yall

The koran is a text of hypocracy. It preaches tolerance and then intolerance. If you are islamic, what are you supposed to do? I guess look at the life of mohammed for guidance. "Oh, hey look, he showed contempt for people of other or no religious belief, he murdered, and called for subjugation of those who opposed him in any way." How are they supposed to "filter" which parts of the book to follow? Maybe the parts based upon the examples laid out by it's founder? It's like if your math book said "2+2 = 4" and on another page "2+2=5". What do you do? I guess you recall what your math teacher did in class... Or if Charlie Manson had a few lines about peace and love in his madness. I guess if I went around calling myself a "peaceful mansonite" would be fine, so long as I was peaceful, and that would make charlie and his actions and beliefs peaceful too right? Any time anyone critcizes islam. muslims flip out. Egypt is banning some european newspapers as we speak, for questioning mohammed's past. Why is that? The religion CANNOT stand up to criticism, nor can it's followers.

He has no rebuttal. His counter arguments consist of "you don't understand islam". Again, completely typical of those who do not posess the ability to defend their position. Notice he never did respond to my or your pointed questions. He can't. Islam can't. And I never said or implyed it was the root of all evil. It's a stupid, hypocritacal religion, founded by a murderer. No one can defend it try as they might. Thats why all the monkey can do is to throw crap.

All you can ever do is point out flaws in other religions, and sidestep the problems with islam. I'm not surprised as it's a typical response from people unable to defend their belief system when met with scrutiny. "Well Jews and Christians weren't nice to them either..." Well done. That proves islam is peaceful for sure. And for the what... 3rd(?) 4th time(?) you have completely avoided the problem of mohammed being a violent man. It's not a far jump for someone to say "Well the new testament says a couple of nasty things, but Jesus didn't say this stuff, it came from apostles, and if you look at his life he was peaceful, so maybe thats how I should be..." On the other hand it isn't a stretch to go from "Well mohammed executed people, and his book says to be nice, but at that same time to kill and subjugate those not like him.." to "its ok to kill for allah". Debating this type of reality with a true beleiver is like clapping with one hand.

It's common known that english translations add the word "lightly" to that passage, although it is not there in the arabic version. Muslims should be outraged that their holy book is being tampered with. And don't give me the "you just have to be able to read it in arabic to appreciate it" line. Although I do believe in certain words not tranlating well between english and arabic, IRONY being one. I'm still waiting for you to address the violent history of the prophet and reconcile that with what are considered very clear interpretations of passages such as this: Koran 5:33 "The Punishment for those who oppose Allah and his messenger is : Execution or Crucifixion or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides or exile from the land" Now with that one you could say that's your punishment once you get to hell, so may mohammed didn't command it, but it was instead a warning. But that doesn't explain this one: Sura 9:29 "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold forbidden that 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" Again, the words of the prophet. "So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners, and afterwards either set them free as a favor or let them ransom (themselves) until the war terminates. That (shall be so); and if Allah had pleased He would certainly have exacted what is due from them, but that He may try some of you by means of others; and (as for) those who are slain in the way of Allah, He will by no means allow their deeds to perish." And let me get this straight: I'm supposed to respect a religion created by a guy who had no respect for other religions? Didn't mohammed smash the idols that were worshipped by some polytheists? "Surely the number of months with Allah is twelve months in Allah's ordinance since the day when He created the heavens and the earth, of these four being sacred; that is the right reckoning; therefore be not unjust to yourselves regarding them, and fight the polytheists all together as they fight you all together; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil)." I could go on all day with these types of passages, and these aren't even the good ones. Seriously, the founder was violent, sanctioned killings, participated in forcible conversions, extortion, and participated in open warfare. You can't combine those FACTS with the contents of the holy books, and tell people with a straight face it is a religion of peace and tolerance.

I don't know why I'm bothering to respond to you, since you have refused to respond to my queries, but what the heck, I'm game. Koran, chapter 4:34 "Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in their sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great." As far as the killing and taxation of non-believers, you seem like a bright guy, try a search engine. If you haven't been convinced by now that islam is not a very peaceful religion, and you care to ignore the violent history of its founder, then I highly doubt there are enought links or proof to change your mind.

Here is a well thought out comment from faithfreedom.org on the different interpretations of islam. (This is basically what I said many posts ago, that "peaceful muslims" are the ones who are not "true" muslims): 18- But there are other versions of Islam. Not all Muslims are fanatics. There are many Muslims who are liberals, who believe in human rights and equality of gender. You cannot condemn all the Muslims. The Islam I am opposing is the Islam of the Prophet Muhammad and what he taught in Quran. I am not concerned about other versions of Islam. Islam cannot be changed. You only can change Islam when you change Quran. Trying to humanize Islam is like trying to humanize Nazism. Representing Islam as a tolerant and humanistic religion is lying. Can you put the foundation of human happiness on lies? Quran and Hadith say that women are less than men; they are deficient in intelligence and beat your wives. How can you preach equality without changing what is in Quran? Quran demands killing the disbelievers, waging war on them until everyone converts to Islam or is "subdued, feels humiliated and pay Jizyah", How can you build an Islam that talks about tolerance, but neglect the inhumanities of Quran? It is like saying, let us discover the “liberal” Nazism in which everybody is loving and gentle, and there is no racial hostility. If you want to fool yourself go ahead but you won’t be able to fool others. If you are so much attached to Islam, live by it. Don’t try to change it and pick and choose what pleases you most. If you are unsatisfied with what you see, may be it is time to move on. The true Muslim was Khomeini.

I'll sit on the "deal first" end of the table to avoid the bad hits... I'm probably not even gonna gamble too much. I figure I'll allow myself losses in the neighborhood of $150-$200 per day. Figure I'll spend as much time at the $5 tables as I can.

Really? I don't mind one bit. I figure there is always a chance he catches a stray bullet while going through NYC... : )

Yeah, I'll definately give you guys the rundown on our dirty life & times...!!! Thanks for the heads up on the Palamino too.

Hey gang, A friends and I are flying to Las Vegas tomorrow for some fun and relaxation (along with heavy drinking and gambling). We are staying at the Flamingo for 3 nights and taking a red-eye back Saturday night (landing back in Buffalo around 6:00 am Sunday morning where the ol' lady will pick us up and head straight to the Ralph!!! ). I was just curious if there were any Vegas "veterans" who had any recommendations or advice to offer on how to get the most from our trip, bang for buck, etc. (Good strip club recommendations gladly accepted too! )

The Pub on Broadway in Depew. Best wings ever. If you go there for a Bills game, they serve free ones at half-time. (You have to be there from the 1st quarter though, or else they won't let you have any...)

And here is a nice op-ed piece that sums up who is really being irresponsible right now: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,214338,00.html (I know, I know "Ahhhhhh!!! FoxNews... Right-Wing Conspiracy!!!!")

Still, no one has addressed the implications of a religion being founded by a violent conqueror. The one link I provided may not be the pinnacle of credibility, but all you need to do is look around and you will find thousands of sites that accurately describe the life and times of the prophet. Once again CTM.. you said you would respond, but never did. Our childish insults aside, can you deny that the violence perpetrated during the life of the prophet nullifies (or at least brings into serious question)the "peaceful" nature of islam?

Alot of folks need a refresher.

Wrong, all I have been saying all along is that Islam supports (by default) the actions of mohammed, which were quite violent. Can you deny that?

Oh, and for those of you interested... here is a nice link about "Mr Peace" mohammed... http://personalpages.tds.net/~theseeker/Mohammed.htm And crap thrower (I'm assuming thats your name because you throw crap in response to arguments and pray that it sticks..) to say that islam was a peaceful religion until the 1950's ignores common sense and history itself.

OK, here is one... took me all of .04 seconds to find... http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/fnc/st...42746.asp?c=rss Get out from the mosque much? I could actually give you more links to more people who endured similar forced "conversions" but you don't seem to be one for little things like "facts" or "reality".

And regardless of what the Koran actually says...the historical record has a more than fair number of examples of not just tolreance of but protection of Jews and Christians. The protection of Orthodox and Nestorian Christians in the Low Middle Ages springs most immediately to mind, as does the acceptance of Jewish refugees from the Inquisition (as of WWI, there were still Spanish-speaking Jewish communities scattered across the Ottoman Empire). The Jewish and Christian communities in most major Islamic cities I can think of (Kabul and Herat in Afghanistan being great examples) were thriving and important communities up to WWII and beyond. Fact is, Islam from its inception to about 1950 has been no more and in many ways substantially less intolerant and violent than Western culture. That that changed around 1950 with the advent of Arab nationalism (the Arab League and Muslim Brotherhood - which is, in fact, NOT a "Muslim" brotherhood but an Arab one) is not the fault of Islam, nor does it represent Islam circa 1200. 778470[/snapback] Bravo. They were sort of okay to Jews and Christians, but Hindus? Zaoastrans? Nope sorry. They deserved death. Hardly the model of tolerance. It's like me hating blacks, but being ok with hispanics, since they have some european lineage. I'm still a racist !@#$. Same goes for Islam.

Again, the history of islam is rooted in violence, oppression, and intolerance. See: Life of Mohammed. You can blame all of the outside influences that there are and ever were, that doesn't change the fact that they worship the life and times of a murderous conqueror. As far as the crusades go, they were a reaction to islamic violence. Both sides were bad, but one side started it. Wanna guess who? I shouldn't have to tell you if you know so much about their history.

Do you have a time machine? You seem to be stuck in the past. Who gives a sh*t about how good or bad things were 1000 years ago. We are discussing a problem in the present that grows worse with each passing day. Radical Islam is spreading like wildfire and apologists like you are more concerned with trying to convince everyone that: a) there is no problem b) since other relions have been bad, there is no need to point fingers at islam c) this is just a reaction to oppressive policy d) all of the above The problem is, all of those answers are wrong.

While his examples may not be the best, understand his point: we are at war with Islam, or rather Islam is at war with us. I'm not hearing sh*t from the so-called peaceful members either. I used to think this was due to the loudest people being the only ones heard, but I think it's beyond that now. The moderates are too quiet, and everytime a muslim blows himself and/or someone else up in the name of allah, they always find some way to point the finger at someone else. "Oh, it's poverty" or "US Imperialism" or "the Zionist pig". Someone else is always at fault, and the West needs to start blaming their sh*tty belief systems and culture. It's unfortunate, because a lot of decent people are gonna die on both sides before its over. And from what I can tell there are 2 possible outcomes, and one of them is the global islamic community stepping up and fixing THEIR problems.

Well, it really isn't an over-reaction. They are merely following their precious holy text.

All of it might be for all I know.. But the point that Jesus rejected parts of the old testament is at least a partial truism according to some of his apostles, which were the people that helped create the new testament to begin with (after all, Jesus didn't write a bit of it...). But that's still getting away from the important point that if you look at what is attributed to Jesus in the manner of moral teachings and actions, it's hard to argue that he was not a peaceful man. Mohammed on the other hand was a violent conquerer. To say a religion based upon him as a being, is peaceful, is a pretty dubious argument. To avoid godwin's rule, I'd say it would be like modeling your life on the teachings and actions of Stalin, and trying to say that the ideology is a peaceful one. Just beacause you love Stalin, and you are peaceful, doesn't mean the system of beliefs is a peaceful one. It's just like I said before, the existance of !@#$ Christains don't mean it's a violent or extremist religion. The reverse can be said for peaceful, caring, moderate muslims. Just because they are good, it doesn't by default make their religion or prophet peaceful.

My bad... hand't followed the thread carefully enough. I too know many peaceful muslims. My family doctor is whom I trust implicitly. The non-extreme, peaceful followers are certainly the rule, not the exception. That being said, I think they don't represent the true meaning of Islam, much in the many many people think Catholics don't fully represent the teaching of Christianity. The "peaceful" snippets of the islamic holy texts aren't enough to counter the explicit calls for violence, especially when taken into consideration with the violent history of mohammed.

Ok, I had to counter the fallacy in your first statement before proceeding any further. By your logic, since Jesus said nothing about automobiles and computers, wacko evangelicals would be able to rationalize a ban on driving and computing due to the lack of comment on either subject by Christ? Just because someone calls themselves Christian, doesn't make it so. The whole point of Christ's teachings were peace, acceptance, and tolerance. Someone misinterpreting his work doesn't nullify the work, it just makes the person a retard. Secondly, Christ basically said to ignore the old testament stuff, so there goes the argument associating Christianity with the slavery, sacrifice, and violence found in the old testement. Lasty, Islam IS a violent religion. Forget what the books (Hadith and Quran) say, even though they advocate subrogation and violence against non-believers, and look at the life of Mohammed the doucheba.... I mean "Phrophet". The guy MURDERED people. He killed many. Sure he started out peaceful, mostly because he had no power or authority. But once he had those, look out. A violent Christian is a bit of an oxymoron. They are mutually exclusive. If you are one, you are not the other. Plain and simple. Islam on the other hand encourages violence. Both through the scripture and through the example of the creator of said religion.