The Devil Made me do it!
http://tw.youtube.com/watch?v=hCYRt78zUWY
Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer
from Jihad Watch:
“As for Western infidels, Osama bin Laden himself has announced on various occasions that, since America is a democracy, and thus responsible for its government (which is always portrayed as one of the greatest enemies of Islam), “Every American man is an enemy—whether he fights us directly or pays his taxes,” (The Al Qaeda Reader, 281). Accordingly, al-Qaeda issued its famous fatwa in 1998 concluding that “The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies—civilian and military—is an individual obligation incumbent upon every Muslim who can do it and in any country” (AQR, 13).”
Can’t you just feel the love?
Hi Kent. It is interesting that Osama bin-Laden takes up on himself rights and authority, that the Prophet Mohammed pbuh would not have claimed for himself. The reality is that Osama bin Laden has about as much Islamic authority as Donald Duck. LOL
For anybody who would like to see Islam presented in an intelligent and traditional manner, here ye go…
http://forum.starwreck.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6688
Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer
Excerpts from Islam 101 by Gregory M. Davis:
Significantly, while the West has for some time now lamented the Crusades as mistaken, there has never been any mention from any serious Islamic authority of regret for the centuries and centuries of jihad and dhimmitude perpetrated against other societies. But this is hardly surprising: while religious violence contradicts the fundamentals of Christianity, religious violence is written into Islam’s DNA.
The unhappy fact is that Islam today is what it has been for fourteen centuries: violent, intolerant, and expansionary. It is folly to think that we, in the course of a few years or decades, are going to be able to change the basic world outlook of a foreign civilization. Islam’s violent nature must be accepted as given; only then will we be able to come up with appropriate policy responses that can improve our chances of survival.
Excerpt from Islam and Innocence by Raymond Ibrahim:
Islamic apologists often point out that Islam is not a monolith and that there are differences of opinion among the different Islamic schools of thought. That is true, but, while there are differences, there are also common elements. Just as Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Protestant Christians differ on many aspects of Christianity, still they accept important common elements. So it is with Islam. One of the common elements to all Islamic schools of thought is jihad, understood as the obligation of the Ummah to conquer and subdue the world in the name of Allah and rule it under Sharia law. The four Sunni Madhhabs (schools of fiqh [Islamic religious jurisprudence]) – Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi’i, and Hanbali – all agree that there is a collective obligation on Muslims to make war on the rest of the world.
Kent: At last count, of 28 current ongoing armed confilicts in the world, 26 of them were being perpetrated by Islamists.
I would suppopse that the greatest armed conflicts the world has ever known were perpetrated by Christians?
As a matter of interest, how many of us are aware that the Mongol hordes were defeated by Muslim forces while the rest of the world trembled.
And not in Christianity’s DNA?
What did the Catholics do in the New World? What authority did the popes give the conquistadors etc over the ‘savages’ in the New World?
What about the Inquisitions, which most people think were limited to the Spanish Inquisitions?
What about the Protestant and Catholic wars in Europe over many centuries?
What about WWI and WWII in Europe, which was a conflict caused by expansion by a Christian country and resisted by mostly Christian countries (or all Christian countries if one accepts that Stalin & Co hadn’t eradicated Christianity in the USSR)?
Contrasted with what?
Christianity’s peace and light among their own lot during the same period?
Perpetrated by Islamists?
Did the Iraqis attack themselves? Both times?
What is an ‘Islamist’?
Where are these 28 current armed conflicts perpetrated by ‘Islamists’?
Chechnya?
South Ossetia?
Burma?
Peru?
Part 1
Islam is in a mess, people often make a criticism of Islamofascist “Muslims” that they wish to return the World to the 7th century, this is grossly unfair to traditionalist Islam in that within the norms of the 7th century, Islam was a progressive religion, essentially what the “Islamists” who attract such criticism want to do is to strip away any aspect of civilized behaviour whatsoever, in a marriage of such technology as they consider useful to their purpose with the rule of a religious lynch-mob. For sure, the West has now sees the Crusades as flawed but unfortunatly things are not as simple as that, in that a considerable amount of activity in the West today is only the sort of mischief the crusaders were upto in a new and more politically correct form, in that the thinly disguised attacks on Jews which takes the form of the State of Israel being expected to operate to impossibly high standards whilst other states can do what they want with little or no criticism, is just a new expression of the old combination of money making and anti-semitism, that one found when the crusaders where murdering the Jews in the holyland by slitting open their stomachs in case they had swallowed coins or jewelry to hide them from the invading crusader troops. Look at the size of China it is one of the biggest countries in the World and they are occupying a sovereign state Tibet and they are doing things like forcing Tibetan Women to have abortions at full term ie eight months and yes there is some criticism of China in relation to Tibet but it is nothing compared to criticism which Israel attracts. Israel is a very small country and much of the World is occupied by Arab and Islamic States and Israel has already agreed the principle that the Palestinans should have a sovereign state in the West Bank and Gaza. So obviously one rule for the Peoples Republic of China and another rule for the State of Israel, well it is just the same old crusader mentality of greed, aggression and hatred of Jews.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad
Well sorry at a practical level, religious violence does not contradict the fundamentals of Christanity. Organized Christanity has had no problem working with the most nasty forms of viciousness throughout the centuries, whatever might be the true message of the Gospels and they might indeed forbid religious violence, that is of little comfort if the practical experience of non-christians is that they are being murdered by people who call themselves Christians, saying they are doing the will of Christ. And your argument is almost quite as ridiculous as people who say Islam is the religion of Peace, well not if you are some poor christian in Pakistan and running for your life from a bunch of knife wielding Islamist maniacs, because somebody has spread a false rumour you have insulted the Prophet Mohammed pbuh. As for DNA, religions do not have DNA; animals e.g. People, dogs, cats, rabbits, flies etc have DNA so it is impossible to make any sort of response to that point.
Well Islam has over billion adherents, and it has no Pope or centralized structure, yes for sure there are commonalities and general trends but there are variations and e.g. there is a huge Muslim population in the Indian sub-continent. The Islam we know in the West is one strand of Islam and is Wahabi Arab racial supremacist Islam, now how does that fit in with one’s interests if one is a Pakastani or Indian? The simple answer is that it does not, now of course there will be be will be people who will be Pakastani and Indian Muslims who will support Wahabi Arab racial supremacist Islam but the majority of them will only do so, if they have been tricked in to believing it is not, what it really is. Islamist propagandists portray historical Islamic rule as a golden age of peace and tolerance, well that is very far from the truth, non-Muslims were most certainly not equal with Muslims in historical Islamic states and where there were aspects of democracy they were of the most rudimentary forms, if they existed at all. Furthermore since Islamic rule operated as a sort of dictatorship with at best some slight aspects of democracy attached to it, that meant that the welfare of the both the Muslim and non-Muslim peoples in an Islamic state was essentially down to the charactor of the ruler and if a bad intentioned ruler came to the power, the results for the Muslim or non-Muslim subjects or both could be terrible hardship. All that said, historically Islam has had sucesses in creating a better society than what Christians were achieving, in that historically their treatment of minority religions was better than Christians. For much of the history of Christanity, the positions of the various Christians Churches has been, that if non-Christians wish to live in a christian state they have two simple choices [ 1] Acknowlege our Lord Jesus Christ is the one true God ie become Christians. [ 2 ] Be put to death. Now contrast that, with the Muslim states where Jews could retain their religion and even become advisors to the ruler, where they would have an important role in influencing State policy. Furthermore, Christian States could be just as murderous with minority Christian communities as they could be in their dealings with Jews and over theological disputes which might seem as esoteric to us, as how many angels could dance on the head of a pin, so the situation for these minority Christian communities in a Christian State could [ 1] Acknowlege [ our version of ] our Lord Jesus Christ is the one true God and if you do not want to do that [ 2 ] Be put to death. And for that reason, it could well happen that it was safer for Christians to live in a Muslim state, if the alternative was living as a minority in Christian State.
Continued in Part 2
Part 2
For sure one can reasonably construct an argument that Islam instructs its followers to conquer the World, and it is indeed a little harder or quite a good bit harder to do that with Christanity. The reason being that the Prophet Mohammed pbuh was a religious leader, a general and politician. Now obviously, if you are a general and a War gets started and you fight Wars, that will give plenty of arguments to those that come after you to engage in aggressive conquest for the purpose of acquiring lebensraum, making forced conversion of non-Muslims etc if that General is also portrayed as God’s messenger. On the other hand, by having a central religious figure who is also a general, this can have the positive effect on setting prohibitions on aggressive militarism. At a simplistic level, Christanity is a very pacific religion, Christ could have taken to the hills and led a guerilla Army against the Romans and those of the Jewish people who disagreed with him but he didn’t, he accepted his fate and was crucified on the cross. Now at a simplistic level, Christanity should be the last thing in the word that could be employed as a vehicle for tyranny and violence. Unfortunately life is not simple, now if one believes that Jesus was the son of God or that the Gospels are exact historical fact or both one might believe that Pontious Pilate acted like he did as described in the Gospels because that is what happened. On the other hand if one does not believe that Jesus was the son of God or that the Gospels are the not historical truth, that opens up the possibility that Christanity did a big whitewash job on Pontious Pilate because that was the price that Christanity was prepared to pay for being adopted as the State Religion of the Roman Empire, well if one accepts the possibility that the Early Church did a Whitewash job on Pontious Pilate well then maybe the Jews had little or nothing to do with Jesus’ execution on the Cross, some Jews would have joined him of course but maybe the rest though he was some sort of crazy preacher that whilst he said things which might or might not have been against the Jewish orthdoxy of the time, he wasn’t worth worrying about and maybe it was the Roman authorities which arrested him and executed him because they percieved him as a threat to Roman rule and Jesus’ death was nothing to do with the Jews. If that was the case, we would have had Christians running around for centuries murdering Jews for the killing of Christ, which was in fact a cover-up job between the Early Church and the Roman Empire. Now lets get to the issue of original sin, many Christians believe in the issue of original sin. Now if one starts off from the position that everybody is born in to the World as a sinner and the only way to cleanse oneself of sin is submission to the mercy of Jesus Christ, straight away one can construct an argument from that, in which it is in everybody’s interest to submit to Christ and if they are foolish enough not to, they have to be killed as sinners and in fact if one threatens to kill them if they do not submit to Christ one is actually doing them a great service, for if they then submit to Christ at the point of one’s sword at least they have possibility of being spared from eternal damnation in the afterlife, which would be their certain fate had they not submitted to Christ.
Well that is true, but e.g. President George Bush claims to be Christian, a Republican and an American patriot and yet the Wahabis who call Christians “Pigs”, are running much of the Mosques and Muslim educational establishements in America. Whilst France, which is supposedly a Republican and secular State sold Saddam Hussein an Islamofascist opportunist, a nuclear weapons factory and a biological weapons factory. Whilst so called Socialists in the West, ally themselves with Jew hating Mad Mullahs that advocate rolling homosexuals up in carpets and throwing them off high buildings to their death. For sure, the Islamic World is in a mess and the most significant and greatest blame for this must rest with Muslims themselves but they are having a great deal of help from the West in keeping it in a mess.
Best and Warm regards
Adrian Wainer
Well, I’ve been missing something in my almost daily contacts with various Muslims over the past couple of decades.
Admittedly, my contact has been limited to Muslims from India, Pakistan, Indonesia, Malaya, Thailand, Saudia Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Libya, Egypt, Yemen, Bahrain, the Philippines, the Horn of Africa, and sundry other parts of the world.
I must have missed the Wahabbi strain which infected all of them.
Although, from my experience of hypocritical religious arseholes, once they get out here the wealthy Saudis are at the top of the tree for getting on the grog and shagging themselves stupid with any woman they can get their prongs into and generally behaving contrary to the religious requirements they’ll sanctimoniously uphold when they go back to the twelfth century with a few modern conveniences like Mercedes limos and so on. Oddly enough, that is exactly the impression an Australian friend of mine formed after a few years as a crew member on a certain anonymous airline from that part of the world. The blokes behave themselves when families are aboard, but on an all male flight it’s time for hands up the stewardess’s panties.
Basically nobody knows about this, and an interesting thing too, I was speaking to some Libyan Muslims and they were complaining that Muslim world is in a mess and they did not blame America, Britain or Israel but said what had happened was that, when the Muslim World came under attack from the Mongols it developed a siege mentality that served the purpose at the time of the crisis but afterwords became a liability and this was at the root of the present problems, I have not had the time to research this issue but it is certainly an interesting line of thought.
Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer
Well basically that would be par for the course, in that Hitler was claiming the Aryan peasant as the ideal of manhood and proposed the creation of a socialist state, whilst he adopted the lifestyle of an aristocrat with none of the responsabilities that went with that class of society and allied himself with big business.
Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer
Basicall nobody knows about this what???
History of Jihad against the Mongols (1050-1258)
http://www.historyofjihad.org/mongolia.html
http://www.ucalgary.ca/applied_history/tutor/islam/mongols/ilkhanate.html
Are we saying that Islamic are driven by Satan, or that Islamic leaders are Satan in human form?
I don’t believe Satan actually exists, so it would be illogical on my part to maintain a position that any Muslim is actually Satan or any Muslim is actually receiving assistance from a non-existant entity. However that said, Satan does exist according to Islamic scripture and therefor some Muslims could believe that they are fighting Satan and that other people both Muslim and non-Muslim would be co-operating with Satan, they might even believe a particular person was actually the Devil. Also some Christians who would believe in the Devil, might believe that some or all Muslims would be in league with the Devil or even that a particular Muslim was the Devil. Also some Muslims could believe that Satan was assisting them and or directing them. So I think Islam is something which is reasonable to bring in to the equation, when talking about the Devil.
Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer
Waffle (What our American brethren would refer to as Bullshitting)!
I don’t believe Satan actually exists, so it would be illogical on my part to maintain a position that any Muslim is actually Satan or any Muslim is actually receiving assistance from a non-existant entity.
You may not believe that Satan exists, but that by no means rules out the existence of Satan!
From my perspective, it appears that you are attempting to demonise Muslims???
The men I quoted, Davis and Ibrahim, were reporting the results of their scholarly studies of Islamic doctrine ie: exploring Islam’s system of beliefs by researching its historic texts. They are not simply amateurs conjecturing about anecdotal evidence.
I haven’t detected a growing outcry coming from amongst the 2 billion everyday Muslims, objecting to the rising tide of violence being committed against infidels and innocents in the name of Islam. And you won’t, be they either ignorant or intimidated, probably both. The one thing most all Muslims understand is there are only two kinds of people in the world; Muslims and infidels, and you only follow the tenets of Islam when it involves one Muslim to another. The rules change drastically when it comes to infidels.
That said, I have no doubt the average person of faith; Islamic, Buddhist, Christian, VooDoo, whatever, actually knows the doctrinal details at the inner core of his religion. They usually leave that to their religious leaders to tell them what they are. If each person of faith actually studied the doctrine of their chosen faith then, there would be a lot fewer denominations, sects, cults, etc. As it is, even the religious leaders, formerly ordained and self-ordained, have given us every shade of belief imaginable, and then some.
Although you may have detailed knowledge of the correct religious doctrine of your faith, whether you live your life according to that doctrine is a whole different matter. Sometimes, once you are truly enlightened as to what your current doctrine is, you may not like it, and even change to another. Christianity is no different in this respect.
Regarding my Christian belief, although there is supposed to be only one Bible, there are many counterfeit bibles (small “b”), counterfeit gods (small “g”), and the result is the aforementioned. Some of these counterfeit bibles are quite subtle, and contain many errors. However, the most accurate (the original, infallible texts have long since disappeared) standard is The King James Version of 1611, the first English translation from the earliest, authenticated Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek transcriptions.
Even with the KJV there are many different interpretations, some with a large helping of opinion thrown in. Sometimes, it’s difficult to tell which is which. But the two basic laws of Christianity are very easily understood:
Matthew 22:35 Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying, 36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law? 37 Jesus said unto him, [COLOR=“Red”]Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. [COLOR=“Black”]40[/COLOR] On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets[/COLOR]. (KJV)
It’s just the nature of fallen man to pull things out of context that he likes, and ignore or modify what he doesn’t like. He deliberately changes things to suit his personal, sinful agenda, ie: he wants to be his own god.
You either have the God of the Bible, or a god of your own making.
Text out of context is a pretext.
There are two basic kinds Christians; professing and possessing.
Of course, you are qualified to speak for all Muslims - or, could it be that this is your opinion?
My God is the righteous the true God because he is the one I believe in! 
That said, I have no doubt the average person of faith; Islamic, Buddhist, Christian, VooDoo, whatever, actually knows the doctrinal details at the inner core of his religion. They usually leave that to their religious leaders to tell them what they are. If each person of faith actually studied the doctrine of their chosen faith then, there would be a lot fewer denominations, sects, cults, etc. As it is, even the religious leaders, formerly ordained and self-ordained, have given us every shade of belief imaginable, and then some.
Although you may have detailed knowledge of the correct religious doctrine of your faith, whether you live your life according to that doctrine is a whole different matter. Sometimes, once you are truly enlightened as to what your current doctrine is, you may not like it, and even change to another. Christianity is no different in this respect.
Regarding my Christian belief, although there is supposed to be only one Bible, there are many counterfeit bibles (small “b”), counterfeit gods (small “g”), and the result is the aforementioned. Some of these counterfeit bibles are quite subtle, and contain many errors. However, the most accurate (the original, infallible texts have long since disappeared) standard is called The King James Version of 1611, the first English translation from the earliest, authenticated Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek transcriptions.
Even with the KJV there are many different interpretations, some with a large helping of opinion thrown in. Sometimes, it’s difficult to tell which is which. But the two basic laws of Christianity are very easily understood:
Matthew 22:35 Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying, 36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law? 37 Jesus said unto him, [COLOR=“Red”]Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. [COLOR=“Black”]40[/COLOR] On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets[/COLOR]. (KJV)
It’s simply a matter of faith. Without it, none of what you say has any value.
It’s just the nature of fallen man to pull things out of context that he likes, and ignore or modify what he doesn’t like. He deliberately changes things to suit his personal, sinful agenda, ie: he wants to be his own god.
You either have the God of the Bible, or a god of your own making.
Text out of context is a pretext.
There are two basic kinds Christians; professing and possessing.
Opinions, opinions, opinions! From how many pulpits have you heard that mouthed?
In your personal opinion
Other people believe Satan exists and they are entitled to their opinion and they might be right, Satan might exist but I do not believe he exists.
Well from your perspective the sun might go around the earth, you might see fairies at bottom of your garden, the BBC may be percieved as a public service broadcaster, Neill Kinnock may be the greatest politican of the 20th Century and the Daily Sport may be regarded as a serious newspaper, well if you think I am attempting to demonize Muslims you are entitled to your opinion as to whether it has any relationship with reality is an entirely different matter.
Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer
RISING SUN,
‘Sorry for the slow response, I don’t visit the forum every day. Besides, it takes time to cobble together answers. Volumes have been written addressing the few questions you posed in your post. But I’ll try to keep it short and to the point. But as you will plainly see, I haven’t gotten the hang of this posting thing, yet. I appreciate your patience, in advance.
RS QUOTE: But, as with so much in the Bible, pulling a few lines of text out of context to prove a point is often undermined when the full context is presented, even without introducing external arguments. The relevant passage, in what Christians believe to be Paul’s letter to Timothy, is;
Yes, indeed, context is of vital importance, yet many verses can stand completely on their own. Such as a proclamation.
2 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus
RS QUOTE: If Christ is the only mediator between man and God, then Christian churches and religions are a waste of space and time as they cannot mediate between God and man.
The church on earth is one in Christ despite the great number of local congregations and denominations. It is holy because it is consecrated to worship God corporately, as each Christian is individually. It is catholic (small “c” meaning, “universal”) because it is worldwide. Finally, it is termed apostolic because it is founded on the teaching of the original Apostles personally chosen by Christ.
Ephesians 2:19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God; 20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; 21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: 22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.
Christ is the head of the church, for whom the church exists and as such, only He is fit to be a mediator between God and men because He is truly holy; perfect, sinless, eternal and as such can intercede for us with God for the forgiveness of our sins. He is the incarnate Son of the Triune God. All mortal men are sinful, and a sinful man by definition, is therefore totally unfit. That is why we need only pray and confess in Jesus’ name for God to hear our prayers, and forgive our sins. Scripture is emphatic; there is no other way.
Hebrews 7:24 But this man, because He continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood. 25 Wherefore He is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by Him, seeing He ever liveth to make intercession for them. 26 For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; 27 who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people’s: for this He did once, when He offered up Himself.
Hebrews 8:6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
Hebrews 12:24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.
A Biblical church is to have a foundation of Apostolic Teaching; the teachings set forth by Christ’s Apostles, who he personally taught. Biblical definition of Apostle; One who is authorized speak with the same authority as the one who sent him. Only Christ’s apostles, whom he personally chose, and whose teachings are recorded in the Bible, are to be taught, nothing else.
As for the role of mortal men in the church, they need to institute and perpetuate, in accordance with Scripture, three basic things for a church to meet the definition of an “apostolic church”: 1) Ordained men (formally trained for) preaching God’s Word (the Bible), and 2) administering the Sacraments (baptism and the Lord’s Supper), and 3) Biblical discipline.
RS QUOTE: Isn’t it a bit absurd for Paul to assert that Christ is the only mediator between man and God, and then go on to claim to be a preacher ordained by God who, inevitably, interposes himself between man, Christ and God?
As an Apostle personally chosen by Christ on the road to Damascus, Paul indeed spoke “in the Spirit”, but he made no such claim to be the mediator between Christ or God, and men. Paul, of all people, knew better.
Romans 1:1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,
And who do you speak for?