Islamic Schools Trick African Boys Into Begging

Post Reply New Topic

Beggars are not choosers topic

As for iamnotaparakeet's questions, this is why I am strongly against the politicizing of religion. If they must be on the same plate, they should not touch! Better still, they are best served on separate dishes.

I am sorry the children got involved in this. The adults should know better.

Thats just bullcrap. I dare ya to find those quotes (not from right wing sites) but from actual reliable sources like WIkipedia or the Qu'ran itself), if you have explained way too many times then you should have them memorized.

So you're saying these people (Muslims) should be...?

Religion is at the heart of a person. Even people who claim that they have no faith, that profession is at the heart of their being. Everything is affected by the underlying thoughts and presuppositions which religion is, so to keep it separate from how we view and affect the world is absurdly ridiculous. And yes, that is a pleonasm.

How the heck would it matter if the quotes from the Qu'ran were found on a site like ChristiansForJesus.Org compared to being found on MoronsForFSM.Net?

I don't see it that way. I have nothing against the different religions of the world, but they are not immune to legitimate criticism when the people professing to act in the name of the religion turn predatory. Religion is often used to hypnotise people, to gain their trust, and exploit them. That doesn't mean all religion is bad, only that abuses in the name of religion should be exposed.

Sometimes that is true. Other times, there is no religion in their heart, but there is a facade of religion about a person ... they attend worship (to be seen), they do other things to be accepted.

Consider the car salesman who attends church every week and flies an extra-large flag in front of his business. He talks God and Country, but he still is ready to trick people out of their money. Because your trust in him means he can insert extra charges here and there, and he profits.

Because site owners tend to change them alot and omit things and/or exaggerate them. I would go with encyclopaedic information and the Qu'ran itself for reliable sources. Also don't sue blogs they are heavily opinionated by both those who support or are anti-Islamic.

Pleonasm? redundancy? Absurd? Some Aspies have separate dishes, not just not letting their food touch!

At any rate, I am one who advocates, even religiously , that politics and all religions must lead separate lives. In Canada we keep them unjoined in the political realm. Politicians can have all the religious views they wish but they must not trump democratic party politics. Monoreligious governments, like military dictatorships, terrorize those who do not believe in the ruling cult of belief, unlike pluralistic democracy, which does not stifle legitimate and fair criticism. This may not be the most perfect of all governments but I would choose it over any state or country advocating theocracy, like the one mentioned by Ragtime. I do feel very sorry for the children, who will grow up to continue what the stupid adults are now doing.

Ok...where to begin.

To be a Muslim (as I understand it...I'm Episcopalian...

The giving of alms to the poor, and being charitable, is one of the central tenets of Islam (it's also one of the things celebrated in Kwanza (sp?) To deliberately do this to someone would be fairly problematic.

The Koran (Q'uran, etc) is to be read in Arabic (a particular style of script as well, which isn't used as much in modern practice). If you've read the Koran in any other language (I actually did read the Koran...but 30 years ago), then you've read 'the meaning of' the Koran. Otherwise it 'doesn't count'.

Never read Gilmagesh (can't remember if it's Babylonian, Akkadian, Elamite, Sumerian, or what...one of those peoples...or maybe another I forgot..

That being said, people will do anything to make enough to eat. If you're that far down on Maslow's 'heirarchy of needs', a full belly wins over 'self-actualization' every time. It is true that this happened (sometimes still happens) in Victorian England, the US, etc. Remember Fagin from Dickens?

Actually, it doesn't.

You must look at when Islam began in order to understand the Qur'an. During the time the Qur'an was being recited, the Muslims had to literally fight to defend themselves from the Makkans who did not like what Muhammad had to say. They were kicked out of Mecca, forced to Madina (Hajj, and the beginning of the Islamic calendar), and there had to build up a resistance in order for their lives and religion to survive. This is where the whole "Slay the pagans where ever you may find them" etc. came about because the Pagans were killing the Muslims--and only through "revelations" were the Muslims allowed to fight. Muslims were forbidden to be apostates as that would be a sign of one who is a traitor. The part where Muhammad and his followers killed the Bani Yisrael tribe came after a battle between Muhammad and other tribes where the Jews turned against the Muslims--they had previously pledged alliance.


So again, look at the time line when it was written. I'm sure Christians and Jews today would not like for a non-believer to quote Deuteronomy out of context.





Simple: Context, lack of understanding, ignorance of the religion. The quotes will more than likely be out of context, misleading, and not representative of the whole verse, chapter, and book.

So if the quote didn't match your preconceived notions you'd question how it got to you?

Well, what purpose does the site have in quoting scripture? If an atheist site began to quote from the bible, quran, vedas, etc. would you trust their efforts in the quotes? Would you trust that the quotes have been properly translated? I'd remain skeptical of it.

Equally, I'd be skeptical of certain religious sites as they might only allow their own interpretation.


Is my explanation coming through clear? I'm in a bit of a hurry.

Are you aware of how industrialized translations are?

I could take Bible quotes off an atheist site and it would still be the Bible; even if they misinterpret it, it doesn't change what is written.

It doesn't change what is written but it changes what is meant. I've read several English Qur'ans, and guess what? Their translations aren't in unison with each other and many passages are taken way out of context and interpreted to fall in line with the translator's ideology.


Anyways, to add to my other point, here is an example which I use to show how stupid it is to only quote one or a selection of passages--and to leave out interpretations as to what was meant by them:

Mathew 15
22 A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to Him, crying out, “Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is suffering terribly from demon-possession.”

23 Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to Him and urged Him, “Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.”

24 He answered, “I was only sent to the lost sheep of Israel.”

25 The woman came and knelt before Him. “Lord, help me!” she said.

26 He replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to their dogs.”


There, I proved that Jesus did not come here to care for or save mankind but to only to save the Jews.

Jews first, Goyim second.

Voice of reason.