Creeping Sharia: The Islamisation of the West

Post Reply New Topic

Which proves that you can't accept the idea of leaving Islam.

And nowadays the Sharia is trying to creep again into Turkey:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-turke ... SKCN0XN0MD

And he was influenced by his older first wife Khadija and her cousin, a mentor priest called Waraka bin Nawfal who's of an old Messianic Jewish-Christian sect (similar to other non-Trinitarian Christian sects which were also common in that region during that period).

It also known that he was the one who had translated the New testament to Arabic.

Khadija herself was Jewish too according to hadith,but probably she was a Messianic Jewish-Christian (Nestorian) like her cousin.


Those were the true sources of the Qur'an.

Last edited by The_Face_of_Boo on 26 Apr 2016, 4:55 pm, edited 4 times in total.

Also Mississippi:
http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties ... orce-women

I wouldn't automatically classify such a vision as mental illness. Hallucinations (to some extent) are within the realm of normal human behavior.

It's not a revision when it's written in the damn book that he was a warlord who loved to kill those who did not share his belief, urged others to kill if they did not accept his doctrine, had a child for a wife and thought nothing of women.

Exactly, they were proud of it. Back then if you defeated an enemy, it was considered a judgement from God. The Jews were similarly proud of their alleged genocide against the Amalekites.

Yes, that's not what I meant. There are many Muslims who are good people (being a Muslim per se doesn't make you bad - it's your actual beliefs that make you bad), and there are a few in the public eye I like a great deal - but these are the kind of Muslims that get death threats from other Muslims.

I think Maajid Nawaz*, Naser Khader* and Usama Hasan have their hearts in the right place, but they are frequently the target of takfiri bigots.

(MN is the only Lib Dem I'd ever consider voting for. I loathe his oarty. NK is a Danish politician, and I couldn't see myself voting for his party where I Danish..)

When the book was written, they gloried in violence and fear. It's only in the last few hundred years that we find teachings like Muhammad's wholly unacceptable.

I'm glad I don't have to defend Muhammad. I am free. Boo is free, to a point (I wouldn't swap countries). You can be free, too.

Muhammad did not "love to kill", what book have you been reading? What you're describing is like, Muhammad fanfiction.

Muhammad is a perfect example of mercy and temperance on the battlefield, even by modern standards.

Muhammed really is indefensible I think, him as the central figure of Islam versus Jesus in Christianity are fundamentally different in their outlook to the rest of the world. Jesus didn't have any 9 year old wives, Jesus didn't behead the infidels, he wasn't a conqueror, he preached love and forgiveness which I believe are foreign concepts to Islam. The Bible doesn't dictate that non-Christians pay a tax or be killed, the Bible doesn't demand apostates be killed, the Bible doesn't demand those that insult Jesus or god be slain where they stand, it's totally different. I would oppose mass migration of any violent religious fanatic, if it there were foreign "extremist" Christians crashing planes into buildings and blowing themselves up in public places then I would ban them from moving to this country too but almost ALL terrorism on this planet can be traced by the Sunni Wahhabi branch of Islam promoted by the Saudi Arabia which controls Islam by it's occupation of the two holy mosques and it's vast oil wealth.

Technical point, the Bible doesn't mention Christianity at all. As far as Jesus was concerned, he was Jewish.

The only decapitation mentioned in Jewish scripture is that David (prior to becoming King) slew Goliath and took his head. However the Israelites when they came into the Land after 40 years of living the the wilderness following the emancipation from Egyptian slavery, were as bad-ass as Isis or al Qeda is now. The book of Joshuah mentions 33 cities and towns burned to the ground by the Israelites. The Israelites also took virgin girls and women and killed the non-virgin females. They also slaughtered the males of a conquered town above the age of 12 or so. The rest they took as slaves. And of course the Israelites made of with the live-stock of a conquered place.

It took a long time before the Israelites became the Jews we know about in more modern time. This transition took place mostly in the Babylonia dispersion. It turns out getting the sh*t kicked out of them by other nations was instrumental in civilizing the descendants of the Israelites.

The Old Testament or Torah had a lot of awful things in it but very very few believe it to be the divine literal word of God(and the ones that do I don't want either), Jews and Christians have reformed multiple times over whereas Islam has become increasingly intolerant of its looser interpretations which I believe can be traced to the fact the Saudi Arabia is the center of the Sunni Muslim world which has promoted this cancerous extremist anti-Western Wahhabi strain of Islam the world over with its billions in oil money. The Saudis know the oil will run out eventually, they preparing for when it does and this promotion of extremism abroad is part of that. If we are ever to really deal with the issue of Islamic terrorism then we must cut off the head of the snake, the source of it all is Saudi Arabia and I believe them to be the true enemy of the United States. We invaded Iraq when we had a much better justification of invading the Saudis. The Ottomans were much more tolerant and moderate in their practice of Islam compared the destructive Wahhabi and Salafists strains that have become more and more dominant in the Muslim world.

Muslims would tell you that the Koran talks a lot about Mercy, yet mercy is not the same as forgiveness.

Mercy means forgiveness shown towards someone whom it is within one's power to punish or harm.

Again, it's in the context of submission.




Watch this video, enable the English subtitles, and listen what a SHIITE cleric says about Jihad, he says the same stuff as the Wahabists.



Don't fool yourselves, there's no fundamental difference between Sunni Islam and Shia Islam, Iran has the most number of executions on Earth.
The only difference is that Wahabbists/ISIS are more willing to apply everything to the letter but the ideology is almost the same.

Btw, do you notice how shocked that journalist looks/sounds like during the interview?

He was like "But ...what if he refuses to become a Muslim....? You kill him?? You enslave the women?" And the cleric was pissed at him for even questioning the morality of that.

That's a typical "Muslim" who's ignorant of the real nature of his religion that he thinks he follows, yet he was simply following an embellished version of it, now he's totally shocked of what he's hearing from the scholar cleric.

I appreciate your insight; you probably would know more than anyone here about the relationship between Christians, Sunni, and Shia.

What I get out of Shia Islam tho is that not anybody can just claim religious authority, only those that can trace the lineage back to Muhammad and his band of merry men or whatever. However I get the impression that almost everyone in the Middle East believes they can trace their lineage back to that of the prophet or whoever else important since I remember Saddam making some claim as well I believe Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi too so it seems like it something Sunnis do too and give homage too.

Would you agree that the Shia have a centralized authority? How much control does the Ayatollah, the Mullahs, the clerics, the whatever have over Shia Muslims? Part of me doesn't think this hierarchy is bad from our end, maybe it's a worse form of Islam but it seems more managable and less prone to cancerous outgrowths. The way I had it explained to me is that any Sunni Muslim can claim religious authority and that anybody that leads prayers are considered an imam which can declare fatwa and other decrees and the only difference between a non-credible one and a credible one is the amount of followers they have. Very decentralized, impossible to control. Like I feel if the US really wanted to make peace with Iran that it could, if I were the president I would like to meet the Ayatollah very much and I think just a mutual show of respect and an assurance that we won't rain down hellfire upon themor unleash agitating CIA goons is what is needed with so many of these supposedly adversarial countries. Most just want to be left the hell alone, the reality is that the US is no longer a superpower and we're returning to the age of Great Powers. I think diplomacy with the 'church' hierarchy would go a long way in establishing peace, you can't do that with Sunni Islam. The reality is too that Shia terrorism is almost non-existent(I know you may have a different opinion living in Lebanon of course but I am speaking from the perspective of an American living in America) and their is no leadership among the Shia that are calling for anything close to what ISIS advocates. It is usually the Shia and Iranians in particular who always make the biggest priority to show their condolences and to condemn terror. Would there ever be an active Shia terrorist movement without it being called for by the Ayatollah and the clerics?

We have to respect Russia, we have to respect Iran, we can't be sticking our nose where it doesn't belong any longer. We can't allow so called allies in Turkey and Saudi Arabia to take advantage of us anymore, I believe the Israelis can take care of themselves and it has always been the Saudis as the hidden hand behind our foreign policy. I really do question the official story of 9/11 now, I believe that planes hit the WTC and Pentagon but they didn't do it all on their own. Those 28 pages everyone is talking about seem to implicate Saudi Arabia as indirectly being involved but is it really too crazy to think that the attacks were allowed to happen to justify the war in Iraq to take out Saudi Arabia's #1 enemy? The Project for the New American Century concluded shortly before 9/11 that we'd need an attack on the scale of Pearl Harbor to sell these military adventures and expenditures and guess what happened? 15 of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia but we invade Iraq? We invade Afghanistan were a SAUDI terrorist was hiding out, we gave these same terrorists weapons to fight the Soviets in the 80s and Osama was considered a freedom fighter.