Šaron na smrtni postelji?

> Vzeli bi (mule) tisti keš, se bajno obogateli in še naprej hteli Izraelce zmetat v morje.

Tudi za gospoda Brežnjeva bi veljalo, da mora priti na Florido, ubogati FBI in dajati intervjuje medijem, kako zaslepljen da je bil. Kavelj na tisti milijardici.

Sej, priznam. Nekej tega so pri CIA počeli, v svojih boljših dneh. Stalinova hčerka in Hruščovov sin sta oba prebegnila. Danes AL Sistanija operirajo na srcu v Britaniji, ker Alahovi podložniki bi ga kvečjemu zaklali, operirati ga ne bi znali. Zato je Al Sistani (bojda) naklonjen Angležem. Pa je potem Thomas kmet, ki ni daleč tako subtilen kot kakšen MI6.

Ej, upam!

>Tole je ena standardna arabska propaganda. Šlo je v resnici za interarbska klanja, ki "bi jih moral >Šaron preprečiti že prej, kot jih dejansko je".

Ma ja ;) Lej, Deadalus, ne se meni razlagat, jaz nisem bil zraven takrat, poleg tega me preveč boli kaj se z unimi tam doli dogaja - napačnega človeka imaš. Jaz samo pravim, da je folk v Izraelu in tam okoli pritegnjen in to zelo. Glede Šaronove štale, ki je uradno "ni bilo" pazi to: v Izraelu ne samo da folk tega ne zanika (tega in novejših dogodivščin) - še ponosni so! Ne moreš verjet. Folk odkrito fantazira kako "so jih še premalo" in le zakaj niso zravnali in zbombardirali tega in onega in bla bla bla v neskončnost. Potem so še ideje kako bi bilo treba VSE Arabce khm, khm, odstranit ali pa preprečiti, da bi imeli toliko otrok - to z demografijo jih še posebno matra, izgleda. Totalno ista fora kot Srbi in Albanci na Kosovu, samo v večjem obsegu!


>Ti matako, pa pojdi raje v Gazo, kot v Izrael, da ne boš tako psihično trpel, kot si v Izraelu.

Ampak jaz sem se zabaval! Saj Izrael je fajn - jaz samo pravim, da je tam dosti pritegnjenega folka - kak psihiater bi rekel, da je tam dosti "patologije" in verjetno bi imel prav. Je pa vse skupaj zanimivo in poučno. Mogoče se pa zato toliko ukvarjamo z njimi?

Ma skratka, zaključek zgodbe: stari Sheri je šel pač rakom žvižgat oz. bo precej manj vitalen kot prej medtem ko se v tistih krajih NE BO zgodilo nič pretresljivega oz še vedno bomo to dramo gledali po TV. In zakaj ne, končno.

Mater sem cinik.

Tu bi prilepil članek why im not a muslim,ki bo lepo podkrepil in upravičil moj in odklon ostalih socioloških outsiderjev.

STATEMENT BY IBN WARRAQ ON THE WORLD TRADE CENTER ATROCITY

Ibn Warraq is the author of Why I Am Not A Muslim

Given the stupefying enormity of the acts of barbarism of 11 September, moral outrage is appropriate and justified, as are demands for punishment. But a civilized society cannot permit blind attacks on all those perceived as "Muslims" or Arabs. Not all Muslims or all Arabs are terrorists. Nor are they implicated in the horrendous events of Tuesday. Police protection for individual Muslims, mosques and other institutions must be increased.

However, to pretend that Islam has nothing to do with Terrorist Tuesday is to wilfully ignore the obvious and to forever misinterpret events. Without Islam the long-term strategy and individual acts of violence by Usama bin Laden and his followers make little sense. The West needs to understand them in order to be able to deal with them and avoid past mistakes. We are confronted with Islamic terrorists and must take seriously the Islamic component. Westerners in general, and Americans in particular, do not understand the passionate, religious, and anti-western convictions of Islamic terrorists. These God-intoxicated fanatics blindly throw away their lives in return for the Paradise of Seventy Two Virgins offered Muslim martyrs killed in the Holy War against all infidels.

Jihad is "a religious war with those who are unbelievers in the mission of the Prophet Muhammad [the Prophet]. It is an incumbent religious duty, established in the Qur'an and in the Traditions as a divine institution, and enjoined specially for the purpose of advancing Islam and repelling evil from Muslims"[1].

The world is divided into two spheres, Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb. The latter, the Land of Warfare, is a country belonging to infidels which has not been subdued by Islam. The Dar al-Harb becomes the Dar- al Islam, the Land of Islam, upon the promulgation of the edicts of Islam. Thus the totalitarian nature of Islam is nowhere more apparent than in the concept of Jihad, the Holy War, whose ultimate aim is to conquer the entire world and submit it to the one true faith, to the law of Allah. To Islam alone has been granted the truth: there is no possibility of salvation outside it. Muslims must fight and kill in the name of Allah.

We read (IX. 5-6):"Kill those who join other gods with God wherever you may find them";

IV.76: "Those who believe fight in the cause of God";

VIII.39-42: "Say to the Infidels: if they desist from their unbelief, what is now past shall be forgiven; but if they return to it, they have already before them the doom of the ancients! Fight then against them till strife be at an end, and the religion be all of it God's."

Those who die fighting for the only true religion, Islam, will be amply rewarded in the life to come:

IV.74: "Let those who fight in the cause of God who barter the life of this world for that which is to come; for whoever fights on God's path, whether he is killed or triumphs, We will give him a handsome reward."

What should we make with these further unfortunate verses from the Qur'an:

*Torment to Non-believers->IV.56
*Only Islam Acceptable-> III.85
* No friends from outsiders->III.118
*No friends with Jews, christians->V. 51
* No friends with non believers->IV.144, III.28
* No friends with parents/siblings if not believers->IX.23
* Fight non-believers->IX.123 * Kill non-believers->IV.89
*Anti Jewish verses->V.82
* God a "plotter"->VIII.30
*Killing Idolators->IX.5
* Idolators are unclean just because they are idolator->IX.28
* Forcing non-believers to pay tax->IX.29
* The Torment of Hell->XLIV.43-58
* All except Muslims/Jews/Christians/Sabeans will go to hell->II.62, V.69
* Cast terror in the hearts, smite the neck and cut fingertips of unbelievers->VIII.12
* Smite the neck of unbelievers->XLVII.4
* Severe Punishment for atheists->X.4 ; V.10 ; V.86
* Severe Punishment for non-believers->XXII.19-22 ; LXXII.23, XCVIII.6
*Punishing non-believers of Hereafter->XVII.10
* Punishing for rejecting faith->III.91
* Non believers go to hell->IV.140 ; VII.36 * Partial Believers go to hell too->IV.150-1
* Sadistic punishments->LVI.42-43
* Punishment for apostates->XVI.106 ; III.86-88 ; III.90 ; IV.137.
* Threat of punishement for not going to war->IX.38-39, XLVIII.16
*God making someone more sinful so he can be punished more->III178
*Intentionally preventing unbelievers from knowing the truth->VI.25 ; VI.110
* Intentionally preventing unbelievers from Understanding Quran- >XVII.45-46
* It is God who causes people to err and He punishes them for that- >XVII.97
* God could guide, if he chose to, but did not->VI.35
* Intentionally misguiding those whom he pleases to->XIV.4
* Willfully misguiding some->XVI.93
* God causes human to err->IV.143 ; VII.178
* God deceiving humans->IV.142

It is surely time for us who live in the West and enjoy freedom of expression to examine unflinchingly and unapologetically the tenets of these fanatics, including the Qur'an which divinely sanctions violence. We should unapologetically examine the life of the Prophet, who was not above political assassinations, and who was responsible for the massacre of the Jews.

"Ah, but you are confusing Islam with Islamic fundamentalism. The Real Islam has nothing to do with violence," apologists of Islam argue.

There may be moderate Muslims, but Islam itself is not moderate. There is no difference between Islam and Islamic fundamentalism: at most there is a difference of degree but not of kind. All the tenets of Islamic fundamentalism are derived from the Qur'an, the Sunna, and the Hadith – Islamic fundamentalism is a totalitarian construct derived by Muslim jurists from the fundamental and defining texts of Islam. The fundamentalists, with greater logic and coherence than so- called moderate or liberal Muslims, have made Islam the basis of a radical utopian ideology that aims to replace capitalism and democracy as the reigning world system. Islamism accounts for the anti-American hatred to be found in places far from the Arab-Israeli conflict, like Nigeria and Afghanistan, demonstrating that the Middle East conflict cannot legitimately be used to explain this phenomenon called Islamism. A Palestinian involved in the WTC bombings would be seen as a martyr to the Palestinian cause, but even more as a martyr to Islam.

"Ah, but Islamic fundamentalism is like any other kind of fundamentalism, one must not demonise it. It is the result of political, social grievances. It must be explained in terms of economics and not religion," continue the apologists of Islam.

There are enormous differences between Islamic fundamentalism and any other kind of modern fundamentalism. It is true that Hindu, Jewish, and Christian fundamentalists have been responsible for acts of violence, but these have been confined to particular countries and regions. Islamic fundamentalism has global aspirations: the submission of the entire world to the all-embracing Shari'a, Islamic Law, a fascist system of dictates designed to control every single act of all individuals. Nor do Hindus or Jews seek to convert the world to their religion. Christians do indulge in proselytism but no longer use acts of violence or international terrorism to achieve their aims.

Only Islam treats non-believers as inferior beings who are expendable in the drive to world hegemony. Islam justifies any means to achieve the end of establishing an Islamic world.

Islamic fundamentalists recruit among Muslim populations, they appeal to Islamic religious symbols, and they motivate their recruits with Islamic doctrine derived from the Qur'an. Economic poverty alone cannot explain the phenomenon of Islamism. Poverty in Brazil or Mexico has not resulted in Christian fundamentalist acts of international terror. Islamists are against what they see as western materialism itself. Their choice is clear: Islam or jahiliyya. The latter term is redefined to mean modern-style jahiliyya of modern, democratic, industrialised societies of Europe and America, where man is under the dominion of man rather than Allah. They totally reject the values of the West, which they feel are poisoning Islamic culture. So, it is not just a question of economics, but of an entirely different worldview, which they wish to impose on the whole world. Sayyid Qutb, the very influential Egyptian Muslim thinker, said that "dominion should be reverted to Allah alone, namely to Islam, that holistic system He conferred upon men. An all-out offensive, a jihad, should be waged against modernity so that this moral rearmament could take place. The ultimate objective is to re- establish the Kingdom of Allah upon earth..."[2]

It is surely time for moderate Muslims to stand up and be counted. I should like to see them do three things:

1. All moderate Muslims should unequivocally denounce this barbarism, should condemn it for what it is: the butchery of innocent people.

2.All moderate Muslim citizens of the United States should proclaim the ir Americanness, their patriotism, and their solidarity with the families of the victims. They should show their pride in their country by giving blood and other aid to victims and their families.

3. All moderate Muslims should take this opportunity to examine the tenets of their faith; should look at the Qur'an, recognize its role in the instigation of religious violence, and see it for what it is, a problematical human document reflecting 7th or perhaps 8th Century values which the West has largely outgrown.

While it should not be too difficult for moderate Muslims to accept the need to denounce the violence of Terrorist Tuesday, I am not at all optimistic about their courage or willingness to proclaim their love for their chosen country, the USA, or examine the Qur'an critically.

Too many Muslims are taught from an early age that their first allegiance is to Islam. They are exhorted in sermons in mosques, and in books by such Muslim intellectuals as Dr Siddiqui of the Muslim Institute in London, that if the laws of the land conflict with any of the tenets of Islam, then they must break the laws of the infidels, and only follow the Law of God, the Shari'a, Islamic Law.

It is a remarkable fact that at the time of the Gulf War, a high proportion of Muslims living in the West supported Saddam Hussein. In the aftermath of the WTC terror, it is now clear from reports in the media that many Muslims, even those living in the West, see these acts of barbarism as acts of heroism; they give their unequivocal support to their hero, Usama bin Laden.

Few Muslims have shown themselves capable of scrutinising their sacred text rationally. Indeed any criticism of their religious tenets is taken as an insult to their faith, for which so many Muslims seem ready to kill (as in the Rushdie affair or the Taslima Nasreen affair). Muslims seem to be unaware that the research of western scholars concerning the existence of figures such as Abraham, Isaac and Joseph or the authorship of the Pentateuch applies directly to their belief system. Furthermore, it is surely totally irrational to continue to believe that the Qur'an is the word of God when the slightest amount of rational thought will reveal that the Qur'an contains words and passages addressed to God (e.g. VI.104; VI.114; XVII.1; XXVII.91; LXXXI.15-29; lxxxiv.16-19; etc.); or that it is full of historical errors and inconsistencies.

Respect for other cultures, for other values than our own, is a hallmark of a civilised society. But Multiculturalism is based on some fundamental misconceptions. First, there is the erroneous and sentimental belief that all cultures, deep down, have the same values; or, at least, if different, are equally worthy of respect. But the truth is that not all cultures have the same values, and not all values are worthy of respect. There is nothing sacrosanct about customs or cultural traditions: they can change under criticism. After all, the secularist values of the West are not much more than two hundred years old.

If these other values are destructive of our own cherished values, are we not justified in fighting them both by intellectual means, that is by reason and argument, and criticism, and by legal means, by making sure the laws and constitution of the country are respected by all? It becomes a duty to defend those values that we would live by. But here western intellectuals have sadly failed in defending western values, such as rationalism, social pluralism, human rights, the rule of law, representative government, individualism (in the sense that every individual counts, and no individual should be sacrificed for some utopian future collective end), freedom of expression, freedom of and from religion, the rights of minorities, and so on..

Instead, the so-called experts on Islam in western universities, in the media, in the churches and even in government bureaus have become apologists for Islam. They bear some responsibility for creating an atmosphere little short of intellectual terrorism where any criticism of Islam is denounced as fascism, racism, or "orientalism." They bear some responsibility for lulling the public into thinking that "The Islamic Threat " is a myth. It is our duty to fight this intellectual terrorism. It is our duty to defend the values of liberal democracy.

One hopes that the U.S. government will not now act in such a way that more innocent lives are lost, albeit on the other side of the globe. One hopes that even now there is a legal way out in international courts of law. The situation is far more delicate and complex than a simple battle between good and evil, the solution is not to beat hell out of all Arabs and Muslims but neither is it to pretend that Islam had nothing to do with it, for that would be to bury one's head in the Sands of Araby.

[1] T.Hughes, Dictionary of Islam, entry "Jihad"

[2] E.Sivan, Radical Islam, New haven, 1985, p.25.

* The Origins of the Koran by Ibn Warraq

Review of 'Why I Am Not A Muslim'

Turning away from Mecca by Antony Flew

The Salisbury Review Spring 1996

(Why I am not a Muslim, Ibn Warraq, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, 1995 $25.99. (UK Agent, 10 Crescent View, Loughton, IG10 4PZ).) (This review was published in The Salisbury Review, Spring 1996. The quarterly is published from London) This book was written by a man who was raised in a totally Muslim environment in an overwhelmingly Muslim country. But he has since moved to one of the NATO states which have since World War II been accepting mass immigrations from such countries. Why I am not a Muslim is apparently the first book of its kind to have appeared in the English language.

Ibn Warraq arranges his abundant materials on no obvious principles. He begins with a chapter entitled 'The Rushdie Affair', which deals mainly with the maltreatment of dissidents within the Islamic world and the failure of so many Western Islamicists to adopt a properly critical approach to their subject. This is followed by four chapters on 'The Origins of Islam', 'The Problems of Sources', 'Muhammad and His Message' and 'The Koran'. Then, when we might have expected to go on to the development of the Hadith and the Sharia, we have instead two chapters on 'The Totalitarian Nature of Islam' and 'Is Islam Compatible With Democracy and Human Rights?' After that we have seven chapters on such various Islamic topics as 'Sufism or Islamic Mysticism' and 'Taboos: Wine, Pigs and Homosexuality' before reaching a 'Final Assessment of Muhammad' and a final chapter on 'Islam in the West'.

The pseudonymous author makes no pretensions to being himself a professional Islamicist. But all his materials about the doctrines and history of Islam are drawn from the works of Western scholars and so - as I am assured by one of them - we can take the book to be factually reliable. It does, therefore constitute an invaluable compilation. Unlike professional Islamicists who are alive and working today, this author is not afflicted with inhibitions from offending either Muslim friends or Muslim regimes.

Although he does make the crucial point that all true Muslims are as such fundamentalists, and that this term should not be applied only to the Ayatollah Khomeini and his like (p. 11) he does not either make it adequately or insist upon it consistently. The term 'fundamentalist', which was coined in 1920, derives from the title of a series of tracts - The Fundamentals published in the United States from 1910 to 1915. It has since been implicitly defined as meaning a person who believes that, since The Bible is the Word of God, every proposition in it must be true; a belief which, notoriously, is taken to commit fundamentalist Christians to defending the historicity of the accounts of the creation of the Universe given in the first two chapters of Genesis.

Note from webmaster on the term "fundamentalist." While it is true that a Christian "fundamentalist" believes as he says, the meaning today is very different. It usually implies carrying that belief system into civil law and using government force, something even many devout Christians oppose. See my article Christian Fundamentalism Exposed. As an American, I have no problem with the term as Warrag uses it. Muslims have never learned to separate Mosque and state.

L. Loflin

On this understanding a fully believing Christian does not have to be fundamentalist. Instead it is both necessary and sufficient to accept the Apostles' and / or The Nicene Creed. In Islam, however, the situation is altogether different. For, whereas only a very small proportion of all the propositions contained in the Old and New Testaments are presented as statements made directly by God in any of the three persons of the Trinity, The Koran consists entirely and exclusively of what are alleged to be revelations from Allah (God). Therefore, with regard to The Koran, all Muslims must be as such fundamentalists; and anyone denying anything asserted in The Koran ceases, ipso facto, to be properly accounted a Muslim. Those whom the media call fundamentalists would therefore better be described as revivalists.

This conceptual truth not only places a tight limitation upon the possibilities of developmental change within Islam, as opposed to the tacit or open abandonment of one or more of its original particular claims, but also opens up the theoretical possibility of falsifying the Islamic system as a whole by presenting some known fact which is inconsistent with a Koranic assertion. Unfortunately Ibn Warraq fails to emphasize this point and to bring out its implications consistently. Thus, even on the page immediately following that on which he argues that all true Muslims must be fundamentalists, he goes on to argue that, because "the vast majority of victims of 'Holy Terror' are inhabitants of Islamic states, therefore "Islam is a threat to thousands of Muslims " (p. 12: emphasis original).*

(* The reviewer has not presented Ibn Warraq correctly. The sentences he quotes from p. 12 relate not to fundamentalism but to a book, The Islamic Threat: Myth or Reality?, by the American Islamicist John Esposito. The book, Ibn Warraq says, is "based on the same dishonesty as soft-core pornography.. What Esposito and all Western apologists of Islam are incapable of understanding is that Islam is a threat to thousands of Muslims. As Amir Taheri puts it, 'the vast majority of victims of 'Holy Terror' are Muslims'." Here the word 'Muslims' has a double meaning, namely, that all believing Muslims being fundamentalists, they threaten with death the Muslims who try to dissent. The implication is that if believing, Muslims were not fundamentalists, many born Muslims may choose to dissent.)

Why I am not a Muslim gives readers abundant excellent reasons for not becoming or remaining Muslims and also makes a compelling case for the conclusion that Islam is flatly incompatible with the establishment and maintenance of the equal individual rights and liberties of a liberal, democratic, secular state. It thus provides further support for Mervyn Hiskett's more particular contentions about the threat to British traditions and values arising from our rapidly growing Muslim minority.

To his suggestions as to how an administration with vision, backbone and truly conservative principles might counter this threat - by, for instance, insisting that the criminal law must be applied equally to all, including Muslims and non-whites inciting to murder - we can now add another. For this threat might be slightly reduced if some individual were to write a much shorter, persuasive book deploying all the good reasons for not becoming or remaining a Muslim.

Attempts to get the present book into public libraries would also be worthwhile. They would force the opposition to choose between allowing it to become more widely accessible and providing evidence of the reality of the Islamic threat to freedom of expression.

Title: Islam is religious fascism Author: Ibn Al-Rawandi

vir

Dokler ne zvem od kod je ta citat vzet,ga ne morem konkretno komentirat.

No, mal si se pričel sprenevedat, a vseen naj ti bo.
Bom šer enkrat navedel vir

5 Mz 20,17

temveč z zakletvijo popolnoma pokončaj Hetejce, Amoréjce, Kánaance, Perizéjce, Hivéjce in Jebusejce, kakor ti je zapovedal GOSPOD, tvoj Bog,

p.s.
Za nadljne diskusije o moralno-etičnih postulatih posameznih religij (če ste zanjo zainteresirani), pa vseeno predlagam, da se odpre nova tema, namenjena izključno temu vprašanju

Barakuda1.To je ves text in mislim,da marsikaj obrazloži.


Pravila za vojno
20
1 Kadar greš v boj proti sovražnikom in zagledaš konje in bojne vozove in ljudstvo, številnejše od tebe, se jih ne boj! Kajti s teboj bo GOSPOD, tvoj Bog, ki te je pripeljal iz egiptovske dežele. 2 Ko boste blizu boja, naj nastopi duhovnik, govori naj ljudstvu 3 in mu reče: »Poslušaj, Izrael! Danes ste pred bojem s sovražniki. Naj vam ne upade srce; ne bojte se in ne plašite se in naj vas ne bo strah pred njimi! 4 Kajti GOSPOD, vaš Bog, hodi z vami, da se bo bojeval za vas z vašimi sovražniki in vam dal zmago.« 5 Nadzorniki pa naj govorijo ljudstvu in rečejo: »Je kdo pozidal novo hišo, pa je še ni posvetil? – Naj gre in se vrne v svojo hišo, da ne umre v boju in je ne posveti kdo drug. 6 Je kdo zasadil vinograd, pa ga še ni začel uživati? – Naj gre in se vrne v svojo hišo, da ne umre v boju in ga ne začne uživati kdo drug. 7 Se je kdo zaročil z žensko, pa je še ni vzel? – Naj gre in se vrne v svojo hišo, da ne umre v boju in je ne vzame kdo drug.« 8 Nadzorniki naj še naprej govorijo ljudstvu in rečejo: »Je kdo bojazljiv in plašnega srca? – Naj gre in se vrne v svojo hišo, da ne preplaši src svojih bratov, kakor je njegovo srce.« 9 Ko nadzorniki nehajo govoriti ljudstvu, naj postavijo vojvode na čelo ljudstva.
10 Ko se približaš mestu, da bi ga napadel, mu najprej ponudi mir! 11 Če ti odgovori miroljubno in se ti odpre, naj ti bo vse ljudstvo, ki se najde v njem, dolžno opravljati tlako in ti služiti. 12 Če pa ne sklene miru s teboj, ampak se hoče bojevati, ga oblegaj! 13 Ko ti ga GOSPOD, tvoj Bog, da v roke, pobij vse moške v njem z ostrino meča! 14 Le ženske, otroke, živino in vse, kar je v mestu, ves plen v njem zapleni zase in uživaj plen svojih sovražnikov, ki ti ga da GOSPOD, tvoj Bog! 15 Tako stôri z vsemi mesti, ki so zelo daleč od tebe in niso izmed mest tehle narodov! 16 Toda v mestih teh ljudstev, ki ti jih GOSPOD, tvoj Bog, daje kot dedno posest, ne puščaj pri življenju ničesar, kar diha, 17 temveč z zakletvijo popolnoma pokončaj Hetejce, Amoréjce, Kánaance, Perizéjce, Hivéjce in Jebusejce, kakor ti je zapovedal GOSPOD, tvoj Bog, 18 da vas ne naučijo počenjati vseh gnusob, ki so jih počenjali svojim bogovom, da se ne pregrešite proti GOSPODU, svojemu Bogu!
19 Kadar boš kako mesto oblegal veliko dni, da bi ga premagal in zavzel, ne uničuj njegovega drevja, da bi vihtel sekiro proti njemu! Od drevja raje uživaj, nikar ga ne sekaj! Je mar drevo na polju človek, da bi ga moral oblegati? 20 Samo tisto drevje, o katerem veš, da ni za jed, smeš uničiti in posekati, da postaviš oblegovalne naprave zoper mesto, ki se bojuje s teboj, dokler ne podleže.

No, pol nas pa ti razsvetli...z eno in edino pravo resnico

Skoda, Saron je bil dovolj mocan, da je lahko Palestincem vracal tisto, kar so jim prej odvzeli. Pomagal je zmernim palestinskim politicnim strujam in cudno ravnotezje premikal stran od fundamentalisticnega roba. Dovolj dolgo se je ukvarjal s problemom, da je ugotovil, da zgolj z nasiljem pac ne bo slo.

Skoda, da je med nami toliko kristjanov, ki se ne znajo sprijaznit z izprijenostjo lastne religije, hkrati pa tako neusmiljeno napadajo Islam kot nasilno vero. Tudi pred vami je se dolga sveta vojna, pa nisem ziher, da bo v njej prevladala vasa dobra stran.

Pri dr. Evilu je precej ocitno, kdo je zmagal v njegovem notranjem boju. The devil knows the bible like the back of his hand. (Tom Waits)

Za razliko od boga te lahko na forumu vidim :)

Ne. Nisem brcnil mimo, ker ne brcam. Za razliko od nestrpnih nasilnezev, ki se izdajajo za kristjane, jaz ne brcam.

Dokler ne zmores samorefleksije bos pac zgolj izgubljena dusa, ne glede na to kaj ti ali tvoja vera razlagata. Ce bi rad kritiziral islam in poveliceval krscanstvo, potem najprej postani dober kristjan (pa ne po definiciji institucije, ampak tako da spostujes tiste bolj marketinske nauke), potem pa se dober musliman (spet ne po interpretaciji fundamentalistov, ampak tako da spostujes njihove nauke v marketinskem smislu). V obeh primerih moras tudi pomagat starim mamam preckati cesto. Prej ti ta privilegij pac ni dodeljen, razumes?

Za nasilje kristjanov ali muslimanov pac ni opravicila, ker obema to vera v splosnem prepoveduje. Pri detajlih je pa VASA (od vernikov obeh religij) naloga, da se odlocite za dobro, ne pa zlo.

Vem, da eno brez drugega ne more bit, zdaj samo se cakam da se appointed chief executive god (oz. Primoz) odloci za apokalipso.

Rimsko pravo pa pac ni katolisko pravo.

Nisem nikjer sugeriral, da ne maras muslimanov. Rekel sem da lahko kritiziras vero sele potem, ko zivis v skladu z njenimi zapovedmi.

Ne seri. Ce ne znas pravilno interpretirat bozje besede, potem pac nisi dober vernik. Pika.

Ma offtopic sva.

Rekel si, da islam muslimanom prepoveduje pobijanje muslimanov. To seveda ni res, prepoveduje jim pobijanje, ampak ce hocejo svojo sveto knjigo narobe razumeti, tako kot inkvizicija narobe razume biblijo, to pac pomeni, da so slabi verniki. Oboji.

Bukov.

A ti najdem web page kjer pise "Incredible Teachings of Jesus" pa spodaj "Kill them all, they're just pagans!" ? Ce ga ni, ga lahko tudi sam postavim.

Edini vir, ki ga imas, je pac koran, isto kot biblija. Ja, knjigi nista najbolj zanimivi, pa not je precej krvavega nasilja. V obeh. Jebiga, tisti, ki so to pisali, pac niso konsistentni sami s seboj, od velikih umov se itak pricakujejo bolj utemeljena in prosvetljena dela kot svete knjige. Jaz ne verjamem v nobeno sveto knjigo, verjamem pa, da bi bil svet lepsi, ce bi bili ljudje malo bolj prijazni en do drugega. Skoda, da zadeva ne deluje, ce "the other fellow" ni prijazen nazaj.

Get real. Svojega boga si pustil na cedilu, ker se na vsak nacin skusas prepricati, da je nasilje v veri, ki ti ni lastna, inherentno. To pac ni res, razlozil sem ti ze, preberi se enkrat, da ne bova smetila teme v nedogled.

Malo pomisli, ce bi bil nacizem toleranten do vseh.

Ej, nehej gobe jest, ko debatiras o verah.

Islam ni nobenmu se nicesar naredil, ker ne more. Lahko pa malo manj inteligentni muslimani, ki narobe razumejo svojo sveto knjigo, pocnejo zanimive svinjarije. Ampak to ni lastno Islamu.

Vprasaj vse zazgane, poklane in pohabljene nekristjane, pobite od kristjanov in v imenu krscanske vere, ce je "krscanstvo" nenasilno. Za zacetek lahko gres kar na Severno Irsko sprasevat, kjer je spomin se dovolj svez.

Pa sploh, ce bi bil ti pravi kristjan, bi jim ze zdavnaj odpustil.

Only a sith deals in absolutes.

Obi wan, ne pa Luke.

Šaron je kul, ker ni bil tak slabič kot Netanjahu, ki je na vsako provokacijo odgovarjal z represijo (ki se več kot očitno ni obnesla). Palestinci (pa ne mislim tistih ta butastih ki sredi poletja nosijo volnene kape potegnjene čez obraz) imajo smolo, ker vedno ko Izrael dobi nekoga, ki jim je pripravljen pomagati, da sami vzpostavijo svojo demokratično oblast in da sami skrbijo za to da ne bodo njihovi norci uhajali v Izrael delat ognjemet, potem ta tip umre. Potem pa spet pride na oblast kakšen naci, ki misli da je najbolje, da se kar zid postavi, pa bo problem rešen.

Šaron je delal na dolgi rok. Škoda, da najbrž ne bo živel dovolj dolgo, da bi videl, kako se bo zid podiral.

Hieve mind.

Delitev dela.

Liberalci na Zahodu bodo izenačevali Krščanstvo in Islam, "liberalci" na Vzhodu pa branili Islam kot formo boja proti tujcem. Se zavzemali za džamijo v Ljubljani in "prosili za razumevanje", da ni nobene cerkve v Saudiji in okolici.

Pomagajo jim še radikalni islamisti s terorističnimi dejanji, Amnesty internešenal z milimi sodbami razmer v džamaherijah, UN z blokado zadev, kakršna je Darfur ...

Tako vsi lepo sodelujejo, v Džihadu, vsak po svojih močeh.

Mravljišče ozko specializiranih borcev, yupe je samo eden nižjih borcev za panislamijo, ki opravljajo svojo funkcijo, ne da bi cilj sploh poznali.

Zagovarjam ali ne, zmagal bo močnejši, ve se kdo to je, skoraj ni dvoma o tem.

Samo žrtev bo preveč, če se bo še naprej odlagalo s spopadom, kot se je pred WW2. Ko se je tolerilalo kaj se dela v Nemčiji, tako kot se zdaj tolerira, kaj se dela v Sudanu ali z ženskami na splošno v Arabiji. Pa v Francoskih predmestjih, tudi.

To, da ste se mnogi pa že podelali in pozdravljate nove Šerijatske gospodarje že vnaprej, mi je pa tudi jasno. Recimo s tem, da jim prikimavate - "Ja, požrite Izrael, saj res!", "Ja, Amerika vas tudi zatira, nič hudega če ste jim porušili Dvojčka!".

Hkrati vodite propagandno kampanjo, kako je Thomas in njemu podobni pa "lakaj Američanov in Izraelcev!". Kako je "Slovenija banana republika", ker takoj ne prekine članstva v NATO in pomaga "ubogim Arabcem".

V resnici, v NATO je življenje lepo, konkurenca z Ameri (kot vsemi) je zelo športna, vaši novi - tokrat res Gospodarji - vas bodo pa naučili kozjih molitvic. Tenko bodo piskale naprimer feministke, ki čez posamezne rute v Ljubljani zdaj ne šizijo nič.

neh NATO nam mogoče pomeni dosti slabega, vendar je vsaj garancija da s strani držav članic NATO pakta ne bomo napadeni, to dost pomeni - kaki egipčani al pa celo libijci pa lahko vsak trenutek tvegajo resen spopad z NATOm
thomas mene ne privlači muslimanski svet - no ja kajenje drog in haremi pa to s mi že kul - sam mi je tud tvoj fanatični črno bel pogled mal čuden
šaron je bil stara pizda, ki je ugotovil da odhaja k Jahvetu in je želel, da se ga ljudje ne spominjajo kot klavca palestincev, ampak kot nekoga ki prinaša mir in to mu je uspelo. dosegel je svoj cilj in prinesel malo miru na zemljo, sedaj pa mu želim mirno potovanje k njegovemu stvarniku.
to da nas bodo muslimi poharal, se pa zarad mene naj zgodi, vendar samo če so res močnejši od nas, v kar pa jaz dvomim in bi moral tudi ti thomas - edini ki lahko poharajo zahodni svet so kitajci no al pa indijci, muslimi se bojo pa tapru med sabo pobil, glih tko kot zahodni svet, šele pol bi se šli z drugimi tepit.

Seveda verjamem v premoč Zahoda. Tudi (predvsem) skozi znanost in tehnologijo.

Kar pa še ne pomeni, da moramo mirno prenašati teženja arabskih milic. Niti da moramo biti tiho ob jamranju zahodnih kulturnih relativistov. Niti ob požiganju Arabk in Pakistank, niti avtomobilov v Parizu.

Barakuda,tvoj problem je v razumevanju božje besede.Ta ne govori o človekovih pravicah sprejetih v UN.


Jih je pa vsekakor omogočla.

Pa poglej si kaj sem ti v Srž religij napisal.