|
|
Post by Said Mohammad on May 1, 2004 9:46:54 GMT -5
Jerusalem is sacred to Muslims because they were allowed to build in that city. Mecca isn't sacred to any other religion because even if we wanted to build a Church over there, it wouldn't last 1 hour and we wouldn't last 5 minutes. You cannot compare the Vatican to Mecca. The Vatican is a sovereign RELIGIOUS state whose only population are members of the Church and of the Swiss Guard. Even if you wanted to build a mosque, you couldn't because there wouldn't be any room. Rome is called the "Eternal city" by Christians. Do you know what that means? It certainly has a deep religious meaning for Catholics (of course you wouldn't know anything about this). Hdd quoted passages of the Koran which EXPLAIN why some Muslims turn into radical freaks of nature. The Koran has passages that promote violence against women, against non-believers, and if one looks hard enough, one will even find signs of racism. There is nothing in the New Testament that could be misinterpreted because there is no mention of Blacks in that book (correction: one of the three kings that visited Jesus was supposedly Black). If you talk about Christians enslaving Blacks, please don't forget the East African slave trade conducted by the Arabs. The funny thing is that I am Portuguese (we are often accused of having been slave traders by Afronuts like you) and yet the only relatives that I know that were actively engaged in that trade as late as the XIX century, had mostly Arab and Black blood. Why don't you accuse the Arabs for a change? Hell, they have oil and they are rich: maybe you could ask them for "compensations"?  Europeans never respected the cultures of others? Well, my country did. Let me repeat: IN EUROPE, we will do what we bloody well please PARTICULARLY when outside of Europe, Black Zimbabweans are killing white farmers, when Black south Africans kill and rape thousands of whites every year, and when if we say a thing about it, we are the ones that are labelled "racist". I am sick of it! By the way, quit those comments of sexual nature. In RM, we all knew that you were obessed with homosexuality, but don't bring that over here. Mecca is just as holy as the Vatican is too Catholics for only MUSLIMS are allowed tio step foot in there, so yes you can compare the two. Just as mosques aren't allowed in Vatican City cvhurches shouldn't be allowed in Mecca. Period. catholuics don't represent all Christians and the ones I know consider Jerusalem more sacred than Rome. The issue isn't about Christians or Arabs enslaving blacks moron, the issue is that the Bible was used to justify slavery in much the same way terrorists use the Quran to justify their crimes. Thats the point, were you too myopic to discern that? |
|
|
|
Post by Said Mohammad on May 1, 2004 9:49:02 GMT -5
"Cafre" is a Portuguese word that literally means weasel or scoundrel. It even has an Arabic origin, I thought that you would like it  . Don't give that nonsense stupid, the only people you have called cafres were blacks, so quit trying to rationalize your impulsive behavior and name calling. |
|
|
|
Post by alex221166 on May 1, 2004 10:02:56 GMT -5
Don't give that nonsense stupid, the only people you have called cafres were blacks, so quit trying to rationalize your impulsive behavior and name calling. No, I once told you that the medieval Portuguese called their slaves "cafres" and since you started calling me "gorilla" and "chimp" (!!!) I started calling you "cafre". I don't call all Blacks "cafres", only stupid Afrocentrists like you. Real Africans are usually kind and giving people - you are just plain ignorant and annoying. |
|
|
|
Post by alex221166 on May 1, 2004 10:09:05 GMT -5
Mecca is just as holy as the Vatican is too Catholics for only MUSLIMS are allowed tio step foot in there, so yes you can compare the two. Just as mosques aren't allowed in Vatican City cvhurches shouldn't be allowed in Mecca. Period. catholuics don't represent all Christians and the ones I know consider Jerusalem more sacred than Rome. The issue isn't about Christians or Arabs enslaving blacks moron, the issue is that the Bible was used to justify slavery in much the same way terrorists use the Quran to justify their crimes. Thats the point, were you too myopic to discern that? The Bible was not used to justify slavery. That is simply stupid. HOWEVER, the Hadith mentions that the Arabs used to sell black slaves in front of the mosques. It also mentions that the Prophet tortured and killed pagans that had once been muslims. Christianity is against all types of slavery. Haven't you heard of Bartolomé de las Casas? Of Padre António Vieira? In 1570, Portugal abolished the slave trade of Native Americans. 1570!!! That was the first time ANY country in the world passed a law against slavery. On the other hand, west Africa is still plagued by slavery as we speak. Stop accusing Christians (and namely Europeans) of something that was only stopped thanks to us. |
|
|
|
Post by murphee on May 1, 2004 12:09:29 GMT -5
Only Mormons are allowed on the grounds right next to the Temple in Salt Lake City. The gate was open, and the guard waved me in. I'm not a Mormon but last December, I must have looked like I belonged  |
|
|
|
Post by Graeme on May 1, 2004 12:59:52 GMT -5
The Vatican is not holy to me. It belongs to the Pope. Why not ask him for a mosque? I couldn't care less. I dislike all the Middle Eastern religions, maybe not Mithraism.
There is nothing holy about any place on this planet. Makkah is a town with odd monuments. That's it. Jerusalem is a town. Nothing holy about it to me. I am not going to the wall or that mosque on the hill or some hole under a church. But if you were talking about culture, food, architecture, climate and geography I might be interested, but not any BS about holiness of rock or dirt or masonry. There is a mosque in Malta and it is an absolute eyesore. Can't believe your lot built the Alhambra.
|
|
|
|
Post by Said Mohammad on May 2, 2004 1:04:17 GMT -5
The Bible was not used to justify slavery. That is simply stupid. HOWEVER, the Hadith mentions that the Arabs used to sell black slaves in front of the mosques. It also mentions that the Prophet tortured and killed pagans that had once been muslims. Christianity is against all types of slavery. Haven't you heard of Bartolomé de las Casas? Of Padre António Vieira? In 1570, Portugal abolished the slave trade of Native Americans. 1570!!! That was the first time ANY country in the world passed a law against slavery. On the other hand, west Africa is still plagued by slavery as we speak. Stop accusing Christians (and namely Europeans) of something that was only stopped thanks to us. Oh yes, the Bible was used to justify slavery as well as being used to call other peoples religion pagan and witchcraft. THOSE SAME Christian Europeans had no problem enslaving Africans so what you amounts to nothing. |
|
|
|
Post by alex221166 on May 2, 2004 7:07:16 GMT -5
Oh yes, the Bible was used to justify slavery as well as being used to call other peoples religion pagan and witchcraft. THOSE SAME Christian Europeans had no problem enslaving Africans so what you amounts to nothing. That has nothing to do with the Bible. Blacks were enslaved because they were available - as simple as that. What you afrocentrists are too stupid to even realise, is that slavery HAS ALWAYS EXISTED. In the middle ages, there was a charity SPECIFICALLY DEVOTED to pay off the ransom of Christian captives enslaved by the Moors. The great Portuguese adventurer Fernão Mendes Pinto was enslaved while in China. There is NOTHING in the new testament that says that anyone should be enslaved. On the other hand... Koran 009.073 O Prophet! Strive hard against the Unbelievers [non-Moslems] and the Hypocrites and be unyielding to them. Koran 047.004 Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers [non-Moslems], smite at their necks; At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly on them: thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: Until the war lays down its burdens. Thus are ye commanded: but if it had been Allah"s Will, He could certainly have exacted retribution from them Himself; but (He lets you fight) in order to test you, some with others. But those who are slain in the Way of Allah,- He will never let their deeds be lost. Koran 005.033 The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter; Koran 008.012 Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): 'I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instil terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers[non-Moslems]: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them.' Koran 002.190-1 Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you... And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then kill them; such is the recompense of the Unbelievers[non-Moslems]. Koran 009.005 But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and kill the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem; but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. Koran 009.029 Kill those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection. |
|
|
|
Post by Vitor on May 21, 2004 12:10:27 GMT -5
I guess Koran give the status of "the book" to the BIBLE, SO I guess KORAN is actually approving the BIBLE with those references...
So if the bible was used to inslave people (I am not saying it did), Koran is also doing the same thing (indirectly of course)
most important!
My interpretation of that sentece is that killing the people of the book is FORBIDDEN by Allah, and thus Bin laden and his followers are going to HELL...
If there is only one GOD, then muslims, christians and jews all worship the same GOD, with different rituals of course...
|
|
|
|
Post by Springa on May 21, 2004 12:24:46 GMT -5
Of course Killing anyone because they don't believe in god is bad enough, but the thing is: Allah means god in Arabic, even for Christians. Also, according to Islam, Christians and Jews also worship that same god, so they're not unbelievers. So this passage is about atheists and pagans who don't want to convert, not about Christians and Jews, and if people interpret it that way, that's on their own account, not the Koran's. I guess Koran give the status of "the book" to the BIBLE, SO I guess KORAN is actually approving the BIBLE with those references... So if the bible was used to inslave people (I am not saying it did), Koran is also doing the same thing (indirectly of course) most important! My interpretation of that sentece is that killing the people of the book is FORBIDDEN by Allah, and thus Bin laden and his followers are going to HELL... If there is only one GOD, then muslims, christians and jews all worship the same GOD, with different rituals of course... |
|
|
|
Post by Melnorme on May 21, 2004 15:13:49 GMT -5
Of course Killing anyone because they don't believe in god is bad enough, but the thing is: Allah means god in Arabic, even for Christians. Also, according to Islam, Christians and Jews also worship that same god, so they're not unbelievers. So this passage is about atheists and pagans who don't want to convert, not about Christians and Jews, and if people interpret it that way, that's on their own account, not the Koran's. Christians and Jews have to pay the jizya. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JizyaInterestingly, it was also extended to the 'pagan' Zoroastrians. |
|
|
|
Post by Aria88 on May 21, 2004 23:33:09 GMT -5
At one time Islam was a more progressive religion than Christianity, i.e. when the Alhambra was built. That enlightened period of Islam was owing to the perpetuation of the advanced and ancient Persian culture. I want to stress that I'm not anti-Arab and not anti-Islam, but 1350 years ago the Arabs were a simple folk, and though Islam, like Christianity and Judaism, owes its best traditions to Zoroastrianism and Mithraism, it is still a savage desert religion. I am sorry if anyone is offended. As a matter of fact, given the covert influence of Mazdaism within Shi'a Islam, if I had to choose from one of the 3 monotheistic creeds, I'd become a twelver Shi'ite!
Personally, I am agnostic, leaning toward being a Believer. And if I say that there probably is a God, I can't say with certainty that there is only one. Monotheism itself is a conceit. What makes one intellectually, morally and culturally superior to believe in one deity?
|
|
|
|
Post by Graeme on May 22, 2004 8:01:51 GMT -5
You are talking about Islam when it was in its enfancy and using the knowledge gleaned from the Ancient Greeks, the Hindus, the Chinese and other more advanced and civilised nations. What would the Alhambra be without Roman and Norman architecture; nothing but some ugly mud hut.
Islam is not like that today, it is an ugly adolescent covered in zits going around setting fires and taking drugs. It is a religion of ignorance and intolerance. Mecca a holy city! What an oxymoron. Even in the beginning after muhammad's death, the islamists couldn't get on in a civilised manner and the successors were often assassinated or poisoned. The period of the four Caliphates was a very bad joke. There should be no sunnis today, as the Caliphate was in the family of Ali until taken over by murderers and maniacs.
What is needed is reciprocity. If Europeans or Christians are prohibited in certain parts of the muslim world then muslims should receive the same treatment. Europeans are required to live in certain zones, then muslims should likewise be restricted. These muslim ratbags have been using the open, easy going, democratic systems of European and other countries as a one way street, in their direction, for far too long. Let's make it a two way street. Get them to dance - to our tunes.
|
|
|
|
Post by alex221166 on May 22, 2004 9:14:58 GMT -5
You are talking about Islam when it was in its enfancy and using the knowledge gleaned from the Ancient Greeks, the Hindus, the Chinese and other more advanced and civilised nations. What would the Alhambra be without Roman and Norman architecture; nothing but some ugly mud hut. Islam is not like that today, it is an ugly adolescent covered in zits going around setting fires and taking drugs. It is a religion of ignorance and intolerance. Mecca a holy city! What an oxymoron. Even in the beginning after muhammad's death, the islamists couldn't get on in a civilised manner and the successors were often assassinated or poisoned. The period of the four Caliphates was a very bad joke. There should be no sunnis today, as the Caliphate was in the family of Ali until taken over by murderers and maniacs. What is needed is reciprocity. If Europeans or Christians are prohibited in certain parts of the muslim world then muslims should receive the same treatment. Europeans are required to live in certain zones, then muslims should likewise be restricted. These muslim ratbags have been using the open, easy going, democratic systems of European and other countries as a one way street, in their direction, for far too long. Let's make it a two way street. Get them to dance - to our tunes. Great post, at least in theory. Reciprocity is a great idea, but lowering ourselves to their level would shatter the image Europeans have designed for themselves (tolerant to the point of being patronizing, etc). Furthermore, it would take a lot of guts from our leaders. Courage is quite a rare thing, these days... especially in politics. |
|
|
|
Post by Igu on Jun 16, 2004 18:12:53 GMT -5
"Cafre" is a Portuguese word that literally means weasel or scoundrel. It even has an Arabic origin, I thought that you would like it . that word was brought to south africa by portuguese to call bantu people, it's origin is arabic (kafer), it means Unbeliever. but maybe we are not speaking about the same word!  |
|
.
