Subject: Hooray for Michigan State - Page 2

bhkad · 01-20-08, 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Khayembii Communique

Well, just the part about Muslims being uncivilized, or about them being slave traders. In fact, I don't think I ever met a slave trader, much less a Muslim one, and I've met a lot of Muslims.

I take it you've never met a Muslim.

I've read about it.

Quote:

"Yet today, more than a century later, there are still slaves found between the Sahara and the Nile. What’s more, it is slavery having its basis in Islam, inheritor of the trade which for centuries has forcibly sent 11-14 million Africans from the sub-Sahara region to Arab and Muslim countries.

"Little is studied or said about the trade, the opposite being true of slave trade directed toward the Americas. The last general assembly of the African Catholic bishops conferences took place in Dakar in October 2003, where a session was dedicated to the issue, being introduced by statements such as the following:

"'Analyses of this issue have been prohibited at length. One cause of the paralysis of this historical conscience has been the attitude of many intellectuals and Muslim rulers regarding the trans-Saharan trade. For reasons of religious sensitivity they don’t want to properly admit to Arab and Islamic responsibility in this drama, whose evil effects still continue. Today in the Arab world the word ‘black’ simply means ‘slave.’ The tracks of the trans-Saharan trade have formed geographic roads leading to Maghreb and the Middle East.'

Dhimmi Watch: Twenty-first Century African Slaves – In the Land of Islam

Now you can. Although you can't really get a good idea of it since the analysis of it has been prohibited by the Catholic Bishops in Africa due to political correctness.

Funny how political correctness is always most detestable when someone else does it.

Monk-Eye · 01-20-08, 06:55 PM

"Perpetual Deceivers"

Quote:

Originally Posted by Khayembii Communique

Quote:

Originally Posted by Monk-Eye

The alliances of the collective are unsatisfactory, the facade of idealized personal convictions, perpetrated as meek passivity, are seeking a majority to translate itself into brutal, ludicrous politics; such will be averted, exposed for its miscreation, and remain inconsequential to consideration.

Why don't you hop on over to the conspiracy theories forum? That's where this crap belongs.
Communists...[no wait]...Muslims are taking over the world!

First you deny the historical and modern institutions of slavery under arabism.

Now you spout the undeniable agression of historical, and especially modern, political movements for arabism hegemony.

Next you will tell me that hinduism is an evil, polytheistic, demonic religion, of hell bound idolators, unless it is undone by arabism.

Squirm all you like, arabism is a genetic religion, it is not for non-arabs.

Khayembii Communique · 01-20-08, 07:07 PM

Quote:

First you deny the historical and modern institutions of slavery under arabism.

I never denied it. I said it was irrelevant to the discussion of American Muslims exercising their freedom of speech by legally protesting against something they deem hate speech.

Quote:

Now you spout the undeniable agression of historical, and especially modern, political movements for arabism hegemony.

Translation: Because I don't hate Muslims, I must be a Muslim-lover.
Translation: Because I don't hate niggers, I must be a ******-lover.

Quote:

Squirm all you like, arabism is a genetic religion, it is not for non-arabs.

And you substantiate this how?

Last I checked, black people aren't arabic. (Oh, and by the way, neither are Iranians.)

Monk-Eye · 01-20-08, 09:15 PM

"Distinct Reasons"

Quote:

Originally Posted by Khayembii Communique

I never denied it. I said it was irrelevant to the discussion of American Muslims exercising their freedom of speech by legally protesting against something they deem hate speech.

Few have memory that poor.
Post#5 of this thread read -

Quote:

Originally Posted by Khayembii Communique

Quote:

Originally Posted by Monk-Eye

Did he mention something that was not true?

Well, just the part about Muslims being uncivilized, or about them being slave traders. In fact, I don't think I ever met a slave trader, much less a Muslim one, and I've met a lot of Muslims.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Khayembii Communique

Quote:

Originally Posted by Monk-Eye

Now you spout the undeniable agression of historical, and especially modern, political movements for arabism hegemony.

Translation: Because I don't hate Muslims, I must be a Muslim-lover.
Translation: Because I don't hate niggers, I must be a ******-lover.

Hate? Don't get confused, this is not about hating a particular race, this is about condemnation of ideological differences.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Khayembii Communique

Quote:

Originally Posted by Monk-Eye

Squirm all you like, arabism is a genetic religion, it is not for non-arabs.

And you substantiate this how? Last I checked, black people aren't arabic. (Oh, and by the way, neither are Iranians.)

At least you have arrived at the crux of issues.

Firstly, one is to understand that israelism and arabism are genetic religions, tied to patriarchs, intended as culture and government for each specific lineage of peoples.

The culture and government of arabism, given by muhammad, was presented for the descendants of the patriarch ishmael (first arab, son of abraham and hagar - slave, daughter of the egyptian pharoah), unintended for non-arabs, propositionally (disrespectfully, errantly) unbounded to a parcel of land.

Synonymously, the culture and government of israelism, given by musa (moses), was presented to the descendants of the patriarch isaac (son of abraham and sarah - kindred wife), unintended for non-israelis, and propositionally (respectfully, inerrantly) bounded to the land of israel.

Two citations are noted to establish the validity of those elements.

Under Islam

Quote:

Muhammad began preaching Islam at Mecca before migrating to Medina, from where he united the tribes of Arabia into a singular Arab Muslim religious polity.
...
For the Umayyad aristocracy, Islam was viewed as a religion for Arabs only;[72] the economy of the Umayyad empire was based on the assumption that a majority of non-Muslims (Dhimmis) would pay taxes to the minority of Muslim Arabs. A non-Arab who wanted to convert to Islam was supposed to first become a client of an Arab tribe. Even after conversion, these new Muslims (mawali) did not achieve social and economic equality with the Arabs.

Under the Seven Laws Of Noah,

Quote:

According to Judaism, the 613 mitzvot or "commandments" given in the written Torah, as well as their reasonings in the oral Torah, were only issued to the Jews and are therefore only binding upon them, having inherited the obligation from their ancestors. At the same time, at Mount Sinai, the Children of Israel were given the obligation to teach other nations the embedded laws. It is actually forbidden by the Talmud for non-Jews on whom the Noahide Laws are still binding, to elevate their observance to the Torah's mitzvot as the Jews do.[4]

Khayembii Communique · 01-20-08, 11:52 PM

Quote:

Well, just the part about Muslims being uncivilized, or about them being slave traders. In fact, I don't think I ever met a slave trader, much less a Muslim one, and I've met a lot of Muslims.

This isn't a denial that Moorish civilizations practiced slave trading; it was a denial that the Muslims this asshat was addressing his letter to are slave traders. As for the second part you emphasized, that's not false. I've never met a slave trader before, and I've met a lot of Muslims.

Quote:

Hate? Don't get confused, this is not about hating a particular race, this is about condemnation of ideological differences.

No, that is what you mask it as.

Quote:

At least you have arrived at the crux of issues.

Firstly, one is to understand that israelism and arabism are genetic religions, tied to patriarchs, intended as culture and government for each specific lineage of peoples.

The culture and government of arabism, given by muhammad, was presented for the descendants of the patriarch ishmael (first arab, son of abraham and hagar - slave, daughter of the egyptian pharoah), unintended for non-arabs, propositionally (disrespectfully, errantly) unbounded to a parcel of land.

Synonymously, the culture and government of israelism, given by musa (moses), was presented to the descendants of the patriarch isaac (son of abraham and sarah - kindred wife), unintended for non-israelis, and propositionally (respectfully, inerrantly) bounded to the land of israel.

Two citations are noted to establish the validity of those elements.

And here we go into the "Islam is barbaric." "But Christianity is just as barbaric if you look at it in the same way." "No it's not!" "Yes it is!" crap. The problem is that ideology changes over time, regardless of whether or not these holy texts have.

Again, your lack of personal experience with Muslims completely cripples your ability to actually understand what you're talking about.

Plus, you never addressed my point that there are non-Arabic Muslims; hell, Iran isn't even Arabic! Your argument falls to pieces under its own weight.

Monk-Eye · 01-21-08, 10:23 AM

"Limiting Expectations"

Quote:

Originally Posted by Khayembii Communique

....it was a denial that the Muslims this asshat was addressing his letter to are slave traders.....I've never met a slave trader before.....

Arabism accepts slavery as part of its institution by doctrine.
Nice try, you cannot diminish that any more than you can dissociate sharia law from arabism.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Khayembii Communique

No, that is what you mask it as.

If you want to see racialism look at the inception of arabism, "pas de touche".
Arabism prejudices societies outright that it perceives are inconsistent with its deluded constructs, "pas de touche".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Khayembii Communique

And here we go into the "Islam is barbaric." "But Christianity is just as barbaric if you look at it in the same way." "No it's not!" "Yes it is!" crap. The problem is that ideology changes over time, regardless of whether or not these holy texts have.

The barbarism within an institution of arabism is not my full concern.
My concern is to ensure that it remains an isolated system of government.

Libertarianism ambitions the liberation of the individual.
Individuals are at liberty, without coercion, to join a collective institution, no matter how bizarre.
If the policies within the institution are themselves antilibertarian, agressive, and coercive, it raise conflicts of interest.
Such institutions must be limited extrinsically, and respectfully, inerrantly, they are also limited intrinsically.

A genetic religion expects autonomy to practice its traditions for its personal survival, and the way to receive that autonomy is to grant it to everyone else.
That is why the issue of government bounded to a parcel of land is raised as proper respect for other institutions and peoples; it is an element of israelism but it is not an element of arabism.

Israelism isolates itself, excluding others, and limits its institution of governance both in land and tradition.
Arabism does exactly the opposite and chooses to reign through irony.
Arabs have a right to establish a kingdom over arabs and rule it under a genetic religion of arabism if they please.
The genetic religion of arabism is unintended for non-arab lands and peoples.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Khayembii Communique

Again, your lack of personal experience with Muslims completely cripples your ability to actually understand what you're talking about. Plus, you never addressed my point that there are non-Arabic Muslims; hell, Iran isn't even Arabic! Your argument falls to pieces under its own weight.

Iran has been repeatedly mocked as vanquished persians lacking any self respect for their own heritage, zoroastrianism being espoused.
The name of their government should be formally recognized internationally as The Arabism Republic Of Iran; effectively, they are arab puppets.