Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * * 1 votes

'Why I Converted to Islam'


  • Please log in to reply
345 replies to this topic

#331    Beckys_Mom

Beckys_Mom

    Sarcastic Muppet..!

  • Member
  • 51,196 posts
  • Joined:01 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Ireland

  • "I hate pretentious people. I mean, what is the point in applying exorbitantly extensive vocabulary, it is just straightforwardly unnecessary".

Posted 02 July 2013 - 12:18 AM

View PostDieChecker, on 01 July 2013 - 09:15 PM, said:

Me either. They would have to convince me that all the history known about Islam is false and actually Peace is their primary mission. Which, I think, is not going to happen.

There might be many people who practice Quranism and are peaceful, but the other 99% of Muslims probably consider them heretics and subject to death by stones if they somehow fell into their legal system.

Well said..

View PostYamato, on 30 June 2013 - 06:09 PM, said:

Farewell KoS.  The rampant Islamophobia can continue on my thread now unabated.

Posted Image

I liked KOS  ( for his character not his faith )  BUT when anyone posts up to others - "You are an Islamaphobe" ...I think, so what if I am?  Yes I am Islamophobe, and further more, I am a religiousophobe ( If there is such a word ) ..And I am proud to say, I do not and will not take anything to do with ANY religion.

I need to lay the emphasis on this..I dislike religion, so please if anyone wishes to call me an islamophobe, then yes, but give me the FULL title, I am  proud religiousophobe...I do not cherry pick what one to dislike...

Edited by Beckys_Mom, 02 July 2013 - 12:22 AM.

Posted ImageRAW Berris... Dare you enter?

If there's a heaven...I hope to hell I get there !

#332    DieChecker

DieChecker

    I'm a Rogue Scholar

  • Member
  • 17,201 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portland, Oregon, USA

  • Hey, I'm not wrong. I'm just not completely right.

Posted 02 July 2013 - 01:28 AM

I'm not an Islamophobe, but there are elements of Sunni and Shiite Muslim culture that I think are universally wrong. And there are some social groups/elements of those cultures that I feel very strongly should be prevented from aggression inside my home country by whatever means necessary.

I work with Muslims every day, as well as Jews, Hindus and Christians. None of us hate each other, AFAIK. I don't fear, or hate, that guy Muhammad over there or that guy Mohammod over there. I'm bigoted against cultures and sub cultures, not racist against a People.

Here at Intel we make processors on 12 inch wafers. And, the individual processors on the wafers are called die. And, I am employed to check these die. That is why I am the DieChecker.

At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid. - Friedrich Nietzsche

Qualifications? This is cryptozoology, dammit! All that is required is the spirit of adventure. - Night Walker

#333    Beckys_Mom

Beckys_Mom

    Sarcastic Muppet..!

  • Member
  • 51,196 posts
  • Joined:01 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Ireland

  • "I hate pretentious people. I mean, what is the point in applying exorbitantly extensive vocabulary, it is just straightforwardly unnecessary".

Posted 02 July 2013 - 01:13 PM

View PostDieChecker, on 02 July 2013 - 01:28 AM, said:

I'm not an Islamophobe, but there are elements of Sunni and Shiite Muslim culture that I think are universally wrong. And there are some social groups/elements of those cultures that I feel very strongly should be prevented from aggression inside my home country by whatever means necessary.

I work with Muslims every day, as well as Jews, Hindus and Christians. None of us hate each other, AFAIK. I don't fear, or hate, that guy Muhammad over there or that guy Mohammod over there. I'm bigoted against cultures and sub cultures, not racist against a People.

It's not about the people, my beef has nothing to do with people who have faith.I can easily live in a world with Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc.( I already do ).as long as they do not  push their faith in my face..then I am happy.I hate people telling me how to live and what to do with my personal life. not many of us like anyone telling us how to live.......

A Muslim or a Christian will not tolerate anyone telling them how to live  ( Ironically ) But there you have it...

To lay the emphasis what I mean is - Its religion as a whole, religion regardless what is it is..I wont cherry pick what I like or dislike.. I just have a  dislike to all religion.

If I liked religion, then I'd be a part of at least one.. But no, I keep my faith to myself .( If everyone did that, this world would be a happy place ) ....That's how I like it..I dislike anything that tries to evangelise to get you to convert.. That is one thing I cannot stand..If I wanted to join a religion, I would rather do so on my own time and when I feel like it, not have someone preach to me and chant things about how I am going to hell..

However,there are people out there who are spiritual and follow a way of life, those I do not mind because they never bother me with their faith...If you try and bother me with your holy book, then you have pushed me further away..

Edited by Beckys_Mom, 02 July 2013 - 01:25 PM.

Posted ImageRAW Berris... Dare you enter?

If there's a heaven...I hope to hell I get there !

#334    Yamato

Yamato

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,412 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 04 July 2013 - 12:37 AM

View PostDieChecker, on 02 July 2013 - 01:28 AM, said:

I'm not an Islamophobe, but there are elements of Sunni and Shiite Muslim culture that I think are universally wrong. And there are some social groups/elements of those cultures that I feel very strongly should be prevented from aggression inside my home country by whatever means necessary.

I work with Muslims every day, as well as Jews, Hindus and Christians. None of us hate each other, AFAIK. I don't fear, or hate, that guy Muhammad over there or that guy Mohammod over there. I'm bigoted against cultures and sub cultures, not racist against a People.
Laws should be free from bigotry.   Whatever "aggression" is and assuming we can reach an agreeable definition of proper inclusion, we should prevent aggression universally, not because of a sub-culture someone doesn't happen to agree with.   A nation with 300 million people is loaded with sub-cultures.   Using another example, it follows that someone who wants to prevent aggression in black culture (which can be shown to be far more violent than average) "by whatever means necessary" shouldn't be allowed to create laws or set policy.  

If someone murders grandpa for inheritance money or a property crime, people actually think that murderer should be punished less than someone else who murders grandpa for a more politically-charged media-fed reason?   Then some people let the media have far too much power over what they think and feel.   Agreeing with greater and greater state control over our population in emotional reactionary policy one after the other is a great way to destroy the freedom we've got left, bit by bit.  By bit.

State sanctioned murder is lionized as patriotic and courageous and heroic and just.  Islam sanctioned murder needs special treatment beyond the treatment for murder we have already?   People need to read the Establishment Clause in the US Constitution.

"To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity.   To impose on them a wretched life of hunger and deprivation is to dehumanize them." ~ Nelson Mandela

#335    Yamato

Yamato

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,412 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 04 July 2013 - 12:42 AM

View PostRavenHawk, on 01 July 2013 - 05:13 PM, said:

Heed your own words then.  You lost credibility a long time ago.  You get stomped on and you start lashing out.


That's up to you.  I only return in kind.  But the reason for your personal attacks on me is because you have no leg to stand on.  That is clear and that is understandable.


No, they (Accords) don't have to be, but in this case they are for all practical purposes.  That's the subtly that you fail to see.  As long as Congress sets aside funding, it is binding.  This is the rule of law and I don't have to try to insult you, you set yourself up quite nicely.  I would call for the CDA to be revisited but at the same time, this is such a minor issue that it is at the bottom of the list.  There are far more important issues, don't you think?


Well, get use to it because that is the authority.  You wanted me to show you where and I rubbed your nose in it and you are still trying to deny it.  If it was unConstitutional, then how is it that Congress is funding it?  If it was unConstitutional, don't you think that the Supreme Court would be all over it?  This is still an obligation that the US observes and that makes it binding.  Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is unConstitutional.


We don't have to offer aid, but don't you think that we should keep promises?  Our word is our bond.  I have no problem with us telling Egypt, Jordan, and Israel that we can no longer keep this promise and have Congress defund it.  That would tickle me pink but the process to do that is the rule of law.


We're not giving aid to every country [choice word omitted].  Showing your ignorance and stupidity is making it very difficult not to jump all over you.  Yes, I don't like seeing the Muslim Brotherhood getting money and especially fighters.  A treaty is only as good as its leadership.  The original leaders are no longer in power.  We need to drastically modify or even out right end it.  But just because that is so, does not make it unConstitutional.


Who cares if it is or isn't *Wilsonian*, which it really isn't.  I guess it just sounds impressive to you.  It's not creating new powers.  It is following the powers granted and I showed you.  You spew a lot and hide behind screaming that somebody needs to take a course on the Constitution.  Most of us agree and you need to learn about the Constitution.


Nobody is saying they are but even for you they do give insight to what the rule of law is.


That's not what it says.  It says that no appropriation of money shall be longer than two years.  That doesn't mean that there is no permanent standing army.  That means that every two years Congress must pass an appropriations bill to support our military and military obligations (that includes the CDA)


I never said they never made it into the Constitution.  I said that the concept of a volunteer/militia type army was shown through our early history to be impractical and obsolete.  A militia has its uses but as a primary means of defense is not sustainable alone.  Hence is why a permanent standing army is required.


Yes, there is and I even pointed it out to you.  Are you blind?  Here is the specific part again: I.8.12 "… and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;".  The invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan amount to *captured lands* and nation building are the rules being made to govern said lands.  Let this sink in first before opening your mouth.  I don't think you have room for another foot.


It is still an agreement, a promise.  Besides, supplying all three parties doesn't mean that any of it will be used for an endless war.  It can be used as a deterrent to prevent conflict as well.


Actually, the Constitution does not limit endless commercial warfare, or whatever you call it.  If it is of the people's will, we could try conquering the world.  Although, that is not likely, but there is no prohibition on acting on our warlike nature.


Your delusion is a world of your own making.  The wording of the Constitution is black and white.  And I've shown you the meaning of a few of the paragraphs mentioned here.  You just refuse to accept it.


I understand it quite well.  What you don't understand is that you place some arbitrary one-shot limit on appropriations.  It is not, it is for as many two-year periods as are needed.

I know better than to think that since I have put you in your place that this is the end of it, but don't you think this needs to go in a separate thread, let alone another forum?  

But my point in this thread was basically seeking honesty.  If people really knew the truth, would they convert?
You understand something?   Then show me where "No Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years" appears in US foreign policy.  I don't think you know much of anything relating to US law.  The one providing the black and white words in the US Constitution is me here.  Now you're the one that's got to provide some examples of the US government following it.

I shouldn't even have to say that treaties made between foreign countries don't supercede the US Constitution but I have to say that to you, as if you actually think that treaties signed by foreigners binds the US to foreign welfare.   They have nothing to do with US law at all.  They're not even our treaty.   You're the worst form of Statist.  Some statists are all about welfare.  Some are all about warfare.  You're unfortunately all about both.

There is no authority for the federal government to even provide the specific cases of domestic welfare that it does.  The reason there's a general welfare clause is precisely why the federal government has the power that it does.   It's the very reason, among others also cited, that the US government and the US Constitution exists in the first place!  The Founders were explaining why they were creating this new government and they gave a beautiful reckoning for doing so.   Article 1 Section 8 limiting the power of lawmakers is a black-and-white impossible-to-misunderstand example of what providing for that general welfare means.   It's not an excuse for another bigoted liberal from a red or blue state to dream up imaginary powers the government doesn't have.

1.8.14 does not nullify 1.8.11 or 1.8.12.  The US Constitution isn't multiple choice.  You obey the authority to declare war and then you obey the rules; you don't pick the one you like best and then ignore the other one.   Your baseless claims that we can "go both ways" are further proof of your Wilsonian liberal political beliefs and beyond any other poster around, they're just laughable.  There is no authority that authorizes nation building.   These notorious cases of nation building in the Middle East that we can discuss here aren't even bound by treaty.  And even if they were, treaties DO NOT supercede nor supplant nor violate the rules right in front of your nose in plain black and white.

Edited by Yamato, 04 July 2013 - 01:03 AM.

"To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity.   To impose on them a wretched life of hunger and deprivation is to dehumanize them." ~ Nelson Mandela

#336    DieChecker

DieChecker

    I'm a Rogue Scholar

  • Member
  • 17,201 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portland, Oregon, USA

  • Hey, I'm not wrong. I'm just not completely right.

Posted 04 July 2013 - 01:09 AM

View PostYamato, on 04 July 2013 - 12:37 AM, said:

Laws should be free from bigotry.   Whatever "aggression" is and assuming we can reach an agreeable definition of proper inclusion, we should prevent aggression universally, not because of a sub-culture someone doesn't happen to agree with.   A nation with 300 million people is loaded with sub-cultures.   Using another example, it follows that someone who wants to prevent aggression in black culture (which can be shown to be far more violent than average) "by whatever means necessary" shouldn't be allowed to create laws or set policy.  

I agree that the law Should be free of bigotry in a perfect world, but we don't live in a perfect world. If there is a subculture that is substatially more dangerous then another, it should be noticed and acted on. You can't just allow a subculture that brutalizes women to do what they want. You can't just allow a culture that practices human sacrifice to do what they want. You can't just allow a culture that practices infanticide to do what it wants. Can you? At least not in the borders of the USA....

You are saying you would like a universal prevention of aggression, which is fine. But do you not agree that some cultures are much more violent then others? Your own example shows you do believe this of black (American) culture. So, should an officer who arrives at a crime scene and sees 5 gang members who appear to be black males, prepare any differently then he would for 5 old ladys with shopping bags who just came out of a synagogue? Or is that racism and sexism? Statistically one of those groups is going to be more dangerous due to being male, and also for being black.

We don't live in an ideal world and our real world choices should reflect that.

Here at Intel we make processors on 12 inch wafers. And, the individual processors on the wafers are called die. And, I am employed to check these die. That is why I am the DieChecker.

At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid. - Friedrich Nietzsche

Qualifications? This is cryptozoology, dammit! All that is required is the spirit of adventure. - Night Walker

#337    Yamato

Yamato

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,412 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 06 July 2013 - 11:23 AM

View PostDieChecker, on 04 July 2013 - 01:09 AM, said:

I agree that the law Should be free of bigotry in a perfect world, but we don't live in a perfect world. If there is a subculture that is substatially more dangerous then another, it should be noticed and acted on. You can't just allow a subculture that brutalizes women to do what they want. You can't just allow a culture that practices human sacrifice to do what they want. You can't just allow a culture that practices infanticide to do what it wants. Can you? At least not in the borders of the USA....

You are saying you would like a universal prevention of aggression, which is fine. But do you not agree that some cultures are much more violent then others? Your own example shows you do believe this of black (American) culture. So, should an officer who arrives at a crime scene and sees 5 gang members who appear to be black males, prepare any differently then he would for 5 old ladys with shopping bags who just came out of a synagogue? Or is that racism and sexism? Statistically one of those groups is going to be more dangerous due to being male, and also for being black.

We don't live in an ideal world and our real world choices should reflect that.
An officer arriving at a crime scene and noticing something isn't preventing anything because the crime's already occurred.  That's not relevant to prevention.

If you "prevent aggression by any means necessary" you usher in the police state.  Is that what you want?   That would be a real world preference that's far from ideal.

"To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity.   To impose on them a wretched life of hunger and deprivation is to dehumanize them." ~ Nelson Mandela

#338    Zaphod222

Zaphod222

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,594 posts
  • Joined:05 Sep 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tokyo

  • When the gods wish to punish us, they answer our prayers.
    (Oscar Wilde)

Posted 06 July 2013 - 12:23 PM

View PostDieChecker, on 02 July 2013 - 01:28 AM, said:

I'm not an Islamophobe, but there are elements of Sunni and Shiite Muslim culture that I think are universally wrong. And there are some social groups/elements of those cultures that I feel very strongly should be prevented from aggression inside my home country by whatever means necessary.

A "phobia" is an irrational fear. There is nothing irrational about fearing islam, a supremacist religion/ideology that has the declared goal of submitting the world under its rules. Every person who values human rights and his freedom should fear islam.
The label is ridiculous.

View PostDieChecker, on 02 July 2013 - 01:28 AM, said:

I work with Muslims every day, as well as Jews, Hindus and Christians. None of us hate each other, AFAIK. I don't fear, or hate, that guy Muhammad over there or that guy Mohammod over there. I'm bigoted against cultures and sub cultures, not racist against a People.

What are "a people"? The ideology of islam is something to be resisted, as is the ideology of nazism or the ideology of Bolshevism. Of course that says nothing about the individual person who is labelled a muslim, nazi, or bolshevik. They might know or care very little about the ideology.

"The moment you declare a set of ideas to be immune from criticism, satire, derision, or contempt, freedom of thought becomes impossible." (Salman Rushdie)

#339    Zaphod222

Zaphod222

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,594 posts
  • Joined:05 Sep 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tokyo

  • When the gods wish to punish us, they answer our prayers.
    (Oscar Wilde)

Posted 06 July 2013 - 12:31 PM

View PostColonel Rhuairidh, on 22 June 2013 - 07:18 PM, said:

So France is labouring under the yoke of tyranny, is it? lol. Perhaps it's time for another revolution. Liberté, égalité, fraternité, mes amis! :D

It certainly is. If have time, google for "ZUS" ("zone urbain speciale" or something like that, my French sucks). Basically, they are areas of France where secular French laws has been replaced by islamic Sharia, and the local mullas are the authority. Uncovered girls, homosexuals, Jews, and similar groups that Shariah disapproves of should think twice before venturing there.
The count of the ZUS went up steadily until it reached something like 850.... and then the French government "solved" the problem a couple of years back by..... stopping to publish the ZUS. Still, you can find maps that show them, or you could until recently.
Al-France looks like a Swiss Cheese. And the development continues.

Edited by Zaphod222, 06 July 2013 - 12:33 PM.

"The moment you declare a set of ideas to be immune from criticism, satire, derision, or contempt, freedom of thought becomes impossible." (Salman Rushdie)

#340    DieChecker

DieChecker

    I'm a Rogue Scholar

  • Member
  • 17,201 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portland, Oregon, USA

  • Hey, I'm not wrong. I'm just not completely right.

Posted 06 July 2013 - 03:07 PM

View PostYamato, on 06 July 2013 - 11:23 AM, said:

An officer arriving at a crime scene and noticing something isn't preventing anything because the crime's already occurred.  That's not relevant to prevention.

If you "prevent aggression by any means necessary" you usher in the police state.  Is that what you want?   That would be a real world preference that's far from ideal.

That is where you and I differ I think. I am willing to submit to some victimization if it prevents my enemy from reaching me. You apparently would rather have the enemy show up at your house and try vainly to deal with them after they've started your house on fire.

Edited by DieChecker, 06 July 2013 - 03:08 PM.

Here at Intel we make processors on 12 inch wafers. And, the individual processors on the wafers are called die. And, I am employed to check these die. That is why I am the DieChecker.

At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid. - Friedrich Nietzsche

Qualifications? This is cryptozoology, dammit! All that is required is the spirit of adventure. - Night Walker

#341    DieChecker

DieChecker

    I'm a Rogue Scholar

  • Member
  • 17,201 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portland, Oregon, USA

  • Hey, I'm not wrong. I'm just not completely right.

Posted 06 July 2013 - 03:09 PM

View PostZaphod222, on 06 July 2013 - 12:23 PM, said:

What are "a people"? The ideology of islam is something to be resisted, as is the ideology of nazism or the ideology of Bolshevism. Of course that says nothing about the individual person who is labelled a muslim, nazi, or bolshevik. They might know or care very little about the ideology.
Yet, I don't care for a moment if they want to do so in their own country. As long as they don't bring it over to my home nation.

Here at Intel we make processors on 12 inch wafers. And, the individual processors on the wafers are called die. And, I am employed to check these die. That is why I am the DieChecker.

At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid. - Friedrich Nietzsche

Qualifications? This is cryptozoology, dammit! All that is required is the spirit of adventure. - Night Walker

#342    EmeralVines

EmeralVines

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 14 posts
  • Joined:03 Jul 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • I have not failed. Ive just found 10,000 ways that wont work.
    - Thomas A. Edison

Posted 07 July 2013 - 01:31 AM

Honestly, they are going down a bad road because Jesus is the actually savior


#343    third_eye

third_eye

    _ M Ġ ń Ř Ī Ş_

  • Member
  • 7,043 posts
  • Joined:06 Nov 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Malaysia

  • "Legio nomen mihi est, quia multi sumus"

    God has no religion ~ Mahatma Gandhi

Posted 07 July 2013 - 09:26 AM

View PostDieChecker, on 06 July 2013 - 03:09 PM, said:

Yet, I don't care for a moment if they want to do so in their own country. As long as they don't bring it over to my home nation.

A scent of xenophobia ? :lol:
anyway if 'their' homeland is not in such a state 'they' would hardly need to go anywhere else would 'they' ? and why is 'their' homeland in such a state ?

how many of 'their' generation now has grew up in an environment without any semblance of a social structure and for how many years now ?

~

Quote

' ... life and death carry on as they always have ~ and always will, only the dreamer is gone ~ behind the flow of imagination, beyond any effort to be still
dancing in the ebb and flow of attention, more present than the breath, I find the origins of my illusions, only the dreamer is gone ~ the dream never ends
'

GIFTS WITH NO GIVER - a love affair with truth ~ Poems by Nirmala

third_eye ' s cavern ~ bring own beer


#344    Yamato

Yamato

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,412 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 08 July 2013 - 09:59 AM

View PostDieChecker, on 06 July 2013 - 03:07 PM, said:

That is where you and I differ I think. I am willing to submit to some victimization if it prevents my enemy from reaching me. You apparently would rather have the enemy show up at your house and try vainly to deal with them after they've started your house on fire.
There's a huge difference between some police profiling in the act of crime prevention and the federal government telling me who my enemies are and taking away my freedom to keep me "safe".



"To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity.   To impose on them a wretched life of hunger and deprivation is to dehumanize them." ~ Nelson Mandela

#345    Knight Of Shadows

Knight Of Shadows

    Shadow Dancer

  • Member
  • 5,251 posts
  • Joined:17 Mar 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Free Syria

  • Rest In Peace A.B

Posted 08 July 2013 - 02:53 PM

sorry for busting out suddenly i hate to take break and reliaf my head from some political discussion
nothing had to do with this topic .. RavenHawk :P
i'd pick up where we left in bit
but first i was going through the topic and i seen you mention " Taqyia " very much alot to me and others
would you like to explain to me .. and other users what you mean by " Taqyia "
i know what it is .. i just want to know your prospective of it
and provide evidence of your coming claims from koran and hadith i'd be so greatful

by the name of Allah the Gracious the Merciful
Say, "I seek refuge in the Lord of daybreak From the evil of that which He created
And from the evil of darkness when it settles And from the evil of the blowers in knots
And from the evil of an envier when he envies"
truthful was Allah The Most High And Great





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users