Another Question for Sam

Prove Islam is from God, why it is the 'One True Religion'.
User avatar
SAM
Posts: 4353
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 7:31 pm
Location: Arasy

Re: Topless

Post by SAM »

Hombre wrote:Look at what your & your Muslim co-hordes are missing. The Wet dreams which every Muslim suicide bomber sacrifices his life for. This is what motivates them to commit suicide - 72 of these beauties every night
:flamethrower:
What's Next?
Jewish Women go Naked to Support Israel!! IDF
:D
Never will the Jews or the Christians be satisfied with thee unless thou follow their form of religion.
Say: "The Guidance of Allah,-that is the (only) Guidance."
(2:120)

User avatar
manfred
Posts: 11617
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:29 pm

Re: Another Question for Sam

Post by manfred »

SAM wrote: :lotpot: John 8:44, "Jews are the children of Satan"
No that is what Muslims believe, and most of the UK Labour party too...

Jesus, the Jew, was not a Jew hater like you. But he had issues with certain religious views, views you find today mostly in Islam, not in Judaism. He was not a racist like you, SAM.

The verse before applies to you SAM:
43 Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say.
Read the passage and you will find yourself in it, quite plainly.
Jesus: "Ask and you will receive." Mohammed: "Take and give me 20%"

antineoETC
Posts: 1923
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 10:53 am

Re: Another Question for Sam

Post by antineoETC »

manfred wrote:SAM has posted a photo of himself here once. He looks like someone from India perhaps, but he lives in Singapore. This seems to be some embarrassment to him, as is clearly reluctant to tell you.
I have some sympathy for those whose countries were overrun by successive brutal Islamic invaders, had their places of worship destroyed, forcibly converted to Islam and taught to despise their own pre-Islamic cultures as "the ignorance". I think these people deep down hate themselves for the weakness of their ancestors and the continued existence of a powerful non-Muslim world is a constant reminder of their shame. However the Malaysians and Indonesians have done it to themselves. You have to laugh at these self-enslaving latecomers to Islam with their "Muslim Pride" trying to lay claim to a history in which their ancestors had no part. PATHETIC!
Last edited by antineoETC on Sat Jun 29, 2019 7:49 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Prophet Muhammad...bought, sold, captured, and owned slaves" SOURCE: BBC website
"Muhammad is considered to be a perfect model" SOURCE: BBC website

User avatar
SAM
Posts: 4353
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 7:31 pm
Location: Arasy

Re: Another Question for Sam

Post by SAM »

antineoETC wrote:
I have some sympathy for those whose countries were overrun by successive brutal Islamic invaders, had their places of worship destroyed, forcibly converted to Islam and taught to despise their own pre-Islamic cultures as "the ignoraace". I think these people deep down hate themselves for the weakness of their ancestors and the continued existence of a powerful non-Muslim world is a constant reminder of their shame. However the Malaysians and Indonesians have done it to themselves. You have to laugh at these self-enslaving latecomers to Islam with their "Muslim Pride" trying to lay claim to a history in which their ancestors had no part. PATHETIC!
And you have no sympathy and are very happy for those whose countries like Latin America, Africa and India were cruelly murdered by whites during the Christian Inquisition. And force indigenous people to embrace Christianity.
Never will the Jews or the Christians be satisfied with thee unless thou follow their form of religion.
Say: "The Guidance of Allah,-that is the (only) Guidance."
(2:120)

antineoETC
Posts: 1923
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 10:53 am

Re: Another Question for Sam

Post by antineoETC »

SAM wrote:And you have no sympathy and are very happy for those whose countries like Latin America, Africa and India were cruelly murdered by whites during the Christian Inquisition.
I have every sympathy for GENUINE victims of European colonialism SAM. However I do not regard the "Muslim world" as victims like American Indians, pagan Africans or Australian aborigines. I think the Spanish Christians had every right to take back the lands stolen from them by the Arab-Berber Islamic invaders in their 800year-long war which ended with the reconquest of Granada. The peoples of Southeast Europe had as much right to be free of Asiatic Muslim colonialist occupation as the Indians did from the British. Don't you agree?
And force indigenous people to embrace Christianity.
Supposing it was the Muslims rather than Roman Catholic Spanish who first invaded America Sam. You don't think they would have engaged in a bit of looting and plunder and forcible conversion of Aztec and Inca Mushrikun to the "True Faith"? Given the Islamic record elsewhere in the world what do you think?

BTW, are you Southeast Asian SAM?
"Prophet Muhammad...bought, sold, captured, and owned slaves" SOURCE: BBC website
"Muhammad is considered to be a perfect model" SOURCE: BBC website

User avatar
SAM
Posts: 4353
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 7:31 pm
Location: Arasy

Re: Another Question for Sam

Post by SAM »

antineoETC wrote:
I have every sympathy for GENUINE victims of European colonialism SAM. However I do not regard the "Muslim world" as victims like American Indians, pagan Africans or Australian aborigines. I think the Spanish Christians had every right to take back the lands stolen from them by the Arab-Berber Islamic invaders in their 800year-long war which ended with the reconquest of Granada. The peoples of Southeast Europe had as much right to be free of Asiatic Muslim colonialist occupation as the Indians did from the British. Don't you agree?
And King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella issued decrees to force Jews to emigrate, convert to Christianity or die.
Supposing it was the Muslims rather than Roman Catholic Spanish who first invaded America Sam. You don't think they would have engaged in a bit of looting and plunder and forcible conversion of Aztec and Inca Mushrikun to the "True Faith"? Given the Islamic record elsewhere in the world what do you think?
Muslims will not do injustices like the Christian Inquisition. Many countries are conquered by Muslims, they do not interfere with cultural customs and erase their mother tongue. i.e Malaysia and Indonesia.
BTW, are you Southeast Asian SAM?
You sound like a woman and don't think you're European.
Never will the Jews or the Christians be satisfied with thee unless thou follow their form of religion.
Say: "The Guidance of Allah,-that is the (only) Guidance."
(2:120)

User avatar
SAM
Posts: 4353
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 7:31 pm
Location: Arasy

Re: Another Question for Sam

Post by SAM »

antineoETC wrote:
The following is not specifically directed at SAM. But he is welcome to stick his oar in if he so desires:

And do not compel your slave girls to prostitution, if they desire chastity, (Q 23:44)

Although this passage deals specifically with forcing slave girls (ie Right Hand Possessions) into prostitution it also carries with it a GENERAL principle that if the slave girls wish not to engage in sexual intercourse their wishes must be respected under all circumstances. Therefore, sexual intercourse in Islam must under ALL circumstances be consensual.

Furthermore verse 4:19 states:

O ye who believe! Ye are forbidden to inherit women against their will.

Which clearly implies that forced marriage of any sort, including mutah etc, is strictly forbidden by Allah. In other words, ALL marriage in Islam must be by MUTUAL consent.


Now, coming back to verse 4:24:

And [also prohibited to you are all] married women except those your right hands possess.

This means that the Muslim man can marry and have sex with a Right Hand Possession EVEN IF SHE IS ALREADY MARRIED ie he can marry and have sex with ANOTHER MAN'S WIFE. Since verses 23:44&4:19 establish that Allah only permits CONSENSUAL MARRIAGE/SEX and consensual marriage/sex with an already-married woman constitutes adultery, it logically follows that Islam PERMITS ADULTERY.
This ENDORSMENT of Umar R.A will enlighten the issue

In an authentic narration from Sunan Al Bayhaqi, Volume 2, page 363, Hadith no. 18685 we read the following story:

Abu al-Hussain bin al-Fadhl al-Qatan narrated from Abdullah bin Jaffar bin Darestweh from Yaqub bin Sufyan from al-Hassab bin Rabee from Abdullah bin al-Mubarak from Kahmas from Harun bin Al-Asam who said: Umar bin al-Khatab may Allah be pleased with him sent Khalid bin al-Walid in an army, hence Khalid sent Dharar bin al-Auwzwar in a squadron and they invaded a district belonging to the tribe of Bani Asad. They then captured a pretty bride, Dharar liked her hence he asked his companions to grant her to him and they did so. He then had sexual intercourse with her, when he completed his mission he felt guilty, and went to Khalid and told him about what he did. Khalid said: 'I permit you and made it lawful to you.' He said: 'No not until you write a message to Umar'. (Then they sent a message to Umar) and Umar answered that he (Dharar) should be stoned. By the time Umar's message was delivered, Dharar was dead. (Khalid) said: 'Allah didn't want to disgrace Dharar'


Muslims cant force sex on Slaves
Fair enough but, that being the case, I am at a loss to understand SAM's antagonism to the sexual "immorality" of westerners.
It is a Western "immoral" culture before they embraced Christianity. The majority of Christians regardless of race, culture in other countries do not behave like them.
Never will the Jews or the Christians be satisfied with thee unless thou follow their form of religion.
Say: "The Guidance of Allah,-that is the (only) Guidance."
(2:120)

User avatar
Fernando
Posts: 4949
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2012 1:27 pm

Re: Another Question for Sam

Post by Fernando »

manfred wrote:You made your point SAM.... just explain, those who do Allah's work in raping people with lighter skin how will they be rewarded?
We're back to Allah's shade card again. SAM's copy has a little slider, to divide it into acceptable and unacceptable according to circumstances.
‘Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs and literary traditions. They neither intermarry nor eat together, and indeed they belong to two different civilisations which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions.’ Muhammad Ali Jinnah

User avatar
Fernando
Posts: 4949
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2012 1:27 pm

Re: Another Question for Sam

Post by Fernando »

SAM wrote:The ringleader, Amere Singh Dhaliwal, is not a Muslim. The fool does not know how to distinguish the names of Muslims and non-Muslims. :lol:
As if nobody changes their name when they convert to another religion? Then perhaps Cat Stevens isn't a Muslim after all.
In December 1977, Stevens converted to Islam[10] and adopted the name Yusuf Islam the following year
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat_Stevens
‘Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs and literary traditions. They neither intermarry nor eat together, and indeed they belong to two different civilisations which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions.’ Muhammad Ali Jinnah

User avatar
manfred
Posts: 11617
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:29 pm

Re: Another Question for Sam

Post by manfred »

SAM wrote:This ENDORSMENT of Umar R.A will enlighten the issue

In an authentic narration from Sunan Al Bayhaqi, Volume 2, page 363, Hadith no. 18685 we read the following story:

Abu al-Hussain bin al-Fadhl al-Qatan narrated from Abdullah bin Jaffar bin Darestweh from Yaqub bin Sufyan from al-Hassab bin Rabee from Abdullah bin al-Mubarak from Kahmas from Harun bin Al-Asam who said: Umar bin al-Khatab may Allah be pleased with him sent Khalid bin al-Walid in an army, hence Khalid sent Dharar bin al-Auwzwar in a squadron and they invaded a district belonging to the tribe of Bani Asad. They then captured a pretty bride, Dharar liked her hence he asked his companions to grant her to him and they did so. He then had sexual intercourse with her, when he completed his mission he felt guilty, and went to Khalid and told him about what he did. Khalid said: 'I permit you and made it lawful to you.' He said: 'No not until you write a message to Umar'. (Then they sent a message to Umar) and Umar answered that he (Dharar) should be stoned. By the time Umar's message was delivered, Dharar was dead. (Khalid) said: 'Allah didn't want to disgrace Dharar'


Muslims cant force sex on Slaves
Nice try, but your interpretation is entirely false.

The fact is that the Qur'an expressly sanctions sex with captured women, married or not, and consent in Islam is "silence" according to Mohammed. There are many ways to procure silence.

But this hadith is about something completely different. Read it carefully?

So this man gets himself a captured woman (married? we are not told) and he first asks his commanding officer for permission to have sex with her. He did not ask her, he asked his military commander. According to Mohammed's own actions and teaching, the commander of course says "yes". So he does the deed, but afterwards he gets twinges of conscience. So he wants Umar, the calif, to put his bad conscience to rest. He expresses doubts about his superior having acted in line with Islam. Big mistake.

Umar was not pleased and orders him to be killed. For sleeping with the captured woman? Of course not.... thousands of Muslims had done the same since the days of Mohammed. The "prophet" himself had done it. The Qur'an allows it.

So why was he sentenced to death? That should be obvious even to you SAM....

He "forbade what Allah has allowed". He rebelled against his superiors. He was a danger to Islam, as he questioned the actions of Mohammed. So he was sentenced to death.

He died before the sentence could be carried out. That was lucky for him.... But if he had been stoned, it would be said that his crime was apostasy, not sex with a right hand possession.
Jesus: "Ask and you will receive." Mohammed: "Take and give me 20%"

User avatar
Hombre
Posts: 3741
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 3:18 am

Re: Topless

Post by Hombre »

SAM wrote:
What's Next?
Jewish Women go Naked to Support Israel!! IDF
:D
Good for them. It shows you Israeli women are stunningly beautiful, sexy, & independent - who are free to express themselves. This is what every Muslim stupid suicide bomber dreams of when he blows himself up. Some of them tell Hamas & PLO leader - kiss my a.....s :lol:

User avatar
SAM
Posts: 4353
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 7:31 pm
Location: Arasy

Re: Topless

Post by SAM »

Hombre wrote: Good for them. It shows you Israeli women are stunningly beautiful, sexy, & independent - who are free to express themselves.
DRAMATIC RISE IN NUMBER OF IDF SOLDIERS REPORTING SEXUAL ASSAULT. IDF Chief Rabbi says soldiers can rape women to boost morale.

The numbers released by ARCCI showed that 358 calls to the centers were to report rape, attempted rape or sodomy, another 672 calls were to report indecent acts and sexual harassment, 365 for verbal sexual assault, and another 74 cases of unwanted peeking or photography.

...an internal IDF survey found that one in six female soldiers declared that she had been sexually harassed during her service, with 6% saying they had been harassed two or three times and another 3% responded that they had been harassed four times or more.

https://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Drama ... ult-572369
Never will the Jews or the Christians be satisfied with thee unless thou follow their form of religion.
Say: "The Guidance of Allah,-that is the (only) Guidance."
(2:120)

User avatar
SAM
Posts: 4353
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 7:31 pm
Location: Arasy

Re: Another Question for Sam

Post by SAM »

manfred wrote:
Nice try, but your interpretation is entirely false.

The fact is that the Qur'an expressly sanctions sex with captured women, married or not, and consent in Islam is "silence" according to Mohammed. There are many ways to procure silence.

But this hadith is about something completely different. Read it carefully?

So this man gets himself a captured woman (married? we are not told) and he first asks his commanding officer for permission to have sex with her. He did not ask her, he asked his military commander. According to Mohammed's own actions and teaching, the commander of course says "yes". So he does the deed, but afterwards he gets twinges of conscience. So he wants Umar, the calif, to put his bad conscience to rest. He expresses doubts about his superior having acted in line with Islam. Big mistake.

Umar was not pleased and orders him to be killed. For sleeping with the captured woman? Of course not.... thousands of Muslims had done the same since the days of Mohammed. The "prophet" himself had done it. The Qur'an allows it.

So why was he sentenced to death? That should be obvious even to you SAM....

He "forbade what Allah has allowed". He rebelled against his superiors. He was a danger to Islam, as he questioned the actions of Mohammed. So he was sentenced to death.

He died before the sentence could be carried out. That was lucky for him.... But if he had been stoned, it would be said that his crime was apostasy, not sex with a right hand possession.
:lotpot: Your interpretation to show your inability, incompetence and ignorance of understanding about Hadith ... :lol:

You should try again
Never will the Jews or the Christians be satisfied with thee unless thou follow their form of religion.
Say: "The Guidance of Allah,-that is the (only) Guidance."
(2:120)

antineoETC
Posts: 1923
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 10:53 am

Re: Another Question for Sam

Post by antineoETC »

SAM wrote: Muslims cant force sex on Slaves
Therefore sex with slave girls is by mutual consent. Therefore sex with slave girls is consensual. Therefore the Qur'an's permission for Muslims to marry and have sex with already-married women is permission to commit adultery according to dictionary definition of "adultery":
adultery

/əˈdʌlt(ə)ri/
noun

noun: adultery; plural noun: adulteries

voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and a person who is not their spouse.


Is there some kind of Islamic definition of adultery which differs from this one?
It is a Western "immoral" culture before they embraced Christianity. The majority of Christians regardless of race, culture in other countries do not behave like them.
But why do you condemn this sexual "immorality" when you follow a religion which, as I have demonstated above, itself permits adultery? Is Islamic adultery with slave girls somehow more "moral" than non-Islamic adultery between two non-slaves?

You cannot get out of it. Sex with already-married slave girls is either mutually consensual and therefore adultery or non-consensual and therefore rape. Which is it?
Last edited by antineoETC on Sun Jun 30, 2019 9:04 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Prophet Muhammad...bought, sold, captured, and owned slaves" SOURCE: BBC website
"Muhammad is considered to be a perfect model" SOURCE: BBC website

antineoETC
Posts: 1923
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 10:53 am

Re: Another Question for Sam

Post by antineoETC »

SAM wrote:And King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella issued decrees to force Jews to emigrate, convert to Christianity or die.
They are, of course to be condemned for this. Are you not aware that the African Almohad Islamic invaders of Spain did the very same to Jews and Chrisitans some centuries before? Will you condemn them for that? Will you condemn your prophet Muhammad for offering the Jews of Yathrib the choice of emigration, conversion to Islam or death - or in the case of the Banu Qurayza the mass killing of Jews who refused to convert to Islam? Will you retrospectively condemn the massacre of 4000 Spanish Jews by a Muslim mob in Granada in 1066?
Muslims will not do injustices like the Christian Inquisition.
Depends what you mean by "injustice". If you equate "just" with "whatever is good for Islam and Muslims" you will see nothing unjust in the Asiatic Ottoman Muslim practice of tearing native white European christian children from their families, forcibly converting them to Islam and brainwashing them to be fanatical Muslim shock troops. You will see nothing unjust in the practice , enforced in Spain under Afro-Asiatic Muslim colonialist occupation - as it in present day Saudi Arabia - of murdering people who decided they no longer wished to be Muslims.
Many countries are conquered by Muslims,
At least you do not claim that Muslims were invited in to countries they brutally invaded in hideous rampages of massacre, rape and pillage and destruction of non-Muslim places of worship.
they do not interfere with cultural customs and erase their mother tongue. i.e Malaysia and Indonesia.
Really? The language of what is now Turkey was originally Turkish was it? The language of Iraq and Egypt was always Arabic was it? Of course there may be vestiges of the original languages in these places. Big deal! The Europeans who colonised the Americas did not entirely erase the indigenous languages of those lands. Quechua is still spoken to this day in Peru as are numerous other native American tongues across North and South America. The Native languages of India have easily survived British rule. The Dutch did not erase the native languages of lands they ruled for several centuries in Indonesia.


BTW, as I wrote above, the Southeast Asians (of whom I suspect you of being) did not need to be invaded to screw up their own culture with Islam. They did it to themselves. The process of Indonesian cultural self-immolation is not complete so you still fortunately have some of this:

Image

Although before long it will have entirely given way to this:

Image


You must really hate yourselves.
"Prophet Muhammad...bought, sold, captured, and owned slaves" SOURCE: BBC website
"Muhammad is considered to be a perfect model" SOURCE: BBC website

User avatar
SAM
Posts: 4353
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 7:31 pm
Location: Arasy

Re: Another Question for Sam

Post by SAM »

antineoETC wrote:Therefore sex with slave girls is by mutual consent. Therefore sex with slave girls is consensual. Therefore the Qur'an's permission for Muslims to marry and have sex with already-married women is permission(prohibited) to commit adultery according to dictionary definition of "adultery":
Quran 4.24-25. Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess: Thus hath Allah ordained (Prohibitions) against you: Except for these, all others are lawful, provided ye seek (them in marriage) with gifts from your property,- desiring chastity, not lust, seeing that ye derive benefit from them, give them their dowers (at least) as prescribed; but if, after a dower is prescribed, agree Mutually (to vary it), there is no blame on you, and Allah is All-knowing, All-wise.

25. If any of you have not the means wherewith to wed free believing women, they may wed believing girls from among those whom your right hands possess: And Allah hath full knowledge about your faith. Ye are one from another: Wed them with the leave of their owners, and give them their dowers, according to what is reasonable: They should be chaste, not lustful, nor taking paramours: when they are taken in wedlock, if they fall into shame, their punishment is half that for free women. This (permission) is for those among you who fear sin; but it is better for you that ye practise self-restraint. And Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

It is not permissible for a man to have intercourse with a "Right Hand Possession" without 'nikah' her first. For example misyar marriage.

Is there some kind of Islamic definition of adultery which differs from this one?
It is a Western "immoral" culture before they embraced Christianity. The majority of Christians regardless of race, culture in other countries do not behave like them.
But why do you condemn this sexual "immorality" when you follow a religion which, as I have demonstated above, itself permits adultery? Is Islamic adultery with slave girls somehow more "moral" than non-Islamic adultery between two non-slaves?

You cannot get out of it. Sex with already-married slave girls is either mutually consensual and therefore adultery or non-consensual and therefore rape.
You have a problem and are confused about the problem of slavery with the concept of Kafir slavery with its Islamic concept.

I can say that "Right Hand Possession" applies to Kafir female captives and slaves, not to Muslim women. :lol:
Never will the Jews or the Christians be satisfied with thee unless thou follow their form of religion.
Say: "The Guidance of Allah,-that is the (only) Guidance."
(2:120)

User avatar
SAM
Posts: 4353
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 7:31 pm
Location: Arasy

Re: Another Question for Sam

Post by SAM »

antineoETC wrote: They are, of course to be condemned for this. Are you not aware that the African Almohad Islamic invaders of Spain did the very same to Jews and Chrisitans some centuries before? Will you condemn them for that? Will you condemn your prophet Muhammad for offering the Jews of Yathrib the choice of emigration, conversion to Islam or death - or in the case of the Banu Qurayza the mass killing of Jews who refused to convert to Islam? Will you retrospectively condemn the massacre of 4000 Spanish Jews by a Muslim mob in Granada in 1066?
The Jews of Granada had become too arrogant and ungrateful. Rabbi Joseph ibn al-Naghrīlla was wazīr of Granada, his haughty behavior had led to his downfall and the massacre of the Jewish inhabitants.

They deserved it. :lol:
Depends what you mean by "injustice". If you equate "just" with "whatever is good for Islam and Muslims" you will see nothing unjust in the Asiatic Ottoman Muslim practice of tearing native white European christian children from their families, forcibly converting them to Islam and brainwashing them to be fanatical Muslim shock troops. You will see nothing unjust in the practice , enforced in Spain under Afro-Asiatic Muslim colonialist occupation - as it in present day Saudi Arabia - of murdering people who decided they no longer wished to be Muslims.
Many of them held high positions in the Ottoman Empire, there were also those who became Grand Viziers, Advisers, Pasha and others.
At least you do not claim that Muslims were invited in to countries they brutally invaded in hideous rampages of massacre, rape and pillage and destruction of non-Muslim places of worship.
The same was done by Western Christians when they invaded Latin America, Africa, Asia and even in Eastern Europe worse than the Islamic Liberation Army.
Really? The language of what is now Turkey was originally Turkish was it? The language of Iraq and Egypt was always Arabic was it? Of course there may be vestiges of the original languages in these places. Big deal! The Europeans who colonised the Americas did not entirely erase the indigenous languages of those lands. Quechua is still spoken to this day in Peru as are numerous other native American tongues across North and South America. The Native languages of India have easily survived British rule. The Dutch did not erase the native languages of lands they ruled for several centuries in Indonesia.
Tell me, Is South America and Central America, their mother tongues speak Spanish. Catholic priest to destroy Maya and Aztec languages ​​and cultures. Thousands of languages ​​spoken by indigenous people in Central and South America have been eliminated by the Catholic Inquisition.
BTW, as I wrote above, the Southeast Asians (of whom I suspect you of being) did not need to be invaded to screw up their own culture with Islam. They did it to themselves. The process of Indonesian cultural self-immolation is not complete so you still fortunately have some of this:

Image
These are Balinese people who are Hindus, not Muslims. Some Balinese cultures have been mixed with other ethnic cultures such as Riau, Java, Boyanese, Bugis, Minangkabau, Banjar and others and have become Muslim cultures in Indonesia. For more information ask manfred, he came from Indonesia. :wink:
Never will the Jews or the Christians be satisfied with thee unless thou follow their form of religion.
Say: "The Guidance of Allah,-that is the (only) Guidance."
(2:120)

User avatar
manfred
Posts: 11617
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:29 pm

Re: Another Question for Sam

Post by manfred »

Actually, there are quite a few Muslims on Bali too.... they come there because it is a better place to live.
Jesus: "Ask and you will receive." Mohammed: "Take and give me 20%"

User avatar
SAM
Posts: 4353
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 7:31 pm
Location: Arasy

Re: Another Question for Sam

Post by SAM »

manfred wrote:Actually, there are quite a few Muslims on Bali too.... they come there because it is a better place to live.
Don't talk rubbish, it's also their ancestral island.
Never will the Jews or the Christians be satisfied with thee unless thou follow their form of religion.
Say: "The Guidance of Allah,-that is the (only) Guidance."
(2:120)

User avatar
manfred
Posts: 11617
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:29 pm

Re: Another Question for Sam

Post by manfred »

Actually, no.... the Hindus first went to Bali to escape Muslim rule, centuries ago. Most are from Java originally. Bali a a much more thriving place than the Muslim Islands either side, and less corrupt too, so they had a more recent influx of Muslims there. Many of the Hindus are not happy about that, specially since the most prominent contribution to Balinese culture has been an epidemic in vehicle theft and other property crime, attempts at forced conversion, rapes and tourist rip-offs, not to mention the bombings in Bali ...
Jesus: "Ask and you will receive." Mohammed: "Take and give me 20%"

Post Reply