Students for Sensible Drug Policy

[ Boardview ]   [ Threadview ]   [ Quickview ]   [ Topics ]   [ Help ]

Should Islam be blamed for 'barbaric' acts?

Torog Premier Member Registered on Feb-22-2000 More User Info Message #113191 posted by Torog (Info) March 10, 2008 16:15:34 ET http://www.atimes.com Should Islam be blamed for 'barbaric' acts? By Spengler Al-Jazeera television on March 9 apologized to viewers after a talk-show guest, Syrian-American psychologist Dr Wafa Sultan, described as "barbaric" the response of Muslims to a Danish newspaper's cartoons about the Prophet Mohammed. "The Muslims' barbaric reaction added to the value of these cartoons. It simply proved their rightness," said Dr Sultan on the Qatari network. "The Muslim is an irrational creature, and the things he learned overpower his mind and inflame his feelings. That is why these remarks have turned him into an inferior creature, who cannot control himself and respond to events in a rational way." Despite the network’s hasty apology, Dr Sultan’s presence on the show is a sign of the times. The issue of Muslim "barbarism", including honor killings and other forms of violence against women, has risen in prominence in Europe's political agenda. The question appears to be: Do Muslims commit barbaric acts because they are bad Muslims or because they are good Muslims? Does Islam as such promote barbarism or suppress it? Within the vast collection of hadith, or apocryphal sayings of Mohammed, are to be found explicit support for female genital mutilation and wife-beating. Are such barbaric acts a residue of traditional society that persist despite Islam, or because of it? I shall argue that this is the wrong question, for Islam by its nature cannot be separated from primitive life. Many Muslims protest that Islamic law does not sanction honor killings, and that other ethnic groups (eg, Hindus and Sikhs in Britain) are guilty of the practice. Honor killings are a repulsive aspect of traditional society. We first hear of such an act in Genesis 34, when after Jacob’s daughter Dinah was seduced by a man of Shechem, after which his sons Simeon and Levi instigated the slaughter of the town’s men. But Jacob denounced the act and still reproached his sons for it from his deathbed. The Hebrew Bible reports the practice of honor killing, but abhors it. Muslims remain divided on the subject. Strictly speaking, it is true that Islamic law forbids a Muslim family from killing an adulteress or a woman who has had relations with a non-Muslim man. But that is only because Islamic law specifies that Islamic courts, rather than families, should supervise the killing. It is not that women (and sometimes men) should not be killed for the crime of illicit sexual relations, but rather that the Islamic courts should arrange the killing. For this reason, Islamic law views quite leniently honor killings that accomplish what the courts would have done given the opportunity, and many Islamic commentators do not see why families should wait for the courts at all. Until recently, Jordan gave "honor" killers sentences of as little as six months under Article 340 of the Jordan Penal Code, which stated: "Anyone catching his wife or one of his immediate family in a flagrant act of fornication with another person, and kills, injures or harms both or either of them, will benefit from the exculpating excuse ..." Jordan's King Abdullah succeeded in revising this language, but as the Associated Press reported last year, "attempts to introduce harsher sentences for honor killings have been blocked in Jordan's parliament, where the predominantly conservative Bedouin lawmakers argue that lesser penalties [than honor killings] would lead to tolerating of promiscuity." Islamic clerics, to be sure, tend to favor the idea that they rather than families should do the killing. According to a traditional ruling cited by Dr Mohammed Fadel and frequently posted on Islamic sites, The prohibition against applying a legal penalty without legal authority (bi ghayri sultan) and without witnesses; cutting off the means to shedding the blood of a Muslim based merely upon the claim of his accuser, the one seeking the shedding of the accused's blood. [In this case] the truth of the claim would be known only by [the accuser's] own statement and Allah, may He be glorified and sanctified, has made the life of a Muslim a precious thing, and has made the sin in taking it great as well. Therefore, it [legal punishment] is permissible only under the conditions in which Allah has permitted it. [Application of legal punishments] is exclusively for the government so that it may apply that which Allah has commanded in His book or on the tongue of His Prophet. There is no question that flogging and execution of adulterers is mandated by the Koran (eg, Sudra 4:15). As I observed in another context, this point is so clear in Islamic law that Professor Tariq Ramadan refused to condemn the practice in a televised debate with then French Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy. All Islamic commentary on the subject, though, applies to the behavior of Muslims in a country under Islamic rule in which the only only law is Islamic law. If no Islamic courts are available, what should an individual Muslim do? Is it then permissible to take the law into one's own hands? We have no clear record of Islamic jurisprudence on the subject, for only in recent years have large numbers of Muslims come to live in non-Muslim countries. But the reticence of Islamic clergy in the West to denounce honor killings is noteworthy. Western apologists for Islam who attempt to distinguish between the religion and primitive practices constantly stub their toes against Muslim authorities who insist that honor killing, genital mutilation, and stoning of adulterers is mandated by Islam. The death penalty for adultery is typical of primitive society (it is of course found in the Hebrew Bible), but extremely rare in the Jewish Commonwealth during the historical era. In Hillel's time, a generation before Jesus, the saying was that a court that handed down one death sentence in a century was considered a hanging court. Jesus' mercy towards the adulteress reflected a wide body of Second-Temple opinion. The crucial issue is why the practices of primitive society perdure in the Islamic world while they have been eliminated in the Judeo-Christian world. The practice of genital mutilation, surely one of the most barbaric customs in the world, is still defended by Islamic clergy. The website Islam Online has the following to say on the subject: Before delving deep into the question of female circumcision, we would like to make it clear that 'female circumcision' means removing the prepuce of the clitoris, not the clitoris itself. As for the Shariah stance on female circumcision, it’s a controversial issue among the Muslim scholars and even doctors. In response to the question, the eminent Muslim scholar, Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, states: Actually, this is a controversial issue among jurists and even among doctors. It has sparked off fierce debate in Egypt whereby scholars and doctors are split into proponents and opponents. However, the most moderate opinion and the most likely one to be correct is in favor of practicing circumcision in the moderate Islamic way indicated in some of the Prophet's hadiths - even though such hadiths are not confirmed to be authentic. It is reported that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said to a midwife: 'Reduce the size of the clitoris but do not exceed the limit, for that is better for her health and is preferred by husbands.' The hadith indicates that circumcision is better for a woman's health and it enhances her conjugal relation with her husband. It’s noteworthy that the Prophet's saying 'do not exceed the limit' means do not totally remove the clitoris. And Livingislam.org defends wife-beating as follows: The basic rule (asl) is strict prohibition, followed by dispensation (rukhsa) as explicited by the Prophet in the hadith below, which al-Shafi`i took for his evidence in his ruling: The Prophet said: 'Do not hit the maidservants of Allah!' (la tadribu ima' Allah). Then Umar (RA) came to the Prophet and said [NB: by way of exaggeration, cf Awn al-Ma bud]: 'The women are rebelling (dha'irna) against their husbands!' So the Prophet gave a dispensation (rakhkhasa) to beat them. Not all Islamic countries practice female genital mutilation, to be sure, and some non-Islamic African countries do so. The custom is neither universal in Islam nor unique to it. Nonetheless, the ubiquity of traditional practices that the civilized world long has repudiated underscores the fundamental difference between Islam on one hand, and Judaism and Christianity on the other. No Christian court has condemned a woman to death for adultery; although the death penalty for adultery is found in the Book of Leviticus, there is no record of such a sentence by any Jewish court. Although elements of traditional practice are found in ancient Jewish law, the entire purpose of the Jewish code is to separate Israel from the pagan practices of its neighbors. "Holiness" in Hebrew shares a root with the word for separation. The practices of traditional society throughout the Hebrew Bible are regarded as an abomination. By electing Israel, God removes it from the traditional world. Christianity rejects traditional society all the more emphatically. To become a Christian, every individual must repudiate ethnicity and be reborn into a spiritualized Israel. The reborn Christian belongs not to a tribe, but to the people of God. Franz Rosenzweig, the great German-Jewish theologian, qualified Islam as a parody of revealed religion. On the surface Islam mimics Jewish more than Christian practice; Muslims pray five times a day while the Jews pray three times, males are circumcised, a similar dietary code prevails, and so forth. But the inability of Islam to rid itself of the most barbaric practices of the primitive world at the beginning of the 21st century is a hallmark of a parody. The resemblances are strictly on the surface. The primitive world persists in Islam under the Abrahamic veneer, because the religion never offered a challenge to it. A small people to repudiate the practices of the pagan world, but a religion that absorbs countless peoples by conquest must accept them with their customs more or less intact. In another respect, Islam parodies Christianity. Unlike Judaism, which seeks to separate Israel from the traditional practices of the surrounding peoples, Christianity proposes to incorporate all of humanity into the new People of God, by effecting an inner transformation of every individual. By this transformation, Christians believe, all of humanity can become holy. Islam offers a universal religion not of inner transformation but of obedience. Precisely this form of surface universalism ensures that Muslims carry the baggage of traditional life into the new religion, for it offers no point of departure from traditional society. For this reason it is meaningless to ask whether Islam opposes or promotes the practices of traditional society, for its method of expansion is to absorb whole the societies within its power. As a universal religion, it can only universalize the aspirations of the tribes it assimilates, rather than transform them. At its worst, Christianity makes compromises with the pagan heritage of its converts, which is why Sicilian Catholics killed for honor until recently; at its best, Islam embodies this pagan heritage, which is why it cannot rid itself of barbarism today. For more extensive discussion, I refer the reader to my essay Christian, Muslim, Jew in the October 2007 issue of First Things.

Re: Should Islam be blamed for 'barbaric' acts?

forged registration Registered on Dec-17-2005 More User Info Message #113194 posted by forged registration (Info) March 10, 2008 17:03:18 ET In Reply to: Should Islam be blamed for 'barbaric' acts? posted by Torog (Info) March 10, 2008 16:15:34 ET i don't think islam is inherently primitive/barbaric...i think societies are primitive/barbaric...muslims perform enlightened acts of great kindness just as easily as christians perform barbaric acts of great cruelty...western christians benefited from secular advances like the industrial revolution, international trade, capitalism, political freedoms, and technology...if it wasn't for those social developments christians might still be burning witches and holding spanish inquisitions and executing people for revenge oops! christians are still working on that last one...

Re: Should Islam be blamed for 'barbaric' acts?

Torog Premier Member Registered on Feb-22-2000 More User Info Message #113201 posted by Torog (Info) March 11, 2008 03:42:40 ET In Reply to: Re: Should Islam be blamed for 'barbaric' acts? posted by forged registration (Info) March 10, 2008 17:03:18 ET Howdy FR, So if I type into Google,"great acts of kindness performed by muslims",I'll git like a bazillion hits or what ? Also-are you really claiming that only seculars contributed to science ? I believe that yer wrong about that,that many Christians contributed to science and the advancement of Man-as well as many Jews. Christians have evolved with the times and do not,for the most part,no longer commit barbaric acts..Islam is not evolving for the most part,and is highly resistant to evolving from what I can see. Saudia did recently allow women to drive there,but that ain't much progress as far stopping barbaric acts of violence based on Islamic scripture and principles. Have a good one ...

View 113201.jpg

Re: Should Islam be blamed for 'barbaric' acts?

Elijah Mohammad Registered on Oct-14-2005 More User Info Message #113202 posted by Elijah Mohammad (Info) March 11, 2008 04:49:05 ET In Reply to: Re: Should Islam be blamed for 'barbaric' acts? posted by Torog (Info) March 11, 2008 03:42:40 ET Hmmm, interesting....then, according to you, Torog, dropping explosives killing thousands of innocent people every year is not a barbaric act of violence? Killing millions of babies every year by cutting them up, butchering them in their mom's wombs is not barbaric violence? Having national addictions to Porn and Hookers that destroys the lives of countless people daily is not barbaric? Beating innocent men's genitalia, and humiliating them taking naked pictures, and leading them to believe they will be sodomised is not Barbaric violence? Tolerating and even encouraging actual Sodomy in Prisons every day is not barbaric violence? Tearing apart families, and destroying lives over a plant is not barbaric violence? What about depleted uranium wastelands created in entire countries, destroying their health, land, and futures? That is not an act of Barbaric violence? How far does it have to go Torog? Because I know Muslims....even the fake ones, have not gone so far as these things, which are done in "Christian", and "Civilized" lands....and I'm not even being exhaustive with my list here.

Re: Should Islam be blamed for 'barbaric' acts?

LeftyToker Registered on Jan-21-2003 More User Info Message #113205 posted by LeftyToker (Info) March 11, 2008 09:06:00 ET In Reply to: Re: Should Islam be blamed for 'barbaric' acts? posted by Elijah Mohammad (Info) March 11, 2008 04:49:05 ET . ..Right On EJ... . ....I feel kinda sorry for poor ol' Torog. ..you hammerred him with numerous stout and proper blows. .You administered a sound trouncing! ..You delivered a relentless drubbing! .. ...bottom line: ....He deserved it)?( . ..¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬ ¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬ ..on an unrelated topic, ,,I was thinking you might consider changing your nom de plume,(pen name), to "HydroHammad" as a symbol of acceptance between the former YOU, and the now YOU. ..(forgive me if you found that offensive). ..I remember when I met you. ...you are still yourself)?( ¶∂…π¶©π…ª•¶˙˜π…ª•≈≈敶 .. ..............mmm.

the devolution of christianity

forged registration Registered on Dec-17-2005 More User Info Message #113206 posted by forged registration (Info) March 11, 2008 14:53:47 ET In Reply to: Re: Should Islam be blamed for 'barbaric' acts? posted by Torog (Info) March 11, 2008 03:42:40 ET charity is one of the five pillars of islam, and muslims are required to contribute 10% of their income to religious and secular charities...if you try to google muslims philanthropy you're more likely to get paranoid right wing american propaganda about how islam is the wellspring of all evil and responsible for 98.6% of all conflicts in the world today...that is because less scrupulous christians have the home turf advantage, and a couple hundred years head start on technology, and they're not afraid to bear false witness against a competing religion like muslims, christians can be extremely decent people, but they are not immune to barbarism as you suggest...if you asked some good muslims, they might tell you that western christians are barbaric in the way they treat women (as sexual objects, punching bags, and workhorses), the way they treat eachother (with multilevel marketing scams and guns violence), the way they treat themselves (with drug addiction, street crime, obesity, and pollution), and the way they treat their neighbours (with predatory capitalism, threats, and bombs) i could pull up dozens of articles about barbaric christians in america and around the world and you would dismiss them all, but you freak out if a university in new york builds a footbath to accomodate its muslim students...neither christianity or islam are perfect, but christianity hasn't evolved as far as you think...you can't even follow jesus christ's basic rules about love and forgiveness: perhaps christians would be a lot more peaceful today if they hadn't 'evolved' away from christ

Re: the devolution of christianity

jon104 Registered on Dec-15-2005 More User Info Message #113221 posted by jon104 (Info) March 11, 2008 18:08:19 ET In Reply to: the devolution of christianity posted by forged registration (Info) March 11, 2008 14:53:47 ET So much for love thy neighbor, oh well love his wife too and call that the Muslims fault!

Re: Should Islam be blamed for 'barbaric' acts?

Torog Premier Member Registered on Feb-22-2000 More User Info Message #113228 posted by Torog (Info) March 12, 2008 05:32:23 ET In Reply to: Re: Should Islam be blamed for 'barbaric' acts? posted by Elijah Mohammad (Info) March 11, 2008 04:49:05 ET Howdy Elijah, "According to me.." ? Of course dropping bombs on people is somewhat barbaric,such is the nature of war..have you forgotten that we were attacked by an extremely barbaric,act of war ? I don't see America defending herself against an extremely barbaric enemy-as being barbaric..it is what it is-self-defense. Just because America identifies it's self as Christian,does not mean that the Christians are responsible for every barbaric act commited in our country-most Christians are opposed to abortion for example,and porn and sodomy and everything that you listed. Just a couple of days ago,another torture room was found and I believe,a mass grave..why are such things so commonly found around muslims ? I believe that you 'doth protest too much",because yer in denial about the extensively documented and fresh,cases of barbarism committed by muslims everyday around the world against non-muslims and muslims alike. I posted this article,not to offend you or come up with more reasons to slam muslims,but to engage in honest discussion about the numerous acts of barbarism done in the name of Allah and mohammed and Islam. Will Islam reform it's self or will we still be hearing of barbaric acts committed by muslims,in the year 3008,if humanity is still alive then ? Will torture,genital mutilation,honor killings,stonings,beheadings,still be an accepted practice for muslims ? Just a few months ago,even here in Texas,a suspected honor killing was done by a muslim father of his teenage daughter..is such- one of the 'gifts' that Islam brings ? The path of peaceful jihad,is alive and well in Indiana,where a second muslim was elected to Congress..if those districts manage to bring sharia laws or wahhabism to the area,will you move there ? You do realize that if you decided to leave America and move to someplace like Saudia,that you would have to decide which sect yer loyal to-or else risk being declared an infidel,by yer fellow muslims and be subject to a barbaric act of violence ? I can walk into any Christian church and be accepted and never worry for a moment,that I or my family,would be at risk for physical harm..can you say the same about Islam ? I feel like I and my fellow roughnecks,were lucky to git out of Saudia with our lives and it's a wonder that they didn't throw us in prison - just for being Christian - we dang sure couldn't bring our Bibles with us,lest we be charged with prosetlyzation-which carries a penalty of death by stoning or beheading..how barbaric is that ? Have good one ...

Re: Should Islam be blamed for 'barbaric' acts?

1rekoptoms Registered on Mar-09-2008 More User Info Message #113232 posted by 1rekoptoms (Info) March 12, 2008 08:55:19 ET In Reply to: Re: Should Islam be blamed for 'barbaric' acts? posted by Torog (Info) March 12, 2008 05:32:23 ET GREAT DEBATE ALL. I,m not intellectual enough to spar with anyone on here so I'll keep it real simple. If I had to follow a religion that would have me killing my own daughter for ANY reason I would have to commit suicide first. I don't want to get into this but that is Barbaric in the simplest terms. "I'll follow NO man, or god any further than my heart tells me to." DAMN the consequences. BTW I'm Agnostic. I'm gonna shut-up now and let you real intellects have the floor, and thank you for this mornings back & forth. Sorry sometimes I just don't know when to keep my nose out of it.

Re: Should Islam be blamed for 'barbaric' acts?

LeftyToker Registered on Jan-21-2003 More User Info Message #113234 posted by LeftyToker (Info) March 12, 2008 13:57:09 ET In Reply to: Re: Should Islam be blamed for 'barbaric' acts? posted by 1rekoptoms (Info) March 12, 2008 08:55:19 ET "If I had to follow a religion that would have me killing my own daughter for ANY reason I would have to commit suicide first. I don't want to get into this but that is Barbaric in the simplest terms. "I'll follow NO man, or god any further than my heart tells me to." DAMN the consequences." ....Well said 1rekoptoms... "GREAT DEBATE ALL. I,m not intellectual enough to spar with anyone on here so I'll keep it real simple." BTW I'm Agnostic. I'm gonna shut-up now and let you real intellects have the floor, and thank you for this mornings back & forth. Sorry sometimes I just don't know when to keep my nose out of it. " ...1rekoptoms,,no one here is an intellectual!)?( ..this is a place where anyone can speak their mind. ...It dont matter who you are, or what your viewpoint is. ....I like your comments, and I welcome you to join in anytime you got something to say. ..This is not some exclusive clique, or group, we just give our opinions. We debate, argue, agree,etc. ..sometimes things get a bit rude, or insulting...people get angry...etc. . ..Dont be shy. Your opinion matters as much as anyone else. We aint intellectuals, we're just people. Omnnn

Re: Should Islam be blamed for 'barbaric' acts?

1rekoptoms Registered on Mar-09-2008 More User Info Message #113235 posted by 1rekoptoms (Info) March 12, 2008 14:51:24 ET In Reply to: Re: Should Islam be blamed for 'barbaric' acts? posted by LeftyToker (Info) March 12, 2008 13:57:09 ET Thanks Lefty. Appreciate the kind words and invite and will chime from time to time but mostly reading and enjoying . You too Torog . PEACE

Re: Should Islam be blamed for 'barbaric' acts?

1rekoptoms Registered on Mar-09-2008 More User Info Message #113236 posted by 1rekoptoms (Info) March 12, 2008 14:56:32 ET In Reply to: Re: Should Islam be blamed for 'barbaric' acts? posted by 1rekoptoms (Info) March 12, 2008 14:51:24 ET Just wanted to add that I also have been enjoying Elijah, and forged registrations views as well . I like that we can agree , disagree , spar and all that and still be civil towards one another. PEACE

Re: Should Islam be blamed for 'barbaric' acts?

Marijuanadrugsex Registered on Feb-25-2006 More User Info Message #113237 posted by Marijuanadrugsex (Info) March 12, 2008 15:12:22 ET In Reply to: Re: Should Islam be blamed for 'barbaric' acts? posted by 1rekoptoms (Info) March 12, 2008 14:56:32 ET If you guys would just tell the truth as much as you lie

religious nuttery is not confined to islam

forged registration Registered on Dec-17-2005 More User Info Message #113238 posted by forged registration (Info) March 12, 2008 15:30:15 ET In Reply to: Re: Should Islam be blamed for 'barbaric' acts? posted by Torog (Info) March 12, 2008 05:32:23 ET muslims are persecuted in north america, europe, australia, and asia...they are persecuted by christians, hindus, buddhists...how barbaric is that?

Torog

Elijah Mohammad Registered on Oct-14-2005 More User Info Message #113242 posted by Elijah Mohammad (Info) March 12, 2008 16:42:31 ET In Reply to: Re: Should Islam be blamed for 'barbaric' acts? posted by Torog (Info) March 12, 2008 05:32:23 ET Before I begin answering your questions and addressing your points, Torog, I would like to ask a very important question.....the title of this post is "Should Islam be blamed for 'barbaric' acts." Well, maybe two questions...the first being... 1. What is your definition of Islam, and why should we all agree to such a definition? 2. What "barbaric acts" are there that are being committed anywhere that are supported by the Quran? (Please give chapter and verses) On to your points..... "Howdy Elijah, "According to me.." ? Of course dropping bombs on people is somewhat barbaric,such is the nature of war..have you forgotten that we were attacked by an extremely barbaric,act of war ? I don't see America defending herself against an extremely barbaric enemy-as being barbaric..it is what it is-self-defense." Hmmmm, I thought self defense is when you kill only guilty people who are trying to harm you or others. Bombing routinely kills innocent people. So, then, is it your position that killing innocent people along with the guilty is a right thing to do, or acceptable? This is the idea that seems to come across to me from your posts over and over and over, and I would like a clear yes or no answer if at all possible, so that we know where we both stand. My answer to my own question is "NO." It is never right for a human being to kill innocent human beings along with the guilty, no matter what the justification. It is never right to use methods of going after the guilty that are very dangerous to innocent people in their vicinity. The only justification anyone ever comes up with is so that we can save lives of our own soldiers by bombing from miles away from the danger. How is it justifiable to accept the risk and strong probability of killing innocent people to get to the guilty, simply to preserve your own life? I thought that the point of being a soldier is that you could easily die defending others? If soldiers are no longer willing to die to save innocent people, then what's the point of the occupation??? Other than to bully innocent people around, and take resources by force? "Just because America identifies it's self as Christian,does not mean that the Christians are responsible for every barbaric act commited in our country-most Christians are opposed to abortion for example,and porn and sodomy and everything that you listed." I could give that same answer about Muslims in Muslim lands, Torog. Abominations like those committed of which we are speaking are opposed by true Muslims. They are also opposed by true Christians. If America is a Christian nation, then how can this be? The majority of people in America self-identify as Christians....yet, they continue allowing these atrocities....why? Is there something in the Bible, or in the other religious writings of Americans that instructs that these abominations are good or permissible? I know that in the Muslim lands, a lot of their unjust and brutal laws are because of Hadiths that they believe in. The Quran speaks against Hadiths which go against its message. I can see how the Muslims can stray, because of the promotion of false Hadiths as scripture.....how do Christians go astray based on their scriptures? I could tell you, but that would ruin the independent thought of your own answer. Every group, almost uniformly, goes astray based on one thing....extra-scriptural traditions of men, which end up superseding, and taking the place of the scriptures....such as the Talmud and Kabballah for Jews, the Hadith and Sunnah for Muslims, and the denominational doctrines, and non-Christian Greco-Roman political ideologies of Christians. If all these people would simply have stuck to the scriptures, the Word of God, throuhout history, there would be far less evil in the world today....the fact is, they haven't. They always go with the traditions of men...this was Jesus's main beef with the politico-religious authorities of his day....and he claimed that those kinds of people would not change, and would be here until God wipes them out with his judgement, and would deceive the majority of people. "Just a couple of days ago,another torture room was found and I believe,a mass grave..why are such things so commonly found around muslims ?" Which Muslims are you speaking of here? If you are speaking of those who follow corrupt Hadith, then that is the reason...if you are talking about Saddam Hussein's regime, the answer is a little different. Saddam Hussein was a 33rd degree Freemason....the Freemasons have a long history that goes back to evil Pagans who called themselves Christian....the Knight's Templar. Saddam was a Western puppet who was used as a fall guy. Of course he did evil things...he did not believe in Scriptures (neither Quran, nor Bible)....he believed in the traditions of men. And it is not just Muslims they find these evil things around, it is Christians, Jews, Hindus, Pagans, and Atheists as well. The reason is still the same...rejection of the Prophets and Scriptures (the Word of God) in preference for the traditions of men. "I believe that yo'doth protest too much",because yer in denial about the extensively documented and fresh,cases of barbarism committed by muslims everyday around the world against non-muslims and muslims alike." Not really, I just think Atheists, people who call themselves Christians, and Pagans are responsible for more atrocities than people who call themselves Muslims. In any case, I do not believe that true Christians or true Muslims are responsible for these atrocities at all. People following the traditions of men are. "I posted this article,not to offend you or come up with more reasons to slam muslims,but to engage in honest discussion about the numerous acts of barbarism done in the name of Allah and mohammed and Islam. Will Islam reform it's self or will we still be hearing of barbaric acts committed by muslims,in the year 3008,if humanity is still alive then ? Will torture,genital mutilation,honor killings,stonings,beheadings,still be an accepted practice for muslims ?" They are not presently, for true Muslims...just as abortion, warmongering, and sodomy are not for true Christians. "Just a few months ago,even here in Texas,a suspected honor killing was done by a muslim father of his teenage daughter..is such- one of the 'gifts' that Islam brings ?" Very sad. He was not a Muslim. The Quran says 50-100 stripes of a beating is for fornicators and adulterers, not killing....and that, only at the testimony of 2-4 witnesses at least. "The path of peaceful jihad,is alive and well in Indiana,where a second muslim was elected to Congress..if those districts manage to bring sharia laws or wahhabism to the area,will you move there ?" No, as I am against the corruptions present in many Hadith. If they were bringing Quran laws only, then, I would move there. "You do realize that if you decided to leave America and move to someplace like Saudia,that you would have to decide which sect yer loyal to-or else risk being declared an infidel,by yer fellow muslims and be subject to a barbaric act of violence ?" No, I don't realize this. Show me proof. "I can walk into any Christian church and be accepted and never worry for a moment,that I or my family,would be at risk for physical harm..can you say the same about Islam ?" I cannot say the same about any place or sect of any religion....including Christianity. Walk into a KKK gathering (they call themselves a Christian church) with a Black or Jewish person, and then repeat your statement there for me. Oh, wait, you can't...no Black or Jewish person in their right mind would walk into a KKK church...Also, what about the many Catholic priests who are child molesters? I would not feel comfortable bringing my child into a Catholic Church....I would worry that he would be at risk of physical harm by the priests because of their religion, where they forbid priests to marry (which the Bible says not to do), and encourage homosexuals into priesthood. But that is their TRADITION OF MEN, once more, not the Scriptures that are the problem here. It is the same with every other religion with the Word of God....I will repeat it again and again....people are corrupted, and do religiously motivated evil only because of the religious TRADITIONS OF MEN, not the Word of God in the Scriptures. "I feel like I and my fellow roughnecks,were lucky to git out of Saudia with our lives and it's a wonder that they didn't throw us in prison - just for being Christian - we dang sure couldn't bring our Bibles with us,lest we be charged with prosetlyzation-which carries a penalty of death by stoning or beheading..how barbaric is that ?" I would think they would be more likely to want to kill you because of the long history of people calling themselves Christians, and of Westerners trying to conquer them, and oppress them. Maybe you will thank them for their position if you find that you held an incorrect doctrine at such a point in your life, and were forbidden to mislead others in it...because the Bible agrees with the Quran that those who mislead others into error will face a harsher punishment than those who were simply in error themselves, but did not bring others to join them in it. However, once again, I will remind you, it is not the Quran that instigates killing proselytizers, it is the TRADITIONS OF MEN....which the Roman catholics also held.

Re: Torog

forged registration Registered on Dec-17-2005 More User Info Message #113245 posted by forged registration (Info) March 12, 2008 18:47:46 ET In Reply to: Torog posted by Elijah Mohammad (Info) March 12, 2008 16:42:31 ET good stuff elijah, except that i would add that every iraqi killed by the usa is technically innocent because the invasion was in violation of international law, and iraq did not pose any threat to the usa or its allies that doesn't mean US soldiers shouldn't defend themselves from attack, or that all US soldiers deserve to be attacked...they shouldn't have invaded in the first place, they shouldn't have stayed, and they shouldn't have built over a dozen permanent military bases crazy old world...

Re: Torog

Elijah Mohammad Registered on Oct-14-2005 More User Info Message #113248 posted by Elijah Mohammad (Info) March 13, 2008 01:46:37 ET In Reply to: Re: Torog posted by forged registration (Info) March 12, 2008 18:47:46 ET "good stuff elijah, except that i would add that every iraqi killed by the usa is technically innocent because the invasion was in violation of international law, and iraq did not pose any threat to the usa or its allies that doesn't mean US soldiers shouldn't defend themselves from attack, or that all US soldiers deserve to be attacked...they shouldn't have invaded in the first place, they shouldn't have stayed, and they shouldn't have built over a dozen permanent military bases crazy old world..." True dat man.....

Re: Torog

Torog Premier Member Registered on Feb-22-2000 More User Info Message #113249 posted by Torog (Info) March 13, 2008 05:13:59 ET In Reply to: Torog posted by Elijah Mohammad (Info) March 12, 2008 16:42:31 ET Howdy Elijah, You ask: " 1. What is your definition of Islam, and why should we all agree to such a definition?" I believe that Islam was created by a an arab general,who was also a terrorist and a pedophile,for the express purpose of unifying diverse arab/persian societies and armys,into a cohesive force to directly oppose Judaism and Christianity..the word 'Islam',means to submit..it is a religion of submission and obedience-no free will allowed. I don't expect anyone to accept my definition and it may not be entirely correct. You ask: "2. What "barbaric acts" are there that are being committed anywhere that are supported by the Quran? (Please give chapter and verses)" Lol..you ain't gonna git me to read the Quran with that there little trick..you may as well ask me to read the necronomicron or some such satanic book-it ain't gonna happen-however,I'll check and see if some of my fellow Freepers have compiled a list of them there verses and chapters-I have seen the verses,I didn't bother to memorize them or their location. When the enemy embeds it's self into the population and uses them as human shields,as was done in Iraq,then innocent people will be killed,Lord knows we try to be as accurate as possible and we have the most accurate weapons in the world. For you to expect surgical precision is ludicrous,even though we do sometimes achieve such and it's an accuracy that is often not achieved,by anyone in the world. Innocent people will always suffer and die in wars and that's a sad fact that you best accept or risk being naive. You mention "true muslims" and I'm assuming that the presumption is that the 'true muslims' out-number the false muslims,yet the true muslims can't seem to stop what's happening..why ? Christians are working day and night,to git Roe vs Wade overturned and a pro-life amendment added to protect the un-born,still abortions continue to be on the rise,I believe..so in that regard,I can see how difficult it is for "true muslims" to git a handle on their false muslims. I can understand how you can say that muslims who commit barbaric acts,ain't true muslims-I'd say the same about those who call themselves Christian and ain't and commit barbaric acts..it's just that the barbaric acts by those who claim to be muslims,are so numerous and onerous,that to an outsider,it appears that the problem is systemic and deep-rooted and supported by the ideaology involved. I'd like to hear yer conversation with the muslim professor who is the reason for this article..I'd like to hear yer explanation to him,why it is that Islam should not be held accountable for barbaric acts committed in it's name. I think that he's trying to make an appeal to true muslims to stop the violent jihad. Have a good one ...

Re: Torog

Elijah Mohammad Registered on Oct-14-2005 More User Info Message #113263 posted by Elijah Mohammad (Info) March 13, 2008 15:16:44 ET In Reply to: Re: Torog posted by Torog (Info) March 13, 2008 05:13:59 ET "Howdy Elijah, You ask: " 1. What is your definition of Islam, and why should we all agree to such a definition?" I believe that Islam was created by a an arab general,who was also a terrorist and a pedophile,for the express purpose of unifying diverse arab/persian societies and armys,into a cohesive force to directly oppose Judaism and Christianity..the word 'Islam',means to submit..it is a religion of submission and obedience-no free will allowed. I don't expect anyone to accept my definition and it may not be entirely correct." Alright. So now, I know where your viewpoint comes from. Correct me if I'm wrong.....Your viewpoint comes from people who hate Islam, yet you have never read the book that is the basis for Islam....am I correct? This is how I was for a long time as well....then, when I investigated in depth and considered it in depth for myself, my viewpoint changed....Let me address your points here....mainly by questions. 1. Where is your proof that Mohammad was a General before he started Islam? 2. Where is your proof that Mohammad was a Terrorist (someone who attempted to accomplish objectives by terrifying innocent people)? 3. Where is your proof that Mohammad was a Pedophile? 4. "Islam" does not just mean "submission"...it comes from the Arabic word, "Salam," and the Hebrew word, "Shalom," which mean "Peace" or "Yielding peacefully." They are also used as greetings "hello" and "goodbye." "Islam" means "to yield in peaceable submission," and that submission is understood to be to God and his word alone, not men. 5. It could similarly be said that Christianity was created for the express purpose of unifying people worldwide in opposition of Judaism and Paganism....and also, that Judaism was created for the express purpose of unifying Jews and Israelites in opposition of Paganism. What is wrong with these two things? For one thing, those were not the only purposes, though they were part of the purpose. But basically, these statements would be true if it were realized that those were not the only reasons Judaism and Christianity were begun...similarly, your statment about Islam would also be true if it were realized that those were not the only reasons it was begun. All the progressive Revelations of God were meant not only to help people individually, and personally, but also to unite true believers against those who held previous Revelations in dishonesty, and began to put their trust in the traditions of men. How would the Christians have continued on at all if they were not made vigilant against the Jews and Pagans, who were constantly attempting to destroy them? How would the Jews have continued on at all if they were not made vigilant against the Pagans, who were constantly attempting to destroy them? Similarly, how would Islam have continued on at all if they were not made vigilant against the Christians, Jews, and Pagans, who were all trying to destroy them? "You ask: "2. What "barbaric acts" are there that are being committed anywhere that are supported by the Quran? (Please give chapter and verses)" Lol..you ain't gonna git me to read the Quran with that there little trick..you may as well ask me to read the necronomicron or some such satanic book-it ain't gonna happen-however,I'll check and see if some of my fellow Freepers have compiled a list of them there verses and chapters-I have seen the verses,I didn't bother to memorize them or their location." Cool, go ahead and check....I will be ready for the errors promoted by those people. If you are not willing to investigate things for yourself, then how can you know what is true or false about them? I have studied Satanist doctrines....that did not have any negative effect, and did not make me want to become a Satanist. It only made me aware of what they are truly teaching, believing, and practicing, and gave me better understanding so that if I get in a religious discussion with a Satanist, I know what I'm talking about, and don't sound like a haughty and bumbling fool to them....then, they are more likely to hear me out rationally on my points of view. The Bible says to work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, not to trust other people alone to tell you what is true or false, and right or wrong. What does the Bible say? "Prove all things." How can you prove anything without investigating the facts about it for yourself? By the way, I was not trying to get you to read the Quran....I figured that since you are so against it, you would already have some kind of knowledge ready to share showing your reasoning as to why you are against it. I see now that you don't have any proof for your position ready. I have time to wait for it though. Bring it on forward. "When the enemy embeds it's self into the population and uses them as human shields,as was done in Iraq,then innocent people will be killed,Lord knows we try to be as accurate as possible and we have the most accurate weapons in the world. For you to expect surgical precision is ludicrous,even though we do sometimes achieve such and it's an accuracy that is often not achieved,by anyone in the world. Innocent people will always suffer and die in wars and that's a sad fact that you best accept or risk being naive." Human shields? Oh, you mean like the Israeli soldiers do with young Palestinian children? It is IN NO WAY LUDICROUS to expect surgical precision from soldiers. Just look in your Bible, Torog. Surgical precision is used in every attack mentioned in there that is sanctioned by God. Innocent people are not killed. Why? Because of their weapons and tactics. Soldiers now adays do, and Pagan soldiers have always been different. They are not concerned with sparing innocent lives, and so their weapons and tactics are used in such a way where not only are innocent lives not considered to be of the utmost importance, they are often even taken out of spite, pride, and lust for violence. If our soldiers cared so much about sparing innocent lives, then why not use swords? When the Islamic revolution comes, it will be humane in such a way. Only the guilty will be killed. This is how you differentiate between a just war and an unjust war. Just because others do, or may engage in unjust war, that is no excuse to engage in it ourselves. If we were really concerned with simply defending our homeland, we would have no need to use guns and bombs and tanks except against an invading army while they are still in the field approaching. I'm not saying we should do away with these things, and leave ourselves completely open for attack....what I am saying is that we should not be attacking other places with these weapons, where civillians live. If a population in any land is completely ready and unified to change their own oppressive government, they will....and all they need is swords and baseball bats. Unless you mean to tell me that 20 million determined young men could not storm all governmental power spots and overwhelm them, even with their advanced weapons. How many soldiers and police are in the United States? Probably not even 10 million. "You mention "true muslims" and I'm assuming that the presumption is that the 'true muslims' out-number the false muslims,yet the true muslims can't seem to stop what's happening..why ?" Because they are patient and non-violent....they will only rise up when the time is completely ripe....the preference is on using Spiritual Weapons, winning hearts and minds. The same reason the true Christians can't seem to stop what's happening. By all means, don't take my word for it though Torog (as Levar Burton, on "Reading Rainbow" would say). "Take a look, it's in a book." The Bible to be specific....Daniel 11:32-35, Ecclesiastes 4:1-3 "Christians are working day and night,to git Roe vs Wade overturned and a pro-life amendment added to protect the un-born,still abortions continue to be on the rise,I believe..so in that regard,I can see how difficult it is for "true muslims" to git a handle on their false muslims. I can understand how you can say that muslims who commit barbaric acts,ain't true muslims-I'd say the same about those who call themselves Christian and ain't and commit barbaric acts..it's just that the barbaric acts by those who claim to be muslims,are so numerous and onerous,that to an outsider,it appears that the problem is systemic and deep-rooted and supported by the ideaology involved." That's what I'm saying about all the "Christian" bombing.

Re: Torog

forged registration Registered on Dec-17-2005 More User Info Message #113265 posted by forged registration (Info) March 13, 2008 15:22:30 ET In Reply to: Re: Torog posted by Elijah Mohammad (Info) March 13, 2008 15:16:44 ET "Just look in your Bible, Torog. Surgical precision is used in every attack mentioned in there that is sanctioned by God. Innocent people are not killed." - not true elijah: god slaughtered entire villages down to the last woman and child...there is nothing surgically precise about genocide...thankfully, our ethics have evolved since the bronze age but we're still not surgically precise

Re: Torog

Elijah Mohammad Registered on Oct-14-2005 More User Info Message #113268 posted by Elijah Mohammad (Info) March 13, 2008 20:15:38 ET In Reply to: Re: Torog posted by forged registration (Info) March 13, 2008 15:22:30 ET ""Just look in your Bible, Torog. Surgical precision is used in every attack mentioned in there that is sanctioned by God. Innocent people are not killed." - not true elijah: god slaughtered entire villages down to the last woman and child...there is nothing surgically precise about genocide...thankfully, our ethics have evolved since the bronze age but we're still not surgically precise" Forged, we've already had this discussion, and you failed to prove your point. To prove that innocent people were killed, you must prove that God actually told the Israelites to kill babies that actually existed and/or people who were expressly declared to be innocent. Your case against God is like that of a Sovereign King....and not just any King....a King who not only has authority to punish wrongdoing, but who knows every thought and inclination of the heart of every single human being. You cannot accuse him of commanding that innocent people be killed unless you have sure evidence that certain specific people who are most certainly completely innocent of evil were killed on his orders. 1. Babies are completely innocent of evil, as they can't do anything....there is no solid evidence that there were any babies in the places God ordered wiped out. In fact, there is good evidence that there were no babies there because of extreme fornication, abortion, and infanticide. That evidence being: A. They had no treatment, prevention, or good knowledge of STDs or the behaviors that cause STDs. (Babies die and women and men are rendered sterile by many different STDs) B. The inhabitants of these places engaged in extreme fornication (including with animals, which is why even the animals were supposed to be destroyed)...thus, most to all of them had STDs. C. Included in the practices of their religions, in addition to visiting the temple prostitutes, was abortion and infanticide (child sacrifice). D. In light of these facts, by the time they reached the full level of corruption, there were, most likely, no babies. Add to this that God's character in the Bible is one which constantly reveals that killing babies is completely unrighteous and unacceptable for people to do, and you see why the evidence in the Bible is that the God of the Bible did not order for any people to kill any babies. E. No mention of any baby being killed in the actual slaughter that God ordered is ever given....thus, not only is there no evidence FOR there being any babies present there....there is also much evidence AGAINST there being any babies there. F. In the abscence of ANY evidence, and the presence of plenty of reasonable doubt, under our legal system at least, God cannot be convicted of ordering people to kill any babies. 2. In light of all of the above evidence concerning fornication and killing of babies, and of the omnisciensce of God, and his constant reminders that people killing babies and other innocent people who are older is completely wrong; and in light of the abscence of any evidence showing beyond a reasonable doubt that there were any innocent people or babies(who are always innocent, as they are incapable of performing evil actions) present; the evidence strongly favors the position that in the orders given for the destruction of certain towns mentioned by the prosecution, that God must be found Not Guilty due to plenty of reasonable doubt as to the accusations of the prosecution. Not only that, but there is NO evidence that has been brought forward AT ALL, detailing the profiles and specific cases of ANY INNOCENT VICTIMS of the legal sanctions dealt out by the people of Israel in aforesaid towns on the orders of the All Powerful and Omniscient Creator and Sovereign of the Universe. In the abscence of ANY evidence whatsoever of the existence of ANY victims, not only must, in any trial, a verdict of Not Guilty be issued, but the trial cannot be allowed to even proceed because of insufficient evidence that any crime was committed.

Re: Torog

forged registration Registered on Dec-17-2005 More User Info Message #113273 posted by forged registration (Info) March 13, 2008 22:05:14 ET In Reply to: Re: Torog posted by Elijah Mohammad (Info) March 13, 2008 20:15:38 ET your honour, i submit into evidence exhibit A: the bible according to many christians, the bible is the literal word of god, and god orders and smiled upon the slaughter of women and children and babies (who are always innocent, as they are incapable of performing evil actions): in the book of joshua: 6:15 And it came to pass on the seventh day, that they rose early about the dawning of the day, and compassed the city after the same manner seven times: only on that day they compassed the city seven times. 6:16 And it came to pass at the seventh time , when the priests blew with the trumpets, Joshua said unto the people, Shout; for the LORD hath given you the city. 6:17 And the city shall be accursed, even it, and all that are therein, to the LORD: only Rahab the harlot shall live , she and all that are with her in the house, because she hid the messengers that we sent. 6:18 And ye, in any wise keep yourselves from the accursed thing, lest ye make yourselves accursed, when ye take of the accursed thing, and make the camp of Israel a curse, and trouble it. 6:19 But all the silver, and gold, and vessels of brass and iron, are consecrated unto the LORD: they shall come into the treasury of the LORD. 6:20 So the people shouted when the priests blew with the trumpets: and it came to pass, when the people heard the sound of the trumpet, and the people shouted with a great shout, that the wall fell down flat, so that the people went up into the city, every man straight before him, and they took the city. 6:21 And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword. ************************************************************ Psalm 137: 8-9: "O daughter of Babylon, who are to be destroyed, happy the one who repays you as you have served us! Happy the one who takes and dashes your little ones against the rock!" ************************************************************* 1 Samuel 15:3 "Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them. But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey." *************************************************************** Numbers 31 (nastiness edited for brevity) 31:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 31:2 Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites: afterward shalt thou be gathered unto thy people. 31:6 And Moses sent them to the war, a thousand of every tribe, them and Phinehas the son of Eleazar the priest, to the war, with the holy instruments, and the trumpets to blow in his hand. 31:7 And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males. 31:9 And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods. 31:15 And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? 31:16 Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD. 31:17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. Moses tells the Israelites to kill every male and all the non-virgin females, but to keep the virgins for themselves. Is it wrong to commit adultery? 31:18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. 31:31 And Moses and Eleazar the priest did as the LORD commanded Moses. 31:32 And the booty, being the rest of the prey which the men of war had caught, was six hundred thousand and seventy thousand and five thousand sheep, 31:33 And threescore and twelve thousand beeves, 31:34 And threescore and one thousand asses, 31:35 And thirty and two thousand persons in all, of women that had not known man by lying with him. your honour, the evidence clearly shows in the infallible almight god's own words, the mention of many babies being killed in the actual slaughter that god ordered....thus, not only is there clear first person evidence FOR there being many babies present, there is also first person evidence AGAINST there being any babies surviving in one case. does the defence rest, or should i post more of god's greatest hits?

Re: Torog

Elijah Mohammad Registered on Oct-14-2005 More User Info Message #113274 posted by Elijah Mohammad (Info) March 13, 2008 22:54:17 ET In Reply to: Re: Torog posted by forged registration (Info) March 13, 2008 22:05:14 ET "your honour, i submit into evidence exhibit A: the bible *************************************************************** according to many christians, the bible is the literal word of god, and god orders and smiled upon the slaughter of women and children and babies (who are always innocent, as they are incapable of performing evil actions): in the book of joshua: 6:15 And it came to pass on the seventh day, that they rose early about the dawning of the day, and compassed the city after the same manner seven times: only on that day they compassed the city seven times. 6:16 And it came to pass at the seventh time , when the priests blew with the trumpets, Joshua said unto the people, Shout; for the LORD hath given you the city. 6:17 And the city shall be accursed, even it, and all that are therein, to the LORD: only Rahab the harlot shall live , she and all that are with her in the house, because she hid the messengers that we sent. 6:18 And ye, in any wise keep yourselves from the accursed thing, lest ye make yourselves accursed, when ye take of the accursed thing, and make the camp of Israel a curse, and trouble it. 6:19 But all the silver, and gold, and vessels of brass and iron, are consecrated unto the LORD: they shall come into the treasury of the LORD. 6:20 So the people shouted when the priests blew with the trumpets: and it came to pass, when the people heard the sound of the trumpet, and the people shouted with a great shout, that the wall fell down flat, so that the people went up into the city, every man straight before him, and they took the city. 6:21 And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword." There is no specific mention of babies here....nor of innocent people. ************************************************************ "Psalm 137: 8-9: "O daughter of Babylon, who are to be destroyed, happy the one who repays you as you have served us! Happy the one who takes and dashes your little ones against the rock!" Nowhere is it said that the action is the correct action to do, however, in this verse. I asked for verses where God specifically commands, and the command is recorded as being enacted to kill babies or innocent people....there is no command of God in this verse. People are happy for all kinds of sick reasons. "*************************************************************** Numbers 31 (nastiness edited for brevity) 31:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 31:2 Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites: afterward shalt thou be gathered unto thy people. 31:6 And Moses sent them to the war, a thousand of every tribe, them and Phinehas the son of Eleazar the priest, to the war, with the holy instruments, and the trumpets to blow in his hand. 31:7 And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males. 31:9 And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods. 31:15 And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? 31:16 Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD. 31:17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. Moses tells the Israelites to kill every male and all the non-virgin females, but to keep the virgins for themselves. Is it wrong to commit adultery? 31:18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. 31:31 And Moses and Eleazar the priest did as the LORD commanded Moses. 31:32 And the booty, being the rest of the prey which the men of war had caught, was six hundred thousand and seventy thousand and five thousand sheep, 31:33 And threescore and twelve thousand beeves, 31:34 And threescore and one thousand asses, 31:35 And thirty and two thousand persons in all, of women that had not known man by lying with him." Here, as well, there is no specific mention made that there were any babies present, nor innocent people, who were killed. "************************************************************* "1 Samuel 15:3 "Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them. But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey."" Alright, here is one verse. Why not just skip right to the one and only verse that has what you were looking for, instead of posting other verses that do not fit the criteria of evidence? But then, I am not a Christian who believes that the whole Bible is the literal word of God. I think those two words that you found in that verse that would prove the God of the Bible's command of this awful order are one of the numerous insertions of Pagan corruption inserted into the text by Pagans who had control of it in different time periods. This is probably one of the verses that so adversely affects Torog with his desire to see innocent people and babies be killed by American and other troops with America, as well as by Nuclear Weapons. There is a proof that helps show how this is an insertion (even though, in other cases, the inserters were sure to bypass this sign purposefully, in this case, they did not, as far as I know). That proof being the legal requirement of two witnesses at least. There is only one witness, one instance of this accusation against God in the Bible...thus, it is not admissible as proof in court, because there is no backup corroboration. "your honour, the evidence clearly shows in the infallible almight god's own words, the mention of many babies being killed in the actual slaughter that god ordered....thus, not only is there clear first person evidence FOR there being many babies present, there is also first person evidence AGAINST there being any babies surviving in one case. does the defence rest, or should i post more of god's greatest hits?" The defense will rest on the assertion that the Bible is not guilty as a whole of this charge (promoting killing of babies on the assumption of God's orders) only if one more witness (example) can be brought forward to corroborate and strengthen the testimony of the other...that being 1 Samuel 15:3. The case will not be dismissed on lack of evidence at this point, however, as there is now some worthiness to consider further possible evidence. Prosecution, do you have further evidence, or another witness (example) from the Bible?

Re: Torog

Torog Premier Member Registered on Feb-22-2000 More User Info Message #113276 posted by Torog (Info) March 14, 2008 06:06:33 ET In Reply to: Re: Torog posted by Elijah Mohammad (Info) March 13, 2008 22:54:17 ET Howdy Elijah, I was surprised to see this and yer accusation towards me: "1 Samuel 15:3 "Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them. But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey."" Alright, here is one verse. Why not just skip right to the one and only verse that has what you were looking for, instead of posting other verses that do not fit the criteria of evidence? But then, I am not a Christian who believes that the whole Bible is the literal word of God. I think those two words that you found in that verse that would prove the God of the Bible's command of this awful order are one of the numerous insertions of Pagan corruption inserted into the text by Pagans who had control of it in different time periods. This is probably one of the verses that so adversely affects Torog with his desire to see innocent people and babies be killed by American and other troops with America, as well as by Nuclear Weapons." Let me make it perfectly clear to you-I do NOT want truly innocent people hurt or killed,nor do I base any desire or want to attack the enemy,based on that particular verse or any other verse-that ain't how my mind works-I see a task or mission to be done,from the mindset of a soldier-tempered with the mercy of a Christian,and as a Texan that won't git bogged down in excuses and apologies and appeasement. The arab-muslim world,would only bring about a new Dark Ages(if they won) and that is why I say that when it comes down to it-if we must-then we have no choice but to utterly annihilate them so that freedom will survive. The same is true for the commies,be it China,Russia or North Korea. You think that we can just play games with these above mentioned,that they will simply relinquish their insidious plans of conquest,that if we just kow-tow,prostrate and appease,that everything will be hunky-dory...Not ! I'd rather pretend to threaten the use of a nuke and catch all the rats leaving the sinking ship-than actually use one..I don't want the earth and peoples poisoned,I just want to cut the head off of the various snakes and liberate those whom they brutally oppress and give those folks a chance to rise up and be at least as blessed as I ! What's so wrong with that ? Is it acceptable to God and Jesus,to look the other way,when it comes to folks who are brutally oppressed ? That they are simply stuck with their lot in life ? Have a good one ...

Re: Torog

forged registration Registered on Dec-17-2005 More User Info Message #113288 posted by forged registration (Info) March 14, 2008 13:10:06 ET In Reply to: Re: Torog posted by Elijah Mohammad (Info) March 13, 2008 22:54:17 ET yes your honour, i have further evidence that god ordered and/or smiled upon the slaughter of innocents in the bible...if it please the court, i shall provide only a few examples to buttress earlier evidence accepted as fact from 1 samuel 15:3...i'll start with the most famous example's of god's barbaric cruelty towards innocent: *ahem* Genesis (global genocide) 7:1 And the LORD said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation. 7:4 For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth. 7:21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man: 7:22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died. ******************************************************** Exodus 12:29 And it came to pass, that at midnight the LORD smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of cattle. 12:30 And Pharaoh rose up in the night, he, and all his servants, and all the Egyptians; and there was a great cry in Egypt; for there was not a house where there was not one dead. *********************************************************** Numbers (god wipes out entire cities) 21:2 And Israel vowed a vow unto the LORD, and said, If thou wilt indeed deliver this people into my hand, then I will utterly destroy their cities. 21:3 And the LORD hearkened to the voice of Israel, and delivered up the Canaanites; and they utterly destroyed them and their cities: and he called the name of the place Hormah. 21:30 We have shot at them; Heshbon is perished even unto Dibon, and we have laid them waste even unto Nophah, which reacheth unto Medeba. 21:31 Thus Israel dwelt in the land of the Amorites. 21:34 And the LORD said unto Moses, Fear him not: for I have delivered him into thy hand, and all his people, and his land; and thou shalt do to him as thou didst unto Sihon king of the Amorites, which dwelt at Heshbon. 21:35 So they smote him, and his sons, and all his people, until there was none left him alive: and they possessed his land. 31:17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. 33:4 For the Egyptians buried all their firstborn, which the LORD had smitten among them: upon their gods also the LORD executed judgments. (i cite numbers 31 again because the lord commands his people through to kill all the male children/babies AGAIN) ************************************************************ the prosecution rests

View 113288.jpg

Re: Torog

Elijah Mohammad Registered on Oct-14-2005 More User Info Message #113289 posted by Elijah Mohammad (Info) March 14, 2008 14:21:27 ET In Reply to: Re: Torog posted by forged registration (Info) March 14, 2008 13:10:06 ET "yes your honour, i have further evidence that god ordered and/or smiled upon the slaughter of innocents in the bible...if it please the court, i shall provide only a few examples to buttress earlier evidence accepted as fact from 1 samuel 15:3...i'll start with the most famous example's of god's barbaric cruelty towards innocent: *ahem* Genesis (global genocide) 7:1 And the LORD said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation. 7:4 For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth. 7:21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man: 7:22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died. ********************************************************" This example does not show beyond a reasonable doubt that there were either babies or innocent people present in the destruction...neither are mentioned. Additionally, the case is one to prove that the Bible supports the idea of God ordering people directly to kill either babies, or other people who are expressly shown to be innocent of evil...and it is recorded that those actions were carried out according to command. God killing people directly with natural disasters is not the same issue. That issue would be, "Does the Bible support the idea that God creates natural disasters to kill people?" and "Is that wrong?" My answer to the first question would be yes...my answer to the second question would be no. If you would like to discuss that separate issue, we can do so in another post....or in this post after we come to a full conclusion on the current issue. "Exodus 12:29 And it came to pass, that at midnight the LORD smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of cattle. 12:30 And Pharaoh rose up in the night, he, and all his servants, and all the Egyptians; and there was a great cry in Egypt; for there was not a house where there was not one dead. ***********************************************************" The same exact issues exist with this example as with your previous one...refer to my answer to that as also the answer to this one. "Numbers (god wipes out entire cities) 21:2 And Israel vowed a vow unto the LORD, and said, If thou wilt indeed deliver this people into my hand, then I will utterly destroy their cities. 21:3 And the LORD hearkened to the voice of Israel, and delivered up the Canaanites; and they utterly destroyed them and their cities: and he called the name of the place Hormah. 21:30 We have shot at them; Heshbon is perished even unto Dibon, and we have laid them waste even unto Nophah, which reacheth unto Medeba. 21:31 Thus Israel dwelt in the land of the Amorites. 21:34 And the LORD said unto Moses, Fear him not: for I have delivered him into thy hand, and all his people, and his land; and thou shalt do to him as thou didst unto Sihon king of the Amorites, which dwelt at Heshbon. 21:35 So they smote him, and his sons, and all his people, until there was none left him alive: and they possessed his land. 31:17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. 33:4 For the Egyptians buried all their firstborn, which the LORD had smitten among them: upon their gods also the LORD executed judgments. (i cite numbers 31 again because the lord commands his people through to kill all the male children/babies AGAIN) ************************************************************" Prosecution, where does it say that babies were ordered to be killed in this example? Where does it say that innocent people were ordered to be killed in this example? We have covered this issue before....the word for "little ones" means toddlers and small children....not babies. Only babies can be unqualifiably exempted from being guilty of evil actions...because they cannot act on their own....everyone else that is said to be killed by order of God because of the sinfulness of their people must be proven not to be a part of the evil actions of their people. Absent this evidence, God (The God portrayed by the Bible) cannot be said beyond a reasonable doubt to have ordered the death of innocents. The case still stands undecided with the uncorroborated testimony of only one witness (example) that proves the accusations. There will be one more extension granted, and if there is no solid backup witness (example) provided, I will have no choice but to dismiss this case on lack of substantial evidence. Prosecution, do you have any further witnesses (examples)?

Re: Torog

Elijah Mohammad Registered on Oct-14-2005 More User Info Message #113292 posted by Elijah Mohammad (Info) March 14, 2008 14:50:33 ET In Reply to: Re: Torog posted by Torog (Info) March 14, 2008 06:06:33 ET "Howdy Elijah, I was surprised to see this and yer accusation towards me: "1 Samuel 15:3 "Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them. But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey."" Alright, here is one verse. Why not just skip right to the one and only verse that has what you were looking for, instead of posting other verses that do not fit the criteria of evidence? But then, I am not a Christian who believes that the whole Bible is the literal word of God. I think those two words that you found in that verse that would prove the God of the Bible's command of this awful order are one of the numerous insertions of Pagan corruption inserted into the text by Pagans who had control of it in different time periods. This is probably one of the verses that so adversely affects Torog with his desire to see innocent people and babies be killed by American and other troops with America, as well as by Nuclear Weapons." Let me make it perfectly clear to you-I do NOT want truly innocent people hurt or killed,nor do I base any desire or want to attack the enemy,based on that particular verse or any other verse-that ain't how my mind works-I see a task or mission to be done,from the mindset of a soldier-tempered with the mercy of a Christian,and as a Texan that won't git bogged down in excuses and apologies and appeasement." SEE! That's EXACTLY to what I am referring there. Who's to say that if the people in that above mentioned verse really did what the verse says they did, and thought that God sanctioned the violence, and that it was necessary to accomplish divinely ordained objectives, that they did not approach their task of killing babies in exactly the same way you speak of...."from the mindset of a soldier-tempered with the mercy of a Christian,and as a Texan that won't git bogged down in excuses and apologies and appeasement." Just substitute the word "Christian" for "Believer," and the word "Texan," for "Israelite" and you have the exact same thing. Torog, what I am saying is that you are at the very least, subconsciously affected by verses like this, and leaders who agree with verses like this. It is apparent that you are fully willing to accept as necessary and right, the slaughter of babies and other innocent people by soldiers in the line of duty (trying to accomplish their objectives). Do you deny that? "The arab-muslim world,would only bring about a new Dark Ages(if they won) and that is why I say that when it comes down to it-if we must-then we have no choice but to utterly annihilate them so that freedom will survive. The same is true for the commies,be it China,Russia or North Korea. You think that we can just play games with these above mentioned,that they will simply relinquish their insidious plans of conquest,that if we just kow-tow,prostrate and appease,that everything will be hunky-dory...Not !" I understand your misgivings about absolute pacifism, Torog, and I share them....however, I do not understand why you think it is necessary to attack other people's homelands in a way that innocent people's lives are routinely taken. Why not save the battle for the battlefield? Why not save up a mean punch only for those who are approaching to invade our land? There is no way that any nation could currently invade the United States without having all of their soldiers be nuked and completely destroyed before they got close. Why not simply adopt this strategy, instead of sending our military abroad, why not focus on defending our homeland, and let other people defend their own homelands (unless we are truly willing to completely lay down our lives to help them, by using methods that do not inadvertently kill innocent people). It would be better for a soldier to die trying to attack the oppressor with inferior weapons, if it means that an innocent life that would have been taken at his hands will be spared. Do you also forget the miraculous help of God? It is not superior military technology, or superiority of numbers that wins battles, it is the help of the Most High God. If you believe the scriptures, and if you have had any experience personally with the help and protection of God on those who do his will, you should know this. "I'd rather pretend to threaten the use of a nuke and catch all the rats leaving the sinking ship-than actually use one..I don't want the earth and peoples poisoned,I just want to cut the head off of the various snakes and liberate those whom they brutally oppress and give those folks a chance to rise up and be at least as blessed as I !" So then, threatening, and TERRORising innocent people is justifable to you? How does that make you any different from the people you condemn and call "TERRORists" for the same reasons? "What's so wrong with that ? Is it acceptable to God and Jesus,to look the other way,when it comes to folks who are brutally oppressed ? That they are simply stuck with their lot in life ? Have a good one ..." No, it is not acceptable to simply look the other way. It is also not acceptable, however, to use means whereby you yourself terrorise, injure, and take the lives of those you are claiming to try to help while in the process of trying to kill their oppressors. It's all about MEANS, Torog. We're not talking about readiness to rescue the innocent from evil oppressors here, Torog....you and I both agree on the neccesity of that....what we are talking about is the MEANS of doing so. A rescue is not a rescue when you kill those you are meant to be rescuing. If somebody has a cancerous tumor, and you want to get to the tumor and be rid of the tumor as quickly as possible, to save the life of the person with it before the tumor grows too big and kills them, it is completely illogical to use a chainsaw. Sure, you are getting to, and removing the problem quickly and completely....but at the same time, you are defeating the purpose, because you yourself would become a new problem that is even worse. Saddam killed tens of thousands of civillians in Iraq in the 20 or more years of his presidency....the United States and pals killed hundreds of thousands to millions in only 15 years. They're using a chainsaw to try to remove a tumor....it's not right. Of course, there are other motives than the salvation of the Iraqi people....thus, it is not as innocent as stupidity on the part of our leaders....it is malice.

god hates babies, but jesus loves them

forged registration Registered on Dec-17-2005 More User Info Message #113293 posted by forged registration (Info) March 14, 2008 15:38:48 ET In Reply to: Re: Torog posted by Elijah Mohammad (Info) March 14, 2008 14:21:27 ET "This example does not show beyond a reasonable doubt that there were either babies or innocent people present in the destruction...neither are mentioned." - WTF? there were no babies on earth back then? what did they go? were they launched out of the solar system? without warning, god destroyed the entire earth, every living substance that he made, and all in whose nostrils was the breath of life, and all that was in the dry land...there were definitely innocent babies and children and retards in that lot unless babies and children lived underwater...every living substance includes babies "God killing people directly with natural disasters is not the same issue. That issue would be, "Does the Bible support the idea that God creates natural disasters to kill people?" - god didn't create a natural disaster that killed people by accident...he created the natural disaster to punish people and wipe out the evidence of his fallibility and weakness...god personally killed all those innocent people along with the guilty, preferring instead to reign over a pack of inbred fanatics who would commit genocides in his name as shown in the other examples "The same exact issues exist with this example as with your previous one...refer to my answer to that as also the answer to this one." - god kills all the first born in egypt, sparing not a single household, and you expect me to believe there were no babies/children among the victims of god's barbaric cruelty? "Prosecution, where does it say that babies were ordered to be killed in this example?" - right here where god commands moses to slaughter every person among the amorites 21:34 And the LORD said unto Moses, Fear him not: for I have delivered him into thy hand, and all his people, and his land; and thou shalt do to him as thou didst unto Sihon king of the Amorites, which dwelt at Heshbon. 21:35 So they smote him, and his sons, and all his people, until there was none left him alive: and they possessed his land. "the word for "little ones" means toddlers and small children....not babies" - that begs a few questions: how are toddlers and small children guilty? what does "every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth" mean? what does "utterly destroyed" "all his people" mean? are you calling god a LIAR? "The case still stands undecided with the uncorroborated testimony of only one witness (example) that proves the accusations." - your honour, the defence has called into question the literal word of god, and thus has accused god of lying in this court...if you accept the defences argument, i move to arrest god on charges of perjury "Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God." - Jesus Christ, establishing the innocence of 'little ones'

Re: Torog

Torog Premier Member Registered on Feb-22-2000 More User Info Message #113336 posted by Torog (