# News & Current Events > World News & Affairs >  Jihadist Dilemma: 72 Virgins or a Wife, Diploma, and Welfare

## presence

Christa Case Bryant                         
May 25, 2012         
*
For Saudi ex-jihadis: a stipend, a wife, and a new life*
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middl...and-a-new-life




> They enjoy buffet meals
> []
>  classes in everything from Islam and history to art therapy
>  []
> various financial incentives
>  []
> Upon graduation, the men receive a lump sum $2,665
> []
> $700 per month


*Are terrorists beyond redemption?*
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middl...ond-redemption




> The record shows that some radical groups can be persuaded to give up  the gun when the combination of inducements and local conditions is  right.


*"NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION"
Mind Over Martyr - How to Deradicalize Islamist Extremists
*Jessica Stern
http://www.physics.harvard.edu/~wils...stren_2010.pdf




> given housing, a car, terrorist-rehabilitation money for a wedding—*even assistance in finding a wife*, if necessary.
> []
> The project is extremely expensive



You may also "enjoy":


www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2010/RAND_MG1053.pdf
*Deradicalizing Islamist Extremists*


presence

----------


## Muwahid

The vast majority of them aren't extremists, they're people fighting to kick out (a) invaders, or (b) puppet regimes.

----------


## FrankRep

> The vast majority of them aren't extremists, they're people fighting to kick out (a) invaders, or (b) puppet regimes.


Women are still treated as second-class citizens though.

Is that better Kotin? 

:-p

----------


## Muwahid

What? No they're not. The women in the middle east look at women here and feel bad for them, they're objectified and used to sell products, they get molested and sexually assaulted a lot. Michael Scheuer made a good point about this, they simply don't want to be treated like women here.

----------


## FrankRep

> What? No they're not. The women in the middle east look at women here and feel bad for them, they're objectified and used to sell products, they get molested and sexually assaulted a lot. Michael Scheuer made a good point about this, they simply don't want to be treated like women here.


This is NOT what freedom looks like.

----------


## specsaregood

> This is NOT what freedom looks like.


You are missing the point Frank, for many of them, YES it is.   Unless you are saying that freedom is having FrankRep's values imposed upon them.

----------


## ExPatPaki

> This is NOT what freedom looks like.


Exactly, FrankRep is right. Freedom looks like this:



God bless our troops who are fighting for my freedom.

----------


## TER

How long is FrankRep's ban?  Will the moderator who banned him step up and tell us for how long he is banished?

----------


## Kluge

> Exactly, FrankRep is right. Freedom looks like this:
> 
> 
> 
> God bless our troops who are fighting for my freedom.


Why can't American's empathize? Seriously...anyone who has a daughter or a son can't imagine this horror being rained down on them?

----------


## TER

> Why can't American's empathize? Seriously...anyone who has a daughter or a son can't imagine this horror being rained down on them?


And you are making a collectivist statement.

----------


## James Madison

> Why can't American's empathize? Seriously...anyone who has a daughter or a son can't imagine this horror being rained down on them?


It's easy to turn your shoulder when you're trained to view the enemy as sub-human.

----------


## Kluge

> You are missing the point Frank, for many of them, YES it is.   Unless you are saying that freedom is having FrankRep's values imposed upon them.


Yep. It is freedom from Western objectification and a choice to stick with their traditional values. No different from the Amish, Mormons or any other religious variations that look down on sexualizing women constantly. Some women don't actually want it.

But hey, we have plenty of unbridled freedom with zero morality, just look up various pop stars.

----------


## TER

Americans can't empathize because they do to have bombs falling down in their cities...yet.

Then we will empathize.

But don't think for a minute there aren't those who don't want to make us feel such pain.   What they would consider righteous revenge granted, but hoped and strived for nonetheless.

What we should do is repent and sympathize with those who are suffering by those we call fellow citizens, tryin our best to end the wars and the needless death and destruction.

What FrankRep posted was unneccasary, but true nonetheless.  It was instead in poor tact.  That is why I am wondering what kind of penalty this garnishes and for how long he has been banned.

----------


## Kluge

> And you are making a collectivist statement.


Yes I am.

And I'm sure I'll make more in the future when appropriate. There really are very few Americans who can empathize and are willing to do something to stop it.

When I'm wrong, I'll apologize.

----------


## TER

> Yes I am.
> 
> And I'm sure I'll make more in the future when appropriate. There really are very few Americans who can empathize and are willing to do something to stop it.
> 
> When I'm wrong, I'll apologize.


I understand your frustration.  I disagree with your collectivistist beliefs.  Indeed, the hatred for all things West did not start in the 20th century.  It has lasted epochs.

----------


## TheTexan

> Yep. It is freedom from Western objectification and a choice to stick with their traditional values. No different from the Amish, Mormons or any other religious variations that look down on sexualizing women constantly. Some women don't actually want it.
> 
> But hey, we have plenty of unbridled freedom with zero morality, just look up various pop stars.


In some ways Muslim women are more free over there than they are here.  If they try to wear a burka here there's the constant harassment to deal with.  Muslims get harassed enough even without the burkas.

----------


## Kluge

> Americans can't empathize because they do to have bombs falling down in their cities...yet.
> 
> Then we will empathize.
> 
> But don't think for a minute there aren't those who don't want to make us feel such pain.   What they would consider righteous revenge granted, but hoped and strived for nonetheless.
> 
> What we should do is repent and sympathize with those who are suffering by those we call fellow citizens, tryin our best to end the wars and the needless death and destruction.
> 
> What FrankRep posted was unneccasary, but true nonetheless.  It was instead in poor tact.  That is why I am wondering what kind of penalty this garnishes and for how long he has been banned.


What do we do for those people whose families we've destroyed? Of course they want to make us feel the same pain--because we administer it so liberally without a second damned thought as to what it really means.

I have one daughter, one husband. If some foreign occupier killed them without a second thought--I would be very torn between all-out vengeance and plain-old suicide. We've destroyed so much, and you get upset about me criticizing Americans for not being empathetic? 99% aren't. At least our soldiers knew what they were signing up for and did so voluntarily--the ill-effects are a good part their own fault.

You think these people that we bomb want to cause us harm just because they're evil or something?

----------


## TER

> In some ways Muslim women are more free over there than they are here.  If they try to wear a burka here there's the constant harassment to deal with.  Muslims get harassed enough even without the burkas.


Except if they don't wear burkas in some places, then they can get publicly lashed.

----------


## TheTexan

> Except if they don't wear burkas in some places, then they can get publicly lashed.


And the solution is of course to bomb them until they're free

----------


## TER

> You think these people that we bomb want to cause us harm just because they're evil or something?


Of course not.  I never said that or implied that.  It is not they who are evil just as it is not the 99% of Americans who cannot empathize simply because they have never been in such tragic circumstances.  The ideologies are what is evil.  The malice and hatred and contempt is what is evil, and is not limited to one religion or system of government or foreign policy, but seeks to corrupt all things and permeate all of creation.  That is the evil we should malice against, and never the person.  Either individually or in groups.

----------


## ExPatPaki

Burka is worn by less than 1% of Muslim women. Only Saudi Arabia requires women to wear it and countries like Syria, Morocco, Tunisia, Turkey, Azerbaijan have tried to ban burka and even the hijab. 

Most Muslim women wear the hijab.

----------


## TER

> And the solution is of course to bomb them until they're free


No, not of course.  Not of course at all.

----------


## TheTexan

> Of course not.  I never said that or implied that.  It is not they who are evil just as it is not the 99% of Americans who cannot empathize simply because they have never been in such tragic circumstances.  The ideologies are what is evil.  The malice and hatred and contempt is what is evil, and is not limited to one religion or system of government or foreign policy, but seeks to corrupt all things and permeate all of creation.  That is the evil we should malice against, and never the person.  Either individually or in groups.


And what ideology is that

----------


## TER

> And what ideology is that


You mean what ideology has God to be love and between persons?

----------


## TheTexan

> You mean what ideology has God to be love and between persons?


What ideology that you speak of is evil?

----------


## TER

> What ideology that you speak of is evil?


Most, if not all of men's religious ideologies have been corrupted.  That is why we are not God, Who alone is without evil.

----------


## TheTexan

> Most, if not all of men's religious ideologies have been corrupted.  That is why we are not God, Who alone is without evil.





> But don't think for a minute there aren't those who don't want to make us feel such pain. What they would consider righteous revenge granted, but hoped and strived for nonetheless.


Are these people evil?

----------


## UWDude

> This is NOT what freedom looks like.


Actually, in Egypt, it is exactly what freedom became.  In the 1960's, women started dressing that way to avoid male advances, and to reject western society.

It is pretty warped to believe less clothes, more make-up, and more plastic surgery = freedom.

By your logic, women who choose to wear less revealing clothes are the oppressed, and women who wear two piece bikinis are the free, even though the woman in the long dress may be treated with respect and equality by her man, whilst the one in the string bikini tolerate being called a bitch and getting slapped.

It is pretty sad that Americans equate fashion with freedom, like they equate it with personality, or rebellion, or whatever else.  Clothes are clothes, and how people choose to dress is how they choose to dress.  There is no way you can make a good judgement call based on how someone dresses.

Indeed, in France, wearing a hijab would be more freedom, since they are outlawed in public schools.

----------


## TER

> Are these people evil?


No, but they are all sinners and sadly many of them are damned.

----------


## TER

> Actually, in Egypt, it is exactly what freedom became.  In the 1960's, women started dressing that way to avoid male advances, and to reject western society.
> 
> It is pretty warped to believe less clothes, more make-up, and more plastic surgery = freedom.
> 
> By your logic, women who choose to wear less revealing clothes are the oppressed, and women who wear two piece bikinis are the free, even though the woman in the long dress may be treated with respect and equality by her man, whilst the one in the string bikini tolerate being called a bitch and getting slapped.
> 
> It is pretty sad that Americans equate fashion with freedom, like they equate it with personality, or rebellion, or whatever else.  Clothes are clothes, and how people choose to dress is how they choose to dress.  There is no way you can make a good judgement call based on how someone dresses.
> 
> Indeed, in France, wearing a hijab would be more freedom, since they are outlawed in public schools.


I have no problem if a women wishes to dress in a burka out of piety and humility before God.  After all, the tradition comes from the Mother of God, the Virgin Mary.

I have a problem when they are threatened with violence for not having the freedom to NOT wear one.  Do you see the difference?

----------


## TheTexan

> No, but they are all sinners and sadly many of them are damned.


Are our warfighters any less of a sinner than those in the Middle East who seek to harm us?

----------


## TheTexan

> I have a problem when they are threatened with violence for not having the freedom to NOT wear one.  Do you see the difference?


When we have people getting killed in their own homes over a plant, I don't think we have much room to speak

----------


## TER

> Are our warfighters any less of a sinner than those in the Middle East who seek to harm us?


I do not have the authority to judge who is the greater sinner, but sinners they all are, just like me and you.

----------


## TER

> When we have people getting killed in their own homes over a plant, I don't think we have much room to speak


This is true.  This doesn't, however, justify the problem I see with women being forced to wear burkas against their will.

----------


## TheTexan

> This is true.  This doesn't, however, justify the problem I see with women being forced to wear burkas against their will.


Well, any government is only a representation of its people.  As it happens, _most_ women there are perfectly fine with that.  Just as it happens, _most_ people here are fine with our ridiculous police state.

----------


## TER

> Well, any government is only a representation of its people.  As it happens, _most_ women there are perfectly fine with that.  Just as it happens, _most_ people here are fine with our ridiculous police state.


And that is my point.  Do you believe a women should be publicly lashed or even stoned to death because she does not wear a burka?

----------


## ExPatPaki

> And that is my point.  Do you believe a women should be publicly lashed or even stoned to death because she does not wear a burka?


Can you give an example of this done by a government from the past 5 years?

----------


## TheTexan

> And that is my point.  Do you believe a women should be publicly lashed or even stoned to death because she does not wear a burka?


No, I think it's terrible.  My point is that we can't take the moral high ground on this.  We, as a country, are not better than them.

----------


## TER

> Can you give an example of this from the past 5 years?


I'm not sure.  I haven't been following The Taliban Post.

----------


## ExPatPaki

> I'm not sure.  I haven't been following The Taliban Post.


So basically you're making up $#@! as you post.

----------


## TER

> No, I think it's terrible.  My point is that we can't take the moral high ground on this.  We, as a country, are not better than them.


Exactly, which leads to the very reason why I first posted in this thread.  Why is FrankRep getting banned for his post, and if the moderator does not have the courage to step up and explain why, then can they at leat PM me how long the ban is for.

----------


## ExPatPaki

> No, I think it's terrible.  My point is that we can't take the moral high ground on this.  We, as a country, are not better than them.


But the lying troll cannot give an example of this being done by a government from the past 5 years.

----------


## TheTexan

> Can you give an example of this done by a government from the past 5 years?


Maybe not with burkas, but still very commonly with adultery.  Not exactly the same, but similar enough for the purpose of this discussion

----------


## TER

> So basically you're making up $#@! as you post.


lol, yeah, because women in Afghanistan are not under the threat of lashes and whippings for removing their burka in public.

----------


## ExPatPaki

> lol, yeah, because women in Afghanistan are not under the threat of lashes and whippings for removing their burka in public.


Of course they are not. They are enjoying the freedoms of American occupation.

Still waiting for any evidence of this occurring under a governmental authority.

Why does Jesus teach one to lie, I will never understand.

----------


## ExPatPaki

> Maybe not with burkas, but still very commonly with adultery.  Not exactly the same, but similar enough for the purpose of this discussion


Can you post a news article for adultery?

----------


## TER

> But the lying troll cannot give an example of this being done by a government from the past 5 years.


Very predictable statement from you.  You use that 'lying troll' accusation often.  Do you do that to convince yourself or others?

----------


## TER

> Can you post a news article for adultery?


lol.  If its not published in the Taliban Post, it didn't happen!

----------


## ExPatPaki

> Very predictable statement from you.  You use that 'lying troll' accusation often.  Do you do that to convince yourself or others?


Still no news article about women being stoned for adultery.

----------


## ExPatPaki

> lol.  If its not published in the Taliban Post, it didn't happen!


Still no article from the lying troll.

----------


## TheTexan

> Can you post a news article for adultery?


There's some news articles in the references, but this should suffice: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoning#Usage_today

----------


## ExPatPaki

> There's some news articles in the references, but this should suffice: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoning#Usage_today


See how easy that was TER? Next time, don't be a lying troll.

----------


## TER

> Still no article from the lying troll.


Your attempts at getting our posts deleted may still work!

----------


## TER

> See how easy that was TER? Next time, don't be a lying troll.


Nah, just didn't have the desire to go search one out.  I do thank the person for posting it though.  I wonder what your reaction is.  What are your thoughts on capital punishment for adultery and whippings for not covering your entire body in public?

----------


## Muwahid

> This is NOT what freedom looks like.


Women doing what they want is not freedom? Oh wait let me guess they're forced to do that against their will 

Nuns must be oppressed too.

----------


## TER

> Of course they are not. They are enjoying the freedoms of American occupation.
> 
> Still waiting for any evidence of this occurring under a governmental authority.
> 
> Why does Jesus teach one to lie, I will never understand.


Since you changed your last post to include the last one, let me address it.  Jesus never to taught one to lie.  Indeed, there is another major religion which not only allows it, but encourages it.  Would you like to start a new thread on comparative theology?

----------


## ExPatPaki

> Jesus never to taught one to lie.


That itself is a lie because you are a liar.

----------


## TER

> Women doing what they want is not freedom? Oh wait let me guess they're forced to do that against their will 
> 
> Nuns must be oppressed too.


Nuns are not threated with violence for not wearing one.  Do you see the difference?  It is completely by their own will.

Why would there be threats of violence against women for not wearing burkas?  Is there a chance that perhaps then many would not want to wear it?

----------


## Muwahid

> Except if they don't wear burkas in some places, then they can get publicly lashed.


I direct your attention to 1 Corinthians 11:6:



> If a woman does not cover her head, *she should have her hair cut off*; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head.


Islam has no punishment for women who do not wear the hijaab, you will find no punishment existing in Islam. Christianity is a different story. Hell, how many Christians besides nuns even cover their hair? Ridiculous.

----------


## TER

> That itself is a lie because you are a liar.


I don't claim to be Jesus.  Sadly, I lie.  As do you.

----------


## ExPatPaki

> I don't claim to be Jesus.  Sadly, I lie.  As do you.


You only lie because that is the only thing that Jesus teaches you.

----------


## TER

> I direct your attention to 1 Corinthians 11:6:
> 
> 
> Islam has no punishment for women who do not wear the hijaab, you will find no punishment existing in Islam. Christianity is a different story. Hell, how many Christians besides nuns even cover their hair? Ridiculous.


Muwahid, it would be better for you to bow out at this time instead of trying to exegesis me verses of the the New Testament.  And please dont try to compare the public whippings of young females for not wearing the burka with the statement St. Paul made 2000 years ago which was never taken to mean violence on another.

And for the record, in most of the Orthodox Christian world the females do wear veils in church and during liturgical services, and can take them off without the threat of violence.

----------


## TER

> You only lie because that is the only thing that Jesus teaches you.


So you believe that Jesus is the source of my lying?

----------


## TER

> So you believe that Jesus is the source of my lying?


Better yet, don't answer that.

----------


## ExPatPaki

> And please dont try to compare the public whippings of young females for not wearing the burka


The liar has not produced an example of this happening.

----------


## Muwahid

> Muwahid, it would be better for you to bow out at this time instead of trying to exegesis me verses of the the New Testament.  And please dont try to compare the public whippings of young females for not wearing the burka with the statement St. Paul made 2000 years ago which was never taken to mean violence on another.
> 
> And for the record, in most of the Orthodox Christian world the females do wear veils in church and during liturgical services, and can take them off without the threat of violence.


That was an extraordinary diversion. You find me the punishment for a woman not covering her hair in my Qur'an, because I've found the punishment in your Bible. You are condemning that which Paul ordered when it is from Islam (despite the fact you're making it up, or relying on fringe instances which are not found in the Qur'an or Sunnah).

That is grandiose hypocrisy.

----------


## ExPatPaki

> That is grandiose hypocrisy.


It is what Jesus taught TER. Lying, diversion and hypocrisy are part and parcel of conversion tactics Christians use.

----------


## TheTexan

> The liar has not produced an example of this happening.


Not exactly the same, but close enough?

----------


## TER

> That was an extraordinary diversion. You find me the punishment for a woman not covering her hair in my Qur'an, because I've found the punishment in your Bible. You are condemning that which Paul ordered when it is from Islam (despite the fact you're making it up, or relying on fringe instances which are not found in the Qur'an or Sunnah).
> 
> That is grandiose hypocrisy.


lol, very well.  Defend the stoning for adultery and the whippings for removing the burka and the hangings for sexual immorality and the beheading for the infidel!  

BTW, the false exegesis you posted fails.  For what St. Paul says is not that a women should be taken and have their hair cut off, but rather that she might as well as have no hair (in a figurative sense).   Sorry, but the verse explanations you find from Islamic sources unfortunately confabulate a bit and do not hold the test of historical accuracy or traditional proof.

For example, if you can find the tradition and practice of Christian women (ESPECIALLY in the early Church when St. Paul wrote this) being forced to have their hair cut, then you would make history.  But, instead, you mistranslate a verse and take a line out of context so that you can justify the atrocities being committed by others.  And you call me the hypocrite.  I'm sorry for being curt, but I am in a bit of a foul mood tonight.  I should probably go to bed.

----------


## TER

And yet the practices in the video above are real and happening today.

----------


## ExPatPaki

> Defend the stoning for adultery and the whippings for removing the burka and the hangings for sexual immorality and the beheading for the infidel!


Muwahid didn't defend anything. You're lying again, just as Jesus taught you.

----------


## Muwahid

> lol, very well.  Defend the stoning for adultery and the whippings for removing the burka and the hangings for sexual immorality and the beheading for the infidel!  
> 
> BTW, the false exegesis you posted fails.  For what St. Paul says is not the the women should be taken and have their hair cut off, but rather that she might as well as have no hair in a figurative sense.  If you can find the tradition and practice of Christian women ESPECIALLY in the early Church being forced to have their hair cut, then you would make history.  But, instead, you take a line out of context so that you can justify the atrocities being committed by others.  And you call me the hypocrite.  I'm sorry for being curt, but I am in a bit of a foul mood tonight.  I should probably go to bed.


The old "it's a metaphor" excuse. 




> Deuteronomy 22:22
> New International Version (NIV)
> 22 If a man is found sleeping with another man’s wife, *both the man who slept with her and the woman must die.* You must purge the evil from Israel.


Was God wrong in the Old Testament, even if you don't follow the OT (despite the fact Jesus claimed he did not come to abolish them but then that would put a damper on Christians eating pork n all); it was still God's law at one point, so you condemn Gods law.

Once again, you're a hypocrite, follow your own religion not what you like from it, then talk to me.

----------


## TER

> The old "it's a metaphor" excuse.


Yes, so old it goes back to the very beginning!  lol  Stop trying to revise things you have never really studied.




> Was God wrong in the Old Testament, even if you don't follow the OT (despite the fact Jesus claimed he did not come to abolish them but then that would put a damper on Christians eating pork n all); it was still God's law at one point, so you condemn Gods law.
> 
> Once again, you're a hypocrite, follow your own religion not what you like from it, then talk to me.


Unfortunately, you demonstrate your complete ignorance to the Christian faith, which is understandable and why I forgive you.

Now, please tell my your thoughts about whether women who commit adultery should be stoned.  It seems like your friend keeps avoiding the question, so perhaps you might enlighten us with yours.

----------


## ExPatPaki

> despite the fact Jesus claimed he did not come to abolish them but then that would put a damper on Christians eating pork n all


Speaking of Christians and pork:

----------


## TER

> It is what Jesus taught TER. Lying, diversion and hypocrisy are part and parcel of conversion tactics Christians use.


Its amazing that such an offensive and generalized statement like this is allowed to stand on this website, and that you are not banned for it, but FrankRep is banned for picturing a women in a burka.  Amazing.

And all the while you wont answer whether you believe a women should be stoned for adultery.  

Amazing.

----------


## ExPatPaki

> Its amazing that such an offensive and generalized statement like this is allowed to stand on this website, and that you are not banned for it, but FrankRep is banned for picturing a women in a burka.  Amazing.


But these are the tactics that Christians use to convert infidel heathen brown people. Along with supporting wars of aggression like the one against a brown country known as Iraq. There is no denying this.

----------


## TER

> But...


Do you believe women who commit adultery should be stoned?

----------


## TER

Why the pause?  Are you unsure of your answer?

----------


## TheTexan

> Do you believe women who commit adultery should be stoned?


No, but at the same time I think it's none of our business.

----------


## TER

> No, but at the same time I think it's none of our business.


Fair enough.  Now, will the two Muslims in this thread answer please?

----------


## Muwahid

> Yes, so old it goes back to the very beginning!  lol  Stop trying to revise things you have never really studied.
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, you demonstrate your complete ignorance to the Christian faith, which is understandable and why I forgive you.
> 
> Now, please tell my your thoughts about whether women who commit adultery should be stoned.  It seems like your friend keeps avoiding the question, so perhaps you might enlighten us with yours.


That's unbelievable! When someone throws right in your face a passage right from your holy book, commanding the exact thing to be done that you are objecting to, you say it's a lack of understanding of the Christian faith.

I grew up in a 70% Christian country, I understand Christianity I understand the laws of Christianity, and I know Christians *refuse to follow them*. The old testament *clearly states kill the adulterer* -- if you object to that you object to the LAW OF GOD.

But like all Christians, take what you like leave what you don't. As a Muslim that hadd punishment of an adulterer is stoning, but these punishments in Islam are not strictly required , this is the intricate details of Islamic fiqh that you simply don't understand as a laymen; for example if a man comes and accuses the woman of adultery she can swear four times she didn't do it, and that settles it, if she lies she invokes a curse on her, *but no person can punish her*, as her punishment at that point will be up to God. This is clear in the Qur'an

But you sit and watch television, and eat up the ridiculous agenda that the media puts on for you, if it satisfies your preconceived ideas of Islam then you believe it's true. There's *not a single state today that enforces Shar'iah law* even Saudi Arabia does not fully enforce Shar'iah law, and in some cases they've clearly erred (like forbidding women to drive, something Sh. al-Albani warned against), so images of people in Sudan? AYSH?? I asked to show me where in Islam there's a punishment for not wearing the veil, *because in Christianity despite your diversion and excues is SHAVING THE HEAD OF THE WOMAN!* -- you are proving to be a very big hypocrite.

It amazes me that when a psychopath like Breivik goes and murders children *in the name of Christianity*; everyone knows the Bible says nothing like that, so people don't blame christianity, but when you see Muslims doing things clearly forbidden in Islam, whether its torture abuse, etc, what's under scrutiny? *Islam*, why? Because you're hounds looking for excuses.

We can go on, in that wonderful book Deuteronomy; if a woman is raped, eh, just pay her father in some gold n marry her.

Once again ridiculous.

----------


## TER

...

----------


## ExPatPaki

Stoning isn't even mentioned in the Quran.

----------


## Bman

> No, but at the same time I think it's none of our business.


If I saw it happening it would be my business.

----------


## TheTexan

> If I saw it happening it would be my business.


Agreed

----------


## TER

> That's unbelievable! When someone throws right in your face a passage right from your holy book, commanding the exact thing to be done that you are objecting to,* you say it's a lack of understanding of the Christian faith.*...
> 
> But like all Christians, take what you like leave what you don't. As a Muslim that hadd punishment of an adulterer is stoning, but these punishments in Islam are not strictly required , *this is the intricate details of Islamic fiqh that you simply don't understand as a laymen*;


Now, that is rich.  In the first paragraph you state that I cannot make the claim that you do not understand the Christian faith as a defense and in the next paragraph your defense is that I don't know the intricate details of the Islamic faith in order to understand it.  You really don't see the irony?




> for example if a man comes and accuses the woman of adultery she can swear four times she didn't do it, and that settles it, if she lies she invokes a curse on her, *but no person can punish her*, as her punishment at that point will be up to God. This is clear in the Qur'an


So, in the video above, is that man beating her doing God's will?




> But..


Do you believe a women should be stoned for adultery?  Seems like a simple question.

----------


## TER

> Stoning isn't even mentioned in the Quran.


Neither is salvation.

----------


## Bman

> ...
> We can go on, in that wonderful book Deuteronomy; if a woman is raped, eh, just pay her father in some gold n marry her.
> 
> Once again ridiculous.


I'm agnostic.  I think you're all full it.  I was raised in a Christian house hold and can say that Christianity is based on the New Testament not the Old Testament.

----------


## TER

He believes I am an idiot for thinking I have any understanding in what the teachings of Islam is since I am not a Muslim but luckily for him he knows the Christian faith and understands it even though he is not a Christian.  And I'm the hypocrite. 

And then he goes and makes statements like the ones above which proves his complete and utter ignorance of the Christian faith.

The question is a simple one, does he believe that women who commit adultery should be stoned?

All he has to say is yes or no.  How can I take his faith seriously when he cant even profess it to me?

But its not only him, but the other one who likes to libel Jesus Christ, and the others who cant seem to answer this simple question.  Why the silence?   Are they afraid of something or someone?  And if yes, who?

----------


## ExPatPaki

> Neither is salvation.


It actually is. Another lie from the liar, as taught to the liar by Jesus.

----------


## Bman

> It actually is. Another lie from the liar, as taught to the liar by Jesus.


I know it is trying at times, but we do try and advocate to avoid personal attacks.

----------


## Muwahid

> Now, that is rich.  In the first paragraph you state that I cannot make the claim that you do not understand the Christian faith as a defense and in the next paragraph your defense is that I don't know the intricate details of the Islamic faith in order to understand it.  You really don't see the irony?
> 
> 
> 
> So, in the video above, is that man beating her doing God's will?
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe a women should be stoned for adultery?  Seems like a simple question.


The difference is I lived all my life with Christians, I read the Bible and studied Christianity. My religion is taken as an extension of the Abrahamic religions, and therefore I have to study the stories in the NT, and OT albeit it is our belief they are tainted with mans words. Therefore I would be damn well willing to bet I know more about Christianity than you'll ever know about Islam.

Secondly it's becoming apparent you're not even reading my posts I clearly stated about the video about Sudan it's not pat of Islam, there's no punishment for "wearing trousers"

Thirdly, what the hell man, I CLEARLY stated the view of adultery in Islam and dedicated a whole paragraph to it. Now why don't you tell us the view of Adultery in the Bible.. LOL you can't even get divorced in Christianity.

----------


## ExPatPaki

> I know it is trying at times, but we do try and advocate to avoid personal attacks.


I see, but it is hard when someone knowingly lies about your faith. Shouldn't that person be called out for being a liar?

----------


## TER

> The difference is I lived all my life with Christians, I read the Bible and studied Christianity. My religion is taken as an extension of the Abrahamic religions, and therefore I have to study the stories in the NT, and OT albeit it is our belief they are tainted with mans words. Therefore I would be damn well willing to bet I know more about Christianity than you'll ever know about Islam.
> 
> Secondly it's becoming apparent you're not even reading my posts I clearly stated about the video about Sudan it's not pat of Islam, there's no punishment for "wearing trousers"
> 
> Thirdly, what the hell man, I CLEARLY stated the view of adultery in Islam and dedicated a whole paragraph to it. Now why don't you tell us the view of Adultery in the Bible.. LOL you can't even get divorced in Christianity.


Actually, in the Orthodox Church, the most ancient Christian Church, divorce is allowed, so again you display your ignorance even though you imagine yourself to be some scholar.

And you are right that I haven't studied much of Islam.   Didn't like many of the things I read.  Reading the Koran just kept reminding me why Christ came into the world to begin with, that is, to save people from their sins.

And you still haven't answered whether YOU believe adultery is punishable by stoning.  And it looks like you are scared to, and I wonder who you are scared of.

----------


## Bman

> I see, but it is hard when someone knowingly lies about your faith. Shouldn't that person be called out for being a liar?


Of course you can but you do so at your own peril.  I'd suggest pointing out how they are wrong.

Obvious rogue heretics always do somethings in the name of a religion that actually is no part of the religion.  Sometimes it goes so far that it becomes mainstream i.e. the Spanish Inquisition.  To Americans it could seem that suicide mission, stoning, mutilations and such are a part of mainstream Islam.  Crazy is crazy and when you exist in an Us vs Them reality all you will be shown is crazy.

----------


## ExPatPaki

> And you still haven't answered whether YOU believe adultery is punishable by stoning.


He actually did. The hatred in your heart inhibits your reading comprehension abilities.

But do liars such as yourself deserve answers from honest people like Muwahid? Probably not.

----------


## Bman

> He actually did. The hatred in your heart inhibits your reading comprehension abilities.
> 
> But do liars such as yourself deserve answers from honest people like Muwahid? Probably not.


Not really.  He stated what happens if she says she didn't do it.  Not what happens if she admits to doing it.

----------


## TER

> He actually did. The hatred in your heart inhibits your reading comprehension abilities.
> 
> But do liars such as yourself deserve answers from honest people like Muwahid? Probably not.


Actually, he didn't tell me whether he believes stoning is appropriate punishment for adultery.

In fact, neither have you, but I have sort of lost hope that you would answer given that you seem too frightened to.

----------


## ExPatPaki

> In fact, neither have you, but I have sort of lost hope that you would answer given that you seem too frightened to.


The only thing I am frightened of is an American Christian firing a drone on a house in Pakistan and killing my family. But then again they are Muslim, so they deserve it, right?

----------


## TER

> Not really.  He stated what happens if she says she didn't do it.  Not what happens if she admits to doing it.


I wonder if there are four witnesses that she is an adulterer.  How is it determined who throws the first stone?

----------


## Muwahid

> Actually, in the Orthodox Church, the most ancient Christian Church, divorce is allowed, so again you display your ignorance even though you imagine yourself to be some scholar.
> 
> And you are right that I haven't studied much of Islam.   Didn't like many of the things I read.  Reading the Koran just kept reminding me why Christ came into the world to begin with, that is, to save people from their sins.
> 
> And you still haven't answered whether YOU believe adultery is punishable by stoning.  And it looks like you are scared to, and I wonder who you are scared of.


Are you feigning ignorance? *READ THE POST AGAIN*, if you're actually too lazy to even READ my post which would take a minute, then I'm not surprised you don't know much about Islam.

----------


## TER

> The only thing I am frightened of is an American Christian firing a drone on a house in Pakistan and killing my family. But then again they are Muslim, so they deserve it, right?


No, they dont.  Still doesnt justify stoning a women and you still havent answered if you agree with such punishment.

----------


## TER

> Are you feigning ignorance? *READ THE POST AGAIN*, if you're actually too lazy to even READ my post which would take a minute, then I'm not surprised you don't know much about Islam.


So, you believe that stoning a women to a violent death is appropriate punishment if she confesses to adultery?

----------


## ExPatPaki

> Actually, he didn't tell me whether he believes stoning is appropriate punishment for adultery.


Like I said, the hatred in your Christian heart inhibits your reading comprehension skills. This hatred leads you to be a liar and a hypocrite.

----------


## Muwahid

> As a Muslim the* hadd punishment of an adulterer is stoning, but these punishments in Islam are not strictly required , this is the intricate details of Islamic fiqh that you simply don't understand as a laymen; for example if a man comes and accuses the woman of adultery she can swear four times she didn't do it, and that settles it, if she lies she invokes a curse on her, *but no person can punish her*, as her punishment at that point will be up to God. This is clear in the Qur'an


Since some of you are slightly dyslexic. If she admits to it she gets stoned, the punishment is in her own hands, some women would admit to it because in Islam you can't be punished twice so they rather die on this world n be forgiven in the hereafter.

Strange what happens when you believe in the afterlife for real and not just in writing.

----------


## TER

You know what dampens my hope?  When Muslims who are members of the Ron Paul Forums and profess to be participants in a movement towards freedom and liberty can't simply state if they believe stoning a women to death is an appropriate punishment for adultery.  If the Muslims here are supposed to represent the most libertarian minded of the Muslim world and they cannot simply answer this, it makes me worry.

----------


## Bman

> The only thing I am frightened of is an American Christian firing a drone on a house in Pakistan and killing my family. But then again they are Muslim, so they deserve it, right?


As much so as any American of a Muslim hijacking a plane and flying it into a house over here, because they're Infidels and deserve it.

See this game is no fun.  Most of us here want nothing more than to pull our military out of the Middle East.  TER is very passionate about his religion.  It seems you are also.

Might I suggest you two restart with some common ground rather than blasting the perceived fundamentals of each others religions.  Look at the positive.  You both believe in God.  Why can't this be about peace and love.  Why does it always have to be about whose interpretation of gods intent is more correct?

----------


## ExPatPaki

Muwahid, I don't think even that will quell the genocidal hatred that TER has for Muslims.

----------


## TER

> Since some of you are slightly dyslexic. If she admits to it she gets stoned, the punishment is in her own hands, some women would admit to it because in Islam you can't be punished twice so they rather die on this world n be forgiven in the hereafter.
> 
> Strange what happens when you believe in the afterlife for real and not just in writing.


So, she gets stoned.  What do feel about that, as a Muslim of course?  As a Christian, I think it is a sin.  What are your thoughts or are you basically saying that you agree with it.  It is hard to know since you won't come out and say it.

----------


## Muwahid

> So, she gets stoned.  What do feel about that, as a Muslim of course?  As a Christian, I think it is a sin.  What are your thoughts or are you basically saying that you agree with it.  It is hard to know since you won't come out and say it.


Life and death are not a big deal to the Muslim because we believe in the hereafter, for secular people (and perhaps Christians) this is a strange concept. Plenty of people request the death penalty by the way.

Now what's your view on the Old Testament ordering the death penalty for adultery?

----------


## TER

> Muwahid, I don't think even that will quell the genocidal hatred that TER has for Muslims.


Actually, you misrepresent me.  I can question your beliefs without having genocidal hatred.  Or perhaps you don't think such a thing is possible, which would explain a lot.

----------


## Bman

> Since some of you are slightly dyslexic. If she admits to it she gets stoned, the punishment is in her own hands, *some women would admit to it because in Islam you can't be punished twice* so they rather die on this world n be forgiven in the hereafter.
> 
> Strange what happens when you believe in the afterlife for real and not just in writing.


OK so you do believe in stoning.  Obviously they don't want the stoning or they would have never committed adultery or would have immediately thrown their own body over the side of a cliff onto some rocks, effectively stoning themselves to death, rather than wait for an accuser so their peers could get their rocks off by throwning rocks to kill.

----------


## Muwahid

> OK so you do believe in stoning.  Obviously they don't want the stoning or they would have never committed adultery or would have immediately thrown their own body over the side of a cliff onto some rocks, effectively stoning themselves to death, rather than wait for an accuser so their peers could get their rocks off by throwning rocks to kill.


Some people don't want to be fat yet they eat. I don't see your point, we find many examples in the narrations from the prophet, where people would come to them and request the punishment for forgiveness. I know this is weird for some people but that's what they wanted. They could have gotten away with it if they wanted.

----------


## TER

> Life and death are not a big deal to the Muslim because we believe in the hereafter, for secular people (and perhaps Christians) this is a strange concept. Plenty of people request the death penalty by the way.
> 
> Now what's your view on the Old Testament ordering the death penalty for adultery?


The Old Testament was the Old Covenant until the coming of the Lord as prophesized.  With the coming of Jesus Christ, the will of God is quite clearly demonstrated by Christ when He stopped the crowd from stoning the women who was accussed of adultery.  So, my answer to the question is that stoning someone for adultery is a sin.

But, I see that in your faith, this practice is still accepted, which is ironic since you keep referring to that practice in the Old Testament as a way to insult Christians and try and prove how barbaric they can be.

----------


## Muwahid

> The Old Testament was the Old Covenant until the coming of the Lord as prophesized.  With the coming of Jesus Christ, the will of God is quite clearly demonstrated by Christ when He stopped the crowd from stoning the women who was accussed of adultery.  So, my answer to the question is that stoning someone for adultery is a sin.
> 
> But, I see that in your faith, this practice is still accepted, which is ironic since you keep referring to that practice in the Old Testament as a way to insult Christians and demonstrate how barbaric they are.


No you're putting words in my mouth. So why are you using the reference to stoning pejoratively if it was atleast at one point in a sent religion, done? God does not err, God is not unjust.

----------


## TER

> No you're putting words in my mouth. So why are you using the reference to stoning pejoratively if it was atleast at one point in a sent religion, done? God does not err, God is not unjust.


It was on account of the world being in the darkness before the Light entered into it.  God allowed such a law on account of the weakness of men and before He sent His Holy Spirit to be sent amongst men.   Christ clearly revealed that these laws were no longer needed, that He had come to make all things new.  To those who remain in the darkness, however, to those who shun the Light, they continue to stone adulterers even as they themselves are sinners.

----------


## Bman

> Some people don't want to be fat yet they eat. I don't see your point, we find many examples in the narrations from the prophet, where people would come to them and request the punishment for forgiveness. I know this is weird for some people but that's what they wanted. They could have gotten away with it if they wanted.


I don't know if you've ever watched a series or movies from Star Trek, but they have this one movie where a prophet steals a space ship because he thinks he has found the location of God.  When they get there they encounter an entity who says it is God and is very interested in getting a ride on the spaceship to spread it's message.  At which point the question is asked "Why does God need a spaceship?"

I have to ask what does God need with human hands carrying out God's punishment?

----------


## Muwahid

> I don't know if you've ever watched a series or movies from Star Trek, but they have this one movie where a prophet steals a space ship because he thinks he has found the location of God.  When they get there they encounter an entity who says it is God and is very interested in getting a ride on the spaceship to spread it's message.  At which point the question is asked "What does God need with a spaceship?"
> 
> I have to ask what does God need with human hands carrying out God's punishment?


The world needs order, so we keep order by way of Gods laws. God could carry them out himself but then man is not tested, if God is so obvious then all men would believe defeating the purpose of religion and the test of life.

@TER so you think the law of the OT was unjust then?

----------


## TER

> I don't know if you've ever watched a series or movies from Star Trek, but they have this one movie where a prophet steals a space ship because he thinks he has found the location of God.  When they get there they encounter an entity who says it is God and is very interested in getting a ride on the spaceship to spread it's message.  At which point the question is asked "Why does God need with a spaceship?"
> 
> I have to ask what does God need with human hands carrying out God's punishment?


BMan, God has many uses of human hands, whatever use He wills.

The question then really is, are the hands of humans doing His will when they are stoning an adulterer?

----------


## TER

> @TER so you think the law of the OT was unjust then?


No, they were perfectly just for those who lived before the Light of the world entered into it.

----------


## Muwahid

> No, they were perfectly just for those who lived before the Light of the world entered into it.


So stoning OK in certain times, but utterly barbaric and sinful in others? I'm sorry I just feel like you're bias. Walking on eggshells when it comes to the old testament but if another religion commands something that's present in the OT it's just _CrAzY_!!

Every point you put against Islam I found the same or more in your bible.

----------


## TER

> So stoning OK in certain times, but utterly barbaric and sinful in others? I'm sorry I just feel like you're bias. Walking on eggshells when it comes to the old testament but if another religion commands something that's present in the OT it's just _CrAzY_!!


Except you fail to see why Christ came into the world, to save it from sin and from the wages of sin, which included such practices which we who accept the Light find to be so barbaric now.   It indeed was a different time, and God dealt with the people according to the condition they were in and the medicine they needed.




> Every point you put against Islam I found the same or more in your bible.


  And yet, only in the Bible do we see how that such practices of stoning and malice and hatred are overcome.

----------


## Bman

> The world needs order, so we keep order by way of Gods laws. God could carry them out himself but then man is not tested, if God is so obvious then all men would believe defeating the purpose of religion and the test of life.
> 
> @TER so you think the law of the OT was unjust then?






> BMan, God has many uses of human hands, whatever use He wills.
> 
> The question then really is, are the hands of humans doing His will when they are stoning an adulterer?



I guess then the wait is to eventually discover whether or not God wanted you to pick up the rock or to put it down.  To what end?  Eternal life?  It make little sense to me because life is eternal.  Time is a concept of man.

----------


## teacherone

Wow this turned into an epic troll thread for the ages.

----------


## TER

> I guess then the wait is to eventually discover whether or not God wanted you to pick up the rock or to put it down.  To what end?  Eternal life?  It make little sense to me because life is eternal.  Time is a concept of man.


There are things that are very difficult for us to discern if it is according to the will of God or not.  Picking a rock and stoning a women for adultery is not one of them.  Not after the Light came into the world and taught what the will of God is, and that is to drop the stone and forgive them since we are all sinners.

----------


## Bman

> So stoning OK in certain times, but utterly barbaric and sinful in others? I'm sorry I just feel like you're bias. Walking on eggshells when it comes to the old testament but if another religion commands something that's present in the OT it's just _CrAzY_!!
> 
> Every point you put against Islam I found the same or more in your bible.


I see it as barbaric no matter the time.  If I am to look at the concept of God and understanding God's will I have to imagine as time goes on we develop a stronger renewed perception of what that will would be.  The more life speaks to me the more I feel an understanding that a tool of punishment is not what I am or meant to be.  It seems to be a custodian, a nurturer, an educator is what the intent was.  Not a desire to end life, but a desire to make it better.

----------


## Bman

> Wow this turned into an epic troll thread for the ages.


Anything over 10 pages in this forum is an epic troll thread.

----------


## Muwahid

> Except you fail to see why Christ came into the world, to save it from sin and from the wages of sin, which included such practices which we who accept the Light find to be so barbaric now.   It indeed was a different time, and God dealt with the people according to the condition they were in and the medicine they needed.
> 
>   And yet, only in the Bible do we see how that such practices of stoning and malice and hatred are overcome.


You're argumentation is in fact very weak, I mean for one we look at some commentary on 1 Corinthians 11:6, and it says clearly that the objective of sheering the woman's hair off is for humiliation, as was such a shameful thing in these days, so let's say even if we go with your "metaphoric" interpretations (even though, it's not apparent in the plain text) it still commands women who worship to cover their hair otherwise they deserve to be humiliated. Tell this to your Christian women today, I'm sure there's plenty of grasping at straws on how they don't need to follow it. At the very least we see for the woman who prays her hair must be covered, and I've heard a variety of explanations why, even the angels lusting over them.

If we futher pry into 1 Corinthians 11, we come across also




> neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head.


Authority, so what's authority, well the biblical scholars have said it's the subjugation of women to men. So the two reason in Christianity why a woman should cover her head is to show she's "owned" by a man, and to protect her from angels who lust after them, and make ... well giant babies (imagine the size of those babies coming out!)

At the very least we see woman should be shamed for uncovering their head in Christianity, at the most they should be shaven bald, and it's not for a noble reason either it's simply to show they're subjugated. 

In Islam the head veil is slightly different. It's for chaste women, to not show their bodies to undeserving men, it's so only their husband will enjoy them, and so they wont be harassed or stared at. Men and women in Islam are commanded to lower their gaze to not lust after eachother so that they may remain pure for their spouses; but in Christianity we see it's subjugation, it's true oppression. Islam may have the same concept but the reasons are quite different, a woman should feel honored to cover herself and her body NOT feel like a slave as in Christianity. 

As for the adultery issue, this feels very much like the slavery debate. "The New Testament outlawed slavery because that one time Paul said a slave should be freed"; despite all the historical examples, despite the fact Christians always kept slaves, there's no explicit references against it, in fact there are laws built around slavery, so Christianity very much reflected America before the outlawing of slavery, slavery was facilitated by laws, and justifed -- but without getting too much into that my point is even if we say this passage is valid (which it's a disputed story), the central theme of the story is that they were sinners trying to carry out punishment on another sinner and therefore they were put to shame for it.

But no where do we see an abolishment of the old law in fact we see an affirmation of them



> Matthew 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.


Also



> Matthew 23:1-2 Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2 “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 So you must be careful to do everything they tell you


What does this refer to if not Mosaic law? Expressed in Mosaic law is stoning the adulterer. I don't see how in any logical thinking you can come to the conclusions which you came to in this thread, why even read the old testament if you don't follow it? Even though Jesus is quoting as saying follow it. You can say I don't understand the Christian faith and I respect that statement but you have yet to give convincing evidence to show otherwise that what I'm claiming is false.

We see numerous laws stated especially in the old testament regarding slavery, adultery, rape, that go against so much of what you're saying yet Jesus said follow the LAW.

Call me a laymen also but when we read verses like _Mark 10:11 Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her_; I tend to think Christians cannot divorce, you speak of the earliest Church I speak of what I find in the bible.




> I see it as barbaric no matter the time. If I am to look at the concept of God and understanding God's will I have to imagine as time goes on we develop a stronger renewed perception of what that will would be. The more life speaks to me the more I feel an understanding that a tool of punishment is not what I am or meant to be. It seems to be a custodian, a nurturer, an educator is what the intent was. Not a desire to end life, but a desire to make it better.


Well if we're not suppose to issue punishments, murderers, rapists, child molesters, thieves, all run free. It's nice to think of a utopia where no one has to go to jail and no one hurts anyone, but I tell you that is not for this life but the life which comes after it. People put so much stock into worldly things, people blame god when wars happen or innocent people are hurt i see this as the wrong way to go about things, crime and punishment are an integral part of human life, now i may not be able to convince you of all of our perception of morality but surely you should be able to understand at some point punishment needs to be carried out on people.

Anyway TER this was a fun little discourse, I hope you didn't take the things said to heart; I may disagree with who you call god but I respect that you have faith so it's a pleasure having dialog like this. I'm sure you'll have stuff to say about this, have at it.

----------


## presence

> Wow this turned into an epic troll thread for the ages.


True that, you wonder how this happens.  Its been mostly off the OP "jihadist welfare" topic too, which, I thought was pretty epic itself.    

presence

----------


## TheTexan

> True that, you wonder how this happens.


Muslims vs Christians is how.  Needs a reality show IMO

----------


## PierzStyx

> Of course they are not. They are enjoying the freedoms of American occupation.
> 
> Still waiting for any evidence of this occurring under a governmental authority.
> 
> Why does Jesus teach one to lie, I will never understand.


Actually they are not. Southern Afghanistan is still under direct control of Afghan warlords who still enforce the wearing of the chandri and still enforce the punishment of beating and possibly death.

----------


## PierzStyx

> I direct your attention to 1 Corinthians 11:6:
> 
> 
> Islam has no punishment for women who do not wear the hijaab, you will find no punishment existing in Islam. Christianity is a different story. Hell, how many Christians besides nuns even cover their hair? Ridiculous.


Actually if you bothered to read the entire section there Paul is saying that it is just as embarrassing for a woman in his time to wear her hair uncovered as it would be to go around bald. In context, this verse is actually saying if she goes around with her hair uncovered in church (and specifically in church) she should be just as uncomfortable or embarrassed as she would if she had showed up to church bald.

----------


## PierzStyx

> But these are the tactics that Christians use to convert infidel heathen brown people. Along with supporting wars of aggression like the one against a brown country known as Iraq. There is no denying this.


And that is why we have missionaries in Iraq today! Oh, wait... You mean we don't? You mean we don't have American Christian preachers trying to mass convert Muslims or execute them? You mean the facts contradict your statements? Idiot.

----------


## PierzStyx

> Now, that is rich.  In the first paragraph you state that I cannot make the claim that you do not understand the Christian faith as a defense and in the next paragraph your defense is that I don't know the intricate details of the Islamic faith in order to understand it.  You really don't see the irony?
> 
> 
> 
> So, in the video above, is that man beating her doing God's will?
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe a women should be stoned for adultery?  Seems like a simple question.


That isn't irony TER. That is hypocrisy. And these two are providing a bad example of Islam.

----------


## PierzStyx

> It actually is. Another lie from the liar, as taught to the liar by Jesus.


Are you a Muslim as TER believes? If so the Prophet Muhammad would be ashamed of you. Jesus is one of the three greatest prophets in Muslim belief. For you to speak so evilly of him who your faith teaches is one of the greatest men in history is against your own religion.

----------


## ExPatPaki

*Evangelicals Building a Base in Iraq
Newcomers Raise Worry Among Traditional Church Leaders*
By Caryle Murphy
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, June 23, 2005 

BAGHDAD -- With arms outstretched, the congregation at National Evangelical Baptist Church belted out a praise hymn backed up by drums, electric guitar and keyboard. In the corner, slide images of Jesus filled a large screen. A simple white cross of wood adorned the stage, and worshipers sprinkled the pastor's Bible-based sermon with approving shouts of "Ameen!"

National is Iraq's first Baptist congregation and one of at least seven new Christian evangelical churches established in Baghdad in the past two years. Its Sunday afternoon service, in a building behind a house on a quiet street, draws a couple of hundred worshipers who like the lively music and focus on the Bible.

"I'm thirsty for this kind of church," Suhaila Tawfik, a veterinarian who was raised Catholic, said at a recent service. "I want to go deep in understanding the Bible."

Tawfik is not alone. The U.S.-led toppling of Saddam Hussein, who limited the establishment of new denominations, has altered the religious landscape of predominantly Muslim Iraq. *A newly energized Christian evangelical activism here, supported by Western and other foreign evangelicals, is now challenging the dominance of Iraq's long-established Christian denominations and drawing complaints from Muslim and Christian religious leaders about a threat to the status quo.*

The evangelicals' numbers are not large -- perhaps a few thousand -- in the context of Iraq's estimated 800,000 Christians. But they are emerging at a time when the country's traditional churches have lost their privileged Hussein-era status and have experienced massive depletions of their flocks because of decades-long emigration. Now, traditional church leaders see the new evangelical churches filling up, not so much with Muslim converts but with Christians like Tawfik seeking a new kind of worship experience.
*
"The way the preachers arrived here . . . with soldiers . . . was not a good thing," said Baghdad's Roman Catholic archbishop, Jean Sleiman. "I think they had the intention that they could convert Muslims, though Christians didn't do it here for 2,000 years."

"In the end," Sleiman said, "they are seducing Christians from other churches."*

Iraq's new churches are part of Christian evangelicalism's growing presence in several Middle Eastern countries, experts say. In neighboring Jordan, for example, "the indigenous evangelical presence is growing and thriving," said Todd M. Johnson, a scholar of global Christianity at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary in Massachusetts.

Nabeeh Abbassi, president of the Jordan Baptist Convention, said in an interview in Amman that there are about 10,000 evangelicals worshiping at 50 churches in Jordan. They include 20 Baptist churches with a combined regular Sunday attendance of 5,000, he added. The organization also operates the Baptist School of Amman, where 40 percent of the student body is Muslim.

While most evangelicals in Jordan come from traditional Christian denominations, Abbassi said, "we're seeing more and more Muslim conversions, not less than 500 a year" over the past 10 years.

Iraq's Christian population has been organized for centuries into denominations such as Chaldean Catholicism and Roman Catholicism. *While Hussein's secular regime allowed freedom of worship, it limited new denominations, particularly if backed by Western churches.*
*
During the U.S.-led invasion in 2003, American evangelicals made no secret of their desire to follow the troops. Samaritan's Purse, the global relief organization led by the Rev. Franklin Graham -- who has called Islam an "evil and wicked" religion -- and the International Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention, the country's largest Protestant denomination, were among those that mobilized missionaries and relief supplies.*

Soon after Hussein's fall, they entered the country, saying their prime task was to provide Iraqis with humanitarian aid. But their strong emphasis on sharing their faith raised concerns among Muslims and some Christians that they would openly proselytize.

Then the security environment deteriorated in Iraq -- four Southern Baptist missionaries were killed, Westerners were kidnapped and at least 21 churches were bombed -- forcing most foreign evangelicals to flee. But Iraqi evangelicals remain.

"For Christians, it's now democratic," said Nabil A. Sara, 60, the pastor at National Evangelical Baptist. "It's not like before. There is freedom now. Nobody can say, 'Why do you start a new church?' "

Some church leaders, however, are asking that very question.
*
"Evangelicals come here and I would like to ask: Why do you come here? For what reason?" said Patriarch Emmanuel Delly, head of the Eastern rite Chaldean Catholic Church, Iraq's largest Christian community.

In interviews, Delly and Sleiman were torn between their belief in religious freedom and the threat they see from the new evangelicalism. They also expressed anger and resentment at what they perceive as the evangelicals' assumption that members of old-line denominations are not true Christians.*

"If we are not Christians, you should tell us so we will find the right path," Delly said sarcastically. "I'm not against the evangelicals. If they go to an atheist country to promote Christ, we would help them ourselves."

*Sleiman charged that the new churches were sowing "a new division" among Christians because "churches here mean a big community with tradition, language and culture, not simply a building with some people worshiping. If you want to help Christians here, help through the churches [already] here."*

Still, the Roman Catholic prelate said he could not oppose the evangelicals because "we ask for freedom of conscience." He also said he respected how they appear "ready to die" for their beliefs. "Sometimes I'm telling myself they are more zealous than me, and we can profit from this positive dimension of their mission."

*Some Iraqi Christians expressed fear that the evangelicals would undermine Christian-Muslim harmony here, which rests on a long-standing, tacit agreement not to proselytize each other. "There is an informal agreement that says we have nothing to do with your religion and faith," said Yonadam Kanna, one of six Christians elected to Iraq's parliament. "We are brothers but we don't interfere in your religion."

Delly said that "even if a Muslim comes to me and said, 'I want to be Christian,' I would not accept. I would tell him to go back and try to be a good Muslim and God will accept you." Trying to convert Muslims to Christianity, he added, "is not acceptable."

Sheik Fatih Kashif Ghitaa, a prominent Shiite Muslim leader in Baghdad, was among those who expressed alarm at the postwar influx of foreign missionaries. In a recent interview, he said he feared that Muslims misunderstand why many Christians talk about their faith.*

"They have to talk about Jesus and what Jesus has done. This is one of the principles of believing in Christianity," said Ghitaa. "But the problem is that the others don't understand it, they think these people are coming to convert them."

Robert Fetherlin, vice president for international ministries at Colorado-based Christian and Missionary Alliance, which supports one of the new Baghdad evangelical churches, defended his denomination's overseas work.

"We're not trying to coerce people to follow Christ," he said. "But we want to at least communicate to people who He is. We feel very encouraged by the possibility for people in Iraq to have the freedom to make choices about what belief system they want to buy into."

Sara said that if Muslims approach him with "questions about Jesus and about the Bible," he responds. But the white-haired pastor said there was plenty of evangelizing to be done among Christians because, in his view, many do not really know Jesus. "They know [Him] just in name," he said, adding that they need a better understanding of "why He died for them."

His church appeals to dissatisfied Christians, he said, adding, "If you go to a Catholic church, for example, there is no Bible in the church, there is no preaching, and just a little singing."

National congregant Zeena Woodman, 30, who was raised in the Syrian Orthodox Church, agreed. "Praising Jesus Christ in this church is not as traditional as other churches," she said. "It's much more interesting here."

Sara, a former Presbyterian who started an underground evangelical church in his home after having a born-again experience, began working openly during the U.S. occupation. In January 2004, he was ordained pastor of his church in a ceremony attended by more than 20 Baptist pastors and deacons from Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon and the United States. Baptist communities in these countries financially support National Evangelical, Sara said.

The church's name and a white cross are visible from the street. The pastor said that no one has threatened the church and that it has good relations with its Muslim neighbors.

In fact, said Sara, "Muslims across the street came and asked us to pray for their mother."

----------


## ExPatPaki

*Patriarch denounces U.S. evangelicals in Iraq*
19 May 2005
Source: Reuters
By Tom Heneghan, Religion Editor

PARIS, May 19 (Reuters) - The head of Iraq's largest Christian community denounced American evangelical missionaries in his country on Thursday for what he said were attempts to convert poor Muslims by flashing money and smart cars.

Patriarch Emmanuel Delly, head of the Chaldean Catholic Church, told journalists that many Protestant activists had come to Iraq after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in 2003 and set up what he called "boutiques" to attract converts.

Many Muslim countries consider Christian missionaries as part of a Western campaign against Islam and punish both the preacher and the apostate Muslim severely. Violent Iraqi groups killed at least five evangelical missionaries last year.

At least 20 Iraqis were killed in bombings of Christian churches last year as unknown attackers stepped up pressure on non-Muslims there. Christian minorities in Muslim countries usually keep a low profile and do not evangelise.

Delly said Iraq did not need missionaries as its Christian churches dated back long before Protestantism. As for trying to convert Muslims, he said: "You can't even talk about that here."

Christians make up 3 percent of Iraq's 26 million mostly Muslim population, the largest group being the 600,000 Chaldeans who are Eastern rite Catholics linked to the Vatican.

Saying the evangelicals were not real missionaries, Delly said they attracted poor youths with displays of money and taking them "out riding in cars to have fun".

"Then they take photos and send them here, to Germany, to the United States and say 'look how many Muslims have become Christian'," he said.

The patriarch declined to say if the missionaries were a challenge for his church or if U.S. authorities supported them.

EVANGELICAL "BOUTIQUES" IN BAGHDAD

The idea of converting Muslims has gained some support among U.S. evangelicals since the September 11 attacks, but foreigners who evangelise in Islamic countries must keep very low profiles.

Some were active in Iraq in the first year after Saddam Hussein's overthrow, but deteriorating security since then probably means many have left, Baghdad residents say.

"There may be between 100 and 200 there now," said Todd Johnson, an expert on world Christianity at the evangelical Gordon-Conwell Seminary near Boston, Massachusetts.

"They're mostly aid workers, I don't think there is much regular evangelising," he told Reuters.

Four U.S. Baptist missionaries were killed in Iraq in March 2004 and seven South Korean Presbyterians were briefly kidnapped the following month. That June, Islamic militants beheaded a South Korean truck driver who was an evangelical Christian. Delly had no overall figures for these missions but said he knew of 14 evangelical houses, which he called "boutiques", in one central Baghdad neighbourhood alone. "I don't know where their money comes from," he added.

The patriarch, who vigorously opposed the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq and met French President Jacques Chirac -- who also opposed it -- on Wednesday, declined to comment on Washington's policy there or whether he had contacts with U.S. authorities.

"Frankly, I try to avoid meeting them as much as possible," he said. "They are the occupiers. The occupied don't want to be occupied. That's human nature."

Delly, 77, ranks as an archbishop in the Catholic Church and is tipped as a possible future cardinal. Eastern rite prelates traditionally do not accept such honours but three -- a Copt, a Assyrian and a Maronite -- are now "princes of the Church."

----------


## ExPatPaki

*Christian Right's Emerging Deadly Worldview: Kill Muslims to Purify the Earth
By Chris Hedges, Truthdig
Posted on February 12, 2008, Printed on May 11, 2012
http://www.alternet.org/story/76686/...rify_the_earth*

Walid Shoebat, Kamal Saleem and Zachariah Anani are the three stooges of the Christian right. These self-described former Muslim terrorists are regularly trotted out -- a few days ago they were at the Air Force Academy -- to spew racist filth about Islam on behalf of groups such as Focus on the Family. It is a clever tactic. Curly, Larry and Mo, who all say they are born-again Christians, engage in hate speech and assure us it comes from personal experience. They tell their audiences that the only way to deal with one-fifth of the world's population is by converting or eradicating all Muslims. Their cant is broadcast regularly on Fox News, including the Bill O'Reilly and Neil Cavuto shows, as well as on numerous Christian radio and television programs. Shoebat, who has written a book called Why We Want to Kill You, promises in his lectures to explain the numerous similarities between radical Muslims and the Nazis, how "Muslim terrorists" invaded America 30 years ago and how "perseverance, recruitment and hate" have fueled attacks by Muslims.

These men are frauds, but this is not the point. They are part of a dark and frightening war by the Christian right against tolerance that, in the moment of another catastrophic terrorist attack on American soil, would make it acceptable to target and persecute all Muslims, including the some 6 million Muslims who live in the United States. These men stoke these irrational fears. They defend the perpetual war unleashed by the Bush administration and championed by Sen. John McCain. McCain frequently reminds listeners that "the greatest danger facing the world is Islamic terrorism," as does Mike Huckabee, who says that "Islamofascism" is "the greatest threat this country [has] ever faced." George W. Bush has, in the same vein, assured Americans that terrorists hate us for our freedoms, not, of course, for anything we have done. Bush described the "war on terror" as a war against totalitarian Islamofascism while the Israeli air force was dropping tens of thousands of pounds of iron fragmentation bombs up and down Lebanon, an air campaign that killed 1,300 Lebanese civilians.

The three men tell lurid tales of being recruited as children into Palestinian terrorist organizations, murdering hundreds of civilians and blowing up a bank in Israel. Saleem says that as a child he infiltrated Israel to plant bombs via a network of tunnels underneath the Golan Heights, although no incident of this type was ever reported in Israel. He claims he is descended from the "grand wazir" of Islam, a title and a position that do not exist in the Arab world. They assure audiences that the Palestinians are interested not in a peaceful two-state solution but rather the destruction of Israel, the murder of all Jews and the death of America. Shoebat claims he first came to the United States as part of an extremist "sleeper cell."

"These three jokers are as much former Islamic terrorists as 'Star Trek's' Capt. James T. Kirk was a real Starship captain," said Mikey Weinstein, the head of the watchdog group The Military Religious Freedom Foundation. The group has challenged Christian proselytizing in the military and denounced the visit by the men to the Air Force Academy.

The speakers include in their talks the superior virtues of Christianity. Saleem, for example, says his world "turned upside down when he was seriously injured in an automobile accident."

"A Christian man tended to Kamal at the accident scene, making sure he got the medical treatment he needed," his Web site says. "Kamal's orthopedic surgeon and physical therapist were also Christian men whom over a period of several months ministered the unconditional love of Jesus Christ to him as he recovered. The love and sacrificial giving of these men caused Kamal to cry out to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob acknowledging his need for the Savior. Kamal has since become a man on a new mission, as an ambassador for the one true and living God, the great I Am, Jehovah God of the Bible."

This creeping Christian chauvinism has infected our political and social discourse. It was behind the rumor that Barack Obama was a Muslim. Obama reassured followers that he was a Christian. It apparently did not occur to him, or his questioners, that the proper answer is that there is nothing wrong with being a Muslim, that persons of great moral probity and courage arise in all cultures and all religions, including Islam. Christians have no exclusive lock on virtue. But this kind of understanding often provokes indignant rage.

The public denigration of Islam, and by implication all religious belief systems outside Christianity, is part of the triumphalism that has distorted the country since the 9/11 attacks. It makes dialogue with those outside our "Christian" culture impossible. It implicitly condemns all who do not think as we think and believe as we believe as, at best, inferior and usually morally depraved. It blinds us to our own failings. It makes self-reflection and self-criticism a form of treason. It reduces the world to a cartoonish vision of us and them, good and evil. It turns us into children with bombs.

These three con artists are not the problem. There is enough scum out there to take their place. Rather, they offer a window into a worldview that is destroying the United States. It has corrupted the Republican Party. It has colored the news media. It has entered into the everyday clichÃ©s we use to explain ourselves to ourselves. It is ignorant and racist, but it is also deadly. It grossly perverts the Christian religion. It asks us to kill to purify the Earth. It leaves us threatened not only by the terrorists who may come from abroad but the ones who are rising from within our midst.

----------


## ExPatPaki

*Christian Evangelicals in Iraq: A Time-Bomb Waiting to Explode*

Rene L. Gonzalez

01/25/04: (ICH) I've always had a big axe to grind with these Christian evangelicals. Ever since being accosted by one fervent follower in the hallways of a building at the University of Massachusetts and pressured to "recognize Jesus as my savior", I've had a very big distaste for their kind. These "know it all" pseudo-Christians make me sick, and I'll tell you why.

The British Telegraph newspaper recently featured an article on a supposed "war for souls" being waged by American Christian Evangelicals in Iraq. The article boiled my blood. My first reaction was, "How dare these religious nuts think they know better than Iraqis what their beliefs should be?" I thought the whole thing reflected a very ugly racism and paternalism about other people in the world and their traditions.

First of all, they're deceptive and dishonest about their agenda in Iraq. The following quote describes the nature of this deception.

-"Organising in secrecy, and emphasising their humanitarian aid work, Christian groups are pouring into the country, which is 97 per cent Muslim, bearing Arabic Bibles, videos and religious tracts designed to "save" Muslims from their "false" religion."-

*The humanitarian aid work is the cover for the real agenda (which is converting Muslims to Christianity). The whole concept reveals a lot of racism, paternalism, arrogance, and ignorance. It is racist because it implicitly assumes that these Middle Eastern Arabs are not at the superior spiritual levels of whites (as measured by attaining Christian submission to Jesus Christ and his teachings). It is paternalistic in that the American missionaries, much like the Spanish missionaries that "civilized" the indigenous natives of the Americas, believe that the Iraqi "natives" need to be "saved" from their "false" religion. It is arrogant because the whole concept and agenda is conceived (and hoped to be implemented) within the context of colonial occupation and under a situation of powerlessness on the part of the "natives". I'd bet you these armchair, selective-concepts Christians wouldn't dare try to preach THEIR version of the Gospel if Iraq could refuse their entrance into their country, society, and culture. They do their preaching when the Iraqis, literally, are "on the ground" and unable to contain who steps on their soil. It is, finally, profoundly ignorant in that it ignores the very advanced nature of Iraqi culture, society, literature, and traditions, and it further ignores the fact that the Islamic religion respects the Bible as one of its own major religious texts, views Jesus as one of the great Muslim prophets, respect Christians as equal "Muslims" (the word means "those that submit", meaning all that submit to the God of Abraham are, by definition, "Muslims"), and essentially worship the same God as the Jews and Christians. As with everything with humanity, the differences in the religions are man made. Some don't view Jesus as a savior (Jews), some do (Christians), and some view him as one of the great prophets, but not necessarily THE main guy to worship (Muslims). Muslims are adamant that only God himself (no trinity, no Virgin Mary, not even Jesus) is to be glorified. but all worship the same God. But, you couldn't tell this to one of these fanatical pseudo-Christians. They are so stuck in their own, man-made religious concepts and divisions between the religions to see the inherent linkages between Judaism, Islam, and Christianity, and the universal common concepts of respect, love, and brotherhood that are implicit to these, and most other major religions of the world.

Let's examine some of the ignorance

-"Southern Baptists have prayed for years that Iraq would somehow be opened to the gospel," his appeal began. That "open door" for Christians may soon close."-

Iraq "open" to the Gospel? Iraq's been open and practicing the "Gospel" and the other Muslim traditions for thousands of years! While Europe and America were still "heathen" landscapes, the Arab world was a developed, civilized world, with science, mathematics, and, yes, religion (which included Jewish and Christian perspectives of the holy books). What these American religious chauvinists really mean is Iraq being open to THEIR interpretation of the Gospel, complete with all the, frankly speaking, social-baggage bull$#@! that has been historically tied to American-style Protestant Christianity. In other words, Iraq should go through its own witch-trials, conservative-christian schools that prohibit interracial dating and homosexuality, and the rest of the reactionary (and patently discriminatory) Christian history that this country has undergone. Feels good being "saved", huh?* 

I'm also disgusted by the implications of the second part of his comments. An "open door"? Are these people oblivious to the abusive nature of taking advantage of this "open door" (really a colonial occupation and powerlessness for the Iraqis) for their own religious-ideological agenda? What about what the Iraqis want? Has anyone really thought of them? Obviously, if 97% of Iraq is Muslim (indeed still the cultural capital of the religion), how dare we go in there to impose our cultural history on them? Nothing could be more racist, abusive, and imperial than to view the colonial occupation as an "open door" to "save" the Muslims from their "false" religion. I am profoundly sickened by these religious chauvinists!

The article continues to describe how many of the so-called Christian "humanitarian" groups making their way to Iraq are headed by individuals who have made public statements (bordering on racism, if not already there) against Islam. Is this smart? Should we fan the flames of religious and ethnic hatred in Iraq? Do we want to win hearts and minds and stave off a future rise of Muslim anger against perceived Christian crusades against the Islamic world, or do we want to promote such a "clash of civilizations"? For these Christian fundamentalists, that's the name of the game: crusading for "souls" in the Muslim heartland. And a few loony "Armaggedon" death wishers, hoping that an Arab conflict with Israel will release the ultimate destruction that will bring the second coming of "Christ", are quietly hoping for this clash to occur in the Middle East. To this radical wing belong Christian Zionists like Tom DeLay, Jerry Falwell, and more radical reactionary Christian fundamentalists. We, the normal people, should be VERY watchful of what these individuals and their powerful groups do. They ARE influencing our country's foreign policies.

What makes me the most angry is the attitude of the U.S. government. I am not surprised by their very "hands off, look-the-other-way" approach to Christian fundamentalist missionaries in the cultural capital of Islam, but I'm fearful for its consequences. I'm not surprised because they are a core political constituency of our own unelected and "born-again" Christian President George W. Bush. I'm fearful because I am sure that this will fan the flames of Muslim anger with the United States and with Christians overall. The consequences of that anger will be more 9-11s.

-"The US Agency for International Development has said that the government cannot rein in private charities. "Imagine what the US Congress would say to us," said a spokesman in April.-"

Bull$#@!! This government can and has prevented cultural, financial, religious, and political exchanges between countries before (Cuba's embargo comes to mind). And if the Cuban embargo has proven itself to have been a historical mistake, from financial, political, and cultural perspectives, a similar "embargo" on the part of the U.S. government against Christian missionaries taking advantage of the current colonial occupation in Iraq, would seem to be a very prudent foreign policy. First, we don't want to further alienate and worsen the already shaky occupation. Second, we don't want to hamper our legitimate efforts in lessening terrorism and protecting the U.S. territory by giving more fertile ground for Muslim anger against Christian "crusading for souls". The whole concept of Christian missionaries in Iraq goes against the logic of "winning hearts and minds", fighting terrorism (much of it a result of Muslim cultural anger"), and promoting a stable, peaceful, and democratic Middle East. The whole thing is totally illogical. The U.S. government's stance is totally irresponsible, disrespectful to the wishes and rights of the Iraqi people to their traditions and culture, and amounts to complicit approval of a policy of cultural genocide. Since the U.S. government, the internationally-recognized legal custodians of Iraq at the moment, are unwilling to rein in their own religious loonies, then the U.S. government must be held accountable for the cultural, racial, religious, and other conflicts that WILL arise when the civilizations clash. 

Cooperation, understanding, and learning from each other cultures is all fine and dandy, but not during the current context of very unequal power relations. It is not fair to the Iraqis for these Christians to abuse the current status of the U.S. armed forces as final arbiters of power in Iraq to, essentially, sneak into Iraq like cockroaches when they couldn't when a home-grown Iraqi government was in power. The following quote reflects this fear and thought-process on the part of Christian chauvinists in the U.S.

-"In Baghdad last month Mr Hanna met two other American missionary teams. One, from Indiana, had shipped in 1.3 million Christian tracts. "A US passport is all you need to get in, until the new Iraqi government takes over. What we thought was a two-year window, originally, has narrowed down to a six month window," said Mr Hanna, an evangelical minister and editor of Connection Magazine, a Christian newspaper in Ohio."-

It's not assumptions, it's reality. These Christian fundametalists are actively and intentionally taking advantage of the colonial usurpation of power by the American and Coalition forces to culturally and religiously invade the Iraqi society. That they consciously do so doesn't reflect a desire to deal with the Iraqis' religious, cultural, and intellectual perspectives on an equal level, but under conditions of inequality. Giving a hungry and destitute Iraqi food and other material resources and then giving them a Bible is not the ethically and morally good way to preach or convert people. It is taking advantage of their deprivations and using that physical and psychological dependence on Christian goodwill to advance the more important agenda: the conversion of Muslims to Christianity. It's not about learning and collaborating with the Iraqis on these social matters, it's about "teaching" and "civilizing" them with Christianity. As I said before, it's paternalistic, racist, arrogant, and ignorant.

Just one more ignorant comment, to drive the point home.

-"Mrs. Cone is confident she made converts in Baghdad. In her hotel she met a Muslim woman on crutches with a leg operation due that day. Mrs Cone knelt on the lobby floor and prayed that surgery would not be required. "I saw her that evening and she said God had healed her, and she hadn't needed the surgery. She didn't say Allah, she pointed to Heaven and gave God the glory," she said."-

What ignorance! God is Allah is Jehovah. Same entity! How chauvinistic! It wasn't about the woman, it's about the cultural and religious victory of Mrs. Cone, in converting the injured Iraqi to Christianity (or so she assumes). That about sums up the mission and priorities of Christian fundamentalists in Iraq. It's not about Iraqis or their human right to equality in all social matters (including religious choice). It's about winning victories, winning "souls" for the Christian fold. All this carnage and all this suffering just so that these religious nuts get a petty rush from having converted a Muslim to Christianity. How sickening.

It is not a morally right policy. It is racist, arrogant, ignorance, and paternalistic, and the U.S. government should not be collaborating or looking the other way to it. These are the things that later give credence to arguments of "chickens coming home to roost". Christian Evangelicals in Iraq are a time-bomb waiting to explode, and you might just be the person near it!

----------


## ExPatPaki



----------


## ExPatPaki

Military Deeply Involved in Christian Reality Television Show




> The Pentagon was involved in the production of a cable program that featured two so-called “extreme” missionaries embedded with a U.S. Army unit in Afghanistan trying to convert Muslims to Christianity.
> 
> The popular reality series, “Travel the Road,” aired on the Trinity Broadcasting Network and featured Will Decker and Tim Scott, two so-called “extreme” missionaries who travel the globe to “preach the Gospel to the ends of the earth and encourage the church to be active in the Great Commission.”
> 
> The other cable program green-lit by the Pentagon is “God’s Soldier,” which aired in September on the Military Channel, and was filmed at Forward Operating Base McHenry in Hawijah, Iraq. It features an Army chaplain openly promoting fundamentalist Christianity to active-duty U.S. soldiers in Iraq in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

----------


## ExPatPaki

U.S. Soldiers Launch Campaign to Convert Iraqis to Christianity




> Some U.S. soldiers stationed in Iraq appear to have launched a major initiative to convert thousands of Iraqi citizens to Christianity by distributing Bibles and other fundamentalist Christian literature to Iraqi Muslims.
> 
> A recent article published on the website of Mission Network News reported that Bible Pathway Ministries, a fundamentalist Christian organization, has provided thousands of a special military edition of its Daily Devotional Bible study book to members of the 101st Airborne Division of Fort Campbell, Kentucky, currently stationed in Iraq, the project “came into being when a chaplain in Iraq (who has since finished his tour) requested some books from Bible Pathway Ministries (BPM).”

----------


## PierzStyx

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Oh, ExPat you are a rather annoying one. Not because you believe the truth amongst a foolish people, but rather because you really believe anything. So after reading all those posts it came down to this, Americans in Iraq who are Christians are doing good to their fellow man (the aforementioned "flashing money" mentioned above) and they aren't afraid to talk about what they believe and that makes them an organized Christianizing force? So you'd rather have them shut up and not help other people? How despicable. And yet if this is all you have to prove your international Christian conspiracy, your theory is a house of straw. The wind of truth blows and reveals one overwhelming fact-the number of Christians in Iraq has not increased. In fact it has decreased. Christianity has not gained more power during the Occupation, politically speaking. Persecutions increased, not decreased, after the fall of Saddam. So go ahead, form your conspiracies, reality shows the errors of your ways.

Your form of Islam must be a cowardly form. All the Muslims I know have been very open and respectful about their beliefs with me, and respectful of my beliefs when I share them in return. They have faith in their religious beliefs and don't need "protecting" from Christians in the world. It has been a very fulfilling experience to learn from them about Islam and its teachings. It helps me to understand them better and the portion of moral truth Islam contains. Indeed any good faith would not need protecting from outside influences. It works very much like the free market. The best philosophies rise to the top for the benefit of all when true religious freedom exists.

----------


## ExPatPaki

Iraqis: Marines Try to Convert Muslims




> FALLUJAH, Iraq - At the western entrance to the Iraqi city of Fallujah on May 27, Muamar Anad handed his residence badge to the U.S. Marines guarding the city. They checked to be sure that he was a city resident, and when they were done, Anad said, a Marine slipped a coin out of his pocket and put it in his hand.
> 
> Out of fear, he accepted it, Anad said. When he was inside the city, the college student said, he looked at one side of the coin. "Where will you spend eternity?" it asked.
> 
> He flipped it over, and on the other side it read, "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. John 3:16."
> 
> "They are trying to convert us to Christianity," said Anad, a Sunni Muslim like most residents of this city in Anbar province. At home, he told his story, and his relatives echoed their disapproval: They'd been given the coins, too, he said.

----------


## ExPatPaki

> So you'd rather have them shut up and not help other people?


The Iraqis don't need their help. They rather they'd leave along with the US soldiers.

----------


## PierzStyx

> Military Deeply Involved in Christian Reality Television Show


A few facts. 1. Travel The Road is not about Christian missionaries in Iraq. In fact Iraq isn't even mentioned as a destination, something you think TBN would be all over if true. From its website:

"Travel the Road, the groundbreaking reality television series that documents the adventurous lives of young missionaries Tim Scott and Will Decker over 18-months, through 25 countries, across 40,000 miles is a unique look into the world of frontline mission work.

The journey is filled with danger, excitement, adventure and epic triumph as Tim and Will undertake unbelievable expeditions into the most remote areas of the world to bring the gospel. From the deserts of Ethiopia to the island villages of Papua New Guinea they travel from country to country with one backpack, a change of clothes, and a message of hope that pushes them deeper into the unknown.

The journey is a landmark television debut of reality programming with a purpose. Join the expedition of a lifetime!!!"

2.So a Christian chaplain teaching Christianity to Christian soldiers somehow violates The Constitution? I seem to remember The Constitution reading, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech"

Again reality shows the weakness of your conspiracies.

----------


## PierzStyx

> The Iraqis don't need their help. They rather they'd leave along with the US soldiers.


This comment is irrelevant. The fact is they are there. Is it bad for people, of any faith, to do good for their fellow man?

Also, I love how you presume to speak for all Iraqis. Pretty collectivist.

----------


## ExPatPaki

> Again reality shows the weakness of your conspiracies.


I didn't realize posting articles was a conspiracy.

----------


## ExPatPaki

> This comment is irrelevant. The fact is they are there. Is it bad for people, of any faith, to do good for their fellow man?


Well the Iraqi Muslims I know don't want their help because it comes with an occupying force.

One of my Iraqi refugee friends at our mosque tells the story of how missionaries harassed his mother and sisters and called them Muhammad's whores.

I don't know why they wouldn't want such help.

----------


## PierzStyx

> I didn't realize posting articles was a conspiracy.


And again you ignore the point and try and change the discussion. Can't handle truth?

----------


## ExPatPaki

> Can't handle truth?


I thought the truth was there are missionaries in Iraq that come with the occupying force. I personally know Iraqi refugees that have encountered such hateful and manipulative missionaries.

You're denying this is happening? Continue to live in your fantasy world.

----------


## ExPatPaki

I post articles, and you got mad. Why?

----------


## PierzStyx

> Well the Iraqi Muslims I know don't want their help because it comes with an occupying force.
> 
> One of my Iraqi refugee friends at our mosque tells the story of how missionaries harassed his mother and sisters and called them Muhammad's whores.
> 
> I don't know why they wouldn't want such help.


And I know a Muslim who calls Jesus a liar even though he supposed to honor Jesus as one of the greatest men and prophets ever. Obviously not everyone is perfect. But for every bad example I bet there is a good one. 

And do you mean missionaries or Christians? Because there is a difference. Just because there are Christians in Iraq doesn't mean they are a "missionary force". 

Also, so you're saying people shouldn't be trying to make the best of a bad situation?

----------


## ExPatPaki

> And do you mean missionaries or Christians? Because there is a difference. Just because there are Christians in Iraq doesn't mean they are a "missionary force".


Yes, I am referring to missionaries that came from America, not the native Iraqi Chaldean Christians who also do not appreciate and denounce these missionaries.

If there was ever a Muslim army which invaded America and they came with missionaries who came to help and try to convert people to their Islam, I would fight against them also.

----------


## PierzStyx

> I post articles, and you got mad. Why?


I didn't get mad at your article. I got mad at your intense hatred, vile slandering, and cruelty. It is the small percentage of Muslims like you that makes everyone else think all Muslims and/or Middle Easterners are angry, hateful people. That is why I am angry at you. You misrepresent your faith and your people and prove every bad misconception about Muslims white Westerners have. Islam deserves more respect in the West than it gets, and you aren't helping. In fact you're adding to the problem.

----------


## ExPatPaki

> I didn't get mad at your article. I got mad at your intense hatred, vile slandering, and cruelty. It is the small percentage of Muslims like you that makes everyone else think all Muslims and/or Middle Easterners are angry, hateful people. That is why I am angry at you. You misrepresent your faith and your people and prove every bad misconception about Muslims white Westerners have. Islam deserves more respect in the West than it gets, and you aren't helping. In fact you're adding to the problem.


whatever, dude. i'm going to bed.

----------


## PierzStyx

> Yes, I am referring to missionaries that came from America, not the native Iraqi Chaldean Christians who also do not appreciate and denounce these missionaries.
> 
> If there was ever a Muslim army which invaded America and they came with missionaries who came to help and try to convert people to their Islam, I would fight against them also.


Well there isn't an army, but there is certainly Islamic (I hesitate to call them Muslim for they are not to me) guerrilla bands who wish to do just what you say.

And your articles still didn't prove there were missionaries in Iraq. It showed there were Christians, but duh. The majority of Americans are Christians. And I wouldn't shut them up any less than I would Muslims serving in US forces.

----------


## PierzStyx

> whatever, dude. i'm going to bed.


And the fact that you don't understand what I just said, that you can't go back over your posts in this thread and see it, or how you so quickly call people names and attack them, as a problem IS the problem. Its frustratingly pathetic really.

----------


## ExPatPaki

> And your articles still didn't prove there were missionaries in Iraq.


Uh, they actually did. But you are entitled to your false opinion. You just continue to prove the point that Christians will lie even when presented with facts.

But I don't need articles. I know plenty of Iraqi refugees who have encountered American missionaries who use the most vile and hateful language against Muhammad and Islam.

Interview: Missionary Work in Iraq
Christian Missionaries Battle For Hearts and Minds in Iraq

----------


## ExPatPaki

> And the fact that you don't understand what I just said, that you can't go back over your posts in this thread and see it, or how you so quickly call people names and attack them, as a problem IS the problem.


I know it's such an awful problem. It's on top of the list along with American Christians firing drones on to Muslim funerals. One at a time, we shall fix these problems.

----------


## TER

While I still haven't gotten a straight answer from expaki and Muwahid on whether _they_ agree a women should be stoned for adultery, i did get my answer via PM on who banned FrankRep (the same mod who negative repped me for post 63 above and has neg repped me before for a similar occasion).  The reason being this time is that I have "turned another person from Christ" and that I am a poor Christian.  While I shamefully admit that most times I am a poor excuse for a Christian, I would never believe that on this site I would get censured for defending Jesus Christ from a nominal practicing Muslim who is filled with hate and contempt for Christians and this Nation and who can't answer the question on whether a women should be stoned to death for adultery.  Thus, you can blaspheme Jesus Christ here, but if you defend Jesus Christ and argue that the forcing of women under the threat of violence is completely antithetical to the liberty movement, then you can get censured and even banned by a mod.  I take this quite seriously.

This is my final post in the forum.  I thank all the friends I have made over the past few years and for all of the insight I have gained.  I know for a long time now I have become a one topic poster, and I apologize for that, but it is a topic I put above all other things.  I look forward in continuing my correspondence with those who I have become close with.

  There are no hard feelings, it is simply my time to go.  It does not mean I will stop working in getting Ron Paul elected President or fighting for this movement, this I assure you!  My prayer is to make it down to Tampa and see Ron Paul become the nominee!

God bless everyone (especially those who I have contended with), and I ask all those whom I have offended over the years to please forgive me.

----------


## specsaregood

> Thus, you can blaspheme Jesus Christ here, but if you defend Jesus Christ and argue that the forcing of women under the threat of violence is completely antithetical to the liberty movement, then you can get censured and even banned by a mod.  I take this quite seriously.


Nobody has been banned for defending Christ here.  Frankrep was banned for PMing "$#@! you" to a mod.  Is that christian behavior?

----------


## Muwahid

> While I still haven't gotten a straight answer from expaki and Muwahid on whether _they_ agree a women should be stoned for adultery


I don't know maybe my English isn't so good (it's my first language??) but I said clearly and explicitly that the Hadd punishment of adultery in Islam is stoning.

I then explained it.

I then pointed to Mosaic law which says the exact same thing, you brought up a disputed verse from the Bible.

You're being dishonest by the way, he posted a picture of Muslim women freely wearing what they see fit, and said it's not freedom which kicked off the debate you're saying it was about "forcing women to wear it under violence" (which my point from the start was: if they do it's against islam because islam has no punishment for a women not wearing the veil unlike Christianity 1 Corinthians 11 ), that is dishonest and I resent it. You admittedly don't know much about Islam yet you have an incredibly bias perception on it.

If I were to play your card I would blame Christianity for Breviek murdering children, and priests molesting little boys, but we try to have a little class when it comes to dealing with the matter of God, it's a shame you've chosen to be classless.

----------


## ExPatPaki

> Nobody has been banned for defending Christ here.  Frankrep was banned for PMing "$#@! you" to a mod.  Is that christian behavior?


Apparently posting a picture of veiled Muslim women and saying this is not freedom is akin to defending Jesus. I guess Jesus's own mother Mary who also wore the veil was oppressed and not free because of her attire.

Plus it is only a temp-ban. Saying '$#@! you' to a moderator would get you permanently banned on most other forums.

----------


## ExPatPaki

> You're being dishonest by the way, he posted a picture of Muslim women freely wearing what they see fit


This thread has proven that dishonesty and hypocrisy is a central part of the Christian religion when it comes to debating. To American Christians like FrankRep, Muslim women are only considered to be free when they are murdered by the American Christian army in their own countries. 

This is the reason why I don't let my wife wear the hijab to cover her hair even though she really wants to. I don't want some violent and hateful Christian like FrankRep harassing my wife when she goes to work.

----------


## ZenBowman

> Women doing what they want is not freedom? Oh wait let me guess they're forced to do that against their will 
> 
> Nuns must be oppressed too.


*Four men and two women sentenced to death for dancing at Pakistan wedding*
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...n-wedding.html

Pretty clearly not freedom.

War is clearly not the answer, but lets not pretend that there is any freedom whatsoever in those countries.

----------


## teacherone

> *Four men and two women sentenced to death for dancing at Pakistan wedding*
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...n-wedding.html
> 
> Pretty clearly not freedom.
> 
> War is clearly not the answer, but lets not pretend that there is any freedom whatsoever in those countries.


That's why they hate us.

----------


## ExPatPaki

> *Four men and two women sentenced to death for dancing at Pakistan wedding*
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...n-wedding.html


Local tribal disputes which go back generations. The Pakistani government's Islamic and secular laws do not apply to the tribal regions.

But luckily, the police did arrest the cleric which issued the death sentence. Now the stupid cleric denies it.




> War is clearly not the answer, but lets not pretend that there is any freedom whatsoever in those countries.


Pakistani TV is full of Pakistani Christian models who parade around in skimpy outfits. Most outfits are designed by a Pakistani Hindu fashion designer, Deepak Perwani. If Pakistani Christian models can do that on local television, courtesy of a Hindu, then the condition isn't that bad. Pakistan has also had a Catholic Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in the 1960s and a Hindu Chief Justice recently as well.

The Catholic Chief Justice, Alvin Cornelius, was also a leader in Pakistan's independence movement.

In Pakistan, the issue is mostly about the social stature. If you are rich or middle class, you can get by easily and have freedom, but if you are poor, then you have to struggle and deal with the bull$#@!.

Despite constant threats from the government, Pakistani news media is incredibly free in criticizing politicians and the current Zardari government. 

The only person that the Pakistani media fears is the terrorist leader Altaf Hussain, leader of the MQM, who is harbored by the freedom loving British government and given British citizenship.

Obviously it's okay for the British government to harbor a terrorist leader, since they are the beacon of freedom, but it's bad when a brown country like Pakistan harbors terrorists because there is no "freedom" there.

----------


## ZenBowman

> Obviously it's okay for the British government to harbor a terrorist leader, since they are the beacon of freedom, but it's bad when a brown country like Pakistan harbors terrorists because there is no "freedom" there.


I'd say there is little freedom in either country.

----------


## dannno

> If they try to wear a burka here there's the constant harassment to deal with.


What kind of harassment do they get if they don't wear a burka over there??

I'm not for forcing my beliefs on them, but I'm not going to pretend that a group of people who admonishes women who don't wear burkas are living 'free'. There are plenty of modest ways to dress without hiding your entire body.

Admittedly, there are PLENTY of places in the middle east where women aren't required to wear burkas and where people do live relatively free.

----------


## ExPatPaki

> I'd say there is little freedom in either country.


Yea, me too.

----------


## ExPatPaki

> What kind of harassment do they get if they don't wear a burka over *there*??


You have to define which "there" you are talking about. Cities like Islamabad and Karachi, nothing happens if you do not wear a burka, and even in the tribal regions there is no need for a burka, just a chador will suffice.

----------


## Demigod

I don't know how old is this tread but I expect a lot of bans when some of the mods start reading it.

----------


## Icymudpuppy

Amish Women


Mennonite Women


Traditional Mormon Women


Muslim Women

----------


## Muwahid

> What kind of harassment do they get if they don't wear a burka over there??
> 
> I'm not for forcing my beliefs on them, but I'm not going to pretend that a group of people who admonishes women who don't wear burkas are living 'free'. There are plenty of modest ways to dress without hiding your entire body.
> 
> Admittedly, there are PLENTY of places in the middle east where women aren't required to wear burkas and where people do live relatively free.


Here's an image that was being passed around the internet which I found funny and true:


I hope expatpaki is ok I posted that  but the same is true where i come from, go to these cities in the middle east they dress MORE PROVOCATIVELY than women in America, beside when you go to the more cultural places where they're not forced to they just ... do, its like when you get dressed you cover youre special regions and if you don't people will think you're a bit off, so these places operate under the same principal only what we consider a private part is different than what other people do. 

the only "coercion" is you know a father telling her daughter to "dress properly" which is dictated by the cultural norms, if thats forcing and oppression, then we might as well call it oppression if a father here tells his daughter not to dress like a slut. in my opinion a father who raises his daughters to dress modestly is a good father.

----------


## presence

> I don't know how old is this tread but I expect a lot of bans when some of the mods start reading it.


As the OP, I give full permission to hit this thread with a sharp axe; 99% off topic.

Before any of you post again... please, READ THE OP.  If you want to start a thread about wearing burkas... go... be free... prosper... Its a very interesting topic.  Just don't do it here.  

This thread is about a *tax payer funded program to provide welfare to ex jihadists.* 

Please stay on topic.

presence

----------


## Dsylexic

> As the OP, I give full permission to hit this thread with a sharp axe; 99% off topic.
> 
> Before any of you post again... please, READ THE OP.  If you want to start a thread about wearing burkas... go... be free... prosper... Its a very interesting topic.  Just don't do it here.  
> 
> This thread is about a *tax payer funded program to provide welfare to ex jihadists.* 
> 
> Please stay on topic.
> 
> presence


what difference does it make? are you outraged because they are ex jihadists or because they are taxpayer funded. your answer will determine if you are a mere bigot or a freedom lover

----------


## Muwahid

> As the OP, I give full permission to hit this thread with a sharp axe; 99% off topic.
> 
> Before any of you post again... please, READ THE OP.  If you want to start a thread about wearing burkas... go... be free... prosper... Its a very interesting topic.  Just don't do it here.  
> 
> This thread is about a *tax payer funded program to provide welfare to ex jihadists.* 
> 
> Please stay on topic.
> 
> presence


If you didn't use such an inflammatory thread title I doubt it would have gotten the reaction.

----------


## Pericles

> Its amazing that such an offensive and generalized statement like this is allowed to stand on this website, and that you are not banned for it, but FrankRep is banned for picturing a women in a burka.  Amazing.
> 
> And all the while you wont answer whether you believe a women should be stoned for adultery.  
> 
> Amazing.


Indicates one reason why I spend less time here.

----------


## PierzStyx

> Amish Women
> 
> 
> Mennonite Women
> 
> 
> Traditional Mormon Women
> 
> 
> Muslim Women


When was the last time an Amish woman, Mennonite, or "Fundamentalist" Mormon was publicly beaten, arrested, or threatened with death for not dressing that way?

My issue isn't even with the burkha. It is the theocracy that believes it is above all natural laws of liberty in forcing people to obey it.

----------


## DamianTV

> When was the last time an Amish woman, Mennonite, or "Fundamentalist" Mormon was publicly beaten, arrested, or threatened with death for not dressing that way?
> 
> My issue isn't even with the burkha. It is the theocracy that believes it is above all natural laws of liberty in forcing people to obey it.


Exactly!  +REP!

When Theology becomes Law, and the Law is Abused, the Theology itself becomes the Abuser.  Such is the difference between the Police who Enforce (Abuse) the Law and the Law itself.

----------

