Wahabism in Centers of Learning

Echo MiaN,

You claim that harsh punishment for apostasy applies only when it (apostasy) threatens constitution of a state.

It is like saying ... people with large ears should be punished, but only if these people threaten a state.

Apostasy is one issue, while threatening a state is another issue. You mullahs sound silly every time you try to rationalize punishment for apostasy by adding clauses to it.

In any case, here`s what your uncle Urstrly wrote on apostasy (#59). Perhaps you enlightened ones should figure out your mess before making noise ...

+++

``Apostasy is punishable by death in an Islamic polity, there are no ifs, ands, and buts about it. Not only that but prolysterization of any other religion to Muslims is also prohibited (I am not sure what is the punishment for that). However, a non-Muslim is free to practice and propagate his religion among other non-Muslims of the Muslim polity. I do not see anything morally or legally wrong with this picture.``

+++

Comments?

PM:206
thanks for your interest.
I try not to give details here unless someone expresses a genuine interest.

``..... (One must also distinguish between adults who CHOOSE a religion, as was the case above, and those merely born into it -- even the dumbest can and should make this distinction!)...``

Of course!
One is called Muslim-e Milli ( converted one ) and the other Muslim-e Fitri (born into). Now the punishment for apostasy for the born-one is very harsh. He is not allowed even to repent, whereas for the converted one there is always a door open for repenting.

We must evaluate everything on Islamic terms & in the context of the Fiat which the ruler exercises whether through conquest, democracy or geneology.[ the process is immaterial].
There should never ever be even be a semblance of an apology or ``rationalisation`` about it. Like the military: `` Because it is an order, I do NOT question it``

Just like we have no reason as atheists to question why US has God enshrined in their constituition but do a song-and-dance around it when confronted.

Once the ``nations`` according to territories do not restrict free movement of humans only then we can talk in human and inter-alia Islamic terms. Until and unless we live in these prisopns/zoos called by the fancy names of ``nations`` and ``countries`` nothing intelligent can be discussed.

The biggest laa`nut upon mankind is the Western concept of Nationhood & Democracy.
Simply because they have the arsenal does not mean the the glorious civilisations of the East iHindoostan & China and of course Muslim will not be the leading lights again.

The rot in the West has already begun..our job must be to protect our own from the followers of DEvils & minions of Satans...and as you well know true Christianity is th most helpless victim of these diabolical ``philosophies`` of secularoons & liberaloons.

P.S: Now what I would say now would really make you happy..even a lot of muslims may not know it.

The apostasy ``law`` is a tradition and hence man-made. Only when the basic constituition ( Islamic --in an Islamic State) is threatened then and only then one can resort to whatever is deemed fit & necessary. Qura`an`s recommendation is always to show mercy whenever, wherever & IF a choice exists.

In Pakistan Musharraff`s fanaticsm & zeal to kill ``extremists`` is no different than some of the mob lynching those labeled as ``apostates``.

THe threes ``enemies`` of muslims have always been.

the Monarchs (or Pres. or PMs), the mullahs (professional-priests) and the moral perverts (KanjarRs..fornicators, adulterers & drunkards`` Pakistan`s westernised scum)

#208 by discoverer

Being a Paki, and congenitally retarded due to all the inbreeding you guys have (marrying your cousins and whatnot), you have missed the points entirely.

Let me highlight the arguments for you. Let`s see if you understand.

[Who said that`s a different issue, That`s the real deal. How can you HINDOOS spam this article when your own religion enforce terrorism and don`t offer HUMAN RIGHT. I mean, who you HINDOOS are so reluctent to talk about HINDOism. why don`t you tell us you good side[if you had one]

IT IS a different issue. WHY? BECAUSE it is our INTERNAL problem. We are not trying to ``convert`` you pedophile followers. IF we have problems, we are not forcing on you guys to adopt our problems. But YOU pedophile followers are all the time trying to force your pedophile-created ``religion`` onto other people.

Get it?

No?

Well, you are a dumb Paki (that`s a tautology). What can you expect?


[who said we idolize RAM, Krishna etcetce. We are monthesism remember? we DON``T idolize anyone, we don`t need to make idol in order BELIEVE that god exist. we know that a super intelligent being don`t need any one to idolize. This being only require us to believe/have faith that he EXIST. ]

Once again, being a dumb Paki, you are missing the main point. Without mohammad, your religion is a hoax. Your religion is valid ONLY IF Mo was telling the truth about Al-lah chatting with him. THEREFORE EVERYTHING HANGS ON MO`S CREDIBILITY. IF YOU CANNOT TRUST MO, YOUR WHOLE ``RELIGION`` IS A CHEAP CUT-AND-PASTE JOB FROM THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS.

Now if you look at Mo`s character, he was VERY far from a man of God. Married 12 times, once to his stepson`s wife. Sexual lust at 53 for a little child of 6 years. Beheaded 700 unarmed civilians. Sold their innocent and helpless women and children as slaves. Had sex with women prisoner after killing their father and brother the same day. The list is very long.

See, the argument is that this is a very low-class individual. Nothing divine about him. Rather, it`s pure evil. So NOTHING he has to say can be trusted. THEREFORE HE WAS LYING ABOUT GOD CHATTING WITH HIM. THEREFORE YOUR WHOLE ``RELIGION`` IS A HOAX FOISTED UPON THE ILLITERATE BEDOUINS.

Do you see that? Can you dispute any of that?

Of course not. But you`ll keep parroting the same stuff over and over. Because you are a dumb Paki.

:)


[ONCE AGAIN YOU HINDOOS DIDN`T ANSWER MY PREVIOUS QUESTION, HOW DO YOU JUSTIFY YOUR RELIGION. YOU ARE SPAMING THIS ARTICLE THE WHY NOT TEL US YOUR GOODSIDE IF YOU HAD ONE]

It`s not important if we don`t have a good side. We are not trying to ``convert`` you. So it should not matter to you.

Get it?

No?

Oh well.

Re: # 208 disco mian
[...HOW DO YOU JUSTIFY YOUR RELIGION...]

Actually - we don`t... religion needs no justification... I mean - how can you justify a pedophile as the Prophet(pubh)?... Or a man walking on water?... or Ram burning his wife?... Or Buddhha deserting his wife and family?... you simply can`t... so people of various faiths just accept their respective faiths as personal spiritual mechanism rather than anything else... except for you muslims... That`s the problem with you pakis/muslims... you have been trying to justify your bedouin ideology for ages and still can`t... which why you guys are so f***ed up... :)

That`s what I have been telling you... don`t waste your time on glories of past empires, or justification of your camel-h@mping bedouin faith... these are things of past, have little bearing on the future... future belongs to people who look ahead rather than look back...

#197 by mohar11


ARABS?!!!!, my dear arabs were never part of muslims glorious empire other then the start of our religion. Do you think we Pakis cares about ARAB population... I guess not but you piss-drinkier indian DO. maybe this is the reason why majority of indians are dominating ARAB WORLD. Cleaning there shit without any pay, getting rape etcetec. Historically, Otoman Empire who were not ARABS made us proud not arabs, Islamic empire duing the time of our prophet made the beginning of ISLAM. We Paki are the decendent of this OTTOMAN empire and this is the reason if you please arabs hate us, because we know what arabs were and are now.

If we Paki are the defeated people then HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THE CREATION OF PAKISTAN. In short, I am beginning to realise that HINDOO were slaves throughout history, you were slave when muslim step in your land and you were slave when british came and you will always remain slave. Because India was conquered dozens of time. We Paki are the real free people atlease we were never conquered by anyone.

I ask you HINDOOS a simple staightforward question about your HINDOO RELIGION or HINDO EMPIRE, if you piss*drinker were such a big shot then how come your SO CALLED OLD EMPIRE did not last or made a difference in the world. Except humping each other(KAMASUTRA) your religion don`t teach anything else. Atlease our religion tell us to defend ourselves rather then getting rape by 5 men just like dharopatti.

You guys couldn`t even justify your own religion, can`t talk about why your bagwan RAM burn an innocent woman who was his wife. why 5 men raped 1 woman? such practice is still there in HINDOOS blood and this is the reason why mass muder still happen in india but censored by indian media.

hat`s the reason why you muslims are down in the dumps all over the world... because you guys are too busy j@rking off on past ``glory`` than working on the future

look whos talking HINDOOS who claim themselve to be folowing the oldest religion, talks about modernisation when they themselbe still follow caste system. Pakistan for example had nothing whenn it was born, India on the other hand had proper transport system, industries etc which was build by both British and Moghals. India had everything before, your country didn`t do a shit after 1947 but look at us, we progressed ourselve and look at us now we are standing shoulder to shoulder with you. what else do you want? the only thing india ever progress is in PORNO indusry and MAFIA and inbreed TERRORIST

re:krsihna_abcd

``Whether we Hindus are the worst or not is a different issue.``

Who said that`s a different issue, That`s the real deal. How can you HINDOOS spam this article when your own religion enforce terrorism and don`t offer HUMAN RIGHT. I mean, who you HINDOOS are so reluctent to talk about HINDOism. why don`t you tell us you good side[if you had one].

``How can you respect someone who idolizes a pedophile?``

who said we idolize RAM, Krishna etcetce. We are monthesism remember? we DON``T idolize anyone, we don`t need to make idol in order BELIEVE that god exist. we know that a super intelligent being don`t need any one to idolize. This being only require us to believe/have faith that he EXIST.

I knew you HINDOOS aare backward ppl, and this explain why you don`t understand our practice. I can`t believe you HINDOOS are talking about Pedophile, according to your idology one of your BAGWAN was turned into a child and his wife was having sex with your child bagwan. Atlease none of that happens in our religion.

The worse part is you have some many idols/Bagwan to look after that many HINDOOS don`t even remember. I mean even in 21st centuary you believe in idols, which is contructed by your own hand. How can anyone idolize 1000 gods and believe that god breeds and dies. cheee chee. Our religion atlease answer modern science.


ONCE AGAIN YOU HINDOOS DIDN`T ANSWER MY PREVIOUS QUESTION, HOW DO YOU JUSTIFY YOUR RELIGION. YOU ARE SPAMING THIS ARTICLE THE WHY NOT TEL US YOUR GOODSIDE IF YOU HAD ONE

``November 07, 2006

Hindu who became a militant Islamist
By Sean O’Neill

Dhiren Barot`s path to terrorism began not in war-torn Kabul or the slums of Karachi, but in Kingsbury, northwest London, where he was brought up as the son of Indian Hindu parents.

He converted to Islam aged 20 and immersed himself in the faith’s political radicalism after attending extremist lectures in London.

Barot was born in December 1971 in Baroda, India, and was brought to Britain by his parents the following year.

He attended Kingsbury High School, but left after studying GCSEs and obtained a City & Guilds qualification in tourism.

Between 1991 and 1995 Barot worked as a ticket clerk at the offices of Air Malta in Central London. He applied unsuccessfully for a transfer to Heathrow. He quit in September 1995 to go on “a long overseas trip”. That journey took him to terrorist training camps, to the guerrilla war in Kashmir, and to a life as a full-time terrorist.

Edmund Lawson, QC, told the court: “Working as a ticket clerk was his last substantial job. From then on, no social security benefits were sought or received. The plain inference is that someone or some organisation was supporting him financially.”

In 1999 a book written by Barot, titled The Army of Madinah in Kashmir, under the nom de guerre Esa al- Hindi, was published in Britain.

It described his adventures in the jihad but also showed that he was thinking of how to carry out terrorist attacks against the West. He wrote that Muslim nations needed “flank protection” against the West and urged attacks on the soil of “interfering nations”.(Times of London)

correction:
``...with a new `cult` fighting for survival among a host of hostile foes and merely expedient allies,... ``

re. echoboom #63:
``In Islam, the concept of treason is not limited to political and military aspects; it also has a spiritual and cultural dimension to it.``

The reason that Treason is treated as a capital offence is that it endangers the lives of others (with the state, too, representing the interest of others.)

It is quite reasonable to assume that in the context of seventh-century interneciene struggles, with a new `cult` fighting for survival among a host of hostile and merely expedient allies, apostasy represented a threat to the groups survival and was, therefore, punishable by death. (One must also distinguish between adults who CHOOSE a religion, as was the case above, and those merely born into it -- even the dumbest can and should make this distinction!)

Fast-forward to the twentieth century now. The ``spritual and cultural dimensions``, or diversity, you mention no longer pose a threat to the survival of the group. To suggest that opting out (when 99.99% of the time one has not opted in to begin with) amounts to treason is really a lame attempt to obfuscate the matter, as it conflating it (apostasy) with political or militaristic forms of betrayal, which pose a cler and present danger to the group`s very survival.

The good thing is that many of the poorer, ``uneducated`` rural folks here can make this distinction, and don`t really give too much of a $hit about their (mostly)Punjabi brethren converting to Christianity. But its the educated types like the Urstulies that (#59) ``do not see anything morally or legally wrong with this picture.``

This should also nicely answer oak`s contention as to the practical tenability of Islam and any form of secualrism. I think s/he defines secularism loosely as tolerance for all religions - or none! - and the necessary protection of dhimmi rights-- not unlike the necessary protection of minority rights in the West today -- all of which might actually have existed in Muslim Yathrib circa 2 A.H. However, the existence of educated types like Urstruly calls into question whether it is possible today.

Why so many Priests, Pandits, Rabbis, avowed atheist scientists & other formerly dead-against- -Islam people who came to confront it, end up embracing it.

Quite a fascinating reading...an eye-opener for those who here who are ``fighting`` islam today but might end up on this list tomorrow.

Those on the list here belonged to this same category.

`` Whoever ventured near this ladder, has never been able to climb down``...ALLAMA IQBAL.

http://www.islamreligion.com/category/63

When they talk like this it really is a good feeling.

Finally the Imperialists & Exploiting gangsters are realising that there are some others too sharing this planet and that whatever the WEST has learned & done & doing uptill now is nothing but a perpetual crime against humanity.

After all how could their prophets like Darwin, Adams, Marx, and Freud stand the test of time.

Secularism, Liberalism, socialism, communism, capitalism and other ism schisms have been trounced & all such ``education`` which brought nothing but misery to mankind in the 19th and 20th centuries was the renaissance of ``Jahiliyyaa``..the dark-ages of the WEST.

---

Exclusive

If Liberals Win, America’s Islamists Will Have Reasons to Celebrate
Alex Alexiev
Author: Alex Alexiev
Source: The Family Security Foundation, Inc.
Date: November 6, 2006

reply to this interact write a new interact add to favorites flag objectionable content