http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1139439012163&call_pageid=968332189003&col=968350116895
Should be more like the Prophet
Feb. 9, 2006. 01:00 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Death toll, fury mount in cartoon controversy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feb. 7.
As a Muslim, I am deeply offended by the nature of the cartoons depicting
the Prophet Muhammad. But, I am equally offended, if not more so, by the
extremely hypocritical and utterly disgraceful response by some Muslim
groups around the world. Before we Muslims go crazy with emotions and start
killing innocent people and burn or damage properties, we should look at the
life of the honourable man we are making this fuss about.
He was tortured, ridiculed and abused by the people of his time to stop him
from preaching his message. He never hurt those who threw stones at him, he
never burnt their homes or kidnapped their family members. He never even
cursed at them. Instead, he asked Allah to forgive their mistakes and show
them the path of Islam. So, if he was so utterly forgiving, why can't we try
to be like him? So, I appeal to all Muslims that we show our discontent by
protesting in completely non-violent forms consistent with the teachings of
Islam and the life of the honorable Prophet.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Najeeb Siddiqui, Toronto
.
|
|
| User: "steve" |
|
| Title: Re: What Would Mohammed Do? |
11 Feb 2006 11:05:29 AM |
|
|
And he never cut peoples heads off either !I'd like to see you muslims
protest about that and maybe save Jill carrols life, but you won't!
"Jane" <pushlinque@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6PmHf.45051$1e5.912880@news20.bellglobal.com...
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1139439012163&call_pageid=968332189003&col=968350116895
Should be more like the Prophet
Feb. 9, 2006. 01:00 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Death toll, fury mount in cartoon controversy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feb. 7.
As a Muslim, I am deeply offended by the nature of the cartoons depicting
the Prophet Muhammad. But, I am equally offended, if not more so, by the
extremely hypocritical and utterly disgraceful response by some Muslim
groups around the world. Before we Muslims go crazy with emotions and
start killing innocent people and burn or damage properties, we should
look at the life of the honourable man we are making this fuss about.
He was tortured, ridiculed and abused by the people of his time to stop
him from preaching his message. He never hurt those who threw stones at
him, he never burnt their homes or kidnapped their family members. He
never even cursed at them. Instead, he asked Allah to forgive their
mistakes and show them the path of Islam. So, if he was so utterly
forgiving, why can't we try to be like him? So, I appeal to all Muslims
that we show our discontent by protesting in completely non-violent forms
consistent with the teachings of Islam and the life of the honorable
Prophet.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Najeeb Siddiqui, Toronto
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Doc" |
|
| Title: Re: What Would Mohammed Do? |
11 Feb 2006 04:21:02 PM |
|
|
"Jane" <pushlinque@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6PmHf.45051$1e5.912880@news20.bellglobal.com...
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1139439012163&call_pageid=968332189003&col=968350116895
Should be more like the Prophet
Feb. 9, 2006. 01:00 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Death toll, fury mount in cartoon controversy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feb. 7.
As a Muslim, I am deeply offended by the nature of the cartoons
depicting the Prophet Muhammad. But, I am equally offended, if not more
so, by the extremely hypocritical and utterly disgraceful response by
some Muslim groups around the world. Before we Muslims go crazy with
emotions and start killing innocent people and burn or damage
properties, we should look at the life of the honourable man we are
making this fuss about.
He was tortured, ridiculed and abused by the people of his time to stop
him from preaching his message. He never hurt those who threw stones at
him, he never burnt their homes or kidnapped their family members. He
never even cursed at them. Instead, he asked Allah to forgive their
mistakes and show them the path of Islam. So, if he was so utterly
forgiving, why can't we try to be like him? So, I appeal to all Muslims
that we show our discontent by protesting in completely non-violent
forms consistent with the teachings of Islam and the life of the
honorable Prophet.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Najeeb Siddiqui, Toronto
Najeeb should be aware that Jesus preached non-violence, too. And he
should realize that "Christian" leaders of the USA have murdered and
maimed large numbers of innocent Muslims in repeated sloppy
bombardments -- the latest of note being the attack on a Pakistani
village, where 18 innocent civilians, including several children, died in
a Predator drone's Hellfire missile attack. These acts of "negligence" are
defined as acts of "manslaughter" which are, of course, legally defined as
acts of murder -- in direct violation of one of the Ten Commandments, as
well as what Jesus reinforced in his teachings.
So, if the Christian leaders can selectively ignore their adherence to a
"holy" doctrine forbidding murder and other forms of violence, then it is
hypocritical of Christians to say to Islamic believers that they are wrong
in killing and injuring innocent people because it violates the tenets of
Islamic holy law.
And that criticism of Christians engaging in this hypocrisy has been
notably absent from mainstream Western politicians and media reports.
Maybe Najeeb should think a little more expansively about the subject.
And, not mentioned much at all in the mainstream, is the obvious conflict
between what people idealize and what the true nature of human behavior is
every day. We may pontificate to our heart's content about what we SHOULD
be like, as believers in a nonviolent doctrine, but our practice in
reality always falls short of the idealistic goal. While it is clear that
only a very small minority of Muslims were violent or murderous in the
anti-Muhammad cartoon protests, it is also clear that the Christian nation
of America and its occupying large military force in Muslim nations (and
spilling over into Pakistan) are fueling the intense anger and hatred.
America --- get your military asses out of Iraq ASAP, and stop with the
veiled threats, the propaganda or whatever you wish to call it, against
Iran and Syria, as well. And realize your religious hypocrisy and publicly
acknowledge it to help balance the inflammatory one-sided accusatory
rhetoric. Then, Westerners may see a significant reduction in violence
directed towards the West.
Ignoring or denying what we've done wrong that has inflamed the East-West
tensions, while sanctimoniously reminding Muslims of their transgressions,
will only get the world farther and farther away from peace for all of us.
The drift towards a much larger and costly conflagration is being fed by
hatred, myopism, ignorance, fear, greed, and forms of nationalistic and
xenophobic fanaticism -- traits that continually afflict ALL humanity.
Doc ;\
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lucifer Morning Star Angel of Death" |
|
| Title: Re: What Would Mohammed Do? |
11 Feb 2006 05:03:43 PM |
|
|
Lucifer
www.luciferia.tv
For Anarchist Communism (stateless collectivism)
For armed violent nuclear revolution against the Christians
Najeeb should be aware that Jesus preached non-violence, too.
I have come not to bring peace but a sword. It is clearly stated that
when Jesus was arrested that his followers were armed. The Romans only
executed Jews who were revolutionaries.
Christianity is 'not' a pacifist faith
The Christians promote sex slavery - economic slavery - Usury - statism
- Temple worship and public prayer (forbidden by Jesus - 'do not pray
in public in the Temples and in the streets as the hypocrites do)
private propertyism ('do not wear shoes - have one robe - do not carry
a purse or money and have no servants / slaves') and they defend the
rich. Jesus at one point suggests that it is impossible for a rich
person to go to heaven and then on another occasion suggests that it
'is' possible but only if they give 'all' their wealth to the poor -
it is highly unlikely that Elizabeth Regina - Bush - Blair and other
Christian private propertyists - i.e. the rich - would ever do such a
thing; i.e. they are hypocrites.
From the Judaic point of view Christianity is a form of idolatry which
is an executable offence under the first law of Moses - no idolatry -
where a first century Jewish anti-Capitalist is used to justify
Capitalism. If the Christians want to justify Capitalism and private
propertyism those hypocrites would be more honest if they offered their
hypnotic victims salvation in the name of Adam Smith Alan Greenspan or
George Bush - not ***** not - they have to offer salvation in the name
of an anti-Capitalist who hated the religious hypocrites and the
economic slave masters of his age. Not to mention the last 1600 years
of Christian anti-Semitism justified by a book in which every chapter
was written by a Jew and in the name of a Jew who referred to Gentiles
(other nations) as 'dogs' and told his followers 'do not go into the
towns and cities of the Gentiles' and that he had come for the lost
sheep of Israel.
The Jewish prophecy (written by a Jew) of the Book of Revelation
predicts that the armies of the 12 tribes of Israel (the 144 000
revolutionary vanguard) and the 7 servants of apocalyptic war shall
wage what is clearly a nuclear war against Rome (referred to as Babylon
- the city that sits on many waters) and the richest nations on earth.
It is they who worship mammon (money - materialism - consumerism i.e.
the rich nations) who are to be subjected to nuclear judgement not
their economic slaves (the poor nations). How on earth the Christian
Capitalists can turn this around and claim that it is the Gentiles
(Gentlemen - the rich - the idolaters such as the Christians) who are
to be victorious at Armageddon is simply a testimony to the power of
mass hypnosis.
Hypocrisy.
Woe to you Christians. Hypocrites. Brood of Vipers. The Muslims and the
neo-Judaists (proponents of slave revolution against the masters / the
rich) will nuke y'all back to your father in hell where you belong.
Woe.
Great and Terrible and Dreadful and Wrathful shall be the day of
Apocalyptic Judgement by they who invoke (personify) the prophecies of
the Seven Servants of war.
Lucifer
www.luciferia.tv
No gods (no idolatry). No masters.
The end of the insanity of religion.
The end of the insanity of government.
Doc wrote:
"Jane" <pushlinque@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6PmHf.45051$1e5.912880@news20.bellglobal.com...
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1139439012163&call_pageid=968332189003&col=968350116895
Should be more like the Prophet
Feb. 9, 2006. 01:00 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Death toll, fury mount in cartoon controversy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feb. 7.
As a Muslim, I am deeply offended by the nature of the cartoons
depicting the Prophet Muhammad. But, I am equally offended, if not more
so, by the extremely hypocritical and utterly disgraceful response by
some Muslim groups around the world. Before we Muslims go crazy with
emotions and start killing innocent people and burn or damage
properties, we should look at the life of the honourable man we are
making this fuss about.
He was tortured, ridiculed and abused by the people of his time to stop
him from preaching his message. He never hurt those who threw stones at
him, he never burnt their homes or kidnapped their family members. He
never even cursed at them. Instead, he asked Allah to forgive their
mistakes and show them the path of Islam. So, if he was so utterly
forgiving, why can't we try to be like him? So, I appeal to all Muslims
that we show our discontent by protesting in completely non-violent
forms consistent with the teachings of Islam and the life of the
honorable Prophet.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Najeeb Siddiqui, Toronto
Najeeb should be aware that Jesus preached non-violence, too. And he
should realize that "Christian" leaders of the USA have murdered and
maimed large numbers of innocent Muslims in repeated sloppy
bombardments -- the latest of note being the attack on a Pakistani
village, where 18 innocent civilians, including several children, died in
a Predator drone's Hellfire missile attack. These acts of "negligence" are
defined as acts of "manslaughter" which are, of course, legally defined as
acts of murder -- in direct violation of one of the Ten Commandments, as
well as what Jesus reinforced in his teachings.
So, if the Christian leaders can selectively ignore their adherence to a
"holy" doctrine forbidding murder and other forms of violence, then it is
hypocritical of Christians to say to Islamic believers that they are wrong
in killing and injuring innocent people because it violates the tenets of
Islamic holy law.
And that criticism of Christians engaging in this hypocrisy has been
notably absent from mainstream Western politicians and media reports.
Maybe Najeeb should think a little more expansively about the subject.
And, not mentioned much at all in the mainstream, is the obvious conflict
between what people idealize and what the true nature of human behavior is
every day. We may pontificate to our heart's content about what we SHOULD
be like, as believers in a nonviolent doctrine, but our practice in
reality always falls short of the idealistic goal. While it is clear that
only a very small minority of Muslims were violent or murderous in the
anti-Muhammad cartoon protests, it is also clear that the Christian nation
of America and its occupying large military force in Muslim nations (and
spilling over into Pakistan) are fueling the intense anger and hatred.
America --- get your military asses out of Iraq ASAP, and stop with the
veiled threats, the propaganda or whatever you wish to call it, against
Iran and Syria, as well. And realize your religious hypocrisy and publicly
acknowledge it to help balance the inflammatory one-sided accusatory
rhetoric. Then, Westerners may see a significant reduction in violence
directed towards the West.
Ignoring or denying what we've done wrong that has inflamed the East-West
tensions, while sanctimoniously reminding Muslims of their transgressions,
will only get the world farther and farther away from peace for all of us.
The drift towards a much larger and costly conflagration is being fed by
hatred, myopism, ignorance, fear, greed, and forms of nationalistic and
xenophobic fanaticism -- traits that continually afflict ALL humanity.
Doc ;\
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "eric" |
|
| Title: Re: What Would Mohammed Do? |
11 Feb 2006 02:16:56 PM |
|
|
I tip my hat to you Jane.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Treat" |
|
| Title: Re: What Would Mohammed Do? |
11 Feb 2006 10:36:55 AM |
|
|
Jane wrote:
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1139439012163&call_pageid=968332189003&col=968350116895
Should be more like the Prophet
Feb. 9, 2006. 01:00 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Death toll, fury mount in cartoon controversy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feb. 7.
As a Muslim, I am deeply offended by the nature of the cartoons depicting
the Prophet Muhammad. But, I am equally offended, if not more so, by the
extremely hypocritical and utterly disgraceful response by some Muslim
groups around the world. Before we Muslims go crazy with emotions and start
killing innocent people and burn or damage properties, we should look at the
life of the honourable man we are making this fuss about.
He was tortured, ridiculed and abused by the people of his time to stop him
from preaching his message. He never hurt those who threw stones at him, he
never burnt their homes or kidnapped their family members. He never even
cursed at them. Instead, he asked Allah to forgive their mistakes and show
them the path of Islam. So, if he was so utterly forgiving, why can't we try
to be like him? So, I appeal to all Muslims that we show our discontent by
protesting in completely non-violent forms consistent with the teachings of
Islam and the life of the honorable Prophet.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Najeeb Siddiqui, Toronto
Kudos, Jane, for posting what I think is a voice of reason that
represents the feelings of most Muslims.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jane" |
|
| Title: Re: What Would Mohammed Do? |
11 Feb 2006 11:18:45 AM |
|
|
"Uncle Treat" <jflemke@locallink.net> wrote in message
news:1139675815.883119.156700@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Jane wrote:
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1139439012163&call_pageid=968332189003&col=968350116895
Should be more like the Prophet
Feb. 9, 2006. 01:00 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Death toll, fury mount in cartoon controversy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feb. 7.
As a Muslim, I am deeply offended by the nature of the cartoons depicting
the Prophet Muhammad. But, I am equally offended, if not more so, by the
extremely hypocritical and utterly disgraceful response by some Muslim
groups around the world. Before we Muslims go crazy with emotions and
start
killing innocent people and burn or damage properties, we should look at
the
life of the honourable man we are making this fuss about.
He was tortured, ridiculed and abused by the people of his time to stop
him
from preaching his message. He never hurt those who threw stones at him,
he
never burnt their homes or kidnapped their family members. He never even
cursed at them. Instead, he asked Allah to forgive their mistakes and
show
them the path of Islam. So, if he was so utterly forgiving, why can't we
try
to be like him? So, I appeal to all Muslims that we show our discontent
by
protesting in completely non-violent forms consistent with the teachings
of
Islam and the life of the honorable Prophet.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Najeeb Siddiqui, Toronto
Kudos, Jane, for posting what I think is a voice of reason that
represents the feelings of most Muslims.
You're welcome, :).
.
|
|
|
| User: "Doc" |
|
| Title: Re: What Would Mohammed Do? |
11 Feb 2006 05:29:43 PM |
|
|
"Jane" <pushlinque@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:X%oHf.46639$1e5.941991@news20.bellglobal.com...
"Uncle Treat" <jflemke@locallink.net> wrote in message
news:1139675815.883119.156700@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Jane wrote:
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1139439012163&call_pageid=968332189003&col=968350116895
Should be more like the Prophet
Feb. 9, 2006. 01:00 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Death toll, fury mount in cartoon controversy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feb. 7.
As a Muslim, I am deeply offended by the nature of the cartoons
depicting
the Prophet Muhammad. But, I am equally offended, if not more so, by
the
extremely hypocritical and utterly disgraceful response by some Muslim
groups around the world. Before we Muslims go crazy with emotions and
start
killing innocent people and burn or damage properties, we should look
at the
life of the honourable man we are making this fuss about.
He was tortured, ridiculed and abused by the people of his time to
stop him
from preaching his message. He never hurt those who threw stones at
him, he
never burnt their homes or kidnapped their family members. He never
even
cursed at them. Instead, he asked Allah to forgive their mistakes and
show
them the path of Islam. So, if he was so utterly forgiving, why can't
we try
to be like him? So, I appeal to all Muslims that we show our
discontent by
protesting in completely non-violent forms consistent with the
teachings of
Islam and the life of the honorable Prophet.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Najeeb Siddiqui, Toronto
Kudos, Jane, for posting what I think is a voice of reason that
represents the feelings of most Muslims.
You're welcome, :).
Ya know, it's interesting that you posted an article from a Muslim
advocating that Mohammad's doctrine of nonviolence be applied to his
followers, and, second-handedly, pose yourself as supporting their strict
adherence to his laws -- thereby making it look as though you have some
respect for their Prophet. But, then, earlier on here, I clearly remember
you getting aboard the "Mohammad was a pedophile" Christian-originated
bandwagon, and severely questioning his morality. Are you now saying,
Jane, that this "sex pervert" finds greater favor with you as a religious
leader, and that Islam's followers would do well to follow the philosopy
of a "pedophile?" Incidentally, that crap was posted here by Stevie, and
you and I did a dance about it weeks ago. I argued that around 700 A.D.,
the laws of marrying very young girls to older men was common practice, as
it was to accept the marriage of 12 year old Jewish girls in Judaism
centuries ago. It's most interesting to me...this seeming dichotomy in
your view of Mohammad.
Doc >;}
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jane" |
|
| Title: Re: What Would Mohammed Do? |
12 Feb 2006 01:09:33 PM |
|
|
"Doc" <bushelsofbushrot@HellsHereNow.com> wrote in message
news:dsls1a02k65@enews2.newsguy.com...
"Jane" <pushlinque@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:X%oHf.46639$1e5.941991@news20.bellglobal.com...
"Uncle Treat" <jflemke@locallink.net> wrote in message
news:1139675815.883119.156700@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Jane wrote:
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1139439012163&call_pageid=968332189003&col=968350116895
Should be more like the Prophet
Feb. 9, 2006. 01:00 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Death toll, fury mount in cartoon controversy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feb. 7.
As a Muslim, I am deeply offended by the nature of the cartoons
depicting
the Prophet Muhammad. But, I am equally offended, if not more so, by
the
extremely hypocritical and utterly disgraceful response by some Muslim
groups around the world. Before we Muslims go crazy with emotions and
start
killing innocent people and burn or damage properties, we should look
at the
life of the honourable man we are making this fuss about.
He was tortured, ridiculed and abused by the people of his time to stop
him
from preaching his message. He never hurt those who threw stones at
him, he
never burnt their homes or kidnapped their family members. He never
even
cursed at them. Instead, he asked Allah to forgive their mistakes and
show
them the path of Islam. So, if he was so utterly forgiving, why can't
we try
to be like him? So, I appeal to all Muslims that we show our discontent
by
protesting in completely non-violent forms consistent with the
teachings of
Islam and the life of the honorable Prophet.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Najeeb Siddiqui, Toronto
Kudos, Jane, for posting what I think is a voice of reason that
represents the feelings of most Muslims.
You're welcome, :).
Ya know, it's interesting that you posted an article from a Muslim
advocating that Mohammad's doctrine of nonviolence be applied to his
followers, and, second-handedly, pose yourself as supporting their strict
adherence to his laws -- thereby making it look as though you have some
respect for their Prophet. But, then, earlier on here, I clearly remember
you getting aboard the "Mohammad was a pedophile" Christian-originated
bandwagon, and severely questioning his morality. Are you now saying,
Jane, that this "sex pervert" finds greater favor with you as a religious
leader, and that Islam's followers would do well to follow the philosopy
of a "pedophile?" Incidentally, that crap was posted here by Stevie, and
you and I did a dance about it weeks ago. I argued that around 700 A.D.,
the laws of marrying very young girls to older men was common practice, as
it was to accept the marriage of 12 year old Jewish girls in Judaism
centuries ago. It's most interesting to me...this seeming dichotomy in
your view of Mohammad.
not at all. I stand by my views. I was simply posting a letter by a
moderate Muslim, who obviously sees his prophet being more like Jesus than I
do.
I have always said that I have no problem with Muslims of the
non-fundementalist stripe, whatever I may think of their prophet. As I said
in another thread, you have your pre-conceived views of what I have to say.
I am glad to see that other posters are taking Zak to task; restores some of
my faith in humanity.
BTW, I hold similar views about Joseph Smith, Mormon church founder, and for
many of the same reasons (child brides, revelations of convenience).
Jane
Doc >;}
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: What Would Mohammed Do? |
11 Feb 2006 09:40:29 PM |
|
|
Doc wrote:
"Jane" <pushlinque@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:X%oHf.46639$1e5.941991@news20.bellglobal.com...
"Uncle Treat" <jflemke@locallink.net> wrote in message
news:1139675815.883119.156700@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Jane wrote:
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1139439012163&call_pageid=968332189003&col=968350116895
Should be more like the Prophet
Feb. 9, 2006. 01:00 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Death toll, fury mount in cartoon controversy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feb. 7.
As a Muslim, I am deeply offended by the nature of the cartoons
depicting
the Prophet Muhammad. But, I am equally offended, if not more so, by
the
extremely hypocritical and utterly disgraceful response by some Muslim
groups around the world. Before we Muslims go crazy with emotions and
start
killing innocent people and burn or damage properties, we should look
at the
life of the honourable man we are making this fuss about.
He was tortured, ridiculed and abused by the people of his time to
stop him
from preaching his message. He never hurt those who threw stones at
him, he
never burnt their homes or kidnapped their family members. He never
even
cursed at them. Instead, he asked Allah to forgive their mistakes and
show
them the path of Islam. So, if he was so utterly forgiving, why can't
we try
to be like him? So, I appeal to all Muslims that we show our
discontent by
protesting in completely non-violent forms consistent with the
teachings of
Islam and the life of the honorable Prophet.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Najeeb Siddiqui, Toronto
Kudos, Jane, for posting what I think is a voice of reason that
represents the feelings of most Muslims.
You're welcome, :).
Ya know, it's interesting that you posted an article from a Muslim
advocating that Mohammad's doctrine of nonviolence be applied to his
followers, and, second-handedly, pose yourself as supporting their strict
adherence to his laws -- thereby making it look as though you have some
respect for their Prophet.
She posted a message from a moderate Muslim calling for the violence to
stop. I don't see why that automatically translates into Jane adopting
the writer's position as her own. Beyond that, I'm sure she'll have
her own response to your BS.
But, then, earlier on here, I clearly remember
you getting aboard the "Mohammad was a pedophile" Christian-originated
bandwagon, and severely questioning his morality. Are you now saying,
Jane, that this "sex pervert" finds greater favor with you as a religious
leader, and that Islam's followers would do well to follow the philosopy
of a "pedophile?" Incidentally, that crap was posted here by Stevie, and
you and I did a dance about it weeks ago.
Just for the record, I did not use the word pedophile. As with the vast
majority of threads here, I did not raise the issue, but responded to
what was already posted.
I argued that around 700 A.D.,
the laws of marrying very young girls to older men was common practice, as
it was to accept the marriage of 12 year old Jewish girls in Judaism
centuries ago.
The girl in question wasn't 12 years old. But beyond that, why did you
feel it was necessary to raise this issue right now? Haven't had enough
arguing on that topic, which was thorougly discussed as you mention
above, so you've got to start it all over again? Are you bored? You
argumentative creep.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Doc" |
|
| Title: Re: What Would Mohammed Do? |
12 Feb 2006 12:31:19 AM |
|
|
"Steven Douglas" <dsteven@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:1139715629.193554.13860@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Doc wrote:
"Jane" <pushlinque@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:X%oHf.46639$1e5.941991@news20.bellglobal.com...
"Uncle Treat" <jflemke@locallink.net> wrote in message
news:1139675815.883119.156700@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Jane wrote:
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1139439012163&call_pageid=968332189003&col=968350116895
Should be more like the Prophet
Feb. 9, 2006. 01:00 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Death toll, fury mount in cartoon controversy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feb. 7.
As a Muslim, I am deeply offended by the nature of the cartoons
depicting
the Prophet Muhammad. But, I am equally offended, if not more so,
by
the
extremely hypocritical and utterly disgraceful response by some
Muslim
groups around the world. Before we Muslims go crazy with emotions
and
start
killing innocent people and burn or damage properties, we should
look
at the
life of the honourable man we are making this fuss about.
He was tortured, ridiculed and abused by the people of his time to
stop him
from preaching his message. He never hurt those who threw stones at
him, he
never burnt their homes or kidnapped their family members. He never
even
cursed at them. Instead, he asked Allah to forgive their mistakes
and
show
them the path of Islam. So, if he was so utterly forgiving, why
can't
we try
to be like him? So, I appeal to all Muslims that we show our
discontent by
protesting in completely non-violent forms consistent with the
teachings of
Islam and the life of the honorable Prophet.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Najeeb Siddiqui, Toronto
Kudos, Jane, for posting what I think is a voice of reason that
represents the feelings of most Muslims.
You're welcome, :).
Ya know, it's interesting that you posted an article from a Muslim
advocating that Mohammad's doctrine of nonviolence be applied to his
followers, and, second-handedly, pose yourself as supporting their
strict
adherence to his laws -- thereby making it look as though you have some
respect for their Prophet.
She posted a message from a moderate Muslim calling for the violence to
stop. I don't see why that automatically translates into Jane adopting
the writer's position as her own. Beyond that, I'm sure she'll have
her own response to your BS.
But, then, earlier on here, I clearly remember
you getting aboard the "Mohammad was a pedophile" Christian-originated
bandwagon, and severely questioning his morality. Are you now saying,
Jane, that this "sex pervert" finds greater favor with you as a
religious
leader, and that Islam's followers would do well to follow the
philosopy
of a "pedophile?" Incidentally, that crap was posted here by Stevie,
and
you and I did a dance about it weeks ago.
Just for the record, I did not use the word pedophile. As with the vast
majority of threads here, I did not raise the issue, but responded to
what was already posted.
I argued that around 700 A.D.,
the laws of marrying very young girls to older men was common practice,
as
it was to accept the marriage of 12 year old Jewish girls in Judaism
centuries ago.
The girl in question wasn't 12 years old. But beyond that, why did you
feel it was necessary to raise this issue right now? Haven't had enough
arguing on that topic, which was thorougly discussed as you mention
above, so you've got to start it all over again? Are you bored? You
argumentative creep.
My oh my, Stevie..."argumentative creep" ?? LOL! Is that indicative of how
you're a "uniter" and not a "divider" as you've said in other threads? And
"BS" ?? Well, that kind of abusive language ain't gonna' help unite
people. No sireee...
I stand by what I said. You introduced the article back in late Oct.to mid
Nov. 2005. I remember it clearly, unmistakably.
Now suppose you take your pathological need for investigating others, and
reverse it? Investigate yourself and find the slimy racist post on
Mohammad's pre-teen wife, Aisha, you oozed into this group. I'm too tired
to play your 'find the proof' game you enjoy here.
If you can't understand the connection between the "moderate" Muslim's
piece Jane introduced and my allegation she's showing respect for Mohammad
she previously denigrated as a sex pervert, then I truly think you spent
too much time peeling spuds and onions in the military. LOL!
And, please, let's not have any more juvenile hypocritical remarks about
boredom causing my presence here, you bored shitless argumentative sap.
Doc :))
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: What Would Mohammed Do? |
12 Feb 2006 01:21:43 AM |
|
|
Doc wrote:
"Steven Douglas" <dsteven@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:1139715629.193554.13860@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Haven't had enough arguing on that topic, which was thorougly
discussed as you mention above, so you've got to start it all over
again? Are you bored? You argumentative creep.
My oh my, Stevie..."argumentative creep" ?? LOL! Is that indicative of how
you're a "uniter" and not a "divider" as you've said in other threads?
As usual, you're upside down and backwards. I never said I was a united
not a divider. You have said previously that I am not a uniter but a
divider. It is you who seems to claim the "uniter not divider" ranking
for yourself and your fellow libs. As for the argumentative creep
remark, that was a variation of your recent "arugmentative weasel"
remark to me. It seems it's okay for you to name call, but if I do it
it's out of bounds or something. You are hilarious.
And "BS" ?? Well, that kind of abusive language ain't gonna' help unite
people. No sireee...
You were the first to use the uniter not divider remark. I merely
repeated it back to you to show your usual and routine hypocrisy.
I stand by what I said. You introduced the article back in late Oct.to mid
Nov. 2005. I remember it clearly, unmistakably.
You ARE mistaken. You are WRONG. I never posted anything of the kind.
You are delusional. After this, I am starting to understand why you're
so unreasonable. You live in some sort of delusional dream world where
anything you wish to be true is true. What kind of drugs are you on?
Now suppose you take your pathological need for investigating others, and
reverse it?
I don't have to. I know I did not post what you are attributing to me.
Which tells me a lot about you. Your perception is wrong, and yet for
some reason you are sure you're right.
Investigate yourself and find the slimy racist post on
Mohammad's pre-teen wife, Aisha, you oozed into this group. I'm too tired
to play your 'find the proof' game you enjoy here.
If you can't understand the connection between the "moderate" Muslim's
piece Jane introduced and my allegation she's showing respect for Mohammad
she previously denigrated as a sex pervert, then I truly think you spent
too much time peeling spuds and onions in the military. LOL!
I see. You recently posted a Pat Buchanan column, so that therefore
means that you believe and agree with everything Pat Buchanan stands
for. This is good to know. He opposed our involvement in the war
against Hitler, so now I know how you felt about that too. He still
defends Nixon, so I now know that you still defend Nixon too. This is
very interesting. Thanks for enlightening me on how you feel about
Nixon, Doc. You and Pat. What a pair!
And, please, let's not have any more juvenile hypocritical remarks about
boredom causing my presence here, you bored shitless argumentative sap.
There you go again, being a hypocritical divider not a uniter.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Doc" |
|
| Title: Re: What Would Mohammed Do? |
12 Feb 2006 03:44:01 AM |
|
|
"Steven Douglas" <dsteven@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:1139728902.975225.245320@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Doc wrote:
"Steven Douglas" <dsteven@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:1139715629.193554.13860@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Haven't had enough arguing on that topic, which was thorougly
discussed as you mention above, so you've got to start it all over
again? Are you bored? You argumentative creep.
My oh my, Stevie..."argumentative creep" ?? LOL! Is that indicative of
how
you're a "uniter" and not a "divider" as you've said in other threads?
As usual, you're upside down and backwards. I never said I was a united
not a divider. You have said previously that I am not a uniter but a
divider. It is you who seems to claim the "uniter not divider" ranking
for yourself and your fellow libs. As for the argumentative creep
remark, that was a variation of your recent "arugmentative weasel"
remark to me. It seems it's okay for you to name call, but if I do it
it's out of bounds or something. You are hilarious.
Hey, twisted psycho, you think highly of uniters, so it's simple to
understand this is a quality you'd like to imagine you have. Do you
remember the King thread where you said -- (LOOK OUT, REPLY REQUIRES A
LONG ATTENTION SPAN!)
They are dividers, not
uniters, and of late they go out of their way to prove it at a funeral
or memorial. And the rest of America takes notice, though the dividers
are apparently too clueless to realize the damage they do to themselves
with their inappropriate behavior.
And you do immense image damage to yourself daily by childishly arguing
minute or insignificant points here to score points on your own personal
"debate chart." You don't seem to have a clue as to what you are or why
you're here, varying the reasons constantly in a vain attempt to
rationalize your inane presence in APN, to find meaning to your
meaningless existence.
One of these days, Stevie, when you finally, finally grow up, and get off
your pathological obsession with framing human life entirely within the
plastic world of politics, you'll be stunned and saddened to find you've
got a personality no one enjoys, not even you enjoy, few friends, and a
horribly empty feeling deep in the pit of your soul. Not even Google will
help anymore.
You make a classic mistake of inexperience and immaturity by revealing
daily here how you have little personal life to enjoy by fruitless
bickering, whining, finger pointing, silly investigations, demanding proof
of your all-important posts, ad nauseam. If you felt confident about
yourself, you'd simply move on and stop all the bantering. Your obsessing
about who or what is "mature" behavior shows you don't have much of that
feature in your personality. It's something you long for, but can't get
past the dreary adolescent tedium of critical examination of others'
behavior, or the tiring drone of hero worshipping of lying, phony public
figures. You waffle around about your support for Bush, for example, and
when pressed, you say, "I'm no big fan." And then you contradict yourself
by rising on nearly every occasion to support him when even the smallest
criticism is hurled his way. LOL!!! And you just don't have a well
developed sense of humor, just criticism or contempt for those who do. I
do indeed feel sorry for your habitual worming around with what you said
or did here, demanding proof as if you were a wrongly accused little
innocent lamb set upon by vicious wolves. ROFL!!!! You're really just a
racist, sneaky, lying little two-faced political pus boil who can't
intellectualize on a level much beyond longshoremen on a Saturday night
tavern binge.
Yet, you turn up your nose at others here, telling them you want a
serious, intellectual conversation -- so why aren't you in the political
science chat forums sponsored by universities online? You'd be clobbered
and bloodied fast, your pseudo-intellectual teeth knocked out. You roost
here, playing Mr. Professor, confident few will be able to exceed your
lower intellectual level and it feels good to you -- no hard challenge
makes for a false sense of superiority. It's an ego-stuffer. It's no
wonder you skipped off to the military. It's a great place where people
take care of your *****, tell you what to do, and you can safely blend into
a dull landscape of boy scoutish bird brains and authority *****-kissers.
It's a damn no-brainer. It's like a fascist version of your comforting
home life, safe from the unpredictability and uneasiness of civilian life.
And "BS" ?? Well, that kind of abusive language ain't gonna' help unite
people. No sireee...
You were the first to use the uniter not divider remark. I merely
repeated it back to you to show your usual and routine hypocrisy.
You criticize folks all the time for their divisiveness in this group and
in the world at large, yet you are merely a producer of divisiveness
yourself -- and instigating division for your egotistical amusement, or to
kill your long hours of emptiness. Arguing has become a self-absorbing
hobby to you, a sport to look forward to playing, but it is an
unmistakable characteristic of a person deeply troubled, confused about
their personality and uneasy with their interactions with people.
I stand by what I said. You introduced the article back in late Oct.to
mid
Nov. 2005. I remember it clearly, unmistakably.
You ARE mistaken. You are WRONG. I never posted anything of the kind.
You are delusional. After this, I am starting to understand why you're
so unreasonable. You live in some sort of delusional dream world where
anything you wish to be true is true. What kind of drugs are you on?
LOL!!! What you have is a psychosis of select memory and constant denial,
revision of your comments on the fly, continually reinventing what you've
said, twisting and turning, unable to come to a realization of the worm
you've become in life, Stevie. A spineless, cowardly lil' fella who holds
historical figures as your role models like a little boy clutches his
sticky teddy bears. You're no "tradiitonal liberal" Stevie, and you're not
even liberal at all. You're too delusional to face up to the fact you're
just another right wing Christian evangelical Pillsbury dough boy who,
comically, attempts to assume some of the philosophy of liberalism. You
pathetically play both sides of the political fence -- whichever gives you
the best advantage in the argument. Did you think telling me you know what
to do with zig-zags didn't tell me a load about your hidden life, your
personality? And you saying you left that behind, claiming this as one
evidence you've "grown up." Wow, man, did that tell me so much about you!
You slipped when you spewed that out to me. hhaahhahaa...
Now suppose you take your pathological need for investigating others,
and
reverse it?
I don't have to. I know I did not post what you are attributing to me.
Which tells me a lot about you. Your perception is wrong, and yet for
some reason you are sure you're right.
Oh, I'm absolutely sure I am. No doubt about it, Stevie boy. Doesn't it
get prickly trying to subvert reality when you're caught and criticized?
How long have you been unable to deal with criticism? Maybe since you were
a lil' tyke, eh? And from what behavior I've seen here, that must've been
just a short time ago. LOL! You'll never analyze me accurately, Stevie,
and figure out what kind of person I am because I am already three or four
steps ahead of you. I'm so complex only God can figure me out. LOL!!!!
Investigate yourself and find the slimy racist post on
Mohammad's pre-teen wife, Aisha, you oozed into this group. I'm too
tired
to play your 'find the proof' game you enjoy here.
If you can't understand the connection between the "moderate" Muslim's
piece Jane introduced and my allegation she's showing respect for
Mohammad
she previously denigrated as a sex pervert, then I truly think you
spent
too much time peeling spuds and onions in the military. LOL!
I see. You recently posted a Pat Buchanan column, so that therefore
means that you believe and agree with everything Pat Buchanan stands
for.
Hey, let me use your modus operandi for avoiding criticism and steering
your opponents into a distraction of some kind to win points. You're
pretty good at that psychotic behavior. So...let me give it a whirl right
now...
I presented that article only because I hate Pat Buchanan. I wanted to
show what a buffoon he is! LOL! Hey, your tactics work pretty well! I can
play either side. Let's see the other side...I agree with his views and
that why I presented it. Or, better yet, let me try another one of your
tactics .... I don't really agree with everything he says, but only a few
selective points. I'm not a big Pat fan! LOL!!! You're a laugh riot!
This is good to know. He opposed our involvement in the war
against Hitler, so now I know how you felt about that too. He still
defends Nixon, so I now know that you still defend Nixon too.
Hahaha! You KNOW that do ya? Study my remarks above. I present stuff here
simply because either I agree with the article OR I DON'T or...I agree
with a specially selected portion, OR I just present it for discussion
fodder as a 'humanitarian service' to APN's posters. Sometimes I just
present it for the sake of providing some controversy, some laughs, some
break in the usual news fodder for the group. Try to guess which motive I
might have, Stevie, and let me play your game here. I think I might like
your game. :)
This is
very interesting. Thanks for enlightening me on how you feel about
Nixon, Doc. You and Pat. What a pair!
And, please, let's not have any more juvenile hypocritical remarks
about
boredom causing my presence here, you bored shitless argumentative sap.
There you go again, being a hypocritical divider not a uniter.
If you're what passes for a uniter of political or religious differences,
then Hitler and Stalin were Jimmy Carter and Mahatma Gandhi. At least they
had power. You have none. And it bothers you much, doesn't it? Just a
shrill whining, criticizing tiny whistle in the shifting winds of the
Usenet, and, like a whistle, it gets annoying to one's ears after awhile.
ROFL!!!
It's no wonder you rarely present any article for discussion here (but you
did when you posted the Mohammad smear). You don't have the guts to stick
yourself out most of the time, but prefer to wait in the shadows of the
various threads to pick, pick, pick away...argue, argue, argue...the
points of posters' subject articles. You lie in wait, like a lil'
alligator, with your steely eyes just above the water surface, wagging
your tail for the next "victim" to post an article you can tear your teeth
into. ROFL!! I bet you've been hungry for action here tonight. Not much
meat for ya to chomp on. Got get 'em, Stevie boy!
Lovingly,
Doc :))
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: What Would Mohammed Do? |
12 Feb 2006 02:30:41 PM |
|
|
Doc wrote:
"Steven Douglas" <dsteven@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:1139728902.975225.245320@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Doc wrote:
"Steven Douglas" <dsteven@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:1139715629.193554.13860@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Haven't had enough arguing on that topic, which was thorougly
discussed as you mention above, so you've got to start it all over
again? Are you bored? You argumentative creep.
My oh my, Stevie..."argumentative creep" ?? LOL! Is that indicative of
how
you're a "uniter" and not a "divider" as you've said in other threads?
As usual, you're upside down and backwards. I never said I was a united
not a divider. You have said previously that I am not a uniter but a
divider. It is you who seems to claim the "uniter not divider" ranking
for yourself and your fellow libs. As for the argumentative creep
remark, that was a variation of your recent "arugmentative weasel"
remark to me. It seems it's okay for you to name call, but if I do it
it's out of bounds or something. You are hilarious.
Hey, twisted psycho, you think highly of uniters, so it's simple to
understand this is a quality you'd like to imagine you have.
You're so simple, you completely missed the point. Which party claims
they are uniters not dividers? Which party is therefore hypocritical
when they do things that divide us rather than unite us? That was my
point about Senator Wellstone's memorial and Mrs. King's funeral. It
seems the Democrats feel compelled to make Democratic Party (and
therefore anti-Republican Party) political rallies at any opportunity
they can find. Dividers not uniters, and therefore hypocrites in that
regard.
Now, if you could find that supposed article you claim I posted, I'd
appreciate it. Otherwise, you're a simple liar. Which isn't surprising,
considering you lied about posts you've posted here under invented
ID's, and then proclaimed it wasn't you. And once someone is a known
liar, anything further they ever have to say is suspect. So until you
find this supposed article, and show it here for all to see, you're a
liar.
As for the remainder of your long-winded rant, you have exposed some of
your own internal issues that seem to be bothering you tremendously. I
hope your long-winded rant was therapeutic.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "eric" |
|
| Title: Re: What Would Mohammed Do? |
11 Feb 2006 06:37:42 PM |
|
|
Good point, Doc
When King David was extremely old, he had a hard time keeping warm, so
his servants supplied him with a couple of pre-pubescent bed-warmers.
I wonder if he was a sex pervert? Also it was common practise to have
a number of wives and concubines. Is that perverted?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jane" |
|
| Title: Re: What Would Mohammed Do? |
12 Feb 2006 01:10:54 PM |
|
|
"eric" <ericdavis500@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1139704662.881364.10830@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Good point, Doc
When King David was extremely old, he had a hard time keeping warm, so
his servants supplied him with a couple of pre-pubescent bed-warmers.
I wonder if he was a sex pervert?
Possibly he was. I haven't read the bible in many years, so I can't tell
you for sure what the context is.
Jane
Also it was common practise to have
a number of wives and concubines. Is that perverted?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: What Would Mohammed Do? |
11 Feb 2006 09:41:54 PM |
|
|
eric wrote:
Good point, Doc
When King David was extremely old, he had a hard time keeping warm, so
his servants supplied him with a couple of pre-pubescent bed-warmers.
I wonder if he was a sex pervert?
No, he was in poor health and "extremely old" as you correctly put it.
There is NO hint of sexuality in that story, yet you reach to find it
-- sick *****.
.
|
|
|
| User: "eric" |
|
| Title: Re: What Would Mohammed Do? |
12 Feb 2006 08:20:49 AM |
|
|
If I were 80 years old, cold and feeble, and had my servants put naked
youngsters in my bed to warm me, then I would be a sick *****.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lucifer Morning Star Angel of Death" |
|
| Title: Re: What Would Mohammed Do? |
12 Feb 2006 01:11:04 PM |
|
|
Lucifer
www.luciferia.tv
For Anarchist Communism (stateless Kibbutzism)
The Final Jewish Revolutionary War.
Ad hoc solidarity with militant Islam.
Nuke the City of London for world peace and the unification of the
motherland.
Send the economic and religious aristocracy to the spiritual world -
especially the women and children (eradicate these useless eaters
before they can breed).
No mercy or quarter on they who deserve none.
_____________
A few points.
A: There was allegedly once a woman called Elizabeth who was unable to
bear children for her husband the ageing priest Zecheriah - so
Elizabeth's virgin sister Mary came to live in her home and it was
there where she fell preganat. This seems to have been common in
ancient times; if your wife could not get pregnant you would shag her
sister - Abraham also was polyamorus as was David (who was also
bisexual) and his son Solomon. This was common in ancient times -
people did not live very long anyway and it was not considered to be
paedophilia and if it is the Jewish Communist martyr Jesus would have
to be considered the son of a paedophile - I doubt if the Christian
vermin would be so quick to jump to such a conclusion as they are about
the prophet Mohammad.
B: In scandinavia the age of consent is 12; we mostly reach puberty at
12 and to say that the most natural thing (sex / love) should be
punishable for post-pubescents is simply unjust.
C: In the Torah it states that wearing clothing / aprons is a sign of
shame and of the 'fall' - after Eve allegedly had sex with an Egyptian
'priest' - this being the accurate translation of the term 'serpent' in
1600 BC the era of Moses who incited slave revolution against the
'serpent' cultists / Egyptian priesthood / aristocracy of whom there
are numerous depictions wearing 'serpent' headresses. Frankly the
obsession with clothing is one reason why the world is starving and
there is global labour slavery - males tend to prefer women naked
anyway - it is mostly materialistic - consumeristic (they who worship
mammon) women who are obsessed with covering their shame - most males
usually don't give a ***** what the women are wearing (the less the
better and 'nothing' is best of all). Since the wearing of clothing is
a sign that one is 'fallen / shameful' consider how young teenagers
would behave naturally if they were all naked - they would be shagging
like rabbits.
Lucifer
Shamless in London
www.luciferia.tv
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: What Would Mohammed Do? |
11 Feb 2006 03:46:10 PM |
|
|
Jane wrote:
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1139439012163&call_pageid=968332189003&col=968350116895
Should be more like the Prophet
Feb. 9, 2006. 01:00 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Death toll, fury mount in cartoon controversy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feb. 7.
As a Muslim, I am deeply offended by the nature of the cartoons depicting
the Prophet Muhammad. But, I am equally offended, if not more so, by the
extremely hypocritical and utterly disgraceful response by some Muslim
groups around the world. Before we Muslims go crazy with emotions and start
killing innocent people and burn or damage properties, we should look at the
life of the honourable man we are making this fuss about.
He was tortured, ridiculed and abused by the people of his time to stop him
from preaching his message. He never hurt those who threw stones at him, he
never burnt their homes or kidnapped their family members. He never even
cursed at them. Instead, he asked Allah to forgive their mistakes and show
them the path of Islam. So, if he was so utterly forgiving, why can't we try
to be like him? So, I appeal to all Muslims that we show our discontent by
protesting in completely non-violent forms consistent with the teachings of
Islam and the life of the honorable Prophet.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Najeeb Siddiqui, Toronto
Thanks for posting this, Jane. Maybe the moderate muslims will start to
outvoice the loonie fundies.
Woods
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lucifer Morning Star Angel of Death" |
|
| Title: Re: What Would Mohammed Do? |
11 Feb 2006 04:35:04 PM |
|
|
Lucifer
For Anarchist Communism (stateless kibbutzism)
www.luciferia.tv
For the Final Judaic War and Revolution
alt.politics.uk, alt.politics.british, alt.religion.islam,
alt.religion.unification, alt.prophecies.nostradamus
re discussion on alt.prophecies.nostradamus
He never hurt those who threw stones at him,
Dear Jane.
Frankly I find your 'peaceful Muslim' propaganda to be offensive. The
revolution in Mecca was far from peaceful. Mohammad's army overturned
the Meccan regime of Usuryists (lending for profit) idoalters
(religious cultists - allegedly there were 400 cults / sex cults in
Mecca) and pimps in a violent revolution which was brought about by
open warfare.
I am not a Muslim but a Judaeo Communist however all Communists
militantly oppose religious cultism Usury and prostitution / sex
slavery (for the same reasons as feminists do - ie this has nothing to
with religious morality but with human rights) and are commited to
eventual armed violent revolution and the overthrowal of all Capitalist
/ religious governments and in the case of Anarchist Communists the
overthrowal of 'all' governments including pseudo Communist state
Capitalist governments.
Muslims who are willing to make peace with or to negotiate with the
Usuryists (Capitalists) Christians in any way shape or form are not
'moderate Muslims' at at indeed they have nothing to do with Mohammad's
revolution and they are not Muslims but hypocrites by my judgement.
True Muslims are commited to armed violent revolution against the
Christian / Capitalist vermin.
I have no desire to see Islamic governments or indeed any type of
government but as a Communist who is commited to armed violent
apocalyptic revolution against the armed violent apocalyptic Christian
nations I offer my ad hoc (temporary) solidarity to all militant
Muslims.
Ultimately of course Communists and Muslims are militant enemies of
each other and Communism and Islam cannot exist side by side - however
in the example of the Spanish civil war there was a lack of unity
between the three Communist groups (the Trotskyits - Stalinists and
Anarchists) they were defeated by the Christian vermin (Franco and the
Catholics) whereas in China the Communists and Nationalists waged war
successfuly against the Japanese Nationalists and only after their
defeat did the Communists crush the Chinese Nationalists and the Anglo
American collaborators.
Similarly at Armageddon (nuclear war against the Christians) I believe
that the militants of anti-Capitalism and Islam must initially unite
against their common enemies.
You are a disgrace to the memory of the prophet Jane.
In this life and in eternity those of your ilk who are essentially
Usuryist collaborators will no doubt face the Judgement of Mohammad.
Maybe the moderate muslims will start to
outvoice the loonie fundies.
You would probably have considered the Meccan Usuryists and pimps to be
'moderate' and the armies of Mohammad to be 'loonies.'
On the cartoons.
1: Frankly on the US sattelite channel 'The God Channel' Communists
pagans muslims gays are attacked and ridiculed on an every day basis as
'unsaved' and 'Satanic' etc and I don't hear any Muslims complaining
about that - the cartoons were a mild form of criticism in comparison.
2: Muslim Imams commonly make offensive comments about Christians Jews
gays communists etc.
3: The postion that 'Mohammad is running out of virgins in Islamic sex
paradise' is a satirical response to the belief that Islamic martyrs
are given 72 virgins in paradise. Satirical criticism demands
'mockery.' Criticism of irrational faith is what the critics of
religion have been doing since the reformation and enlightenment.
Communists indeed 'demand' both overt criticism of religion 'and' overt
warfare against religionists. We live in a pluralistic society where a
modern day Socrates who criticises the gods of Athens and the
irrationality and ridiculousness (what is worthy of ridicule) of
positions taken by faithists is generally no longer stoned to death.
regards
Lucifer.
For the global holocaust of all Christian loonie fundies for world
peace and the unification of the motherland.
No mercy or quarter on they who deserve none.
Woodswun wrote:
Jane wrote:
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1139439012163&call_pageid=968332189003&col=968350116895
Should be more like the Prophet
Feb. 9, 2006. 01:00 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Death toll, fury mount in cartoon controversy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feb. 7.
As a Muslim, I am deeply offended by the nature of the cartoons depicting
the Prophet Muhammad. But, I am equally offended, if not more so, by the
extremely hypocritical and utterly disgraceful response by some Muslim
groups around the world. Before we Muslims go crazy with emotions and start
killing innocent people and burn or damage properties, we should look at the
life of the honourable man we are making this fuss about.
He was tortured, ridiculed and abused by the people of his time to stop him
from preaching his message. He never hurt those who threw stones at him, he
never burnt their homes or kidnapped their family members. He never even
cursed at them. Instead, he asked Allah to forgive their mistakes and show
them the path of Islam. So, if he was so utterly forgiving, why can't we try
to be like him? So, I appeal to all Muslims that we show our discontent by
protesting in completely non-violent forms consistent with the teachings of
Islam and the life of the honorable Prophet.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Najeeb Siddiqui, Toronto
Thanks for posting this, Jane. Maybe the moderate muslims will start to
outvoice the loonie fundies.
Woods
.
|
|
|
| User: "robert merritt" |
|
| Title: Re: What Would Mohammed Do? |
11 Feb 2006 08:18:26 PM |
|
|
WOW... what was in your chocklate milk growing up?
RM
"Lucifer Morning Star Angel of Death" <lucifer@luciferia.tv> wrote in
message news:1139697304.934312.214980@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Lucifer
For Anarchist Communism (stateless kibbutzism)
www.luciferia.tv
For the Final Judaic War and Revolution
alt.politics.uk, alt.politics.british, alt.religion.islam,
alt.religion.unification, alt.prophecies.nostradamus
re discussion on alt.prophecies.nostradamus
He never hurt those who threw stones at him,
Dear Jane.
Frankly I find your 'peaceful Muslim' propaganda to be offensive. The
revolution in Mecca was far from peaceful. Mohammad's army overturned
the Meccan regime of Usuryists (lending for profit) idoalters
(religious cultists - allegedly there were 400 cults / sex cults in
Mecca) and pimps in a violent revolution which was brought about by
open warfare.
I am not a Muslim but a Judaeo Communist however all Communists
militantly oppose religious cultism Usury and prostitution / sex
slavery (for the same reasons as feminists do - ie this has nothing to
with religious morality but with human rights) and are commited to
eventual armed violent revolution and the overthrowal of all Capitalist
/ religious governments and in the case of Anarchist Communists the
overthrowal of 'all' governments including pseudo Communist state
Capitalist governments.
Muslims who are willing to make peace with or to negotiate with the
Usuryists (Capitalists) Christians in any way shape or form are not
'moderate Muslims' at at indeed they have nothing to do with Mohammad's
revolution and they are not Muslims but hypocrites by my judgement.
True Muslims are commited to armed violent revolution against the
Christian / Capitalist vermin.
I have no desire to see Islamic governments or indeed any type of
government but as a Communist who is commited to armed violent
apocalyptic revolution against the armed violent apocalyptic Christian
nations I offer my ad hoc (temporary) solidarity to all militant
Muslims.
Ultimately of course Communists and Muslims are militant enemies of
each other and Communism and Islam cannot exist side by side - however
in the example of the Spanish civil war there was a lack of unity
between the three Communist groups (the Trotskyits - Stalinists and
Anarchists) they were defeated by the Christian vermin (Franco and the
Catholics) whereas in China the Communists and Nationalists waged war
successfuly against the Japanese Nationalists and only after their
defeat did the Communists crush the Chinese Nationalists and the Anglo
American collaborators.
Similarly at Armageddon (nuclear war against the Christians) I believe
that the militants of anti-Capitalism and Islam must initially unite
against their common enemies.
You are a disgrace to the memory of the prophet Jane.
In this life and in eternity those of your ilk who are essentially
Usuryist collaborators will no doubt face the Judgement of Mohammad.
Maybe the moderate muslims will start to
outvoice the loonie fundies.
You would probably have considered the Meccan Usuryists and pimps to be
'moderate' and the armies of Mohammad to be 'loonies.'
On the cartoons.
1: Frankly on the US sattelite channel 'The God Channel' Communists
pagans muslims gays are attacked and ridiculed on an every day basis as
'unsaved' and 'Satanic' etc and I don't hear any Muslims complaining
about that - the cartoons were a mild form of criticism in comparison.
2: Muslim Imams commonly make offensive comments about Christians Jews
gays communists etc.
3: The postion that 'Mohammad is running out of virgins in Islamic sex
paradise' is a satirical response to the belief that Islamic martyrs
are given 72 virgins in paradise. Satirical criticism demands
'mockery.' Criticism of irrational faith is what the critics of
religion have been doing since the reformation and enlightenment.
Communists indeed 'demand' both overt criticism of religion 'and' overt
warfare against religionists. We live in a pluralistic society where a
modern day Socrates who criticises the gods of Athens and the
irrationality and ridiculousness (what is worthy of ridicule) of
positions taken by faithists is generally no longer stoned to death.
regards
Lucifer.
For the global holocaust of all Christian loonie fundies for world
peace and the unification of the motherland.
No mercy or quarter on they who deserve none.
Woodswun wrote:
Jane wrote:
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Artic
le_Type1&c=Article&cid=1139439012163&call_pageid=968332189003&col=9683501168
95
Should be more like the Prophet
Feb. 9, 2006. 01:00 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
Death toll, fury mount in cartoon controversy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
Feb. 7.
As a Muslim, I am deeply offended by the nature of the cartoons
depicting
the Prophet Muhammad. But, I am equally offended, if not more so, by
the
extremely hypocritical and utterly disgraceful response by some Muslim
groups around the world. Before we Muslims go crazy with emotions and
start
killing innocent people and burn or damage properties, we should look
at the
life of the honourable man we are making this fuss about.
He was tortured, ridiculed and abused by the people of his time to
stop him
from preaching his message. He never hurt those who threw stones at
him, he
never burnt their homes or kidnapped their family members. He never
even
cursed at them. Instead, he asked Allah to forgive their mistakes and
show
them the path of Islam. So, if he was so utterly forgiving, why can't
we try
to be like him? So, I appeal to all Muslims that we show our
discontent by
protesting in completely non-violent forms consistent with the
teachings of
Islam and the life of the honorable Prophet.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
Najeeb Siddiqui, Toronto
Thanks for posting this, Jane. Maybe the moderate muslims will start to
outvoice the loonie fundies.
Woods
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lucifer Morning Star Angel of Death" |
|
| Title: Re: What Would Mohammed Do? |
12 Feb 2006 07:01:11 AM |
|
|
A cocktail of marijuana LSD psilocybe alchohol and (in the distant
past) opium. I don't drink chocolate milk - too much sugar - bad for
your health / teeth.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lucifer Morning Star Angel of Death" |
|
| Title: Re: What Would Mohammed Do? |
12 Feb 2006 07:01:14 AM |
|
|
A cocktail of marijuana LSD psilocybe alchohol and (in the distant
past) opium. I don't drink chocolate milk - too much sugar - bad for
your health / teeth.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jane" |
|
| Title: Re: What Would Mohammed Do? |
12 Feb 2006 01:18:41 PM |
|
|
Who the hell cross-posted this? Sheesh! the point was to show a moderate
Muslim viewpoint! It is most definitely not necessarily my opinion of
Mohammed. I'm not religious, nor am I a big fan of religion.
Jane
"Lucifer Morning Star Angel of Death" <lucifer@luciferia.tv> wrote in
message news:1139697304.934312.214980@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Lucifer
For Anarchist Communism (stateless kibbutzism)
www.luciferia.tv
For the Final Judaic War and Revolution
alt.politics.uk, alt.politics.british, alt.religion.islam,
alt.religion.unification, alt.prophecies.nostradamus
re discussion on alt.prophecies.nostradamus
He never hurt those who threw stones at him,
Dear Jane.
Frankly I find your 'peaceful Muslim' propaganda to be offensive. The
revolution in Mecca was far from peaceful. Mohammad's army overturned
the Meccan regime of Usuryists (lending for profit) idoalters
(religious cultists - allegedly there were 400 cults / sex cults in
Mecca) and pimps in a violent revolution which was brought about by
open warfare.
I am not a Muslim but a Judaeo Communist however all Communists
militantly oppose religious cultism Usury and prostitution / sex
slavery (for the same reasons as feminists do - ie this has nothing to
with religious morality but with human rights) and are commited to
eventual armed violent revolution and the overthrowal of all Capitalist
/ religious governments and in the case of Anarchist Communists the
overthrowal of 'all' governments including pseudo Communist state
Capitalist governments.
Muslims who are willing to make peace with or to negotiate with the
Usuryists (Capitalists) Christians in any way shape or form are not
'moderate Muslims' at at indeed they have nothing to do with Mohammad's
revolution and they are not Muslims but hypocrites by my judgement.
True Muslims are commited to armed violent revolution against the
Christian / Capitalist vermin.
I have no desire to see Islamic governments or indeed any type of
government but as a Communist who is commited to armed violent
apocalyptic revolution against the armed violent apocalyptic Christian
nations I offer my ad hoc (temporary) solidarity to all militant
Muslims.
Ultimately of course Communists and Muslims are militant enemies of
each other and Communism and Islam cannot exist side by side - however
in the example of the Spanish civil war there was a lack of unity
between the three Communist groups (the Trotskyits - Stalinists and
Anarchists) they were defeated by the Christian vermin (Franco and the
Catholics) whereas in China the Communists and Nationalists waged war
successfuly against the Japanese Nationalists and only after their
defeat did the Communists crush the Chinese Nationalists and the Anglo
American collaborators.
Similarly at Armageddon (nuclear war against the Christians) I believe
that the militants of anti-Capitalism and Islam must initially unite
against their common enemies.
You are a disgrace to the memory of the prophet Jane.
In this life and in eternity those of your ilk who are essentially
Usuryist collaborators will no doubt face the Judgement of Mohammad.
Maybe the moderate muslims will start to
outvoice the loonie fundies.
You would probably have considered the Meccan Usuryists and pimps to be
'moderate' and the armies of Mohammad to be 'loonies.'
On the cartoons.
1: Frankly on the US sattelite channel 'The God Channel' Communists
pagans muslims gays are attacked and ridiculed on an every day basis as
'unsaved' and 'Satanic' etc and I don't hear any Muslims complaining
about that - the cartoons were a mild form of criticism in comparison.
2: Muslim Imams commonly make offensive comments about Christians Jews
gays communists etc.
3: The postion that 'Mohammad is running out of virgins in Islamic sex
paradise' is a satirical response to the belief that Islamic martyrs
are given 72 virgins in paradise. Satirical criticism demands
'mockery.' Criticism of irrational faith is what the critics of
religion have been doing since the reformation and enlightenment.
Communists indeed 'demand' both overt criticism of religion 'and' overt
warfare against religionists. We live in a pluralistic society where a
modern day Socrates who criticises the gods of Athens and the
irrationality and ridiculousness (what is worthy of ridicule) of
positions taken by faithists is generally no longer stoned to death.
regards
Lucifer.
For the global holocaust of all Christian loonie fundies for world
peace and the unification of the motherland.
No mercy or quarter on they who deserve none.
Woodswun wrote:
Jane wrote:
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1139439012163&call_pageid=968332189003&col=968350116895
Should be more like the Prophet
Feb. 9, 2006. 01:00 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Death toll, fury mount in cartoon controversy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feb. 7.
As a Muslim, I am deeply offended by the nature of the cartoons
depicting
the Prophet Muhammad. But, I am equally offended, if not more so, by
the
extremely hypocritical and utterly disgraceful response by some Muslim
groups around the world. Before we Muslims go crazy with emotions and
start
killing innocent people and burn or damage properties, we should look
at the
life of the honourable man we are making this fuss about.
He was tortured, ridiculed and abused by the people of his time to stop
him
from preaching his message. He never hurt those who threw stones at
him, he
never burnt their homes or kidnapped their family members. He never
even
cursed at them. Instead, he asked Allah to forgive their mistakes and
show
them the path of Islam. So, if he was so utterly forgiving, why can't
we try
to be like him? So, I appeal to all Muslims that we show our discontent
by
protesting in completely non-violent forms consistent with the
teachings of
Islam and the life of the honorable Prophet.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Najeeb Siddiqui, Toronto
Thanks for posting this, Jane. Maybe the moderate muslims will start to
outvoice the loonie fundies.
Woods
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "RD" |
|
| Title: Re: What Would Mohammed Do? |
11 Feb 2006 03:25:27 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 09:48:46 -0500, "Jane" <pushlinque@hotmail.com>
wrote:
I am equally offended, if not more so, by the
extremely hypocritical
As if there is hypocrisy only in Muslim world. What about hypocrisy in
the West? France banned Muslim women from wearing religious head scarf
in public places (many other European countries intend to follow on
that ban). So the same European countries that claim they have freedom
to mock Islam in newspapers, don't give a Muslim woman freedom to wear
what she thinks is her religious duty. Hypocrisy?
The US puppet regime in Iraq (long before the election) banned al
jazeera offices in Iraq. The US govt have publicly whined about
jazeera, and they also put pressure on Qatar govt to influence what
Jazeera broadcasts. The US govt also bombed al jazeera office in
Baghdad and killed a journalist (supposedly by mistake but no one
really believes that). What happened to freedom of speech there?
Hypocrisy again?
.
|
|
| |
