Anonymous wrote:Muslima - do you believe Palestinians engage in honor killings? Do you believe the UN when they say Hamas has weaponry in civilian locations? Do you support either practice? Do you believe suicide bombers exist? Do you feel they are correct in their behavior?

do you believe Palestinians engage in honor killings?

Do you believe the UN when they say Hamas has weaponry in civilian locations?

Do you believe suicide bombers exist?

Do you feel they are correct in their behavior?

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:We shouldn't be too concerned about Ebola spreading to the US or other wealthy countries. It's transmitted entirely through exposure to bodily fluids. In settings with Ebola, there's bleeding in a variety of places and the virus is present in those excretions, and people need to come into contact with that to get the virus. The people at risk are the family members who are taking care of sick people, those who are preparing bodies for burial, and health-care workers.

The virus is not transmitted through coughing and sneezing, or through sitting next to someone on a bus, plane or the like. The idea that the virus can somehow mutate and become more readily transmissible from person to person through coughing or sneezing—those are Hollywood scenarios. The idea that Ebola can become more readily transmissible through casual contact is unrealistic.

Yes, you could get ill from close contact: sweat is considered a bodily fluid. And it's not clear that aerosolized droplets are not a mode of transmission. As for the idea that a virus mutating is Hollywood fiction, viruses do mutate. How do you think swine flu and avian flu got to be called those names?

1) nucleotide substitutions resulting from purportedly high error rates during RNA synthesis; 2) reassortment of the RNA segments of multipartite genomic viruses; or 3) RNA-RNA recombination between non-segmented RNAs...The Ebola virus can use only the first and the third mechanisms as it has only one segment of RNA by capsid" (the protective coating of proteins).

takoma wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, because Islam is derived from Judaism isn't it? Ismail was the bastard son of Isaac?

I think the Torah says that Abraham took Sarah's handmaiden Hagar in marriage to give a child to him and Sarah. So Ishmael was legitimate, and was Isaac's older half brother. I think the Quran says he was the one that Abraham almost sacrificed.

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Muslima said point blank that Hamas does not want the destruction do all Jews. Now a Hamas cleric has stated this is exactly their goal, and Muslima brings up an Istaeli re: Palestinians. The fact that Israel has never had a goal to kill all ARABS seems to have escaped her. Israel is under constant terror threat from Palestiniams due to Hamas. Are there innocents? Sure. But blindly supporting Hamas, who do so much to get Palestinians killed, will only get me to support Israel's goals of destroying those terror tunnels more. Israel did nut dig them under mosques and schools etc.

Putting the blame on Israel saying they need more targeted weaponr because Hamas engages in these practices is ridiculous. You don't allow this practice to continue, and if that means their innocents die to protect yours, well, that's on Hamas.

Do you really think Hamas' mission is to kill all Jews? Hamas' leader clearly said that it wasn't true. I saw pictures and tweets from IDF soldiers this morning that said: "I killed 13 children, I'm going to kill some more. We will not stop until all Muslims are dead" . Did I suddenly have this irrational fear that Jews were coming after me? Sometimes, it is good to use common sense and be critical as opposed to emotional. If Hamas' plan was to exterminate the Jews, why stop at Israel? Why don't we have Hamas members all over the world killing every Jew they see? Or are only the Israeli Jews the doomed one? Jeezzzzz

Actually, there is considerable agreement that the tweet was a fake and the account was hacked. Why hasn't any major news service carried it? Because it can't corroborated as legitimate. Only one I can find is the International Business Times, which expressed that this could very well be fake. I think there's a direct difference between Hamas leaders calling for killing all jews and Israelis and a highly likely fake tweet.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:to clariy - no Jewish legal authority allows the consumption of Hallah meat in place of kosher meat. Rather that is a practice evolving among some partially observant lay Jews.

Is there an exception, like in Islam, for times of sever hardship?

anything is kosher if you are starving and need to eat it for health "pkuach nefesh" saving a life - trumps ritual law as a general rule.

But few human beings need to eat meat to live (and of course most of us would be healthier eating less) so the law does not allow for eating nonkosher meat when vegetarian food (much easier to make kosher) is available.

Note this applys only to things you are going to ingest. There is no law against contacting or benefiting from even pig parts - you can play football with a pigskin covered ball, etc.

Anonymous wrote:Muslima said point blank that Hamas does not want the destruction do all Jews. Now a Hamas cleric has stated this is exactly their goal, and Muslima brings up an Istaeli re: Palestinians. The fact that Israel has never had a goal to kill all ARABS seems to have escaped her. Israel is under constant terror threat from Palestiniams due to Hamas. Are there innocents? Sure. But blindly supporting Hamas, who do so much to get Palestinians killed, will only get me to support Israel's goals of destroying those terror tunnels more. Israel did nut dig them under mosques and schools etc.

Putting the blame on Israel saying they need more targeted weaponr because Hamas engages in these practices is ridiculous. You don't allow this practice to continue, and if that means their innocents die to protect yours, well, that's on Hamas.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"The World's Religions" by Huston Smith is a well-written, readable book that explains the basics of major religions. This is a better way to learn than relying on the possibly uninformed opinions of us DCUM'ers!

I agree, have a copy, and refer to it often.

takoma wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Muslima, you can't even get information correct about the Israel/Palestine threads you create and then monopolize over on Political Discussion. I sure as heck am not going to try to give you Christian information to twist around and misquote.

That strikes me as rather harsh. I don't always agree with Muslima, but it seems to me she states her opinions in moderate language, gives more citations and explanations than most, and does not engage in personal attacks or generalizations about Jews or other groups.

I find her comments among the most interesting on DCUM, and am glad that she lets us know they are from the same person.

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:According to this, unless you convert to Islam-you are doomed in an Islamic society. It is the only religion that encourages and condones war-not peace.


The Quran:
Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief] is worse than killing...
but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)" The historical context of this passage is not defensive warfare, since Muhammad and his Muslims had just relocated to Medina and were not under attack by their Meccan adversaries. In fact, the verses urge offensive warfare, in that Muslims are to drive Meccans out of their own city (which they later did). The use of the word "persecution" by some Muslim translators is thus disingenuous (the actual Muslim words for persecution - "idtihad" - and oppression - a variation of "z-l-m" - do not appear in the verse). The actual Arabic comes from "fitna" which can mean disbelief, or the disorder that results from unbelief or temptation. Taken as a whole, the context makes clear that violence is being authorized until "religion is for Allah" - ie. unbelievers desist in their unbelief.

If you want to have a religious debate, please go post in the religious forum

Also why didn't you quote the verse that came before that? So you csn mislead people? Here is the verse thats right before the one you're citing:

.2:190 "Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors. "

The context is if MUSLIMS GET ATTACKED then Muslims have the right to attack back, and the context is very clear on that, the theme comes into play on verse 190, not verse 191 which non-Muslims quote alone, the non-Muslim should quote from verse 190 onwards, and once doing so one will see that this is a defensive war, not an offensive one, if people attack the Muslims then the Muslims have the right to attack back, and that is exactly what the verses are saying.   

 The verses even say that if the people who started the fight begin to stop and make peace than we too must also stop and make peace as well,. You should read these verses in their textual and historical context. You should read the whole verse an the few verses before and few after instead of randomly quoting verses outside if their revealed contexts.Those verses were revealed after the unbelievers broke the treaty with the Prophet peace upon him and after he took over Mecca and forgave them for what they have done and still some of them would not stop killing the Muslims .

You posted about the Quran, so why can't someone follow up without being sent to the religion forum?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Muslima, I have noticed that this thread is full of mistakes and misinformation. Please go out and read a book or authoritative source about different religions. I get tips on baking or saving money on DCUM, not spiritual matters.

I think it's interesting to see all the different responses. Some of it's not wrong, per se, as much of it reflects beliefs in different denominations.

But I agree with a book recommendation. Muslima, Karen Armstrong writes a lot about different religions. I've always enjoyed her works.

Anonymous wrote:According to this, unless you convert to Islam-you are doomed in an Islamic society. It is the only religion that encourages and condones war-not peace.


The Quran:
Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief] is worse than killing...
but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)" The historical context of this passage is not defensive warfare, since Muhammad and his Muslims had just relocated to Medina and were not under attack by their Meccan adversaries. In fact, the verses urge offensive warfare, in that Muslims are to drive Meccans out of their own city (which they later did). The use of the word "persecution" by some Muslim translators is thus disingenuous (the actual Muslim words for persecution - "idtihad" - and oppression - a variation of "z-l-m" - do not appear in the verse). The actual Arabic comes from "fitna" which can mean disbelief, or the disorder that results from unbelief or temptation. Taken as a whole, the context makes clear that violence is being authorized until "religion is for Allah" - ie. unbelievers desist in their unbelief.

Anonymous wrote:I think Islam is the only religion that approves of kiling all the infidels/non-Muslims. Most other religions preach peace. The Iraelis are wrong and their actionsare against the principles of true Judaeism.