Dark Moth

1. It may interest you to note that in Islam, the world is divided into two parts: "Dar al Islam", House of Islam, and "Dar al Charb", House of war. Also, the submission part refers to god, not submission to other men. 2. I'd be a lot more sympathetic if religions such as Buddhism and Christianity managed to survive without waging wars. In Christianity's case, they faced even worse persecution but never waged any wars in order to survive. And I'm of course talking about during the time of the Roman Empire, not afterward. 3. Even in context, all the verses still mean as they are shown above. In fact, the one verse you sight still goes on to say "when the forbidden months are past, fight and slay the infidels wherever ye find them..." 4. Yes I can. Does it say "kill those who insult the Holy Spirit"? 5. Muhammad did not "choose" exile. He was forced into exile because of hostility toward him. And it wasn't without good reason. Muhammad had been causing disturbances in the city in his quest to convert others. Maybe you never heard about his attitudes toward his uncle, in which he became angry and even cursed his uncle and aunt when he refused to convert? His words, still preserved in the Quran, were "May the hands of Abu Lahab perish! May he himself perish! Nothing shall his wealth and gains avail him. He shall be burnt in a flaming fire, and his wife, laden with faggots, shall have a rope of fibre arounder her neck!" (Sura 111: 1-5)

"Fighting may be imposed on you, even though you dislike it. But you may dislike something which is good for you, and you may like something which is bad for you. GOD knows while you do not know. They ask you about the Sacred Months and fighting therein: say, "Fighting therein is a sacrilege. However, repelling from the path of GOD and disbelieving in Him and in the sanctity of the Sacred Masjid, and evicting its people, are greater sacrileges in the sight of GOD. Oppression is worse than murder." They will always fight you to revert you from your religion, if they can. Those among you who revert from their religion, and die as disbelievers, have nullified their works in this life and the Hereafter. These are the dwellers of Hell, wherein they abide forever." (Sura 2:16-17) "And he who fights in the cause of Allah and is killed achieves victory. We will bestow on him a great reward." (Sura 4:74). "Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah, and those who disbelieve in the cause of Satan. So fight against the allies of Satan." (Sura 4:76). "Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and his messenger . . . is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from the opposite sides." (Sura 5:33). "I will instill terror into the hearts of the infidels. Strike off their heads then, and strike off them every finger-tip." (Sura 8:12). "Kill those who join other gods with God (Allah) wherever you find them." (Sura 9:5). "Fight those who do not believe in Allah." (Sura 9:29). "If you do not fight, (Allah) will punish you severely, and put others in your place." (Sura 9:39). "O Prophet, fight against the disbelievers and the hypocrites and be harsh upon them." (Sura 9:75). "So when you meet those who disbelieve, strike their necks until, when you have inflicted slaughter upon them, then secure their bonds . . . And those who are killed in the cause of Allah never will waste their deeds." (Sura 47:4). I don't mean to offend, but if I may be blunt, just what the hell are Muslims supposed to gather from those verses?

Alcatrazz - God Blessed Video

Yup, a GTA-like ability to man vehicles would be nice.

No Yuthura? What is wrong with these forums?!! I'm a Bastila guy, but Yuthura was hot enough to at least earn a spot on the poll!

I won't say much to that, only that I recommend you read The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and The Life of Muhammad: A translation of Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah, a biography of Muhammad written by a pious Muslim. You may be unpleasantly surprised.

Yup, very ironic. It doesn't surprise me, to be honest with you. Many of those involved have no respect for other faiths, yet become outraged when someone insults their own. And to prove their point, they burn a Danish mission and ransack a Christian community. Also, for an update, a Catholic priest was shot dead in Turkey by a young Muslim who was chanting "Allah Achbar" (god is great).

"putsch" is German. Meanwhile, the 360 is hurting now, not from poor sales but from the supply not meeting the demand. A new factory is supposed to open, but not until later this year. BTW, maybe I'm stating the obvious, but I have a feeling Epiphany was a plant from Microsoft. "

I think we all know who the obtuse person is here. ^^^

I doubt that. The Seahawks' defense really isn't that great. They're biggest strength was their offense, which really shined in the first half, but just couldn't really hold it together, and sort of fell apart in the second half. But I do hand it to them for holding back our defense the way they did. Those guys just seemed to be all over Polamalu throughout most of the game. Meanwhile, the Steelers offense just wasn't playing their best. (their defense wasn't doing so well for a time, but that's another story) All their previous 8 games were built on a super-strong offensive in the first half, and I just didn't see that coming out of them at all until later.

Okay, I forgot that he made contact. But as for your other point, it wasn't "bad calls" as much as it was they just couldn't stop fouling. Sure there were a couple bad calls, but most were spot-on. The Seahaks deserved almost every penalty they got, even on just holding alone. Also, so many people here are quick to point out that the Seahawks were trying to "make us win". Aren't we all forgetting just how horribly the Steelers' offense was playing in the first half? They didn't even get a first down until later in the second quarter.

That's your reason? No, methinks it has something more to do with this: Steelers: 21 Seahawks: 10 The bad calls went against both sides, like Hasselback's fumble that wasn't ruled a fumble. And Ben did make the touchdown. The TD counts if the ball goes over the white line, and if you look closely, it just did. But I do agree it was pretty tough to tell. I dunno. Seattle had some bad calls, but I doubt they still would have won. I also think the Steelers were trying equally hard to let Seattle win. Let's not forget how horrible the Steelers' offense was playing in the first half. They went an entire first quarter without a first down, and had the ball for only about 6 minutes to Seattle's 14 near the end of the first half. Also, it can be argued that the score should have been more like 28-10. If Roethlisberger hadn't thrown that horrible interception, they most likely would have gotten that touchdown.

Whatever! At the moment I could care less what anyone here thinks of the game or American football. Practically nothing in the world can spoil my mood right now. (w00t) I gotta go celebrate now. So long.

The first half was close, but boring. It was 7-3 at halftime. The second half was not to be missed, though. There were some very wild plays, and two records were set as well.

The hell it was! That was 10x more exciting then the last Superbowl. (And no, not because the Steelers won) :D

Steelers: 21 Seahawks: 10 Steelers: Superbowl XL Champions Way to go, guys.

Oh yeah. Figures, it being the same guy who did "Basic Instinct". I almost forgot - "Wild Things". Go XX/XX action. *daydreams of Denise Richards*

Most of them don't, from my experience.

You can't "zing" your own post. Tsk tsk. Anyway so this isn't spam, I just saw "Ferris Beuller's day Off" The movie had its moments, but really wasn't as funny as people were telling me.

I want to get going on Muso's report, but it's going to feel awkward since he just went on a self-imposed hiatus a few days ago. No telling when he'll be back.

Geez, you guys are no fun. In case my sarcasm was poorly constructed, my "teeth fixation" was in jest. Only the acress who played Lucy did have a major overbite. ^_^ <_<

Actually both Appletons aren't bad at all. I wouldn't mind having both of them at the same time.

The first woman isn't even attractive. Big noses and nose rings are not turn-ons.

...but it was a TV production from 1988... what did you expect? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> It still could have been better! It's not even the special effects that bothered me most as much as the bad acting and casting. And don't tell me they couldn't have gotten someone with better teeth. <_<

I saw the old BBC version of "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe". And I don't intend to ever see it again. The special effects were terrible, the acting was poor (expecially the White Witch, oh god), and Lucy was in desperate need of some overbite-reduction surgery. <_<