Arab Woman gives Muslims a Thrashing

[butchersapron]

Again restating the question I have already answered. You say:

You refuse to comment on the four points you insisted I gave. You even accuse me of avoiding when here is my answer very clearly put earlier:

So you plainly have no interest in discussion, and are just a windup merchant who insists on comment and then restates this insistence even when the comment is given.

When you wish to comment on them, then I will answer, until then I will ignore you.

Are you mad? Are you confusing me with someone else? You refuse to comment on the four points you insisted I gave

Eh? I insisted on no such thing. If anything i said the very opposite in fact. That i'm not interestred at all in your general points but only on one specific one - namely what postion on 'the war on terror' that's rarely seen through the media you're referring to in the below quote:

Also the video puts forward a side to the so-called 'War on Terror' which is never seen through the media, and so why not?

You've yet to answer it. You've said that you've answerd it in post #88 but there's no mention of the war on terror in post #88. There's nothing that relates to your claim and my question about that claim.

I note my advance from 'troll' to 'windup merchant' though, let's hope i make it to 'poster' next year, fingers crossed.

 

[invisibleplanet]

This Arab women tells it how it is.

See here.

Comparing the Islamic world and attitude to that of primitives!

Heaven Knows what other Muslims might feel about her outburst!!

Dr. Wafa Sultan shot to fame in the USA following an interview on Al-Jazeera television with Dr. Ibrahim Al-Khouly - a Muslim cleric - on February 21st 2006, when she described militant Islam and ‘the West’ as in conflict:

"a clash between a mentality that belongs to the Middle Ages and another that belongs to the 21st century... a clash between civilization and backwardness, between the civilized and the primitive, between barbarity and rationality.”
Dr. Wafa Sultan, 21st February 2006, Al-Jazeera Tv.

As a self-proclaimed ex-practioner of Islam, Sultan is often presented in the North American media as someone who would have been executed for apostacy, had she been living in ‘the Islamic world’ rather than ‘the West’. But this couldn’t be further from the truth – Sultan would not have been summarily executed in Syria by the state for her views, yet it’s possible a lone adherent might have attempted or succeeded in murdering her, and this murder would have been a criminal offence in Syria.

Also important to note, is that Sultan is herself a part of the Syrian-Alawite elite, and in her native country of Syria, this Alawite-elite hold the majority of key governmental and administrative positions.

 

[rover07]

I think that having a division between believers and nonbelievers within Christianity encourages Christians to consider nonbelievers as somehow inhuman.

 

[butchersapron]

We're all believers in our different ways - i love you all.

 

[invisibleplanet]

I think that having a division between believers and nonbelievers within Christianity encourages Christians to consider nonbelievers as somehow inhuman.

Ann Coulter believes we can only be 'perfected' by becoming Christian and accepting Jesus as our personal saviour, which would make us at least as perfect as Ann Coulter (perish the thought: .

 

[Demosthenes]

Ann Coulter believes we can only be 'perfected' by becoming Christian and accepting Jesus as our personal saviour, which would make us at least as perfect as Ann Coulter (perish the thought: .

If I were Jesus, I might be inclined to say to Ann Coulter, "Who are you?", if she claimed me as her personal saviour.

If having a distinction between believers and non-believers encouraged christians to bthink non-believers were inhuman, then believers wouldn't care at all about non-believers, even to the extent of trying persuade them they're wrong., - they might see them more as a dangerous alien species.

 

[rover07]

Slavery was justified by Christians on the grounds that Africans were sub-human non-believers. Only Jesus could save them from eternal hell.

 

[Aldebaran]

Prejudice: an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.

Note the 'without knowledge' bit, you haven't seen the video, and so you joined the debate from a prejudicial standpoint.

Correction: I didn't see the video hence I do not discuss it, since you fail to paint a picture of what it is actually about and why you find it worth making a threrad on it.

(How come you missed the obvious - and even while I kept repeating it constantly - is anyone's guess.)

salaam.

 

[butchersapron]

Shut up slave

 

[Demosthenes]

Slavery was justified by Christians on the grounds that Africans were sub-human non-believers. Only Jesus could save them from eternal hell.

Well I don't know the facts for certain about what various people thought about slavery and africans. But, I don't see what thinking or claiming that africans are sub-human non-believers has to do with christianity, which makes the claim that all people should be treated as family.

 

[Demosthenes]

Oh, I see, - maybe the point is, if you're christian and you want to justify slavery so you can make a lot of money, - then, you need to find some justification for thinking that the people you enslave aren't human.

Of course, if you weren't christian, you could just go ahead and do it anyway, whether they're sub-human or not.

I doubt that the Romans justified slavery on the grounds that their slaves were sub-human, - and perhaps that's why they never abolished it, because the question of their humanity was just irrelevant.

But anyone who justified the slavery of someone they knew to be fully human was no christian, I reckon, whatever they thought they were, or called themselves.

eta: in fact "christians" made believers of african slaves, - who understood the meaning of christianity a lot better than their masters, - so it wasn't the non-believing part that was thought to justify the slavery, it was the blackness. They didn't suddenly end their slavery once they became believers.

 

[rover07]

Well I don't know the facts for certain about what various people thought about slavery and africans. But, I don't see what thinking or claiming that africans are sub-human non-believers has to do with christianity, which makes the claim that all people should be treated as family.

Christians have always persecuted non-believers, the whole philosophy is based on non-believers deserve to suffer eternal torture. Which makes them lesser beings than the noble/worthy Christians.

 

[Demosthenes]

Christians have always persecuted non-believers, the whole philosophy is based on non-believers deserve to suffer eternal torture. Which makes them lesser beings than the noble/worthy Christians.

No they haven't, and no it isn't.

 

[Demosthenes]

The reason I disagree is that I think you're confusing surface/cultural features of "christianity" with Christianity.

 

[rover07]

Jesus condemns all non-believers to eternal torture.

 

[invisibleplanet]

Jesus condemns all non-believers to eternal torture.

Let's not misquote the good rav, shall we. I'm quite sure it's organised religion that pushes that particular future.

 

[butchersapron]

Fucking hell, is there no religion you'll not misuse?

Don't talk for jesus either.

 

[Demosthenes]

If someone thinks that they're a duck, it doesn't entail that they're a duck,
(I assume that that's uncontroversial)

If someone thinks they're an alien being locked in a human body, doesn't entail that they are.

If someone thinks they're a radical thinker, doesn't entail that they are.

If someone thinks they're a marxist, it doesn't entail that they are, - they might have completely misunderstood Marx.

If someone thinks they're a christian, it doesn't entail that they are, they may have misunderstood christ.

But I reckon that the idea that Christ's sheep know "their master's voice" is more or less true.

 

[Aldebaran]

deleted double post

 

[Aldebaran]

If it makes it easier I will ask you the implied questions:

1) Where in the media is there a discussion as to the division between believers and unbelievers in the Koran?
2) The knowledge of the Western world evidently aids Muslims daily, where in the media is this hypocrisy discussed?
3) Where in the media is there a discussion as to the lack of freedom of religious practice in Islamic countries?
4) Where in the media is there a discussion as to the violence in the Koran and the response from moderates to this?

1) Where in the media do you find theological pages?
A: You have such comments in the media (daily papers) in the Arab world.

2) The arrogant ignorance of this is laughable. The "Western World" wouldn't even know their classics were it not for Muslims (and Syrian Christian and Jewish contributors living in the Islamic world) having preserved, translated, studied and commented the Greeks. You wouldn't even be able to type on a PC if Muslims hadn't introduced the zero.

3) There is no need for that. If you live in an Islamic (notice the word) nation Islam is the State Religion. Other religions can be practiced (and such is stated in nation's constitutions) but to flood the country with arrogant self-absorbed proselytisers is not wanted. Thank you for noticing that Islamic nations are not Western nations and that I couldn't care less if you like that or not.

4) See - again - section theology/religious advice in every daily paper in my part of the world. Some even repeat it in the English or French section.
And how come you speak of "violence in Al Qur'an"? There is no such thing. There are very specific instructions on what is permitted and what not in self-defence (on the path of God of yourself, persons under your care, and the umma as a whole against violence and threats coming from others.)


salaam.

 

[Aldebaran]

I doubt that the Romans justified slavery on the grounds that their slaves were sub-human, - and perhaps that's why they never abolished it, because the question of their humanity was just irrelevant.

Under Roman Law a slave was part of the family (with the same status as children. )

salaam.

 

[butchersapron]

All in the bath together.

The slaves out on the latifundia though?

 

[Aldebaran]

The Roman system was as vulnerable for adaptatiojn to society as any syustem is and was. During periods of great wars war prisoners flooded the slave trade and that wasn't in favour of their position.
Nevertheless free born people often enough sold themselves in slavery in order to have an income, a home, a job.

salaam.

 

[Demosthenes]

All in the bath together.

The slaves out on the latifundia though?

Is that the fields?

I read something somewhere suggesting that when there was a glut of slaves, slaves became cheaper than cows or horses, so it became more profitable to buy slaves to pull your plough.

 

[rover07]

Kidnapping people to sell as slaves has always been a popular way of making money.

 

[Aldebaran]

Kidnapping people to sell as slaves has always been a popular way of making money.

It still is. Maybe the thread starter even goes to prostitutes who are victims of such practices.

salaam.

 

[butchersapron]

This is england mate. Not Mecca.

 

[rover07]

And how come you speak of "violence in Al Qur'an"? There is no such thing. There are very specific instructions on what is permitted and what not in self-defence (on the path of God of yourself, persons under your care, and the umma as a whole against violence and threats coming from others.)


salaam.

When Allah condemns people to eternal torture, how is that self-defence?

 

[rover07]

Let's not misquote the good rav, shall we. I'm quite sure it's organised religion that pushes that particular future.

I'm not misquoting...if Jesus saves then he also condemns.

 

[Demosthenes]

What quote are you referring to?