Oregon DOC Handbook of Religious Beliefs
The Nation of Islam is an Afro-American religion.
Humankind was originally black until an evil scientist created a race of white people through genetic engineering. These white people turned out to be devils. The religion of the white devils was Christianity, while that of the original black people was Islam.
Allah allowed the race of white devils to rule the world for 6,000 years, a period about to end with the destruction of the world, after which a new world will be ruled by a nation of righteous Blacks.
I see.
25 comments:
Best of my knowledge, the Nation of Islam is a US native born creation and the primary reason Moslems have vowed to destroy them before moving on to homosexuals, hispanics and dogs.
Of the concerns many have expressed to me, these top the list.
However, I don't understand the dog problem but they sure don't like them.
Oh yes, I should add that I don't understand their problem with Hispanics, but they certainly never hesitated on their opinion.
Beats me.
Hey, all you lefty, anti-Americans out there.....calypso louie farrakan is your diversity guru. See how tolerant he is? See how tolerant the jihadists are of him? One question, though...will they kill the lefties with pet dogs before they kill the lefties with pet potbelly pigs?
A sin of omission by any other name.
From the same page: "Orthodox Islam rejects Nation of Islam as heretical because its doctrines are contrary to the Islamic Qur´an."
From this page: "In recent times, the doctrine of Yakub has been rationalized within the NOI as an allegory for the evolution of whites from the original black-skinned human populations of Africa, and as a parable warning of the dangers of eugenics. Yakub's 600-year experiment is seen as colorful storytelling, little different from the Bible's account of God creating Eve from Adam's rib, or the creation of heaven and earth in six days. In his autobiography... [Malcolm X] notes that, in his travels in the Middle East, many Muslims reacted with shock upon their discovery of the doctrine of Yakub."
Historically speaking, Islam isn't any more or any less barbaric than Christianity. Both are rooted in mythology, ignorance and social backwardness, and both have produced a mountain of bodies over the long haul. Anyone foolish enough to make the "My-God-is-better-than-your-God" argument ought to be locked in a room with someone who believes the earth is flat.
I'm not going to make the "my God is better than your God" argument because my God is your God!
Daniel--you are a dope
Gotta love the "mountain of bodies" folks. They always pop up with that one to explain their hatred of Christianity. However, you look at the time periods involved, at the actual numbers (instead of the airy assertions of "mountains".)
The Spanish Inquisition is a good one to point at... lots of burning and witchcraft accusations. Irregardless of the fact that the Inquisition in Spain did not answer to Rome, and was a purely political tool of the Spanish crown, in over 300 years of existance executed between 3,000 and 5,000 people. An average of between 10 and 13 a year? Hardly a good way to build "mountains." I'll bet you more than that have been killed in the name of Allah this week, let alone year.
You look at any death "caused" by Christianity and you'll find very non-Christian motivations at work. Yeah, we admit the fact that the church of Rome was taken over by the European aristocracy for a good long period and used as a political tool.
However, real numbers tell a story, and the story isn't one of parity, Christianity has enhanced and bettered more lives than it has ever taken whether you like it or not. Missionary programs and Christian charities do more to enhance the lives of people world-wide than any government on earth has ever done.
Then you have Islam... the exact opposite of Christianity, a religion that directly espouses violence and aggression against non-believers. When was the last time someone like you, making an off-hand critical comment of Christianity received an official sentence of death from the church? Can Islam say the same?
Ah yes ... sort of like the non-Christian impulses that motivate Daniel Miglavs. I see what you're saying.
Eddie,
"Irregardless" is not a word.
Eddie,
"Irregardless" is not a word.
Don't forget to send your favorite Islamofascist one of these fabulous greeting cards.
Well, those who make the "Christianity has a bloody history as well, so we are no better" argument really need to sit down and think about that a while.
The Christian world went through this crap on a mass scale centuries ago. Large segments of the Islamic world are now, and have been through the ages doing the same crap: trying to convert people to through outright violence. Got it? Christianity moved on, Islam didn't. That's the difference. What part of intolerant don't you understand?
As for the argument that somehow minister Farrakhan is not representative of Islam, that he is an aberration, an extremist I would ask one thing. Would you please remember the same the next time you try and make Jerry Falwell et. al. out to be representative of Christianity?
Eddie,
You bring up a very good point by saying that many deaths attributed to christianity had very non christian motives. At the same time, you contradict yourself by refusing to acknowledge that a lot of acts committed by extremists have very non-muslim motives. The extremists are after political gains through means that contradict the pillars of Islam.
You make a very interesting claim:
"However, real numbers tell a story, and the story isn't one of parity, Christianity has enhanced and bettered more lives than it has ever taken whether you like it or not."
It is interesting in that there is no way to quantify, and therefore qualify, this claim. I would suggest you further study the Islamic faith because instead of taking bits and pieces of it to fit some ideal anti-christian religion you have created, lest someone else take segments of the bible to do the same. (There's a great deal of material to do this with in the Old Testiment.)
R-Huse:
You mistakenly lump the extremist in with all the followers of Islam. Again, they are either
A) Motivated by non-Islamic incentives
B) New converts to the faith with little knowledge of Islam
Those in the latter category are usually easily exploitable to begin with due to one or both of the following:
A) Unfortunate financial situations
B) Lost loved ones (killed by a rival faction or an occupier)
I think that the teachings of Christ closely parallel the pillars of Islam, and that it is inaccurate to equate any devious act committed by one who either claims to be of the faith or is exploiting another with either Islam or Christianity.
Also in regards to the following:
"As for the argument that somehow minister Farrakhan is not representative of Islam, that he is an aberration, an extremist I would ask one thing. Would you please remember the same the next time you try and make Jerry Falwell et. al. out to be representative of Christianity?"
Please renounce Jerry Falwell, as well as Pat Robertson, and we will gladly do the same for Farrakhan.
Sigh - This is getting so tired.
When whole countries cheer and shout "Death to America" it is hard to accept that as a few extremists.
When nations cheer at the WTC attack it is not a few isolated individuals.
When whole Islamic nations have as their law the oppression and outright ban of any other faith it is hardly just a few kooks.
Islam has a problem. Christianity faced it centuries ago, Islam still hasn't. To deny that is simply ludicrous at this stage of the game.
As for renouncing Fallwell, you missed the point. Re - read.
I was illustrating the proclivity of those who make Falwell out to be representative of Christianity to take umbrage at the taking of Farrakhan as representative of Islam. Obviously you have proven my point very neatly. Thank you.
Whole countries? I seriously doubt that. Examples, please (and no, providing arbitrary country names will not suffice). Try again, R Huse.
Oh, I don't know. Consider the footage of Palestinians in Ramallah and elsewhere, cheering, shooting guns in the air and handing out candy to children just after 9/11. Consider the footage of multiple thousands in Iran being led in rallies, screaming "Death to America! Death to Israel!"
But of course, these are "isolated incidents", right? Just the way they had some isolated little socialist rallies in Germany in the late '30s; it didn't mean anything. Probably didn't even reflect the will of the German people.
"Whole countries?" Someone explain this to me: If RHuse sees footage of a few thousand Muslims demonstrating against American (GOVERNMENT) policy, then the "whole country" feels similarly. But if 50,000 march through New York against the war and Bush, then it's just a bunch of fringe whacko American hating liberal "socialists" who are in the minority. Give me a fucking break.
Thank you, 2:42
Look - Anonymous - If you missed the footage of the Islamic world in large numbers cheering the WTC coming down, not much I can do with that. If you are unaware of Iran's policies towards us, then I am not going to go into it here. If you have no knowledge of the intolerance for other religions in many Islamic countries that's really a little astounding. You obviously have missed some fairly major news coverage and your ignorance of those facts does not an argument make.
And yes, when I see a few thousand Muslims shouting Death to America and it is actively encouraged by the leaders of the country (Palestinian Authority and Iran come to mind, then again there is also Syria, hmmm, so many choices) I do weight that pretty damn heavily.
Once again: the Islamic world is BILLIONS of people. Are you listening, RHuse? You did not say earlier that watching footage of a crowd cheering death and destruction should be weighed "pretty damn heavily." You applied the sentiments expressed by these crowds -- whether they numbered 100, 1,000 or even 100,000, to "the whole country."
There is a skewered logic and fundamental hypocrisy involved here. A theme on this blog, which I suspect you've echoed many times, is that those who oppose Bush, who oppose the war in Iraq, and those of us who don't vilify gays and immigrants, that we are just a nutty minority, completely out of step with mainstream America. We're just a bunch of "anti-American socialist liberals," or whatever. And yet by your own logic, if I turn on my TV this weekend and see hundreds of thousands of Americans demonstrating against the war, then I should assume that they are representative of "the whole country."
The irony, in the present circumstances, is that the majority of Americans (a majority of them, but obviously not "the whole country") ARE against the war and oppose the Bush administration. A president's approval ratings do not fall into the 30 percent range unless he's lost a considerable number of Republicans and Independents. We are far beyond the point where Bush's critics can be dismissed as just a few "anti-American libs."
But hey, to each his own. If you and Daniel and a few like-minded folks want to get a rally together this weekend and protest the takeover of America by people who "hate America," then go for it. You can rest assured, however, that even if you're able to find 999 other people who agree with you and get some face time on TV, I will not be so stupid as to assume that you are representative of "the whole country."
Sorry Anon - Re read.
When the leadership of the country encourages the death to America crap, it is hardly just a few kooks in that country. No I am not going to list all the countries again, you will simply just have to get a newspaper. All the yammering about Bush etc. is really a little irrelevant to that central point which in several attempts just cant seem to counter.
An insane and/or morally bankrupt "leader" of a country who talks tough and shows a predisposition toward war is no more representative of his nation than George Bush is of this one. George Bush says lots of things, but polls (if you picked up a newspaper from time to time, you would know this, but obviously don't) show that he's lost the support of the American people.
Fuck it. You obviously don't get it.
"When the leadership of the country encourages the death to America crap, it is hardly just a few kooks in that country."
Oh, yes it is. It happens all the time. Especially under fascist and dictatorial leaders. Do you think the average Iranian, for example, is a pious follower of the kind of fundamentalism that Khomeini made law? Hardly. All they wanted in 1979 was political change; the overnight transition to Sharia law actually came as a bit of a shock to them. And even now, do you honestly believe that Ahmadinejad's "wipe Israel off the map" rhetoric is representative of the true collective passion of the Persian people? It does not.
One of the most important things for us to do, in this day and age, especially when we're talking about the Middle East, is to remember that a people and their government are not the same entities.
Ok - Anon
Bush comments - Interesting, but obviously non sequitars. Why is everything a Bush bashing moment with you guys?
Look, Kaelri and Anon. When substantial portions of a countries population as well as the leadership of those countries consistently and over a period of decades does the "Death to America" crap it is simply inane to continue to maintain it is just a few kooks. You ignore them at your peril as history has proven time and time again. Its a little astounding to me that anyone would argue otherwise.
My central point was that Islam has a problem. This is evidenced by the actions of more than a few kooks. Unfortunatly you still cant seem to counter that.
Post a Comment