Islamic insecurities ?

[24KT]

In fact he defended the talibans actions to destroy buddhist statues.  He's already made insulting remarks towards buddhism and hindus. I dont see you criticizing that but you jump in whenever critical statements are made towards him or islam. Hmm...

I haven't seen where he made insulting remarks towards buddhism or hinduism.

I also did not see where he defended the talibans actions to destroy buddhist statues.
I would love to see how someone could possibly defend such a position myself.

I don't have a problem with critical statements, but I see many statements not so much as critical or criticism, but rather ignorant attacks.

[24KT]

It always surprises me to see a woman to defend Islam.

Oh hunnybunny I'm full of surprises. 

It makes me wonder if the woman is ignorant of the facts or hates other women and also believes they should serve men.

   Oh Wow, ...what a choice! How about none of the above. lol

Moi, ...thinking women should serve men?  You soooo do not know me at all.

[24KT]

What about his posts makes you doubt that he was not born a Muslim?  I know many Muslims who were both born into Muslim families and those who were not, and those who convert are almost always more vocal about their beliefs, appear more devout, and are more passionate about their faith than the average Muslim who was taught the religion from their parents.  Makes sense too - because it's easier for one to follow a faith that is taught to them from childhood, whereas it takes someone with greater devotion to switch faiths at a later date in life, and those who have greater devotion are generally more vocal.  It's similar to how a "born again Chrsitian" is generally stronger in their faith prior to their declaration.

Therefore based on a_ahmed's posts I'm MORE inclined to believe that yes he is a convert than someone born a Muslim like myself.

Also, I've NEVER seen another Muslim lie and claim to be a convert to promote Islam, in response to you claiming this is a "tried and true tactic" lol  

EXACTLY!!!

There used to be a Portuguese / West Indian Bakery I loved to go to. It was a family owned business. The wife was Portuguese, her husband was Trinidadian, and both were Catholics. Their kids were raised in a Catholic household. One of their daughters however chose to convert to Islam at 16. It was no fad for her. She was full on devout, the whole nine yards. Wore the hijab / niqab. She was more observant of Islamic traditions than most of the muslim girls I've seen who were born into Islam

[Man of Steel]

EXACTLY!!!

There used to be a Portuguese / West Indian Bakery I loved to go to. It was a family owned business. The wife was Portuguese, her husband was Trinidadian, and both were Catholics. Their kids were raised in a Catholic household. One of their daughters however chose to convert to Islam at 16. It was no fad for her. She was full on devout, the whole nine yards. Wore the hijab / niqab. She was more observant of Islamic traditions than most of the muslim girls I've seen who were born into Islam

Some people are born into relgious customs and some people adopt them purely on their own.   It occurs in Christianity, the catholic church, Islam, Satanism.  Some also folks are also Christians that become Muslims, Muslims that become atheists, atheists that become Christians, etc....

[tbombz]

I didn't say you would become a killer "in the name of religion".
I said I could see you strapping on a suicide vest 'out of some perverse idea of sending people to God's kingdom.

I understand how logic works. I just don't think you understand self-preservation or survival instinct.

dude. killing people because you are trying to send them to god is the same thing as killing in the name of religion. i am advocating pacifism even in the face of death and your somehow trying to correlate that with murder in the name of god. the two are complete opposites.

self preservation/survival instinct are pragmatic, practical ways to deal with uncertainty about death. we arent sure if there is life after death, and thus we want to preserve the life we have here on earth. this is inherently contradictory to a belief in god and an afterlife.

[tbombz]

Truth doesn’t exist in any objective sense but is created rather than discovered.… Truth is “created by the specific culture and exists only in that culture. Therefore, any system or statement that tries to communicate truth is a power play, an effort to dominate other cultures.

your advocating a religious view. its very well possible that truth exists.

[bigbobs]

True but fixed for clarity/completeness

Some people are born into relgious customs and some people adopt them purely on their own.   It occurs in Christianity, the catholic church, Islam, Satanism.  Some also folks are also Christians that become Muslims, Muslims that become atheists, atheists that become Christians, etc....however more often are non-Muslims converting to Islam than to any other religion in the world, even confirmed by the Guiness Book of World Records

[tbombz]

people who seek a religion are usually uncomfortable with living in uncertainty, and thus the more direction a religion provides (the less that is left up to personal choice) the more desirable the religion appears to those who seek to eliminate uncertainty from their life. thus islam, a religion which offers its adherents strict guidelines for most every facet of their behavior, is a religion that has great appeal to those who seek religion.

afterall, when muhammad started the religion he said the reason was because the tenants of christianity were far too lax. simply loving everyone and everything isnt enough, said muhammad. a person also needed to follow a bunch of strict laws that govern everything from the food you eat, the way you dress,  to the manner in which you pray, and so on.

its really just a bunch of bullshit. and the fact the guy led armies in battle should be plenty to convince anyone with a decent capacity for reason that he was in no way a holy man.

[a_ahmed]

people who seek a religion are usually uncomfortable with living in uncertainty, and thus the more direction a religion provides (the less that is left up to personal choice) the more desirable the religion appears to those who seek to eliminate uncertainty from their life. thus islam, a religion which offers its adherents strict guidelines for most every facet of their behavior, is a religion that has great appeal to those who seek religion.

afterall, when muhammad started the religion he said the reason was because the tenants of christianity were far too lax. simply loving everyone and everything isnt enough, said muhammad. a person also needed to follow a bunch of strict laws that govern everything from the food you eat, the way you dress,  to the manner in which you pray, and so on.

its really just a bunch of bullshit. and the fact the guy led armies in battle should be plenty to convince anyone with a decent capacity for reason that he was in no way a holy man.

Please provide your evidence, since you are so knowledgeable.

As a person who spent much time studying islam prior to embracing it, I have yet to come across such facts Really curious where you get your knowledge from

[Radical Plato]

your advocating a religious view. its very well possible that truth exists.

Quite possibly, but I think truth will always involve paradox, like "Truth doesn't exist, and this is the truth".  Truth implies perfection, and perfection doesn't exist, you may be able to get close to the truth, this is all one can do, since their is no absolute truth.

[Man of Steel]

No, I'm not offended or insulted by verses you post from the bible or the quaran, I've been insulted by your potshots and insults.  bigbobs hasn't insulted me and he's a muslim.

I haven't posted any images of Muhammad.

I also addressed this verse in a previous post in another thread:

I agree with your last sentence.

I still want ahmed to show me the vile images of Muhammed that I have posted.  No, I challenge ahmed to find any vile images I've posted.

[Man of Steel]

True but fixed for clarity/completeness

So true and justified by scripture.  The world will increasingly stand against Christians and Islam is strongly opposed to Christianity with growing numbers as you said....believe me, Christians are aware and were aware of this fact approximately 400 years before Muhammad and scribes wrote the first verse of the Quaran.

[garebear]

None of the above - it's you who are ignorant of the facts, which is why you're surprised to see women defend Islam.

What's the preferred way to murder a woman if she gets raped and brings shame on your family, stoning or beheading?

[stingray]

Bingo on exposing the Muslim tactic used so often now, pretending that they are converts. why we are really going to believe someone with the name Ahmed was not originally a Muslim, rotfl.

Many people who revert to islam do change there name to a arab name. You dont have to and not many do, but doesnt mean ahmed is lying.

[stingray]

I haven't seen where he made insulting remarks towards buddhism or hinduism.

I also did not see where he defended the talibans actions to destroy buddhist statues.
I would love to see how someone could possibly defend such a position myself.

I don't have a problem with critical statements, but I see many statements not so much as critical or criticism, but rather ignorant attacks.

This taliban destroying of budda temple, if im correct, was done years before sept 11. From my understanding of why the taliban did destroy the buddah statues etc, they had a couple of NGO's and businesses who wanted to spend millions to fix up and repair the budda statues, they were in bad condition even before the taliban touched them.The taliban said to them, the people and kids of afghanistan are dying, the live in poverty, no food, shelter, etc, and you want to spend millions  to repair statues when the money could come to better use.

At the end, the taliban destroyed them afetr negotiations crumbled.

[avxo]

This taliban destroying of budda temple, if im correct, was done years before sept 11. From my understanding of why the taliban did destroy the buddah statues etc, they had a couple of NGO's and businesses who wanted to spend millions to fix up and repair the budda statues, they were in bad condition even before the taliban touched them.The taliban said to them, the people and kids of afghanistan are dying, the live in poverty, no food, shelter, etc, and you want to spend millions  to repair statues when the money could come to better use.

At the end, the taliban destroyed them afetr negotiations crumbled.

No, the Taliban destroyed them – priceless historical artifacts – after they declared them idols.

As for the other nonsense: Even if hundreds of thousands of little kids died of hunger every day, what does that have to do with the statues in question? And do you have any credible evidence that the Taliban's concern was with the poor, hungry children and not with destroying what they perceived as an idol because of their religious beliefs?

[bigbobs]

This taliban destroying of budda temple, if im correct, was done years before sept 11. From my understanding of why the taliban did destroy the buddah statues etc, they had a couple of NGO's and businesses who wanted to spend millions to fix up and repair the budda statues, they were in bad condition even before the taliban touched them.The taliban said to them, the people and kids of afghanistan are dying, the live in poverty, no food, shelter, etc, and you want to spend millions  to repair statues when the money could come to better use.

At the end, the taliban destroyed them afetr negotiations crumbled.

Great recollection!  They even first asked the NGO to donate towards their people in poverty instead of the statues, to which they declined.  They then destroyed the statues out of feeling insulted that some were actually more inclined to spend on lifeless statues over starving humans.  But the media made it look like "those extreeeemist mozlemzzz!!" Lol.  Also note the taliban were in power for years before the statue destruction. If they destroyed it due to ideology they would not have waited until the NGO contraversy

[bigbobs]

What's the preferred way to murder a woman if she gets raped and brings shame on your family, stoning or beheading?

I would have answered your question but you forgot to include "thanks, bro" at the end

[stingray]

No, the Taliban destroyed them – priceless historical artifacts – after they declared them idols.

As for the other nonsense: Even if hundreds of thousands of little kids died of hunger every day, what does that have to do with the statues in question? And do you have any credible evidence that the Taliban's concern was with the poor, hungry children and not with destroying what they perceived as an idol because of their religious beliefs?

Big bob has explained it further. Beleive what you want.

[stingray]

Great recollection!  They even first asked the NGO to donate towards their people in poverty instead of the statues, to which they declined.  They then destroyed the statues out of feeling insulted that some were actually more inclined to spend on lifeless statues over starving humans.  But the media made it look like "those extreeeemist mozlemzzz!!" Lol.  Also note the taliban were in power for years before the statue destruction. If they destroyed it due to ideology they would not have waited until the NGO contraversy

whats even funny is that after the taliban destroyed the statues  pre sept 11, various heads of the taliban were invited to america to give talk to students, visited nasa, visited washington, visited gas companies, etc etc.The irony.

[bigbobs]

whats even funny is that after the taliban destroyed the statues  pre sept 11, various heads of the taliban were invited to america to give talk to students, visited nasa, visited washington, visited gas companies, etc etc.The irony.

Yup because of the pipeline interest

Or of course avxo is right and we are wrong because Fox News told him the Taliban destroyed the buddas due to ideology lol

[avxo]

Big bob has explained it further. Beleive what you want.

The facts speak for themselves and belief is not required.

[avxo]

Great recollection!  They even first asked the NGO to donate towards their people in poverty instead of the statues, to which they declined.  They then destroyed the statues out of feeling insulted that some were actually more inclined to spend on lifeless statues over starving humans.  But the media made it look like "those extreeeemist mozlemzzz!!" Lol.  Also note the taliban were in power for years before the statue destruction. If they destroyed it due to ideology they would not have waited until the NGO contraversy

Let's assume that is true - it's not, but lets assume it... does that excuse the destruction of priceless historical artifacts? Did destroying the statues help their cause to feed those poor, hungry children? Could it possibly help in any way? Frankly what you say paints the Taliban in a far worse light than destroying the statues because of sincerely held religious beliefs: it paints them as thugs, who, failing to get protection money from the corner store bust the merchandise.

[avxo]

Yup because of the pipeline interest

Or of course avxo is right and we are wrong because Fox News told him the Taliban destroyed the buddas due to ideology lol

No - Muhammad Omar and his government told us that. Quite clearly. Besides, as I said before, if they destroyed the statues for the reason you give that's even worse. Either way, they proved themselves to be nothing but petty, stupid men. That you defend their action speaks volumes about you.

P.S.: I don't get my news from Fox News anymore than you get yours from them.

[bigbobs]

No - Muhammad Omar and his government told us that. Quite clearly. Besides, as I said before, if they destroyed the statues for the reason you give that's even worse. Either way, they proved themselves to be nothing but petty, stupid men. That you defend their action speaks volumes about you.
P.S.: I don't get my news from Fox News anymore than you get yours from them.

Show me the post where I defended their actions?  Either you're a liar or just plain stupid, take your pick.  Either case you don't look good

Anyway, short history lesson for you:  Taliban came into power in 1996.  Buddas were destroyed in 2001.  If it were ideology based, why the five year gap?