Faith Freedom International :: View topic

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Attention: Year 2009 is here Wishing a very Happy New Year to all members of FFI. Our new and improved site is ready. To visit main site, click at faithfreedom.org and to visit our new forum, click at forum09.faithfreedom.org and register again. Do not worry about your old forum posts and PM, everything is saved here till 31st December, 2008 for future references.

Invitation to TAICS
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Next

This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.

This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.

Faith Freedom International Forum Index -> World Politics

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

planck

Joined: 16 Jul 2008
Posts: 818
Location: usa

Posted: Mon Dec 22, 2008 7:49 am Post subject:

Val Era wrote:

CuteCoot wrote:

AA wrote:

Not all Muslims are Islamists [...] I see Islam itself as the enemy [...]

This appears to be a commonly held view on this board. I don't agree with it - indeed I see a logical inconsistency in your statements - but I have spent enough time arguing over this point and feel that there is little option but to agree to disagree on this one.

I don't understand. If you see a logical inconsistency in equating Islam to the deeply ingrained elements in Islamic doctrine (i.e. Jihad warfare), then please do not withhold it from us. I told you in advance that you would encounter fierce opposition to the notion of an Islamo-Christian synthesis, where you replied that opposing views are essential to the discussion. It now appears that you are not so eager to entertain these opposing views.

Since the conversation is now officially over, I guess it wouldn't hurt if I added my own two cents.

Let me return the favor, Val, and explain the bold part.

"Hi, my name is CuteCoot. I live in australia and I read a rumi poem, and I know some muslims living here who offered me some kabobs and baklava, therefore islam is good. I'm going to start a thread and invite all of you to give me all your opinions on islam. I think islam is good because I read a rumi poem. I hope that everyone will agree with me........"

.....4 pages later

"Hey, you guys don't agree with me. You guys think that islam is bad. You guys didn't "open your heart" to my rumi poem. And since you guys don't agree with me, you are all bigots!---just like planck, except I won't use that word. So arguing with all you bigots is just a waste of my time. So now I'm going to take my ball and leave the playground."

Sorry to be so childish CuteCoot, but in reading this entire thread, your abilities to debate have the maturity of a four-year old.

Since everyone here destroyed your fallacious notion of islam with evidence, you should maybe choose a different sufi poem. Maybe rumi just isn't capable of changing the feverishly bigoted minds of the people on this thread. Perhaps attar,

attar wrote:

The whole world is a marketplace for Love,
For naught that is, from Love remains remote.
The Eternal Wisdom made all things in Love.
On Love they all depend, to Love all turn.
The earth, the heavens, the sun, the moon, the stars
The center of their orbit find in Love.
By Love are all bewildered, stupefied,
Intoxicated by the Wine of Love.

From each, Love demands a mystic silence.
What do all seek so earnestly? "Tis Love.
Love is the subject of their inmost thoughts,
In Love no longer "Thou" and "I" exist,
For self has passed away in the Beloved.
Now will I draw aside the veil from Love,
And in the temple of mine inmost soul
Behold the Friend, Incomparable Love.
He who would know the secret of both worlds
Will find that the secret of them both is Love.

And maybe you could sprinkle some pixie dust and click your shoes a few times, and islam will magically become a benefit to mankind.

Good luck.
_________________
crescat scientia; vita excolatur

Aksel, Ankersen

Joined: 03 Nov 2008
Posts: 272

Posted: Mon Dec 22, 2008 9:50 am Post subject:

CuteCoot wrote:

It is intriguing, for sure, to have a Zoroastrian join the discussion but if Islam=Islamism for you, AA, then there is really nothing further for us to discuss.

Oh well, the equation is not that simple, I didn't say it was. But the principles of Islamism are clearly expounded in the Koran and Sunnah (as per my last post). It takes a special kind of person to find a message of tolerance and acceptance in Islam, for sure some Muslims do but I don't believe Islam is redeemed by them.

Ok, nice having this discussion.
_________________
"your pit of the hell fire will be reserved for you, and on that day, myself and your parents will be laughing at you, It's Showtime"

-Ahmed Bahgat to a schoolgirl who left Islam

bloodcrazedmuslim

Joined: 06 Aug 2005
Posts: 1978
Location: Islamic hellhole

Posted: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:05 am Post subject:

sum wrote:

Hello CuteCoot

I live by the Golden Rule.

In the civil war that I envisage, the fighting would be muslims versus all other groups.

Islam can not compromise. If there are “muslims” who want to integrate and avoid the mosque etc they are nolonger muslims but hypocrites and destined for hell.

I view Christianity as the Golden Rule with a god as a figurehead.

Your quote –
If civil war broke out, would you treat all Muslims alike? I think, for a start, you would join forces with cultural Muslims who have abandoned their faith (such as Ali Sina).

These people would have to join the non-muslims and fight, and perhaps kill, alongside the non-muslims to show that they were genuine ex-muslims (Ali Sina excepted of course!!!).

An insight into the murderous madness of FFI and scum like Sum who calmly rationalize ethnic cleansing and murder in the name of self-preservation.

Are FFI apostates listening? In order for you to be trusted you now have to kill 'zslums.

Moslemrats is what you will become
_________________
" Send all the Muslims out of the West. They are all the same. Disgusting is a mild word."

"I don’t see Muslims as innocent people. They are all guilty as sin" (Ali Sina)

sum

Joined: 10 Jul 2005
Posts: 8527
Location: UK

Posted: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:26 am Post subject:

Hello bloodcrazedmuslim You are misrepresenting what I forsee. The civil war that I forsee will be started by the muslims and what I presented was a response to the muslim aggression. You seem fond of the ad hominem but have not suggested how the indigenous population should respond to the muslims who go on a rampage and cause massive civil unrest, damage, arson, injury and death and possibly leading to civil war. Tell us how you see the muslim population in a secular Western state responding to an open public scrutiny of Islam in the course of which Muhammad was severely criticised or even lampooned. Tell us what the muslim reaction would be and what the response should be. sum

sum

Joined: 10 Jul 2005
Posts: 8527
Location: UK

Posted: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:32 am Post subject:

Hello bloodcrazedmuslim Nearly 4wks ago I sent you an email but received no response. I will ask you in this thread so that you see it. Someone said that you oppose the punishment of stoning. Is this correct and do you truly oppose stoning as a punishment? sum

planck

Joined: 16 Jul 2008
Posts: 818
Location: usa

Posted: Mon Dec 22, 2008 11:05 am Post subject:

sum wrote:

Hello bloodcrazedmuslim

Nearly 4wks ago I sent you an email but received no response. I will ask you in this thread so that you see it.

Someone said that you oppose the punishment of stoning. Is this correct and do you truly oppose stoning as a punishment?

sum

It's funny that you should mention this. I've been reading the posts of this bloodcrazedmuslim, and I've noticed that he is intent on cherry-picking certain passages in an effort to engage in his own strawman polemic.

And it's even funnier that you would've private messaged him about a legitimate issue---and that he wouldn't respond. I tried to ask him a simple question about FFI, in this thread and similarly--no response.

But the ironic thing about him is that, unlike other muslim posters, he actually is capable of rationalizing. In this thread, he's willing to agree that the russians have a point. And when you had heard that he was against stoning as a punishment, it didn't surprise me at all. But, any effort made to engage in a rational discussion with you, would counteract his own dissonance for what he believes is a "bigot" who participates in "bigotted" anti-islam forum.

But the freud in me would suspect that this bloodcrazedmuslim, who enjoys the benefits of living in a beautiful western nation like canada, actually agrees with many of the legitimate issues that are posted on the breaking news and world politics sections---but doesn't want to give others the impression that he himself may be "bigotted."

So instead of addressing the stories of islamic tyrrany that are posted on the forum, he chooses the obscure "racist" post and pounds on that until he satisfies his, "look, I've proven that ffi is a bunch of racists," quota for the day.

But don't think that he doesn't read these threads with wrapped attention, and on occasion--he's thinking to himself "they've got a point. I wish my religion was a little better in this situation."

And bloodcrazed, don't feel as though you need to respond to this. After all, I haven't made any racial slur, hasty generalization, or anti-muslim remark, which you could expound upon. Plus, it would be out of character for you.
_________________
crescat scientia; vita excolatur

The Cat

Joined: 23 Apr 2005
Posts: 4357

Posted: Mon Dec 22, 2008 3:27 pm Post subject:

CuteCoot wrote:

The Cat wrote:

Non-Islamist and anti-Islamist Muslims aren't genuine Muslims, according to the overwhelming Sunni orthodoxy.

I wasn't intending to have a conversation with the overwhelming Sunni orthodoxy. The only thing that concerns me is whether you yourself accept such Muslims as Muslims.

Most, if not all, posters here would agree that although we fight Islam as an ideology, we cherish Muslims as any other human...
_________________
Authority has the same etymological root as authenticity.

CuteCoot

Joined: 07 Nov 2005
Posts: 423
Location: Australia

Posted: Mon Dec 22, 2008 7:16 pm Post subject:

The Cat wrote:

Most, if not all, posters here would agree that although we fight Islam as an ideology, we cherish Muslims as any other human...

Just not as Muslims.
Thereby denying them their religious identity.

And I very much doubt that you cherish all Muslims as any other human ... probably not the Islamist ones ... almost certainly not the actual terrorists.

You are simply trying to have your cake and eat it too ... with the inevitable logical inconsistencies that such an approach usually results in.

If you and your friends are happy like that, then don't let me disturb your dreams of dominance over the living faith of Islam and the Muslims that make up that entity.

sum

Joined: 10 Jul 2005
Posts: 8527
Location: UK

Posted: Mon Dec 22, 2008 8:12 pm Post subject:

Hello CuteCoot Tell us how we should regard the muslims in the different categories that you mention. Should we love the terrorists? Should we love the "Islamists" who openly work to overthrow the secular indigenous culture and state and refuse to integrate? So far you have been extracting the views of posters regarding muslims but you have largely kept your views under wraps. Tell us how you view the muslims in the categories that you outlined. sum

Val Era

Joined: 17 Jan 2007
Posts: 160

Posted: Mon Dec 22, 2008 8:34 pm Post subject:

planck wrote:

Thanks for the explication, Planck. It certainly cleared things up. However I must confess, I laughed my a$$ off when I read this. Regrettably it was at CuteCoots expense, but your satire was hilarious nonetheless. On a positive note, I think you may have touched on the epicenter of CuteCoots belief. The disconnect between CuteCoot and those who oppose her idea of an Islamo-Christian synthesis (ICS), is an epistemological one.

"Hi, my name is CuteCoot. I live in australia and I read a rumi poem, and I know some muslims living here who offered me some kabobs and baklava, therefore islam is good.

Leaving the easy humor aside, this satirical argument imparts the body of CuteCoots belief. The underpinning of ICS is a subjective Islam. That is, that the truth of the Islamic text is subject to person who interprets it. The adherent defines the belief system, not the other way around. This position is synonymous with deconstructionism. Deconstructionism is basically the idea that words can not accurately represent reality. Perhaps this is where CuteCoot should have began her argument for ICS.

The Cat

Joined: 23 Apr 2005
Posts: 4357

Posted: Mon Dec 22, 2008 8:52 pm Post subject:

CuteCoot wrote:

The Cat wrote:

Most, if not all, posters here would agree that although we fight Islam as an ideology, we cherish Muslims as any other human...

Just not as Muslims.
Thereby denying them their religious identity.

Their true religious identity tells them to kill me, or subdue me into paying Jihzya, to rape my wife and marry my underage kids in some polygamous promiscuity.

Of course, I should open my door to that, so to respect their ''religious identity'' and be in full accordance with you.

_________________
Authority has the same etymological root as authenticity.

CuteCoot

Joined: 07 Nov 2005
Posts: 423
Location: Australia

Posted: Tue Dec 23, 2008 3:18 am Post subject:

sum wrote:

Tell us how we should regard the muslims in the different categories that you mention. Should we love the terrorists? Should we love the "Islamists" who openly work to overthrow the secular indigenous culture and state and refuse to integrate?

It is not up to me to tell you how you should regard Muslims of any type. It is up to whichever moral authority you adhere to.

If you're a Christian you are obliged to (at least try to) love your enemy, a habit that is far more rarely seen among Christians than among any other religion as far as I can tell.

If you follow The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, you will regard and treat Muslims the same as anyone else. And that includes Islamists because:

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights wrote:

Article 2.

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

I realize that Europe has gone against this in the case of (neo-)Nazism which is unfortunate but any individual or group can forfeit their rights if they abuse them.

Our governments, our justice systems, and our police sort out how to deal with particular behaviours such as plotting or actually carrying out a terrorist attack. They would be foolish, in the current climate, not to pay particular attention to the Muslim population. However, to the extent to which they do this, the Islamists will simply take their business elsewhere (besides mosques) and use frontline "troops" (such as suicide attackers) who are not "of Middle Eastern appearance".

I myself do accept the UN Declaration as the best moral authority available on this issue. I therefore treat Muslims, even Islamist Muslims, in the same way as anyone else. I also respect Jesus' moral authority enough to take it a step further and try to understand where Islamists are "coming from" and why many Muslims do feel a certain bond or empathy with them. I quite accept the thesis put here again and again that Islamism is readily derived from the Koran. However, I don't accept that it is the inevitable worldview to derive from it. Other interpretations have their own venerable traditions and acceptance among the Muslim population.

As with any religious and/or political view, I avoid spending much time with people who see things very differently from how I see them. This is simply because religio-political discussion can descend into very unpleasant quagmires. I'll be polite with a Mormon or Jehovah's Witness, with a Bahai or Buddhist, a scientologist or theosophist. However, at the end of the day, they are not "my" people and I just don't want to associate with them more than necessary for civil harmony. I was raised a Roman Catholic and I recently attended mass in the cathedral here. It only confirmed for me why I walked out over four decades ago. Other protestant Christian churches also leave me cold. I am not in the least tempted to visit the local mosque as I repudiate the discrimination against women that is practised and expected to be complied with there.

I also visit forums such as this one and stick around if there is a character or two there who seem to be "on my wavelength". I started this topic at least in part to get a better impression of the views around here. The result is not encouraging and so I doubt I'll stick around beyond a few more days to see "my" threads wind up a bit more.

sum wrote:

So far you have been extracting the views of posters regarding muslims but you have largely kept your views under wraps. Tell us how you view the muslims in the categories that you outlined.

I consider this unfair as I believe I was frank and forthright in my opening post, which is more than can be said for many others contributing here.

planck

Joined: 16 Jul 2008
Posts: 818
Location: usa

Posted: Tue Dec 23, 2008 9:47 am Post subject:

Val Era wrote:

planck wrote:

I'm glad that my post amused you. But there really is no other way to react to cutecoot's kangaroo pouch religious views, than to laugh at them. With her last post, it's obvious that the woman is religiously confused and her opinions are all in an effort to reconcile her own beliefs. She obviously doesn't like christianity, therefore all other religions must contain the same flaws that made her initially dislike her native faith. But since she's a naive universalist, it wouldn't be fair to single out the negative aspects of just islam alone. So to satisfy her disparate views, she's concocted her own "personal" islam so that it jives with her self-created view of a tolerant reality (taking into account man's ability to err)---and most importantly, she comes out looking squeaky clean, with nary a "bigotted" wave being emitted.

But instead of reading rumi, saadi, and rabia, I wish she would read the koran, hadith, and a biography of muhammad--and then maybe she would know exactly what islam is all about. For if she did, she would know that a "synthesis" with islam is never possible since islam believes in the concept of tawheed. And assigning partners to their god is the most blasphemous crime in their religion.

But then again, you ask her a great question:

Val Era wrote:

I don't understand. If you see a logical inconsistency in equating Islam to the deeply ingrained elements in Islamic doctrine (i.e. Jihad warfare), then please do not withhold it from us.

And she keeps repeating the same thing without actually answering the question. If there is a logical inconsistency, then obviously this should be a syllogism that should easily be proven "logically inconsistent." But we have yet to see proof, just sophistry.

People like cutecoot are, according to lenin, the classic "useful idiots." When she's offered overwhelming evidence to the contrary, she chooses to be blissfully ignorant and obstinate in her own fairy tales. And I'm sure that these posts are so unforgivably offensive and "disrespectful," that she'll choose to take umbrage--rather than swallow that harsh pill of reality.

But i'm sure that a verse from baba kuhi and a bake sale will magically change the minds of bin laden et al.

_________________
crescat scientia; vita excolatur

charleslemartel

Joined: 29 Nov 2007
Posts: 1071

Posted: Tue Dec 23, 2008 12:32 pm Post subject:

CuteCoot wrote:

sum wrote:

If you're a Christian you are obliged to (at least try to) love your enemy, a habit that is far more rarely seen among Christians than among any other religion as far as I can tell.

Yeah, right. This habit of loving the enemy is certainly seen more often in Muslims. Your way of seeing things certainly seems far better than the people like myself.
_________________
Happy New Year to Everyone

Fear is the most powerful emotional tool, it can turn off the areas of the brain responsible for rational thought.
Is that why Muslims can't be rational?

CuteCoot

Joined: 07 Nov 2005
Posts: 423
Location: Australia

Posted: Tue Dec 23, 2008 8:37 pm Post subject:

charleslemartel wrote:

Yeah, right. This habit of loving the enemy is certainly seen more often in Muslims.

At the culmination of the high medieval period, two outstanding popularizing mystic poets emerged, one each from the Islamic and Christian worlds.

Jalāl ad-Dīn Muḥammad Rūmī (1207-1273) used the widespread secular language of the Islamic world, Farsi or Persian, to create his six-volume Masnavi known and loved as "the Koran in Persian", as well as for his more mystic Shams collection (Diwan-e Shams-e Tabrizi). Throughout these works, he used simple rhyming couplets to aid in the memorization and hence popularization of these works.

Dante Alighieri (1265-1321), in a similarly popularizing way, used vernacular "Italian" to create his grand three-part masterpiece, the Divine Comedy, depicting his inner journey from hell, through purgatory, and finishing in the ecstatic mystic landscape of paradise.

And how did each of these great visionaries view the religious world of the other?

Rumi wrote:

What can I do, Submitters to God?
I do not know myself.
I am neither Christian nor Jew,
neither Zoroastrian nor Muslim,
I am not from east or west,
not from land or sea,
not from the shafts of nature
nor from the spheres of the firmament,
not of the earth, not of water,
not of air, not of fire.
[...]
O Sun of Tabriz (Shams Tabrizi), I am so tipsy here in this world,
I have no tale to tell but tipsiness and rapture.

Dante wrote:

No barrel, even though it's lost a hoop
or end-piece, ever gapes as one whom I
saw ripped right from his chin to where we fart:
his bowels hung between his legs, one saw
his vitals and the miserable sack
that makes of what we swallow excrement.
While I was all intent on watching him,
he looked at me, and with his hands he spread
his chest and said: "See how I split myself!
See now how maimed Mohammed is! And he
who walks and weeps before me is Alì,
whose face is opened wide from chin to forlock.

Which one of these has made the better effort to love his enemy as Jesus taught?

You cannot judge a culture or civilization by the lowest common denominator, the masses and their barbaric instincts. You judge it by the best that it has to offer.

Even in the English translation, Dante's language is indeed divine but for me, Rumi's has the greater moral and spiritual elevation.

Display posts from previous:

	Faith Freedom International Forum Index -> World Politics	All times are GMT Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Next
Page 5 of 8

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum