The sigh of His arrival: A face in the sky video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_OAauYfPwE

For details:
Please stop in http://manaalmahdi.wordpress.com
Please refer to someone incharge fitted whatever doctrine you are.
This is an exceptionally distinguished essence fitted all mankind.

Thanks,
Krulayar

Nay, Nay what I believe is that a considerable minority of practicing muslims have that(an islam dominated world), as an ambition, are sympathetic to Jihadi groups, that a majority of mosques are propaganda promoting an islamic supremacist ideology drawn from the example of the first three generations of muslims. I believe that the civil war occurring in the islamic world is a natural consequence of islamic history. The islamic world is at the bottom of human affairs, according to almost every source, UN, shitloads of NGO’s because of the culture created by dominance of islam in those societies. Concepts such as mohammed’s laughing perfection in morality, considering the story of mohammed’s life as a fraudulent prophet, a life of childrape, plunder, plain old rape, ethnic cleansing, enslavement, a list of evils too long. The five major schools of sharia are a pile of rancid camel and kafir dung, in my humble moral opinion. Among islamic societies most crippling beliefs are that of the koran’s unadulterated state, or scriptual inspired misogyny. Enough, there are so many, and it is repulsive as such a waste.

The ideology of the muslim brotherhood and affiliates is just as repulsive on anything more than a casual glance. They have islamic global dominanance as a goal,have been around a long time, and boast a generational plan of action. I would imagine it would be quite a sophisticated plan by now, and far enough along to allow political violence through a proxy. The organization is right there in the mosque structure, and the islamic scriptures provide the ideological background, simultaneously motivation… as a vehicle for colonization it is fiendishly brilliant. Too bad to any sane person the belief system as expressed by islamic law and history is just evil wrong, unless you favour slavery. I would say islam by demanding submission total dehumanizes it’s believers.

I know That they will fail because islam is a falsehood. The more islamic the state the more aggressive and more of a shithole, You encounter.
Suborning the Left would be a strategy, if an other civilization, which is a title most muslims’ claim for their beliefs and culture, want to supplant another, in this case Western, a flawed but a far, far, far superior culture, as leading cultural grouping.
See Western Culture is more than just capitalism, it’s the culture that affords it’s citizens the greatest opportunities and freedoms than any other on earth. Homos have a chance to live openly without being excuted for being gay, god almighty, i could go on all day, but i doubt many on this blog have the attention span. …But, I care. Expulsion solves problem for a tolerant society beset by belligerent culture and an recently imported intolerant minority with lofty ambitions, and does so with the least amount of bloodshed. Indigenous population will do it one way or another.

Funny place,… break down of thread- muslims want to talk about the jews. Here chew on this jew haters, if jewish conspiracy ruled the planet, that with all the verables involved would require near godlike plus superhuman ability to manage and as a demonstration of jewish acumen they chose the worst neigbours on the planet, next to pakistanis, for a national home.

Yet you believe the same thing about Muslims- that a minority with no political, social, military or economic power is about to take over Europe

For non-muslims, the conversation is about muslims and whether kafer, kafir, kufar, is the equivalent of paki or nigger, as a racist prick might use to insult another human being, in effect dehumanize them. The ways i have seen it use betrays a hatred toward the sonamed bordering on homocidal.

If the term were applied to you just because you observe your religion, that would be bigotry.

I’m glad you don’t feel offended, because if you didn’t believe in Hell, why would you? I wouldn’t feel offended for different reasons.

If that is what you believe then it is clearly your duty to warn me.

I believe Allah is the master of the day of judgement. So it would be wrong for me to pass a judgement on you. If you want to know why I feel this way read about taqwa. If you want to know about Allah, you have the Quran.

Is there anything wrong with holding a political position?

No. of course not. It’s the difference between calling someone a ‘Filthy Red’ and a ‘Filthy Black’. The one is an abusive term for a chosen political position and comes under the heading of vitriolic debate, the other is an abusive term for something intrinsic to the person and the group to which they are perceived to belong, and comes under the heading of bigotry.

Islam is intrinsic to me and if Allah accepts my ways, within the Muslim Ummah, to Islam is where I belong, so calling me an Islamist is not only vitriol, but also extends to bigotry?

That I say that some Islamophobia is created by some Muslims being a bit off the wall (or seeming to be to some people) does not make me a bigot. But I can see a ”chicken and egg” situation could exist here.

But that you (like Munir did … or was it Blah?) put 2 and 2 together and get five is part of the problem here IMO.

In a broadly secular society, expressions of resolute religiosity can cause a certain amount of unease.
Alastair Campbell had a good reason for declaring that ”we don’t do God”.

Just because a person doesn’t recognise someone’s belief system as being credible, doesn’t make that person a bigot.

I put ”Islamophobia”with quotation marks around it, because from reading sites like Islamophobia Watch, it seems to me that some of what they report there isn’t actually Islamophobia at all – but might be fair comment (for example, about ”burkas” and niquabs being discussed in the likes of the Independent newspaper).

And I’m affraid to say, that this oversensitivity and readiness to claim Islamophobia and bigotry, is something that I think does help feed real Islamobhobia.

Sounds like your looking for a hook to hang your bigotry against Muslims on

There is no excuse for hatred of Muslims (or any other group) how ever much you try and make apologies for it

And I too don’t mind being told I’m going to burn in hell. My christian heritage threatens that too. ”Submit or else” it says – It’s blackmail.

And while I will shug off kaffar and such words, will the religious do likewise if other people suggest their books and storys have as much chance of being the word of God as the folk tales of the Brothers Grimm have?

How about that Hansel and Gretel were in fact two of God’s favourite angels, and that the The Pied Piper of Hamelin (pbah) was actually his prophet on earth?

I wonder if this episode means that Mehdi Hasan has saddled himself with a reputation he might not care for (when he’s trying to be just a regular political editor for a left of center magazine?)

Carmenego @ 143 – don’t be sorry.

I refer you to my post, which you clearly either did not read properly, or perhaps misunderstood. Precisely, this:

“I did not argue that atheists lack a moral compass. I argued that for the religious, faith is the completion of moral sense.”

Given that this was the very first paragraph of my previous post, I find it odd that it slipped your attention.

You object to “Bronze Age” faiths (incidentally, Islam is perhaps not best so described) – that is odd from an atheist. I would have thought you would want to object to *any* faith of *any* age. However, let your prejudice against ancient faiths stand – do you not, then, object to Scientology?

Well put.

If that is what you believe then it is clearly your duty to warn me. Why would I be offended? I car-share with an evangelical colleague who believes exactly that (MT being RC and all). What has offended me is that she has stopped trying to save me. Honestly, a little light mockery and she has backed off and left me to sizzle. Back in the day she and her ilk would have pulled out all the stops to save my soul. (And my teeth, fingernails…)

Is there anything wrong with holding a political position?

No. of course not. It’s the difference between calling someone a ‘Filthy Red’ and a ‘Filthy Black’. The one is an abusive term for a chosen political position and comes under the heading of vitriolic debate, the other is an abusive term for something intrinsic to the person and the group to which they are perceived to belong, and comes under the heading of bigotry.

No. But I might well refer you to a shrink.

“TCH what you are seeing is people mixing up lots of things and throwing it into one melting pot when describing non-Muslims and simply put this stems from their own ignorance”

Well put. And also the rest of that comment. Cheers.

No

justforfun

What offends/annoys me is my tax money going assist worshipers of all religions where this sort of sentiment is a doctrine.

So the next time the BNP or Mel Phillips or the Daily Mail or any number of wingnut arseholes are insulting and demeaning muslims…….how will you react to being told ‘oh just get over it, I mean, being called ‘cockroaches’ or whatever is the latest far right insult isn’t so bad etc etc???

Somehow I doubt it.

No, just asking not to be insulted and demeaned.

There is nothing wrong with the original meaning of the word. However, the way it is used often now in political discourse is as a term of abuse as you well know.

I am certainly not trying to teach you your religion.

Do you consider abuse part of your interpretation of your religion?

‘Islamist’, however defined, refers to a political position taken by an individual. I don’t use it myself, because of its lack of a clear definition. If there were an agreed definition (fat chance)then it would be for the individual to decide if it had been used appropriately.

Is there anything wrong with holding a political position?

Unfortunately, both those on the left and right are guilty of using the word for sinister purposes. We have here the word ‘kafir’ in discussion, which has a clear definition, and yet we are trying to censore it. Whereas we have a word ‘Islamist’ which has no clear definition, which when used, can hold some very damaging connotations – like here for Mehdi Hassan – but we use it liberally, how we wish? Where’s the sense in that?

Maybe I should start using ‘Islamist’ as ‘Isl*mist’.

Just a question to the non-muslims, if I said you are all going to burn in hell with Mother Teresa, would you be offended?