Ruby Soho

"Islamofacsism not a real word," eh? You would do well to consult a dictionary, the thousands of media pieces and academic articles, Wikipedia, and the 625,000 web pages which discuss Islamofascism.

Your attribution of 911 away from Islamofascism to the Jews is lame, despicable, but tragically predictable. Tell us what were the religious affiliations of those who went on suicide missions on Sep. 11? Xian? Hindu? Atheist? Tell us what they muttering as they did so. Let me give you a hint. Every single one was a Muslim - all Sunni, not one Shia mind - and the whole edifice led by Osama bin Laden was at war with the Saudis as part of their broader jihad within Islam to establish a new caliphate led by the Sunni Arab Wahhabism.

I read your article very carefully. It is yet another product of far-left anti-Semitic excuses for Islamofascism which the Left has been making a fool of itself with for years now.

You would do well to open your eyes.

Ruby, Turkey's re-evaluation of hadith is nothing new. In fact the acceptance (or "reliability") of ahadith is the basis of much of the differences between Islamic sects, and the basis of an Islamic "science".

As for the Lord's Army, you would be hard-pressed to find Christians anywhere in the world who would accept this murderous bunch as fellow Christians.

The conflict in Darfur may well be "tribal" given that the victims are black African while the perpetrators are of Arab origin. There is nothing new in Muslims being the victim of other Muslims, especially when the victims are of another sect or race. One presumes Muslims are open to the same vices as others- in this case a desire to restrict oil wealth to Arab Sudanese and to expand their powerbase.

I again question the description of Geert Wilders as "far right" given that the epithet arises from one plank of his party's platform, namely their anti-immigration stance. Reference to social and economic policy might make the PVV centrist for all we know. Rejection of "open-door" immigration, multiculturalism, and PC madness does not a "far right politician" make, in my view. Was Howard "far right" for insisting that new Australians recognised "Australian values"? Is Labor "far right" for broadly accepting the need for migrants to accept "Australian values" even if they disagreed over detail? Are either "far left" for allowing in hundreds of thousands of immigrants we don't need?

I also don't see Fitna as anything like a call to arms against Muslims, but rather as a "wake up call" to European and other politicians, bureaucrats and policymakers who have been asleep at the wheel (at the very least), to make them stand up to Muslim lies ("Religion of Peace- baloney), fake victimhood and demands for accommodation far outstripping their worth to European (and other western) societies. Frankly, I think he will fail, and the "clash of civilisations" is nigh (except that one side isn't civilised).

Greenfield, you would do well to open your eyes!! Your tiresome clichéd twaddle;________________________

"I read your article very carefully. It is yet another product of far-left anti-Semitic excuses for Islamofascism which the Left has been making a fool of itself with for years now..."
Posted by John Greenfield, Sunday, 13 April 2008 5:11:44 PM

________________________;illustrates far more about your embittered far-Right attitude than those who do not hold your political views.
Get a grip man.
_________________________________________________________

Ruby,-what'd I tellyer??

(I intend to give ieSpell a stiff talking to; it does not recognize "Islamofascism". You can bet it was set up by a group of Left-wing pinko anti-semantic ((!!)) thingy wotsits!)

RACHE umm I don't recall in any way shape or form saying the death of the Iraqi children (due to neglect and mis-spending of ill-gotten gains by Saddam) was good? My intended meaning was this. If Sadaam can avoid the impact of the sanctions to re-arm his military and enhance his latest Palace, then does it not raise the question about his ability to provide needed mecidines for his own people? I have zero mercy on lefist propoganda, ZERO.. and the line you trotted out was exactly that.. I'll believe you did it sincerely and naively, which is better for you.

BACK TO RUBY.. I'm sorry dear Ruby, you made an unsubstantiated claim which villifies my faith.
Now..you claim you can back it up. I happen to know you cannot, so not only does it "not suffice" for you to say you can, I suggest it is strongly in your interests to ACTUALLY either back it up or apologise.

As I mentioned to Fractelle..if you had only said "The Bible mentions God commanding the complete destruction of particular tribes" I would have no quarrel with you. But you went too far, you specifically said in a public forum something which not only is not true, but is damaging to the public image of Christians who live by the Old and New Testaments, (with the New interpreting the old)

Now..lets be crystal clear here. You said "God frequently commanded the Israelites to MURDER and RAPE"

So..I presume you can find a command which says "Kill them and rape them".. because if you cannot..then you might find yourself in hot water.
You also used the word "Frequently" so.. you will need to show that this command is repeated 'numerous' times for this to be true.
Numerous/Frequently.. would be at least 3 or 4 different independant places.

I'll await your backup or apology.

There is no slanging match here.. I've not called you any names, but I have called you to account.

If I said "The Quran permits sexual abuse of captive women" I can give you Surah 23:5-6 clear as a bell.

"Fitna".. 'frame up'..or.. fit?

On Youtube, there is a portion of it, and of that portion, I have selected just one Quran verse for consideration.

MY GOAL is to find the actual background according to Islamic scholars, and then, to evaluate if the claim made by the Movie, fits the context and meaning provided by Muslim Scholars.

THE VERSE surah 8 vese 60.

BACKGROUND is explained here
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/maududi/mau8.html

It was the first major battle(BADR) between Muslims and Non Muslims.

Here is another Muslim commentator on the 12th verse of that surah, which is connected also to the rest of the Surah includling verse 60 quoted in 'Fitna'.

http://www.ruqaiyyah.karoo.net/articles/fingers.htm

In that commentary, he explains about the Battle, and mentions the following:

"It was about a specific place at a particular time"

Surah 8.12 was hardly revealed to give carte blanche for Muslim extremists to rush off and strike out at and destroy all unbelievers willy-nilly, but refers specifically to a particular historical event, to the Prophet (pbuh) urging on his troops before the Battle of Badr.

MY COMMENT. It appears, that he is claiming that Muslims only fought when they were 'commanded to' at particular times.

This does not at all fit with the more generalized command to 'fight' as in Surah 9:29 "Fight those who do not believe in Allah and the Last day"etc.. which is quoted by Mohammad many times in Hadith to justify his attacks on others. (Most Muslims would claim they were defensive attacks, history says otherwise)
This verse is also used Al Mughira with Caliph Omar when "invading" the Persians, where this very verse is quoted by Al Mughira.

MAJOR PROBLEM. On the one hand, Muslims claim "specific place and time" but on the other they claim "We can defend ourselves anytime" but then, they claim ALL fights in which Muslims are involved are 'defensive' in nature

CONCLUSION. Wilders use of this verse is quite justified, the Image he associates with this is 9/11 Which was perpetrated by Muslims against the USA, which is no different to Omar invading the Persians.

Here is a link which gives two Christian responses to Fitna, from the Centre for Public Christianity:

http://publicchristianity.org/news.html

No fan flaming. No calls to violence. No hatred being incited.

If nothing else, these Christian responses highlight the misconceptions the author labours under when pretending to understand the realities patched together in Fitna. When the minarets tower over the Opera House the point might sink in; or when the message being preached in Australian mosques floods over as violence in the Australian suburbs; or when Christians cannot hold evangelical meetings without being pursued into the courts for preaching hatred and inciting ridicule; or when our immigration policies encourage rapid growth of one section of the population. Oh, maybe Australians can learn something from the Dutch experience after all.

My understanding is that your article is calling for context (before launching into a film review and a textual analysis of the cinematic devices employed by Fitna’s producers).

Ok Ruby. So back up your inflammatory comments.

Is it too much to expect that you would provide an explanation when launching into your anti-Christian tirade? Perhaps your next article could feature how you’ve travelled down the well-trodden path of anti-Christian rhetoric so far that you don’t recognize your own.

So, no public apology (in the absence of a detailed explanation) for misquoting the Bible?

Next time you wish to reference the bible, I would encourage you to not only to take issue with points that you don’t understand, but to seek clarification from someone who can provide a context. In the meantime, BD has a very good grasp of both the OT and the NT and will be very happy to oblige, I suspect.

Yes, Fractelle, I’m a woman and a Christian. Well there’s one...

Meanwhile, I can’t help rehashing something which I read over the weekend: not all muslims appear to be terrorists, but all terrorists appear to be muslims.