Jayb, there are 2 reasons why you would fail to fess up to the authorship of your post, http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18693#333745.

The first is the blatant failure to acknowledge sources. This would make your behaviour dishonest and your repeated failure to respond to my request for the sources deception.

Secondly, the true author is not a scholar of Islamic teachings. The author is Israeli educator David Meir-Levi and the article you have plagiarised is David Meir-Levi TAQIYYA VS. OUR PRESIDENT Is Taqiyya winning? January 18, 2012, From <http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/119649/taqiyya-vs-our-president-david-meir-levi>.

This is how his modus operandi is described by one writer:

<<Many Western conservatives focus exclusively on the rhetoric and teachings of radical Muslims. Additionally, they conflate them with the works of secular Arab intellectuals. Writing in the conservative magazine Front Page, Jewish educator David Meir-Levi illustrates this tendency. “To answer the question: ‘Why do they hate us?’ we need look no further than at the Islamofascist leaders worldwide who are confronted with our success, threatened by our freedom, humiliated to the point of fury and violence due to their culture’s emphasis upon shame vs. honor. Rather than learn from us or work with us, they seek to destroy us... In addition, they are buttressed by Arab and pro-Arab intellectuals and professors in the West who re-write history in order to make us believe that this hatred is new and is a function of the fictional crimes of which we are accused.”

Thus, conservatives merge three things: the teachings of radical Muslims, the posturing of Middle-Eastern leaders, and the pontification of Arab intellectuals. The result is equivalent to claiming that George Bush speaks for all Christians.>>

Source: Bob Burnett, Islamophobia, Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-burnett/islamophobia_b_21339.html

Returning to my previous point if you are to say that Islamic teachings support something you need to provide evidence of Islamic teachings and not interpretations of ideologues (Muslim or non-Muslim).

In particular, when are quoting verses from the Qur'an you need to go to the traditional Tafsir (interpretation of the ulema) for an idea of the teachings that stem from the quoted verses. Otherwise, you are off topic.

grateful: Jayb, there are 2 reasons why you would fail to fess up to the authorship of your post, http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18693#333745.

I'm at a complete loss as to understand what you mean by Authorship. It must be some difference in your understanding of English. I thought the Site Quran.com would be good enough in regards to 2:225 etc, etc,.

Yes the TAQIYYA VS. OUR PRESIDENT is Levi. but what he says is true never-the-less. You seemed to understand the Authorship of that site with no trouble.

grateful: the Islamofascist leaders worldwide who are confronted with our success.

What success. If you mean the Islamic invasion of the West, you may be right for the time being. Chance is on the way though & mass deportations are on the cards. As far as Scientific success there is none. The Mullars haven't proved that the World is flat, Just because it interpreted as so in the koran. Even you believe the World is flat.

grateful: conservatives merge three things:

You say the Conservative mullars don't speak for Islam & ISIS & the other multitude of Rebels don't speak for Islam. The various Sunnies don't, the various Shite sects don't. The Alawati, Bahi, etc, etc don't.

Who speaks for authority in Islam. No One Person. All the Intellectual Mullars (in knowledge of the koran only) all quote what I have posted. They appear to with speak with authority. They are all full of Infidelophobia.

It's an old trick. A Christian Pastor commits a crime. Oh, he's not a Christian, he was before he got caught. The same with the spokes people for Islam. One runs a truck through a Christmas crown, Oh, he's not a moslems. He was before. All Bulldust!

grateful: if you are to say that Islamic teachings support something you need to provide evidence of Islamic teachings and not interpretations of ideologues (Muslim or non-Muslim).

See what I mean.

“Om?”

“What?”

“The captain just said something odd. He said the world is flat and has an edge.”

“Yes? So what?”

"But, I mean, we know the world is a ball, because . . .

The tortoise blinked.

“No, it's not,” he said. “Who said it's a ball?”

“You did,” said Brutha. Then he added: “According to Book One of the Septateuch, anyway.”

I've never thought like this before, he thought. I'd never have said “anyway.”

“Why'd the captain tell me something like that?” he said. “It's not normal conversation.”

“I told you, I never made the world,” said Om. “Why should I make the world? It was here already. And if I did make a world, I wouldn't make it a ball. People'd fall off. All the sea'd run off the bottom.”

“Not if you told it to stay on.”

“Hah! Will you hark at the man!”

“Besides, the sphere is a perfect shape,” said Brutha. "Because in the Book of-

“Nothing amazing about a sphere,” said the tortoise. “Come to that, a turtle is a perfect shape.”

“A perfect shape for what?”

“Well, the perfect shape for a turtle, to start with,” said Om. “If it was shaped like a ball, it'd be bobbing to the surface the whole time.”

“But it's a heresy to say the world is flat,” said Brutha.

“Maybe, but it's true.”

“And it's really on the back of a giant turtle?”

“That's right.”

“In that case,” said Brutha triumphantly, “what does the turtle stand on?”

The tortoise gave him a blank stare.

“It doesn't stand on anything,” it said. “It's a turtle, for heaven's sake. It swims. That's what turtles are for.”

- Small Gods, Terry Pratchett

Grateful said : if you are to say that Islamic teachings support something you need to provide evidence of Islamic teachings and not interpretations of ideologues (Muslim or non-Muslim).

Notice he referred to Muslim and non-Muslim ideologues who fail to support their interpretations with tasfir of ulema. He is not denying there are Muslim ideologues (like ISIS) just as there are non-Muslim ideologues (like yourself). So it is false to say:

<<It's an old trick. A Christian Pastor commits a crime. Oh, he's not a Christian, he was before he got caught. The same with the spokes people for Islam. One runs a truck through a Christmas crown, Oh, he's not a moslems. He was before. All Bulldust!>>

ISIS are Muslims. ISIS are the ones who declare any Muslim who disagrees with them as out of Islam and so in their view ripe for slaughter.

So now your dishonest behaviour extends to erroneous claims about what I said: your words reak of bulldust!

What I said goes: if you are to say that Islamic teachings support something you need to provide evidence of Islamic teachings and not interpretations of ideologues (Muslim or non-Muslim).

Just saying "what he says is true never-the-less" doesn't cut it.

Toni Lavis I can dig it.

JayB,

Thanks for your prompt response. It seems we agree about some aspects of multi-culturalism, though a full agreement would appear to elude us. Surely there are other things we agree on. Now the bones of contention. THE WALL OF TEXT BEGINS! ! !

Mr. Putin is inconsistent, I accuse him of seeking power above & beyond any code (I could continue on about the evolution and application of the multi-cultural code, but simply want to mention and promote a code rather than solely criticise) Khadyrov & Chechnya are supported by him and his government, despite that person & place have bad Islam. The link to oDR asserts that women's groups there do not use the word "women's" because it is likely to induce attacks by Islammic bigots. There is a lot more to that situation.

"Christianity hasn't acted on those passages for about 300 years. Christians don't thake (sic) the Bible as literal. Moslems take their Koran as literal & take every opportunity to act on it, therefore it should be banned in Australia under 18c."

This is a lie, either from ignorance or intent. Heard about creationism? That is literal interpretation which spits in the face of the best explanation with the best predicitive power. Further, ignorance is no protection from anything, be it bad Islam or a bad heart or an angry hippopotamus.

You clearly did not Google Joan Vollmer. She died because people literally interpreted daemonic possession, an interpretation shared by Catholicism (although I cannot help but believe the Catholic exorcist rites would have a non-lethal conclusion.).

"“Christianity in Africa is under attack by Gays and Christians in Europe and the Americas,” he said. “Africans do not need Europeans to teach them what the Gospels say … The vice of homosexuality through the necessary laws [DEATH PENALTY, my words] in place can be checked.”"

https://www.onfaith.co/onfaith/2009/12/07/ugandas-anti-gay-law-rile-us/5083
More bad Christianity from a literal interpretation of Sodom & Gomorrah.