Salman Rushdie

[asifkhan]

Isn't it absurd how the U.K. government wants to encourage 'integration' and improve community relations with Muslims, and they then give Rushdie an OBE?!! (there is no empire anymore!)

Like a grateful slave, Rushdie gratefully accepts it.

The Iranian government made a good statement about the whole thing.

It's clear giving Rushdie this 'honour' is intended to stick two fingers up to Muslims worldwide.

Life is ok here in South Korea. I hope to get 2 years experience here and then move to Saudi, inshallah.

[Yasir]

He received a Knighthood, which is higher than both an OBE and CBE.
No prizes for guessing which of his books is considered the ultimate 'service to literature'.

[morbius]

I don't know about his other work, but I've read the "Satanic Verses", mostly out of curiorsity. I wondered what kind of a book gets its writer a death penalty. And I must say the book is surprisingly good, although maybe too long for no valid reason.
There are parts that could be understood as an insult to Islam, but the book is work of fiction, it doesn't claim to have anything with the truth, so I don't understand why did Iranian government get so worked up about it.

[Umm Ahmed]

I dont understand this award either , its for those who are deemed to be doing their bit for the country , what bit has he been doing.

Wonder what the reaction would be , if a gold badge was given to someone who they deemed a terrorist.

[Intoodeep]

Is this Blairs parting gift. You can tell hes not too keen on islam but maybe his hatred is as the Quran describes it:

"O You who believe! take not as (your) Bitânah (advisors, consultants, protectors, helpers, friends, etc.) those outside Your Religion (pagans, Jews, Christians, and hypocrites) since they will not fail to do their best to corrupt you. they desire to harm You severely. Hatred has already appeared from their mouths, but what their breasts conceal is far worse. indeed we have made plain to You the Ayât (proofs, evidences, verses) if You understand." [Quran 3:118]

They surely know that this is deeply offensive to muslims, yet they go ahead and do it. Maybe Allah is using them to expose to the hypocrites who bend over backwards to serve their masters that dont show walaa to such a disbelieving nation.

[gag order]

There are parts that could be understood as an insult to Islam, but the book is work of fiction, it doesn't claim to have anything with the truth

rushdie said:
What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist.

so he deliberately wrote the book to offend islam becos:
If I were asked for a one-sentence sound bite on religion, I would say I was against it.

he also said:
Be sure that you go to the author to get at his meaning, not to find yours.
i suppose the iranians have been trying to 'get at him' eversince!

[gag order]

I don't know about his other work, but I've read the "Satanic Verses", mostly out of curiorsity.

curiosity?
or were you looking for inspiration?

you ignored his other literary works and were interested only in the book that was offensive to islam

[gag order]

muslims strongly object to the parodical theme of satanic verses


The story of The Satanic Verses chronicles an ancient legend about the Prophet Muhammad, founder of the islamic religion. Legend has it that Muhammad, who received the Word of God directly from the Archangel Gabriel, was one day tricked by the devil into including satanic verses in the holy book of the Qur'an.
<!-- ValueClick Media 300x250 Medium Rectangle CODE for bookrags.com --><!-- pt language="javascript" src="http://media.fastclick.net/w/get.media?sid=3552&m=6&tp=8&d=j&t=s"></scri--><NOSCRIPT>http://forums.islamicawakening.com/ (http://media.fastclick.net/w/click.here?sid=3552&m=6&c=1)</NOSCRIPT>

Salman Rushdie's fictional version of this tale features the Prophet Mahound, founder of a religion called Submission (islam). The social and political pressures faced by the very human Mahound tempt him to speak false verses to the people of Jahilia in the hopes of gaining personal power and prestige. Mahound repents of his actions and recants the satanic verses. His disciples applaud his courage in standing up to the pressures placed upon him by the evil Grandee of Jahilia and his beautiful wife, Hind. As Mahound's power grows, he triumphs over his former enemies and all the citizens of Jahilia become his converts.

[morbius]

Rrushdie said:
What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist.
You used your freedom of expression to offend me many times on this forum. Yet, when Rushdie uses his freedom of expression different rules apply?

so he deliberately wrote the book to offend islam becos:
If I were asked for a one-sentence sound bite on religion, I would say I was against it.
Many fine writer were atheists, or opponents of organized religion. Why is Rusdie so different from them, except that he comes with Islamic background?

you ignored his other literary works and were interested only in the book that was offensive to islam
I was passing "Satanic Verses" for a long time, as I usualy do with books that are over 600 pages long, but finaly desided to give it a try.
Back then I had a lot more time, today I'm lucky if I get to read newspapers, let alone a book.

Salman Rushdie's fictional version of this tale features the Prophet Mahound, founder of a religion called Submission (islam). The social and political pressures faced by the very human Mahound tempt him to speak false verses to the people of Jahilia in the hopes of gaining personal power and prestige.
Actualy in the book Mahound mostly invents words of God as he goes along, but satanic verses are vispered in his ear by Gibril, one of the two main caracters in the book.
Book is writen in sur-realist style and Rushdie's writing mostly resembles some kind of crossover between Thomas Pinchon and Daglas Adams. If you read at least part of it you would see that the story is fantasy, although there are parts which are clearly parody to Islam.

[Brother_Mujahid]

It figures that our resident Serb war criminal defender would also be a fan of a second-rate writer like Salman Rushdie. One wonders if Morbid ever saw an Islamophobe that he didn't like.

[Um Abdullah M.]

talking about his satanic book
many years ago, my brother got it from library, I think he was just curious to see what he wrote.
so I took the book and read the first page, and I got sick of what he said, and couldn't continue reading it, when I looked at his picture on the back of the book he looked like a human devil, no surprise, for he is a human devil and his book is satanic.

if the first page made me sick to the point of not being able to continue reading the book, imagine how the rest of the book is.

[edited]

[morbius]

It figures that our resident Serb war criminal defender would also be a fan of a second-rate writer like Salman Rushdie.
You keep calling me like that, but when I ask why you always dodge the answer. Would you mind explaining yourself finaly?

And have you read any Rushdie's book so you can judge his talent?

[morbius]

so I took the book and read the first page, and I got sick of what he said, and couldn't continue reading it
If I remember correctly Mahaund is mentioned half way through the book. What is it that offended you so much on a first page?

when I looked at his picture on the back of the book he looked like a human devil
Well, Rushdie deffinitely is not a sight for sore eyes.

[WM]

Well, I haven't read anything by Rushdie, but since you say he is a cross between Pynchon and Douglas Adams (who I have read)...he must suck big time. The whole genre 'magic realism' sucks.

Anyway, I thought his reputation was based mainly (at least in the 80's) on Midnight's Children- whereas Satanic verses was neither a popular, nor a critical success.

[WM]

My opinion is that any book that's an allegory or an obvious satire on something is never actually a 'good book'. What might be good about these books is the concept, but not usually the book itself.

And Satanic Verses...just sucks.

[WM]

Check out my new signature ;)

[MosDef]

This fella has made millions out of the publicity we have given him.

[Abuz Zubair]

lol, good signature muhaqqiq!

[gag order]

You used your freedom of expression to offend me many times on this forum. Yet, when Rushdie uses his freedom of expression different rules apply?
the difference is, i didnt use freedom of expression to blaspheme - i hope that is understood? if you dont like bieng corrected ALL the time then simply dont post or at the very least have a coherent argument that is not too easily refuted..

There are parts that could be understood as an insult to Islam, but the book is work of fiction but you believe the parts that are insulting to islam and perhaps regard it as fact despite it bieng fiction?

[Abu Harun]

XXIX. THE SPURIOUS STORY OF THE "SATANIC VERSES"

I. SUMMARY OF THE STORY

II. THE QUR’ANIC EVIDENCE AGAINST THE STORY

III. THE REPORTS FAIL THE TESTS FOR GENUINENESS

IV. THE ORIGIN AND CURRENCY OF THE STORY EXPLAINED

Salman Rushdi Satanic V..pdf (http://yoctohost.com/Salman Rushdi Satanic V..pdf)

[Abuz Zubair]

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/4e7zeuXIcio"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/4e7zeuXIcio" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

More not-so-traditionalist garbage from an intellectual carrot.

[waziri]

SubhanaAllah even khomeni the filthy rafidi had a better understanding of the deen than this guy.

[Burning Candle]

Check out my new signature ;)

LOL!!! Brilliant!!

Apparantly there are some calls for Iqbal Sacranie to hand back his knighthood, especially since he was at the heart of the anti-Rushdie demos back in the day.

I quote Sir Iqbal:

"Death, perhaps, is a bit too easy for him? His mind must be tormented for the rest of his life unless he asks for forgiveness to Almighty Allah."

Doubt it will happen but probably the ideal time for him to redeem himself for accepting it in the first place.

[morbius]

This fella has made millions out of the publicity we have given him.

You are absolutely right. "Satanic Verses" is well written, but I wouldn't call it a masterpiece or anything like that. It's the reaction of Iranian government that made both the book and Rushdie so famous.

[Abuz Zubair]

You are absolutely right. "Satanic Verses" is well written, but I wouldn't call it a masterpiece or anything like that. It's the reaction of Iranian government that made both the book and Rushdie so famous.
At last we kind of agree.

[Shaghuri]

Im failing to see where T.J Winters is wrong here regarding Rushdie. If Rushdie was living in the U.K at the time, any such Fatwa calling for his death would inevitably involve someone violating a covenant they have with the government. If one says that he should have been killed there as a Hadd for his Ridda, then how is that different from those that use the Hadith of Kab b. al-Ahsraf to justify doing the same for any other fulan that insults the Nabi--sallallahu alayhi was sallam. Can you please enlighten?

As far as his claim regarding there not being any clear Qur'anic Dalil for the hadd of killing upon the Murtad, isnt he correct on that one?

[Abuz Zubair]

Dear brother, the entire section is about rejecting the classical/traditional position on hadd al-riddah is documented in the fiqh manuals of all sizes of all madhabs for the last 1400 years.

What does he mean by saying: 'there is no mention of it in the Quran'? Doesn't he know it is mentioned in explicit ahadeeth? Doesn't he know it is a matter of ijma? Surely the ijma' over it is more solid and confirmed than the so-called and supposed ijma on 3 talaq issue, over which he would accuse Ibn Taymiyya of deviating from traditional Islam!

This is the hypocrisy we are trying to point out.

In this section he is implying that the basis for hadd al-ridda was NOT the Quran, but that the opinion was merely a product of a certain time frame and context.

Why did he mention al-Azhar, the supposed leading Sunni Islamic institute rejecting Khumaini's fatwa? Was it just to do with the fatwa? Or was it to do with the Kitab hadd al-ridda that exists in blinking every single traditional fiqh manual?!

Do you even know what al-Azhar's stance actually is on this issue, and a host of issues that modernists have problems with? (such as usury, hijab, music, etc, etc - where they fully contradict the official traditionalist opinions as expressed and agreed upon by the four madhabs)

This is the hypocrisy we are trying to point out.

[morbius]

the difference is, i didnt use freedom of expression to blaspheme - i hope that is understood?

but you believe the parts that are insulting to islam and perhaps regard it as fact despite it bieng fiction?

There is a major difference between Christianity and Islam on this question, so I know it will be hard for you to understand our point of view.

While Muhamad told you not to allow blaspheme and punish those who do it if they don't repent, Jesus told us: "If your eye offends you, pluck it out." To us, offence is in the eye of the observer and we must try to be tolerant towards different opinions and ideas that we don't agree with. We are not allowed to judge on matters such as blaspheme, only God can do that.

That is why people with our mentality find so horrible an idea to kill the author because you don't like his book. For us, if you don't like a book because you find it blasphemous, simply don't read it. If you remember, there was a lot of fuss about "DaVinci Code", but no one proposed that we kill Dan Brown. :) Our ways are simply more tolerant.

In my mind, the greatest parody of Christianity was "Monty Payton's Life of Brian". Does that mean we should ban it? Of course not. Much like Rushdie, they told an interesting fictionate story that shows their ideas on religion.

[Abuz Zubair]

Jesus told us: "If your eye offends you, pluck it out." To us, offence is in the eye of the observer and we must try to be tolerant towards different opinions and ideas that we don't agree with. We are not allowed to judge on matters such as blaspheme, only God can do that.

Why did God order Moses to punish blasphemy with death?

Was the God of Moses horrible?

[justabro]

Why did God order Moses to punish blasphemy with death?

Was the God of Moses horrible?

Here's a trickier one, according to Christians, Jesus was the God of Moses (or 1/3 of him), and therefore, it was Jesus himself who ordered apostates and blasphemers be put to death.

[Abuz Zubair]

ROFL!

Brilliant!

[Brother_Mujahid]

Why did God order Moses to punish blasphemy with death?

Was the God of Moses horrible?

"And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death." (Lev. 24:16)

Those are the words of God in the Bible. If you read the whole chapter you will find God ordering Moses to execute a man who blasphemed. So this is the Law of God according to the Bible.

Oh, and what did Jesus say about the Law of God?

"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. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 5:17-19)

In other words Jesus agrees with Moses and the Islamic shari'ah and not with T. J. Winters and Morbius.

[Abd al-Haqq Marshall]

Im failing to see where T.J Winters is wrong here regarding Rushdie. If Rushdie was living in the U.K at the time, any such Fatwa calling for his death would inevitably involve someone violating a covenant they have with the government. If one says that he should have been killed there as a Hadd for his Ridda, then how is that different from those that use the Hadith of Kab b. al-Ahsraf to justify doing the same for any other fulan that insults the Nabi--sallallahu alayhi was sallam. Can you please enlighten?

As far as his claim regarding there not being any clear Qur'anic Dalil for the hadd of killing upon the Murtad, isnt he correct on that one?

What if that person was born in England? That person was born a citizen and never had a "covenant" to begin with (ie. that person didn't choose to be born there). I hate the automatic assumption that people like you make that all Muslims in a non-Muslim country are immigrants.

[Suhaib Jobst]

I hate the automatic assumption that people like you make that all Muslims in a non-Muslim country are immigrants.

Another thing that annoys me, is whenever the media talks about the Muslim communities in the West, it refers to immigrants and children of immigrants. What about converts? One gets the impression it doesn't serve their purposes to admit how there are a growing number of people in our societies who have (and continue to) embraced Islam as their Deen, thus rejecting the materialist ways of Kuffar and refuting the propaganda of those who would want to link Islam to the cultural traditions or expressions of other peoples.

The objective is to present Islam as a Religion which has no relevance for the larger society, to continue to widen the gap between Muslims and Westerners, and to suppress the inherent appeal of Islamic solutions to our societal ills. Like other ideologies built upon a taghut, their goal is to divide the people and convince them Islam is "foreign" and "backward", having no relevance for the "modern" world or the "civilized" mores of the industrialized countries.

They clearly have a vested interest in extinguishing the light of Islam, through their limited efforts as human beings. May Allah (Azza wa-Jall) expose and aid us to defeat their plots. Ameen.

"They intend to put out the Light of Allah (i.e, the religion of Islam) with their mouths. But Allah will bring His Light to perfection even though the disbelievers hate it." [61:8]

[Abuz Zubair]

Another thing that annoys me, is whenever the media talks about the Muslim communities in the West, it refers to immigrants and children of immigrants.

And then they expect us to integrate.

What about converts? Yeah... what about them? I guess, converts should start making more noise!

[Shaghuri]

What if that person was born in England? That person was born a citizen and never had a "covenant" to begin with (ie. that person didn't choose to be born there). I hate the automatic assumption that people like you make that all Muslims in a non-Muslim country are immigrants.

So what if he was born in England? Does that then mean that because he never entered with a covenant that he can apply the Hadd of Ridda on someone like Rushdie? People like me? Lol! I am a convert brother.

[morbius]

Oh, and what did Jesus say about the Law of God?

"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. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 5:17-19)


True, those are Jesus' own words, as recorded by Matthew. However, from Jesus' actions we can clearly see that he went many times against Moses' law, like when he stopped the stoning of a prostitute.

Again, you shouldn't forget that Jesus attacked Jewish priests claiming that they fallow the letter of the law, but not it's essence. In Jesus' teaching love was put as the basis of society, while in Moses' it was law.

[morbius]

Why did God order Moses to punish blasphemy with death?

Was the God of Moses horrible?

If you have read the Old Testament, you would have noticed one thing – whenever Jews do something that could be described as horrible or immoral, it is always because God told them to do it. Jews slaughtered Philistine women and children - God told them to do it. David killed his predecessor and stole his throne - God told him to do it. Jakob tricked his father and killed his brother - God told him to do it.
What really God told to Jews and what they claim that he told are often two different things. Most historians agree that parts about Moses' life were added into Old Testament much later, so they should be taken with a huge grain of salt. Whenever words of Jesus clash with the words of Old testament, I listen to Jesus.

Also, do not forget a possibility that God changed much when He saw the world through the eyes of Jesus.

[Umm Ahmed]

Also, do not forget a possibility that God changed much when He saw the world through the eyes of Jesus

I'll tell you Morbius this has to be one of your silliest quotes to date, are you saying God only saw the world through a phrophets eyes ?

[gag order]

More not-so-traditionalist garbage from an intellectual carrot.

he is very sufisticated...

[MosDef]

LOL @ sufisticated.

Very good

[salafiya]

Most historians agree that parts about Moses' life were added into Old Testament much later, so they should be taken with a huge grain of salt. Whenever words of Jesus clash with the words of Old testament, I listen to Jesus.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't most historians say that the Bible was written down much later as well (and it's still being revised - eg. King's James version of the Bible). So why don't you take the Bible with a grain of salt as well? (btw, the Torah and the Bible were both correct at one point as they were God's Words. But then they were corrupted. Only the Qur'aan remains uncorrupted because Allaah has promised to preserve it)

Also, do not forget a possibility that God changed much when He saw the world through the eyes of Jesus.

Ummmmm, you're saying that God isn't perfect? :S You basically said that twice in your statement.

1.) "God changed much" - Why would God need to change in the first place? Is He not Perfect?

2.) "saw the world through the eyes of Jesus." - So according to you, God was not All-Knowing? He had to see the world through His other form (according to your false view that Jesus is God or a part of God or the son of God) in order to come to the correct understanding? I think that perhaps you have committed blasphemy even according to your own religion.

[Ibn Adam]

Also, do not forget a possibility that God changed much when He saw the world through the eyes of Jesus.

So God created a world He didn't understand and it was only through viewing His creation through the eyes of part of His creation that He finally began to understand it?

You have a very strange concept of God!

[morbius]

I'll tell you Morbius this has to be one of your silliest quotes to date, are you saying God only saw the world through a phrophets eyes ?

Come, come, Umm-Agmed...
You used to be Christian, you know that we believe that Jesus was more than just a prophet.

[morbius]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't most historians say that the Bible was written down much later as well (and it's still being revised - eg. King's James version of the Bible). So why don't you take the Bible with a grain of salt as well? (btw, the Torah and the Bible were both correct at one point as they were God's Words. But then they were corrupted. Only the Qur'aan remains uncorrupted because Allaah has promised to preserve it)
You are right, but only if one accepts that Quran really is the devine message.


Ummmmm, you're saying that God isn't perfect? :S You basically said that twice in your statement.

1.) "God changed much" - Why would God need to change in the first place? Is He not Perfect?

2.) "saw the world through the eyes of Jesus." - So according to you, God was not All-Knowing? He had to see the world through His other form (according to your false view that Jesus is God or a part of God or the son of God) in order to come to the correct understanding? I think that perhaps you have committed blasphemy even according to your own religion.
No, I personaly do not think that God is perfect, although I can't be sure.

[morbius]

So God created a world He didn't understand and it was only through viewing His creation through the eyes of part of His creation that He finally began to understand it?


Think of it this way:
Your parents have created you, but do they know your thoughts and feelings better than you do?


And how about we go back to Salman Rushdie? We have wondered far into off-topic.

[Brother_Mujahid]

True, those are Jesus' own words, as recorded by Matthew. However, from Jesus' actions we can clearly see that he went many times against Moses' law, like when he stopped the stoning of a prostitute.

Again, you shouldn't forget that Jesus attacked Jewish priests claiming that they fallow the letter of the law, but not it's essence. In Jesus' teaching love was put as the basis of society, while in Moses' it was law.

Did he stop the stoning of the prostitute because he thought the hadd for zina (adultery) was wrong? Or was he just exposing the hypocrisy of the Pharisees and rabbis, many who were guilty of the same sin?

Morbius, you seem to only want to pick from the Bible that which suits your agenda and ignore anything that doesn't. You are the embodiment of intellectual dishonesty.

So would Jesus endorse the stoning of blasphemers? You better believe he would.

P.S. Morbius, you might want to stay away from arguing about theological issues as you obviously haven't a clue what you are talking about and you are making yourself look even more foolish then you already are.

[justabro]

So God created a world He didn't understand and it was only through viewing His creation through the eyes of part of His creation that He finally began to understand it?

You have a very strange concept of God!

This is why Allah always reminds us in the Qur'an

وَلَقَدْ خَلَقْنَا السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضَ وَمَا بَيْنَهُمَا فِي سِتَّةِ أَيَّامٍ وَمَا مَسَّنَا مِنْ لُغُوبٍ

"We have created the Heavens, the Earth, and what is between them in six days, and no fatigue touched us"

Because these Judaeo-Christians say He had to rest. Then, when it comes to the Prophets, they accuse them of all sorts of horrible things, so the Qur'an always makes comments about the Prophets such as:

وكان من الصالحين
"...and he was of the righteous"

I used to wonder about statements like this one in particular: "Of course he was of the righteous, he was a prophet..."

and then I realized, the Ahl al-Kitab have accused them of all sorts of horrible things, so its necessary to establish that they were righteous

[Ibn Adam]

Think of it this way:
Your parents have created you, but do they know your thoughts and feelings better than you do?

That's another strange analogy.

Why do you find it difficult to separate between the abilities of human beings and the ability of the One who created them (God)?

Your concept of God seems to be of a being who is imperfect, limited and even powerless.

If God creates and then has no ability to understand His creation doesn't that mean that there is a knowledge with His creation that is not with Him?

How can this concept of God that you hold stand up to anything, when there are now [in this understanding] multiple beings all with unique capabilities?

Now we're back to polytheism rather than a single power in the universe.

Rather, what is totally rational and even lay people who haven't been taught any set of beliefs will conclude is that the Creator is indeed fully aware of and has absolute power over all of His creation.

Monotheism is actually very simple to understand it's polytheism that runs in endless contradicting questions.

[Umm Ahmed]

Come, come, Umm-Agmed...
You used to be Christian, you know that we believe that Jesus was more than just a prophet.


But I know better now dont I. So your a catholic ?

[morbius]

Did he stop the stoning of the prostitute because he thought the hadd for zina (adultery) was wrong? Or was he just exposing the hypocrisy of the Pharisees and rabbis, many who were guilty of the same sin?
Neither. He stopped it to show us that killing is wrong.

Morbius, you seem to only want to pick from the Bible that which suits your agenda and ignore anything that doesn't. You are the embodiment of intellectual dishonesty.
Me? You are the one trying to rip sentences out of of Bible to support your beliefs. If you have read the whole book you would have much better insight into Jesus' intentions and teachings.

The fact is: although they claim continuity, Jesus spoke differently than Moses, Muhamad spoke differently than Jesus. In the end, it is up to you to choose who among them you want to believe.

So would Jesus endorse the stoning of blasphemers? You better believe he would.
Not a chance. If you read the Bible, you would know.

[Abd al-Haqq Marshall]

Neither. He stopped it to show us that killing is wrong.


First off, it was an adulteress, not a prostitute. Second, those passages called the Pericope de Adultera (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pericope_de_Adultera), are not found in any of the earliest surviving manuscripts of St. John's Gospel.

The pericope is not found in any of the earliest surviving Gospel manuscripts; neither in the two 3rd century papyrus witnesses to John - P66 and P75; nor in the 4th century Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus. The first surviving Greek manuscript witness to the pericope is the Latin/Greek diglot Codex Bezae of the fifth century. However, Saint Jerome reports that he found the pericope in many (though not all) Greek and Latin manuscripts in Rome, and accordingly included it in the Latin Vulgate around 384. Following the Vulgate, the passage rapidly became universal in Latin Gospel manuscripts, in its canonical place in the Gospel of John; and many other Latin Church Fathers - Augustine, Ambrose, Pacian - comment on the pericope.- Taken from wikipedia

Checkmate.

[Brother_Mujahid]

Again, morbius, you haven't provided evidence to support your fraudulent claims. Did Jesus say that the hudud was wrong, even in the corrupted Bible? You will not find one place. Did Jesus endorse the Law of God revealed to the prophet Moses, which includes the punishment of stoning for blasphemy? According the Bible, he did.

Again, I will state, Jesus endorsed the ruling of God that the blasphemer should be stoned.

Morbius, you are speaking purely from your desires, that much is obvious. I mean, you believe in a god that is ignorant, powerless, and impotent because this fits with your vulgar desires (sounds like an old Greek deity). So stop trying to hide your paganism behind some veneer of veneration for Jesus, as he is free from you and all the nonsense that you believe.

And again, don't bother arguing theology as you have no clue what you are talking about. Some of us here are ex-Christians and have taken to the time to read St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas and Martin Luther and thus have some grounding in Western theological studies. Your grounding is just to pull random things out of a hat.

[morbius]

Your concept of God seems to be of a being who is imperfect, limited and even powerless.
Actualy, Christian vision of God is a lot more logical to me than the Muslim one, to be honest.
In the Muslim version of things, God is like a little child, with all the human emotions. He demands absolute obidience, he demands sheding blood, he is easily offended and vengeful. He shakes the world yelling: "I am king here" :D I always smile when I hear that one.
We see God as a loving father who wants his children to live in peace and love with each other.

If God creates and then has no ability to understand His creation doesn't that mean that there is a knowledge with His creation that is not with Him?
Possibly. Who could say?
You must realise that Christianity is not like Islam that claims to have all the answers.

How can this concept of God that you hold stand up to anything, when there are now [in this understanding] multiple beings all with unique capabilities?
Jesus mentioned on couple occasions Father, Son and Holly Spirit as three parts of One God, but never explained how that realy works. For instance, he said : "He who blasphemes against the Father will be forgiven, and he who blasphemes against the Son will be forgiven, but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven either on earth or in heaven." (Thomas, 44)
Every brand of Christianity has its own view on Trinity, some even reject it completely. But all their conclusions on this subject are just guesses, no better than the ones you or I could conjure up. The fact is that Jesus never explained nature of God, so we simply don't know.

[Abd al-Haqq Marshall]

Actualy, Christian vision of God is a lot more logical to me than the Muslim one, to be honest.
In the Muslim version of things, God is like a little child, with all the human emotions. He demands absolute obidience, he demands sheding blood, he is easily offended and vengeful. He shakes the world yelling: "I am king here" :D I always smile when I hear that one.
We see God as a loving father who wants his children to live in peace and love with each other.


No, Christians see God as a schizophrenic with three personalities. Sometimes he's the insanely vengeful, somewhat incompetant father, sometimes he's the self-sacrificial, pacifist son, and sometimes he's a vague etherial spirit who makes people go "speak in tongues".

[morbius]

First off, it was an adulteress, not a prostitute. Second, those passages called the Pericope de Adultera (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pericope_de_Adultera), are not found in any of the earliest surviving manuscripts of St. John's Gospel.

The pericope is not found in any of the earliest surviving Gospel manuscripts; neither in the two 3rd century papyrus witnesses to John - P66 and P75; nor in the 4th century Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus. The first surviving Greek manuscript witness to the pericope is the Latin/Greek diglot Codex Bezae of the fifth century. However, Saint Jerome reports that he found the pericope in many (though not all) Greek and Latin manuscripts in Rome, and accordingly included it in the Latin Vulgate around 384. Following the Vulgate, the passage rapidly became universal in Latin Gospel manuscripts, in its canonical place in the Gospel of John; and many other Latin Church Fathers - Augustine, Ambrose, Pacian - comment on the pericope.- Taken from wikipedia


Interesting, I didn't know this. OK, this biblical story should be taken with some reserve, because its authenticity is doubtful.

[morbius]

Again, I will state, Jesus endorsed the ruling of God that the blasphemer should be stoned.
OK, show me a single place in the entire Bible where Jesus allowed any sinner to be punished. In fact, show me a single place where Jesus allowed any harm to come to anybody, if you can.

And again, don't bother arguing theology as you have no clue what you are talking about. Some of us here are ex-Christians and have taken to the time to read St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas and Martin Luther and thus have some grounding in Western theological studies. Your grounding is just to pull random things out of a hat.

By "some of us" you mean yourself? No offence, but I very much doubt that you've read any of the authors you mention.

[morbius]

No, Christians see God as a schizophrenic with three personalities. Sometimes he's the insanely vengeful, somewhat incompetant father, sometimes he's the self-sacrificial, pacifist son, and sometimes he's a vague etherial spirit who makes people go "speak in tongues".

Compared to your God who shakes the world histericaly yelling, our God is a picture of mental health. :D :D :D

But, let's keep this serious, shell we?

[gag order]

And how about we go back to Salman Rushdie? We have wondered far into off-topic.

And I must say the book is surprisingly good, although maybe too long for no valid reason.

i think you have said enough already...

[gag order]

hang on,

God who shakes the world histericaly yelling, our God is a picture of mental health

so god is yelling "our god is a picture of mental health"

???

[Brother_Mujahid]

OK, show me a single place in the entire Bible where Jesus allowed any sinner to be punished. In fact, show me a single place where Jesus allowed any harm to come to anybody, if you can.

I showed you his words to demonstrate what he endorsed, but you chose to reject them because they aren't in accordance with your selfish desires.

By "some of us" you mean yourself? No offence, but I very much doubt that you've read any of the authors you mention.

Doubt away, if you doubt the words of God and his prophets, who am I in comparison? The fact remains that I spent many ours in my youth skimming through "The City of God" and "Aquinas: Selected Writings", you obviously haven't.

Compared to your God who shakes the world histericaly yelling, our God is a picture of mental health.

So how do you explain God destroying Sodom and Gomorrah or the Egyptian armies of the Pharaoh? Our do you reject those because they don't appeal to your craven desires? Or how about God as depicted in the Revelation of St. John? Or should I just take it you haven't read the Bible either?

[justabro]

But I know better now dont I. So your a catholic ?

He's a Serb, and therefore most likely Eastern Orthodox.

[salafiya]

Actualy, Christian vision of God is a lot more logical to me than the Muslim one, to be honest.
In the Muslim version of things, God is like a little child, with all the human emotions. He demands absolute obidience, he demands sheding blood, he is easily offended and vengeful. He shakes the world yelling: "I am king here" :D I always smile when I hear that one.
We see God as a loving father who wants his children to live in peace and love with each other.


You idiot...fool! How dare you say that?! If I was admin I'd ban you for insulting your Creator. Not only are you completely stupid in terms of Islaam, I think you're ignorant of your own religion.

And it has already been revealed to you in the Book (this Qur'ān) that when you hear the Verses of Allāh being denied and mocked at, then sit not with them, until they engage in a talk other than that; (but if you stayed with them) certainly in that case you would be like them. Surely, Allāh will collect the hypocrites and disbelievers all together in Hell, (An-Nisa 4:140)

May Allaah guide you, Morbius. Ameen

[Brother_Mujahid]

Ironic, mock and revile Islam and you get knighted, like Salman Rushdie. Whereas historian David Irving was left by the British government to rot in jail because he questioned some of the tenets of the Zionists' Holocaust cult.

[justabro]

Ironic, mock and revile Islam and you get knighted, like Salman Rushdie. Whereas historian David Irving was left by the British government to rot in jail because he questioned some of the tenets of the Zionists' Holocaust cult.

David Irving is rotting in a prison cell... Salman Rushdie has a seat in Hell with his name on it : )

[gag order]

Karen Pollock, chief executive of the UK's Holocaust Educational Trust said:

Holocaust denial is anti-Semitism dressed up as intellectual debate. It should be regarded as such and treated as such

'satanic verses' and 'infidel' is islamophobia dressed up as intellectual debate it should be regarded as such and treated as such (3 years behind bars)

[morbius]

I showed you his words to demonstrate what he endorsed, but you chose to reject them because they aren't in accordance with your selfish desires.
Bah, once one racist tried to prove that interracial merriages go against Christianity. You see, old Jewish laws were banning such marriages and Jesus said that he is fighting to preserve devine law, so marrying members of other races is not permissable. As you can see, you are not the only one who tries to interpret those Jesus' words the way it suits his beliefs.

I ask you here: Did Jesus ever allow any sinner to be punished? NO!
Instead he gave them his time and patience, saving them from their sinful lives, completely different from Islamic cut-their-heads-cut-their-hands ways.

Doubt away, if you doubt the words of God and his prophets, who am I in comparison? The fact remains that I spent many ours in my youth skimming through "The City of God" and "Aquinas: Selected Writings", you obviously haven't.
Personaly, I find it very strange that a person so intolerant as you could ever be a Christian. OK, maybe one of those nominal Christians that you can see on the street every day, bot not one of those Christians who search for knowledge in the books of Christian philosophers.

So how do you explain God destroying Sodom and Gomorrah or the Egyptian armies of the Pharaoh? Our do you reject those because they don't appeal to your craven desires? Or how about God as depicted in the Revelation of St. John? Or should I just take it you haven't read the Bible either?
I told you already - what Jews say that happened and what really happened are often two completely different things. You can ask Palestinians if you don't believe me.
If Jesus says that God loves us and wants us to be peaceful and tolerant to other people, that's good enough for me.

[gag order]

If Jesus says that God loves us and wants us to be peaceful and tolerant to other people, that's good enough for me.

wasnt good enough for you church though was it. your orthodox preists were intrumental in rallying your nation to the cause of nationalism and ethnic cleansing..

[morbius]

wasnt good enough for you church though was it. your orthodox preists were intrumental in rallying your nation to the cause of nationalism and ethnic cleansing..

Not at all. The very idea that orthodox church would approve of war crimes is absurd. Of all the Christian churches, Orthodox has kept the most from the original Christianity, in my opinion.
I'm not saying that Orthodox church never had decisions that I don't approve of, but its record looks much better than record of many others.

[Brother_Mujahid]

Personaly, I find it very strange that a person so intolerant as you could ever be a Christian. OK, maybe one of those nominal Christians that you can see on the street every day, bot not one of those Christians who search for knowledge in the books of Christian philosophers.

So I'm the intolerant one? Your the one who obviously cannot stand the fact the someone would reject your silly view points and will actually call you on your crap. A little bit of prejection going on here?

As for the Christian philosophers, they were bigots themselves. Since you obvious haven't read them, I'll tell you that Augustine of Hippo was as intolerant as they come and this is seen in his views of Jews, Manicheans, and "heretical" Christian sects. Also, Christians have no shortage of bigots and hatemongers (take a look at your pal, the late Jerry Falwell or your heros the Serbs).

Face it morbid, you are every much the intolerant bigot that you accuse me of being. The difference being I don't try to hide my hatred for your paganism behind a veneer of tolerance and free speech. You on the other hand are so overwhelmed by your own arrogance and condescending behavior that you feel yourself intellectually superior to everyone not as "enlightened" as you.

[Abd al-Haqq Marshall]

A Serb trying to lecture anyone on being peaceful and civilized is ludicrous.

[gag order]

Instead he gave them his time and patience, saving them from their sinful lives, completely different from Islamic cut-their-heads-cut-their-hands ways.

the leading christian nation of our time has a 'death row' and routinely execute sinners...

[morbius]

So I'm the intolerant one? Your the one who obviously cannot stand the fact the someone would reject your silly view points and will actually call you on your crap. A little bit of prejection going on here?
So, I who call on peace and love am the intolerant one?
While you who call for killing are the tolerant one?
Strange...

Christians have no shortage of bigots and hatemongers
Bigots and hatemongers are present in every nation, race and creed. They are not something unique for Christianity.

Face it morbid, you are every much the intolerant bigot that you accuse me of being.
Pure projection.
You want to think that everyone is intolerant and as full of hatered as you, but truth is different. Christianity clearly was not religion for you.

The difference being I don't try to hide my hatred for your paganism behind a veneer of tolerance and free speech.
True Christian feels no hate. It is only when you give up your negative feelings that you reach true inner harmony. It is quite a wonderful feeling.
But you instead chose to hold on to that hate and found religion that can chanel it. Disappointing, but it was to be expected.

When I call for tolerance and free speach, there is no hidden motive behind it. We need tolerance to live in peace and we need free spach to understand each other better. I know that neither peace nor understanding are the things you want, you believe only in hate, that's what guides you. Sad.:(

[morbius]

the leading christian nation of our time has a 'death row' and routinely execute sinners...

And how many others? Capital punishment doesn't exist any more anywhere in Europe.

When it comes to religion, Americans have always been little nuts, mostly because the first English settlers were Puritans, a very nasty Christian sect.

[WM]

Projection? Surely you're the one who idolises secular humanism, and then calls it 'Christianity'?

[Abu_Abdillah2000]

Morbius, why do you continue on this forum when you already know that your ideas are point-blank rejected by everyone here? Aren't you just wasting your time? Don't you have anything better or more productive to do?

[MosDef]

Maybe those not capable of Dawah should refrain from talking with this guy i.e. people like me :)

Even though he maybe attacking us with his words Allah (swt) can guide whom he wills.

So Islam should be portrayed as it is.

Waslam

[morbius]

Projection? Surely you're the one who idolises secular humanism, and then calls it 'Christianity'?

Secular system of government in European countries does have roots in Christianity, much like system of government in Muslim lands stems from Islam.

However, religion and state have to be separated, allowing clergy to meddle into running the country always led to mess.

[morbius]

Morbius, why do you continue on this forum when you already know that your ideas are point-blank rejected by everyone here? Aren't you just wasting your time? Don't you have anything better or more productive to do?

I keep asking myself the same question. I've already found out what I needed to know, so why do I keep wasting my time here?

[Brother_Mujahid]

Yes, morbius, you and your Serb friends seemed to have so much tolerance for the Bosnian Muslims.

Again, morbius, you aren't tolerant and your claims to "peace and love" are just a covering. Where was your Christian "peace and love" in Bosnia and Kosovo and Chechnya? You seem quick to condemn Muslims, when your own orthodox Christian brethern are killing and raping helpless Muslims.

Who unleashed the most vicious wars of aggression against defenseless people in Guatemala, Vietnam, Laos, Indonesia, Libya, Lebanon, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Panama, Iraq, and Afghanistan? Where was your peace and tolerance then?

Yet you come on here with your smug and self-superior attitude lectures us about tolerance and love and your pagan theology. I say to you morbius, why don't you go preach this message to your Serb and Russian brothers. Doctor, heal thyself.

[WM]

"Secular system of government in European countries does have roots in Christianity, much like system of government in Muslim lands stems from Islam."

This is a ridiculous claim. Christian governments, from Constantine to not so long ago in history believed the exact opposite. Secularism is without doubt a recent heresy of the Catholic, Orthodox and other Churches.

[morbius]

Yes, morbius, you and your Serb friends seemed to have so much tolerance for the Bosnian Muslims.

Again, morbius, you aren't tolerant and your claims to "peace and love" are just a covering. Where was your Christian "peace and love" in Bosnia and Kosovo and Chechnya? You seem quick to condemn Muslims, when your own orthodox Christian brethern are killing and raping helpless Muslims.

Yet you come on here with your smug and self-superior attitude lectures us about tolerance and love and your pagan theology. I say to you morbius, why don't you go preach this message to your Serb and Russian brothers. Doctor, heal thyself.

15 years ago I was speaking publicaly against war in former Yugoslavia, about brotherly love and tolerance, but no one wanted to listen to me. And how history repeats, again I speak of tolerance and again no one listens to me.
There is huge potential for evil in men and it is so easy to let it overtake our mind. All it takes is one figure of authority to lead people to path of intolerance and most will fallow, like sheep.

Who unleashed the most vicious wars of aggression against defenseless people in Guatemala, Vietnam, Laos, Indonesia, Libya, Lebanon, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Panama, Iraq, and Afghanistan? Where was your peace and tolerance then?
I'm surprised that you haven't figured out by now that world is not run by Christians, Jews or someone else, world is run by almighty GREED. It's been like that long since before people realised that God is one and I fear it will never change. It's the greed that starts most wars, directly or indirectly. Greed for money, greed for power, greed for pleasure.

[morbius]

This is a ridiculous claim. Christian governments, from Constantine to not so long ago in history believed the exact opposite. Secularism is without doubt a recent heresy of the Catholic, Orthodox and other Churches.
Care to explain further what you meant by this?

[Brother_Mujahid]

15 years ago I was speaking publicaly against war in former Yugoslavia, about brotherly love and tolerance, but no one wanted to listen to me. And how history repeats, again I speak of tolerance and again no one listens to me.

Yah, you spoke against the Bosnians defending themselves from the ruthless aggression of the Serbs and Croats. They should have just rolled over and accepted Serbian oppression, right?

I'm surprised that you haven't figured out by now that world is not run by Christians, Jews or someone else, world is run by almighty GREED. It's been like that long since before people realised that God is one and I fear it will never change. It's the greed that starts most wars, directly or indirectly. Greed for money, greed for power, greed for pleasure.

Did I mention Christianity in relation to those specific conflicts? Why, no I didn't. Rather I was exposing your hypocritical claims about Western love and tolerance, the same love and tolerance that allows Salman Rushdie to be knighted for mocking Islam while bombing Afghani women and children. You can keep your "love and tolerance", we don't want any part of it.

[WM]

I think what I'm saying is pretty self-evident.

The claim that Christianity is inherently secularist is not true, insofar as Christianity is represented by the first several centuries of its followers. The persecution of heresy is an obvious example of anti-secular governmental interference. Yet, this tradition has old origins in the politics of Christian states, and has had tremendous longevity. In fact, though by the time of the European Enlightenment persecution of heresy was beginning to die down, it could still affect the lives and careers of men. Hence, Hume's 'Dialogues' were suppressed, and he was barred from presitigious teaching positions. This is not secularism.

In fact, what I've said isn't dissimilar to what Althusser says in 'Ideology and State Apparatus', which posits that every social formation must, in order to perpetuate its existence, reproduce the conditions of production. In Medieval times, he says, the main ideological state apparatus was the Christian Church, which had a monopoly over education, 'culture' etc. Hence, with the Enlightenment, the main debate surrounded issues such as God, the rationality (or otherwise) of Religion etc. Every state legitimised its existence with a church.


We see that the implementation of secularism in a society has as its sine qua non the prevalence of indifference/non-orthodox opinions towards religious belief. That's why America, among all the nations of the West, has the greatest claim to secularism. Whatever the state of the initial colonists, there is no doubt that by the time of the declaration of Independence, the intellectual and political elite of the Colonists was firmly anti-Established Church. Many, such as Jefferson himself, were Deists (=not even Christians at all); many of America’s most revered political figures professed the same, apparently.

The Judaeo-Christian tradition is only one strand of thought that informs you and the 'West'. There are a hundred other, often anti-religious strands, that contribute just as much, if not more.

[gag order]

15 years ago I was speaking publicaly against war in former Yugoslavia, about brotherly love and tolerance, but no one wanted to listen to me. And how history repeats, again I speak of tolerance and again no one listens to me.
why are you such a liar?
why make up a lie like that?


There is huge potential for evil in men and it is so easy to let it overtake our mind
your mind especially has a far greater potential for evil and is prone to incoherent and racialist arguments. you came here to ridicule and find fault with islam and dispute with muslims under the guise of bieng 'curious' but you were quickly unravelled...

[gag order]

under the pretext of 'freedom of speech' muslim sensitivities can be criticised and ridiculed yet the same freedom of speech cannot be expressed against jewish sensitivities without it bieng a punishable offence...

[morbius]

Yah, you spoke against the Bosnians defending themselves from the ruthless aggression of the Serbs and Croats. They should have just rolled over and accepted Serbian oppression, right?
I told you before that you have no idea what went on in Bosnia, you know only what CNN wanted you to know.

People there lived in great harmony and majority on all sides was simply refusing to take arms against their brothers, despite all the propaganda of their leaders. That left huge space for negotiations before the war and while conflict was still in its low intensity phase.

Serbs and Croats wanted division of Bosnia along the ethnic lines. Muslim government wanted unitary Bosnia with centralized government, thus insuring Muslim domination in the new formed country. In the end, compromise was found that was agreeable to all. Bosnia was supposed to be divided into ethnic cantons, like Switzerland. Cantons would be a lot like states in USA and mostly govern themselves, but matters such as army, financial politics and foreign affairs would be in the hands of the joint federal government. And then, all of a sudden, Muslims reject the treaty that they already agreed upon, no doubt under the influence of US.
And how did war end? Bosnia was divided along the ethnic lines. Muslims got even less than they were originally offered. Some sort of joint government exists, but it has practically no authority and it doesn't function. Hatred was created among the people, killing the hope that Bosnia could again be what it was.

For a moment, it looked like there might be some hope. Feeling bad when they learned about atrocities that happened during the war, Serbs agreed to pass even more jurisdiction to joint government than it was originally agreed upon in the peace treaty as a gesture of good will. But Muslim government apparently took that as a sign of weakness and demanded full dismantling of Serbian Republic. Muslim president Haris Silajdzic even accused Serbs of being “genocidal nation”. That about did it for the Serbs in Bosnia and they are now calling for full secession. Country has no future and will eventually fall apart.

Did I mention Christianity in relation to those specific conflicts? Why, no I didn't. Rather I was exposing your hypocritical claims about Western love and tolerance.

Don't expect any love from the US or UK government. Politicians know no love, they only know interests. They care about their oil companies, not about lives of Muslims.

But you can find a lot of love and kindness in the hearts of ordinary men and women, but you must know how to appeal to them. During the NATO bombing here, my acquaintances from America called me to ask me if I'm alright and to tell me they don't agree with their government on it.
In the common people lies a great pool of good will, but you must know how to tap it. Needless to say, bombings won't do it.

[morbius]

The claim that Christianity is inherently secularist is not true, insofar as Christianity is represented by the first several centuries of its followers. The persecution of heresy is an obvious example of anti-secular governmental interference. Yet, this tradition has old origins in the politics of Christian states, and has had tremendous longevity. In fact, though by the time of the European Enlightenment persecution of heresy was beginning to die down, it could still affect the lives and careers of men. Hence, Hume's 'Dialogues' were suppressed, and he was barred from presitigious teaching positions. This is not secularism.
Christianity is not in its nature secular, what made you think that? I am saying that secularism is not against Christianity.
As you have mentioned yourself, Christianity used to persecute heretics while it had hold on government, even though religious persecution goes against the very teachings of Jesus! Power creates all sorts of deviances, that's why church must not be given power to rule. Secularism does just that, leaves church to tend to religious needs of the people, but puts it out of the government.

[Brother_Mujahid]

I told you before that you have no idea what went on in Bosnia, you know only what CNN wanted you to know.

And what does CNN want me to know about Bosnia? I haven't a clue what CNN thinks about Bosnia, nor do I really care. No, morbius, I obtained my knowledge about Bosnia from the Bosnian Muslims themselves (and I know many).

I know you'd like to think that you are the only one who knows anything about any given topic, but I'm sorry to say some of do know what goes on in the world and don't need CNN to tell us (besides, I prefer MSNBC myself).

Get over yourself morbius, there is a bigger world than your intellectual self-satisfaction.

[morbius]

And what does CNN want me to know about Bosnia? I haven't a clue what CNN thinks about Bosnia, nor do I really care. No, morbius, I obtained my knowledge about Bosnia from the Bosnian Muslims themselves (and I know many).


Try to talk with a secular, level-headed Muslim from Bosnia, not only with fanatics blinded by hatred, like yourself. They might tell you a whole different story.

Cold hard truth is: Serbs (Croats also) wanted an autonomous entity inside Bosnia on the territories where they represented majority population. Purpose of it would be to allow Serbs to govern themselves, because leading Muslim party (SDA) who won on the elections made it clear from the start that it cares only about interests of Muslims and not all the inhabitants of Bosnia.
Muslim government on the other hand insisted on strongly centralized type of government for Bosnia, because it would allow Muslim majority to fully control all the country.

Could the war have been avoided? Yes, easily. In fact, it would have been much easier to avoid the war then to start it. But intolerant hot-heads like yourself have been in power and what happened, happened.

You are a weekend Mujahedeen, you surf the net and watch television safely from your armchair and you think you know something about war. If you saw war close and personal, like I have, you would realize how stupid your notions about it are. After all I've seen, one thing is clear as day to me – God doesn't want us killing each other. Whoever tells you differently is full of crap.

[Brother_Mujahid]

Try to talk with a secular, level-headed Muslim from Bosnia, not only with fanatics blinded by hatred, like yourself. They might tell you a whole different story.

There you go again with your uncontrolled arrogance and condescending temper-tantrums. So, if these Bosnians (who you don't even know) don't tell the same fairytale that you do they must be "blinded by hatred"? How do you know that the Bosnians that I talked to aren't level-headed? Oh, I know, they didn't advocate that Bosnians role over and die for your "tolerance and peace" adhering Serbian heroes.

I don't recall ever claiming to be an expert on war, nor indicating that I was one. Off mark as usual, ah morbius. As for seeing war, well is that an indication that you don't just defend war criminals, but consorted with them as well? Seeing how big of a bigot you've turned out to be, I cannot say I'd be surprised.

[gag order]

Muslim government on the other hand insisted on strongly centralized type of government for Bosnia, because it would allow Muslim majority to fully control all the country.

and whats wrong with majority rule?
the croats have croatia all to themselves
the serbs have serbia all to themselves
so why cant the bosnians have bosnia all to themselves?

you orthodox christians just cant accept muslim rule and set out to reduce the majority through ethnic cleansing, infact in your first post(s) you made it clear how you despised the idea of muslim rule bemoaning the 500 year dominion of the turks over your people and you didnt want to see a repeat of that rule through the bosnians making the idea of ethnic cleansing seem that much more acceptable.

[morbius]

There you go again with your uncontrolled arrogance and condescending temper-tantrums. So, if these Bosnians (who you don't even know) don't tell the same fairytale that you do they must be "blinded by hatred"? How do you know that the Bosnians that I talked to aren't level-headed? Oh, I know, they didn't advocate that Bosnians role over and die for your "tolerance and peace" adhering Serbian heroes.
I don't know with how many Bosnians have you spoken with, but it is certainly less than I have. Most of them will admit that crimes during the war were done on their side too, although a lot of them will claim that those were done only by foreighn Mujahedeen.

I don't recall ever claiming to be an expert on war, nor indicating that I was one. Off mark as usual, ah morbius. As for seeing war, well is that an indication that you don't just defend war criminals, but consorted with them as well? Seeing how big of a bigot you've turned out to be, I cannot say I'd be surprised.
You sit in the safety of your room and you spill bull about some "holly war" without knowing what war is. If you ever came near one you would realize that there is no such thing as a "holly war".

[Brother_Mujahid]

You may be the ultimate, grand, super-duper expert of everything known to man morbius, but you're way off when it comes to spelling basic English words. It is spelled holy, not holly. Holly is a kind of shrub with red berries that people display during Christmas time.

Next thing, you are a war criminal apologist, that much is clear. Every time someone mentions Serbs, you try to deflect attention away from them to criminalize the Bosnian Muslims. I can only imagine how elated you must have been after Srebrenica massacre.

Final thing, I don't "spill bull" about "holly wars" or "holy war", I only defend the right of Muslims to protect themselves against aggression and occupation. But apparently the only fighting you think is justified is Serbian thugs raping women and killing old men and little boys.

I must also say that you fly of your hinges very easily. You might want to seek some sort of medical assistance for your emotional instability.

[morbius]

and whats wrong with majority rule?
the croats have croatia all to themselves
the serbs have serbia all to themselves
so why cant the bosnians have bosnia all to themselves?
First to correct you on one thing. Expresion "Bosnian" to describe Bosnian Muslim started to be used only after the war. Serbs that live in Bosnia are no less "Bosnians" than Muslims who live there.

There is a thing called national state - a state of one nation. Serbia, Croatia, Germany, France, all of them are national states. In them one nation has an overwelming majority.

You are living in UK, which is not a national state. English are the largest nation, but there are Welsh, Scots, Irish, all with their autonomies.

Bosnia can not be a national state, for Muslims make only roughly 45% of the population (Serbs 35% and Croats 20%). So, Bosnia had to be some sort of federation where there would exist some sort of autonomous teritorial units with their own governments and one joint government above them.

When leading Muslim party SDA won first free elections in Bosnia, they tried to push through a constitution without these local autonomies, but Serbs and Croats resisted. Although SDA claimed that it will stand for interests of all the nations of Bosnia, from the start it was clear that it cares only about interests of Muslims.

you orthodox christians just cant accept muslim rule and set out to reduce the majority through ethnic cleansing, infact in your first post(s) you made it clear how you despised the idea of muslim rule bemoaning the 500 year dominion of the turks over your people and you didnt want to see a repeat of that rule through the bosnians making the idea of ethnic cleansing seem that much more acceptable.
Don't think that Serbs held monopoly over ethnic cleansing in Bosnia, all sides used it heavily. Whenever some territory would change hands, it would be swept clean from its previous inhabitants.
I don't think that rule of Bosnian Muslims would be as horrible as rule of Turks for Serbs there, but still I don't think it was unreasonable from Serbs to ask for more control over what's going on in the places where they were clear majority.

[Suhaib Jobst]

First to correct you on one thing. Expresion "Bosnian" to describe Bosnian Muslim started to be used only after the war. Serbs that live in Bosnia are no less "Bosnians" than Muslims who live there.

You are right in the sense that Bosnians were labelled with the paint-brush term "Turk", given their religion. But you are incorrect if you are trying to deny there is a separate and distinct Bosnian Muslim heritage. For it dates back to even before they embraced Islam.

While the Serbians were Orthodox and the Croats were Catholic, the Bosnians belonged to a gnostic Christian group called the Bogumils. They had their own cultural heritage and did not identity with either the Croats or Serbs.

So, Bosnia had to be some sort of federation where there would exist some sort of autonomous teritorial units with their own governments and one joint government above them.

Given your same logic, what would you say concerning Serbian domination over the non-Serbian majority in Yugoslavia? Did you agree with the efforts of Milosevic to retain and impose Serbian control over the Slovenes, Croats, Bosnians, Kosovar Albanians, and Vojvodina Hungarians?

I don't think that rule of Bosnian Muslims would be as horrible as rule of Turks for Serbs there, but still I don't think it was unreasonable from Serbs to ask for more control over what's going on in the places where they were clear majority.

But they were not content with Banja Luka, the areas of Bosnia-Herzegovina where Serbs were dominant in population. Rather, they wanted to impose their control over all of Bosnia, in their quest for a Greater Serbia.

[morbius]

Final thing, I don't "spill bull" about "holly wars" or "holy war", I only defend the right of Muslims to protect themselves against aggression and occupation.

I am certainly not going to deny anybody's right to defense, Muslim or not Muslim. But I am getting sick of people on this forum hiding their trigger-happiness and aggressiveness behind the facade of defense.
Do you believe the Muslims should fight until Islam rules the world? So what defense are you talking about, hypocrite?

Same hypocrisy was shown by the Muslim government in Sarajevo before the war. Months after months of negotiations, number of fair deals offered to them, agreements that they would accept and then reject, until it was clear to the Serbs that Muslim government is just buying time until they get the weapons.

[Brother_Mujahid]

If anyone is a hypocrite morbius, it would be you. I don't hide my beliefs behind a phony facade of "peace and tolerance" as you do. You have now been outed as a radical Serbian fascist in the tradition of your heroes Slobodan Milošević, Radovan Karadžić, Ratko Mladić, and the rest of those war criminals at the Hague who you refuse to condemn.

As for what defense I'm talking about, I speak of those Muslims in Chechnya, Kashmir, Afghanistan, Iraq, the Philippines, Palestine, Somalia, and Thailand who are resisting occupation and aggression. I clearly indicated as much in my last post, but it would seem your reading comprehension skills are as bad as your spelling skills.

[gag order]

my previous refutation still stands..


Muslim government on the other hand insisted on strongly centralized type of government for Bosnia, because it would allow Muslim majority to fully control all the country.and whats wrong with majority rule?
the croats have croatia all to themselves
the serbs have serbia all to themselves
so why cant the bosnians have bosnia all to themselves?

you orthodox christians just cant accept muslim rule and set out to reduce the majority through ethnic cleansing, infact in your first post(s) you made it clear how you despised the idea of muslim rule bemoaning the 500 year dominion of the turks over your people and you didnt want to see a repeat of that rule through the bosnians making the idea of ethnic cleansing seem that much more acceptable.

muslims having bosnia all to themselves means muslim majority rule regardless of the percentage of serbs and croats that reside in it - understood!

[morbius]

You are right in the sense that Bosnians were labelled with the paint-brush term "Turk", given their religion. But you are incorrect if you are trying to deny there is a separate and distinct Bosnian Muslim heritage. For it dates back to even before they embraced Islam.

While the Serbians were Orthodox and the Croats were Catholic, the Bosnians belonged to a gnostic Christian group called the Bogumils. They had their own cultural heritage and did not identity with either the Croats or Serbs.

I spoke of this before. Bogumili settled ib Bosnia after being expeled from Serbia by ruler Stefan Nemanja. But by the time the Turks came they already blended in with the locals and there was no mention of them in any historical document for a whole century before Islam came to Bosnia. Story that Muslims in Bosnia come from Bogumili is politicaly motivated and is not based on historical facts.

Given your same logic, what would you say concerning Serbian domination over the non-Serbian majority in Yugoslavia? Did you agree with the efforts of Milosevic to retain and impose Serbian control over the Slovenes, Croats, Bosnians, Kosovar Albanians, and Vojvodina Hungarians?
In a word - no. I never supported Milosevic's ambitions to rule the former Yugoslavia. When Croatia and Bosnia anounced their decision to part, they should have been let go. Efforts should have been made to make the best possible deal for the local Serbs, instead of trying to make them rebel.

But they were not content with Banja Luka, the areas of Bosnia-Herzegovina where Serbs were dominant in population. Rather, they wanted to impose their control over all of Bosnia, in their quest for a Greater Serbia.
Serbs owned about 64% of all agricultural land in Bosnia, while Muslims were more concentrated in the towns. People were mixed, that's why it was very hard to draw borders, but if we were to split Bosnia by ethnic lines from before the war Serbian part would be bigger than Muslim part. This was the major reason why Muslim government wouldn't let ethnic division of Bosnia.

When war broke out Serbs used their advantage in weaponery to quickly master all the lands they thought should belong to them, but never really tried to take control of entire Bosnia. At its peak, Serbian Republic covered almost 70% of Bosnia.
Back then I knew that there will never be peace if Serbian and Croat-Muslim parts are not about equal in size and thought it would be best if Serbs simply give parts of land to the Muslims, but militarists were not ready to give anything away. In the end, Bosnia was devided 50-50, just like I proposed.

Even if we win the war, we must remember to be fair to the defeated enemy and not take anything that doesn't belong to us. For instance, after French-Prussian war Bismarck strongly opposed taking Alzas and Lorene from France. And Bismarck was right, that move has created hatred between French and Germans which will have disastrous effects in the first half of 20th century.

[morbius]

If anyone is a hypocrite morbius, it would be you. I don't hide my beliefs behind a phony facade of "peace and tolerance" as you do. You have now been outed as a radical Serbian fascist in the tradition of your heroes Slobodan Milošević, Radovan Karadžić, Ratko Mladić, and the rest of those war criminals at the Hague who you refuse to condemn.
No matter how many times I speak against them he accuses me of supporting them. Guy simply got something in his mind and can’t let go.

As for what defense I'm talking about, I speak of those Muslims in Chechnya, Kashmir, Afghanistan, Iraq, the Philippines, Palestine, Somalia, and Thailand who are resisting occupation and aggression. I clearly indicated as much in my last post, but it would seem your reading comprehension skills are as bad as your spelling skills.
And in all those places people hate Muslims? If everybody hates you couldn't the problem be in you?
And verily the problem often is in Muslims, in their intolerance and unability to live in peace with their neighbours.

[gag order]

And in all those places people hate Muslims? If everybody hates you couldn't the problem be in you? everybody here hates you morbious couldn't the problem be in you?


And verily the problem often is in Muslims, in their intolerance and unability to live in peace with their neighbours our neighbours and their freinds from afar keeping invading

[Brother_Mujahid]

Morbius hates us so much, but he keeps consorting with us. What does that say about him? Does he really crave our acceptance and approval that much?

[morbius]

muslims having bosnia all to themselves means muslim majority rule regardless of the percentage of serbs and croats that reside in it - understood!
Understand this: Bosnia was not formed as a country when war broke out. Parliament it had had mandate only to serve until the constitution could be created.
For constitution to be accepted in the parliament it needed 2/3 of all members of parliament supporting it, which meant that deputants of Serbs and Croats also had to agree with it. But draft of constitution that SDA offered was rejected by Serbs, completely legally.

Borders of Bosnia are not ethnic, they are artificial. They are actually borders between Austria and Turkey during the middle ages. Wars in Africa tell us how problematic it is when countries don’t have ethnic, but artificial borders.
Bosnia is not an ethnic state of one people. Under the current constitution which is accepted after the war, there are three constitutive nations in Bosnia - Bosnians (Muslims), Serbs and Croats. Serbs have their own entity and they mostly rule themselves, with few matters in the hands of the joint government.

[gag order]

everybody here hates you morbious couldn't the problem be in you?

well?

[morbius]

Morbius hates us so much, but he keeps consorting with us. What does that say about him? Does he really crave our acceptance and approval that much?

Neither do I hate you, nor do I need your approval for anything.

I just call things as I see them.

[gag order]

I just call things as I see them. no wonder you get refuted left, right and centre !!!

[morbius]

everybody here hates you morbious couldn't the problem be in you?
Predictable answer.
People generally don’t like those who tell them the truth they don’t want to hear.
Look what happened to Jesus.

our neighbours and their freinds from afar keeping invading

Once you view whole world as your property, everything is invasion.

[Brother_Mujahid]

Look what happened to Jesus.

Comparing yourself to Jesus! Wow, you really are more arrogant and self-absorbed than I gave you credit for.

For the record, you aren't a prophetic figure, not even close. More like a madman. Go back to reading your Salman Rushdie garbage, as no one here cares about what ever fairytales masquerading as truth you have to tell.

[Abu Bubu]

asallamu alaykum

My mate was telling me that salam rushdie called the queen a whore in his book, does anyone have any proof of this please?

cheers

wasallamu alaykum