Original thought doesn’t seem to be any extremist Islamic believer’s forté.
I wonder if there is something about a “believer” that turns him into a parrot?
Mate, I am well aware that you pray using set Arabic phrases. Means fuck all relative to some oddball obsession to avoid saying Mosque, a word that’s just a deformation of the Arabic anyway.
Here is a former Islamic Terrorist explaining Shari law. Right from the mouth of a former terrorist you learn their trade. If we let a Muslim build a Mosque at ground zero it is considered to be forever owned by them. It is also an embassy.
Not to mention it is the ultimate show of laughing in our faces about 9-11. Anyone who tears down a mosque will bring all of the fury of the Muslims because we cannot destroy it. They tore down our Twin Towers with all the innocent civilian deaths and want to replace them with their worship site? How utterly despicable.
This is what they are doing in Europe and our Democratic ways will play right into their hands if we allow it. Be informed.
Heh. You called him a duffer.
This is turning into a great debate.
Your odd manner of expression (as perceived by the typical audience, here), may have prompted some less than reverent responses to your posts, but on this board you will refrain from responding to such comments with direct, personal insults.
[ /Moderating ]
It hurts my brain to read the OP. Urinals, mosquitos, measuring tape? What the hell is he on about? Could someone call him on his cell for more info?
Ah, but do they understand the language or are they just reciting the phrases phonetically through rote memorization?
Dude, Mohammad just made up everything in the Koran. It’s no more the word of God than the Torah or the Gospels or the Book of Mormon.
My best guess is that it is the thoughts of a devout Muslim who is challenging some of the political actions and decrees of some of the more conservative Muslims of the world.
On the one hand, his basic thesis will get a hearty affirmative from most of this board, (which overwhelmingly favors the separation of church and state), and a mild affirmative from some large number of posters who agree that mullahs are not guided by God, but will run into a lot of harrassment from the large contingent of posters who dismiss all religious beliefs, some of whom will even go out of their way to denigrate religious expressions with which they concur, based on a need to denigrate all religious belief.
ETA [ /Modding ]: The staff is aware that this is not the only board on which this has been posted and that it might cross the line into glurge, but as long as the discussion remains civil and the OP remains responsive, we are currently going to allow this thread to remain open.
I would like to point out that this article appeared last year in Pakistan during the militancy u[surge in Swat district and was written by the President of the Local Bar Association in Swat (a man I know and respect, though usually disgaree with).
At a time when militant and miscreants were terrorising the whole district, attacking mosques, schools, markets and homes, undertaking target killings and beheading people and hanging their corpses in the town square, this article (it was published and distributed) publication was an extremely courageous step. It is all very well to talk of free speech sitting at a computer on a message board where your true identity is unknown. It is quite another to do so in the middle of a warzone when you will certainly become a target.
For what its worth, “urinal” in Pakistan (and other South Asian countries as well) is often used as a synonym for “improvised place of waste disposal”. What he his saying is that the Mullahs can’t even stop people from urinating on walls of their mosques.
Uhuh. By that logic you should just speak Arabic and forget all other languages. Daft.
You lads in Pakistan have a lot of issues. Anyway, I always have been told that the concept of mosque didn’t really emerge as such until way after the Quran, so… doesn’t make much sense as an argument.
Mr Moderator, could not you see the filthy word, “Daft” your blue eyed **wmfellows ** used for me, without any reasons???\
if this is the standard of your moderation I am not to stay here at all cost. The message boards are in thousands if not in millions!!!
who breaches first makes himself entitled for prompt action and not the defender, do you understand, Mr moderator???
Um, u hit the bulls-eye. a number of attacks were carried out against me but thanks to Allah Almighty who rescued me completely.
Why most of honorable members use filthy language so easily and without reasons on such boards??
If “daft” is going to be not just over the line but “filthy”, we’re going to have a substantial disconnect.
As it is, WM called your argument daft, not you.
Frankly, I’d like to hear more about the experiences of an educated person in the midst of military conflict. I don’t understand all the stuff about the mullahs, though, nor can I say I’m all that excited about a proposal to reform Islam (if that’s what it was) since I’d be happier if it overall ceased to exist.
Very strange defense, some cure are said to be more harmful than disease. same is this defense.
Every body has got every right to disagree with my arguments but none has got any right to call it a daft. Arguments emanating from mind so calling argument as daft is more severe than calling me as daft instead.
And if I borrow your defense that I call WM’s arguments as duffer, then would you acquit me?
No, Abisafyan, you have it wrong. We can’t call you daft, but we can say what we want about your opinions. It’s called “freedom of expression”. It’s one of the things we pride ourselves on, here in the decadent West.
Check the forum rules, we do indeed have the right to call your argument all sorts of things. It’s you as a person we’re not allowed to insult.
No, it’s not. Saying your argument is nutty is not the same as calling you a crazy person. Even normal people sometime advance silly arguments.
Well, no, because that wouldn’t make any sense. Someone’s argument can’t be a “duffer”. You have my personal sanction (for what it’s worth) to refer to WM’s argument as any pejorative you like, if it makes you feel better.
Very very weird offensive defense and counter arguments. Simple is that ‘be with us or against us’
Hope you’ve got blue eyes, Perciful, because then it can’t be mistaken for racial bigotry when I describe the claims in your post as somewhere on the border between breathtakingly ignorant and batshit insane.
Yeah well, it’s how we roll. Welcome to the Straight Dope, Abisafyan!