|
E-Kul
|
 |
« Reply #525 on: May 11, 2013, 06:14:46 AM » |
|
|
V
|
|
|
|
stingray
|
|
« Reply #526 on: May 11, 2013, 03:22:17 PM » |
|
Typical e-kul.
You ask him a question, when he cant defend it he posts up a video/article which has nothing to do with the first issue in the first place.
|
|
|
|
|
|
a_ahmed
|
|
« Reply #527 on: May 11, 2013, 08:02:26 PM » |
|
lol its been reaffirmed that hawking pulled out for anti-israel reasons not for 'health' reasons or any other bs that the media tried to portray hence since theyve been on a barrage even in local newspapers here in canada and elsewhere in pro-zionist mainstream media targetting and attacking him.
The typical anti-semetism bullshit card is pulled when israel is criticized. Bunch of zio-trash
|
|
|
|
|
|
a_ahmed
|
|
« Reply #528 on: May 11, 2013, 08:03:53 PM » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
a_ahmed
|
|
« Reply #529 on: May 11, 2013, 08:04:38 PM » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
E-Kul
|
|
« Reply #530 on: May 12, 2013, 12:14:05 AM » |
|
|
V
|
|
|
|
stingray
|
|
« Reply #531 on: May 12, 2013, 03:07:26 AM » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
E-Kul
|
|
« Reply #532 on: May 18, 2013, 01:15:05 AM » |
|
UK: WOMEN CONVERTS TO ISLAM ‘DISCOVER’ ABUSE AND OPPRESSION
University of Cambridge is revealing the depth of the human idiocy trapped in absurd liberalism: Western women ‘discovering’ that their conversion to Islam ends in physical abuse and oppression! The Times has given a preamble to a new study on Islamic conversions. This should be an u-duh moment for all the liberals choosing to convert to the most violent, oppressive and evil cult on earth. These women have no excuses for their new-found discovery. And what is that discovery? That after converting to Islam, they are subject to abuse by their husbands that they don’t want to report! They also complain about oppression against women encouraged by mosques. Duh…!
Media is full of reports about Muslim conduct not only in their home countries, but around the world. Not a single Muslim society on the face of the earth have democracy, freedom or equality. Then, how utterly stupid can you be to convert to a faith that loves to abuse and rape women?
Sorry, but there is no pity from our side. Let these liberal learn reality the hard way. For years and years they have been screaming in defense of Islam, and now they learn that all that they heard from those they accused of bigotry was actually the truth and nothing but the truth.
The conversion to Islam in the UK where this study was made is actually tiny, with only 5,000 conversions per year of which nearly 80% leave Islam in less than three years. Media is blowing these small numbers out of proportion (mainly stemming from Muslim journalists and regurgitated endlessly) claiming that Islam is the ‘fastest’ growing religion. There are no conversion ceremonies in Christianity, Hinduism or Buddhism and therefore it is impossible to compare. The other faiths are free of choice and do not impose imprisoned regimes on their followers and cannot therefore be measured in the same respect. The growth to Islam in the UK is mainly by birth rate, by asylum, by general immigration, by illegal immigration, and by forced prison conversion, with a tiny number of 5,000 a year by voluntary conversion.
In Muslim countries minorities are converting by force to avoid death threats and execution. In contrast, the church has found that over 6 million Muslims PER YEAR convert to Christianity in Africa alone. The numbers are staggering in other parts of the Muslim world. We have number for other countries too and you’d be shocked at the numbers shared by the Church, but we do not wish to publish them because persecution of Muslims for apostasy are very high and relentless in these countries. To protect them we will keep the numbers secret.
Women who convert to Islam often find themselves at the “nexus of a clash of civilisations,” according to a new report. Converts become confused between what is faith and what is culture in their new Muslim community, with “dress etiquette” one of the first challenges.
The issue of domestic violence was also a problem, with some converts finding it harder to escape an abusive husband because they were reluctant to admit to such problems after changing their faith.
The report, Narratives of Conversion to Islam, was based on the experience of 47 female converts to Islam and published by the Centre of Islamic Studies and the New Muslims Project.
It said that non-Muslims are often perplexed as to why a woman would choose to embrace “a backward faith that oppresses her”.
According to some estimates, there could be as many as 100,000 converts to Islam in Britain. High-profile converts include Tony Blair’s sister-in-law Lauren Booth and the journalist Yvonne Ridley.
The study included women who converted to Islam from all faiths and none, including atheism, Judaism, Hinduism and Sikhism.
Family reactions were often negative, with one woman thrown out of the house by her father who accused her of joining a “barbaric and uncivilised” faith. Her brother went further and joined the British National Party “to prevent the further Islamification of Britain”. Neighbours were told the daughter had died.
Wearing a headscarf, hijab or even the full niqab dress was often seen as a “rite of passage” by converts and a way of “belonging” to their new community, but others chose not to wear any outward sign of their new faith for fear of attracting negative attention.
For some, the headscarf changed their status in society from white to “non-white”, the report said.
One woman described converting to Islam at 16, leaving home because this upset her mother and then entering an arranged marriage with a man who became abusive.
When she sought help she was accused of bringing “dishonour” on her husband’s family. She escaped with her two children but they were then kidnapped and taken to India by her husband and she has not now seen them for nine years.
The women in the study also criticised the Sharia Councils and courts operating in Britain, fearing they placed their rights as women in jeopardy.
Overall, the convert experience was a mixture of acceptance and rejection, integration and isolation, the report said.
It described a new British Islam emerging, particularly among children of converts, which is less reliant on the ethnic and cultural heritage of the early Muslim communities in the UK.
Harley Street physician Dr Annie Coxon, who converted to Islam from Catholicism 20 years ago and whose mother was American, said: “I have not had negative reactions to my change in religious faith from friends in the UK, but have had problems in the US with Homeland Security and with my brother and his wife, related to the perception of Islam as inevitably linked with terrorism.
“Converts are not accepted within the Pakistani Muslim community in the UK because of their negative impression of colonialism.”
Yasir Suleiman, fonder of the Centre of Islamic Studies in Cambridge, said: “Conversion is a complex phenomenon. It is often full of joy and pain for the convert and her family and friends, regardless of the faith to which she converts, but no more so than when the faith is a maligned Islam and its followers.”
|
V
|
|
|
|
stingray
|
|
« Reply #533 on: May 18, 2013, 05:17:25 AM » |
|
UK: WOMEN CONVERTS TO ISLAM ‘DISCOVER’ ABUSE AND OPPRESSION
University of Cambridge is revealing the depth of the human idiocy trapped in absurd liberalism: Western women ‘discovering’ that their conversion to Islam ends in physical abuse and oppression! The Times has given a preamble to a new study on Islamic conversions. This should be an u-duh moment for all the liberals choosing to convert to the most violent, oppressive and evil cult on earth. These women have no excuses for their new-found discovery. And what is that discovery? That after converting to Islam, they are subject to abuse by their husbands that they don’t want to report! They also complain about oppression against women encouraged by mosques. Duh…!
Media is full of reports about Muslim conduct not only in their home countries, but around the world. Not a single Muslim society on the face of the earth have democracy, freedom or equality. Then, how utterly stupid can you be to convert to a faith that loves to abuse and rape women?
Sorry, but there is no pity from our side. Let these liberal learn reality the hard way. For years and years they have been screaming in defense of Islam, and now they learn that all that they heard from those they accused of bigotry was actually the truth and nothing but the truth.
The conversion to Islam in the UK where this study was made is actually tiny, with only 5,000 conversions per year of which nearly 80% leave Islam in less than three years. Media is blowing these small numbers out of proportion (mainly stemming from Muslim journalists and regurgitated endlessly) claiming that Islam is the ‘fastest’ growing religion. There are no conversion ceremonies in Christianity, Hinduism or Buddhism and therefore it is impossible to compare. The other faiths are free of choice and do not impose imprisoned regimes on their followers and cannot therefore be measured in the same respect. The growth to Islam in the UK is mainly by birth rate, by asylum, by general immigration, by illegal immigration, and by forced prison conversion, with a tiny number of 5,000 a year by voluntary conversion.
In Muslim countries minorities are converting by force to avoid death threats and execution. In contrast, the church has found that over 6 million Muslims PER YEAR convert to Christianity in Africa alone. The numbers are staggering in other parts of the Muslim world. We have number for other countries too and you’d be shocked at the numbers shared by the Church, but we do not wish to publish them because persecution of Muslims for apostasy are very high and relentless in these countries. To protect them we will keep the numbers secret.
Women who convert to Islam often find themselves at the “nexus of a clash of civilisations,” according to a new report. Converts become confused between what is faith and what is culture in their new Muslim community, with “dress etiquette” one of the first challenges.
The issue of domestic violence was also a problem, with some converts finding it harder to escape an abusive husband because they were reluctant to admit to such problems after changing their faith.
The report, Narratives of Conversion to Islam, was based on the experience of 47 female converts to Islam and published by the Centre of Islamic Studies and the New Muslims Project.
It said that non-Muslims are often perplexed as to why a woman would choose to embrace “a backward faith that oppresses her”.
According to some estimates, there could be as many as 100,000 converts to Islam in Britain. High-profile converts include Tony Blair’s sister-in-law Lauren Booth and the journalist Yvonne Ridley.
The study included women who converted to Islam from all faiths and none, including atheism, Judaism, Hinduism and Sikhism.
Family reactions were often negative, with one woman thrown out of the house by her father who accused her of joining a “barbaric and uncivilised” faith. Her brother went further and joined the British National Party “to prevent the further Islamification of Britain”. Neighbours were told the daughter had died.
Wearing a headscarf, hijab or even the full niqab dress was often seen as a “rite of passage” by converts and a way of “belonging” to their new community, but others chose not to wear any outward sign of their new faith for fear of attracting negative attention.
For some, the headscarf changed their status in society from white to “non-white”, the report said.
One woman described converting to Islam at 16, leaving home because this upset her mother and then entering an arranged marriage with a man who became abusive.
When she sought help she was accused of bringing “dishonour” on her husband’s family. She escaped with her two children but they were then kidnapped and taken to India by her husband and she has not now seen them for nine years.
The women in the study also criticised the Sharia Councils and courts operating in Britain, fearing they placed their rights as women in jeopardy.
Overall, the convert experience was a mixture of acceptance and rejection, integration and isolation, the report said.
It described a new British Islam emerging, particularly among children of converts, which is less reliant on the ethnic and cultural heritage of the early Muslim communities in the UK.
Harley Street physician Dr Annie Coxon, who converted to Islam from Catholicism 20 years ago and whose mother was American, said: “I have not had negative reactions to my change in religious faith from friends in the UK, but have had problems in the US with Homeland Security and with my brother and his wife, related to the perception of Islam as inevitably linked with terrorism.
“Converts are not accepted within the Pakistani Muslim community in the UK because of their negative impression of colonialism.”
Yasir Suleiman, fonder of the Centre of Islamic Studies in Cambridge, said: “Conversion is a complex phenomenon. It is often full of joy and pain for the convert and her family and friends, regardless of the faith to which she converts, but no more so than when the faith is a maligned Islam and its followers.”
Who was the author of that article? Looks like the author was a moderator of a forum. He couldn't even put his real name up. Author=moderator lol. Id like to see where he got his research and statistics from. And you combined two articles which where separate articles. |
|
|
|
|
|
E-Kul
|
|
« Reply #534 on: May 20, 2013, 11:19:09 PM » |
|
|
V
|
|
|
|
a_ahmed
|
|
« Reply #535 on: May 21, 2013, 07:10:02 AM » |
|
The man's body lies on a blanket striped in white and blue. He's wearing a dark brown tank top and a dark blue flowered sarong. Someone has tied his hands behind his back with rope. There are deep red gashes on his head and shoulders -- some of them presumably the wounds that ended his life.
The man in the photo is a Muslim. The people who killed him were almost certainly Buddhists. He was a victim in last fall's sectarian bloodshed in western Burma, which pitted members of the two religions against each other. The image comes from a new report by Human Rights Watch that carefully documents the violence that took some 200 lives and resulted in the forced displacement of some 125,000 people. (A more recent wave of violence within the past few weeks has taken some 40 additional lives and triggered another surge of refugees.) The report argues persuasively that state institutions, including the police, often stood by while Buddhist rioters went after their Muslim neighbors -- and in some cases may have even helped to organize the attacks. A mere 4 percent of Burma's population of Burma is Muslim, while well over 90 percent are Buddhists. Perhaps the fact that the government sided with the majority probably shouldn't have come as a surprise. (The allegations didn't stop the International Crisis Group, a leading western humanitarian organization, from giving an award to President Thein Sein earlier this week.)
But wait: Isn't Buddhism a religion that places respect for life and the embrace of peace at the very center of its worldview? The Buddha himself placed compassion at the root of his teachings, and in Burma itself, it was Buddhist monks who set the rigorously non-violent tone of the massive anti-government demonstrations back in 2007. The chants of the saffron-robed protestors were powerfully moving: "May all beings living to the East be free; all beings in the universe be free, free from fear, free from all distress!"
It turns out, sadly, that some Buddhist monks don't see this as a binding ethical imperative. Monks have been prominent among those inciting the recent bloodshed. The most notable is U Wirathu, a monk at a prominent monastery who's made a name for himself lately as an apologist for anti-Muslim sentiment and the organizer of the "969" movement, which has been issuing stickers and signs emblazoned with that number (which has symbolic significance for Burmese Buddhists) to identify businesses that refuse to serve Muslims -- exactly the kind of policy the monk is aiming to promote. He's said to have referred to himself as "the Buddhist Osama bin Laden." How can this sort of bigotry possibly be reconciled with the teachings of the Enlightened One?
I'm happy to say that there are plenty of other Buddhist monks in Burma who have been pushing back against their chauvinist colleagues. But to understand what's been happening, we also need to take a closer look at those who claim to be standing up for Buddhism even as they've doing things that don't seem to be easily reconcilable with their religion.
First of all, the notion of Buddhism as an inherently pacifist religion has a strong element of Western oversimplification. Buddhist teaching has never prohibited believers from fighting in defense of a just cause. As the scholars Michael Jerryson and Mark Juergensmeyer show in their book Buddhist Warfare, Buddhists have participated in wars ever since their faith came into being. Militant monks have fought for Chinese rulers (and against them) for centuries. Japan's samurai warriors were ardent Buddhists, men who cited the Buddha's teachings on the impermanence of physical existence as a good argument for soldiering.
When the Dalai Lama urges his fellow Tibetans to maintain non-violence in their struggle against Chinese rule, his fans in the West tend to see this as a typically Buddhist attitude. But, as some astute observers have pointed out, the Dalai Lama's embrace of civil disobedience may owe as much to Gandhi and Martin Luther King as it does to his fellow believers. (Nor, intriguingly, did it stop His Holiness from approving the killing of Osama bin Laden, though he later qualified his position when it became clear that the al Qaeda leader was unarmed when he was shot.) Indeed, his religious authority hasn't been enough to prevent over 100 Tibetans from killing themselves as a protest against Chinese policy despite his injunctions against suicide. (Happily, in the wake of the Human Rights Watch report, he has been urging the monks in Burma to end the violence there.)
But doctrine is only part of the problem. All religions -- Buddhism included -- tend to create a powerful sense of collective identity among their followers. All of the great world religions emphasize the sanctity of human life, and strive to limit the use of violence to what's admissible in certain cases. But those careful distinctions tend to go out the window when a group of believers feels that its values are under threat.
As the current crisis in Burma demonstrates, modern Buddhists are just as susceptible to identity politics as anyone else. In March, police in Sri Lanka stood by as Buddhist monks led a mob that pillaged a Muslim-owned garment warehouse. Sri Lanka, which has been convulsed for years by a civil war between majority Buddhists and minority Tamils, is home to several hard-line Buddhist political movements, including something called the "Buddhist Strength Force," which has recently made a name for itself with vitriolic anti-Muslim rhetoric. "It is the monks who protect our country, religion, and race," said Sri Lankan Defense Minister Gotabhaya Rajapaksa in a recent speech -- reinforcing suspicions that militant monks enjoy tacit government support.
The government in Thailand, meanwhile, has armed local Buddhist groups to counter a simmering Muslim insurgency in the south of the country. The militias, which are distinct from the regular army and the police, have the job of defending Buddhist communities against potential attacks -- and perhaps deepening the sectarian dimension in that long-running conflict.
What all three of these countries have in common is an ominous trend in which governments and religious institutions are lending support to destructive sectarian forces. Muslims may well bear some of the responsibility for the killings in Burma, but the evidence overwhelmingly suggests that most of the violence was committed by far more numerous Buddhists who enjoyed crucial support from local officials and religious leaders.
None of this, of course, is to argue that Buddhists are uniquely evil. It's merely to point out that some of our idealized notions about the purity of Buddhism don't live up to real-world scrutiny. We shouldn't give Buddhist extremists a pass any more than we would their Muslim, Christian, or Jewish equivalents; otherwise we run the risk of becoming complicit in their crimes. Just because the conflicts they create are in far-away, exotic places is no excuse for complacency.
The world is too small for that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
E-Kul
|
|
« Reply #536 on: May 21, 2013, 07:25:25 AM » |
|
The man's body lies on a blanket striped in white and blue. He's wearing a dark brown tank top and a dark blue flowered sarong. Someone has tied his hands behind his back with rope. There are deep red gashes on his head and shoulders -- some of them presumably the wounds that ended his life.
The man in the photo is a Muslim. The people who killed him were almost certainly Buddhists. He was a victim in last fall's sectarian bloodshed in western Burma, which pitted members of the two religions against each other. The image comes from a new report by Human Rights Watch that carefully documents the violence that took some 200 lives and resulted in the forced displacement of some 125,000 people. (A more recent wave of violence within the past few weeks has taken some 40 additional lives and triggered another surge of refugees.) The report argues persuasively that state institutions, including the police, often stood by while Buddhist rioters went after their Muslim neighbors -- and in some cases may have even helped to organize the attacks. A mere 4 percent of Burma's population of Burma is Muslim, while well over 90 percent are Buddhists. Perhaps the fact that the government sided with the majority probably shouldn't have come as a surprise. (The allegations didn't stop the International Crisis Group, a leading western humanitarian organization, from giving an award to President Thein Sein earlier this week.)
But wait: Isn't Buddhism a religion that places respect for life and the embrace of peace at the very center of its worldview? The Buddha himself placed compassion at the root of his teachings, and in Burma itself, it was Buddhist monks who set the rigorously non-violent tone of the massive anti-government demonstrations back in 2007. The chants of the saffron-robed protestors were powerfully moving: "May all beings living to the East be free; all beings in the universe be free, free from fear, free from all distress!"
It turns out, sadly, that some Buddhist monks don't see this as a binding ethical imperative. Monks have been prominent among those inciting the recent bloodshed. The most notable is U Wirathu, a monk at a prominent monastery who's made a name for himself lately as an apologist for anti-Muslim sentiment and the organizer of the "969" movement, which has been issuing stickers and signs emblazoned with that number (which has symbolic significance for Burmese Buddhists) to identify businesses that refuse to serve Muslims -- exactly the kind of policy the monk is aiming to promote. He's said to have referred to himself as "the Buddhist Osama bin Laden." How can this sort of bigotry possibly be reconciled with the teachings of the Enlightened One?
I'm happy to say that there are plenty of other Buddhist monks in Burma who have been pushing back against their chauvinist colleagues. But to understand what's been happening, we also need to take a closer look at those who claim to be standing up for Buddhism even as they've doing things that don't seem to be easily reconcilable with their religion.
First of all, the notion of Buddhism as an inherently pacifist religion has a strong element of Western oversimplification. Buddhist teaching has never prohibited believers from fighting in defense of a just cause. As the scholars Michael Jerryson and Mark Juergensmeyer show in their book Buddhist Warfare, Buddhists have participated in wars ever since their faith came into being. Militant monks have fought for Chinese rulers (and against them) for centuries. Japan's samurai warriors were ardent Buddhists, men who cited the Buddha's teachings on the impermanence of physical existence as a good argument for soldiering.
When the Dalai Lama urges his fellow Tibetans to maintain non-violence in their struggle against Chinese rule, his fans in the West tend to see this as a typically Buddhist attitude. But, as some astute observers have pointed out, the Dalai Lama's embrace of civil disobedience may owe as much to Gandhi and Martin Luther King as it does to his fellow believers. (Nor, intriguingly, did it stop His Holiness from approving the killing of Osama bin Laden, though he later qualified his position when it became clear that the al Qaeda leader was unarmed when he was shot.) Indeed, his religious authority hasn't been enough to prevent over 100 Tibetans from killing themselves as a protest against Chinese policy despite his injunctions against suicide. (Happily, in the wake of the Human Rights Watch report, he has been urging the monks in Burma to end the violence there.)
But doctrine is only part of the problem. All religions -- Buddhism included -- tend to create a powerful sense of collective identity among their followers. All of the great world religions emphasize the sanctity of human life, and strive to limit the use of violence to what's admissible in certain cases. But those careful distinctions tend to go out the window when a group of believers feels that its values are under threat.
As the current crisis in Burma demonstrates, modern Buddhists are just as susceptible to identity politics as anyone else. In March, police in Sri Lanka stood by as Buddhist monks led a mob that pillaged a Muslim-owned garment warehouse. Sri Lanka, which has been convulsed for years by a civil war between majority Buddhists and minority Tamils, is home to several hard-line Buddhist political movements, including something called the "Buddhist Strength Force," which has recently made a name for itself with vitriolic anti-Muslim rhetoric. "It is the monks who protect our country, religion, and race," said Sri Lankan Defense Minister Gotabhaya Rajapaksa in a recent speech -- reinforcing suspicions that militant monks enjoy tacit government support.
The government in Thailand, meanwhile, has armed local Buddhist groups to counter a simmering Muslim insurgency in the south of the country. The militias, which are distinct from the regular army and the police, have the job of defending Buddhist communities against potential attacks -- and perhaps deepening the sectarian dimension in that long-running conflict.
What all three of these countries have in common is an ominous trend in which governments and religious institutions are lending support to destructive sectarian forces. Muslims may well bear some of the responsibility for the killings in Burma, but the evidence overwhelmingly suggests that most of the violence was committed by far more numerous Buddhists who enjoyed crucial support from local officials and religious leaders.
None of this, of course, is to argue that Buddhists are uniquely evil. It's merely to point out that some of our idealized notions about the purity of Buddhism don't live up to real-world scrutiny. We shouldn't give Buddhist extremists a pass any more than we would their Muslim, Christian, or Jewish equivalents; otherwise we run the risk of becoming complicit in their crimes. Just because the conflicts they create are in far-away, exotic places is no excuse for complacency.
The world is too small for that.
The Buddha never ruled out murder all together, if by killing someone who would bring untold suffering unto others, by killing them you produce less death of innocent others, then this is a justifiable death. Actually it is the most buddhist act of all to eradicate Islam, as it is this ideology that causes untold suffering and death to innocent people unnecessarily, because Islam rejects peace and embraces violence, it could rightly be considered the duty of all Buddhists, in the name of preventing the suffering of innocents, to eradicate Islam anywhere it resides. Islam is anti life, anti peace, it is the duty of good men everywhere to oppose it. |
V
|
|
|
|
