| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Roger Paine" |
| Date: |
07 Dec 2004 09:42:25 AM |
| Object: |
are atheists to be killed on sight? |
Muslim priests issue death sentence fatwas against those dissenting on
relatively minor aspects of Islam.
What if an atheist or a polytheist travels to one of these Islamic
rat-holes? Is he to be killed on sight? Or does he have to wait for some
fat priest to state the obvious?
.
|
|
| User: "GlennGlenn" |
|
| Title: Re: are atheists to be killed on sight? |
07 Dec 2004 10:16:46 AM |
|
|
In article <2977021.vLUWs9Smfa@yahoo.com>, Roger Paine
<i_dont@need_your_spam.net> wrote:
Muslim priests issue death sentence fatwas against those dissenting on
relatively minor aspects of Islam.
What if an atheist or a polytheist travels to one of these Islamic
rat-holes?
Heck, the wife & I enjoyed a lovely trip to Morocco earlier this year.
No "rat-hole" that.
Is he to be killed on sight?
What does an atheist or polytheist look like such that one can kill him
on sight?
Or does he have to wait for some fat priest to state the obvious?
Eh?
--
GlennGlenn -- aa#825 --
I am not famous, I am notorious. And if I am rich, it is because I have taken
my wages in people.
‹ Quentin Crisp
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jos Flachs" |
|
| Title: Re: are atheists to be killed on sight? |
08 Dec 2004 02:59:37 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 07:42:25 -0800, Roger Paine
<i_dont@need_your_spam.net> wrote:
Muslim priests issue death sentence fatwas against those dissenting on
relatively minor aspects of Islam.
What if an atheist or a polytheist travels to one of these Islamic
rat-holes? Is he to be killed on sight? Or does he have to wait for some
fat priest to state the obvious?
Neither. According to muslims, Buddhists are polytheists. I myself am
atheist. I accompanied a group of Thais (being Buddhists, of course)
to Iran several times. Not a single problem.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bush is the AntiChrist!! " |
|
| Title: Re: are atheists to be killed on sight? |
07 Dec 2004 06:08:40 PM |
|
|
Roger Paine wrote:
What if an atheist or a polytheist travels to one of these Islamic
rat-holes?
That would beg the question: Why ARE they travelling there?
--
The Best in Message Board Discussions
http://www.comicboards.org/religion
-----------------
Bush is re-elected, fly the flag upside down!
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
*********xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
*********xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
*********xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
*********xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
.
|
|
|
| User: "GlennGlenn" |
|
| Title: Re: are atheists to be killed on sight? |
07 Dec 2004 09:19:35 PM |
|
|
In article <hsudnU4ycssf2yvcRVn-og@comcast.com>, Bush is the
AntiChrist!! <tle_mgr@yahoo.com> wrote:
Roger Paine wrote:
What if an atheist or a polytheist travels to one of these Islamic
rat-holes?
That would beg the question: Why ARE they travelling there?
No kidding. My wife and I (a secular Jew and an atheist, respectively)
had an amazing time in Morocco back in April, but we stayed clear of
rat-holes. As it turns out, rats are fairly reclusive, so their holes
are easy to avoid.
--
GlennGlenn -- aa#825 --
I am not famous, I am notorious. And if I am rich, it is because I have taken
my wages in people.
‹ Quentin Crisp
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roger Paine" |
|
| Title: Re: are atheists to be killed on sight? |
08 Dec 2004 01:33:54 AM |
|
|
GlennGlenn wrote:
In article <hsudnU4ycssf2yvcRVn-og@comcast.com>, Bush is the
AntiChrist!! <tle_mgr@yahoo.com> wrote:
Roger Paine wrote:
What if an atheist or a polytheist travels to one of these Islamic
rat-holes?
That would beg the question: Why ARE they travelling there?
None of your business
No kidding. My wife and I (a secular Jew and an atheist, respectively)
had an amazing time in Morocco back in April, but we stayed clear of
You survived an implied death sentence, amigo:
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/8/index.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "GlennGlenn" |
|
| Title: Re: are atheists to be killed on sight? |
08 Dec 2004 08:46:09 PM |
|
|
I and just about every other traveller, then, it seems, dodge that
bullet, "Amigo." I was safer walking the medinas of Fez and Marrakech
than driving to work every day.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Anti-imperialist" |
|
| Title: Re: are atheists to be killed on sight? |
08 Dec 2004 02:54:50 AM |
|
|
Roger Paine wrote:
GlennGlenn wrote:
In article <hsudnU4ycssf2yvcRVn-og@comcast.com>, Bush is the
AntiChrist!! <tle_mgr@yahoo.com> wrote:
Roger Paine wrote:
What if an atheist or a polytheist travels to one of these Islamic
rat-holes?
That would beg the question: Why ARE they travelling there?
None of your business
No kidding. My wife and I (a secular Jew and an atheist, respectively)
had an amazing time in Morocco back in April, but we stayed clear of
You survived an implied death sentence, amigo:
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/8/index.html
I saw no such thing there.
--
http://www.pflp.net Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP)
http://www.farcep.org Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC)
Heroes: George Habash, Nayef Hawatmeh, Naji Alloush, Kamal Nasser, Wadi
Haddad, Michel Aflaq, Camilo Torres, Tupac Amaru, Farabundo Marti,
Desallines, Augusto Sandino, Fritz Fanon, Pontiac, John Brown.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bush is the AntiChrist!! " |
|
| Title: Re: are atheists to be killed on sight? |
08 Dec 2004 02:08:02 AM |
|
|
Roger Paine wrote:
GlennGlenn wrote:
In article <hsudnU4ycssf2yvcRVn-og@comcast.com>, Bush is the
AntiChrist!! <tle_mgr@yahoo.com> wrote:
Roger Paine wrote:
What if an atheist or a polytheist travels to one of these Islamic
rat-holes?
That would beg the question: Why ARE they travelling there?
None of your business
Thanks for the insightful and well thoughtout reply. :rolleyes:
--
The Best in Message Board Discussions
http://www.comicboards.org/religion
-----------------
Bush is re-elected, fly the flag upside down!
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
*********xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
*********xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
*********xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
*********xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Anti-imperialist" |
|
| Title: Re: are atheists to be killed on sight? |
08 Dec 2004 12:39:39 AM |
|
|
Roger Paine wrote:
Muslim priests issue death sentence fatwas against those dissenting on
relatively minor aspects of Islam.
What if an atheist or a polytheist travels to one of these Islamic
rat-holes?
Which ratholes?
Is he to be killed on sight? Or does he have to wait for some
fat priest to state the obvious?
There are outspoken atheists and downright blasphemers in Palestine,
Egypt, Syria, Turkey, Tunisia, Jordan, Morocco, Iran, Pakistan,
Afghanistan, Bahrain and Bangladesh. I knew a guy who was high up in
Saddam's regime and he was an open atheist. No one cared. One of the
top figures in the PLO is a well-known atheist. I am not aware of any
fatwas being issued against anyone just for being an atheist, or, for
that matter, for being a polytheist (whatever the Hell that is).
However, a few of the open blasphemers in Egypt have been threatened and
1 or 2 have been killed. The real crime is apostasy, not having another
religion or no religion. Apparently there is even a well-known
"non-religious" segment of the Saudi population, but they are not very
outspoken these days. They don't get killed either though. Afghanistan
is still swarming with basically barely unreconstructed Communists, too.
--
http://www.pflp.net Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP)
http://www.farcep.org Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC)
Heroes: George Habash, Nayef Hawatmeh, Naji Alloush, Kamal Nasser, Wadi
Haddad, Michel Aflaq, Camilo Torres, Tupac Amaru, Farabundo Marti,
Desallines, Augusto Sandino, Fritz Fanon, Pontiac, John Brown.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "1MAN4ALL" |
|
| Title: Re: are atheists to be killed on sight? |
07 Dec 2004 10:10:50 AM |
|
|
There are three possibilities here:
1.You are ignorant.
2.You've been lied to.
3.You are being mischievous.
So which of the three is it?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roger Paine" |
|
| Title: Re: are atheists to be killed on sight? |
07 Dec 2004 10:15:04 AM |
|
|
1MAN4ALL wrote:
There are three possibilities here:
1.You are ignorant.
2.You've been lied to.
3.You are being mischievous.
So which of the three is it?
"2" - I'm being lied to by Islamists like yourself. Look here:
http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Abbc.co.uk+fatwa
.
|
|
|
| User: "1MAN4ALL" |
|
| Title: Re: are atheists to be killed on sight? |
07 Dec 2004 01:24:29 PM |
|
|
Roger Paine wrote:
1MAN4ALL wrote:
There are three possibilities here:
1.You are ignorant.
2.You've been lied to.
3.You are being mischievous.
So which of the three is it?
"2" - I'm being lied to by Islamists like yourself. Look here:
http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Abbc.co.uk+fatwa
Aha, so it seems that you were trying to be #3.
Anyway, I think you are referring to '"fatwa" that was issued
against "Salman Rushdie." I have already answered that in the past,
and if you were searching on Google, you could have found some of the
answers that I have already given on this subject.
A 'fatwa' is not one statement. It's a formal theological opinion which
must be supported by actual quotes from the Quran and hadiths. A
general pronouncement is not a 'fatwa,' though it is often referred to
as such in the West. Ayatollah Khomeni had made an off the cuff remark
against Salman Rushdie and NEVER issued any fatwa against him.
The Chosen Few, now MIA, had provided a quote on how this controversy
started, which I have copied below:
"Your views in this context are evidently supported by at least one
Iranian exile, Dr. Mehdi Mozaffari, and none other than Daniel Pipes
writes approvingly of his arguments WRT Khomeini's proclamation:
*******************************************
"Before the Iranian revolution, Mozaffari had been head of the
Department of International Relations at Tehran University; now he
lives in distant Denmark. Though presented as a general study of fatwas
(non-binding opinions about matters of Islamic law), this book is to a
great extent an expression of the author's (understandable) anger at
Khomeini and his acolytes for the destruction, disrepute, and violence
they have brought to his native land. In a meandering presentation, he
shows how they turned Shi`ism from a quietest tradition to a
radicalized one, how Khomeini himself had a "necrophiliac" personality,
and so forth. The title of the book should be something like "The
Iranian Revolution: Reflections from Exile."
One topic, however, stands out: Mozaffari's discussion of the edict
Khomeini issued against Salman Rushdie, in which he convincingly argues
that Khomeini did not see this pronouncement as a fatwa (he made only
one glancing reference to it as such) and in fact, the edict in many
ways does not fit the mold of a fatwa: it was not in response to a
question, it was not handwritten, it was neither signed nor sealed, and
as his country's ruler, Khomeini was specifically disbarred from
issuing a fatwa. Mozaffari notes that in news accounts the next day,
the Iranian media referred to Khomeini's "message" (payam) and states
that "nobody in Iran used the term `fatwa` for Khomeini's sentence." It
was, he holds, two French scholars of Islam, Olivier Roy and Gilles
Kepel, who came up with the term fatwa, which then others picked up.
Mozaffari then shows that Khomeini "broke his own rules" in calling for
Rushdie's death and concludes that the edict had no legal standing even
within Iran; "His decree was null and void from the moment it was
published."
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: are atheists to be killed on sight? |
07 Dec 2004 01:35:57 PM |
|
|
1MAN4ALL wrote:
Roger Paine wrote:
1MAN4ALL wrote:
There are three possibilities here:
1.You are ignorant.
2.You've been lied to.
3.You are being mischievous.
So which of the three is it?
"2" - I'm being lied to by Islamists like yourself. Look here:
http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Abbc.co.uk+fatwa
Aha, so it seems that you were trying to be #3.
Anyway, I think you are referring to '"fatwa" that was issued
against "Salman Rushdie." I have already answered that in the past,
and if you were searching on Google, you could have found some of the
answers that I have already given on this subject.
A 'fatwa' is not one statement. It's a formal theological opinion
which
must be supported by actual quotes from the Quran and hadiths. A
general pronouncement is not a 'fatwa,' though it is often referred
to
as such in the West. Ayatollah Khomeni had made an off the cuff
remark
against Salman Rushdie and NEVER issued any fatwa against him.
The Chosen Few, now MIA, had provided a quote on how this controversy
started, which I have copied below:
"Your views in this context are evidently supported by at least one
Iranian exile, Dr. Mehdi Mozaffari, and none other than Daniel Pipes
writes approvingly of his arguments WRT Khomeini's proclamation:
*******************************************
"Before the Iranian revolution, Mozaffari had been head of the
Department of International Relations at Tehran University; now he
lives in distant Denmark. Though presented as a general study of
fatwas
(non-binding opinions about matters of Islamic law), this book is to
a
great extent an expression of the author's (understandable) anger at
Khomeini and his acolytes for the destruction, disrepute, and
violence
they have brought to his native land. In a meandering presentation,
he
shows how they turned Shi`ism from a quietest tradition to a
radicalized one, how Khomeini himself had a "necrophiliac"
personality,
and so forth. The title of the book should be something like "The
Iranian Revolution: Reflections from Exile."
One topic, however, stands out: Mozaffari's discussion of the edict
Khomeini issued against Salman Rushdie, in which he convincingly
argues
that Khomeini did not see this pronouncement as a fatwa (he made only
one glancing reference to it as such) and in fact, the edict in many
ways does not fit the mold of a fatwa: it was not in response to a
question, it was not handwritten, it was neither signed nor sealed,
and
as his country's ruler, Khomeini was specifically disbarred from
issuing a fatwa. Mozaffari notes that in news accounts the next day,
the Iranian media referred to Khomeini's "message" (payam) and states
that "nobody in Iran used the term `fatwa` for Khomeini's sentence."
It
was, he holds, two French scholars of Islam, Olivier Roy and Gilles
Kepel, who came up with the term fatwa, which then others picked up.
Mozaffari then shows that Khomeini "broke his own rules" in calling
for
Rushdie's death and concludes that the edict had no legal standing
even
within Iran; "His decree was null and void from the moment it was
published."
It sounds like you know what you are talking about. But it also sounds
like there is little comfort here for Salmon Rushdie.
Kermit
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: are atheists to be killed on sight? |
09 Dec 2004 07:49:39 AM |
|
|
On 7 Dec 2004 11:24:29 -0800, "1MAN4ALL" <forahmad@hotmail.com> wrote:
Roger Paine wrote:
1MAN4ALL wrote:
There are three possibilities here:
1.You are ignorant.
2.You've been lied to.
3.You are being mischievous.
So which of the three is it?
"2" - I'm being lied to by Islamists like yourself. Look here:
http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Abbc.co.uk+fatwa
Aha, so it seems that you were trying to be #3.
Anyway, I think you are referring to '"fatwa" that was issued
against "Salman Rushdie." I have already answered that in the past,
and if you were searching on Google, you could have found some of the
answers that I have already given on this subject.
A 'fatwa' is not one statement. It's a formal theological opinion which
must be supported by actual quotes from the Quran and hadiths. A
general pronouncement is not a 'fatwa,' though it is often referred to
as such in the West. Ayatollah Khomeni had made an off the cuff remark
against Salman Rushdie and NEVER issued any fatwa against him.
What about the million dollar ransom, was that also an off the cuff
remark.
The world needs protection from Islam and that can come only from a
nuclear strike on Mecca. But Bush being a Saudi patsy will never do
it. So you can rest easy for at least another 4 years.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: are atheists to be killed on sight? |
09 Dec 2004 11:03:25 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Anyway, I think you are referring to '"fatwa" that was issued
against "Salman Rushdie." I have already answered that in the past,
and if you were searching on Google, you could have found some of
the
answers that I have already given on this subject.
A 'fatwa' is not one statement. It's a formal theological opinion
which
must be supported by actual quotes from the Quran and hadiths. A
general pronouncement is not a 'fatwa,' though it is often referred
to
as such in the West. Ayatollah Khomeni had made an off the cuff
remark
against Salman Rushdie and NEVER issued any fatwa against him.
What about the million dollar ransom, was that also an off the cuff
remark.
I think you mean "reward" not "ransom," which actually went up $2.5
million dollars. The reward was announced by the 15 Khordad Foundation,
not Khomeini himself.
The 15 Khordad Foundation is named after the uprising which began on
the 15th of Khordad (June 4, 1963) in the city of Qum. [Khordad is the
third month of the Persian calendar). That bloody event was actually
the beginning of Iranian Revolution which came to fruition 15 years
later. So the Foundation_ still based in Qum_ is one of the vestiges of
Iranian Revolution and is essentially a political 'movement', which is
loosely connected to Iran's Spiritual Leader. It is no wonder that
Iranian government has repeatedly denied that it has any role in the
Iranian government.
It is not clear what Khomeini was told about the contents of Rushdie's
book, which must have infuriated him so much that he immediately called
for Rushdie's murder on radio. Nevertheless, as I had suggested
earlier, he never issued a "fatwa."
A "fatwa" is a WRITTEN theological opinion. First, there has to be a
query from somebody, in answer of which a "fatwa" is issued. If nobody
has posed a question, a "fatwa" is meaningless. The reason is that it
is based on evidence and should relate to a religious matter NOT easily
ascertainable from Quran or Hadith. Nobody knows if somebody had
'formally' approached Khomeini regarding Rushdie's book or not.
Secondly, a "fatwa" has to reference supporting Quranic verses,
Hadiths, or earlier interpretations, and present a coherent argument.
Finally, a "fatwa" is usually signed and sealed by the person or
authority issuing it. If Khomeini actually issued a "fatwa" the
question is, where is it? I can tell you now that it doesn't exist!
The very idea of somebody issuing a "fatwa" is controversial. Early in
Islamic history, the learned Ulema (scholars) [Islam does not have
priesthood] used to refuse giving their opinion on theological issues
out of fear that they may end up saying something that would be wrong.
Later on, because so many charlatans leading people astray, the true
'ulema' were forced into coming out to issue proper "fatwas," a
practice which was greatly misused and abused later on.
The world needs protection from Islam and that can come only from a
nuclear strike on Mecca. But Bush being a Saudi patsy will never do
it. So you can rest easy for at least another 4 years.
With that statement, you are simply telling the whole world that you
are ignorant!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "1MAN4ALL" |
|
| Title: are atheists to be killed on sight? |
07 Dec 2004 01:26:02 PM |
|
|
Roger Paine wrote:
1MAN4ALL wrote:
There are three possibilities here:
1.You are ignorant.
2.You've been lied to.
3.You are being mischievous.
So which of the three is it?
"2" - I'm being lied to by Islamists like yourself. Look here:
http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Abbc.co.uk+fatwa
Aha, so it seems that you were trying to be #3.
Anyway, I think you are referring to '"fatwa" that was issued
against "Salman Rushdie." I have already answered that in the past,
and if you were searching on Google, you could have found some of the
answers that I have already given on this subject.
A 'fatwa' is not one statement. It's a formal theological opinion which
must be supported by actual quotes from the Quran and hadiths. A
general pronouncement is not a 'fatwa,' though it is often referred to
as such in the West. Ayatollah Khomeni had made an off the cuff remark
against Salman Rushdie and NEVER issued any fatwa against him.
The Chosen Few, now MIA, had provided a quote on how this controversy
started, which I have copied below:
"Your views in this context are evidently supported by at least one
Iranian exile, Dr. Mehdi Mozaffari, and none other than Daniel Pipes
writes approvingly of his arguments WRT Khomeini's proclamation:
*******************************************
"Before the Iranian revolution, Mozaffari had been head of the
Department of International Relations at Tehran University; now he
lives in distant Denmark. Though presented as a general study of fatwas
(non-binding opinions about matters of Islamic law), this book is to a
great extent an expression of the author's (understandable) anger at
Khomeini and his acolytes for the destruction, disrepute, and violence
they have brought to his native land. In a meandering presentation, he
shows how they turned Shi`ism from a quietest tradition to a
radicalized one, how Khomeini himself had a "necrophiliac" personality,
and so forth. The title of the book should be something like "The
Iranian Revolution: Reflections from Exile."
One topic, however, stands out: Mozaffari's discussion of the edict
Khomeini issued against Salman Rushdie, in which he convincingly argues
that Khomeini did not see this pronouncement as a fatwa (he made only
one glancing reference to it as such) and in fact, the edict in many
ways does not fit the mold of a fatwa: it was not in response to a
question, it was not handwritten, it was neither signed nor sealed, and
as his country's ruler, Khomeini was specifically disbarred from
issuing a fatwa. Mozaffari notes that in news accounts the next day,
the Iranian media referred to Khomeini's "message" (payam) and states
that "nobody in Iran used the term `fatwa` for Khomeini's sentence." It
was, he holds, two French scholars of Islam, Olivier Roy and Gilles
Kepel, who came up with the term fatwa, which then others picked up.
Mozaffari then shows that Khomeini "broke his own rules" in calling for
Rushdie's death and concludes that the edict had no legal standing even
within Iran; "His decree was null and void from the moment it was
published."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roger Paine" |
|
| Title: Re: are atheists to be killed on sight? |
07 Dec 2004 01:35:11 PM |
|
|
Why do islamists spew such easily refutable lies? Is it in their culture?
The sillier the lie the more virgins you get?
1MAN4ALL wrote:
Ayatollah Khomeni had made an off the cuff remark
against Salman Rushdie and NEVER issued any fatwa against him.
The *title* of the BBC article says "1990: Iranian leader upholds Rushdie
fatwa". Should we trust 1MAN4ALL or BBC?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: are atheists to be killed on sight? |
07 Dec 2004 02:11:09 PM |
|
|
Roger Paine wrote:
Why do islamists spew such easily refutable lies? Is it in their
culture?
The sillier the lie the more virgins you get?
1MAN4ALL wrote:
Ayatollah Khomeni had made an off the cuff remark
against Salman Rushdie and NEVER issued any fatwa against him.
The *title* of the BBC article says "1990: Iranian leader upholds
Rushdie
fatwa". Should we trust 1MAN4ALL or BBC?
In this case (refer to his entire posting) the BBC had it wrong.
Do you uncritically trust the BBC? Or 1MAN4ALL? Or anybody?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: are atheists to be killed on sight? |
07 Dec 2004 02:11:39 PM |
|
|
Roger Paine wrote:
Why do islamists spew such easily refutable lies? Is it in their
culture?
The sillier the lie the more virgins you get?
1MAN4ALL wrote:
Ayatollah Khomeni had made an off the cuff remark
against Salman Rushdie and NEVER issued any fatwa against him.
The *title* of the BBC article says "1990: Iranian leader upholds
Rushdie
fatwa". Should we trust 1MAN4ALL or BBC?
In this case (refer to his entire posting) the BBC had it wrong.
Do you uncritically trust the BBC? Or 1MAN4ALL? Or anybody?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jez" |
|
| Title: Re: are atheists to be killed on sight? |
08 Dec 2004 03:15:11 PM |
|
|
Roger Paine wrote:
Why do islamists spew such easily refutable lies? Is it in their culture?
The sillier the lie the more virgins you get?
1MAN4ALL wrote:
Ayatollah Khomeni had made an off the cuff remark
against Salman Rushdie and NEVER issued any fatwa against him.
The *title* of the BBC article says "1990: Iranian leader upholds Rushdie
fatwa". Should we trust 1MAN4ALL or BBC?
Well, I sure as ***** don't trust the BBC !
--
Jez
'Realism is seductive because once you have accepted the reasonable
notion that you should base your actions on reality, you are too often
led to accept, without much questioning, someone else's version of what
that reality is. It is a crucial act of independent thinking to be
skeptical of someone else's description of reality.'-
Howard Zinn
Skype callto://hellward
NFS Porsche Unleashed, Hot Pursuit 2, Underground.
Yeowww
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: are atheists to be killed on sight? |
08 Dec 2004 03:49:09 AM |
|
|
Roger Paine wrote:
Why do islamists spew such easily refutable lies? Is it in their culture?
The sillier the lie the more virgins you get?
1MAN4ALL wrote:
Ayatollah Khomeni had made an off the cuff remark
against Salman Rushdie and NEVER issued any fatwa against him.
The *title* of the BBC article says "1990: Iranian leader upholds Rushdie
fatwa". Should we trust 1MAN4ALL or BBC?
Well, we can conclude 1MAN4ALL is a liar.
Credibility is all you have on the net and here we have
a lie. And not even a good one.
Google makes it dangerous to lie like that.
--
Apes bad! Dust good!
Apes bad! Dust good!
21st Century American Christianity
in a nutshell.
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Count 1" |
|
| Title: Re: are atheists to be killed on sight? |
07 Dec 2004 01:49:28 PM |
|
|
X-No-Archive: yes
"Roger Paine" <i_dont@need_your_spam.net> wrote in message
news:1780984.lpjsVKAlQK@yahoo.com...
Why do islamists spew such easily refutable lies? Is it in their culture?
The sillier the lie the more virgins you get?
1MAN4ALL wrote:
Ayatollah Khomeni had made an off the cuff remark
against Salman Rushdie and NEVER issued any fatwa against him.
The *title* of the BBC article says "1990: Iranian leader upholds Rushdie
fatwa". Should we trust 1MAN4ALL or BBC?
The thing to keep in mind about 1MAN is that he is competely insane. His
capacity to lie to mitigate the crimes of his 'brothers' knows no bounds.
If you keep at him he will eventually claim, in the fashion many paranoid
and delusional nutjobs use, that you are a 'hindu troll'. Have you ever
seen his essay claiming Islam has nothing to do with the terrorism of 9/11?
http://www.ummah.com/waragainstislam/big.htm
At the bottom of it is a link to the website 'whatreallyhappened.com' which
is one of the largest repository of paranoid conspiracy theories on the
internet.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: are atheists to be killed on sight? |
07 Dec 2004 02:16:43 PM |
|
|
Count 1 wrote:
I-Am-Coward: yes
"Roger Paine" <i_dont@need_your_spam.net> wrote in message
news:1780984.lpjsVKAlQK@yahoo.com...
Why do islamists spew such easily refutable lies? Is it in their
culture?
The sillier the lie the more virgins you get?
1MAN4ALL wrote:
Ayatollah Khomeni had made an off the cuff remark
against Salman Rushdie and NEVER issued any fatwa against him.
The *title* of the BBC article says "1990: Iranian leader upholds
Rushdie
fatwa". Should we trust 1MAN4ALL or BBC?
The thing to keep in mind about 1MAN is that he is competely insane.
His
capacity to lie to mitigate the crimes of his 'brothers' knows no
bounds.
If you keep at him he will eventually claim, in the fashion many
paranoid
and delusional nutjobs use, that you are a 'hindu troll'. Have you
ever
seen his essay claiming Islam has nothing to do with the terrorism of
9/11?
http://www.ummah.com/waragainstislam/big.htm
At the bottom of it is a link to the website 'whatreallyhappened.com'
which
is one of the largest repository of paranoid conspiracy theories on
the
internet.
That's all very entertaining and, I'm sure, amusing for you.
Now that you're done flogging the messenger though what do you have to
say about his contention that Khomeni never issued a fatwa regarding
Rushdie?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Phaedrine" |
|
| Title: Re: are atheists to be killed on sight? |
07 Dec 2004 10:36:15 PM |
|
|
In article <31mft8F3d20fqU1@individual.net>,
"Count 1" <omnipitus2002@yahoo.com> wrote:
The thing to keep in mind about 1MAN is that he is competely insane.
And don't forget, he is also crazy. ;)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
