Liar:har::har::har:
No, you have already been exposed again as a liar so your carrying on lying isn't important as it is increasingly well established.

wow , so for your secondary educational source of academic wisdom you post a link to some complete fruitloop:rotfl2:
Convert the jews to jesus as the 70th week of armageddon is at hand?????:doh:
Still I suppose its better than a link about blacks and muslims ruining soccer



How can it be unanimous when it is only 4 besides which a traditional view means nothing if you are talking of the scriptural view, and after all your point was that the problem was the scriptures themselves not the various interpretations some have put on them.


Mainstream??? there is no mainstream.

Saudi, what flavour is saudi?
Iran, well done, their "spiritual leader" and "great religious teacher" last month said music was wrong and should not be indulged in an Islamic country. Pretty damning stuff really, after all you can use that as a measurefor Irans other "religious" rulings.
The Grand ayaytollah had to admit that his ideass actually had no scripture to back them up and that music was indeed halal....but that it was unislamic:doh:

What you have succeeded in doing tater is insisting that it is the scriptures that are the problem on several points but demonstrating that it is the people who are claiminng to follow scripture on those points when they are not that is the problem.

Konovalov,


I'm just be back from an afternoon and evening in town (btw. with a Syrian "Muslim", if that is not ironic, who gives as much for Ramadan and Quran as I do - nothing :haha: ), and here I find you now with a red face and a glow in your eyes - and over what? Bean counting, and a good ammount of personal animosity.

"Dogmatic?" You? Where have I claimed that? My problem with your claimed Muslimhood is that you are not "dogmatic" with regard to Islam'S real dogma! That was always my assessement of you, since five years or so! but you got stuck elsewhere, but on that: later.

I said that voluntary converts tend to be more holy than the original followers of the relgion they converted to, which is a known phenomenon in all religions, contributing often to the amusement of the original followers who may see things and rules more relaxed, maybe. I did not say I see you as a wacko, nor is my assessement of you just wacked. If you want to know it, I see you as somebody who indeed strongly believes what he has converted to, the problem just is that you are beautifying it and do not realise it for what it really is. You always gave me the impression to simply and blindly follow what somebody has told you about it, and you did not give me an impression to crticially pout it into question. That i mean not as an attack or offence, that is simply a sober description of the impression you gave me.

I have no doubt that you do not beat your wife, and that you do not propagate armed subjugation of us infidels and that you do not support terrorism. And that is - what you also do not like to be told, i know - why I do not see you as a real Islamic Muslim, but a self-defined Muslim who understands the term not by the original rules, but by hiw own romantic imagination about what it is - I see you as somebody who just wants to claim he is Muslim, but defines "Muslim" in a way that he must not rethink his opinion on it and must not realise its harsh and barbaric essence. Because islam - orders you to supress your wife and beat her if she is disobedient, islam demands you since your converting that you must seek the subjugation of the infidels in the name of islam, this is no voluntary option for you as a male, but a mandatory duty that you have to obey to. The history of a whole cultural sphere reflects right this, since over one millenium: intolerance, sexual slavery and supression, supremcist claims for dominance. I do not see you as a Muslim wacko. I see you as a naive Westerner who is trying to make something seeming better than it is. Why you were attracted to Islam, I do not know. But if I recall it correctly, you have introduced yourself as a convert to islam several times over the years and again just short time ago in one posting after your long absence here. So I do not see that I am giving away great secrets from your private life.

You also said in public in earlier times that you are married to a Muslim woman from a Muslim family, and I seemed to recall that it was a Pakistani family. You say that is wrong, okay I recalled it wrong (I also recall a certain old email of yours, but maybe I remember it wrong, too). I do not comment on your wife beyond this and in no way pulled her into all this or wished to minimise her in a derogatory way. And I didn't. So what is your problem? I explicitly said that I do not judge this family aspect, and that I just referred to your act of voluntary converting. and that is public part of your biography - you gave it away all yourself. And since you made that decision, you cannot expect me or the public or anybody to ignore that. You did it, and also: you voluntary made it known to a wide public. so I do not see your problem when I refer to what you have given away yourself, and not in a private mail to me, but on the public board. If you do not want people knowing all this, you should not have released it to the public. On other aspects of your private life I have not commented. first, I never would do that, and second, I also do not know it.

Oh, now it is not a question of reason or logic, but manhood, well, that I was confronted with quite often in oriental countries: manhood. Plenty of men running around, constantly being obsessed with "manhood".

Well, manhood certainly was not the problem between Steve and me.

Here you show what queer spirit's brainchild you have become. Maybe indeed you have become more muslim over the past couple of years than I would have thought back those years: a certain ammount of islamophile opportunism I certainly cannot deny to testify in your favour. but Steve constructed a very absurd argument and opushed his defintion to self-contradictory, absiolute extreme, while leaving unadressed until the end my initial question to him at the same time what he will do against freedombeing abused to destroy freedom, because his model of absolute freedom does not give him a solution to the dilemma I pointed at. Read again the attempt of Kazuaki to moderate, his summary of Steve's and my position in that analogy of armies that he used. He described Steve and me perfectly. Not every question has or even needs an answer. Steve's "question" was one of these.

When now you think you must fall back to Steve'S undefendable claim, then I suspect this is for pure opportunism: because Steve's model of unlimited freedom gives Islam what it wants: the space and opportunity to unfold without giving others the chance of resistence, and becoming stronger and stronger, more influential, more powerful. You support this, because you seem to have a very beautified idea of what islam is, while violating some of its basic rules at the same time - those rules that to you would demonstrate to what degree it is on confrontation course with the values that you, as a Westerner, has been raised with (at least I assume you have been risen in the western cultural value tradition of humanism and the meaning of terms like freedom, liberty, dignity, tolerance, peace, science, reason).

My thesis is that you are locked in the classical case of cognitive dissonnance, and you avoid the conflicting part by refusing to realise reality, but creating your own idea of reality that then replaces true reality in your thinking. that is a problem that is widespread amingst socalled, and often seld-claimed, "moderate" Muslims. I have des cribed it often enough, and as i see it, you also fall into this category. That's why i do not think that you have turned violent or radical, and that you probably never will: you really believe what you say, and you really believe Islam is like you see it: but as I see it we are not talking about islam itself, but about a brainchild of yours, let's call it Konovalovism. You indeed mean it well, I am perfectly aware of that: its just that i also see that in your reasonable and kind attitude you are not about the islam that Ii over the years have learned to realise, that is led out in Quran and Sharia, that is anything but klind and reasonable as long as oyu do not fully submit to it, and that Western orientalists have analysed and described since long time.

By this you do not want to be dangerous to the West, but nevertheless you help to create space for manouvering, and opportunity to advance for Islam - the real, the grim, the conquering, the subjugating, the totalitarian Islam. You do that, because you base on your "idea" only. Quite some muslims in the West do like you do. Often I have said that I am perfectly aware of such "Muslims" being non-violent (but also actively refusing to integrate, on the other hand). but right in this passivity of theirs lies the problem: by silently tolerating islam and not standing up against it, they help it to move on, and their refusal to itegration also establishes parrallel societies and subcultures that want to remain closed and separate, and turn the hosting nation upside down in hte hotspots where they gain sufficient strength in numbers. and this porblem is almost infectous, and spreading in cities throughout europe.

If you cannot see why 21 pages is considered to be "longer" than let'S say 18 pages, then I cannot help it. Until the laws of mathematics are changed, I stick with what I see with my eyes when I hold that book in my hands, and I stick with the academic tradition and the literature of analysing Islam that it has produced over the past 150-200 years. The statetment stands, not just because I say it, but because it has been found to be true over and over again, in so many books in so many nations and languages written by so many people who know islam better than me (or you). As a general trend oyu see the longest suras in the beginning, and the shortest at the end. And length usually is not defined by number of suras, but by printed space in a book. Like at school or university the duration of a lesson is not measured in number of sentences spoken by the prof, or avergae sentence length, but total time in hours and minutes. At least that's how we do it in the West - counting Australia as a western-influenced nation.

I will not repeat ONCE AGAIN long topics and essays of mine which cost me time and will not be welcomed by most people anyway - it has all been done several times now over the years (search button ;) ). I told you that from beginning on, that therfore I answer your question on Quran references to violence or what it was, by taking a shortcut and just linking just any site listing you quotes and quotes and quotes. I told you that I am aware of the context-sensitivity, and I explained why often the claimed context of Islam just acting in defence, to me all too often is no non-starter: due to islam'S queer understanding of what an offense and what an attack by the other is: and that is to resist to Islam, that already qualifies as an attack or offence. By that, islam claims that every victim of it - is actually the agressor against which islam just defends, like the girl that gets victim of a gang rape - is punished for being raped and the male rapists benefitting from double-counted witness testimonies anyway.

I wonder what you believe to know on the subject. Just being indoctrinated by an imam who is imam just for that: to indoctrinate and give Islam a good polish, is nothing that wins too much respect from me. If you want an objective assessement of catholicism - would you consider it to be a good idea if you ask especially the vatican about it...? IknowIknow, there are also some good folks. But you get the general idea of my point. the imam and the vatican, both have an interest-conflict if being asked for objectivity.

No, never anybody has been put on my ignore list because of just a disagreement that became loud, or different arguments, never, not a single time. All people on that list are there mostly for either repeated offendings, or just one offending but that one already being a good ammount of callibre, and some also for time and again using trolling tactis or verbal cheats and tricks, misquoting me intentionally, putting it into incorrect contexts while ignoring the correct one. So in short: I put people on ignore lists for questions of heavily offending behavior, or trolling - not becaseu they disagree with me or I do not like their argument. It's as if you are giving aparty. If a guest behaves too badly, you throw him out. If I am tired of an argument, I simply leave the debate in question sooner or later. Mostly later. :) BTW, sometimes, if after a longer time I do not remember anymore what it was about, I even release a name from that list again. :) doesn't happen often, but it happens.

Again, I cannot see that i played foul against you personally. I mentioned two facts about you, both of which you have given away to the public, not just in an email to me. I made it clear that I link no moral or personal judgement with the one, and sticked with the other. And that is no secret at all, as far as I see it. If I once told the board my starsign is Aquarius, I cannot complain if people at occasion may refer to that.

I am on topic, but you have imagined I would play ball in a way that you can shoot at my goal with my goalie taking a time-out. I also refuse to put so much attention and energy into bean-counting, like you do: the Quran's suras in general sorted by length. I stick with what I and many authors say on that, and I think it is totally unimportant. the lngth of various suras is the smallest of all porblems with the Quran. You make it a sky-high issue trying to squeeze something out of that that you can use against me. that is - distracting and irritating at best. we could as well debate why a Quaran printed in bigger letters on the same paper size has more pages inside it. And if I do not ONCE AGAIN answer that second question of yours what version I have, then this is because over the years you have asked me at least THREE TIMES now. This may be very important to you, this kind of bean-counting. To me, it is not. what counts to me is the content of the IDEOLOGY, what it makes people do when they obey it, how people'S behavior must be in order that this ideology claims them to be heretics und punishes them, and whether or not the unfolding of history is in conformity with the declared aims and goals of that ideology, or not, whether the historic example confirms or falsifies said claims of said ideology. And you count words, over that collide with the basic fact that the Suras in general are sorted by length (sorry, my untrustworthy eyes, the mad academics at university, we all are mad you know) and make a big show of when somebody referes to one piece of info about yourself that you have released to the board yourself at least twice in the distant past, and i think once again just shorter time ago. Forgive my lacking precison on time and date, but I do not write it all down in a little notebook.

It comes down to this, Konovalov. whether you are aware of it or not, for you, Shariah has to be the top authority in life if you really want to be Muslim in real isalami understanding. that has to be your priroity, before the nationaliuty porinted in you passport, before your loaylaty to any country, and before your symoathy for wetsern values. If you want to be a real Muslim, you have no choice than to place all this below the absolute do,mancance of shriah. You cannot avoid Shariah, and just poick of it what occasionally, opportunistacally, sometimes may fit your needs - it'S claim is that of total, absolute, unconditional dominance. the moment you convrted to islam, islam's demand that you have to leave behind nationality and loyxalty to Wetsern constitutional orders and value systems has won authorit yover you. where oyu do not obey that, you are violating the very heart and essence of islam, and thus are not rerally a muslim. either you never was, or you already have become an apostate again, no matter whether oyur realise that or not.

you are either unconditionally for Shariah and against wetsern law and nation, or you are not unconditinally for shariah - then you are a traitor to islam's self-understanding. that's bitter. That's harsh. that's merciless.

But that is where i see you hang gotten stuck in.

And I think about you that way since long time. If your muslim friends that influenced you to convert, did not tell you these consequences in full clearness, or glossed over them, then they have misled you, and are false friends.

---

This reply only becasue I feel unlegitimately targetted by you with claims of violating your personal sphere.

Today I had one non-Muslim Muslim admitting he is non-Muslim and pumped me up with steak and beer, and another non-Muslim Muslims who denies to be non-muslim and tries to be very strict a Muslim and who pumps me even more up up with words. that's a bit too much of non-Musliminism for just 12 hours, so I now leave it here, relax and then go to bed. :DL

Take care of yourself, Konovalov. ;)

Errrrrr, number of pages have nothing to do with length of text.
Though I am sure that in antiquity religious scholars decided to sort scripture on the basis of how many pages it would take in a printed german translation:yeah:
You lied again and were caught out again, live with it:haha:

Yep, caught out again and again. Sadly his way of dealing with that is to turn the subject personally onto me and my muslimhood (whatever the heck that means). Of course the mass volumes of text on me and my personal faith had absolutely nothing to do with the debate. Again we are confronted by another wall of text and obfuscation. :zzz:

I know its so sad to see the way he carries on.
His phobia has so taken over that his mind is losing function.
I do like the way that he manages to destroy his own arguements though

Okay, let's see what I have so far: your Quran is different than the Qurans used by various authors in the field or the one that I have (all of these seem to share a certain characteristic that you deny), you ignore what I say, instead you continue to wrongly accuse me of turning personally against you, you release a personal info about yourself and then accuse others when they come back to that in an originally absolutely harmless context, you become personal yourself by now calling me a liar, and what I can see with my own eyes is just hallucination and the Western specialists of oriental studies who have written long books about the structure of the Quran and the order in which the suras are presented, in general presented in sequence of declining length, all have gotten it wrong since several generations, since they all used to read forged or manipulated Qurans.

That you now even think it is a clever idea to line up with the board'S most prominent and probably most often ignored troll, is just the cream on the cake.

You might be irritated, but I still trust my eyes more than I would trust you, and I also trust more those authors studying an object on basis of western academic tradition, than voices that are in - necessarily biased - defence of said object because they have chosen to submit to it. Yes, your choice and your "Muslimhood" has something to it, even if you claim you cannot see it. Opportunistically selective perception, maybe?

Before typing this, I once again googled a bit on the original issue - and again only found references, links, blogs, book quotes, speeches or whatever it was that all agree on what I say, what I see with my eyes, and what is printed in the books I know as well: that in general the suras are given in sequence of declining length from beginning to end, with the first sura being mentioned as the prominent exception (it is not even one full page).

Suras' length is so much more important than what they say. :yep: :yeah: Bean counting.

I used to think of you as a reasonable guy over the past years, but maybe I overestimated you, or you have changed. And this now is - finally, because you accused me of that so repeatedly - indeed a personally aimed statement, so you can enjoy that I finally fulfill your advanced expectation. Waiting so long should be rewarded, i think.

This debate is absurd, and about nothing important at all, sura length is nothing I see as overly important, this has become about you being snapped over something that you see as somehow personally offending although it is basing on something you have released to the wide public yourself, and when I defend myself against your false accusations, then you call it a wall of text and claim it is non-relevant. Well, this scheme of behavior reminds me of unpleasant experiences I have had with certain people in real life, or read about in the media almost every day.

So the only reasonable consequence at this state of things can be this: bye.

More of the same old dross. :zzz::zzz:

Which doesn't cjhange the fact that you are repeatedly caught out lying:rotfl2:
Isn't it amazing that Sky has twice tried to alter his claim to make it more trueish, yet still managed to only make two more false claims on top of his original lie but ridiculously claims that his lies are correct.

errrrrr....your "academic" source was a loony blog about the end of the world and the urgent need to convert jews to jesus

Is that a slightly more legible version of the rant Dimitrius07 has been using of late?:yeah:

Quoting for the next time you try to tell me how things are in my own country based on a Speigel article. :DL

Why dont you come up with some respectfull opinion yourself.
Somthing Sailor Steve style.
Lets asume that islam is not evill and can coexist peacfully.Still the extremist are the most influential ones and most voiced type of religus leaders.
I see the ones that talk jihad and those that just dont and they do it freely in the name of free speech and liberty.
Where are all those great INFLUENCIAL leaders who preach for peace and tolerance?

There are two lengthy topics on the "ground zero mosque" read them

And everyones opinion has not changed from the looks of it. :O:

Changed Opinions after a debate here in the GT.....when that day comes it'll be the end of the world I tell ya.

HunterICX

Still it is good and intresting to know what others think allover the world.
If this mosgue got build i thing that arabs in middle east would laugh their asses off marveling american stupidy
What better brain washing material you can ask for.
I really dont think it would be seen as act of good will but weakness.
Mentality here is kind of scewed..

But what someone far away thinks of us has never been the reality. They get it wrong almost every time. It is neither good will nor weakness, but strength born of honor.

Ask the Japanese of 1941.

If the mosque got blocked the extremists would be laughing at the propoganda coup.
The weakness would be in violating the constitution on the basis of a media storm built from nothing of substance.

That would put you still with no points lost in the game and show you cant be pushed around.
Its all about exploring the limits of tolerance.

:har: How true. It is the art of the 'win' and not the art of meaningful debate!

It would another step in losing the game and show just how easy it is to push America around.

He backs it possibly because....

1) Its not a Mosque?
2) Its not on ground zero?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...nd-zero-mosque

*Ducks for cover*

-----------------

Things seem awfully heated in America right now; so heated you could probably toast a marshmallow by jabbing it on a stick and holding it toward the Atlantic. Millions are hopping mad over the news that a bunch of triumphalist Muslim extremists are about to build a "victory mosque" slap bang in the middle of Ground Zero.

The planned "ultra-mosque" will be a staggering 5,600ft tall – more than five times higher than the tallest building on Earth – and will be capped with an immense dome of highly-polished solid gold, carefully positioned to bounce sunlight directly toward the pavement, where it will blind pedestrians and fry small dogs. The main structure will be delimited by 600 minarets, each shaped like an upraised middle finger, and housing a powerful amplifier: when synchronised, their combined sonic might will be capable of relaying the muezzin's call to prayer at such deafening volume, it will be clearly audible in the Afghan mountains, where thousands of terrorists are poised to celebrate by running around with scarves over their faces, firing AK-47s into the sky and yelling whatever the foreign word for "victory" is.

I'm exaggerating. But I'm only exaggerating a tad more than some of the professional exaggerators who initially raised objections to the "Ground Zero mosque". They keep calling it the "Ground Zero mosque", incidentally, because it's a catchy title that paints a powerful image – specifically, the image of a mosque at Ground Zero.
When I heard about it – in passing, in a soundbite – I figured it was a US example of the sort of inanely confrontational fantasy scheme Anjem Choudary might issue a press release about if he fancied winding up the tabloids for the 900th time this year. I was wrong. The "Ground Zero mosque" is a genuine proposal, but it's slightly less provocative than its critics' nickname makes it sound. For one thing, it's not at Ground Zero. Also, it isn't a mosque.

Wait, it gets duller. It's not being built by extremists either. Cordoba House, as it's known, is a proposed Islamic cultural centre, which, in addition to a prayer room, will include a basketball court, restaurant, and swimming pool. Its aim is to improve inter-faith relations. It'll probably also have comfy chairs and people who smile at you when you walk in, the monsters.

To get to the Cordoba Centre from Ground Zero, you'd have to walk in the opposite direction for two blocks, before turning a corner and walking a bit more. The journey should take roughly two minutes, or possibly slightly longer if you're heading an angry mob who can't hear your directions over the sound of their own enraged bellowing.
Perhaps spatial reality functions differently on the other side of the Atlantic, but here in London, something that is "two minutes' walk and round a corner" from something else isn't actually "in" the same place at all. I once had a poo in a pub about two minutes' walk from Buckingham Palace. I was not subsequently arrested and charged with crapping directly onto the Queen's pillow. That's how "distance" works in Britain. It's also how distance works in America, of course, but some people are currently pretending it doesn't, for daft political ends.
New York being a densely populated city, there are lots of other buildings and businesses within two blocks of Ground Zero, including a McDonald's and a Burger King, neither of which has yet been accused of serving milkshakes and fries on hallowed ground. Regardless, for the opponents of Cordoba House, two blocks is too close, period. Frustratingly, they haven't produced a map pinpointing precisely how close is OK.

That's literally all I'd ask them in an interview. I'd stand there pointing at a map of the city. Would it be offensive here? What about here? Or how about way over there? And when they finally picked a suitable spot, I'd ask them to draw it on the map, sketching out roughly how big it should be, and how many windows it's allowed to have. Then I'd hand them a colour swatch and ask them to decide on a colour for the lobby carpet. And the conversation would continue in this vein until everyone in the room was in tears. Myself included.
That hasn't happened. Instead, 70% of Americans are opposed to the "Ground Zero mosque", doubtless in many cases because they've been led to believe it literally is a mosque at Ground Zero. And if not . . . well, it must be something significant. Otherwise why would all these pundits be so angry about it? And why would anyone in the media listen to them with a straight face?

According to a recent poll, one in five Americans believes Barack Obama is a Muslim, even though he isn't. A quarter of those who believe he's a Muslim also claimed he talks about his faith too much. Americans aren't dumb. Clearly these particular Americans have either gone insane or been seriously misled. Where are they getting their information?
Sixty per cent said they learned it from the media. Which means it's time for the media to give up.

Seriously, broadcasters, journalists: just give up now. Because either you're making things worse, or no one's paying attention anyway. May as well knock back a few Jagermeisters, unplug the autocue, and just sit there dumbly repeating whichever reality-warping meme the far right wants to go viral this week. What's that? Obama is Gargamel and he's killing all the Smurfs? Sod it. Whatever. Roll titles.