/ Forside / Interesser / Andre interesser / Politik / Nyhedsindlæg
Login
Glemt dit kodeord?
Brugernavn

Kodeord


Reklame
Top 10 brugere
Politik
#NavnPoint
vagnr 20140
molokyle 5006
Kaptajn-T.. 4653
granner01 2856
jqb 2594
3773 2444
o.v.n. 2373
Nordsted1 2327
creamygirl 2320
10  ans 2208
Sex in islam
Fra : GB


Dato : 12-09-06 22:41

Dette er kun første del af indlægget, som kan læses i sin helhed på
http://www.islamreview.com/articles/sexinislam.htm

Sex and sexuality in Islam
By Abul Kasem
Part 1 of 6

[A word of caution: This article contains sexually explicit terms and
coarse language that may offend many readers. The author will not take
any responsibility in the event any reader may become upset reading this
essay. My request to them: please do refrain from reading this essay if
you are likely to be offended. You have been forewarned.]
Introduction

There is more to sex in Islam than meets the eye. Do you care to know
that sex is the biggest taboo in Islam? It is a topic that is fraught
with fear and seldom discussed by the followers of Islam, except when
they are in trouble or when they go to a foreign/infidel country to
‘enjoy’ women there. Islam pretends as if sexual organs do not exit
either in a male or in a female. A woman is covered from head to toe just
to hide her ‘awra,’ which is the Islamic vocabulary for the part of body
that arouses sexual desire in a man, or the ‘shame’ of her. Thus, sexual
organs are shameful parts of a body! It is a great insult to a woman to
depict her entire body as shameful. It is also a great insult to all men.
Why? Because, this gives the impression that men are like beasts that are
on the street, just on the lookout there for women to prowl on for sex.
This is completely nonsense. While living in an infidel country, I have
watched millions of kufur women dressed in very decent as well as not so
decent dresses. However, never have I seen a single man jump on a woman
in the street to copulate with her, despite her mode of dressing being
aphrodisiac or in plain word ‘sexy.’ The Islamic concept of sex is based
on Bedouin Arab culture, that is barbaric and uncivilized, to say the
least, when compared to today’s world. This is because sex is so a
‘dirty’ word and it is so ‘severely’ restricted in Islam that as a
inquisitive person I became extremely interested in it and devoured any
written material that dealt with sex in Islam. To my surprise, I found
that so little information is available, although there are tons and tons
of books on Tafseer, ahadith Sharia, fiqh and the list goes on for all
other branches of Islamic studies. Therefore, I had to write from scratch
without much help from Islamic/other sources. Another big surprise for me
was that the restrictions on sex for men in Islam are just superficial.
There are countless loopholes in Islamic rules, so much so that it is
possible for a Muslim man, whether married or not, to have
uninterruptible supply of sex if he so desires. But he must know the
rules of the game very well, if not, then he may fall into a great
torment. There are many secrets and untold provisions for sex in Islam
that very few Mullahs will tell.

How pleasant a quilt is in winter? Or a Chinese dish for the test buds?
Good poems, songs, arts, or sculptures immensely please a cultured mind.
Did you notice that very rarely physical and mental pleasures meet in one
single element? Sex, as the climax of this type, always has been one of
the strongest driving forces of mankind, especially men. Handling of sex
by a society reflects its level and maturity. At times Islamic aspect of
human sexuality overlaps with “Status of Women,” but the two are not the
same. Compared to other social/religious systems of the world, Islam
gives sex and sexual “purity” an extraordinary importance with inherent
contradictions/conflicts so much so that we may safely say that Islam is
over-obsessed, oversensitive and over-apprehensive about sex.

This essay is an attempt to expose the hypocrisy, double standard,
unfairness, absurdity and sheer irrationality of Islam when it comes to
sex. It also examines the barbaric rules that Islam inflicts on innocent
people for having a simple sexually satisfying relationship whether one
is married or not that Islam unjustly and illogically construes as
‘haram.’ One must not forget however how crucial sex is in our life. In
the first place, without sex, none of us will be in this world for sure.
Darwinian evolution would have stopped eons ago! So think about it for a
moment.

Let us begin with the first principle of Islamic sex for men, that is:
Have virgins for fun and frolic

In Islam, keeping the virginity is the highest asset that a woman could
possess. There is no crime/sin as despicable as that of losing the
virginity before a woman is married. The thought of indulging in pre-
marital sex by an adult woman is absolutely unthinkable in Islam (For men
it is a different story altogether. As we shall see later, it is possible
for an unmarried Muslim man to be engaged in sex with slave-
girls/captive/infidel women but not with free Muslim women). Mind you,
premarital sex is a serious crime that may involve severe punishment for
the offender; one hundred Islamic lashing for the unmarried woman (or
man) and stoning to death for the married woman (or man). This punishment
is hudud, which means that there is no way the offender can escape the
severity of this kind of barbaric torment. Once the punishment has been
passed down, it must be carried out at any cost. So much for Islamic
mercy and tolerance! If you thought that I am being too critical, then
please be reminded that in Islam, homicide is not such a serious offence
as sex is. That is to say, the punishment for a murder can be commuted to
other sentence like Qias (retaliation) or Diya (blood money). Now
contrast this if you will, with the laws for sexual offences. It looks
like that taking a life is much simpler and easier than making love,
especially for women, if we go by the Islamic rules. How barbaric and at
the same time myopic view!

Who do you think is the ‘real’ owner of our sexual organs, in particular
the sexual organs of women? No, it is not we, the humankinds. It is
Islam. Believe it or not, Islam owns the sexual organs of every Muslim
man and woman in this universe, all of it, including even the pubic hairs
that grow there! Here is what the ahadith say about how to manage a
woman’s pubic hair.

Wife must shave pubic hair if husband returns home at night after a long
journey...7.62.173

Sahih Bukhari:Volume 7, Book 62, Number 173:

Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah:

The Prophet said, "If you enter (your town) at night (after coming from a
journey), do not enter upon your family till the woman whose husband was
absent (from the house) shaves her pubic hair and the woman with unkempt
hair, combs her hair" Allah's Apostle further said, "(O Jabir!) Seek to
have offspring, seek to have offspring!"

Five practices of fitra 1. Circumcision; 2. Shaving pubic region; 3.
Clipping nails 4. Cutting mustache short; 5. Removal of arm pit
hair...7.72.777

Sahih Bukhari: Volume 7, Book 72, Number 777:

Narrated Abu Huraira:

Allah's Apostle said, "Five practices are characteristics of the Fitra:
circumcision, shaving the pubic region, clipping the nails and cutting
the moustaches short."

One may wonder why Allah is so free to look into what a human possess
between his/her two thighs. We always thought Allah has more important
affairs to attend to!

If you ever thought that Allah gave you the sexual organ for your use as
per your desire, then perish that thought. From birth to death, from
adulthood to old age, from house to desert, every aspect of the use of
your very own private part is controlled by innumerable, mindless, cruel
and oftentimes utterly despicable Islamic rules as written in the
Sha’ria, the so-called divine laws of Allah. One may legitimately ask why
Sha’ria does not control the use of sexual organs of animals like cows,
goats, horses, pigs, lions, tigers, birds, snakes, turtles and all other
species that engage in copulation for fun and/or reproduction. It looks
as if the animals have much more freedom on sexual activities than the
human beings—the best creation of Allah! Please give a serious thought on
this and you cannot but be amazed by the downright infringement by Islam
on the very basic right of a human being which is his/her privacy. The
extreme barbarism in Islam to control the innate, natural and instinctive
sexual desire and its joy is particularly aimed at keeping the virginity
of women intact at all cost even going to the extreme of execution of a
woman who dare to express her sexual desire in an un-Islamic (read pre-
marital or otherwise) way.

One may wonder why Islam is so utterly obsessed with the virginity of
women. I often thought about this after I came to the infidel land. In
this land of ‘sinners’ and ‘prostitutes’ and ‘sluts,’ sex between
consenting adults is not viewed as a crime, although application of
physical force for carnal gratification may constitute a serious act of
violence, which may carry prison sentence. In an Islamic paradise, on the
other hand, sex between two opposite partners (or same sex partners) is
absolutely haram whether consensual or not. More importantly, sexual
gratification by a woman outside the bond of marriage is completely
forbidden. Many Muslims who come to live in a western society will have
great difficulty in understanding the values and ethos upon which their
(the so called infidel west) concept of sexuality of men and women are
based upon. To these Muslim men, most women who indulge in sex before
their marriage are prostitutes, harlots, and whores and are available for
an easy lay. That is why a lot of devout Muslim men have a hard time to
have easy and professional relations with the western/infidel women they
meet. For a Muslim man, a non-virgin woman is totally unthinkable for his
consideration of marriage. These infidel women are for having a good time
and for ‘one-night stand’ only. According to Islam, an unmarried woman
must keep her sexual and reproductive organ in complete lock under any
and all circumstances till she gets married. I gave a deep pondering over
this issue of blatant deprivation of sexual joy in the name of Allah and
religion. Then, while examining the Sahi Bukhari and Sahi Muslim, the
most authentic of all ahadith, I came across with the following gems of
ahadith. I found the reason why Allah is so paranoid on keeping intact
the virginity of women at all times before marriage. Let us read these
ahadith.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 16:

Narrated Jabir bin Abdullah:

While we were returning from a Ghazwa (Holy Battle) with the Prophet, I
started driving my camel fast, as it was a lazy camel A rider came behind
me and pricked my camel with a spear he had with him, and then my camel
started running as fast as the best camel you may see. Behold! The rider
was the Prophet himself. He said, 'What makes you in such a hurry?" I
replied, I am newly married " He said, "Did you marry a virgin or a
matron? I replied, "A matron." He said, "Why didn't you marry a young
girl so that you may play with her and she with you?" When we were about
to enter (Medina), the Prophet said, "Wait so that you may enter (Medina)
at night so that the lady of unkempt hair may comb her hair and the one
whose husband has been absent may shave her pubic region.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 3, Book 38, Number 504:

Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah:
I was accompanying the Prophet on a journey and was riding a slow camel
that was lagging behind the others. [...] When we approached Medina, I
started going (towards my house). The Prophet said, "Where are you
going?" I said, "I have married a widow." He said, "Why have you not
married a virgin to fondle with each other?"[...]

Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3459:

Jabir b. 'Abdullah (Allah be pleased with them) reported: I married a
woman, whereupon Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said to me:
Have you married? I said: Yes. He said: Is it a virgin or a previously
married one (widow or divorced)? I said: With a previously married one,
whereupon he said: Where had you been (away) from the amusements of
virgins? Shu'ba said: I made a mention of it to 'Amr b. Dinar and he
said: I too heard from Jabir making mention of that (that Allah's
Apostle) said: Why didn't you marry a girl, so that you might sport with
her and she might sport with you?

Please read those three ahadith once again. What picture do we get of a
husband who is gracious enough in marrying a widow? Now contrast this
with the recommendation of Muhammad (pbuh), the Prophet of Islam. What
picture do we get of a husband who is obsessed in marrying a virgin
possibly a very young virgin for that matter? Yes, it is the picture of a
husband who is a molester, a sexual molester per se, if we say it
bluntly. Remember, this is the recommendation from the messenger of
Allah, who, himself had only one virgin girl in his harem. He must have
found it exceedingly fun to be married with a very young virgin girl.
This kind of child/female/sexual molestation must have the seal of
approval of Allah, the almighty. Can this pleasure of sexual molestation
be the real reason for Allah’s absolute obsession with the virginity of
young women? Can it be that Allah, Himself loves to fondle the virgins,
since we read in the Quran that He has an abundant supply of virgin
houris for His followers of Islam? Here are a few samples of verses from
the holy Qur’an to demonstrate Allah’s total fascination with the
virginity of women.

044.051 As to the Righteous (they will be) in a position of Security,
044.052 Among Gardens and Springs;
044.053 Dressed in fine silk and in rich brocade, they will face each
other;
044.054 So; and We shall join them to fair women with beautiful, big, and
lustrous eyes.

055.056 In them will be (Maidens), chaste, restraining their glances,
whom no man or Jinn before them has touched;-
055.057 Then which of the favours of your Lord will ye deny?-
055.058 Like unto Rubies and coral.

055.072 Companions restrained (as to their glances), in (goodly)
pavilions;-
055.073 Then which of the favours of your Lord will ye deny?-
055.074 Whom no man or Jinn before them has touched;-
055.075 Then which of the favours of your Lord will ye deny?-

056.035: We have created (their Companions) of special creation.
056.036 And made them virgin - pure (and undefiled), -
056.037 Beloved (by nature), equal in age,-
056.038 For the Companions of the Right Hand.

078.031 Verily for the Righteous there will be a fulfilment of (the
heart's) desires;
078.032 Gardens enclosed, and grapevines;
078.033 And voluptuous women of equal age;
078.034 And a cup full (to the brim).

Now you know why one must marry a virgin and a very young woman, for that
matter. Yes, it is for fun and pleasure, similar to the enjoyment that
Allah enjoys and has reserved for the ‘true’ believers in His paradise.
One-night stand

Who needs sex in a hurry but does not want to go through the elaborate
ritual of marriage and the payment of expensive dower? Of course, many
people would love to have this kind of quickie sex without much
obligations. No wonder that there are so many women engaged in the
world’s oldest profession just to meet this demand from depraved men. In
modern parlance, we call it ‘one-night’ stand. Believe it or not, Islam
has its equivalence too!

The Islamic counterpart of one-night stand is known as the M’uta
marriage. In this kind of contract marriage, a man simply contracts a
woman to sleep with him for a brief period only. Although the Sunnis have
banned the M'uta system, it is very much in practice among the Shiites.
It is quite possible to have a M'uta marriage every night and kick the
woman out next morning. There is no need of divorce in a M'uta marriage.
This type of marriage is a contract to sleep together and that is all.
Also, remember that though there is a restriction of up to four permanent
wives at any time, there is no such restriction on the number of
temporary wives that one can have at any given moment. In modern
language, we call this 'one night stand'. M’uta marriage has absolutely
no time limit either. So, "one-night's play" is perfectly Islamic. With
M’uta system, it is possible to have unlimited, non-stop sex round the
clock. It is stated that Imam Hasan, the grandson of Muhammad (pbuh)
collected up to three hundred sex partners (the Islamic terminology is
temporary wives) besides his regular wives, to have one-night stand with
them. Imam Hasan was definitely an Islamic 'Playboy' of his time. No
doubt about it! See, how clever of Islam to have solution even for the
playboys of their Ummah.

Here I am quoting from a Sahi hadis to show how one can have concubines
for one-night stand

Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3253:

Rabi' b. Sabra reported that his father went on an expedition with
Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) during the Victory of Mecca,
and we stayed there for fifteen days (i. e. for thirteen full days and a
day and a night), and Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) permitted
us to contract temporary marriage with women. So I and another person of
my tribe went out, and I was more handsome than he, whereas he was almost
ugly. Each one of us had a cloaks, My cloak was worn out, whereas the
cloak of my cousin was quite new. As we reached the lower or the upper
side of Mecca, we came across a young woman like a young smart long-
necked she-camel. We said: Is it possible that one of us may contract
temporary marriage with you? She said: What will you give me as a dower?
Each one of us spread his cloak. She began to cast a glance on both the
persons. My companion also looked at her when she was casting a glance at
her side and he said: This cloak of his is worn out, whereas my cloak is
quite new. She, however, said twice or thrice: There is no harm in
(accepting) this cloak (the old one). So I contracted temporary marriage
with her, and I did not come out (of this) until Allah's Messenger (may
peace be upon him) declared it forbidden.

Mu’tah means enjoyment---(ref.6, p. 424)

MU’TAH. Lit. “Usufruct, enjoyment.” A marriage contracted for a limited
period, for a certain sum of money. Such marriages are still legal
amongst the Shi’ahs, and exist in Persia (Malcom’s Persia vol.II.p. 591)
to the present day, but they are said to be unlawful by the Sunnis. They
were permitted by the Arabian Prophet at Autas, and are undoubtedly the
greatest stain upon the moral legislation but the Sunnis say that he
afterwards prohibited a mu’tah marriage at Khaibar (Vide Mishkat, book
xii. Ch iv. Pt2.).
Sexual perversion/fetish

What should you do when you see a sexy, voluptuous woman with her
pulchritudinous figure and your sexual desire is aroused intensely? The
Islamic solution is to hurry home to your wife and have intercourse with
her immediately. In these days of easy availability of pornographic/adult
materials and fetish objects, I wonder how many times one may have to run
to one’s wife/s after watching a ‘stag film’ or reading a ‘smut’
magazine. Here is the hadis that tells us the story.

Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3240:

Jabir reported that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) saw a
woman, and so he came to his wife, Zainab, as she was tanning a leather
and had sexual intercourse with her. He then went to his Companions and
told them: The woman advances and retires in the shape of a devil, so
when one of you sees a woman, he should come to his wife, for that will
repel what he feels in his heart.
Oh, those obligatory Ghusls

If a man is so much obsessed with the desire of sexual gratification,
then he must clean himself by bath, the Islamic method of cleaning
oneself after sexual defilement. Imagine how many times you may have to
do that if you are influenced by fetish and hurry to your wife/s to have
the ‘circumcised parts’ touch each other? Here is the Islamic rule on
cleansing oneself after a sexual union.

Sahih Muslim Book 3, Number 0684:

Abu Musa reported: There cropped up a difference of opinion between a
group of Muhajirs (Emigrants and a group of Ansar (Helpers) (and the
point of dispute was) that the Ansar said: The bath (because of sexual
intercourse) becomes obligatory only-when the semen spurts out or
ejaculates. But the Muhajirs said: When a man has sexual intercourse
(with the woman), a bath becomes obligatory (no matter whether or not
there is seminal emission or ejaculation). Abu Musa said: Well, I satisfy
you on this (issue). He (Abu Musa, the narrator) said: I got up (and
went) to 'A'isha and sought her permission and it was granted, and I said
to her: 0 Mother, or Mother of the Faithful, I want to ask you about a
matter on which I feel shy. She said : Don't feel shy of asking me about
a thing which you can ask your mother, who gave you birth, for I am too
your mother. Upon this I said: What makes a bath obligatory for a person
? She replied: You have come across one well informed! The Messenger of
Allah (may peace be upon him) said: When anyone sits amidst four parts
(of the woman) and the circumcised parts touch each other a bath becomes
obligatory.
When he reaches the climax but she doesn’t (or vice versa)

Here is the Islamic solution for unfulfilled or incomplete sexual
pleasure. Please amuse yourself reading these two ahadith if you have
experienced this bedroom problem.

Sahih Muslim Book 3, Number 0677:

Ubayy Ibn Ka'b reported: I asked the Messenger of Allah (may peace be
upon him) about a man who has sexual intercourse with his wife, but
leaves her before orgasm. Upon this he (the Holy Prophet) said: He should
wash the secretion of his wife, and then perform ablution and offer
prayer.

Sahih Muslim Book 3, Number 0680:

Zaid b. Khalid al-Jubani reported that he askad Uthman b. 'Affan: What is
your opinion about the man who has sexual intercourse with his wife, but
does not experience orgasm? Uthman said: He should perform ablution as he
does for prayer, and wash his organ. 'Uthmin also said : I have heard it
from the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him).

--
Med venlig hilsen
GB

 
 
Ukendt (12-09-2006)
Kommentar
Fra : Ukendt


Dato : 12-09-06 23:31

"GB" <nospam@nospam.invalid> skrev i en meddelelse
news:Xns983DF0D9432DDYouremail@130.227.3.84...
> Dette er kun første del af indlægget, som kan læses i sin helhed på
> http://www.islamreview.com/articles/sexinislam.htm

[snip]

Hvad søren mon så frøken Georg mener om det alenlange engelsksprogede
indlæg....

--
Kim Larsen

Socialist, republikaner, EU-tilhænger og atomkraftmodstander.
Socialisme er den eneste troværdige vej frem.
Husk at krigen i Irak er folkeretligt smask-ulovlig.

Direkte e-mail: kla2(a)get2net.dk




Allan Riise (13-09-2006)
Kommentar
Fra : Allan Riise


Dato : 13-09-06 01:39

GB wrote:
> Dette er kun første del af indlægget, som kan læses i sin helhed på
> http://www.islamreview.com/articles/sexinislam.htm

Du bedes bruge opslag's gruppen til slige indlæg.

Hvis du så selv bidrog, men nej.

--
Allan Riise



Konrad (13-09-2006)
Kommentar
Fra : Konrad


Dato : 13-09-06 12:06


"GB" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns983DF0D9432DDYouremail@130.227.3.84...
> Dette er kun første del af indlægget, som kan læses i sin helhed på
> http://www.islamreview.com/articles/sexinislam.htm

Søg hjælp inden det er for sent.



Knud Larsen (13-09-2006)
Kommentar
Fra : Knud Larsen


Dato : 13-09-06 13:27


"Konrad" <davidkonrad@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4507e5e2$0$75036$14726298@news.sunsite.dk...
>
> "GB" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> news:Xns983DF0D9432DDYouremail@130.227.3.84...
>> Dette er kun første del af indlægget, som kan læses i sin helhed på
>> http://www.islamreview.com/articles/sexinislam.htm
>
> Søg hjælp inden det er for sent.


Men for hvad?





Konrad (13-09-2006)
Kommentar
Fra : Konrad


Dato : 13-09-06 13:40


"Knud Larsen" <larsensknud@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:4507f942$0$143$157c6196@dreader2.cybercity.dk...
>
> "Konrad" <davidkonrad@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4507e5e2$0$75036$14726298@news.sunsite.dk...
> >
> > "GB" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> > news:Xns983DF0D9432DDYouremail@130.227.3.84...
> >> Dette er kun første del af indlægget, som kan læses i sin helhed på
> >> http://www.islamreview.com/articles/sexinislam.htm
> >
> > Søg hjælp inden det er for sent.
>
>
> Men for hvad?

Sygelig paranoid besættelse af islam.



Knud Larsen (13-09-2006)
Kommentar
Fra : Knud Larsen


Dato : 13-09-06 15:31


"Konrad" <davidkonrad@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4507fc16$0$75032$14726298@news.sunsite.dk...
>
> "Knud Larsen" <larsensknud@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
> news:4507f942$0$143$157c6196@dreader2.cybercity.dk...
>>
>> "Konrad" <davidkonrad@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:4507e5e2$0$75036$14726298@news.sunsite.dk...
>> >
>> > "GB" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
>> > news:Xns983DF0D9432DDYouremail@130.227.3.84...
>> >> Dette er kun første del af indlægget, som kan læses i sin helhed på
>> >> http://www.islamreview.com/articles/sexinislam.htm
>> >
>> > Søg hjælp inden det er for sent.
>>
>>
>> Men for hvad?
>
> Sygelig paranoid besættelse af islam.

OK, - er det allerede en accepteret ny diagnose





Knud Larsen (13-09-2006)
Kommentar
Fra : Knud Larsen


Dato : 13-09-06 15:45


"Konrad" <davidkonrad@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4507fc16$0$75032$14726298@news.sunsite.dk...
>
> "Knud Larsen" <larsensknud@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
> news:4507f942$0$143$157c6196@dreader2.cybercity.dk...
>>
>> "Konrad" <davidkonrad@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:4507e5e2$0$75036$14726298@news.sunsite.dk...
>> >
>> > "GB" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
>> > news:Xns983DF0D9432DDYouremail@130.227.3.84...
>> >> Dette er kun første del af indlægget, som kan læses i sin helhed på
>> >> http://www.islamreview.com/articles/sexinislam.htm
>> >
>> > Søg hjælp inden det er for sent.
>>
>>
>> Men for hvad?
>
> Sygelig paranoid besættelse af islam.

Sex og islam ER jo ellers et interessant emne. Man var jo utrolig eksplicit
mht seksuelle emner i gamle dages islam, - lidt lige som man var inden for
hinduismen, og så pludselig lukkedes dørene til denne del af livet,
victorianismen vandt over hele verden åbenbart.


I haditterne kan man jo stadig se at sex var noget man talte om uden at slå
sløret for ansigtet: "Når Profeten havde fået sperm på sin kåbe, så børstede
han den af før bønnen, hvis den var tørret ud, og ellers brugte han noget
vand" som Aisha skriver så friskt.

Første gang jeg læste om sex i bøger, da var det i 1001-nats eventyr, og jeg
husker at en legekammerat - jeg var vel omkring 10-11 år - nægtede at tro,
at der i bogen stod at en mand blev lokket til at løbe ud på markedspladsen
"med oprejst pik" , - men det havde de arabiske princesser faktisk narret
manden til








GB (13-09-2006)
Kommentar
Fra : GB


Dato : 13-09-06 16:57

"Knud Larsen" <larsensknud@yahoo.dk> wrote in
news:45081955$0$145$157c6196@dreader2.cybercity.dk:

> "Konrad" <davidkonrad@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4507fc16$0$75032$14726298@news.sunsite.dk...
>>> > Søg hjælp inden det er for sent.
>>> Men for hvad?
>> Sygelig paranoid besættelse af islam.

Uuuhadada - har jeg krænket Konrad's profet? Det vil jeg da skide på.

--
Med venlig hilsen
GB

Konrad (16-09-2006)
Kommentar
Fra : Konrad


Dato : 16-09-06 12:10


"GB" <nospam@nospam.invalid> skrev i en meddelelse
news:Xns983DB6934AC1DYouremail@130.227.3.84...
> "Knud Larsen" <larsensknud@yahoo.dk> wrote in
> news:45081955$0$145$157c6196@dreader2.cybercity.dk:
>
> Uuuhadada - har jeg krænket Konrad's profet? Det vil jeg da skide på.

Du krænker ikke min profet ved at latterliggøre dig selv.



@ (13-09-2006)
Kommentar
Fra : @


Dato : 13-09-06 15:58

On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 14:40:23 +0200, "Konrad" <davidkonrad@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>"Knud Larsen" <larsensknud@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
>news:4507f942$0$143$157c6196@dreader2.cybercity.dk...
>>
>> "Konrad" <davidkonrad@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:4507e5e2$0$75036$14726298@news.sunsite.dk...
>> >
>> > "GB" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
>> > news:Xns983DF0D9432DDYouremail@130.227.3.84...
>> >> Dette er kun første del af indlægget, som kan læses i sin helhed på
>> >> http://www.islamreview.com/articles/sexinislam.htm
>> >
>> > Søg hjælp inden det er for sent.
>>
>>
>> Men for hvad?
>
>Sygelig paranoid besættelse af islam.
>

bare fordi DU ikke er paranoid skal du ike tro DU går ram forbi den
dag muhamedanerne overtager magten


--
Et frit samfund er et samfund,
hvor det er ufarligt at være upopulær
/Adlai E. Stevenson/

Konrad (16-09-2006)
Kommentar
Fra : Konrad


Dato : 16-09-06 12:09


"@" <1[at]invalid.net> skrev i en meddelelse
news:s27gg2dd5nooe16fevg8lr63a1p2athbkl@4ax.com...

> bare fordi DU ikke er paranoid skal du ike tro DU går ram forbi den
> dag muhamedanerne overtager magten

Jeg tror ikke "Muhamedanerne" kommer til "magten" andre steder end i deres
kernelande. Dertil er jeg alt for bevidst om vor egen kulturkreds styrke -
der har aldrig eksisteret noget stærkere "imperium" i verdenshistorien end
det 20 århundredes vestlige, kristent/kapitalistisk baserede
nationfællesskab. Muslimerne udgør ingen trussel - hverken ideologisk,
åndeligt, militært, strategisk - eller for den sags skyld bare i antal. Det
er jo derfor, @, at de er nødt til at rende rundt i huler og komme med
trusler på nettet - OG - i bedste fald, sprænge sig selv i luften.

Selvom vi oplevede et terrorangreb hver eneste uge i WTC-størrelse ville
almindelige trafikuheld såmænd udgøre en større risiko for det enkelte
individ at komme af dage på, sandsynligheden for at blive ramt af lynet
ville være større - og vort samfund ville såmænd fungere i bedste velgående
alligevel.



Knud Larsen (16-09-2006)
Kommentar
Fra : Knud Larsen


Dato : 16-09-06 12:34


"Konrad" <davidkonradFJERN@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:450bdb4e$0$75036$14726298@news.sunsite.dk...
>
> "@" <1[at]invalid.net> skrev i en meddelelse
> news:s27gg2dd5nooe16fevg8lr63a1p2athbkl@4ax.com...
>
>> bare fordi DU ikke er paranoid skal du ike tro DU går ram forbi den
>> dag muhamedanerne overtager magten
>
> Jeg tror ikke "Muhamedanerne" kommer til "magten" andre steder end i deres
> kernelande. Dertil er jeg alt for bevidst om vor egen kulturkreds styrke -
> der har aldrig eksisteret noget stærkere "imperium" i verdenshistorien end
> det 20 århundredes vestlige, kristent/kapitalistisk baserede
> nationfællesskab.

Rigtigt, men nu er vi i det 21. århundrede, og tingene ser helt anderledes
ud, isenkram og teknologi kan intet stille op mod fanatisme og dødsvilje.

Muslimerne udgør ingen trussel - hverken ideologisk,
> åndeligt, militært, strategisk - eller for den sags skyld bare i antal.
> Det er jo derfor, @, at de er nødt til at rende rundt i huler og komme med
> trusler på nettet - OG - i bedste fald, sprænge sig selv i luften.

Selvfølgelig udgør de en trussel, - og de når jo at blive til mindst 3,5
milliarder inden for ret mange årtier, og med hundreder af millioner af
vrede unge mænd.

>
> Selvom vi oplevede et terrorangreb hver eneste uge i WTC-størrelse ville
> almindelige trafikuheld såmænd udgøre en større risiko for det enkelte
> individ at komme af dage på, sandsynligheden for at blive ramt af lynet
> ville være større - og vort samfund ville såmænd fungere i bedste
> velgående alligevel.

Sådan fungerer tingene ikke, vi mennesker lever ikke af statistik, terror
kan destabilisere ethvert samfund, DET er problemet også selv om vi ikke får
mega-bomber med radioaktivitet, eller biologiske angreb.

EET billede, at EET dødt menneske kan ændre udfaldet af en krig, hvor der er
titusinder af døde og sårede, sådan "virker" mennesker, vi kører jo på
følelser langt mere end på fornuft, - for at sige det meget mildt.










Konrad (18-09-2006)
Kommentar
Fra : Konrad


Dato : 18-09-06 14:35


"Knud Larsen" <larsensknud@yahoo.dk> skrev i en meddelelse
news:450be13a$0$142$157c6196@dreader2.cybercity.dk...
>

>> Jeg tror ikke "Muhamedanerne" kommer til "magten" andre steder end i
>> deres kernelande. Dertil er jeg alt for bevidst om vor egen kulturkreds
>> styrke - der har aldrig eksisteret noget stærkere "imperium" i
>> verdenshistorien end det 20 århundredes vestlige, kristent/kapitalistisk
>> baserede nationfællesskab.
>
> Rigtigt, men nu er vi i det 21. århundrede, og tingene ser helt anderledes
> ud, isenkram og teknologi kan intet stille op mod fanatisme og dødsvilje.

Fanatisme og dødsvilje kan intet stille op overfor det vestlige økonomiske
og militære monopol - ejheller dets isenkram og teknologi. Det er jo ikke
militære sejre fanatikerne vinder, men frygten i folks hjerter de appellerer
til - og som btw er baggrunden for dine og @'s spekulationer.

> Muslimerne udgør ingen trussel - hverken ideologisk,
>> åndeligt, militært, strategisk - eller for den sags skyld bare i antal.
>> Det er jo derfor, @, at de er nødt til at rende rundt i huler og komme
>> med trusler på nettet - OG - i bedste fald, sprænge sig selv i luften.
>
> Selvfølgelig udgør de en trussel,

De udgør ingen trussel. De kan "by proxy" forpeste vores hverdag, når
frygten sejrer og vi afskaffer demokratiet fordi vi gerne vil beholde det.
Men det er vores valg - ikke fundamentalisternes afgørelse - de kan ikke
"tvinge" noget som helst igennem, som ingen i forvejen ønsker i vort
samfund.

> - og de når jo at blive til mindst 3,5 milliarder inden for ret mange
> årtier, og med hundreder af millioner af vrede unge mænd.

Tvivler kraftigt. Befolkningsfremskrivninger har det med ikke at holde stik.

>> Selvom vi oplevede et terrorangreb hver eneste uge i WTC-størrelse ville
>> almindelige trafikuheld såmænd udgøre en større risiko for det enkelte
>> individ at komme af dage på, sandsynligheden for at blive ramt af lynet
>> ville være større - og vort samfund ville såmænd fungere i bedste
>> velgående alligevel.
>
> Sådan fungerer tingene ikke, vi mennesker lever ikke af statistik, terror
> kan destabilisere ethvert samfund, DET er problemet også selv om vi ikke
> får mega-bomber med radioaktivitet, eller biologiske angreb.

Det KAN destablisere ethvert samfund, men der er tale om en vekselvirkning -
terror destabiliserER ikke ethvert samfund. Terror er præcist så
virkningsfuldt som modtagerne. Terroren i Spanien har virket stik imod ETA's
forhåbninger/planer.




@ (18-09-2006)
Kommentar
Fra : @


Dato : 18-09-06 16:32

On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 15:34:38 +0200, "Konrad"
<davidkonradFJERN@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>"Knud Larsen" <larsensknud@yahoo.dk> skrev i en meddelelse
>news:450be13a$0$142$157c6196@dreader2.cybercity.dk...
>>
>
>>> Jeg tror ikke "Muhamedanerne" kommer til "magten" andre steder end i
>>> deres kernelande. Dertil er jeg alt for bevidst om vor egen kulturkreds
>>> styrke - der har aldrig eksisteret noget stærkere "imperium" i
>>> verdenshistorien end det 20 århundredes vestlige, kristent/kapitalistisk
>>> baserede nationfællesskab.
>>
>> Rigtigt, men nu er vi i det 21. århundrede, og tingene ser helt anderledes
>> ud, isenkram og teknologi kan intet stille op mod fanatisme og dødsvilje.
>
>Fanatisme og dødsvilje kan intet stille op overfor det vestlige økonomiske
>og militære monopol - ejheller dets isenkram og teknologi.

amerikanerne lærte noget andet i Vietnam

enlænderne lærte noget andet da de med afsæt i deres indiske koloni i
mange år forsøgte at få kontrol over Khyberpasset

russserne lærte noget andet i Afghanistan



>> Muslimerne udgør ingen trussel - hverken ideologisk,
>>> åndeligt, militært, strategisk

uhada

det var lige netop de argumenter der blev brugt om Hitler i 30'erne

ham tog man heller ikke rigtig alvorlig før det var for sent






--
Et frit samfund er et samfund,
hvor det er ufarligt at være upopulær
/Adlai E. Stevenson/

Konrad (21-09-2006)
Kommentar
Fra : Konrad


Dato : 21-09-06 13:20


"@" <1[at]invalid.net> skrev i en meddelelse
news:ppetg2l5o6ibkd3pht3iu7a61mon7gb807@4ax.com...

> >Fanatisme og dødsvilje kan intet stille op overfor det vestlige
økonomiske
> >og militære monopol - ejheller dets isenkram og teknologi.
>
> amerikanerne lærte noget andet i Vietnam

Usammenlignelige scenarier. I øvrigt KUNNE de have sønderbombet det hele, og
dermed "vundet" - men den folkelige opinion var jo imod.

> enlænderne lærte noget andet da de med afsæt i deres indiske koloni i
> mange år forsøgte at få kontrol over Khyberpasset
>
> russserne lærte noget andet i Afghanistan

Du taler om folk, der vil forsvare sit land imod indtrængere, og så muslimer
der bor rundt omkring i alverdens lande. Sammenligningen er ikke valid i
forhold til mine argumenter.

> >> Muslimerne udgør ingen trussel - hverken ideologisk,
> >>> åndeligt, militært, strategisk
>
> uhada
>
> det var lige netop de argumenter der blev brugt om Hitler i 30'erne
>
> ham tog man heller ikke rigtig alvorlig før det var for sent

Jeg har i tråden "islam er den nye nazisme" (eller hvad den nu hed)
beskrevet nogle ret afgørende forskelle på islamiske og nazisme, f.eks at
nazismen var forud for sin tid - islamisme er derimod bagud for sin tid -
nazisme vandt genklang i mange lande og blandt mange forskellige kulturer,
herunder f.eks Tibets buddhister - islamisme har ingen andre venner end dem
selv.




Knud Larsen (21-09-2006)
Kommentar
Fra : Knud Larsen


Dato : 21-09-06 14:52


"Konrad" <davidkonradFJERN@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:45128364$0$75030$14726298@news.sunsite.dk...
>
> "@" <1[at]invalid.net> skrev i en meddelelse
> news:ppetg2l5o6ibkd3pht3iu7a61mon7gb807@4ax.com...
>
>> >Fanatisme og dødsvilje kan intet stille op overfor det vestlige
> økonomiske
>> >og militære monopol - ejheller dets isenkram og teknologi.
>>
>> amerikanerne lærte noget andet i Vietnam
>
> Usammenlignelige scenarier. I øvrigt KUNNE de have sønderbombet det hele,
> og
> dermed "vundet" - men den folkelige opinion var jo imod.
>
>> enlænderne lærte noget andet da de med afsæt i deres indiske koloni i
>> mange år forsøgte at få kontrol over Khyberpasset
>>
>> russserne lærte noget andet i Afghanistan
>
> Du taler om folk, der vil forsvare sit land imod indtrængere, og så
> muslimer
> der bor rundt omkring i alverdens lande. Sammenligningen er ikke valid i
> forhold til mine argumenter.
>
>> >> Muslimerne udgør ingen trussel - hverken ideologisk,
>> >>> åndeligt, militært, strategisk
>>
>> uhada
>>
>> det var lige netop de argumenter der blev brugt om Hitler i 30'erne
>>
>> ham tog man heller ikke rigtig alvorlig før det var for sent
>
> Jeg har i tråden "islam er den nye nazisme" (eller hvad den nu hed)
> beskrevet nogle ret afgørende forskelle på islamiske og nazisme, f.eks at
> nazismen var forud for sin tid - islamisme er derimod bagud for sin tid -
> nazisme vandt genklang i mange lande og blandt mange forskellige kulturer,
> herunder f.eks Tibets buddhister - islamisme har ingen andre venner end
> dem
> selv.

Nej, de må vel nøjes med 1,5 mia. mulige proselytter.





Konrad (21-09-2006)
Kommentar
Fra : Konrad


Dato : 21-09-06 15:13


"Knud Larsen" <larsensknud@yahoo.dk> skrev i en meddelelse
news:451298fb$0$144$157c6196@dreader2.cybercity.dk...
>
> Nej, de må vel nøjes med 1,5 mia. mulige proselytter.

Jeg tror - men det er da muligt det er indbildning - at en ret stor
procentdel af disse 1.2-1.3-1.4-1.5 mia muslimer ikke deler islamisternes
ideologi.



Knud Larsen (21-09-2006)
Kommentar
Fra : Knud Larsen


Dato : 21-09-06 18:38


"Konrad" <davidkonradFJERN@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:45129df4$0$75029$14726298@news.sunsite.dk...
>
> "Knud Larsen" <larsensknud@yahoo.dk> skrev i en meddelelse
> news:451298fb$0$144$157c6196@dreader2.cybercity.dk...
>>
>> Nej, de må vel nøjes med 1,5 mia. mulige proselytter.
>
> Jeg tror - men det er da muligt det er indbildning - at en ret stor
> procentdel af disse 1.2-1.3-1.4-1.5 mia muslimer ikke deler islamisternes
> ideologi.

Nu er der jo et par forskellige slags islamisme, den globale islamisme og
den lokale islamisme.
Man regner jo med at islamister ville vinde frie valg i stort set alle
Mellemøstlige lande, - og i mange tilfælde er det jo fuldt forståeligt, at
folk som har opgivet at alle andre muligheder, vil prøve denne sidste med
islam i førertrøjen.




Konrad (21-09-2006)
Kommentar
Fra : Konrad


Dato : 21-09-06 22:05


"Knud Larsen" <larsensknud@yahoo.dk> skrev i en meddelelse
news:4512cdf5$0$145$157c6196@dreader1.cybercity.dk...
>
> Nu er der jo et par forskellige slags islamisme, den globale islamisme og
> den lokale islamisme.
> Man regner jo med at islamister ville vinde frie valg i stort set alle
> Mellemøstlige lande, - og i mange tilfælde er det jo fuldt forståeligt, at
> folk som har opgivet at alle andre muligheder, vil prøve denne sidste med
> islam i førertrøjen.

Selvfølgelig. Men du kan f.eks se på hvordan det gik i Palæstina med Hamas,
hvordan det går islamismen i Ægypten - hvordan det går den i Jordan. De er
da virkelig i opposition, og hvis de endelig får magt - så mister de den
hurtigt igen. Det er for mig en klar indikation på en manglende fælles,
kollektiv, samlende ideologisk forståelse. De er ganske enkelt kun enige om
at Vesten og Israel er skyld i alle fortrædeligheder, og det er altså ikke
noget særlig godt udgangspunkt for at overtage verdensherredømmet - der
mangler slagkraft, enighed og substans.




Knud Larsen (22-09-2006)
Kommentar
Fra : Knud Larsen


Dato : 22-09-06 09:38


"Konrad" <davidkonradFJERN@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4512fe6a$0$75031$14726298@news.sunsite.dk...
>
> "Knud Larsen" <larsensknud@yahoo.dk> skrev i en meddelelse
> news:4512cdf5$0$145$157c6196@dreader1.cybercity.dk...
>>
>> Nu er der jo et par forskellige slags islamisme, den globale islamisme og
>> den lokale islamisme.
>> Man regner jo med at islamister ville vinde frie valg i stort set alle
>> Mellemøstlige lande, - og i mange tilfælde er det jo fuldt forståeligt,
>> at
>> folk som har opgivet at alle andre muligheder, vil prøve denne sidste med
>> islam i førertrøjen.
>
> Selvfølgelig. Men du kan f.eks se på hvordan det gik i Palæstina med
> Hamas,
> hvordan det går islamismen i Ægypten - hvordan det går den i Jordan. De er
> da virkelig i opposition, og hvis de endelig får magt - så mister de den
> hurtigt igen. Det er for mig en klar indikation på en manglende fælles,
> kollektiv, samlende ideologisk forståelse. De er ganske enkelt kun enige
> om
> at Vesten og Israel er skyld i alle fortrædeligheder, og det er altså ikke
> noget særlig godt udgangspunkt for at overtage verdensherredømmet - der
> mangler slagkraft, enighed og substans.

De kommer ikke til at overtage verdensherredømmet, - men de kunne nå at
ødelægge Vesten i forsøget på det, OG det vigtigste for de rabiate er, at de
arbejder på Allahs plan, og derfor skærer genvej til paradis.

Islamismen i Egypten har da ikke fået chancen, Det Muslimske Broderskab er
forbudt, og man tillader selvfølgelig ikke at de viser at de kunne få
flertal i morgen. De har IKKE mistet magten i Iran, og heller ikke i Saudi
Arabien.

Det er klart, at islamister normalt ikke har nogen idé om hvordan de skal
køre samfundet, men de vil jo altid få nogle år til at vise, at de intet ved
om morderne samfund. Mange muslimer er jo efter sigende også tilfredse med
at kunne være i det mindste gode muslimer, de tror vist ikke mere på at
'nogen' form for politisk sammenslutning vil give fysiske resultater. Hvis
de så bare kan ydmyge Vesten en gang imellem, så mener de vist at livet
trods alt er langt bedre end det er nu.







Konrad (17-04-2007)
Kommentar
Fra : Konrad


Dato : 17-04-07 00:52

Knud Larsen wrote:
> "Konrad" <davidkonradFJERN@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4512fe6a$0$75031$14726298@news.sunsite.dk...
>>
>> "Knud Larsen" <larsensknud@yahoo.dk> skrev i en meddelelse
>> news:4512cdf5$0$145$157c6196@dreader1.cybercity.dk...
>>>
>>> Nu er der jo et par forskellige slags islamisme, den globale
>>> islamisme og den lokale islamisme.
>>> Man regner jo med at islamister ville vinde frie valg i stort set
>>> alle Mellemøstlige lande, - og i mange tilfælde er det jo fuldt
>>> forståeligt, at
>>> folk som har opgivet at alle andre muligheder, vil prøve denne
>>> sidste med islam i førertrøjen.
>>
>> Selvfølgelig. Men du kan f.eks se på hvordan det gik i Palæstina med
>> Hamas,
>> hvordan det går islamismen i Ægypten - hvordan det går den i Jordan.
>> De er da virkelig i opposition, og hvis de endelig får magt - så
>> mister de den hurtigt igen. Det er for mig en klar indikation på en
>> manglende fælles, kollektiv, samlende ideologisk forståelse. De er
>> ganske enkelt kun enige om
>> at Vesten og Israel er skyld i alle fortrædeligheder, og det er
>> altså ikke noget særlig godt udgangspunkt for at overtage
>> verdensherredømmet - der mangler slagkraft, enighed og substans.
>
> De kommer ikke til at overtage verdensherredømmet, - men de kunne nå
> at ødelægge Vesten i forsøget på det, OG det vigtigste for de rabiate
> er, at de arbejder på Allahs plan, og derfor skærer genvej til
> paradis

good for you

> Islamismen i Egypten har da ikke fået chancen, Det Muslimske
> Broderskab er forbudt, og man tillader selvfølgelig ikke at de viser
> at de kunne få flertal i morgen. De har IKKE mistet magten i Iran, og
> heller ikke i Saudi Arabien.
>
> Det er klart, at islamister normalt ikke har nogen idé om hvordan de
> skal køre samfundet, men de vil jo altid få nogle år til at vise, at
> de intet ved om morderne samfund. Mange muslimer er jo efter sigende
> også tilfredse med at kunne være i det mindste gode muslimer, de tror
> vist ikke mere på at 'nogen' form for politisk sammenslutning vil
> give fysiske resultater. Hvis de så bare kan ydmyge Vesten en gang
> imellem, så mener de vist at livet trods alt er langt bedre end det
> er nu.

og hvad så? jeg er revnende ligeglad.



Du kan godt se jeg har tænkt længe over svaret, og det har jeg. Desværre
skuffer svaret nok en smule.




@ (21-09-2006)
Kommentar
Fra : @


Dato : 21-09-06 15:28

On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 14:19:49 +0200, "Konrad"
<davidkonradFJERN@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>"@" <1[at]invalid.net> skrev i en meddelelse
>news:ppetg2l5o6ibkd3pht3iu7a61mon7gb807@4ax.com...
>
>> >Fanatisme og dødsvilje kan intet stille op overfor det vestlige
>økonomiske
>> >og militære monopol - ejheller dets isenkram og teknologi.
>>
>> amerikanerne lærte noget andet i Vietnam
>
>Usammenlignelige scenarier. I øvrigt KUNNE de have sønderbombet det hele, og
>dermed "vundet" - men den folkelige opinion var jo imod.

amerikanerne forsøgte med "sønderbombninger"

det virkede ikke


>> enlænderne lærte noget andet da de med afsæt i deres indiske koloni i
>> mange år forsøgte at få kontrol over Khyberpasset
>>
>> russserne lærte noget andet i Afghanistan
>
>Du taler om folk, der vil forsvare sit land imod indtrængere, og så muslimer
>der bor rundt omkring i alverdens lande. Sammenligningen er ikke valid i
>forhold til mine argumenter.
>
>> >> Muslimerne udgør ingen trussel - hverken ideologisk,
>> >>> åndeligt, militært, strategisk
>>
>> uhada
>>
>> det var lige netop de argumenter der blev brugt om Hitler i 30'erne
>>
>> ham tog man heller ikke rigtig alvorlig før det var for sent
>
>Jeg har i tråden "islam er den nye nazisme" (eller hvad den nu hed)
>beskrevet nogle ret afgørende forskelle på islamiske og nazisme, f.eks at
>nazismen var forud for sin tid - islamisme er derimod bagud for sin tid -

ikke når det kommer til overtagelse af andres lande

bare se på det afrikanske kontinent


eller blot her i landet

hvor mange satiretegninger ser du af den falske profet Muhammed?

det er et slag de allerede har vundet


og tre steder i Danmark er det lykkedes for muhamedanerne at forhindre
folk i at udøve deres grundlovssikrede ret til frit at forsamles under
åben himmel

endnu et slag vundet



>nazisme vandt genklang i mange lande og blandt mange forskellige kulturer,
>herunder f.eks Tibets buddhister - islamisme har ingen andre venner end dem
>selv.

what!!!!!!

læser du slet ingen indlæg her i gruppen?
eller læser aviser?
eller ser TV?


--
Et frit samfund er et samfund,
hvor det er ufarligt at være upopulær
/Adlai E. Stevenson/

@ (16-09-2006)
Kommentar
Fra : @


Dato : 16-09-06 13:17

On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 13:09:13 +0200, "Konrad"
<davidkonradFJERN@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>"@" <1[at]invalid.net> skrev i en meddelelse
>news:s27gg2dd5nooe16fevg8lr63a1p2athbkl@4ax.com...
>
>> bare fordi DU ikke er paranoid skal du ike tro DU går ram forbi den
>> dag muhamedanerne overtager magten
>
>Jeg tror ikke "Muhamedanerne" kommer til "magten" andre steder end i deres
>kernelande. Dertil er jeg alt for bevidst om vor egen kulturkreds styrke -

som dagligt undergraves af velmenende "nyttige idioter" som render
muhamedanernes ærinde

>der har aldrig eksisteret noget stærkere "imperium" i verdenshistorien end
>det 20 århundredes vestlige, kristent/kapitalistisk baserede
>nationfællesskab. Muslimerne udgør ingen trussel - hverken ideologisk,
>åndeligt, militært, strategisk - eller for den sags skyld bare i antal. Det
>er jo derfor, @, at de er nødt til at rende rundt i huler og komme med
>trusler på nettet - OG - i bedste fald, sprænge sig selv i luften.

da M. Glistrup i 1992(SVJH) forudsagde at der i 2005 ville være mindst
250.000 muhamedanere i DK mente mange at dette tal var vildt
overdrevet, M.Glistrup fik endnu en gang ret


>Selvom vi oplevede et terrorangreb hver eneste uge i WTC-størrelse ville
>almindelige trafikuheld såmænd udgøre en større risiko for det enkelte
>individ at komme af dage på, sandsynligheden for at blive ramt af lynet
>ville være større - og vort samfund ville såmænd fungere i bedste velgående
>alligevel.
>

og?

hvad har det overhovedet med en muhamedansk magtovertagelse i
vesteuropa at gøre


--
Et frit samfund er et samfund,
hvor det er ufarligt at være upopulær
/Adlai E. Stevenson/

Ukendt (13-09-2006)
Kommentar
Fra : Ukendt


Dato : 13-09-06 16:21

"Konrad" <davidkonrad@gmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:4507e5e2$0$75036$14726298@news.sunsite.dk...
>
> "GB" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> news:Xns983DF0D9432DDYouremail@130.227.3.84...
>> Dette er kun første del af indlægget, som kan læses i sin helhed på
>> http://www.islamreview.com/articles/sexinislam.htm
>
> Søg hjælp inden det er for sent.

Jeg tror det ER for sent, der er ikke mere at gøre... Fageksperter må give
op...

Men der kan måske baseres et godt forskningsprojekt på undersøgelser af ham.

--
Kim Larsen

Socialist, republikaner, EU-tilhænger og atomkraftmodstander.
Socialisme er den eneste troværdige vej frem.
Husk at krigen i Irak er folkeretligt smask-ulovlig.

Direkte e-mail: kla2(a)get2net.dk




Søg
Reklame
Statistik
Spørgsmål : 177517
Tips : 31968
Nyheder : 719565
Indlæg : 6408636
Brugere : 218887

Månedens bedste
Årets bedste
Sidste års bedste