The Illusion of Reforming Islam

Submitted by Ali Sina on Sun, 04/19/2009 - 06:44

Since, thanks to Islamic terrorism the interest to know Islam has picked and Islam has come under scrutiny, the westerners began asking where are the moderate Muslims. Well, there is none. The concept is absurd. Muslims view this issue differently. You are either a 'good' practicing Muslim or a bad wishy-washy Muslim. It’s the latter group that the westerners have misnamed moderate Muslims. As far as Muslims are concerned they are ‘hypocrites.’ Not surprisingly, the 'moderates' also confess of being hypocites. They will tell you they believe in Islam but they are not good Muslims. In the back of their minds however, they plan to become 'good' Muslims once they have done all the 'sins' and enojyed life enough.

Islam is really a bad religion. The problem with Islam is with its sacred book and not just with its followers. Taking advantage of this confusion, a breed of Muslims has come up with the idea of "reforming Islam." A few of these “reformers” have also gained some recognition among the unwary westerners who have placed their hopes on them , even though they are ignored and derided by fellow Muslims at large.

In this article I would like to discuss whether Islam can be reformed.

Let us consider the etymology and meaning of 're-form.' Reform derives from Latin refōrmāre, which means to redeem, to reclaim, to renew. All these imply restoring something to its original shape.

Before talking about reform in Islam let us first take a look at reform in Christianity.

The Christian Reformation

The Christian Reformation began as an attempt to reform, not the Christianity, but the Catholic Church. Many believers were troubled by the Church and its practices, such as the sale of indulgences (tickets to paradise) and simony (buying and selling church positions). They considered these as false doctrines and malpractices within the Church.

Martin Luther, Ulrich Zwingli, John Calvin and other reformers protested these and other practices and beliefs of the Church such as Purgatory, devotion to Mary (Marina veneration), the intercession of and devotion to the saints, most of the sacraments, the mandatory celibacy for the clergy (including monasticism), and the authority of the Pope.

None of these are doctrines of Christianity. These were practices of the Church. The reformers protested against the Church. They did not defy the authority of the Bible. They suggested that the Bible should be read literally. They rejected the allegorical interpretations of the Scriptures and took the texts of the Old and New Testaments as something like statute law. The words meant what they said; any difficulty, contradiction, or obscure meaning was the fault of the reader and not the text.

Anything not contained explicitly and literally in the scriptures was to be rejected, and anything that is contained explicitly and literally in the scriptures was to be followed unwaveringly. source

This is the essence of Protestant Reformation

The Islamic Reformation

An analogous reformation also took place in Islam. This reformation was Salafism.

Many westerners, erroneously believe that Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab, (1703–1792) is the founder of an extremist sect of Islam. This is not true. Abdul Wahhab did not found a new sect. He was merely a reformer of Islam in the same way that Luther was of Christianity.

The core of Abdul Wahhab’s thinking is that Islam was perfect and complete during the days of Muhammad and his companions and its decline is the result of religious innovations (bid‘ah) and that an Islamic revival will result through the emulation of the three early generations and the purging of foreign influences from the religion.

The concept that Islam was perfect in its early stages is asserted in the Quran.5:3

الْيَوْمَ أَكْمَلْتُ لَكُمْ دِينَكُمْ وَأَتْمَمْتُ عَلَيْكُمْ نِعْمَتِي وَرَضِيتُ لَكُمُ الإِسْلاَمَ دِينًا

Today have I perfected your religious law for you, and have bestowed upon you the full measure of My blessings, and willed that self-surrender unto Me shall be your religion.

Abdul Wahhab, proposed that Muslims should refrain from any innovation and follow the examples of the salaf, (“predecessors" or "early generations) hence the name Salafis.

Salafi: سلفي, takes the pious ancestors of the patristic period of early Islam as exemplary models.

This belief is not an invention of Abdul Wahhab but is based on a hadith that reports Muhammad’s saying:

The people of my generation are the best, then those who follow them, and then those who follow the latter (i.e. the first three generations of Muslims).[Bukhari 3:48:819 and 820 and Muslim 31:6150 and 6151.] (Tabi‘in and the Taba‘ at-Tabi‘in,)

In another hadith Muhammad, noted:

In order to demolish the western myth that Abdul Wahhab was the founder of Salafism, it is import to note that ibn Taymiyyah (1263 – 1328) was also a Salafi. Ibn Taymiyyah opposed the celebration of Muhammad's birthday and the construction of shrines around the tombs of Sufi 'saints' saying: "Many of them [the Muslims] do not even know of the Christian [Catholic] origins of these practices. Accursed be Christianity and its adherents."

Early usage of the term Salaf appears in the book Al-Ansab by Abu Sa'd Abd al-Kareem al-Sama'ni, who died in the year 1166 (562 of the Islamic calendar). Defining the term al-Salafi he stated, "This is an ascription to the salaf, or the predecessors, and the adaptation of their school of thought based upon what I have heard." He then mentions examples of more scholars who were utilizing this ascription.

There is a hadith where Muhammad says, "I am the best Salaf for you." [Sahih Muslim: no. 2450]

The desire to reform Islam and go back to its original pristine state is actually an old thought. Abdul Wahhab, however, succeeded to give shape to this concept, which took ground thanks to the Saudi kings who are his descendants through one of his daughters.

The Similarities between Christian Reformation and Islamic Reformation

There are many similarities between Protestantism and Salafism. The former rejects devotion to Mary and saints and their intercession. The latter rejects devotion to Muhammad, his intercession and the intercession of Islamic holy men (such as practiced in Shiism). Both these reform movements want to take their respective faiths to their original purity and eschew the innovations that have been added to the religion after the death of their founders.

Dr. Ingrid Mattson, the woman who was invited by Hussein Obama to represent Muslims in the interfaith prayer of the Democrats Presidential convention, and who is the president of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), when asked whether Wahhabism is an extreme right wing sect of Islam, responded:

No it’s not true to characterize ‘Wahhabism’ that way. This is not a sect. It is the name of a reform movement that began 200 years ago to rid Islamic societies of cultural practices and rigid interpretation that had acquired over the centuries. It really was analogous to the European protestant reformation.

The Outcome of Reform in Christianity

Although Christian Reformation and Islamic Reformation are almost identical in their scope and methodology, the outcome has been very different. The literal reading of the Bible became the underpinning of the social theories and organization of Protestant societies and the foundation of social organization of the English colonies in America.

These reformers literally transformed the philosophical, political, religious, and social landscape of Europe. We still live in a society dominated by protestant theory of social organization.

American political discourse is essentially Calvinistic. In other words its social organization is based on the literal meaning of Christian scriptures.

According to Calvin and Zwingli, not only should all religious belief be founded on the literal reading of Scriptures, but Church organization, political organization, and society itself should be founded on this literal reading.

Luther wrote a letter to Pope Leo, (which resulted his excommunication from the Church) in which he explained the substance of his ideas. The letter is entitled "On the Freedom of the Christian." This letter explains the core of Luther’s thinking. According to Luther, the essence of Christianity is "freedom," or "liberty."

It is this concept that eventually gave rise to the notion of individual freedom, political freedom, and economic freedom.

Most of the European Enlightenment revolves around freedom and the project of "liberating" people: liberating them from false beliefs, false religion, arbitrary authority, etc.--this is, what is called "liberation discourse." Westerners still participate in this Enlightenment project today.

That is why America invaded Iraq, to prevent a dicator taking control of most of the world's oil reservers, to liberate Kuwaitis and a decade later, to liberate the Iraqis. That is why America has fought nearly forty wars abroad, from Japan to Germany, to Italy, to Panama to Nicaragua, to Kosovo, to Vietnam, to Korea, to Angola, to Somalia. Whether these wars were right or wrong, the motivation has been always the same, to liberate people, to stop dictators, to export democracy and freedom. This idea of "liberating" people, of democracy, so entrenched in America’s international politics, comes out of Luther's idea of "freedom."

(For those who attack me because I speak of Luther, let me make it clear that I am not defending his anit-semitism. I am merely definig the concept of Protestant Reformation. Let us seperate the issues.)

Other factors have also played a role in these wars, such as protecting the economical and political interests of America. However, the underlying denominator has generally been liberating people from tyranny. Liberating people and defending American interest are not mutually exclusive.

There have been exceptions where America has acted purely out of self interest, disregarding the wellbeing of the people. One example is the ousting of the democratic Dr. Mossadq, the Prime Minister of Iran, in 1953 and reinstating an inept puppet king who turned a dictator.

This is not the discourse of the liberals. The liberals have no desire to liberate anyone. They are happy to deal with the most oppressive regimes with no concern about how they brutalize their people.

The Outcome of Reform in Islam

What is the essence of the reformation in Islam? The essence of the Wahhabi belief is that man is not free but a slave of Allah. People are Ibad. (slaves)

This is diametrically a different discourse from the discourse of Protestantism and here is the essential difference between Christianity and Islam.

On the surface, there are many similarities between Christianity and Islam. Both believe in a God, both rely on an intermediary between man and God, both faiths are eschatological - have a hell, a heaven and an afterlife, etc. However, in their core, they are very different, in fact opposite to one another. The reformatio of both these faiths took the same road, but seaking the origin of their faith, they went opposite directions. Islam is not a continuation of Christianity, as Muhammad and Muhammadns claim, but it is an anti Christian belief in its core. Christianity advocates freedom of man, Islam, his slavery. One brings the message of liberation, the other, of submission.

The discourse of freedom, so essential to Christianity is contrary to what Islam stands for. When Muslims carry placards that read “democracy is hypocrisy,” and “freedom go to hell,” during their laud demonstrations, they are expressing the true essence of Islam, which is anti freedom, anti democracy, pro slavery and pro subjugation.

Muslims are not free to choose, but they should obey Allah and His Messenger. The Quran.33:36 says:

وَمَا كَانَ لِمُؤْمِنٍ وَلَا مُؤْمِنَةٍ إِذَا قَضَى اللَّهُ وَرَسُولُهُ أَمْرًا أَن يَكُونَ لَهُمُ الْخِيَرَةُ مِنْ أَمْرِهِمْ وَمَن يَعْصِ اللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ فَقَدْ ضَلَّ ضَلَالًا مُّبِينًا

“And it behoves not a believing man and a believing woman that they should have any choice in their matter when Allah and His Messenger have decided a matter; and whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger, he surely strays off a manifest straying.”

It is not up to Muslims to decide what is good for them. This decision is already made for them and all they have to do is to obey, even when they don’t like it.

كُتِبَ عَلَيْكُمُ الْقِتَالُ وَهُوَ كُرْهٌ لَّكُمْ وَعَسَى أَن تَكْرَهُواْ شَيْئًا وَهُوَ خَيْرٌ لَّكُمْ وَعَسَى أَن تُحِبُّواْ شَيْئًا وَهُوَ شَرٌّ لَّكُمْ وَاللّهُ يَعْلَمُ وَأَنتُمْ لاَ تَعْلَمُونَ

Fighting is ordained for you, even though it be hateful to you; but it may well be that you hate a thing the while it is good for you, and it may well be that you love a thing the while it is bad for you: and God knows, whereas you do not know. (Q. 2:216)

Islam can be distilled in its name: 'Submission.' Allah knows best. Therefore man must accept his command, blindly and unwaiveringly.

Democracy means the government of people by the people. In Democracy men make the law. In Islam the law comes from God. Man must obey even if those laws appear contrary to reason and are oppressive.

This is the reason why "moderate" Muslims cannot oppose stoning adulterers, killing the apostates or other abuses of their fellow practicing Muslims, and their protests do not go beyond a lip service, and that too is only for the consumption of the western media.

Both Christianity and Islam underwent through reformation. They took similar paths, but they ended up in two opposite poles. While Christian reformation brought freedom, Enlightenment and democracy, Islamic reformation bore terrorism.

Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Abdul Wahhab were reformers of Islam. Among the contemporary Islamic reformers we can name Maududi (1903 – 1979) who wrote an interpretation of the Quran and Sayyid Qutb, (1906-1966) the leading intellectual of Muslim Brotherhood in the 50s and 60s, who was the inspiration to all Muslim terrorists including Ayatollah Khomeini and Bin Laden.

Reformation vs. Transformation

What today’s so called Islamic reformers are proposing is not reformation but transformation of Islam. Unlike the above mentioned reformers, these new reformer wannabes do not want to go to the origin of Islam, but rather they want to eschew part of the Quran and the entire Sharia and invent an entirely different religion, still calling it Islam.

This is delusional thinking and impractical, both logically and logistically. It is also strictly prohibited in the Quran.

These neoreformers want to change Islam to something different. They want to bring bid’a to Islam. Is that possible? Can believers have an opinion contrary to what the Quran says? We already saw that the Quran 33:36, prohibits the believers to have any choice in their OWN matter when Allah and his Messenger have made their choice. How can they decide what is good for the RELIGION?

When the Quran says, "Fighting is ordained for you, even if you don’t like it," the message is clear. This is God speaking. That is what you have accepted a priori. So how can you dispute with God? Once you accept the Quran as the word of God you cannot pick and choose and discard what you don’t like. This is strictly prohibited, not once but repeatedly.

أَفَتُؤْمِنُونَ بِبَعْضِ الْكِتَابِ وَتَكْفُرُونَ بِبَعْضٍ فَمَا جَزَاء مَن يَفْعَلُ ذَلِكَ مِنكُمْ إِلاَّ خِزْيٌ فِي الْحَيَاةِ الدُّنْيَا وَيَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ يُرَدُّونَ إِلَى أَشَدِّ الْعَذَابِ وَمَا اللّهُ بِغَافِلٍ عَمَّا تَعْمَلُونَ

Do you, then, believe in some parts of the divine writ and deny the truth of other parts? What, then, could be the reward of those among you who do such things but ignominy in the life of this world and, on the Day of Resurrection, they will be consigned to most grievous suffering? For God is not unmindful of what you do. (Q.2:85)

أَفَغَيْرَ اللّهِ أَبْتَغِي حَكَمًا وَهُوَ الَّذِي أَنَزَلَ إِلَيْكُمُ الْكِتَابَ مُفَصَّلاً

6:114 "Am I, then, to look unto anyone but God for judgment [as to what is right and wrong], when it is He who has bestowed upon you from on high this divine writ, clearly spelling out the truth?"

وَإِن تُطِعْ أَكْثَرَ مَن فِي الأَرْضِ يُضِلُّوكَ عَن سَبِيلِ اللّهِ إِن يَتَّبِعُونَ إِلاَّ الظَّنَّ وَإِنْ هُمْ إِلاَّ يَخْرُصُونَ

6:116 Wert thou to follow the common run of those on earth, they will lead thee away from the way of Allah. They follow nothing but conjecture: they do nothing but guess.

إِنَّ الَّذِينَ يَكْتُمُونَ مَا أَنزَلَ اللّهُ مِنَ الْكِتَابِ وَيَشْتَرُونَ بِهِ ثَمَنًا قَلِيلاً أُولَـئِكَ مَا يَأْكُلُونَ فِي بُطُونِهِمْ إِلاَّ النَّارَ وَلاَ يُكَلِّمُهُمُ اللّهُ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ وَلاَ يُزَكِّيهِمْ وَلَهُمْ عَذَابٌ أَلِيمٌ

2:174 Verily, as for those who suppress aught of the revelation which God has bestowed from on high, and barter it away for a trifling gain - they but fill their bellies with fire. And God will not speak unto them on the Day of Resurrection, nor will He cleanse them [of their sins]; and grievous suffering awaits them.

See also 16:89 39:23,

كَمَا أَنزَلْنَا عَلَى المُقْتَسِمِينَ الَّذِينَ جَعَلُوا الْقُرْآنَ عِضِين فَوَرَبِّكَ لَنَسْأَلَنَّهُمْ أَجْمَعِيْنَ:

Q.15: 90-92 Such as We send down for those who make division, Those who break the Quran into parts. Therefore, by the Lord, We will, of a surety, call them to account,

وَلاَ مُبَدِّلَ لِكَلِمَاتِ اللّهِ

Q. 6:34 there is none that can alter the words of Allah.

لاَ تَبْدِيلَ لِكَلِمَاتِ اللّهِ ذَلِكَ هُوَ الْفَوْزُ الْعَظِيمُ

Q.10:64 There is no changing the Words of Allah that is the Supreme Triumph.

وَاتْلُ مَا أُوحِيَ إِلَيْكَ مِن كِتَابِ رَبِّكَ لَا مُبَدِّلَ لِكَلِمَاتِهِ وَلَن تَجِدَ مِن دُونِهِ مُلْتَحَدًا

18:27 And recite that which hath been revealed unto you of the scripture of your Lord. There is none who can change His words, and you will find no refuge beside Him.

How can one claim to believe in the Quran and disregard all these warnings?

The so called reformers of Islam are misguided at best and deceptive at worst. Their efforts should not be welcomed. Whatever their intention, whether genuine or malicious, they are pulling wool over the eyes of non-Muslims and as the result giving legitimacy to a very dangerous creed.

Only truth can set us free. By sugarcoating Islam you cannot change its nature. You can purify filthy water and drink it. You can even purify urine into drinking water. But can you purify gasoline enough to make it drinkable? The essence of Islam is evil. It is not a contaminated good faith. You cannot reform it enough to make it a humane faith. Can you reform Nazism? This whole notion is misguided and absurd.

What is the point of reforming a religion founded by a mentally deranged man who committed so much evil on Earth, who lied, decieved, rapied, tortured, raided, looted, massacred and committed the most despicable crimes? Why keep his cult alive and his memory honored? That man deseves scorn, not recognition?

Reforming Islam is impossible. It is either a dilution or a ruse. Jiahd is based on two pillars, war and deception. I don’t want anyone to be fooled by the soothing promises of Muslim reformers. Moderate Islam does not exist. It’s a myth.

I prefer jihadi Muslims to these “Muslims against Sharia,” fellows. With the jihadis I know my enemy. I do not trust Muslims who are against Sharia. I do not understand them. What they say does not add up. I don’t know what they are up to. I do not trust people who say, I am a follower of Muhammad, but I do not follow Muhammad. There is something fishy, something dishonest and hypocritical about their claim.

If you are a Muslims, be a Muslim. I do not agree with you but at least I know where you stand and where I should stand to be safe from you. But if you are a Muslim and against Islam and the Sharia, I don’t trust you. You are either a fool or a crook. "You are neither hot nor cold. I will spit you out."

Some of these so called reformers hide their identity and face claiming to 'fear Muslims.' Why should they? They are not saying anything that CAIR does not say when it wants to Con Americans with Islamic Ruse. This is all sham.

Reforming Islam is impossible, but to transform it you need divine authority. Only God can change his words. Where is that divine authority? If you are allowed to pick and choose from the Quran, why Osama Bin Laden should not have the same right? Which Islam is the right Islam? Wouldn't this lead to more division and fight among Muslims?

The only serious reformer of Islam was Baha’u’llah. He realized Islam cannot be reformed. So he founded a new religion and announced that he was vested with authority from God to annul all His previous mandates in the Quran.

He told Muslims, whereas before you were told to slay the unbelievers, now God wants you to love all the people irrespective of their faiths. Whereas before He told you women are deficient in intelligence, beat them if you fear they may disobey you, now He says men and women are equal and give preference to the education of your daughters, because they will be the mothers an the primary educators of future generations. Whereas in the previous dispensation God told you all non-believers will go to hell, now He says it’s your deeds that matter and your faith without good deeds is worthless and that He is not going to discriminate against anyone because of his belief. It's the purity of heart that matters not what you profess with your tongues. Whereas before He had built a huge rotisserie to burn humans for disbeleif, He has actually shut it down. He wants you to obey him for the love of Him alone and not because you fear him. Just act as mature people. There is no threat. Whereas before He said "fighting is good for you," now He is tired of all the fighting and says fighting behoove the ferocious beasts and choiced deeds behooves humans. Whereas before you were promised virgins, there are no virgins. Your body will rot here. The rewrds are all spiritual in nature, like joy and love. There is no hanky panky in paradise. Also there is no punishment, except the regret that you'd feel for losing the chance to develop spiritual limbs in this world.

That requires courage. Now this was in 19^th century in the middle of Shiite Persia. Of course Baha'u'llah was put in a dungeon and spent the rest of his life in exile. Many of his followers were executed. However, there is a logic in that argument. The logic is that only God has the authority to abrogate His laws. This logic remains valid, until you ask, what was God smoking when he sent Muhammad? Baha'u'llah is the only credible transformer of Islam. But again, Baha'i Faith is not Islam. It's entirely a different religion.

You cannot reform Islam and you cannot transform it. All you can and should do, is dump it. Please, let us stop this charade. Either be a Muslim and do as Muhammad said or leave Islam and don't become a shield for the terrorists. Don't muddy the waters. Don't mix among the enemy and pose as a friend. This is the same tactic that Palestinians use in war. They mix among civilians and innocent children to make it difficult for their enemy to target them. You are causing confusion. You provide a protective shield for the enemy. I am not writing this for you. I know you are not going to change. You are a deceiver. I am writing this for the non-Muslims so they do not fall into your trap and don't provide for you free podium to deceive them.

Islam cannot be reformed. They tried it in every imaginable way. The Mu’tazelis tired it, the Sufis tried it, hundreds of old and new schools tried it and they all failed. If you cannot stomach the Sharia, why do you want to keep Islam at all? Islam belongs to the toilet of history. Dump it and flush. Get rid of it and don’t fool yourself with this nonsense. Accept the truth. Yes truth matters. Islam is a lie. Mhammad was a mentally sick conman. Get over with it and stop this ridiculous farce of reformation.

Average:

Your rating: None

How to convert a democracy to

Submitted by Raja (not verified) on Sun, 04/19/2009 - 07:47.

How to convert a democracy to ISLAMIC Country

Where Imams decide parties and devotees vote
http://in.news.yahoo.com/43/20090419/812/tnl-where-imams-decide-parties-...

One Muslim candidate turns Muslims against Congress
http://in.news.yahoo.com/43/20090419/818/tnl-one-muslim-candidate-turns-...

Its evolution, when muslims

Submitted by a_comment (not verified) on Sun, 04/19/2009 - 08:05.

Its evolution, when muslims will evolve spiritually, they will leave islam. When non muslims will evolve in I.Q, they will leave political correctness and call islam for what it is. If humans don't evolve fast enough, muslims may well destroy the human species, or drag them far behind along with themselves.
Non muslims then will have to take some part of the blame for non stopping the spiritually unevolved species.
---
Even when I type muslims and islam, the inbuilt dictionary wants me to begin them with a capital letter, even our dictionaries are unevolved.

Let there be no

Submitted by proudkafir (not verified) on Sun, 04/19/2009 - 09:07.

Let there be no illusion/delusion.Islam be bansihed for ever.Who ever wants to restrict his practice of islamic evil to only these following aspects let them
1.Fasting during ramadan month.
2.Braying 5 times a day.
3.Screaming at the top of the voice with our disturbing others the sick mantra
" la Illahi illallah, mohammadan rasool allah"
4.Wants to visit the sick land of mohammad paying his own money.
5.Wants to marry off hhis daughter aged 6 to 60 year old man for money
6.Wants to lensd money to others with out interest
7.Wants fridays to be special day of congregartion
8.Wants to cover his wife and women in blackest of the clothes possible.
9.Wants to shave off moustache and keep the henna dyed beard.
10.Wants women to be not educated at all.
Let these stupid moslems practice their own islam.But the moment it affects the life of kafirs, slaughter them where evr you find them!

The only way to reform

Submitted by non-delusionist (not verified) on Sun, 04/19/2009 - 09:29.

The only way to reform pisslam is to nuke Mekkah and Medinah. That will prove that Muhammad's Allah is full of shit.

Mmmmmm, Ali, may I

Submitted by chrisse (not verified) on Sun, 04/19/2009 - 12:26.

Mmmmmm, Ali, may I respectfully request/suggest that you refrain from entering waters you do not know, nor understand. The majority of Christians in the world do not agree with your assessment of the so-called "reformation / protest". And the One Holy and Catholic Apostolic Church is the majority of the Christians in the world. Looks like that reform/protest sort of failed.

Must admit, I haven't read what you had to say about Islamic reform; so I can't comment as my attention was drawn to your post-enlightenment atheist view of the "protest / reform".

But, for what it's worth. Islam cannot be reformed because then it wouldn't be Islam.

i think mohamed laughing in

Submitted by dre_lw (not verified) on Sun, 04/19/2009 - 13:05.

i think mohamed laughing in hell, cos what his intention was just for fun while his alive, having lot of money by robing, bullying stupid peasant, and sex whoever he wants, bring mohamed alive, he'll be scratching and shaking his head saying: "you we're an idiot...can't you use your brain or something, if i knew there will be such education or school in next few centuries..., i wouldn't lie that stupid"

"The Illusion of Reforming

Submitted by A0000Z (not verified) on Sun, 04/19/2009 - 14:27.

"The Illusion of Reforming Islam" Ha Ha Ha Ha

But the fact is Reforming Evil Islam is not an Illusion( But a wet dream) according to American, British Christian politicians. They have been at it ( Reforming Islam) for last few decades: only when it comes to punishing the Soviets in Afghanistan or the Indians in Kashmir or the non Christians any where in the world. Now they are facing their own music.

Just enjoy the show of Jihad and Crusade at each others throat.

I have no illusion about

Submitted by proudkafir (not verified) on Sun, 04/19/2009 - 14:41.

I have no illusion about getting rid of this XXXX islam from this earth.There are over a billion deluded minds following that pedophile prophet and his pimp allah.Their thinking goes perhaps like this.
1.You the kafirs hurl and abuse saying your prophet XXXXXXXX XXX XXXXXXXX a child aged 6 .
The deluded mind of a moslem will say this.
No the child bride ayesha was handed over to the prophet for a reason to screw.Allah even ensured that the child bride did not suffer any injury and even reduced the dik size of mohammad.There must have been some reason for rasool to get it on the child.It's only for rasool and not for all moslems!
2.You say women are oppressed and covered in black.
The deluded moslem mind will say no we are protecting our women from the prying eyes of kafirs and in our moslem countries rape is non existent!
3.You say women are oppressed and treated as chatel.Moslems will say no we have given moslem women important place inside the house!!
The trouble is the deluded fellows not only say that but believe in that crap too.See no hope

The USA now has a kafir

Submitted by Jeraldo (not verified) on Sun, 04/19/2009 - 15:06.

The USA now has a kafir President who bows down very far, suggesting that he wants to perform an act of fellatio on the Saudi King!

Perhaps O-bow-ma wants Islam to be reformed to allow acts of homosexuality, so that he can then take the Saudi King to bed and thigh with him. Anything to ensure the Saudi oil keeps flowing into the USA after all...

Islam is like an ugly,

Submitted by Shafee al-Zindig (not verified) on Sun, 04/19/2009 - 15:13.

Islam is like an ugly, smelly, hateful, foul-mouthed, irredeemable old hag. These hopeful reformers can give their beloved hag tons of cosmetics, deodorant, lip-stick, powder and rouge to try and hide the ugliness but this will change nothing. She will still remain a hag.

The only decent thing to do is to bury her. Deep, deep underground, never to be heard from or seen ever again.

Ali, A very good article. I

Submitted by average american (not verified) on Sun, 04/19/2009 - 16:31.

Ali,
A very good article. I do agree with your assessment of the reformation in Christian history. It was the Church that needed reformation, really its leaders needed it the most. The Bible states that to whom much is given, much is required. Other verses in the NT make it plain that church leaders will come under more scrutiny than the average person in God's judgement of men. Most christian leaders understand this, at least all of the ones I have ever met.

Very well-thought article.

Submitted by Ibn Kammuna (not verified) on Sun, 04/19/2009 - 16:43.

Very well-thought article. Thank you brother. Just to add a little note.
I am very impressed not with Ali's understanding of Islam, since he grew up in it, but with his accurate understanding of Christian history and the reformation era. I just need to add that in addition to "Main Line" reformation movement, there was another movement that wanted to reform the way Christianity was lived by establishing a church of the people through following the teachings of Christ and avoiding "official" church completely. Those were the Pacifist reformers; not known much in main line reformation, but their influence was great indeed. One of the largest pacifist churches nowadays is the Mennonites. Their history goes to a group of their founders. The most well-known name is Menno Simons. There were others too who established other Christian groups (The Brethren Church is another one)..etc. Peace to all

Ali Sina, that was the best

Submitted by Humanist (not verified) on Sun, 04/19/2009 - 17:06.

Ali Sina, that was the best article I have seen from you in a while. It is direct and to the point. I am going to link it as a "source" material for my better understanding of Islam.

Additionally, your understanding of the Protestant movement is exactly what I was taught in college.

Again, I tip my hat to you sir.

Democracy is un-Islamic: Swat

Submitted by Raja (not verified) on Sun, 04/19/2009 - 17:26.

Democracy is un-Islamic: Swat cleric
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/World/Democracy-is-un-Islamic-Swat-cl...

" True Muslims should not be

Submitted by Islamophobic (not verified) on Sun, 04/19/2009 - 17:40.

" True Muslims should not be free to choose, but they should emulate Muhammad."

Yes, They MUST-APE MonkeyMAD the Pervert Profit$$$$$$!

@Humanist Your right, this

Submitted by Equestrian (not verified) on Sun, 04/19/2009 - 17:41.

@Humanist

Your right, this is one of Ali Sina's best articles. The popular view of religion in the West is that their all the same. We even see this view propagated by many users on this site.

I would say that this popular misconception of religion is one of the primary reasons why the arguments proposed on this site are not resonating in mainstream society.

"Islam will reform just like Christianity has reformed" or "Christianity has violent verses too!" the Western Leftist argues.

This view is propagated by most Western academics. Unfortunately the history of the Protestant reformation that was taught to you in college, is not the same as its being taught to the college students today. I'm an undergrad and I see the revision of history happening in most every class I attend, and it is frightening.

The Taliban marches

Submitted by venex (not verified) on Sun, 04/19/2009 - 18:37.

The Taliban marches unhindered, takes over Islamabad....The Nukes fall into their hands...They threaten India....Diplomatic upheaval....They transport some Nukes to the middle east (read Iran / Iraq)....They now threaten India and Israel....Unlike the Indian politician ( Read Chakka - Translation - Eunuch) the Israelis take the nukes out within Iran...The Muslim world goes berserk....The Taliban launch a nuke into India.....The world wakes up.....Indians begin the slaughter in-house....Muslim baby blood all over India...Village after village town after town...They have nowhere to run...The Indian army marches on Pakistan....The world watches NATO thinks Muslims can still be pacified peace can be reached...Unfortunately this is the voice of "the moderate Muslims" who have taken over NATO....The blood shed in India is graphically described in the mosques of NATO with a lot of spice added....The Muslim communities in these lands bring out the years of accumulated arsenal…. The Thames, The Seine and The Scheldt turn red with blood, Christian blood….Muslims unleash barbarism unknown to these countries and unseen for generations…..NATO starts to regroup….Europe and America join the war to save themselves, India and Israel….The superior technical firepower first stops, and then begins to push the Muslims back….The Allied forces gain inch by inch in the middle east and the sub continent….14 terrible years later slowly but surely the followers of truth and righteous win…Terms of surrender is to ban Islam….The Muslims insist and the politicians agree not to ban, but reform…..We still don’t learn, and leave for our children a cult which will not reform but will wait for strength and the circle of life will come to haunt us for centuries to come.

Yes Ali is right to say

Submitted by chimu (not verified) on Sun, 04/19/2009 - 18:57.

Yes Ali is right to say reformist muslims already failed. But it's not that Ali is
wining. It is islam that emmerging victorious from Somalia to Iraq, Afganistan to
Indian subcontinent. Be honest to admit there is none to stop islam of allah and
mohammad. Scrutinise the 1400 hundred years history of islam. I think never it was so ruthless so barbaric so inhuman in his global conquest the way we witness today. The message of islam is loud and clear, either surrender or go
to hell.

That is why America invaded

Submitted by continuum1 (not verified) on Sun, 04/19/2009 - 21:03.

That is why America invaded Iraq first time to liberate Kuwaitis and a decade later, to liberate the Iraqis.

This must be a joke. Americans wanted to protect their interests in middle east and so they invaded Iraq and Kuwait. Liberty my ass. If you are so gullible enough you can believe it.

That is why America has fought nearly forty wars abroad, from Japan to Germany and Italy, from Panama to Nicaragua, and Kosovo, from Vietnam to Somalia.

Each of these wars have specific set of circumstances.

Japan started with Pearl Harbor incident. Germany was threatening whole of Europe and America with its expansionist policies. Both these countries were a threat to America. So America acted. Where does freedom come into picture. It was survival of the fittest.

America wanted to control Panama to advance US interests ($$$$) in Central America.

In case of Vietnam it was a war against communism and part of wider strategy of "containment" (against communism) and prevent domino-effect to secure American interests all over the world.

Infact every American war fought abroad is to protect its own interests.

Words like "freedom", "liberty" etc. are for consumption of naive American citizens.

Whether these wars were right of wrong, the motivation has been always the same, to liberate people, to export democracy and freedom. This idea of “liberating” people, of democracy, so entrenched in America’s international politics, comes out of Luther’s idea of “freedom.”

What a load of BS?

Motivation is to secure American interests abroad. That is why America assassinated so many democratically elected people all over South America. Mr. Ali Sina, are you working for some government agency or are you so ignorant of history really?

You are surely not a dumb person. The question is why do you knowingly lie?

That is why America invaded

Submitted by continuum1 (not verified) on Sun, 04/19/2009 - 21:03.

That is why America invaded Iraq first time to liberate Kuwaitis and a decade later, to liberate the Iraqis.

This must be a joke. Americans wanted to protect their interests in middle east and so they invaded Iraq and Kuwait. Liberty my ass. If you are so gullible enough you can believe it.

That is why America has fought nearly forty wars abroad, from Japan to Germany and Italy, from Panama to Nicaragua, and Kosovo, from Vietnam to Somalia.

Each of these wars have specific set of circumstances.

Japan started with Pearl Harbor incident. Germany was threatening whole of Europe and America with its expansionist policies. Both these countries were a threat to America. So America acted. Where does freedom come into picture. It was survival of the fittest.

America wanted to control Panama to advance US interests ($$$$) in Central America.

In case of Vietnam it was a war against communism and part of wider strategy of "containment" (against communism) and prevent domino-effect to secure American interests all over the world.

Infact every American war fought abroad is to protect its own interests.

Words like "freedom", "liberty" etc. are for consumption of naive American citizens.

Whether these wars were right of wrong, the motivation has been always the same, to liberate people, to export democracy and freedom. This idea of “liberating” people, of democracy, so entrenched in America’s international politics, comes out of Luther’s idea of “freedom.”

What a load of BS?

Motivation is to secure American interests abroad. That is why America assassinated so many democratically elected people all over South America. Mr. Ali Sina, are you working for some government agency or are you so ignorant of history really?

You are surely not a dumb person. The question is why do you knowingly lie?

I do not understand why

Submitted by continuum1 (not verified) on Sun, 04/19/2009 - 21:27.

I do not understand why sensible people have to praise EVIL MEN for any purpose?

Martin Luther's idea of "FREEDOM".

What shall we Christians do with this rejected and condemned people, the Jews? ........I shall give you my sincere advice:

First to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them. This is to be done in honor of our Lord and of Christendom, so that God might see that we are Christians, and do not condone or knowingly tolerate such public lying, cursing, and blaspheming of his Son and of his Christians. For whatever we tolerated in the past unknowingly and I myself was unaware of it will be pardoned by God. But if we, now that we are informed, were to protect and shield such a house for the Jews, existing right before our very nose, in which they lie about, blaspheme, curse, vilify, and defame Christ and us (as was heard above), it would be the same as if we were doing all this and even worse ourselves, as we very well know.

Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed. For they pursue in them the same aims as in their synagogues. Instead they might be lodged under a roof or in a barn, like the gypsies. This will bring home to them that they are not masters in our country, as they boast, but that they are living in exile and in captivity, as they incessantly wail and lament about us before God.

Third, I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing and blasphemy are taught, be taken from them. (remainder omitted)

Fourth, I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb. For they have justly forfeited the right to such an office by holding the poor Jews captive with the saying of Moses (Deuteronomy 17 [:10 ff.]) in which he commands them to obey their teachers on penalty of death, although Moses clearly adds: "what they teach you in accord with the law of the Lord." Those villains ignore that. They wantonly employ the poor people's obedience contrary to the law of the Lord and infuse them with this poison, cursing, and blasphemy. In the same way the pope also held us captive with the declaration in Matthew 16 {:18], "You are Peter," etc, inducing us to believe all the lies and deceptions that issued from his devilish mind. He did not teach in accord with the word of God, and therefore he forfeited the right to teach.

Fifth, I advise that safeconduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews. For they have no business in the countryside, since they are not lords, officials, tradesmen, or the like. Let they stay at home. (...remainder omitted).

Sixth, I advise that usury be prohibited to them, and that all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them and put aside for safekeeping. The reason for such a measure is that, as said above, they have no other means of earning a livelihood than usury, and by it they have stolen and robbed from us all they possess. Such money should now be used in no other way than the following: Whenever a Jew is sincerely converted, he should be handed one hundred, two hundred, or three hundred florins, as personal circumstances may suggest. With this he could set himself up in some occupation for the support of his poor wife and children, and the maintenance of the old or feeble. For such evil gains are cursed if they are not put to use with God's blessing in a good and worthy cause.

Seventh, I commend putting a flail, an ax, a hoe, a spade, a distaff, or a spindle into the hands of young, strong Jews and Jewesses and letting them earn their bread in the sweat of their brow, as was imposed on the children of Adam (Gen 3[:19]}. For it is not fitting that they should let us accursed Goyim toil in the sweat of our faces while they, the holy people, idle away their time behind the stove, feasting and farting, and on top of all, boasting blasphemously of their lordship over the Christians by means of our sweat. No, one should toss out these lazy rogues by the seat of their pants.

I would like to ask Ali Sina, how is this "freedom"? This man Martin Luther is as evil as Muhammad and grants freedom ONLY to Christians, just as Muhammad grants freedom ONLY to Muslims.

Your article is misleading. Reformation of martin Luther is aas evil as Salafist ideas. ONLY you have little knowledge on these issues.

jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsou

Submitted by continuum1 (not verified) on Sun, 04/19/2009 - 21:29.

jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/Luther_on_Jews.html

The above link gives the quotes on writings of this evil man Martin Luther.

Thank you Ali Sina. I enjoyed

Submitted by roman (not verified) on Sun, 04/19/2009 - 22:00.

Thank you Ali Sina. I enjoyed your article very much. I have read lot of materials about reformation but the beauty of your article is that you have put the essence in a nutshell. However the fact remains that the people in general are cling to ritualism of a religion that to the truth of it. Hinduism, Islam and Catholicsm have a common thread. These religions contain lot of ritualism. I know many Catholics in Australia who do not read the Bible frequently but recite rosary every day with the family , do the way of the cross, and go to Mass and involve in church community activities.

What Voltaire said of the people is true of a religion. ”When it begins to reason, all is lost.” American Historian Will Durant is correct when he said "Catholicism gave us beauty without truth, and Protestantism TRIED to gives us truth without beauty. I suspect that in the end beauty will win." He reveals the secret of Catholicism. “The advance of science leaves Catholicism untouched, because Catholicism does not pretend to reason; it builds on faith, and appeals to the senses and the imagination, rather than to the intellect. When sense and hope are satisfied, the mind remains at rest. That is the secret of Catholicism"
When the protestants stop reading the Bible they ceased to be Christians but not the Catholics.The fact is that not everyone is fond of reading. I have found Islam and Hinduism thrives because of ritualism.
I agree with you that the reformation had given freedom and liberty to Christianity that there are around 10,000 Christian denominations poped up after the reformation.

# 19, 20 Dear Continuuam1,

Submitted by roman (not verified) on Sun, 04/19/2009 - 22:47.

# 19, 20

Dear Continuuam1, just as a coin has two sides, every suject under sun has two sides. Unfortunately you are trained to see the negative sides. USA had lost 400,000 soldiers in the WWII not to find oil but to Stop Nazism. I have read all the letters exchanged between Winston Churchill and Franklin Rooswelt. USA fought communism in Korea and lost 64,000 soldiers and in Vietnam 68,0000 soldiers not to find oil but to stop evil communism. Do you agree that after the fall of communism in Russia there is peace in the world, at least in Nicargua, El Salvador, Angola, Mozambiqe, etc? There is no more KGB inciting violence and CIA countering it. When Saddam Husein invaded Kuwait, USA was awaken to the fact that 70% of oil to the world comes from Persian Gulf. USA gets only 20% of its oil requirements from the Persian Gulf. However USA watnted stop Sadaam capturing other oil producing countries. Continuum1, it is very very difficult for a democratic country to send its soldiers to other countries for its foreign policy. It is very difficult to convince the opposition parties and its citizens. Yet I admire the way American leaders and American people sacrificedd their men for the good of the world. Is there anything wrong defend their own interests?

USA had lost 400,000 soldiers

Submitted by continuum1 (not verified) on Sun, 04/19/2009 - 23:14.

USA had lost 400,000 soldiers in the WWII not to find oil but to Stop Nazism. I have read all the letters exchanged between Winston Churchill and Franklin Rooswelt.

Again. If Nazism did not have an expansionist policy, like China has today, America would NOT have bothered at all. The circumstances forced America to act, otherwise their own interests and even their existence would have been at stake. This is the reason they acted.

As far as common Americans are concerned, there may be many reasons. I cannot debate on that.

USA fought communism in Korea and lost 64,000 soldiers and in Vietnam 68,0000 soldiers not to find oil but to stop evil communism.

The question is what was American government's motivation? As always, it is to preserve its self-interests abroad. Have you heard about "containment policy"?

Human history is full of examples. One empire competing to contain or destroy others. The reality is much more complex than mere fight between so called good and evil. It is about survival.

I am happy that communism was nipped and wish for complete destruction of communism and Islam, two most dangerous enemies of humanity. However, I cannot accept lies without exposing what is the reality.

The reality is that this world is run by $$$$ and power. It has always been so and it will continue to be so. Decisions will be based on this factor, not freedom and democracy. They are good concepts, but reality is NOT dictated by ideals alone, but the main factor that determines the coarse of world is self-preservation, power and wealth. I do NOT blame America for this as long as they do NOT unnecessarily harm other countries, but let us NOT create an illusion and pretend that America stands on some high moral ground justifying some brutal crimes such as attempted murders of foreign heads of state in South America because they refused to peddle American interests in their countries at the risk of their country's peril (economic, social etc.). I cannot also codone America for supporting Taliban and training terrorists like OBL at one point.

I cannot imagine how a country and its policy makers could NOT see that they were feeding snakes and because of whom so many Indians died in Kashmir etc.

Ali, Martin Luther did retain

Submitted by Marie (not verified) on Sun, 04/19/2009 - 23:17.

Ali, Martin Luther did retain much of the Catholic teachings of devotion to Mary. My Church denomination is Lutheran. I listen to both Catholic radio and Television and it is a fact that Lutheran did retain devotion to Mary in honor of her, even though it is not a practice in the modern Lutheran Churches. Most protestants do not know about this.

roman wrote: USA had lost

Submitted by Marie (not verified) on Sun, 04/19/2009 - 23:22.

roman wrote:

USA had lost 400,000 soldiers in the WWII not to find oil but to Stop Nazism.

Unfortunately that is the kind of crap they teach in American colleges and universities. In fact that was what I was taught in college. It's seems continuum has fell under the spell of his ideologue professors.

continuum1 I learned about

Submitted by average american (not verified) on Mon, 04/20/2009 - 00:10.

continuum1
I learned about Luther's bigotry not from the media, not from some leftists, but from a Christian pastor and author John Hagee. He, along with several others, has made it one of his goals to inform Christians of the history of anti-Semitism in the church, and for the church to avoid it in all of its often disguised forms. A number of christian leaders have called on Christians to reject so called "replacement theology", which is fundamentally anti-Semitic as well as unbiblical, and to support the right of Isreal to exist in peace.
Christian writers have laid bare the ugly details of church leaders of past centuries; how they were bought and paid for to maintain the status quo of a few wealthy families, etc. They do this because of the biblical warning that "judgement begins with the house of the Lord". We are exhorted in the Bible to clean up our own house first, before telling others how God wants us to live. The values we are told to abide by are the Ten commandments, summed up by the Golden rule: Love God with all your heart, and love your neighbor as yourself.

average american

Submitted by Marie (not verified) on Mon, 04/20/2009 - 02:20.

average american wrote:

continuum1
I learned about Luther’s bigotry not from the media, not from some leftists, but from a Christian pastor and author John Hagee. He, along with several others, has made it one of his goals to inform Christians of the history of anti-Semitism in the church, and for the church to avoid it in all of its often disguised forms. A number of christian leaders have called on Christians to reject so called “replacement theology”, which is fundamentally anti-Semitic as well as unbiblical, and to support the right of Isreal to exist in peace.

The Lutheran Church Missouri Synod denounces Luther's antisemitism.

Luther's Anti-Semitism

Q. What is the Missouri Synod's response to the anti-Semitic statements made by Luther?

A. While The Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod holds Martin Luther in high esteem for his bold proclamation and clear articulation of the teachings of Scripture, it deeply regrets and deplores statements made by Luther which express a negative and hostile attitude toward the Jews. In light of the many positive and caring statements concerning the Jews made by Luther throughout his lifetime, it would not be fair on the basis of these few regrettable (and uncharacteristic) negative statements, to characterize the reformer as "a rabid anti-Semite." The LCMS, however, does not seek to "excuse" these statements of Luther, but denounces them (without denouncing Luther's theology). In 1983, the Synod adopted an official resolution addressing these statements of Luther and making clear its own position on anti-Semitism. The text of this resolution reads as follows:

WHEREAS, Anti-Semitism and other forms of racism are a continuing problem in our world; and

WHEREAS, Some of Luther's intemperate remarks about the Jews are often cited in this connection; and

WHEREAS, It is widely but falsely assumed that Luther's personal writings and opinions have some official status among us (thus, sometimes implying the responsibility of contemporary Lutheranism for those statements, if not complicity in them); but also

WHEREAS, It is plain from scripture that the Gospel must be proclaimed to all people--that is, to Jews also, no more and no less than to others (Matt. 28:18-20); and

WHEREAS, This Scriptural mandate is sometimes confused with anti-Semitism; therefore be it

Resolved, That we condemn any and all discrimination against others on account of race or religion or any coercion on that account and pledge ourselves to work and witness against such sins; and be it further

Resolved, That we reaffirm that the bases of our doctrine and practice are the Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions and not Luther, as such; and be it further

Resolved, That while, on the one hand, we are deeply indebted to Luther for his rediscovery and enunciation of the Gospel, on the other hand, we deplore and disassociate ourselves from Luther's negative statements about the Jewish people, and, by the same token, we deplore the use today of such sentiments by Luther to incite ant-Christian and/or anti-Lutheran sentiment; and be it further

Resolved, That in our teaching and preaching we take care not to confuse the religion of the Old Testament (often labeled "Yahwism") with the subsequent Judaism, nor misleadingly speak about "Jews" in the Old Testament ("Israelites" or "Hebrews" being much more accurate terms), lest we obscure the basic claim of the New Testament and of the Gospel to being in substantial continuity with the Old Testament and that the fulfillment of the ancient promises came in Jesus Christ; and be it further

Resolved, That we avoid the recurring pitfall of recrimination (as illustrated by the remarks of Luther and many of the early church fathers) against those who do not respond positively to our evangelistic efforts; and be it finally

Resolved, That, in that light, we personally and individually adopt Luther's final attitude toward the Jewish people, as evidenced in his last sermon: "We want to treat them with Christian love and to pray for them, so that they might become converted and would receive the Lord" (Weimar edition, Vol. 51, p. 195).

From The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod

How come the WELS have never commented like the Missouri Synod about Martin Luther & his anti-Semitic views. It’s common knowledge about his writings and views about the Jews. Have you never heard of the book about called “The Jews & their Lies”. In particular he called for a movement (could it be another protestant reformation) that the homes & synagogues of the Jewish people to be burned & torn down. He also wrote and spoke freely about their money and businesses should be taken away and when they were out in public they should not be allowed a safe passage. I know as a Lutheran that you believe that Luthers 95 thesis was a basis for the invention of a new Christian Faith. I am confused how you actually believe that God inspired him to start the movement based upon his grievances with the Catholic Church and not also accept all his teachings, including those of his views toward the Jews of that time. I also believe in the book of Concord you are to unconditionally except do certain things to be a Lutheran. If this is the case I see some hypocracy & scandal also in the past of the Lutheran faith. I can’t understand how any Lutheran can not question everything that Luther wrote and did (including his 95 thesis) once they become aware of his frame of mind and his views regarding the Jews. If you are to believe Luther was inspired by God then why not embrace everything he did…. Blindly with faith…. If he was correct about the Catholic Church of that time, than maybe he was correct about the jews too.(I don’t think so, but as a Lutheran it sure can make you think about your founder and his beliefs differently) Or are you willing to say he was wrong about the Jews but in the next breath say he was correct about the Catholics. Modern day scholars believe that his beliefs about the jews in the 1500’s tainted the views of modern day Germans from the reformation until the jewish holocaust. His written word in Germany was seen almost as important as that of the bible. Many people believe that because of Martin Luther and his movement, his written and verbal views allowed & reinforced the mistreatment of Jews and eventually helped the German to justify the holocaust. Luther’s own words were used by Hitler to justify and support what happened during WW II. It’s hard to read Luthers views and not have a vision of Germany during WW II, a Germany where Jews were moved from their homes and places of worship & not given protection by the government. Why haven’t the WELS become more open with their members about everything Martin Luther believed in during his movement. The question truly that should be asked is “who truly inspired him?” and “was it truly God”. Why not Luthers 100 Thesis instead of the 95, it’s what he believed. Even in his last sermon days before his death, from the pulpit he spoke poorly of the jews and how they should be treated. Many believe he wasn’t inspired, but just an eccentric sometimes “angry” person who had many views. When any Lutheran finds out this closet secret about Martin Luther it should shed a whole new light on Martin Luther and the role he should really have in any religion and even make you question the basis of your Lutheran denomination back to it’s inception. I am sure you won't respond or post this on your web site as I know that you are not anxious for your flock to know of this. My friends who are WELS members became angry about this and accused me of lying to them. I had them look on the internet and now they feel deceived by their church.
A:

When we hear or read things that we wish Luther had not said or written, it is important to remember that Lutherans do not put their faith in Martin Luther but in the written Word of God. Truth is what Scripture teaches and not necessarily what Luther says. I do not know any Lutherans who endorse or teach what Luther called for in "On the Jews and Their Lies." Needless to say, this writing is not part of Lutheran doctrine. Those who appreciate his catechisms, hymns, sermons, and other writings do not endorse or condone his tirade of 1543.

Early in his career (1523) Luther wrote "That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew." In that treatise he chastised European Christians for their treatment of the Jews.

Near the end of his life, in 1543, he wrote "On the Jews and Their Lies." Luther's argument was not with Jews as a "race" or ethnic group. That is, he was not an Antisemite. His anger was directed at Judaism, and he wrote because of his disappointment that the Jews did not accept Jesus of Nazareth as their Messiah. What Luther had to say about the Jews is mild compared to the writings of many of his contemporaries, including the great humanist Erasmus of Rotterdam and the Roman Catholic Saint Thomas More.

To speak of Luther's 1543 treatise as a sort of blueprint for the Nazi's twentieth century "final solution" is anachronistic and unhistorical. Luther never proposed putting any Jew to death, let alone annihilating the Jews as a people. In the preface to "On the Jews and Their Lies" he wrote: "We must indeed with prayer and the fear of God before our eyes exercise a keen compassion towards them and seek to save some of them from the flames. Avenge ourselves we dare not."

The alleged connection between Luther's writing and Hitler's "final solution" was suggested to William Shirer by the author Thomas Mann. It was popularized in Shirer's "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich." A book dealing with Shirer's notion is "The Fabricated Luther: The Rise and Fall of the Shirer Myth," by Uwe Siemon-Netto (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1995).

There are a considerable number of Q&A entries on the subject of Luther and the Jews at the WELS web site. WELS publications that deal with the subject include "Martin Luther and the Jewish People," by Nylak Tjernagel (Milwaukee: Northwestern Publishing House 1985) -- "Luther and the Jews," by Siegbert Becker (The Northwestern Lutheran 70, p 347f, 1983) -- "Tom Hardt on Luther and the Jews," by E.C. Fredrich (Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly 80, Fall 1983, p 303) -- "Luther, Lutherans, and Jews," by Richard D. Balge (Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly 94, Spring 1997, p 135ff) -- "Luther and Anti-Semitism," by John F. Brug (Forward in Christ 87, No 1, March 2000) -- "Pizza, Patriotism, and Luther," by John F. Brug (Forward in Christ 89, No. 1, January 2002) - "Anti-Semitism and the Death of Christ," by Gary P. Baumler (Forward in Christ 91, No 4, April 2004).

From what I understand Luther in his early life was philo-semitic-a lover of the Jews and because of this he hoped there would be a mass conversion in which they would embrace Jesus as their messiah. When they didn't, well we all know the results. His rants were so horrible it is totally appropriate for Lutherans to repudiate them, even though his writings were never made part of Church doctrine.

It is possible to accept some

Submitted by average american (not verified) on Mon, 04/20/2009 - 05:26.

It is possible to accept some of Luther's writings and reject others because he is not the messiah, not any messiah. He was a simple mortal man.

He studied the scriptures from his early years in the church. He saw blatently wrong behavior based on a misunderstanding of the scriptures and thus, a lack of faith that lead to legalism. Legalism leads to human law instead of divine law, and rigid dictatorialism instead of grace and mercy. It also can lead those same people who are dictatorial toward others, to find ways to justify their own particular sins.
Thus, Luther was right on somethings and totally wrong on others. Christians are not told to blindly follow any mortal human, but to follow Christ. Instead we are told to "test the spirits" and to search the scriptures to see if a teaching is true. So Luther's ideas regarding salvation through grace lead to the reformation. They also lead to the understanding (once again) that Christians are to each read the scriptures for themselves individually rather than only be taught by others.
Martin Luther provides more evidence, of which we have much, that satan can fool and sidetrack any mortal human being, no matter how well versed in scripture he or she may be. The scriptures tell us that when we are helping others who have fallen, we should be aware that we could fall into sin as well if we are not watchful of our own thoughts, attitudes and choices.
I recall reading something about Luther being warned at some point not to post his antisemitic writings for public reading, but he did so anyway, and died three days later. I don't remember the details of that story, but it appears that he was dealt with by God for his actions. God is the true judge.
I believe that Luther did the primary work of helping to bring the Church back to salvation through grace, just as the scriptures teach. There was so much hierarchy in the church at the time, the common people were literally prohibited from reading the scriptures. They began to read them anyway, thank God.

It ot possible at

Submitted by Poma (not verified) on Mon, 04/20/2009 - 07:25.

It ot possible at all...
Well....Martin Luther did it and History Proves it..
we christians are really Humble to accept things..bt wat ab8 otherss,,,
thy cant and they never,,,be..y dont we have Prayer Chain to Pray for our Muslim Brothers and sisters...
m i rite r its bad idea...
heheh
bt we have too...
we have to publish all this material in many other languages...Like arabic...urdu and many many more languages

[...] I Love Travel put an

Submitted by Topics about Alliance-of-freedom | The Illusion of Reforming (not verified) on Mon, 04/20/2009 - 08:07.

[...] I Love Travel put an intriguing blog post on The Illusion of Reforming IslamHere’s a quick excerptLet us consider the etymology and meaning of re-form. … the notion of “individual freedom,” “political freedom,” and “economic… [...]

Although I've much respect to

Submitted by proudchristian (not verified) on Mon, 04/20/2009 - 11:10.

Although I've much respect to the catholic church of its role in canonizing the bible and martyrdom of catholic christians defending their faith as well us pope Urban standing tall to prevent the muslims conquring europe but what I'm yet to understand is why the roman catholic church is still stuck in those medieval dogmatic practices, that are even worse unbiblical? And I dont know if catholic christians recognize this - they invest so much time practicing rituals instead of reading the bible and ultimately they become spiritually dead christians. And I've come to realize most of the so called christian converts to islam are of catholic background who

- didn't understand the power of salvation by faith and not works

- were fooled easily by muslim apologists that muhammad is
prophecied in the bible or that Jesus is also present in the quran too

- were not able to understand the trinity doctrine.

#32 The reason for most

Submitted by Raisin Head (not verified) on Mon, 04/20/2009 - 14:48.

#32 The reason for most converts to Islam being Catholic is because there are more Catholics. In the Black community they are Protestants, because most Blacks are protestants. the main reason for this is a lack of concrete teachings and a lack of moral values. One cannot tell his congregation not to fornicate and they do. I have debated many Protestants and they are never able to defend the Bible. Muslims call Jesus a white man on a stick, then the Black members of christendom are unable to defend Jesus or their belief in Jesus. the Muslims tell them that Islam is a Black Man's Religion, whenIslam condemns Black people every opportunity it gets, The Black Christendom member is not able to defend their beliefs, because they have not been taught.

The Trinity is a doctrine from Egypt to Rome, and therefore not a Christian doctrine. This is why Muslims are able to defeat so-called Christians. Hellfire is a pagan doctrine and Muslims and Christendom both can be defeated on this one!

Raisin head wrote: #32 The

Submitted by Marie (not verified) on Mon, 04/20/2009 - 19:17.

Raisin head wrote:

#32 The reason for most converts to Islam being Catholic is because there are more Catholics. In the Black community they are Protestants, because most Blacks are protestants. the main reason for this is a lack of concrete teachings and a lack of moral values. One cannot tell his congregation not to fornicate and they do. I have debated many Protestants and they are never able to defend the Bible. Muslims call Jesus a white man on a stick, then the Black members of christendom are unable to defend Jesus or their belief in Jesus. the Muslims tell them that Islam is a Black Man’s Religion, whenIslam condemns Black people every opportunity it gets, The Black Christendom member is not able to defend their beliefs, because they have not been taught.

Raisin Head this is the the early Church fathers and the Bible state about the trinity and hell.

Were the Early Church Fathers Trinitarians?

by Michael J. Partyka

Jehovah’s Witnesses, who are organized under the leadership of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, subscribe to Arianism, a belief that Jesus Christ is not fully God (as the doctrine of the Trinity maintains) but is rather a created being, made of a different substance from that of the eternal, uncreated substance of God the Father.

While hopping around the Watchtower’s official web site, I stumbled across a series of pages explaining the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ rejection of the Trinity. Partway through, I recall blinking several times furiously, because I literally couldn’t believe what I was seeing: The Watchtower was actually quoting certain ante-Nicene Church Fathers, from Justin Martyr to Origen, in an attempt to disprove that early Christians ever subscribed to the doctrine of the Trinity. They wrote:

The ante-Nicene Fathers were acknowledged to have been leading religious teachers in the early centuries after Christ's birth. What they taught is of interest.

Justin Martyr, who died about 165 C.E., called the pre-human Jesus a created angel who is “other than the God who made all things.” He said that Jesus was inferior to God and “never did anything except what the Creator…willed him to do and say.”

Irenaeus, who died about 200 C.E., said that the pre-human Jesus had a separate existence from God and was inferior to him. He showed that Jesus is not equal to the “One true and only God,” who is “supreme over all, and besides whom there is no other.”

Clement of Alexandria, who died about 215 C.E., called Jesus in his pre-human existence “a creature” but called God “the uncreated and imperishable and only true God.” He said that the Son “is next to the only omnipotent Father” but not equal to him.

Tertullian, who died about 230 C.E., taught the supremacy of God. He observed: “The Father is different from the Son (another), as he is greater; as he who begets is different from him who is begotten; he who sends, different from him who is sent.” He also said: “There was a time when the Son was not….Before all things, God was alone.” (The word “tri'as” appears in its Latin form of “trinitas” in Tertullian. While these words do translate to “Trinity,” this is no proof in itself that Tertullian taught the doctrine of the Trinity.)

Hippolytus, who died about 235 C.E., said that God is “the one God, the first and the only One, the Maker and Lord of all,” who “had nothing co-eval [of equal age] with him….But he was One, alone by himself; who, willing it, called into being what had no being before,” such as the created pre-human Jesus.

Origen, who died about 250 C.E., said that “the Father and Son are two substances…two things as to their essence,” and that “compared with the Father, [the Son] is a very small light.”

The testimony of history makes clear that the Trinity was unknown for several centuries after biblical times.

Oh, really?

Was the Trinity “unknown” to Justin Martyr? Justin writes that “God begat before all creatures a Beginning, who was a certain rational power proceeding from Himself… which was truly brought forth from the Father, was with the Father before all the creatures, and the Father communed with Him.” [1] This squares precisely with the Nicene Creed, which declares God the Son to be “begotten, not made.” Justin explains further that “this power is indivisible and inseparable from the Father,” [2] and that the Son was “begotten from the Father, by His power and will, but not by abscission, as if the essence of the Father were divided,” [3] which means that the Son is begotten from the very same essence which the Father himself possesses – not dividing the Godhead into parts, but rather allowing each divine person a full sharing in the Godhead – which is exactly what the doctrine of the Trinity maintains.

Was the Trinity “unknown” to Irenaeus? Irenaeus’ teaching that “the Father is Lord and the Son is Lord, and the Father is God and the Son is God, since he who is born of God is God, and in this way, according to His being and power and essence, one God is demonstrated: but according to the economy of our salvation, there is both Father and Son,” [4] couldn’t be more Trinitarian. Moreover, Irenaeus distinguishes the Son and the Holy Spirit from created beings when he says, “The Word, namely the Son, was always with the Father; and that Wisdom also, which is the Spirit, was present with Him, anterior to all creation.” [5] So, according to Irenaeus, the Son and the Spirit are co-eternal with the Father, just like the doctrine of the Trinity says.

Was the Trinity “unknown” to Clement of Alexandria? Clement calls Jesus “the Divine Word, He that is truly most manifest Deity, He that is made equal to the Lord of the universe” [6] as well as “God in the form of man, stainless, the minister of His Father’s will, the Word who is God, who is in the Father, who is at the Father’s right hand, and with the form of God is God.” [7] And Clement is decidedly adamant that “the Son of God, being, by equality of substance, one with the Father, is eternal and uncreated.” [8] Jesus, according to Clement, wasn’t created, but “existed always, without beginning.” Rather than holding Jesus to be an inferior, created being, Clement clearly teaches that Jesus is “co-eternal” and “co-existent with the Father.” Isn’t this exactly what the doctrine of the Trinity teaches?

Was the Trinity “unknown” to Tertullian? On the contrary, Tertullian loudly proclaims, “Bear always in mind that this is the rule of faith which I profess; by it I testify that the Father, and the Son, and the Spirit are inseparable from each other… [9] and that the Father is one, and the Son one, and the Spirit one, and that They are distinct from Each Other.” He continues, “All are of One, by unity of substance; while the mystery of the dispensation distributes the Unity into a Trinity, placing in their order the three Persons – the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost: three, yet of one substance, and of one condition, and of one power, inasmuch as He is one God.” [10] He finishes, “All the Scriptures attest the clear existence of, and distinction in, the Persons of the Trinity, and indeed furnish us with our Rule of faith,” [11] and, “I must everywhere hold one only substance in three coherent and inseparable Persons.” [12] To reproduce here all that Tertullian says in support of the Trinity would probably take up another page or two. Suffice it to say that in his declaration, “The Father is God, and the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God,” we have a nice, simply-rendered summary of the Trinity doctrine.

Was the Trinity “unknown” to Hippolytus? Hippolytus says, “The Logos alone of this God is from God himself; wherefore also the Logos is God, being the substance of God. Now the world was made from nothing; wherefore it is not God.” [13] So Hippolytus, too, sets the Logos of God, a.k.a. Jesus, apart from all creation and all created beings. He further declares of Jesus that “by nature He is God,” [14] and that Jesus, “who was co-existent with His Father before all time, and before the foundation of the world, always had the glory proper to Godhead.” [15] According to Hippolytus, Jesus “was in essential being with His Father” [16] and “is co-eternal with His Father,” just as the doctrine of the Trinity says. And, with regard to the Trinity as a whole, Hippolytus says, “We cannot otherwise think of one God, but by believing in truth in Father and Son and Holy Spirit,” [17]and, “Whosoever omits any one of these, fails in glorifying God perfectly. For it is through this Trinity that the Father is glorified. For the Father willed, the Son did, the Spirit manifested. The whole Scriptures, then, proclaim this truth.” [18] Clearly, Hippolytus is a Trinitarian.

Was the Trinity “unknown” to Origen? Origen teaches, “God is the Father of His only-begotten Son, who was born indeed of Him, and derives from Him what He is, but without any beginning, not only such as may be measured by any divisions of time, but even that which the mind alone can contemplate within itself, or behold, so to speak, with the naked powers of the understanding. And therefore we must believe that Wisdom was generated before any beginning that can be either comprehended or expressed.” [19] Likewise, Origen says, “We have been able to find no statement in Holy Scripture in which the Holy Spirit could be said to be made or created.” [20] He therefore concludes that “all things which exist were made by God, and that there was nothing which was not made, save the nature of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit,” [21] and that “the Father generates an uncreated Son, and brings forth a Holy Spirit, not as if He had no previous existence, but because the Father is the origin and source of the Son or Holy Spirit, and no anteriority or posteriority can be understood as existing in them.” [22] Accordingly, “the Holy Spirit is reckoned in the Unity of the Trinity along with the unchangeable Father and His Son.” [23] In all of Origen’s teachings we have, once again, the doctrine of the Trinity proclaimed loud and clear.

Given the overwhelming evidence, we must conclude that the doctrine of the Trinity was not “unknown” for several centuries after biblical times, as the Watchtower would have us believe. We must additionally conclude that, contrary to the Watchtower’s implications, the ante-Nicene Church Fathers cited by them – Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Hippolytus, and Origen – were all Trinitarians, as all of them believed that Jesus is of the same substance as God, thereby making him co-equal and co-eternal with the Father.

Matthew 28:19

Go and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the father and of the son and of the holy spirit

John 10:30

The father and I are one

John 14:9

Whoever has seen me has seen the father.

In John 1:42 Jesus changed Simon's name to Peter and for a Jew changing names was something only God could do.

Hell

Matthew 25:41

He will say to those on his left, depart from me you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.

2 Peter 2:4

God did not sent them to hell, putting them into gloomy dungeons to be held for judgement.

Unfortunately, this has

Submitted by kikl (not verified) on Mon, 04/20/2009 - 20:42.

Unfortunately, this has turned out to be a page about luther's antisemitism. Nevertheless, I would like to congratulate Ali Sina for his recent post, which is really good.

Regards,

Kikl

Kikl wrote: Unfortunately,

Submitted by Marie (not verified) on Mon, 04/20/2009 - 22:39.

Kikl wrote:

Unfortunately, this has turned out to be a page about luther’s antisemitism. Nevertheless, I would like to congratulate Ali Sina for his recent post, which is really good.

I think the issue is that history has painted Luther as this great reformer saint and that is really far from the truth. Luther's movement to reform the Church was a great effort to bring the Church to what it is meant to be. But other then that Luther was no saint, he had a hot-temper and a potty-mouth. Then again no one is perfect.

Ok this will be my last post

Submitted by Marie (not verified) on Mon, 04/20/2009 - 22:54.

Ok this will be my last post to Raisin Head on this subject:

Oh Dear! I know you have a

Submitted by Molvi_Sittar (not verified) on Tue, 04/21/2009 - 03:30.

Oh Dear! I know you have a point dear Sina. But do you really think you are doing it the 'ideal' way to convince whoever you are trying to convince? By the way, who is it that you are trying to convince here? Is it the Muslims? Or the non-Muslims? Or in fact yourself?

Ali Sina's point is clear,

Submitted by average american (not verified) on Tue, 04/21/2009 - 06:10.

Ali Sina's point is clear, and the article is very well appreciated. I do hope that the readers can get back to the point of it. It's just that women tend to follow tangents, or threads, in their conversations. I'm guessing of course, that many of the commenters for this particular article are women, more than for most of the articles on this site.

Mr Molvi again why dont u

Submitted by Poma (not verified) on Tue, 04/21/2009 - 06:42.

Mr Molvi again
why dont u come and debeta wid Ali sina r send ur scolars on ths site to debeat wid ali sina...its really easy tht u think...ali sina is Clearing the minds of PPl...
ppl who think Talbans are not muslim...thy are wrong there isnt a Moderate islam at all...i too belive...
coz If we talk ab8 veil...
u r not allowed to go infront of ur brothers wife and ur wife is not allowd to go infront of ur brother,,,if u u can change its up to u..bt quran states the links of mahram
Brother
father
son and Husband no one else..
bt look arounfd wats going on
look at ur girls..
first clean ur home thn come to us..
we are not fake...our ids are fake...
we learnt islam alot..and we realy dont wanna learn more..we jst come ther coz we love you ppll....
and we all want you ppl to know the reality..
tell me widout marraige if i'm doing a sex..
wat you call it..
answer my simple question
Davide did tht and God said to david u r not gona build my temple...
so who is on the rite way....
so simple question need simple answer..not a lenghty one..
i hope u can answer..ur dp name shows u r some kind of Preist..
so tell me if i do sex widout marriage wat u call it...
Love
care
help
wat u call it
R u can sand Bravly and call it sin...
if u know wat is rite and wat is wrong

# 38 Hello Molvi Are you

Submitted by Ali Sina (not verified) on Tue, 04/21/2009 - 08:20.

# 38
Hello Molvi

Are you saying that I have no chance of winning Miss Congeniality context? I suppose you're right! But I hit the nail on the head and don’t mince my words. It’s over eight years that these people are writing books about what is wrong with Islam, writing articles, giving conferences, making videos, making television shows, and saying everything the westerners want to hear and presenting themselves as Moderate Muslims.

What's it that they want? They want to protect Islam. They want to pull wool over the eyes of the westerner and make them believe Islam is not all bad.

They are educated people. They are not stupid. They know Islam, They know they are lying. They know the Islam that they present exists only in their imagination and that it has never existed before and can never eixit. Who can stop the mullahs from reading the Quran and hadith to people and tell them this is the real Islam? So what is it that they are selling?

I am tired of these people and their deceptions and lies. I don’t want to be liked. I don’t want to be popular. I want to tell the truth and I want to demolish Islam.

100 years from now, we will be all dead. Who will care whether I was popular among my contemporaries or not. The only thing that will matter 100 years from now is who was right.

And you know what? They can’t refute what I said. Sometimes it is good to be harsh and draw the line in the sand. These people are smart. They will realize that they are playing a losing game and they better join us sooner and save face.

Now that their hands is exposed, (and I will write more on this subject) the world can see that there is nothing in their hands. They have no cards to play. I am going to pound on them until they stop this charade.

There is a time to be gentle and a time to be harsh. With people who do not understand you should be gentle. These people understand.

With this article out, it will be harder for them to continue. They have to make their minds, one way or another.

Their audience are the westerners, not the Muslims. Once they see the truth, they are not going to listen to these reformer wannabes anymore and they will have to stop.

Dear Sina: I understand what

Submitted by Molvi_Sittar (not verified) on Tue, 04/21/2009 - 13:11.

Dear Sina: I understand what you are trying to tell me here. But try to understand my point too: If most Muslims are willing to accept a softer version of Islam and then go about their lives without worrying about it too much, then I think we can take heart in knowing that Islam is not going to be a major threat to the safety of the 'Westerners' and hence need not be eliminated. Now please do your math here before you say anything further.

Most muslims in Egypt, Turkey, Malaysia, UAE, Kuwait, India, Indonesia, and a large number of Muslims in Bangladesh, Pakistan, Iran and Iraq actually follow a softer version of Islam. When we talk about suicide bombers and radicals and their supporters, we are only talking about less than 1 percent of the Muslim population. What about the 99 percent who want to live a different life where religion is viewed as very flexible and as something to be kept as a source of guidance for higher values.

I know what you say here. You say those people who follow a softer version of Islam do not actually know Islam and therefore they don't follow it properly. And also, there can be no softer version of Islam because there is only one, which by no means is soft. Therefore, to be a Muslim one has to follow Islam 'the one right way'. The way you describe!

That maybe so in your eyes through your ideals. But how are you going to convince those who believe and then actually follow a softer version of Islam? They are not radicals, they don't support suicide bombers, they are not against the Westerners. Are you going to tell them to first become a radical by following the 'correct' version of Islam and then actually discard the religion after having seen the 'truth'? How absurd. Can something like this really happen? All I say is, be a realist and use your intelligence in a right way. Do criticise Islam but have realistic goals. I read a few of your articles where you came up the idea of ousting Obama because of him 'apparently' suffering from NPD? Are you for real? Do you think this can happen? Come on!

WOW softer version and harder

Submitted by proudkafir (not verified) on Tue, 04/21/2009 - 14:15.

WOW softer version and harder version?? Is islam like dik, soft mostly and hard when stimulated!!!
Most moslems at heart are dik heads who would want sharia on one and all.the jihadi scum bags carry out the threatening scum parts of islam.The softer diks will populate the infidel lands to out number them and silently breed like pigs to stink out the area. Then comes the cess pit islamic land. Want examples??
Egypt was ones a land of pagan egyptians and then christians followed by cess pit of islamic land.
The persian empire is now atotal cess pit of moslems was ones a prosperous land of the cyrus the great.
The porkis land is the absolute cess pit of moslems who are stinking out the whole world.
Then the banglades scum pit was again a land of non moslems till the moderate moslem scum bags filled the place and stunk out the rest of humanity.
This has always been the story of islam.It destroys the localulture and the pigs multiply to occupy the place

Proudkafir, everyone is hard

Submitted by Molvi_Sittar (not verified) on Tue, 04/21/2009 - 20:27.

Proudkafir, everyone is hard when 'stimulated'. Look at Ali Sina when he is 'stimulated' and look at yourself. Aren't you too 'stimulated' in your last post?

Hmm intellectual

Submitted by proudkafir (not verified) on Wed, 04/22/2009 - 01:52.

Hmm intellectual masturbation?? Perhaps.
I am very slightly inclined to agree with you when you say quite a lot of moslems are infact not radicals.But remember a moslem is only a stone throw away from becoming a radical.
Why is the majority softer diks keeping floppy when the harder diks are creating a mess in the society? Pakisthan follows a softer version of islam????? Killing going on daily ( of sunnis by shias and the of shias by sunnis) will, to your rasool worshipping mind is a softer version of pisslam!
Why moslems are following the rapist pedophile in molesting children? Softer dik would not help here!
Why softer dik moslems are protesting on streets against rapist's cartoon, but not a tweek against the suicide attacks,, bombings, beheadings, child molesting? Taliban imposed tax on sikhs, father in law screwing the daughter in law and the molvis( any relation?) forced the daughter in law to divorce the husband and marry the rapist father inlaw! This is the story of a softer islam.The harder verison is yet to come.This is only a trailor(.sample of things to come). I dont think I ever heard of the scum bag moslems protesting about this despicable fatwa! Shabana the tawaiff was eerily silent! So was arundhati roy!
Why no moslem is protesting about the sodi barbarian islam? It's ok to protest in streets of India about a cartoon of the rapist published in Denmark and kill people on the streets of India, but its Sodi barbaria's way of islam and not our problem? We have heard enough of the nonsense.The days of chaos on the streets of London where moslem scum bags will be hacked are not too far off.This will affect one and all.Moslem scum bags will be affected as much as any one else.

42. Molvi_Sittar Says: I

Submitted by Poma (not verified) on Wed, 04/22/2009 - 07:59.

42. Molvi_Sittar Says:

I truly agree wid you and Ali too...
i'm not aginst both of Thm..bt dear Molvi tell me honestly...who are in pakistan safe...u ppl are saying ab8 the soft corner..you know wat Bible and JESUS means to Christians....
what God means to Christians..
u simple state Bible is Change...
isnt this Blasmphy....
why ther is 295C and B in Pakistan...
y Christians and other relgions are not free in Pakistan,,,
shame on u Molvi...I m really sorry...u call me wat ever u wanna calll..
bt this is the soft corner..
this is wat u call freedom of Right...
Burnt whole Village in Pakistan Called shanti Nagar by radical Muslims...no case...
raping Christian girls..no cases..
coz Christian girls are not able to pay...
and next thing thy dont have 4 male witness..
Which christian is Blasting r doing a sucide boombing and saying in the Name of JESUS and thn blast..no..
so every Paki muslim is saying wat ever is happening in SWAT is doing by Kafirs...
Man come to the point..
wat Quran Says Beat ur wife.
Lets talk ab8 Mahram
if u r not following ur own religion thn dont blame us,,its ur fault..
if u really follow it..u should b like other sucide bombers........
its really simple Molvi...
Follow it r leave it..
wat ur religion says...
dont make Frndship wid Christians r Jewish..
thn who u r to make a soft corner..
R u ALLAH
ALLAH is ur God and
whn Allah dont allow you to have frndship wid thm y u r doing tht..
Whn Allah say Kill non-muslims..
thn who you are to say thy are bad...
honestly speaking they are Preaching real islam
although it hurts..
bt its true..they are Preaching the reality..
you ppl are not even joined together,,,,
and RESPECTED MOLVI sir dont belive me..read urseld...and do tell us...where is the soft corner..its honestly if u try to develop the soft corner thn u r INFADAL....r bla bla..
so if u dnt wanna follow the things which are in Islam Quran and Hadith thn leave it..y u r giving pain to urself...
take ur step and understand it...
Wher is love..
Is Allah Preaching LOVe.
no way and no where...
thn y u r not following ALLAH..
belive me r not..
bt u r disturbed now...same as i...
where to go wat to do..
yesterday one of my frnd from Pakistan told me tht...
in BONER near to SWAT
Talibans asked thn to Pay jazia (TAX)
y u r calling it wrong..open Hadith and Quran and u come to know every non muslim have to pay...
I'm not against Muslims...
i want all of thm to understand and i love all of them
Bt y u dnt wanna understand...who is doing all evils,,,
i dont call muslims as terrorist
by y every major terrorist is a Muslim...
i belive u r also from Pakistan...
its ot ur fault...if u ever try to deny Islam u should b killed...
if ur Brother in law beat ur sister its his write coz it is written in Quran..
wat ab8 value of Women...don go to culture...
look wat religon says...
if dog,donky and women walk infront while u r Praying thn ur pray finsih,,,
look the value of women...
u've MOM..lovly mom who gave birth to u...ur loving sister....who always ther to Press ur cloths
wash ur cloths,,,
make food and try different foods for you to eat..give water to u whn u come from out r work...
in a form of female...
may u r married thn U have loving wife..who left her family and come to u...living wid you...taking care of you....may b u have sweet littel dolll and sweet daughter...
is thy all are dog,and monkey..
dont shout at me...i;m so sorry coz i respect and value ur mom more than u
ur sister more thn u.
ur wife as elder sister
ur daughter as my loving doll
i dont have any issue wid thm
thn thy belong to u
y u have issue wid thm
u know now science proves tht girls who are wearing Black Viel tht are having lack of Vitamin D.
so whose fault Islams not urs...

go and read tht articals of FFI
http://www.faithfreedom.org/2009/03/20/islam-in-daily-life/
look and read and watch wat tht lady is talking ab8 and wat they are saying are you gonna belive tht

now read this one
http://www.faithfreedom.org/2009/03/20/islam-in-daily-life/

and now read tht one the real value
how u cant stop all this
where is the soft corner..
if u put the soft corner..thn u will called as KAFIR
so i'm sure u dont wanna b a kafir

dear the belwo video after watching tht vedio i have tears in my eyes..i know if u watch u too have..
i'm not saying Christians are very good..they are also rapping
but thy are not beating there wives if they are doing thy are agaisnt Christianity...
bt if muslim is beating he is a true muslim
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bru-a_fbRns

Cooldown, PK. Dont redicule

Submitted by Kaalan (not verified) on Wed, 04/22/2009 - 09:59.

Cooldown, PK.

Dont redicule the prophet as pedophile, murderer, etc. because:
In an article prior to this (there are 352 comments as of now), Londonspirit has written that what was written in Quran about embriology - the leech like thing - has been proved correct by a scientist. So I am inclined to believe that after all, there may be some logic or scientific truth in the following that are awaiting discovery by scientists, if not today may be tomorrow:

1. Thighing of babies by Adult muslims
2. Screwing pre-pubescent girls
3. Using odd stones for wiping arse after defecating
5. Wife beating
6. Screwing daughter-in-law
7. Killing and looting caravans
etc.etc.

Perhaps there may be divinity and spirituality in these acts that infedals can't detect. Lo! Allah knows the best.

proudkafir: I believe you are

Submitted by Molvi_Sittar (not verified) on Wed, 04/22/2009 - 11:05.

proudkafir: I believe you are not in a right state of mind. Maybe you are Ali Sina hiding as usual behind some nick and a personality of his creation. Or maybe you are someone else, but just as disturb as he is. Like i said before, there is no point in discussing anything intelligent with you mentally retard and stupidly idealistic people. How do you know Moslems are not protesting in Pakistan? Have you been there? How do you know what the reaction of people is in cities like Karachi, Lahore, Faisalabad, Rawalpindi, ? Just because you don't read that in papers? How pathetically stupid you are for thinking that. Before you say anything about 'moslems' just look are you mentor Ali Sina and then at yourself (that is if you are not him). Would you really call yourself a tolerant person? Get a life. Get out of this misery of yours. See the world the way it is.

And Kaalan, come up with

Submitted by Molvi_Sittar (not verified) on Wed, 04/22/2009 - 11:08.

And Kaalan, come up with something else apart from 'raping', 'molesting', 'looting', 'wife beating'. It really feels like we are talking to 100 Ali Sinas here.

Random Articles from All categories

Will the European Union Fiddle as Europe Burns?

An effective weapon against terrorists: Ridicule

Sirat Rasul Allah: Chapter 17

Search

Navigation

Articles

Taxonomy

Tags

The Illusion of Reforming Islam

Comment viewing options

Random Articles from All categories

FFI Bloggers

Syndicate