Deafening Roar of Muslim Rebuttal

Per Loin

[VOA]

Deafening Roar of Muslim Rebuttal

As an auditory phenomenon, it is only exceeded by Saddam's protestations that he
is absolutely NOT associated with Osama.

(end sarcasm)

Actually, I'll chuckle whether Saddam distances himself from this current version
of "Osama" (who ever the heck it actually is).
This statement of solidarity is just another swift kick in the pants of the French and the
Germans.
Not that they'll even notice it after their breakfast of wine and schnapps, respectively.

[ChadGore]

Re: needs no condemning or even acknowledgement by any religious leaders.

That's heeelarious !

[Kevin Curry]

Islam, religion of silence.

[JennysCool]

Shoulda guessed.

[Sam Cree]

hahaha

[perfect stranger]

mrpiedlourd signed up 2003-02-12 and has only posted 3 times all to this thread.

[RIGHT IN SEATTLE]

anyone have an e-mail from this mush head?

[SauronOfMordor]

Has it occured to any of you that Muslim leaders have no more responsibility to condemn a (according to the US) insane, evil megalomaniac acting the name of a religion than the Pope has to condemn the IRA for acting in the name of Catholicism, or any other religious leader has?

Where religious leaders issue FROM THE PULPIT DURING SERVICES, calls to murder unbelievers, I would expect that other religious leaders of the same religion should feel an obligation to say something. I'm sure that if a priest in Boston had done a sermon on the desirability of killing Muslims, he would be expelled from the priesthood by morning.

And the pope has not been issuing any fatwas calling for the faithful to kill some author who wrote a book disrespectful of Catholicism, unlike the treatment accorded Salmon Rushdie by the Ayatollah Khomaini a few years back...

[cookcounty]

"Has it occured to any of you that Muslim leaders have no more responsibility to condemn a (according to the US) insane, evil megalomaniac acting the name of a religion than the Pope has to condemn the IRA for acting in the name of Catholicism, or any other religious leader has?"

But the Pope HAS condemned the IRA, over and over again. They are NOT permitted to speak in Catholic churches, and EVERY church-attending catholic in Ireland knows this very well. Quite a contrast to the mad mullahs and their evil sermons of poison.

....no,, I am not a Catholic.

[roses of sharon]

Yes, and isn't is funny how OBL, Saddam, Daschle,Clinton, Hollyweird, and ABCNBCCBSPBSNPRCNN, all HAVE THE SAME TALKING POINTS.

And don't forget the French and Germans.

[perfect stranger]

"I have no sandwich materials."

You can't fool us. We know you got some cheese. LOL

[mrpiedlourd]

The last link is an especially helpful peace that you could stand to educate yourselves with. To say that Islamic leaders NEED to condemn terrorists implies that they share culpability with them in their acts, which they don't.

http://www.muhajabah.com/otherscondemn.php

http://www.eurasianet.org/departments/qanda/articles/eav021302.shtml

http://www.episcopalchurch.org/ecumenism/interfaith/muslimQA1001.html

[GirlShortstop]

Islam, Judaism, and Christianity are fundamentally peaceful religions...

ROFLMAO....  I see you've set aside this special time to humiliate yourself in public.   

Islam is Peace^®    my (_|_)

[P.O.E.]

I have no sandwich materials.

That's a keeper!

[JRandomFreeper]

I look forward to having my picture taken in historic Bhagdad after the occupation.

/john

[Kevin Curry]

Has it occured to any of you that Muslim leaders have no more responsibility to condemn a (according to the US) insane, evil megalomaniac . . ..

Oh, I dunno. There were two million Muslims in Mecca today stoning the devil. Opposing and deouncing the devil is a religious duty, a brick in one of the "pillars of Islam." Their silence in the face of bin Laden's calls for murder indicates one of two things: 1) they identify with him, or 2) they are derelict in their duty.

[VOA]

Islam, Judaism, and Christianity are fundamentally peaceful religions

Let's review:
Judaism seemed to grow out of the blood-lust phase after about 70 AD.
(Although some Jews, especially in the form of Israelis, have sensibly taken up the
sword and shield again).

As a motivating factor, Christians mostly let each others blood after the Crusades,
with a few exceptions like killing Native Americans.

Muslims...well when it comes to violence, at least they are consistent.
Problem is that even if only 1-10% of them are murderous fanatics, they make things
really awful for the silent sheep that are their co-congregants.

And, given their gift for stagecraft as exhibited on 9-11, Bali, and other places...
anyone in the civlized world, save the French, Germans, Belgians, and lots of
UN delegates from despotic countries don't have much else on which to base their impression
of a religion/organizing principle called Islam.

[perfect stranger]

Thanks alot. I play through Thursday. Try the Veal! LOL

[SauronOfMordor]

Why don't you just tell me what you think is so funny, I have no sandwich materials.

What I think will be funny will be all the Muslim women who will be ever so grateful to the American soldiers who will be coming to liberate them from the rule of their stinky, camel-fornicating Muslim men. The Muslim women will be so overjoyed to finally have men who will be able to sexually satisfy them, that they will tell the Americans where to find their Muslim men, so the American troops can kill them.

I will find THAT very funny.

[Billthedrill]

On the contrary, the Pope, for one, has precisely that responsibility and is remiss if he does not exercise it, as, in fact, he has. But that is neither here nor there, actually. Secular Moslem leaders have no particular reason to leap forward on this unless they have religious pretensions as well, as nearly all of them do, Egypt and Turkey being notable exceptions. However, the leaders of such states as Libya, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and especially Iran, have claimed status at varying levels as Defenders of the Faith, and as such have every right and every obligation to provide a textual, and if necessary, military corrective to the insubordinate, heretical teachings of a radical and heretical mullah. He and several of his minions have arrogated to themselves the function of declaring a fatwah, quite outside the norms of that religion, as I am sure you are aware.

It is the failure of Islam to provide internal discipline of this nature that has led to the accession of a violent minority claiming to speak for the whole. Until they are properly brought back under control of acknowledged Islamic law they do speak for the whole. Certainly they provide an unmodified sanction for violent followers to act outside the dictates of the law you term essentially peaceful.

In fact, any church that allows its radical elements both to speak and to enact violence in its name is to blame, and in any other religion beside Islam this is not questioned. It should be questioned here. Were there a historical Caliph or even a Sultan it would be questioned, in fact, bin Laden's head would be on the tip of a scimitar by now for apostasy and heresy. Since Islam does not differentiate between secular and religious law, these fatwahs must be regarded as official - certainly some very violent people will be acting as if they were. If secular Moslem leaders will not oppose him, his declared enemies and intended victims must.