-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
Understanding the Enemy
- Thread starter bewitched
- Start date
Werbung:
Coyote
Well-Known Member
Something that occurred 150 years ago...? And yet you simultaneously discount similar Christian atrocities in past history?
Can't have it both ways.
You're getting desperate to make a point that is...ultimately....pointless.
AlicornsPrayer
Well-Known Member
Note to Moderators
I just wanted to say...If the administration feels that my post was inappropriate, they are free to edit the post to more acceptable forum content.
I just wanted to say...If the administration feels that my post was inappropriate, they are free to edit the post to more acceptable forum content.
bewitched
Well-Known Member
baby steps.
there are no "moderate" muslims. there are no clerics who are against jihad. that's just fact.
there is only a misunderstanding by American sympathizers and apologists who think Islam is peaceful. it's not.
My personal judgement of the coyote based upon his writings on the group.
Well, its the ones who interpret the text literally that are causing the problem so I am critical of the text. If they were applying some tortured interpretation of the text to conclude a duty to wage jihad to establish the Islamic caliphate, I wouldnt be critical of the text because it was their tortured interpretation of it that got them to their conclusion. Thats why I am not critical of Christian doctrine (as written in the bible) for the crusades and the inquisitions. That wasnt christian doctrine, that was catholic doctrine. It was catholic doctrine that ordained centuries of Kings with gods authority to rule. It was the doctrine of the bible that was used in the reformation to eliminate authority ordained by God according to the catholic church. First it was simply taken over by other denominations to ordain the king with divine authority, then in the US it was put with the people. "My kingdom is not of this world", as opposed to "[12.40] ... judgment is only Allah's; He has commanded that you shall not serve aught but Him"
Ever read "Common Sense" by Thomas Paine? Other than the Bible, there was probably nothing more widely read in the 1776-87 period in the US than Paines little pamphlet.
The ideology behind the hatred must be addressed and open to criticism. I dont hate the hater, I hate the ideology that makes him hate. This pass you wish to give the Islamic Fundamentalist only ensures the ideology will continue in our politically correct world.
Well, its the ones who interpret the text literally that are causing the problem so I am critical of the text. If they were applying some tortured interpretation of the text to conclude a duty to wage jihad to establish the Islamic caliphate, I wouldnt be critical of the text because it was their tortured interpretation of it that got them to their conclusion. Thats why I am not critical of Christian doctrine (as written in the bible) for the crusades and the inquisitions. That wasnt christian doctrine, that was catholic doctrine. It was catholic doctrine that ordained centuries of Kings with gods authority to rule. It was the doctrine of the bible that was used in the reformation to eliminate authority ordained by God according to the catholic church. First it was simply taken over by other denominations to ordain the king with divine authority, then in the US it was put with the people. "My kingdom is not of this world", as opposed to "[12.40] ... judgment is only Allah's; He has commanded that you shall not serve aught but Him"
Ever read "Common Sense" by Thomas Paine? Other than the Bible, there was probably nothing more widely read in the 1776-87 period in the US than Paines little pamphlet.
LMAO. What ignorant nonsense.
You are not even aware that the us system of government makes literal use of john locke's 2nd treatise of civil government - the logic of the treatise having been built on THEOLOGICAL PREMISES. The us constitution's preamble speaks of the 'self-evidence' of the natural and inalienable rights of man - again the reasoning being a direct result of the 2nd treatise. Heck, the treatise even admits god to be the source of NATURAL LAW. And if you have read the american declaration of independence, it states god explicitly.
Now, do yourself a favor and try obtaining a semblance of education before you confront your betters in debate.
Not sure of your point. Using a Christian Theological premise you get "natural and inalienable rights of man". Using an Islamic theological premise you get
"[12.40] ... judgment is only Allah's; He has commanded that you shall not serve aught but Him; "
you get
"Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. Qur'an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope".
you get
"We the people of Iraq..
In the name of God, the most merciful, the most compassionate...
Acknowledging God's right over us,...
I just prefer "natural and inalienable rights of man" as opposed to the right to be ruled "by what Allah revealed" whether one likes it or not.
Your kind of making my point for me.
bewitched
Well-Known Member
exactly!
there is no golden rule in Islam. there is no belief in equality, only muslims and the lesser. that's hard for some Westerners to understand. brain block or something.
Yes, with Christian doctrine you get natural and inalienable rights of man. You get Thomas Paines proof of the illigitimacy of monarchies.
http://www.ushistory.org/paine/commonsense/singlehtml.htm
You get freedom of speech, freedom of religion and government of, by and for the people. And what do you get with Islam?
From 632-1924 religion WAS USED to give legitimacy to the Prophet Muhammad's political authority..... by whichever successive caliphate could grab hold of it at the time. Some may view it as a misuse of religion, but to a muslim, familiar with the 1292 years of this history of the Islamic empire, thats a hard sell.
If your still with me, about 1926-27 Ibn Saud was having a hell of a time keeping his Ikhwan fighters religious zeal for Islamic conquest in check and began cracking down and exiling many of them who fled to Egypt. 1928 the Muslim Brotherhood is formed with the motto
this same political ideology continues to this day in Al Qaeda. Yes it is political. The politics that is in the doctrine, the doctrine that has given legitimacy to 1292 years of Islamic government. If your still with me maybe you to can understand what is meant when zarqawi refers to the "Zero Hour".
And Zawahiris response-
YES!!! "Islam, can serve as a platform for political action". The same platform since 632 is applied by Al Qaeda today. Its a fundamental part of Islamic doctrine.
vyo476
Well-Known Member
And how many centuries of "Christian doctrine" did it take to get there?
The doctrine of the bible is still the same. It was always there. It just wasnt available to the common man until the printing press. Prior to the widespread distribution of bibles, Christian doctrine was what the Catholic Church told you was Christian doctrine. The individuals relationship with God was a relationship with the catholic church. Christian doctrine destroyed the legitimacy of the Catholic churches ordination of Kings with gods authority to rule.
Now go away. The debate in your mind was over before it began. You dont seem to have ANYTHING to contribute to the topic.
Werbung:
Do I need to spell it out for you?
Christian theology gave rise to western democracies which in turn gave rise to all sorts of evil - colonialism, slavery, mein kampf and the holocaust, the doctrine of pacification, low-intensity conflict, the arms race and nuclear annihilation, imperialism, pogrom, etc.
Explaining things to you is such a tedious task!
