Islam the Religeon of Peace

PsyOps

Pixelated
Kerad said:
Which terrorists are you referring to?

I ignore all religions equally. The whole "My completely fictitious diety is better than your completely fictitious diety" thing got old a long time ago. Religion is just the excuse some use to force their opinion of "truth" down the throats of everybody else.

What religion do you follow, Psy? Using your posts as a guide, I could have you tagged as an extremist of some sort. Should I consider you an accurate representation of your particular religion?

Extremists of all religions should be treated equally.
Which terrorists am I referring to? Do you even know what thread you've entered here Kerad?

If you started hearing “Allahu Akbar” 5 times a days I challenge you to ignore it.

I am a Christian. It is not my religion, it is my faith. There is a difference. And don’t try that “Christians did it too 900 years ago…” garbage. You can tag me as whatever you want. I don’t go around murdering people (innocent people at that) in the name of my faith. I am in no more support for the extreme elements of the Christian faith than that of Islam. As it stands today, the extreme elements of Islam threaten our culture. It’s them that want to see you dead, not Christians.
 
Last edited:

Mikeinsmd

New Member
AndyMarquisLIVE said:
He's a Tony Stewart fan, enough said.
Yes, that would be 2 time cup champion Tony Stewart.

Tony hates muslims too. :yay:

He starts 3rd Sunday. :yahoo:

Where's your Harvick AV?? :popcorn:

Where's Kevin starting Sunday? 34th?? Oh my. :lmao:
 

Kerad

New Member
PsyOps said:
Which terrorists am I referring to? Do you even know what thread you've entered here Kerad?

Yes. I have entered the "Islam the Religeon of Peace" thread.

If you started hearing “Allahu Akbar” 5 times a days I challenge you to ignore it.

I am forced to endure country music at work every workday...."Allahu Akbar" 5 times a day would be a walk in the park.

I am a Christian. It is not my religion, it is my faith. There is a difference. And don’t try that “Christians did it too 900 years ago…” garbage. You can tag me as whatever you want. I don’t go around murdering people (innocent people at that) in the name of my faith. I am in no more support for the extreme elements of the Christian faith than that of Islam. As it stands today, the extreme elements of Islam threaten our culture. It’s them that want to see you dead, not Christians.

Using your logic, you most certainly do support the extreme elements of Christianity. If all those of Islamic faith support their extremists, certainly all Christians must be on board with theirs. Just as all Christians must agree with your way of thinking. Correct?
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
Kerad said:
I am forced to endure country music at work every workday...."Allahu Akbar" 5 times a day would be a walk in the park.
So, when they play country music in your office it's the context of "This is a reminder of your obligation to adhere to the beliefs and culture of country folks". Gotcha Kerad... :whistle:

Using your logic, you most certainly do support the extreme elements of Christianity. If all those of Islamic faith support their extremists, certainly all Christians must be on board with theirs. Just as all Christians must agree with your way of thinking. Correct?
You are distorting my point in your typical fashion. First of all, the extreme elements of Christianity are not strapping bombs on themselves and walking into pizza resteraunts, or weddings, or busses and blowing up innocent people. They aren't hijacking airplanes and flying them into buildings. But I also condemn such extreme elements of the Christian faith like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. They are not the voice of the Christian faith.

I, by no means, am stating that ALL Muslims are in support of or participating in the violence instigated by the radical Islam. You made a wrong assumption there as well.

To assume that just because I profess to be a Christian that I am a radical or support radical ideals is, in itself, quite extreme. Don't assume for one second that one must have some sort of faith to be beholden to extreme ideals. You can take that however you wish Kerad. :elaine:
 

Midnightrider

Well-Known Member
PsyOps said:
So, when they play country music in your office it's the context of "This is a reminder of your obligation to adhere to the beliefs and culture of country folks". Gotcha Kerad... :whistle:


You are distorting my point in your typical fashion. First of all, the extreme elements of Christianity are not strapping bombs on themselves and walking into pizza resteraunts, or weddings, or busses and blowing up innocent people. They aren't hijacking airplanes and flying them into buildings. But I also condemn such extreme elements of the Christian faith like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. They are not the voice of the Christian faith.

I, by no means, am stating that ALL Muslims are in support of or participating in the violence instigated by the radical Islam. You made a wrong assumption there as well.

To assume that just because I profess to be a Christian that I am a radical or support radical ideals is, in itself, quite extreme. Don't assume for one second that one must have some sort of faith to be beholden to extreme ideals. You can take that however you wish Kerad. :elaine:
So i guess it bothers you when you hear church bells too?
 
R

RadioPatrol

Guest
To The Wacko .........

Who keeps giving Negative karma for cut and paste:

Islam the Religion of P...

02-14-2007 03:09 PM

i thought i told you about your pointless cut and pasting
:bigwhoop:

Did you give it out to Homesick further down the page, or have I just become your Whipping boy, because maybe you don't like my message :lmao:

You Spineless Toad :lalala: :buttkick: :wench:

:popcorn:
 

Kerad

New Member
PsyOps said:
So, when they play country music in your office it's the context of "This is a reminder of your obligation to adhere to the beliefs and culture of country folks". Gotcha Kerad... :whistle:


You are distorting my point in your typical fashion. First of all, the extreme elements of Christianity are not strapping bombs on themselves and walking into pizza resteraunts, or weddings, or busses and blowing up innocent people. They aren't hijacking airplanes and flying them into buildings. But I also condemn such extreme elements of the Christian faith like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. They are not the voice of the Christian faith.

I, by no means, am stating that ALL Muslims are in support of or participating in the violence instigated by the radical Islam. You made a wrong assumption there as well.

To assume that just because I profess to be a Christian that I am a radical or support radical ideals is, in itself, quite extreme. Don't assume for one second that one must have some sort of faith to be beholden to extreme ideals. You can take that however you wish Kerad. :elaine:

You wish you "got me"! :lmao: Nothing in here about "obligations".:
If you started hearing “Allahu Akbar” 5 times a days I challenge you to ignore it.



I never once associated your status as a Christian to being a radical. Using your very own posts as a basis, I had already formed the opinion that you have extremist leanings...long before today.

So, you're now stating that you do not lump all Muslims together as extremists, eh? Okay...good for you. :yay: I'm interested to see how much time passes before you contradict yourself on that one.
 
R

RadioPatrol

Guest
Who's Who - Shia and Sunni

Ripped from the Patriot Post:

http://patriotpost.us/pub/07-07_Digest-print.htm

Friday Digest
PATRIOT PERSPECTIVE
On Sunnis and Shi’ites

After publishing an op-ed entitled “The Real Islam” last summer, I was bombarded by requests to produce a follow-up piece outlining the differences between Sunni and Shi’ite Muslims. Well, here it is, with one caveat: The historical complexities and theological nuances of the 1,400-year-old rift in Islam make the 600-year division between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism, or the contemporary divisions within Protestantism, seem simple by comparison. There is no way a thousand-word essay can say it all. Thus, though I may outline these differences in a nutshell, I’m certain to leave countless other nuts yet to be cracked.

Muslims today make up about one person in four, some 1.4 billion altogether. Of these, nearly 90 percent are Sunni; the remaining 10 percent are primarily Shi’ite. Of the world’s 52 majority-Muslim states, only five are majority Shi’ite: Iran (90 percent), Azerbaijan (80 percent), Bahrain (70 percent), Iraq (66 percent) and Lebanon (50 percent). With minor exceptions, the rest are majority Sunni. These facts notwithstanding, Shi’ite Muslims exert an influence in the Muslim world and beyond that transcends their comparatively meager numbers.

As both friend and foe, Shi’ite Iraq has been a focal point of U.S. foreign policy for at least three decades. Iran’s enormous oil wealth, hard-line theocracy and pursuit of nuclear weapons continue to pose problems for the Middle East and the West. Azerbaijan’s post-Soviet dictatorship not only enjoys enormous oil and natural-gas wealth, but also functions as an unavoidable corridor for oil transport between Russia, Central Asia, Europe and the Middle East. Bahrain hosts a key U.S. naval base and enjoys a reputation as a strong and growing world financial hub. Lebanon, once the Westernized gem of the Middle East, is now plagued by Hizballah and Syrian interference but continues to hold a pivotal role regarding Israeli security and regional democratization. For better or for worse, the Shi’ites cannot be ignored.

Two prevailing issues lend urgency to our understanding of these, the two great sects of Islam. First, as Congressional Quarterly’s Jeff Stein demonstrated in a series of biting reports over the past several years, even the most senior and seasoned U.S. legislative, foreign-policy, intelligence and law-enforcement leaders have next to no understanding of the differences between Sunnis and Shi’ites, what countries are dominated by which sect, or why it matters. Second, as is so readily apparent in Iraq today, Sunnis and Shi’ites have little compunction when it comes to slaughtering each other. This is because each considers the other heretical—that is, outside the oma or community of true Islam.

Across the entire Muslim world, it’s dangerously naive to think that the differences between Sunnism and Shi’ism are all that matter; in fact, it’s far more complicated. Yet given that these differences do matter, what are they?

It is no small detail that the rift between Sunnis and Shi’ites dates to the death of Muhammad, Islam’s founder. Shortly before his own death in 632 AD, Muhammad’s last surviving son, Ibrahim, also died. By this time, Islam was already tightly woven into a religious and political community led by a man who was at once both a religious and political leader. In the absence of an heir apparent, the question of succession—who would lead Islam after Muhammad—quickly engulfed this nascent but powerful Islamic oma.

The term Sunni comes from the Arabic word sunna, which roughly translates as “example,” indicating those who follow the example of Muhammad. Sunnis refer to themselves properly as Ahlus Sunnah wal-Jamaa’h, roughly “the people of the example [of Muhammad] and the community.” The name is meant to connote their own claim as the heirs of “orthodox” Islam and as the majority among competing Muslim sects.

The name was chosen because Sunnis believed themselves to be following the example of Muhammad in several key respects. Muhammad, they say, did not designate a successor or dictate a procedure for selecting one. Also, Muhammad’s claim to prophethood was unique—his successor would be a leader of the community, not another prophet. Finally, what was clear was that Islam should remain united under one individual—a leader of the oma, a military commander and the final arbiter of disputes within the community and interpreter of its law. Implicit in these assertions was the belief that Islam’s leader need not come from a particular family, clan or tribe.

Consequently, Abu Bakr, one of Muhammad’s inner circle and among the first converts to the new religion, became Islam’s first leader, or caliph. Serving as caliph from 632 to his death two years later, Abu Bakr was the first of whom Sunnis recognized as the four “Rightly Guided Caliphs.” Before his death, Abu Bakr named another of Muhammad’s inner circle, Umar, as his successor. Umar ruled as caliph to his death in 644, during which time he created a sort of electoral college to choose future successors. This group chose Uthman as Islam’s third caliph (644-656), followed by Ali, Muhammad’s son-in-law and cousin, who held the title until his death in 661. The caliphate continued after Ali but was marked by increasing political disunity and corruption through several dynasties, causing Muslims to look back on the era of its first four caliphs as the “Golden Age” of Islam.

Golden to the Sunnis, that is. The Shi’ite minority, by contrast, considered Ali as the rightful heir of Islam, designated as such by Muhammad himself. The intervening three leaders—Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman—were, therefore, illegitimate. They stole Ali’s position from him, Shi’ites say, despite all three having been present when Muhammad allegedly designated Ali as his successor at the oasis of Ghadir al-Khumm.

For the Shi’ites, Ali was no mere caliph; to them, he enjoyed a similar—but not identical—prophetic status as Muhammad before him. Whereas Muhammad received revelation from Allah (wayh), Ali and his successors received divine inspiration (ilham) allowing them to guide and judge Islam sinlessly, both spiritually and politically. Thus, for Shi’ites—also called Shi’a Ali, the “party of Ali” —Ali is the first imam, the leader of the oma descended from Muhammad. To them, the Imamate, not the Caliphate, is the rightful ruler of Islam.

In 874, Muhammad al-Qa’im became the twelfth imam at the age of six, and the end of Muhammad’s line. Shi’ites claim that for the next 67 years he existed in a state of “lesser occultation,” where he was directly accessible to his followers, followed by an inaccessible “greater occultation” which will continue until the Last Days. When this “Hidden Imam” is again revealed, he will initiate an apocalyptic struggle against the foes of Islam, hailing the end of the world. In the meantime, the rule of Islam resides in the ayatollahs, the “sign of Allah,” who act in the name of the Hidden Imam.

In the lead up to the 1979 Iranian revolution, the Ayatollah Khomeini never directly claimed to be this Hidden Imam, but his followers propagated the idea in order to legitimize Khomeini’s claim against the secular government of the pro-Western Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, Shah of Iran, and to consolidate power after the Shah’s exile. Today, Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadi-Nejad purports to be making preparations for the Imam’s second coming, which he believes to be close at hand. While Ahmadi-Nejad is doubtless a true believer, this claim may be intended to buttress the hard-line theocracy’s often-tenuous rule in Iran, as well as helping mobilize fellow Shi’ites across the border in Iraq.

There, Shi’ite-Sunni relations will be at the heart of conciliation or disintegration—whichever may occur. Indeed, religious, ethnic and tribal divides define four conflicts being simultaneously waged in Iraq today: Shi’ite on Shi’ite violence in the south; Shi’ite-Sunni sectarian violence in Baghdad; Ba’athist-inspired violence against the government; and al-Qa’ida/jihadist violence against anti-Western Shi’ites and the pro-U.S., Shi’ite-dominated government.

While religious violence is not the exclusive cause of the violence in Iraq, without it the conflict would be greatly simplified and far more manageable. As it is, working to quell one of Iraq’s conflicts often has the result of inflaming another.

It may be an oversimplification to say so, but a Vatican II-styled resolution between Sunnis and Shi’ites may be just what the Muslim world—and the rest of the world—needs most.


Oh and the Person who is going to hand out the -Karma for more Cut and past :lalala:

I hope I am really Annoying the Crap Out of You !!!!!
 
R

RadioPatrol

Guest
Nucklesack said:
Or it could be he was talking about the Masses of Muslims?

what does the bible state about un-believers?

They are doom to Eternal Separation From God ....... not that we should kill them ..............

:popcorn:
 

Bustem' Down

Give Peas a Chance
PsyOps said:
If you started hearing “Allahu Akbar” 5 times a days I challenge you to ignore it.
I ignore my Mormon family, and any other Christians incesently trying to save my soul pretty effectivly, so this will not really be a problem.
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
Nucklesack said:
Or it could be he was talking about the Masses of Muslims?

what does the bible state about un-believers?
I'm not even going to waste my time with that.
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
Bustem' Down said:
I ignore my Mormon family, and any other Christians incesently trying to save my soul pretty effectivly, so this will not really be a problem.
yeah... sure it wouldn't. I'll get the Imams down your way to install the speakers this weekend.
 

Bustem' Down

Give Peas a Chance
PsyOps said:
yeah... sure it wouldn't. I'll get the Imams down your way to install the speakers this weekend.
I've been to the mid East, I know what it's about. I'm just not going to :jameo: oover the latest "Red Scare" fad.
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
Bustem' Down said:
I ignore my Mormon family, and any other Christians incesently trying to save my soul pretty effectivly, so this will not really be a problem.
You know what gets me about you lefties... You get your panties all in a rage when Christians want to put up Merry Christmas and Nativities; then when something like this comes along you start rationalizing.
 

Bustem' Down

Give Peas a Chance
PsyOps said:
You know what gets me about you lefties... You get your panties all in a rage when Christians want to put up Merry Christmas and Nativities; then when something like this comes along you start rationalizing.
A) I'm not a lefty, I lean more right.
B) I don't care if they Paint Merry Christmas across the Capital building.
C) I base my information and argument from real life expirence and not from biased articles on the Al Gore invented internet.
 

Kerad

New Member
PsyOps said:
You know what gets me about you lefties... You get your panties all in a rage when Christians want to put up Merry Christmas and Nativities; then when something like this comes along you start rationalizing.

There ya go again....

You know what gets me about you righties? Knocking on my freakin' door on Saturday mornings wanting to speak to me about Jesus. Why do you do that, Psy?
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
Nucklesack said:
Paint with a broad brush much?

Religious symbols at a government facility, unless they are going to represent all religions, then No-No for all faiths.

Religious symbols at private facility, who cares.

show where i've posted differently
What? Where did I say anything about symbols at a government facility? WalMart (a PRIVATE company) was pressureed into removing any indication of Christmas at the pressure of groups like the ACLU. People in their homes displayed the Nativity on their front lawns were forced to remove them (this was happening all over the country). A Festival run by a private company wanted to show the preview of the movie "The Nativity" was sued not to air it on their screens (they eventually showed it anyway). So you tell me who cares.

But, given your rationale that government facilities can't erect religious symbols then I would assume this also means if you air "Allahu Akbar" across the town and can be heard on government property they must shut it down. I mean, painting this with my broad brush, that is. :bigwhoop:
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
Nucklesack said:
And an Example, for the All Religion or None stance, is the "outrage" that was shown during the Ellison swearing in. Because he didnt want to swear on a Bible and instead he wanted to swear in on his holy book.

The religious intolerance shown, by many posters on here, and elsewhere, with varied excuses, was a perfect example of not honoring anothers faith because its not your own. if you cant honor Muslim/Jewish/Christian/Hindu/Scientologist(look at the crap given about them on this board)/etc. then you shouldnt Honor any of them.
First of all your interpretation of this is incorrect. The argument was based on tradition not religion. Nevertheless, I agreed with Ellison that he should swear on this book of faith and not the bible.
 
Top