Under The Islamic Veil: Faces Disfigured By Acid

[OraProMe]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' date='25 November 2009 - 02:18 AM' timestamp='1259133500' post='2009150']
This is a good point. Fanatic followers don't necessarily accurately reflect the religion.
That said, it must be kept in mind that the Torah/Talmud/Bible were written over the course of thousands of years by a myriad authors. It cannot be taken in a uniform manner throughout, due to differing styles, literary devices, and so forth used.
Plus that whole Jesus thing kind of changed the way we viewed justice and punishment (as opposed to the Deuteronomic laws).
The Quran on the other hand was written all at once, after it was (in the Muslim view) given to Muhammad by God in a vision.
[/quote]

My point is that it's wrong for Erin to state that we should pray for all those "suffering under Islam" as if these acts are an accurate representation of the beliefs on one billion people. It's wrong for her to engage in this fear-mongering that she's become so fond of. Christian and Jewish sacred texts, regardless of how long it took to compile them, are just as susceptible to being twisted and interpreted to support a less than Christian agenda.

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='OraProMe' date='25 November 2009 - 02:53 AM' timestamp='1259135631' post='2009152']
My point is that it's wrong for Erin to state that we should pray for all those "suffering under Islam" as if these acts are an accurate representation of the beliefs on one billion people. It's wrong for her to engage in this fear-mongering that she's become so fond of. Christian and Jewish sacred texts, regardless of how long it took to compile them, are just as susceptible to being twisted and interpreted to support a less than Christian agenda.
[/quote]
I don't think my post contradicted any of those points.

[OraProMe]

p.s We don't need to look as far back to the Old Testament then USAirwaysIHS. There's plenty of Church documents from the middle ages promoting the burning of heretics and the segregation of the Jews. But yeah, my point isn't to bad-mouth the Church it's to illustrate the double standards in Erin's position.

[OraProMe]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' date='25 November 2009 - 02:56 AM' timestamp='1259135798' post='2009154']
I don't think my post contradicted any of those points.
[/quote]

I was elaborating not arguing

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='OraProMe' date='25 November 2009 - 03:04 AM' timestamp='1259136274' post='2009157']
I was elaborating not arguing
[/quote]
Fair enough.
Bed time.

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='HisChildForever' date='24 November 2009 - 05:09 PM' timestamp='1259111388' post='2008860']
Nope.

I saw that Socrates and myself received negative points for criticizing those who refuse to criticize Islam.
I then made a comment that whoever is giving us these negative points must be one of the Phatmass members who refuses to equate Islam with violence, no matter what kind of evidence is provided.
After receiving a negative point for that remark, I was clearly right in assuming that the negative point giver IS a member who cannot tolerate Islam being criticized (those are the only people who would be offended by my post).
Since that member refuses to come out in the open and explain him or herself, my assumption stands.
[/quote]

considering most PMers(except those with flags) can only downvote once per day, i think you shouldnt consider your detractors as being singular, or without a flag.
i would imagine you guys received your downvotes because of rudeness to other members like lilabett (erins original post about muslim is positive voted, while the subsequent ones adressing specific members tend to be down voted. i dont think its about the muslims here.)


[quote name='HisChildForever' date='24 November 2009 - 05:18 PM' timestamp='1259111899' post='2008877']
I think she was given the negative point because she failed to address the actual topic of the article, as Socrates said.
[/quote]

she addressed a point in the article and gave a personal opinion. it was hardly contrary to what you were saying.
i mean unless you think every post should say "ISLAM IS EVIL" and nothing else? a little variety cant hurt.

the part/interpretation of Islam that may allow atrocities like what happened to these women is deplorable and without excuse. however i hardly think it is representative of the religion and its followers as a whole. besides, i agree with an earlier poster, most of these dont seem religiously motivated.

Acid throwings arent limited to Islamic cultures either. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katie_Piper
no religion hanging over that one, just a creepy perverted psychopath and a bucket of acid. which is basically what all such things come down to.

somehow i dont think a thread with a bunch of pictures of molested children by priests, that draws a conclusion that all of catholicism is evil/wrong would be well recieved. but it is basically the same logical failing, to believe the actions of the hopefully few extremists/abusers of power represent the group as a whole.







[quote name='Apotheoun' date='24 November 2009 - 05:27 PM' timestamp='1259112424' post='2008886']
I still think that only people with flags should be able to vote.
[/quote]

disagree.

[Didacus]

[quote]Vengeance is mine! [/quote] Says the Lord.

In Him I trust.

[Lilllabettt]

[quote name='HisChildForever' date='24 November 2009 - 04:39 PM' timestamp='1259095162' post='2008645']
What part of the text does this? In "the Wahhabi and Salafi influence" the [b]and[/b] is not an [b]or[/b]. In any event, your comment is irrelevant to the purpose of the article. The article is publicizing the atrocities that many Muslim women endure under Islam.



This is all you have to say?
[/quote]


Wowwww look at all the drama.

Okay, first off. No I wasn't trying to gloss over the crime these women have suffered. I'm just sick of our dumb society that looks at the hardships a body endures ... scars, wrinkles, stooped back, whatever ... and sees something negative. The month I was in the hospital, the lady next to me was that woman who had her face torn off by the chimp. They had to put a cop outside her door to keep people from going in there and gawking at her. I have my physical mutilations too, but I'm proud of them ...

Second off
[u][size="5"][b]I have no idea, but my guess is most of the women in these photographs remain devout Muslims. It is most likley deeply offensive to them to have their personal suffering be exploited by us/ the Times, as a tool for discrediting their faith. It is frankly nauseating to see people using women this way. The media is violating them a second time. And we are participating it.

We have to ask ourselves what our goal is. Are we interested in scoring religious points? Or are we interested in protecting women and advancing the cause of women's dignity across cultures and civilizations? What is more likely to achieve the latter goal ... using these crimes to attack Islam, or showing Muslims that these attacks are antithetical to their treasured religious beliefs? Women should not be divided by religion when it comes to standing up for their rights. How stupid that we divide ourselves when we should be united and speak with one voice![/b][font="Courier New"][/font][/size][/u]

The fact is that Islam is not inherently evil. It is not inherently violent against women. Islam is not inherently ANYTHING. It was created by man, and its meaning is strictly limited to whatever defintion man gives it. But instead of aiding the voices in Islam who want to emphasize a definition of Islam that protects women, we attack Islam itself, forcing moderates further and further into extremism.

Incidentally, this is EXACTLY what happeend to the Salafists. They were moderates, supporting an Islamic ideal which borrowed copiously from Western intellectual and political traditions. Aggressive Westernization forced them further and further from the middle, until they were denouncning women in the pages of al-Manar.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Lilllabettt' date='25 November 2009 - 10:01 AM' timestamp='1259157715' post='2009178']
The fact is that Islam is not inherently evil. It is not inherently violent against women. Islam is not inherently ANYTHING. It was created by man, and its meaning is strictly limited to whatever defintion man gives it. But instead of aiding the voices in Islam who want to emphasize a definition of Islam that protects women, we attack Islam itself, forcing moderates further and further into extremism.
[/quote]

Lillabett, who spoke to Mahomet on the day that he claims he heard a voice, and wanted to "throw himself off the cliff" while he was hearing this voice? Was it God who told him those things, like he claims? Or was he just lying about having heard the voice? I find it interesting that "allah" refers to itself in the plural. Like "Legion" did. "And We did not send you (O Muhammad) except as a mercy to the world." Mahometans do not believe in a triune God.

The Mahometan cult was either founded A) with the intervention of a demon or demons, or B) through the lie or insanity of Mahomet. Because it is [i]not[/i] of God. It was first spread through the inappropriate evangelical tool of the sword. "Convert or die" was the order of the day in Mahomet's own lifetime.

Now, does this mean that all who call themselves Mahometans are violent and evil? No more than all who call themselves Catholic are "pro-life."

From Ibn Ishaq, an early Mahometan, to this day highly revered among Mahometans: "Our onslaught will not be a weak faltering affair. We shall fight as long as we live. We will fight until you turn to Islam, humbly seeking refuge. We will fight not caring whom we meet. We will fight whether we destroy ancient holdings or newly gotten gains. We have mutilated every opponent. We have driven them violently before us at the command of Allah and Islam. We will fight until our religion is established. And we will plunder them, for they must suffer disgrace." [url="http://infidelsarecool.com/2006/12/05/muhammads-own-words/"]Ibn Ishaq[/url]

From the Koran itself: "The Believers fight in Allah's Cause, they slay and are slain, kill and are killed." and then, "Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war." And again, "Fight those who do not believe until they all surrender, paying the protective tax in submission."

[Note well: Mahomet isn't talking about "spiritual battle" here]

That is what Mahomet taught. They have no central authority to interpret his words. Honestly, I prefer Mahometans to be lukewarm, or "moderate." It's better than them following his demonically-inspired words.

Any organization founded on lies and violence will be inherently violent, as lies and violence are Satan's calling cards.

~Sternhauser

Edited November 25, 2009 by Sternhauser

[OraProMe]

[quote name='Lilllabettt' date='25 November 2009 - 09:01 AM' timestamp='1259157715' post='2009178']
Wowwww look at all the drama.

Okay, first off. No I wasn't trying to gloss over the crime these women have suffered. I'm just sick of our dumb society that looks at the hardships a body endures ... scars, wrinkles, stooped back, whatever ... and sees something negative. The month I was in the hospital, the lady next to me was that woman who had her face torn off by the chimp. They had to put a cop outside her door to keep people from going in there and gawking at her. I have my physical mutilations too, but I'm proud of them ...

Second off
[u][size="5"][b]I have no idea, but my guess is most of the women in these photographs remain devout Muslims. It is most likley deeply offensive to them to have their personal suffering be exploited by us/ the Times, as a tool for discrediting their faith. It is frankly nauseating to see people using women this way. The media is violating them a second time. And we are participating it.

We have to ask ourselves what our goal is. Are we interested in scoring religious points? Or are we interested in protecting women and advancing the cause of women's dignity across cultures and civilizations? What is more likely to achieve the latter goal ... using these crimes to attack Islam, or showing Muslims that these attacks are antithetical to their treasured religious beliefs? Women should not be divided by religion when it comes to standing up for their rights. How stupid that we divide ourselves when we should be united and speak with one voice![/b][font="Courier New"][/font][/size][/u]

The fact is that Islam is not inherently evil. It is not inherently violent against women. Islam is not inherently ANYTHING. It was created by man, and its meaning is strictly limited to whatever defintion man gives it. But instead of aiding the voices in Islam who want to emphasize a definition of Islam that protects women, we attack Islam itself, forcing moderates further and further into extremism.

Incidentally, this is EXACTLY what happeend to the Salafists. They were moderates, supporting an Islamic ideal which borrowed copiously from Western intellectual and political traditions. Aggressive Westernization forced them further and further from the middle, until they were denouncning women in the pages of al-Manar.
[/quote]


yesyesyesyyesyesyesyesyyesyesyesyes to every single thing you posted! From the shallow obsession with the physical, to the assumption that these women now hate their religion and to the great finish with pointing out that Islamophobia only increases anti-Westernism.

Wish I had +1's for you. You said that really, really well.

[OraProMe]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='25 November 2009 - 09:39 AM' timestamp='1259159954' post='2009185']
Lillabett, who spoke to Mahomet on the day that he claims he heard a voice, and wanted to "throw himself off the cliff" while he was hearing this voice? Was it God who told him those things, like he claims? Or was he just lying about having heard the voice? I find it interesting that "allah" refers to itself in the plural. Like "Legion" did. "And We did not send you (O Muhammad) except as a mercy to the world." Mahometans do not believe in a triune God.
~Sternhauser
[/quote]

About to go to bed and can't be bothered responding to your entire post however it should be noted that the Pope and the Queen refer to themselves as "we" also. It's a figure of speech and not always plural. It'd be interesting to see what the original Arabic says.

[Lilllabettt]

Sternhauser: your use of "Mohematan" indicates to me that you don't know many Muslims. It offends them. They don't follow Mohommad, they follow Islam. They are Muslims, which means followers of Islam, which means "surrender ... to the will of God." (people always leave out the part after the ...)

Unless already know all this and you are deliberately trying to insult Muslims. For what. Kicks? Points?

As far as the devil goes, I'm sure he played his part in the founding of this religion. But I find it highly unlikely that it is the devil who is motivating people to fall on their face five times a day and worship the God of Abraham. I think it is very, very likely that God will use Islam to bring a vast population to His Son.

All of this is besides the point anyway.

What is the goal of calling Islam evil? Who are we trying to save? Have we been succesful using that tactic?

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='OraProMe' date='25 November 2009 - 10:46 AM' timestamp='1259160401' post='2009189']
About to go to bed and can't be bothered responding to your entire post however it should be noted that the Pope and the Queen refer to themselves as "we" also. It's a figure of speech and not always plural. It'd be interesting to see what the original Arabic says.
[/quote]

Yes. Don't be bothered.

When the Pope says "we," he is speaking on behalf of himself and his brother bishops. The Queen claims to speak on behalf of the country over which she reigns, and even of the person to whom she is speaking. Who is Allah speaking on behalf of, when he says "And [i]We[/i] did not send [i]you[/i] (O Muhammad) except as a mercy to the world."

~Sternhauser

Edited November 25, 2009 by Sternhauser

[Lilllabettt]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='25 November 2009 - 10:53 AM' timestamp='1259160798' post='2009192']
Yes. Don't be bothered.

When the Pope says "we," he is speaking on behalf of himself and his brother bishops. The Queen claims to speak on behalf of the country over which she reigns, and even of the person to whom she is speaking. Who is Allah speaking on behalf of, when he says "And [i]We[/i] did not send [i]you[/i] (O Muhammad) except as a mercy to the world."

~Sternhauser
[/quote]


God refers to Himself in the plural in Genesis 1:26 and 3:22. I have always heard the explanation that this is a veiled reference to the Holy Trinity. Not saying this is the case with Islam, but it is not necessarily the devil either. I think maybe it is an example of God reaching out, planting a seed in those who read the Koran, so that eventually He can bring them to Himself.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Lilllabettt' date='25 November 2009 - 10:52 AM' timestamp='1259160771' post='2009190']
Sternhauser: your use of "Mohematan" indicates to me that you don't know many Muslims. It offends them. They don't follow Mohommad, they follow Islam. They are Muslims, which means followers of Islam, which means "surrender ... to the will of God." (people always leave out the part after the ...)[/quote]

And people leave out the part after "surrender . . . to the will of God." It runs like this: "Or else we [Muslims] will kill you with Allah's blessing, as the Prophet (peace be upon him) said we should."

Islam is the religion of Mahomet and the demons that inspired him. It is not a religion of God, though I have no doubt many Mahometans intend, and perhaps succeed in, the worship of God.

[quote]Unless already know all this and you are deliberately trying to insult Muslims. For what. Kicks? Points?[/quote]

I'm pointing out that they follow the teachings of Mahomet and his demons, not the teaching of God. If it makes them feel better to say that "submission to Allah's will [or die]" is "following God's will," I am not going to accomodate their delusion for the sake of their immortal souls.

[quote]
As far as the devil goes, I'm sure he played his part in the founding of this religion. But I find it highly unlikely that it is the devil who is motivating people to fall on their face five times a day and worship the God of Abraham. I think it is very, very likely that God will use Islam to bring a vast population to His Son. [/quote]

Yes. All things work for the good of those who love God. That does not mean we should throw a war and invite the world every 5 years.


[quote]What is the goal of calling Islam evil?
[/quote]

The same goal as calling Catholicism the One True Church. Speaking the truth.

~Sternhauser

Edited November 25, 2009 by Sternhauser