Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : WAR on Terror. Will it engulf the Entire Middle East? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Orcastraiter who wrote (17057)	10/14/2006 2:47:20 PM
From: DeplorableIrredeemableRedneck	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 32591

How can I ascribe to something I don't know anything about? You really are an ignorant. You freely admit that you nothing about the koran yet you come here with your self righteous, pompous attitude and attempt to wade into what is clearly a subject that you cannot grasp and absolutely no idea of the fight that we are in. Sir/Madam, you clearly do not have what it takes for this battle. I urge you to retreat to that comfy place behind your momma's skirt and let those that have what it takes to fight this battle for you. If you say the Koran says people should make false agreements, then this is news to me. What verse in the Koran can I find this satanic command? Time fer a tad o'edumecation There are many references in the book of evil. The following excerpts come right to my mind: "Believers, take neither Jews nor Christians for your friends." (Surah 5:51) "If you fear treachery from any of your allies, you may fairly retaliate by breaking off your treaty with them." (Surah 8:51-) “Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible.” (Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri, The Reliance of the Traveller ( ???? ?????? ), translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller, amana publications, 1997, section r8.2, page 745) The entire section is 9:Repentance and talks about much more than just how to deal with non-Muslims. For instance it tells you what to think of them in several places. Example: ,i>9:1 Freedom from obligation (is proclaimed) from Allah and His messenger toward those of the idolaters with whom ye made a treaty. More claiming that Muslims need not live by their treaties with non-Muslims. 9:4 Excepting those of the idolaters with whom ye (Muslims) have a treaty, and who have since abated nothing of your right nor have supported anyone against you. (As for these), fulfill their treaty to them till their term. Lo! Allah loveth those who keep their duty (unto Him). Here it seems to indicate that they might have to obey some treaties but with some huge exceptions. Exceptions you could drive a truck through. After all what does "supporting anyone against you" mean. Seems it can merely mean taking sides on the issue of whether Mohammed is a real prophet or not. What does "abated nothing of your right" mean. Well this depends on what your rights are. Mohammed claims the right to worship at other peoples holy places. So it seems like if they were blocked from some other religious holy sites that would lead to a dissolving of the treaty. 9:5 Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. Well this seems to indicate that once the four months are up well anything goes. Not just anything goes but Muslims are commanded to slaughter, with the exception if the "repent and establish worship". Of course this means that they convert to Islam, as is clear from many other places in the Qur’an. We must remember the context; this is the Qur’an, not a guide by Miss Manners. Note the obscenity of this. There is no indication that they inform their former treaty partners that they intend to break the treaty. There is no real moral obligation to be fair here at all. Heck if one guy from the other side attacks someone, makes the slightest show of support for someone you don't like then, well, "Have at em".

To: Orcastraiter who wrote (17057)	10/14/2006 5:58:45 PM
From: Cage Rattler	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 32591

Here you are -- with a bit of follow-up with a URL, enjoy. If you fear treachery from any of your allies, you may fairly retaliate by breaking off your treaty with them." (Surah 8:51-) If you fear treachery from any group [of non-Muslims], throw back [their covenant] to them, [so as to be] on equal terms [with them]. For Allah loves not the treacherous. Let not the unbelievers [all non-Muslims] think that they can get the better [of Muslims]. They [non-Muslims] will never frustrate [you]. (Koran 8:58-59) Fitzgerald: Truces and tribute: -- jihadwatch.org Jihad Watch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald discusses the peculiar unreality that pervades Western dealings with Hamas: Islam does not command Muslims to allow the Infidels to retain some territory as long as they yield other territory. It does not say that any land once part of Dar al-Islam can ever be relinquished. For that matter, it does not say that there is any part of Dar al-Harb that can remain forever outside Dar al-Islam. The duty of every Muslim is to engage in jihad fi sabeel Allah, Jihad in the way, in the path, of Allah, whether individually or as part of a collective, and whether by active participation or by supporting and protecting those who do actively participate. Treaties can be made with Infidels, but they are not treaties that will last indefinitely. They should last, at most, 10 years, although in some cases they may be "renewed" until such time as the Muslim side is stronger, and the Infidels have become weaker -- weaker because of those very treaties they signed. "Treaties are to be obeyed" -- Pacta sunt servanda -- is a concept in Western jurisprudence. Western leaders need to understand it is not part of Islam. This is not a secret. They can begin with Majid Khadurri's "Law of War and Peace in Islam" and read about the accepted Muslim understanding of treaties made with Infidels. There is no ambiguity about it. None. Treaties are not "peace" treaties but "truce" treaties. That's it. And "war is deception." It is all laid out, by the way, in books and articles by Arab strategists. They don't hide it. They assume, and so far have assumed rightly, that the Israelis and the Western world will simply ignore those books and articles and will ignore what Islamic treaty-making is all about, because it is just too painful to contemplate. But what is too painful to contemplate, because it happens to be true, is exactly what must be contemplated. All Infidels must share that pain, and make policies, accordingly. “War is deception.” What Hamas has been asked to do is merely utter some words that will satisfy, in the most obviously unsatisfactory manner, the minimum demands of those who see nothing wrong with what is nothing more than the payment of Jizyah. American and European Infidels make payments to the local Arabs, who were renamed after 1967 the "Palestinians." But in reality those "Palestinians" are merely the Arab shock troops, plausibly decked out as a "nationalist" movement (nonsense), in the Lesser Jihad against the Infidel state of Israel.