Islam, a psychopathic and dangerous religion.

[syriano]

ok I'll look at his stuff later in 2 weeks when I am more free.

however it would be good if you can provide a debate not located on his website.

here is answer to one of the questions from his website

about the flat earth and the sun seting in a spring (and other stuff)
www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/avijitroy/flatearth.htm

the answer
www.answering-christianity.com/earth_rotation_challenge.htm

[dukeofpain]

igu said:

I start this thread because I want it to be separated from the poll : "which is the worst religion".

before starting, I would like to introduce myself first: I lived in a muslim country (Algeria); I have family members who are islamists, some of my friends were islamists, I studied the "basics" of islam in primary and middle school, and in more depth in high scholl (sharia), so I am not talking out of my ass, I lived islam, know what it is, know how muslims act and think, it's useless to tell me "you don't know islam". I have also improved my knowledge by reading islamic books, anti-islamic books ...etc.

The information I will provide is taught in every "normal" school (not islamic ones) and every islamic university of every arab/islamic country:

1-Blasphemy is punished by death or assassination:

Bukhari volume 5 n 369 : the "prophet" asks who will kill ka3b (a poet who was mocking mohamed), some of his disciples volunteer and kills ka3b. (the "prophet was a coward, he could not even do it himself).

Sounane Abu-Dawud book 38, Num 4348: the prophet agreed the killing of a slave who used to insult him.

2-barbarian practices and no mercy:

Sahih muslim 3202: a man came to confess his sin (adultary), mohamed ordered his stoning.

3-Islam: a mafia, not a religion:

an independant non-muslim country cannot live in peace with a muslim country, he must pay "taxes" to the muslim country in order to have peace, if the country does not want to pay "taxes", the muslim country will atack and kill those who don't want to pay taxes.

also, countries like morocco or jordan are not considered muslim countries because they do not prohibit fornication and all the bullshit allah has forbidden.

quran 9:29: "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. "

Psychopatic religion: Mohamed did not like music, pictural art, he thought it was the act of the "devil", he has prohibited them:

Abou Ishâq: the prophet said: listening to music is a sin, to gather and listen to it is worse, taking pleasure in listening it is Koufr.

4-Islam : a trap, beware before signing any contract with Allah!!!

In islam, if you leave islam you are killed, the "prophet" said "whoever leaves islam, kill him!".

Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are all negative religions that promote an incredibly anti-world anti-reality type doctorine, that is seemingly contra human intrinsic humanness. As seen by the Martyrdom phenomena, which when coupled with human nature, appears completely absurd in every possible way, not only from the perspective of all mankind, but even the perspective of life itself. It was an especially dangerous towards say romans, since this could be seen by them (stoics) as honorable and brave, when they should have looked at it as stupid and absurd. Suicide is suicide, apart from "divine will".

This is also visible in the Bible. When one reads it, a noticeable consistency is the partiality you feel (humanness) towards everything that they (early Christians) debase and wish to suppress. However, they do it not out of enlightenment, rather out of contempt and inferiority. Christianity came from the lowliness of the "early Christians", whom themselves were failures in life, and extremely hostile to anyone who wasn't a wretched failure (pagan Greeks/roman). So they attack what is in reality: good, productive, meaningful and merited (pagan ideology) being that they were the bearers of western civilization, not some pathetic sods like the EC's, who were literally the scummiest most downtrodden echelon of the society. The reason is because that's all they could do: induce themselves into a religious autistic state, where they are "right" and "good". This is much the same for Jewish doctrine which was always soaked in contempt from long periods of bondage and oppression, that was a cycle, for the more upset and hence oppressive the host nations got, the more belligerent , disdainful and isolated the Jews became( Egyptians, Assyrians, Pagan Romans, Christian Romans, Christian Europe, etc.). Islam is not immune, it's also an abrahamic religion founded on contempt and fueled by autism.

The worst part regarding these "religions", is that the inherent partiality obviously sink below the radar as time passes and the victim of the religions become more fanatic. Which essentially shifted humanity, and human evolution, down a different; decadent and absurd road, being driven by lunatics, with a one way ticket that goes straight to self-destruction. As prophesied BY THEM, and as fulfilled BY THEM. That's why they're even more dangerous.

[Educate Me]

i recall reading that almsot with the same words, where did you get

(maybe even with the same words)

[dukeofpain]

ienjoylurking said:

i recall reading that almsot with the same words, where did you get

(maybe even with the same words)

Posited in:
www.publicappeal.org/library/nietzsche/Nietzsche_the_antichrist/the_antichrist.htm

[Mike the Jedi]

As if Nietzsche's existentialist ideas are any less absurd than those of Abrahamic religions.

[dukeofpain]

xcalator1 said:

As if Nietzsche's existentialist ideas are any less absurd than those of Abrahamic religions.

And why is that? are you a resentfull slave?

[Mike the Jedi]

Yes, I'm a resentful slave. And you're a dumb penguin.

[dukeofpain]

you're a dumb penguin.

relative to your slavish worldview.

[dukeofpain]

syriano said:

equilibrium said:

Faithfreedom.com? Are you joking? the webmaster of this website, has been ridiculized. Please read the debate, between, this individual, and Dr. ali Sina, you'll have a laugh, at least, if you're smart enough.

Faithfreedom.com is a site exclusively created to prove us wrong.

Here are the debates I had with them. Unfortunately they stopped debating. (from FFI.org)
www.faithfreedom.org/debates/ff_com.htm

Anyway, FF.com isn't a solid Website, and its webmaster, is just a plain joke. Maybe you should read some serious debates, like the one with Grand Ayatollah Montazeri.

Here is the link---> www.faithfreedom.org/debates/montazeri.htm

some other websites claim that they indeed cornered ali sina, but he never shows it or posted the content on his website

www.examinethetruth.com/another_test_for_Ali_Sina.htm
thetruereligion.org/modules/wfsection/article.php?articleid=120&page=0
www.dar-es-salaam.org/web/ali.htm
www.answering-christianity.com/bassam_zawadi/rebuttaltoalisina8.htm
..

forget about them for a second really (I am in no position to read all of this)
can you answer my question in the previous post?

Interesting website of a group of 'supreme" Jews who want to dominate the world, and dictate to gentiles what moral values they Can have and Cannot have. Which includes denouncing Jesus --the false messiah-- and regarding themselves as subordinate to the "ontologically" superior Jews.

www.noahide.com

A picture of an American Zionist fifth column politician socializing with the leader and founder of the Jew world order, noahide movement. By the name of Lubavitcher Rebbe Whom appears at the far right of the first picture, and in the second one.

[curiousman]

syriano said:

curiousman said:

Syriano,
I have a question for you.

How do you explain the following facts? In the golden age of "islamic" science there were a lot of astronomers and scholars, who knew perfectly the Koran and notwithstanding this they ALL were followers of the Ptolemaic-geocentric theory (only possible exception the famous al-Biruni who discussed the possibility - notabene: the possibility, not the reality - of the motion of the Earth around its axis, but not of the motion of the Earth around the Sun).

They were surely smart people, they were at the top of scientific knowledge of their epoch but among them there was no one Kopernic nor a Newton.

Why, if, as you stated, in the Koran there are uncontroverted descriptions of facts ascertained only by modern ("modern" in the sense of XVII century european so called scientific revolution) science? Were that ancient smart people not able to interpret correctly their Koran?

So, From a logical point of view, what is more probable?:

1) that all that smart ancient people were misled in their interpretation of the Koran (so, they ancient muslim scholars were wrong, you modern muslim are right);

2) that the interpretation of the Koran you have proposed is only a recent one and accurately (?) selected to fit (but only ex post factum!) modern science.

So, where is the problem: in Muhammad's foreknowledge or (excuse my frankness) in modern islamic "dawaganda"?

hello


Hello to you

I just want to note that not all the quran was understood during it's time. I mean for sure the people during mohammads time didn't know what planet and moon circulations were, this was too advanced for their time.


Too advanced? I'm sorry for you, but your statement demonstrates that you don't know the history of ancient astronomy.
Have you ever heard about the names of Aristarchos of Samos or of Seleucos of Seleucia?
Aristarchos is called "the ancient Copernicus" because, three century b.C., he was the first man all over the world (as far as we know) to propose the "modern" theory of planetary system in which the Earth revolves around the Sun and around its axis. Unfortunely the books where Aristarchos treated his theory were lost (all we know about it is from indirect sources as the works of Archimedes) and the rival geocentric theory prevaled, but his theory was known also to arab astronomers, who knew Archimedes' works.

So my objection still works:
if

1) you have muslim astronomers who knew ancient greek sources which treated the theory of the motion od the Earth, and
2) the same astronomers were muslim scholars who knew the Koran, where you claim there are uncontroverted statements about the motion of the Earth,

how do you explain that ALL those smart people were not able to find it in the Koran and they all were supporters of geocentric theory? Were all they wrong and only you modern muslims are right?

In Islam it says you'll learn more and more as time goes on (probably still alot of stuff to be learnt)

You can say this also of a cookbook ...

as for scientists, it's wrong to assume they know the whole religion. Religion science is a big field (which is taught as a major by it self). did christian scientists have knowledge of the whole bible?


So do you agree with me that the supposed suras of the Koran treating the motion of the Earth are not uncontroversed?

actually I think it wasn't until "recent" times that they discovered these things present in the Quran.


Interesting ... and aren't you just curious to know why these "discoveries" in the Koran are so "recent" (remember that the "modern" european rediscovery of the theory of the motion of the Earth dates back to XVI century)?

In addition to this, I believe scientists in geenral work with what they can prove or have some clues toward. they can't come up with a theory if they can't (nor have the resources to) back it up.


Mmm ... I recommend you a good book on ancient science: "The forgotten revolution. How science was born in 300 BC and why it had to be reborn" by Lucio Russo.

however, I'll look into this matter for you, so don't take this answer as a final word (I don't have enough info about this subject)


Very kind of you ... do a good work

ps; the old quran and the current quran are the same


I never said the contrary.

[syriano]

yes I think the scientific foundings in the Quran were in the last 100 years or so.

the reasons behind this is probably because the indications (especially those in astronomy) are not straight forward. I mean for example about the eart hbeing round or oval (it doesn't say that directly) look at explenation below. there is another verse in the meaning of: he god of the two easts and two wests..(I'll try to find it) wich can be the case only if the earth is round

however I agree that some of these "profs" can be debatable, but that's not the point. I believe Quran was not supposed to be a book of science.

here's another observation they found,
55:37. When the sky is rent asunder, and it becomes red like ointment

they linked it to this
antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap991031.html


back to the eath
I found this for now;

Ibn Taymiyah continues: The [word] falak [in the Arabic language] means that which is round. From which is the statement [of the Arabs]: <<The young girl's breasts have ta-fa-la-ka when they become round.>> (Vol. 6, pp. 566-567)

In an earlier passage (Vol. 6, pp. 565-566), Ibn Taymiyah discusses why those on the other side of the earth are not below us, just like we are not below them. He writes:

As for the other side of the earth it is surrounded by water. [Note: Admittedly, Ibn Taymiyah - as all Muslim scholars of his day- were not aware of the Americas and believed that the Old World was encompassed by an ocean.] There are no human beings or anything like that [on that side]. Even if we were to imagine that people were on that side of the earth, such individuals would still be on the face of the earth. Those on that side of the earth are not below those who are on this side; just like those on this side are not below those on that side. For as all spherical bodies surround a center point (markaz), no one side of a spherical body is under the other, nor is the north pole under the south [Note: Unlike Western maps, Muslim cartographers (map-makers) would draw the world with the south-side up.] or vice versa.

In another passage (Vol. 5, p. 150) Ibn Taymiyah clearly states the earth is spherical.

Significantly Abu Ya'la in his work Tabaqatal-Hanabilah (Biographical Entries of the Hanabali Scholars) quotes the unanimous consensus (ijma) of all Muslim scholars that the earth is round.

This consensus was mentioned by the scholars of the second generation (the students of the Prophet's Companions) and was based upon Ibn Abbas' explanation to 21:33 (previously cited) and other evidences.

The later belief of Muslim scholars, like as-Suyuti (died 911 AH / 1505 CE) that the earth is flat represents a deviation from this earlier opinion.

which is weird I know

will try t ofind more stuff

[curiousman]

syriano said:

yes I think the scientific foundings in the Quran were in the last 100 years or so.

Syriano, are you sure you have understood the core of my objection? I'm perplexed ...



yes I think the scientific foundings in the Quran were in the last 100 years or so.



No, I believe they are more recent ... and they have a lot to do with Saudi Arabia ...



the reasons behind this is probably because the indications (especially those in astronomy) are not straight forward. I mean for example about the eart hbeing round or oval (it doesn't say that directly) look at explenation below. there is another verse in the meaning of: he god of the two easts and two wests..(I'll try to find it) wich can be the case only if the earth is round

however I agree that some of these "profs" can be debatable, but that's not the point. I believe Quran was not supposed to be a book of science.


I agree with you, Quran is not a book of science. People find "scientific miracles" in Quran because they want to find them there. This is only islamic "dawaganda". The same as evangelical fundamentalists who pretend to find in the Bible the proofs of their creationistic theories.



here's another observation they found,
55:37. When the sky is rent asunder, and it becomes red like ointment

they linked it to this
antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap991031.html


Really do you think that this proof anything?



back to the eath
I found this for now;

Ibn Taymiyah continues: The [word] falak [in the Arabic language] means that which is round. From which is the statement [of the Arabs]: <<The young girl's breasts have ta-fa-la-ka when they become round.>> (Vol. 6, pp. 566-567)

In an earlier passage (Vol. 6, pp. 565-566), Ibn Taymiyah discusses why those on the other side of the earth are not below us, just like we are not below them. He writes:

As for the other side of the earth it is surrounded by water. [Note: Admittedly, Ibn Taymiyah - as all Muslim scholars of his day- were not aware of the Americas and believed that the Old World was encompassed by an ocean.] There are no human beings or anything like that [on that side]. Even if we were to imagine that people were on that side of the earth, such individuals would still be on the face of the earth. Those on that side of the earth are not below those who are on this side; just like those on this side are not below those on that side. For as all spherical bodies surround a center point (markaz), no one side of a spherical body is under the other, nor is the north pole under the south [Note: Unlike Western maps, Muslim cartographers (map-makers) would draw the world with the south-side up.] or vice versa.

In another passage (Vol. 5, p. 150) Ibn Taymiyah clearly states the earth is spherical.

Significantly Abu Ya'la in his work Tabaqatal-Hanabilah (Biographical Entries of the Hanabali Scholars) quotes the unanimous consensus (ijma) of all Muslim scholars that the earth is round.

This consensus was mentioned by the scholars of the second generation (the students of the Prophet's Companions) and was based upon Ibn Abbas' explanation to 21:33 (previously cited) and other evidences.

The later belief of Muslim scholars, like as-Suyuti (died 911 AH / 1505 CE) that the earth is flat represents a deviation from this earlier opinion.

which is weird I know



It's weird that you don't know that the concept of a round Earth, from a philosophical point of view, dates back to Pythagoras of samos and Parmenides of Elea (VI-V century BC). The first known scientific "proofs" of the spherical shape of the Earth were recorded by Aristoteles (IV century BC), about a thousand years before Muhammad ...
In ellenistic and roman times this became a common and popular knowledge shared all over the Mediterrean basin and the Near East. It's very probable that Muhammad was able to catch this information even without the help of Jibril ...

will try t ofind more stuff


Ok. But before doing this, try to understand well my point.

[syriano]

ok I got your point.

look as I stated before, I am not very much into these subjects at all and don't have strong background information regarding these matters. I came to defend some basic attacks but got swollon into much larger arguments that are much bigger than my knowledge as I admited before..

to seek answers about such matters (for you or laudabilis) is very hard for me. you know much of these information, you can't find it online and I am not going to the liberary to look up every fact. the only alternative I have is to look for what someone else has writen online, which can be missleading because it might not be the accurate explanation

however, I'll try to look better in 2 weeks (when the heavy school load will lessen)

edit: ok "DeLacroix" I looked alittle at sina's website, and that is just some sneaky guy.
obviously he is smart as he tries to be all calm and civilized, but alot of his stuff is indeed taken out of poprtion, wrong, or misused without the proper explenation.

in his talk with that Muntaziri. the "debate" is misleading because:
1- it doesn't show what questions he asked him
2- it didn't give muntaziri the chance to reply to Ali's answers (the way he put the thing on the page looks like a convo, while in reality it wasn't)

here is a small thing even I know
in Islam adoptation is not allowed (ie using your name for the kids) because this might cause an adopted son to marry his real sister without knowing..
you are allowed to takecare of a child, but with keeping it's original name, hence not "adopt" them


I still await the list of converted Muslims scholars if you can find some, Lauli

I mean muslims scholars do all this work and try to be good in order to get the good after life. they sure would leave Islam if they find prof that it's made up, no?

[ndrthl]

Young Greeks at the Mosque - This oil painting done by Jean Léon Gérôme in 1865 shows Greek Christian youths who were taken from their parents (known to Greeks as the "paidomazoma" or the "tribute of children") and converted to Islam.

img481.imageshack.us/my.php?image=greeks3qv.jpg




en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Greece

[ndrthl]

Islam is generally very intolerant towards other views of the world.