Unveiling according to the Prophet

[Scotty]

what the f*ck has become of our culture that the description in the title of this thread has become acceptable? how can you guys accept racist sh*t like that?

tell me why only 2 of the following racist comments are unacceptable to you?

"from the camel's mouth"

I don't think the title was intended to be insulting. Straight from the horse's mouth is a well-known expression. I think the exchange of camel for horse was merely intended to represent a play on words indicating the middle east as a source.

I don't believe I've ever heard middle eastern people insulted by calling them camels...

Black people, however, have been called ape, so that would be an insult if referring to Black people. And, of course, vermin is a known pejorative.

Edited December 24, 2011 by Scotty

[bud]

I don't think the title was intended to be insulting. Straight from the horse's mouth is a well-known expression. I think the exchange of camel for horse was merely intended to represent a play on words indicating the middle east as a source.

I don't believe I've ever heard middle eastern people insulted by calling them camels...

Black people, however, have been called ape, so that would be an insult if referring to Black people. And, of course, vermin is a known pejorative.

that can be accepted as a valid explanation

[Michael Hardner]

You quibble like a lawyer. Rather than discussing my opinion and the pros and cons you simply chose to throw out an insult.

I have posted about such ideas many times in the past...

What else is there to say? There are people whom you don't like and you want to keep them out. You can try to rationalize it, but every time you try to set down some objective reason fir it, one can come up with examples of Europeans who wouldn't qualify and Muslims who would.

[jbg]

Shouldn't this either be in the thread about the veils or in the religion forum?

No. Because it's about the Canadian partial ban on the niqab.

[cybercoma]

No. Because it's about the Canadian partial ban on the niqab.

So shouldn't this be in the thread about the Canadian partial ban on the niqab?

[Guest Peeves]

So shouldn't this be in the thread about the Canadian partial ban on the niqab?

NO SINCE I IN MY OWN INIMITABLE WAY DECIDED TO MAKE A SEPARATE POST FROM THE PROPHET'S POINT OF VIEW, NOW GO SUCK AN EGG...MEANT IN THE NICEST OF WAYS, PERHAPS USE EGG NOG.

Sorry about the yelling, the blenders running.

[Guest Peeves]

what the f*ck has become of our culture that the description in the title of this thread has become acceptable? how can you guys accept racist sh*t like that?

tell me why only 2 of the following racist comments are unacceptable to you?

"from the camel's mouth"

"from the ape's mouth"

"from the vermin's mouth"

My question might rather be why the excessive use of profanity when it is objectionable to some and totally unnecessary.

[Guest Peeves]

I don't think the title was intended to be insulting. Straight from the horse's mouth is a well-known expression. I think the exchange of camel for horse was merely intended to represent a play on words indicating the middle east as a source.

I don't believe I've ever heard middle eastern people insulted by calling them camels...

Black people, however, have been called ape, so that would be an insult if referring to Black people. And, of course, vermin is a known pejorative.

Right I was simply putting it in context. Had I used horse, I would of course have had to qualify that as from the Arabian horse's mouth and that too would have been considered politically incorrect by anyone looking for an argument.

[Guest Peeves]

So your source is a review on a book by Don Richardson, who appears to be a Christian fundamentalist, done by bibleone.net, whose tagline is "Faith alone in Christ alone." I hardly think this is a credible when it comes to information about increased sexual assaults happening in Sweden. Your second source is the blog of Daniel Pipes, who Christopher Hitchens has even called an anti-Muslim propagandist and Hitchens is absolutely not a supporter of Islam. Also not a effective, reliable or credible source for the subject at hand. No wonder you don't want to hear comments about the sources. They're garbage.

Anyone not agreeing with your tunnel vision is of course garbage.

My "source" (s) is my conviction based on reading statements made by Islamic leaders Islamic teachers, Imams, Mullah, Mawlawi, Ayatollah I don't need Pipes or anyone else's support for those convictions since Islamists are frequently quite open in stating their objective. I provided the links so you and other apologist enablers would have a target. Just being amiable since I figured you'd just take the bait and ignore the quarry.

There are many Muslim leaders that are not shy when stating the world objective of Islam. One need not look for Christians or Jews Or Hindu, simply listen to Muslim clerics.

Anyway I waste my time on a forum discussing the issue since it only leads to rancor and charges of bigotry or racism or hate, when what I hate is the oppression and subjugation and murder of Muslims and other religious sects by radical Jihad.

http://www.al-islam.org/mahdi/nontl/Chap-14.htm

Edited to add one small point from Muslim interview link.

On seeing the fulfillment of many of the signs promised in the traditions, a large number of unbelievers will turn towards Islam. Those who persist in their disbelief and wickedness shall be killed by the soldiers of the Mahdi. The only victorious government in the entire world will be that of Islam and people will devotedly endeavor to protect it. Islam will be the religion of everyone, and will enter all the nations of the world.

The Destiny of the Unbelievers

Dr. Jalali: What will happen to the unbelievers (kuffar) and those who associated partners with God (mushrikin)?

Mr. Hoshyar: From the readings in the Qur'an and the hadith literature it appears that during the Mahdi's rule the government and the power will be taken away from non-monotheistic[3] and materialistic disbelievers, and will be vested in the hands of the Muslims and other worthy people of the world. Let us, for example, look at certain verses from the Qur'an:

It is He who has sent His Messenger with the guidance and the religion of truth, that he may uplift it above every religion, though the unbelievers be averse. (Saff [61], 9)

God has promised those of you who believe and do righteous deeds that He will surely make you successors in the land, even as He made those who were before them successors, and that He will surely establish their religion for them that He has approved for them, and will give them in exchange after their fear security: 'They shall serve Me, not associating with Me anything.' (Nur [24], 54)

Yet We desired to be gracious to those that were abased in the land, and to make them leaders, and to make them the inheritors, and to establish them in the land. (Qasas [28], 4)

These passages from the Qur'an give the glad tidings of that which will come when world power and government are in the hands of the qualified and worthy believers and Muslims, and the religion of Islam ("submission to the will of God") overshadows all other religions and actually eclipses them all.

Edited December 25, 2011 by Peeves

[Michael Hardner]

Well it's been awhile since anyone pointed to the Koran as being a cause of violence. So why don't Christians and Jews also fall spell to incitations to violence in their holy books?

[Guest Peeves]

Anyone not agreeing with your tunnel vision is of course garbage.

This has become redundant so I have closed my comments.

Salam alaikum,

Merry Christmas and a Happy Hanukkah to all and to all, a good night.

Edited December 25, 2011 by Peeves

[Jack Weber]

Well it's been awhile since anyone pointed to the Koran as being a cause of violence. So why don't Christians and Jews also fall spell to incitations to violence in their holy books?

Interesting point...

I suspect that in both there are many text's that suggest kiling others is a bad thing??

[cybercoma]

My question might rather be why the excessive use of profanity when it is objectionable to some and totally unnecessary.

Says the guy who one post prior told another poster to "go suck an egg."

[jbg]

Says the guy who one post prior told another poster to "go suck an egg."

But he did say: "MEANT IN THE NICEST OF WAYS, PERHAPS USE EGG NOG."

[Scotty]

I have posted about such ideas many times in the past...

What else is there to say?

May I suggest that the next time you feel you have nothing to say, you take heed of that feeling?

There are people whom you don't like and you want to keep them out

.

If one places a certain value or worth upon the company one keeps, if one feels that ones life is better enhanced by living in a society made up of people with a certain sophistication, tolerance and enlightenment, why would one NOT wish to oppose policies which draw in large numbers of the opposite sort of people? And why would you feel doing so is somehow illegitimate? Do you claim to be such a paragon of openness and acceptance that you bear no judgement whatever on the types of people which surround you and their behaviour?

You can try to rationalize it, but every time you try to set down some objective reason fir it, one can come up with examples of Europeans who wouldn't qualify and Muslims who would.

That's like saying you can always find a Yugo which actually is more reliable than a certain Mercedes. But exceptions do not make the rule. For every policy, every law, every rule of behaviour, one can find exceptions where they function poorly due to a variety of circumstances. Nevertheless, we can still say with certainty that in the vast majority of cases those policies, laws and rules make sense. To do otherwise is to suggest we have none. Just as your policy appears to be that we accept all and judge them all.

[Scotty]

Well it's been awhile since anyone pointed to the Koran as being a cause of violence. So why don't Christians and Jews also fall spell to incitations to violence in their holy books?

Because, by and large, Christians and Jews are living in more enlightened societies (not coincidentally). The interpretation of Christian and Jewish holy books has changed over the centuries. Certain parables are not taken literally. This has not happened with the Koran. The Koran was last interpreted centuries ago, and at that time and since Muslim authorities, such as they are, declared that this was the final and perfect interpretation of God's holy, literal word. To even attempt to reinterpret things in light of modern thinking (even presuming those raised in Muslim countries are capable of such thinking) is blasphemy and heresy. And while we in the West might consider such charges quaint they still carry the word of law in Muslim societies. You can be imprisoned and killed for blasphemy. Needless to say, rarely is it practiced outside the West.

[Scotty]

Interesting point...

I suspect that in both there are many text's that suggest kiling others is a bad thing??

One must remember that the Christian prophet was a wandering preacher. The Muslim prophet was a conquering warrior prince. Needless to say, their visions were dissimilar with respect to violence. Jesus, for example, never ordered people beheaded for disrespect, and never took female prisoners as his (politely put) 'concubines'.

[WWWTT]

Shouldn't this thread be in with the religion?

All the comments here are about religion.

Isn't this the federal politics heading?

WWWTT

[Michael Hardner]

Because, by and large, Christians and Jews are living in more enlightened societies (not coincidentally). The interpretation of Christian and Jewish holy books has changed over the centuries. Certain parables are not taken literally. This has not happened with the Koran. The Koran was last interpreted centuries ago, and at that time and since Muslim authorities, such as they are, declared that this was the final and perfect interpretation of God's holy, literal word. To even attempt to reinterpret things in light of modern thinking (even presuming those raised in Muslim countries are capable of such thinking) is blasphemy and heresy. And while we in the West might consider such charges quaint they still carry the word of law in Muslim societies. You can be imprisoned and killed for blasphemy. Needless to say, rarely is it practiced outside the West.

So it really has nothing to do with the religion then, but it is the society?

[Scotty]

So it really has nothing to do with the religion then, but it is the society?

It has nothing to do with what form of worship you engage in, provided it's not done in my face, and everything to do with the way that religion and its cultural background influences your thinking, behaviour and values as a member of my community. Islam is not merely a religion, but a rigid guide to behaviour and societal expectations, including how one is to be governed. As such, it doubles as a political ideology. I would not be happy at bringing in tens of thousands of dedicated Communists or Fascists every year either.

Edited December 25, 2011 by Scotty

[DogOnPorch]

It has nothing to do with what form of worship you engage in, provided it's not done in my face, and everything to do with the way that religion and its cultural background influences your thinking, behaviour and values as a member of my community. Islam is not merely a religion, but a rigid guide to behaviour and societal expectations, including how one is to be governed. As such, it doubles as a political ideology. I would not be happy at bringing in tens of thousands of dedicated Communists or Fascists every year either.

Not to mention if Islam wasn't practiced by over a billion, we'd view it as a cult on par with the Moonies.

[Bob]

Islam is repugnant. It's a doctrine of conquest, rife with deep-seated hatred of the infidel (or kaffir), misogyny, and a desire to regulate every dimension of human behaviour through coercion and fear. Although not all self-professing Muslims subscribe to Islamism, there is a great deal of overlap between the two ideologies and their followers. I view contemporary Islamism (which many deeply religious Muslims see as one-in-the-same as Islam) as the greatest threat to Western civilization today, and it tends to operate hand-in-hand with leftist (socialists, communists, etc) who have formed a sort of perverted alliance through their shared contempt of what the West represents - freedom and achievement. Sometimes politics makes for strange bedfellows.

[Michael Hardner]

Islam is repugnant. It's a doctrine of conquest, rife with deep-seated hatred of the infidel (or kaffir), misogyny, and a desire to regulate every dimension of human behaviour through coercion and fear. Although not all self-professing Muslims subscribe to Islamism, there is a great deal of overlap between the two ideologies and their followers. I view contemporary Islamism (which many deeply religious Muslims see as one-in-the-same as Islam) as the greatest threat to Western civilization today, and it tends to operate hand-in-hand with leftist (socialists, communists, etc) who have formed a sort of perverted alliance through their shared contempt of what the West represents - freedom and achievement. Sometimes politics makes for strange bedfellows.

As I already posted - I disagree. IMO the greatest threat is inability to have a dialogue, typified by your hysterical reaction to a religion very similar to your own.

[Bob]

As I already posted - I disagree. IMO the greatest threat is inability to have a dialogue, typified by your hysterical reaction to a religion very similar to your own.

You obviously don't much about either Islam or Judaism, or their sub-categories. Some of us aren't ignorant enough to be buying your Chamberlain-esque "moderation" (which in the world of the non-historically ignorant is described as appeasement) brand. Keep on trying to build those fantasy parallels between Judaism and Islam, and by natural extension Muslims and the Jewish people. You may actually fool someone, someday. You serve as one of MLW's examples of the leftist who engages in apologism for Islam/Islamism by deflecting from the conversation with irrelevant tangents and red herrings, and as I've already stated you and your ilk regularly try to draw false moral parallels and equivalencies between them and us (i.e. Judaism and Islam being "very similar").

You are the type who pulls out the predictable and expected Timothy McVeigh red herring, in an attempt to demonstrate the obvious - "not ALL terrorists are Muslims!", as if that somehow detracts from the threat of contemporary Islamic terrorism or minimizes the near-monopoly Islamism has on contemporary terrorism through mass murder. You're literally exhibit A or B in the museum of insider collaborators who through either malice or stupidity assist in ushering in the enemy. There's nothing an Islamist loves more than a voluntary assistant to do his political propaganda for him from the inside. Congratulations.

Edited December 25, 2011 by Bob

[Michael Hardner]

You obviously don't much about either Islam or Judaism, or their sub-categories. Some of us aren't ignorant enough to be buying your Chamberlain-esque "moderation" (which in the world of the non-historically ignorant is described as appeasement) brand.

.... Congratulations.

I think that fantastic piece of hyperbole should be a good introduction to your viewpoint for the uninitiated.