness, and restoration. But if they refuse, then they are free to go their own way. That is the risk of freedom, but the Church does not persecute them by reinstituting the penalties in the Old Covenant.
In contrast, sharia ultimately degrades society and diminishes freedom. It does not promote human rights or simple justice. Islam would drag all of us backwards to a diluted old law, enslaving us under judgment and severity.
Matt 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 5:18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 5:19 Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 5:20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.
Posted by Tibe still working (Member # 16647) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ayisha:
quote:Originally posted by Tibe still working:
quote:Originally posted by Ayisha: Tibe, some people in here dont class the Old Testement as 'The Bible', except when it suits them of course. These prefer the stuff written by Paul and call it Christianity and only accept the New Testement as 'The Bible', except when it suits of course.
A book that has been re written so many times looses its value. In 20 years there will be a 3. testament where there will be free tickets to the swingerclubs and its okay to wanna go for a free ride on your neighbour but just not on sundays
That said - the quaran is oldfashion and belong in the stoneage in many ways.
People get further with genuine compassion and common sense.
Yes, thats what Quran says too, you just have to read it with open eyes and heart, not something many manage to do
Depends on the eyes that reads it something can be either hatefull or gloryfied. Objective read i would say the quaran is old fashioned (a long with the bible in any version)and has no place in daily life in year 2009
Posted by Ayisha (Member # 4713) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: It is our business Tibe because we have peckers 12 inches long. When are you going to figure out the way the world actually works. You are one of those people who would rather have Uday and Kusay Hussein putting women in wood chippers than support the United States.
You really are delusional aren't you? Oh and you dont use inches, you use centimetres, someone only told you they were inches. 12cm = just under 5 inches, nothing to brag about Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
Ayisha, first I slam is not the fastest growing religion, secondly, it needs to be destroyed and will be in the end. Thirdly, you cannot realistically take the Bible or the Koran literally. we do not kill goats to make a frickin offering in 2009 or stone women to death like some muslims still want to do. Fourthly, my name is not Patrick, it is Charles.
Posted by Pamela in Blue (Member # 16741) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: Ayisha, first I slam is not the fastest growing religion, secondly, it needs to be destroyed and will be in the end. Thirdly, you cannot realistically take the Bible or the Koran literally. we do not kill goats to make a frickin offering in 2009 or stone women to death like some muslims still want to do. Fourthly, my name is not Patrick, it is Charles.
charles i just read 20 minutes ago online that there aint anything in the quran that says to stone someone to death.
Posted by unfinished thought. (Member # 16076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tibe still working: Okay - god develops too so that he fits into our century???
The law was never given to the New Testament believer but the Old Testament believer. It was given for a reason- 1. to show us that we are sinful. 2. To lead us to Christ.
Gal 3:19: “What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made.”
In other words when Christ (the seed) was born there would be an and to the law.
Gal. 3:23-25: “But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, that we may be justified by faith. Now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. " NO MORE (Old Testament) LAW. V. 26 “For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.” Everything in the New Testament covenant is by faith, not law.
Rom.11:6 “And if by grace then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace. but if it is by works, it is no longer grace; otherwise work is no longer work." It is either one or the other it can't be both, these are two different covenants.If you choose to be under one then you are removed from the other.
Rom. 6:14-15 “For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law, but under grace.”
How can the law be used to prevent sin, to not let sin have mastery over you? It can’t. When people today insist that we must keep the laws of the Old Testament covenant they are removing themselves from the covenant of grace and are not under the headship of Christ but are under Moses. The New Testament makes it clear in Jn.1:17: “The Law came through Moses.” GRACE and TRUTH came through Jesus Christ.
Paul made it clear through his writings "I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain." (Gal 2:21). Gal 2:19: "For I through the law died to the law that I might live to God.” in other words, Paul is saying the law is dead to him. We don't use what is dead to have life.
Those who had been under the law ( the Jewish people) had been delivered from it to something far better and so has the church.
Rom. 7:6: “But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.”
The Christian who seeks to keep the law to be justified or sanctified has fallen from grace (Gal 5:4).
Acts 2:42 states that the early Church followed not Old Testament rules but “the Apostles’ doctrine.”
The law of God, God’s laws, Moses commandments, God’s commandments are the same laws united under the old covenant. The law," "the law of the Lord," and "the law of Moses," are the same (they include circumcision, priesthood and sacrifices) see-Luke 2:22, 23, 24, 27; 2 Chron.31:3. ("The law," "the law of Moses," "the, book of the law," "'the law of God," are the same- Neh. 8:2, 3, 8, 14, 18.)
When God speaks about the law he does not divide the ceremonial from the moral, it is all one unit. Jews today continue to keep them as one unit identifying them as 613 laws (not 10).
Here is what needs to be answered- did Jesus fulfill only the ceremonial law of Moses only or all of it? All these commands (613) were the law, these are not just Moses ordinances. They were all nailed to the cross and whatever was nailed there died with Christ. The Old Testament law is no longer operational for the believer. Whatever the apostles taught to the church were those commands to keep as a New Testament believer.
The Old Covenant of Moses is the primary focus of the Old Testament but it is not the initial covenant with Israel- the one with Abraham was and the Mosaic covenant fulfills a number of its promises. The New Covenant becomes the primary focus of the New Testament and is the last covenant of the Bible because it reveals the grace of God through Jesus Christ to all mankind. It becomes the only way both Jews and Gentiles are restored to God.
The Judaizers who believed and kept the law by obligation came in to bring the believers back into bondage. In Acts 15:10 the early church rule on this matter of the law. “Now therefore, why put God to the test, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear”. The law of Moses is not binding for the gentiles is made clear in Acts 15.
The Bible says the just shall live by faith, not the law or commandments of the Old Testament.
Paul a former law keeper states “the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me.” (Gal 2:20)
Rom 8:3-6 “For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh, that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.” It is the Spirit inside the believer that we are to obey to walk according to Jesus.
1 Cor. 15:57 “the strength of sin is the law.” But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.”
Gal 2:16 "knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.”
The New Testament focus and exalts Christ not the law. So what is the law for today? Paul tells us “that the law is good if one uses it lawfully” (Tim. 1:8). So what is the law for today if it is still considered good?
Look at Paul’s interpretation in 1 Tim.1:9, that law is made NOT for good men but FOR law breakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious." Is this not the law that states all have fallen short of the glory of God? Good men would be those who repent and follow Christ, not the Old Testament laws.
So is a Christian under law? No, but there are commands we are to obey that are strictly found for the Church in the New Testament, so we are not without law, just not under the Old Covenant law.
Posted by Ayisha (Member # 4713) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: Ayisha, first I slam is not the fastest growing religion,
quote:secondly, it needs to be destroyed and will be in the end.
How do you destroy a belief? go on im interested
quote:Thirdly, you cannot realistically take the Bible or the Koran literally. we do not kill goats to make a frickin offering in 2009 or stone women to death like some muslims still want to do.
That shows you dont know Quran, there is no stoning women or goat offerings in it.
You really should educate yourself on 'culture' as you are sadly lacking, as was proved in your attempts to tell ME (a Brit) what British 'culture' is. You cannot distinguish between religion and culture, but I also know some Muslims cant either
quote:Fourthly, my name is not Patrick, it is Charles.
Nice to meet you Charles. Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
I do not care what the Koran says. i have to deal with 2009 Islam. Religion is a major componet of culture, in fact it is WHERE a culture gets it's values. You cannot be a real Brit from a cultural point of view and be a Muslim.
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
Tibe, You did not complain abpout American power when we LITERALLY saved you from Hitler. We gave up a quarter of a million dead boys to allow you to be what you are today and the cold hard facts are we did not have to do it. Hitler could have never invaded America across the atlantic.
There is no way you could have been liberated without us. Next time the germans get cranked up they can have you.
Posted by Ayisha (Member # 4713) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: You cannot be a real Brit from a cultural point of view and be a Muslim.
Well FACT is that I AM a Brit and I AM a Muslim. Guess that makes me something special and knocks your theory into a cocked hat me duck Posted by Tibe still working (Member # 16647) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: Tibe, You did not complain abpout American power when we LITERALLY saved you from Hitler. We gave up a quarter of a million dead boys to allow you to be what you are today and the cold hard facts are we did not have to do it. Hitler could have never invaded America across the atlantic.
There is no way you could have been liberated without us. Next time the germans get cranked up they can have you.
Ehhm please show me where i complain???
We payed your help back after the war old dept and old water under the bridge. We also entered Iraq side by side with the US eventhough we was obligated to. So stick your pibe back in the hole!
Posted by unfinished thought. (Member # 16076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pamela in Blue: charles i just read 20 minutes ago online that there aint anything in the quran that says to stone someone to death.
That's because a goat ate the pages of the Quran with the stoning verses.
But it was there. This is seen analogously, in the severe Islamic punishment for theft: cutting off the hand. But the goat missed that one.
Once again, Muhammad and Islam take things too far, especially when we compare him and his religion with Jesus and Christianity.
Muslims assert that the punishment of stoning an adulterer preserves society and the family. In reply, however, it is difficult to imagine a punishment that does just the opposite. Depriving children of one of their parents by stoning him or her to death breaks down the family and can only cause irreparable damage to the children, once they learn why their father or mother will never return to them. Allah took him or her away, out of his divine "compassion." Also, this irreversible punishment forever shuts down any hope of reconciliation between the fractured married couple. It is true that the witnesses can stop the punishment under certain conditions by not initiating it (Muslim no. 4196, and the translator’s note 2161; and Maududi 3:308-09). But what if the rocks are thrown and the criminal is killed, but later on the offended party changes his or her mind? By then, it is too late.
What I also find ludicrous is the confusing policy in sharia is the concealment of one’s sexual crimes when the goal is to deter them and preserve society. Maududi cites three hadiths that show Muhammad telling the criminals that it had been better for them if they had concealed their crimes.
First, this hadith reports that Muhammad says: "If any of you is guilty of any immorality, he should better remain hidden under the curtain of Allah, but if he discloses it to us, we shall certainly enforce the law of Allah on him" (Maududi 3:305). Second, the following one says that a man confessed his sin to the prophet, so he ordered the man to be stoned to death. But at the same time he said to the condemned man: "Would that you had kept the matter hidden: this would have been better for you" (3:305). Finally, Maududi cites this hadith that has Muhammad saying: "You should yourselves pardon the crimes which merit prescribed punishment because when a crime which calls for such a punishment comes to my notice, it will become obligatory on me to award the punishment" (3:305)
However, this concealment contradicts the ultimate purposes of punishing zina: to preserve the family and society and to deter future sexual criminals. These three hadiths say just the opposite. Instead, Islamic law only encourages criminals to go further underground, rather than confess their crimes openly in order to receive help and healing. Concealment serves only to make society collapse secretly—that is, if Muslim apologists are to be believed about the danger of sexual sins being the only factor in a large civilization’s downfall.
Muhammad completely misses the mark when we compare his harsh and excessive policies with those of Jesus and his early church, who offer holiness from the inside out, not impose it from the outside. Muhammad is a deformer, not a reformer, of the earlier religion (and Judaism). In light of this, we drop the excessive terms "crime" and "criminal" and use the more accurate "sin" and "sinner."
Muslim apologists frequently cite the Torah to demonstrate how excessive and harsh the Bible is. So who am I or other Christians to critique the Quran? But this completely misunderstands around 1,400 years of Old Testament history, beginning from the time when tradition says Moses lived up to the advent of Jesus, and it completely misunderstands a standard Christian interpretation of the Old Testament.
Christians honor the Old Testament, but they also take this multifaceted document in its historical context. The Torah was part and parcel of its culture. It either reflects its culture (like some architectural features of the tabernacle), or it improves on its culture (ethical monotheism). Not all of the old law applies to today’s world. Second, Christians look back at the Old Testament through the vision of Jesus. For Christians, Jesus’ interpretation of these laws is final. He takes away their sharp sting with his death on the cross and by his sinless life and divine love.
Posted by Ayisha (Member # 4713) on :
oh Please UT stop bullshitting for once! a goat my arse!
Murder is in Quran as a crime punishable by death. Not theft, not adultery, not fornication, but Murder. Any hadith that says otherwise should have been thrown out on the first sorting through the pile and Muhammed would NOT have gone against Allah, so your theory is rubbish.
Posted by Ayisha (Member # 4713) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tibe still working:
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: Tibe, You did not complain abpout American power when we LITERALLY saved you from Hitler. We gave up a quarter of a million dead boys to allow you to be what you are today and the cold hard facts are we did not have to do it. Hitler could have never invaded America across the atlantic.
There is no way you could have been liberated without us. Next time the germans get cranked up they can have you.
Ehhm please show me where i complain???
We payed your help back after the war old dept and old water under the bridge. We also entered Iraq side by side with the US eventhough we was obligated to. So stick your pibe back in the hole!
*grabs tibe and forces her to bow down to our great white saviour The American Man with the 5 inch dick*
(hey Tibe, you bite one ankle I bite the other) Posted by Kalila : ) (Member # 14517) on :
*grabs tibe and forces her to bow down to our great white saviour The American Man with the 5 inch dick*
Posted by Tibe still working (Member # 16647) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ayisha:
quote:Originally posted by Tibe still working:
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: Tibe, You did not complain abpout American power when we LITERALLY saved you from Hitler. We gave up a quarter of a million dead boys to allow you to be what you are today and the cold hard facts are we did not have to do it. Hitler could have never invaded America across the atlantic.
There is no way you could have been liberated without us. Next time the germans get cranked up they can have you.
Ehhm please show me where i complain???
We payed your help back after the war old dept and old water under the bridge. We also entered Iraq side by side with the US eventhough we was obligated to. So stick your pibe back in the hole!
*grabs tibe and forces her to bow down to our great white saviour The American Man with the 5 inch dick*
(hey Tibe, you bite one ankle I bite the other)
Nahhh would touch him with anything - remember my man is muslim so im under his restriction and some of them is i cant look at other men , im veiled and if i come closer than 10 feet to any american i must blow my self up (or was it blow him )
Posted by Ayisha (Member # 4713) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tibe still working: im veiled and if i come closer than 10 feet to any american i must blow my self up (or was it blow him )
im sure UT will find a copy/paste to clarify that Posted by Tibe still working (Member # 16647) on :
Ayisha - please emty your mailbox Posted by Ayisha (Member # 4713) on :
done Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: Tibe, You did not complain abpout American power when we LITERALLY saved you from Hitler. We gave up a quarter of a million dead boys to allow you to be what you are today and the cold hard facts are we did not have to do it. Hitler could have never invaded America across the atlantic.
There is no way you could have been liberated without us. Next time the germans get cranked up they can have you.
The Anglo-American financial elite suported Hitler's rise to military preponderance in Europe, U.S. companies such as Standard oil, Ford, IBM, and people such as Prescott Bush- the grandfather of the former president, assisted Hitler.
Without U.S. support, Hitler would never have risen, and World War 2 would NOT have occured, so spare me the sanctimonious rubbish.
The U.S. Ambassador in Germany, William Dodd, wrote FDR from Berlin on October 19, 1936 (three years after Hitler came to power), concerning American industrialists and their aid to the Nazis:
"Much as I believe in peace as our best policy, I cannot avoid the fears which Wilson emphasized more than once in conversations with me, August 15, 1915 and later: the breakdown of democracy in all Europe will be a disaster to the people. But what can you do? At the present moment more than a hundred American corporations have subsidiaries here or cooperative understandings. The DuPonts have three allies in Germany that are aiding in the armament business. Their chief ally is the I. G. Farben Company, a part of the Government which gives 200,000 marks a year to one propaganda organization operating on American opinion. Standard Oil Company (New York sub-company) sent $2,000,000 here in December 1933 and has made $500,000 a year helping Germans make Ersatz gas for war purposes; but Standard Oil cannot take any of its earnings out of the country except in goods. They do little of this, report their earnings at home, but do not explain the facts. The International Harvester Company president told me their business here rose 33% a year (arms manufacture, I believe), but they could take nothing out. Even our airplanes people have secret arrangement with Krupps. General Motor Company and Ford do enormous businesses/sic] here through their subsidiaries and take no profits out. I mention these facts because they complicate things and add to war dangers."
That is all crap sudaniya. You have some good views on american history but sometimes you come up with this looney tunes stuff that is way out there. the United states rebuilt the german economy during the 1920's under the Weimar republic. Hitler was bank rolled by VanPapen and the German aristocrats who had the money but lacked the popular support the nazi's had.
That we did business with Germany in the 1930's does not mean we advocated war or supported Nazi philosophy. We also did business with Stalin and the japanese.
Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: That is all crap sudaniya. You have some good views on american history but sometimes you come up with this looney tunes stuff that is way out there. the United states rebuilt the german economy during the 1920's under the Weimar republic. Hitler was bank rolled by VanPapen and the German aristocrats who had the money but lacked the popular support the nazi's had.
That we did business with Germany in the 1930's does not mean we advocated war or supported Nazi philosophy. We also did business with Stalin and the japanese.
You seem to believe the financial and technical assistance to Hitler as "accidental" or due to the "short-sightedness" of American businessmen, the evidence strongly suggests some degree of premeditation on the part of these American financiers. Similar and unacceptable pleas of "accident" were made on behalf of American financiers and industrialists in the parallel example of building the military power of the Soviet Union from 1917 onwards. Yet these American capitalists were willing to finance and subsidize the Soviet Union while the Vietnam war was underway, knowing that the Soviets were supplying the other side.
You need to refute evidence of American industrial support for Hitler's war machine.
In two gears Germany will be manufacturing oil and gas enough out of soft coal for a long war. The Standard Oil of New York is furnishing millions of dollars to help. (Report from the Commercial Attaché, U.S. Embassy in Berlin, Germany, January 1933, to State Department in Washington, D.C,)
The Standard Oil group ( now EXXON MOBILE) of companies, in which the Rockefeller family owned a one-quarter (and controlling) interest,1 was of critical assistance in helping Nazi Germany prepare for World War II. This assistance in military preparation came about because Germany's relatively insignificant supplies of crude petroleum were quite insufficient for modern mechanized warfare; in 1934 for instance about 85 percent of German finished petroleum products were imported. The solution adopted by Nazi Germany was to manufacture synthetic gasoline from its plentiful domestic coal supplies. It was the hydrogenation process of producing synthetic gasoline and iso-octane properties in gasoline that enabled Germany to go to war in 1940 — and this hydrogenation process was developed and financed by the Standard Oil laboratories in the United States in partnership with I.G. Farben.
"TheAmericanPatriot", I'm NOT at all interested in your signature intransigence:
Do you refute:
-Standard oil assistance to Hitler's war machine, before and during the war?
-Chase Manhatten Bank's financial assistance to Hitler?
-General Electric's assistance to Hitler?
-Henry Ford's financing of Hitler, before and during the war?
-Wall Street's extensive assistance to Hitler?
-That one hundred American corporations were involved in the construction of Germany's war machine?
The contribution made by American capitalism to German war preparations before 1940 can only be described as phenomenal. It was certainly crucial to German military capabilities. For instance, in 1934 Germany produced domestically only 300,000 tons of natural petroleum products and less than 800,000 tons of synthetic gasoline; the balance was imported. Yet, ten years later in World War II, after transfer of the Standard Oil of New Jersey hydrogenation patents and technology to I. G. Farben (used to produce synthetic gasoline from coal), Germany produced about 6 1/2 million tons of oil — of which 85 percent (5 1/2 million tons) was synthetic oil using the Standard Oil hydrogenation process. Moreover, the control of synthetic oil output in Germany was held by the I. G. Farben subsidiary, Braunkohle-Benzin A. G., and this Farben cartel itself was created in 1926 with Wall Street financial assistance.
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
Yes I refute your data on the level of involvemnt with Hitler. Those stroies have been floating around for years but you can produce no substantive evidence to validate those points.
That American companies traded with germany in the 1930's would not be improper.
Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: Yes I refute your data on the level of involvemnt with Hitler. Those stroies have been floating around for years but you can produce no substantive evidence to validate those points.
That American companies traded with germany in the 1930's would not be improper.
Your then ambassador seemed to of thought otherwise; he thought it improper... it's improper when those companies engaged in the armaments sector, the same armaments that claimed the lives of young American marines and soldiers.
Merely stating that you refute it, without actually refuting it, is comical.
No sane individual would deny Standard oil's work with I.G. Farben, nor IBM's co-operation with Hitler in his activities against the Jews.
Qualified observers have argued that Germany could not have gone to war in 1939 without I. G. Farben. Between 1927 and the beginning of World War II, I.G. Farben doubled in size, an expansion made possible in great part by American technical assistance and by American bond issues, such as the one for $30 million offered by National City Bank. By 1939 I. G. acquired a participation and managerial influence in some 380 other German firms and over 500 foreign firms. The Farben empire owned its own coal mines, its own electric power plants, iron and steel units, banks, research units, and numerous commercial enterprises. There were over 2,000 cartel agreements between I. G. and foreign firms — including Standard Oil of New Jersey, DuPont, Alcoa, Dow Chemical, and others in the United States, The full story of I,G, Farben and its world-wide ae-tivities before World War II can never be known, as key German records were destroyed in 1945 in anticipation of Allied victory. However, one post-war investigation by the U.S, War Department concluded that:
Without I. G. Farben's immense productive facilities, its intense research, and vast international affiliations, Germany's prosecution of the war would have been unthinkable and impossible; Farben not only directed its energies toward arming Germany, but concentrated on weakening her intended victims, and this double-barreled attempt to expand the German industrial potential for war and to restrict that of the rest of the world was not conceived and executed "in the normal course of business." The proof is overwhelming that I. G. Farben officials had full prior knowledge of Germany's plan for world conquest and of each specific aggressive act later undertaken ....
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
he may have thought so but if he did that does not prove the point. american historians do not think so and that position is not accepted history. To prove that point you would need to produce a historiographic paper, say 30 pages, showing how top historians of the period see the issue.
Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: he may have thought so but if he did that does not prove the point. american historians do not think so and that position is not accepted history. To prove that point you would need to produce a historiographic paper, say 30 pages, showing how top historians of the period see the issue.
I take that you believe the conclusions of the post-war investigation by the U.S. War Department to be insufficient?
General Electric was prominent in financing Hitler, it profited handsomely from war production – and yet it managed to evade bombing in World War II.
The Standard Oil group of companies, in which the Rockefeller family owned a one-quarter (and controlling) interest,’ was of critical assistance in helping Nazi Germany prepare for World War II. This assistance in military preparation came about because Germany’s relatively insignificant supplies of crude petroleum were quite insufficient for modern mechanized warfare; in 1934 for instance about 85 percent of German finished petroleum products were imported. The solution adopted by Nazi Germany was to manufacture synthetic gasoline from its plentiful domestic coal supplies. It was the hydrogenation process of producing synthetic gasoline and iso-octane properties in gasoline that enabled Germany to go to war in 1940-and this hydrogenation process was developed and financed by the Standard Oil laboratories in the United States in partnership with I.G. Farben.
Evidence presented to the Truman, Bone, and Kilgore Committees after World War II confirmed that Standard Oil had at the same time seriously imperiled the war preparations of the United States.” Documentary evidence was presented to all three Congressional committees that before World War II Standard Oil had agreed with I.G. Farben, in the so-called Jasco agreement, that synthetic rubber was within Farben’s sphere of influence, while Standard Oil was to have an absolute monopoly in the U.S. only if and when Farben allowed development of synthetic rubber to take place in the U.S.:
No Scholar can refute the role played by Standard oil, IBM, Ford, the DuPonts, Wall Street and a plethora of other American corporations.
Posted by Ayisha (Member # 4713) on :
this is a bit like how America educated, trained and had deals with bin Laden and Saddam et al isnt it. All part of the big plot to then go in and 'liberate' and get all the business for rebuilding.
slimey double standards
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
Ayisha, We also had an alliance with Joseph Stalin during WW II, a man who is responsible for killing more people than Hitler. We did that because it was felt at the time that the Germans were the biggest threat. Foreign policy, for ANY nation, has nothing to do with morality. Diplomatic history is littered with what you call "slimey double standards."
Sudaniya, the conclusions of the war department are one thing. How trained historians see those conclusions and in what context they are put is quite another. If your thesis is that the United States maintained in the 1930's a policy which favored the political advantage of Adolph Hitler and were thus responsible for WW II you have a very very hard case to make. The proper way to make that case is to show the arguments of top scholars, either pro or con on the issue. Do specialists on the 1930's all agree, on which issues do they disagree. Just throwing out a report from the war department in itself tells us little.
Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot:
Sudaniya, the conclusions of the war department are one thing. How trained historians see those conclusions and in what context they are put is quite another. If your thesis is that the United States maintained in the 1930's a policy which favored the political advantage of Adolph Hitler and were thus responsible for WW II you have a very very hard case to make. The proper way to make that case is to show the arguments of top scholars, either pro or con on the issue. Do specialists on the 1930's all agree, on which issues do they disagree. Just throwing out a report from the war department in itself tells us little.
The Anglo-American establishment funded Adolf Hitler and the Nazi war machine; major industrial businesses such as Ford, Standard oil, IBM, the DuPonts, along with Wall Street were fundamental supporters of Nazi Germany.
You and those like you, do not want to know that such a machiavellian group of men, strategically spread throughout the world, really exists.
Carrol Quigley, the author of "Tragedy and Hope; a history of the world in our time", describes the network I have just described in elaborate detail- far too elaborate for most people.
Tragedy and Hope was published in 1966 and is clearly one of the most important books ever written. Professor Quigley was an extraordinarily gifted historian and geo-political analyst. The insights and information contained in his massive study open the door to a true understanding of world history in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
well, I am machiavellian myself and I have no problems with a foreign policy based solely on self interest. I just do not see how economic investment in germany in 1935 is somehow sinister. America is a capitalist nation. We believe in doing business with almost anyone. Prof Quigley does some good, but very dated work but you have to read much more than him to get a realistic view of the last two centuries. I like to require the use of at least five or six historians to establish a point. I am just as interested in where the disagree as i am where they agree.
Posted by Beba (Member # 10322) on :
Pamela, paradise seeker gave you the correct answers and I swear by Allah on that.
Im afraid though this place is really not the best place to ask about Islam as you can see one has this idea, another has another idea, dalia is not even a muslim and ayisha is a muslim corupted by people like dalia, the others hate islam! generally all will divert you from the truth.
My advice is to keep searching and always look for the evidence, there really are alot of foolish people out there. I wish you all the best.
Posted by *Dalia* (Member # 13012) on :
quote:Originally posted by Beba: My advice is to keep searching and always look for the evidence, there really are alot of foolish people out there.
Amen. Posted by unfinished thought. (Member # 16076) on :
"there really are alot of foolish AND delusional people out there."
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
Keep searching for sure BUT a cult like Islam is not going to take you where you want to go. Islam is badly damaging young women. It is retarding the economic growth of amny of the worlds nations. Islam wants to take a position in opposition to the thread history has been on for the past 500 years.
Posted by Ayisha (Member # 4713) on :
quote:Originally posted by Beba: Pamela, paradise seeker gave you the correct answers and I swear by Allah on that.
Paradise seeker gave the correct answers according to the salafi interpretation of Islam which relies more on Hadith and Tafsir invented and written by MEN and use the Quran, the Word of God, as a second reference. This is GLARINGLY CLEAR when you look at Paradise seekers post and in answer to question 1 gave a small portion of a verse from the Quran, being VERY careful not to give you the rest.
Paradise seeker said :
quote:Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“Allaah burdens not a person beyond his scope”
[al-Baqarah 2:286]
The whole verse: 002.286 YUSUFALI: On no soul doth Allah Place a burden greater than it can bear. It gets every good that it earns, and it suffers every ill that it earns. (Pray:) "Our Lord! Condemn us not if we forget or fall into error; our Lord! Lay not on us a burden Like that which Thou didst lay on those before us; Our Lord! Lay not on us a burden greater than we have strength to bear. Blot out our sins, and grant us forgiveness. Have mercy on us. Thou art our Protector; Help us against those who stand against faith."
so WHY on Gods Earth would the 'burden' on a Muslim be as great as all this BS you are 'told' is Islam? And what happened to this verse: 002.256 YUSUFALI: Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things.
Did the 'scholars' MISS that one further back when they WASTED all that time deciding which body parts a woman can shave??
quote:Im afraid though this place is really not the best place to ask about Islam as you can see one has this idea, another has another idea,
Then that is the BEST way for her to learn as she can look at ALL the views and make her OWN MIND as the QURAN and ALLAH told her to!
quote: dalia is not even a muslim and ayisha is a muslim corupted by people like dalia,
excuse me?? who the hell do you think you are? I have a mind and a brain and I STUDY, I will not be slapped around by ANYONE about the most important decisions regarding MY soul and MY God. The more people like YOU bang on with this BS the more I KNOW which path I want and it is not the one you're on. Make of that as you will, any of you, I really dont give a toss.
quote: the others hate islam!
UT does, Americanparrot does, King does, actively. BUT I learnt a hell of a lot from haters in Islam chat and I am STILL Muslim. The one thing haters do is to MAKE you study.
quote:generally all will divert you from the truth.
No we will give her the views of different Muslims and of different non Muslims, which is the best way to look for yourself.
quote:My advice is to keep searching and always look for the evidence, there really are alot of foolish people out there. I wish you all the best.
Absolutely!!
Posted by Ayisha (Member # 4713) on :
following on from this:
quote:Paradise seeker gave the correct answers according to the salafi interpretation of Islam which relies more on Hadith and Tafsir invented and written by MEN and use the Quran, the Word of God, as a second reference. This is GLARINGLY CLEAR when you look at Paradise seekers post and in answer to question 1 gave a small portion of a verse from the Quran, being VERY careful not to give you the rest.
because I got off track and cant be bothered to edit, but will add:
In paradise seekers answers, question 1 had a small part of a verse which I gave above and the rest of the long reply was from MEN which was in no way referenced to the same verse. In question 2, this was given:
“and eat and drink but waste not by extravagance, certainly He (Allaah) likes not Al Musrifoon (those who waste by extravagance) [al-A’raaf 7:31]
the bold is again added. This is the verse: 007.031 YUSUFALI: O Children of Adam! wear your beautiful apparel at every time and place of prayer: eat and drink: But waste not by excess, for Allah loveth not the wasters.
notice the bold? means men AND women.
the rest of the long reply was again from MEN
Question 3 about make-up there was NO Quran reference and again the rest of the long reply was from MEN
Question 4, again a portion of a verse from paradise seeker: “ ‘and indeed I will order them to change the nature created by Allaah’”[al-Nisa’ 4:119 – interpretation of the meaning]
The whole verse: 004.119 YUSUFALI: "I will mislead them, and I will create in them false desires; I will order them to slit the ears of cattle, and to deface the (fair) nature created by Allah." Whoever, forsaking Allah, takes satan for a friend, hath of a surety suffered a loss that is manifest.
yet as Dalia said, these same people that follow this also cut off the clitoris of a girl 'for her own good' and say that is 'sunnah'.
the rest of the long reply again from MEN
question 5, “And let those who oppose the Messenger’s (Muhammad’s) commandment (i.e. his Sunnah __ legal ways, orders, acts of worship, statements) (among the sects) beware, lest some Fitnah (disbelief, trials, afflictions, earthquakes, killing, overpowered by a tyrant) should befall them or a painful torment be inflicted on them”
[al-Noor 24:63]
The verse: 024.063 YUSUFALI: Deem not the summons of the Messenger among yourselves like the summons of one of you to another: Allah doth know those of you who slip away under shelter of some excuse: then let those beware who withstand the Messenger's order, lest some trial befall them, or a grievous penalty be inflicted on them.
reading of 24:62 first gives a different meaning which is nothing to do with eating with the right hand.
the rest of the reply AGAIN full of words of MEN.
Posted by unfinished thought. (Member # 16076) on :
1. Special Claims The members of the harmful faith system make claims about their character, abilities, or knowledge that make them "special" in some way
a. The Claim of a Special Anointing or Calling b. The Claim of Special Powers from God
2. Authoritarianism The leader is dictatorial and authoritarian
3. An "Us Versus Them" Mentality Religious Addicts are at war with the world (flesh and the devil) to protect their terrain and establish themselves as godly persons who can't be compared to other persons of faith.
4. Punitive Nature Harmful faith systems are punitive in nature. The minister addicted to power punishes and purges the system of anybody who would upset the status quo.
5. Overwhelming Service Religious addicts are asked to give overwhelming service. Deep depression, extreme anxiety, and a general numbness are common in overwhelmed religious addicts.
6. Followers in Pain Many religious addicts in the system are physically ill, emotionally distraught, and spiritually dead. Denial becomes a quick and easy tool to live a lie until both physical and emotional trauma break the religious addicts' facades of perfection.
7. Closed Communication Communication is from the top down or from the inside out. With an attitude of spiritual superiority, religious addicts reinforce that they are always in greater touch with God's truth, more sensitive to God's will, and more worthy of being listened to than anyone else.
8. Legalism Rules are distortions of God's intent and leave Him out of the relationship. As new people come into the hurtful faith system, they are indoctrinated into the rules rather than strengthened in a relationship with God. It becomes a faith system based on "don'ts" rather than a faith centered on God. What you do is valued more than who you are.
9. No Objective Accountability Religious addicts have no system of objective accountability. If religious addicts were in healthy, accountable, relationships with others, hurtful faith would not be allowed to flourish. A person accountable only to God is a person out of control.
10. Labeling The technique of labeling is used to discount a person who opposes the beliefs of the religious addict. Labeling attempts to dehumanize persons so that dismissing them or their opinions is much easier. Labeling allows religious addicts to define truth, uphold that truth as defined, and destroy anyone else who would dare to question that truth.
Posted by Ayisha (Member # 4713) on :
interesting post Dalia Posted by Tibe still working (Member # 16647) on :
This was a funny tread - too bad people stopped posting in it. Arent there more stuff we can laugh and argue about?????
Not to people replying to me with more than 10 lines it will NOT be read. I have better things to waste my life on......
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)