"The obligation of inciting religious hatred"
 

This is not a joke...I wish it were.

I'm struggling to not break informal forum rules and to post some comment of my own, but frankly, I am speechless...other than perhaps saying that England is foolish for not doing something about this man.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

LINK

This Saturday's LIVE talk on Paltalk will discuss one of the greatest forgotten obligations in Islaam - Inciting religious hatred.

Allaah (swt) orders the believers to hate all other religions, way of lives, creeds, doctrines and beliefs that contradict with Islaam, and one cannot be Muslim without to declare animosity and hatred towards kufr, bid'ah, shirk and nifaaq (Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Sikhism, Buddhism, Democracy, Freedom etc.).

This is an opinion and should therefore not be silenced.

Though I agree it is a dangerous opinion that could spark hatred towards muslims.

I am genuinely scratching my head.

You mean hatred towards "kufr, bid'ah, shirk and nifaaq", right?

I wonder if they mean the same thing we do when they say "religious hatred." There are just so many ways that one could take that.

that guy has been raided several times if i remember correctly, but it's the european legislations for fucking 'human rights' that stop him from being locked up for inciting terrorism and violence.

I can only hope they keep it civil, like the christians. Just say everyone else is going to hell.....don't help them get there.

Actually, according to the Old Testament (Dt 13:13-17) Christians are supposed to put to the sword anyone who promotes a god other than Yahweh. So Judeo-Christian beliefs are right in parallel there.

Agreed....but they dont ACT on it(unless you perform abortions). My hope is the fundies in this case, act somewhat more civilized than the terrorist fringe.

The dude can say whatever he wants, just like we can.:hmm:

If he gets enough support then one day he'll be our prime minister, or 'Grand Muffti' as we'll be forced to call him.

I see your point, and I agree. Apparantly the topic as suggested will spread the idea that any good muslim should carry and spread hatred towards othe religions. That idea in and of itself should not be spread because it might spark open hatred towards others purely based on religion. (so far we're on the same track, right?)

But I meant my post as a backfire: This topic also suggest that all muslims know that they should hate other religions which would justify in other's eyes that Muslims should be hated.
(Am I clear? it's a weird sentence.)
Therefore if the general public thinks that Muslim's are hating them, they would hate them back, etc etc.

I have no in-depth knowledge of any religion so I don't know if the topic is based on anything, but I did immediately see it's self-propagating consquences, which is what I meant to illustrate.

Christians aren't required to promote religious hatred or kill anyone, the old testament is less christian doctrine and more hebrew scripture. The foundation of all Christianity is Jesus Christ and his message of loving your neighbor, not smitting them with a sword.

Secondly this guy is an ass clown, and sadly one who is to be found as common place in Islam today. It would appear that he is one of those militant Wahabi-esque type preachers which are becoming more and more prevelant outside of Saudi Arabia/Pakistan/Iran/Indonesia. Bottom line Islam needs a "slight" PR and overall touch up if the world is to not sprial further into hell, people like this aren't helping.

You're casually disregarding an entire book of the bible, in fact the significantly larger one. If the Old Testament is more hebrew scripture than christian doctrine, then the Ten Commandments aren't supreme christian law, are they? What I am saying is this, and only this: All religions (and religous texts, specifically) have flaws, things that thinking people should eschew. People who don't do that, who cling to the letter of the law rather than the spirit are ass clowns.

I think i've heard a few christian fundies proclaim very similar things i.e. other religions are tools of the devil(it is left up to the fundy follower to determine how he'she wants to deal with these tools of satan)

How is this fellow that much different form franklin graham or pat robertson? Certainly they're kindred spirits.

OH,

This person makes his intentions clear. He definitely supports and encourages terrorism.

From elsewhere on this site:

http://www.almuk.com/obm/islamic_top...d/covenant.htm


So in otherwords, he is instructing the faithful how to "legally" enter a foriegn country to kill people.

I also take exception, Kadath, to what you said earlier. It is impossible to argue that the Old Testament doesn't say that, but I know of no large scale movement (or even single preachers) who are telling people to go kill anyone.

And Mojo_PeiPei is right: the central tenent of Christianity is to love your enemy and turn the other cheek, which I KNOW you won't find in the Koran.

I honestly don't understand what you are taking exception to. Christianity has flaws, just like Islam. The problem, as is always the case, is that the interpretation is flawed. People are screwing up God's word. I like the idea that the main tenet of Christianity is love your enemy and turn the other cheek, but I know many Christians who would disagree with your interpretation. Our President, for example.

Clearly this guy is inciting hatred. End of story.

However, I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss Christianity as having a negative view of other religions. Of course they don't advocate going out and killing. I won't even argue that point.

There are people of the Christian faith who believe it is their duty to spread the word of God and convert "the heathens" (for lack of a better word).

Mother Theresa would use the opportunity of helping the poor and the sick as an opportunity to evangelize. This may seem like an easy trade off to us... much need help and all you have to do is listen to the message... But to many Hindus and Muslims it was a serious affront. As a result she was reviled by many.

Ann Coulter has, off the cuff, made comments that we should just go and convert them all to Christianity.

Missionaries of many sorts have been out there proselytizing for years.

Just to be clear again... I see the difference between the two points of view. I just don't think it is easy to say that there is no negativity in the Christian faith when it comes to its approach to other religions.

When the crusaders marched on the MiddleEast killing Moslems, they did so in the name of Christ, felt that the Spirit of Christ protected them, and believed that if they died in battle that they would go straight to heaven as martyrs for their faith. When they took the city of Jerusalem, they killed 40,000 Moslems in two days - - men, women and children - - by hand.

The Koran instructs that Moslems should never initiate warfare against any other tribe/nation, but may only take up arms in self-defense.

Even after the slaughter in Jerusalem, it took another 70 years or so, numerous similar slaughters, and an attack on Mecca by an army of Crusaders before the Moslems began fighting in earnest to win back their land.

Nearly 1,000 years later: Karma.

I don't think Dubya disagrees, and anyone who disagrees is an idiot and I can honestly not say Christian. Love thy Neighbor was Christ's golden rule. And furthermore Christianity does have its flaws, but the flaws are not so troubling nor so vocal and prominent as those of Islam.

So let me get this straight.

Are you saying that the 3000 people who died on 9/11 deserved it because a crazy Pope decided to launch the Crusades a thousand years ago?

I wish people would stop bitching about the Crusades and comparing them to the politcal arena of now, they have ZERO bearing, apples and oranges. The World was a different place and you act has if the Muslims had no blood on their hands, not to mention your post is completely skewed to one side. Muslims were just as bad as the Christians, and it was warfare. Also the church was the focal point of the known world politcally, religiously, militarily, and culturally/socially... we figured out long ago that that doesn't work, the Muslims haven't.

Charlatan,

There is a huge difference between going door to door trying to hand out Biblical tracts and instructing your followers to kill unbelievers.

And I know of very few religions that don't try to convert other people or take the view point that they are "superior" (otherwise, what do they have to offer?)

Lebell... I think I made that point too... I just felt that it was neccessary to point out that Christianity is not innocent of proselytizing (often in very harsh ways).

As far as I can tell only Christianity and Islam seek to convert.

While you can convert to Buhdism, Seikism, Hinduism, Judaism, etc. They don't go out looking for converts.

No, I am not saying that we deserved 9/11 because of the Crusades. I was merely pointing out that during the Middle Ages Christianity was skewed by its followers and today Islam has been skewed by many of its followers.

I was also trying to show an historical perspective for the anti-European feelings held by most Moslems; feelings that have been reinforced by later European colonization of Moslem countries and, even more modernly, by support for brutal dictators and for Israel.

Nothing we do ever goes away. The South can't forget the Civil War after nearly 150 years. And that wasn't a war between different cultures and religions. The combatants were as close alike as could be, even blood relatives.

If Islam is your enemy, know your enemy. Or as Pogo says, "We have met our enemy and it is us."

I dunno, Lebell. Have you read some of those tracts? I'm of Christian upbringing, and I'm flat out ashamed of some of the nonsense those pieces of garbage peddle.

From one of Jack Chick's "Christian" comics:
The Beatles "opened up a Pandora's Box when they hit the U.S. with their Druid/rock beat." As their popularity grew (due to the hypnotizing, addictive "beat"), "they were able to turn our young people on to the eastern religions... the floodgates to witchcraft were opened... the U.S. will never recover... it was well planned."

http://www.revolting.com/1.2/chick/chick.html
(For more Jack Chick ridiculousness)

And hey, we protect groups that are roundly disliked by different groups of Americans, from the KKK, which few defend, to the MEChA folks, to the Christian Right, ACLU, NAACP, you name it. And don't forgot NAMBLA!

Actually, you can disregard an entire book of the bible in this case. Pretty much all christians belive that Jesus' death signifioes the sealing of a new covenant with God, replacing the old covenant marked by things like dietary regulations and complicated rules about ritual clenliness. Christians still accept the lessons in these books as important, but when they are specifically contridicted by Jesus they don't count anymore.

The prime examples of this are rules about the Sabbath, Dietary laws, and rules about ritual clenliness. In all of these cases Jesus and his disciples clearly break the laws of Moses, are challenged by the Pharisees, and Jesus says take a hike.

Obviously a commandment to hate all oter religions and a commandment to love your neighbor are contradictory, particularlly when the neighbor in Jesus' story is a Samaratin, someone of a somewhat different religion, and when Jesus shows love for gentiles (the story of the centurion). So in this case, Christians go with what Jesus says and love everyone, including people they think are going to hell. Or at leaast they are supposed to ;)

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't it on the road to Damascus that the covenant truly changes?

Sorry to threadjack...

No.

You are referring to the conversion of Saul/Paul.

The new covenent is made in the last supper.


Tom Servo,

Yes, unfortunately I have read Chick tracts and I would agree that they are an embarassment to Christianity.

I stand very corrected and embarrassed :eek:

Anyways, sorry for jacking the thread

I knew it was Paul/Saul on the road to Damascus but isn't that where it is told to Paul/Saul to take the message to gentiles?

The New Covenant at the last supper is not about forgetting to stay Kosher... no?

As I read it The Last Supper is the start of the new covenant and the conversion of Paul is the completion...

Much the way there are various covenants in the OT (Adam, Noah, Issac, Moses... all have different covenants with God, each one building on the previous).

Paul certainly was most responsible for preaching to the Gentiles, but the message was that there WAS a new covenant, as made by Jesus.

It is orthodoxy that the New Covenant is made explicitly at the last supper: