The good news for him is yes...he still gets 72 virgins. The bad news is...they are all men.
SHOCKER: Another MUSLIM Terrorist
- Thread starter Pop Sickle
- Start date
The good news for him is yes...he still gets 72 virgins. The bad news is...they are all men.
Actually, its not the islamic conception of Heaven. Nowhere in the quran does it say that you get 72 virgins for murder or being a suicide bomber. Its basically a myth, not unlike the biblical myth of purgatory invented by Catholics. Or the more secular myth that 90% of Christians believe is that "if you are just good enough you get to go to heaven" And usually those Christians believe the standard of goodness is as long as you dont kill or rape anyone because thats usually the ONLY sin they havent committed.
Anyway, Technically the Quran is against suicide bombers.
http://wisdomtoislam.com/myths-on-islam/why-islam-does-not-promise-72-virgins-for-martyrs
But there are always bad people in the world that try to manipulate religious text to benefit their agenda. But its not unlike the way a lawyer will manipulate the legal system to get a murderer acquitted, or the way some scientists form their outcome before they examine their evidence, then just bump the numbers to get them to where they want. Its all over the world. People are just like that.
The quran took alot of stuff from the bible, which is what makes it so believable to muslims. Its all these Haddiths that have a chain of 4 or 5 people that mess them up. (A haddith is sort of like where they say "Saddam read a passage by abdul that heard sayid say he once heard mohammed say such and such")
by the way... purgatory is in the bible.
CATHOLIC: Look at 1 Corinthians 3:14â15: "If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If any manâs work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire." You see, the Latinate word purgatory means a purgation or burning by fire. Paul in these verses refers to a purgation process whereby a man is saved even though his works are burned away. This is precisely what the Catholic Church teaches. A person at death who still has personal faults is prevented from entering into heaven because he is not completely purified. He must go through a period of purgation in order to be made clean, for nothing unclean will enter heaven (cf. Rev. 21:27).
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0511sbs.asp
I am not saying I agree with the Catholic argument here.. in fact I would say I lean away from it... but I can tell you this --- just about every major Catholic doctrine is at least partly grounded in the bible.
Whenever someone says Catholics just made it up... I have to wonder who is teaching them.
If you study what the protestants believe and what the Catholics believe... you eventually come to a pretty solid and comprehensive understanding of the bible.
CATHOLIC: Look at 1 Corinthians 3:14â15: "If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If any manâs work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire." You see, the Latinate word purgatory means a purgation or burning by fire. Paul in these verses refers to a purgation process whereby a man is saved even though his works are burned away. This is precisely what the Catholic Church teaches. A person at death who still has personal faults is prevented from entering into heaven because he is not completely purified. He must go through a period of purgation in order to be made clean, for nothing unclean will enter heaven (cf. Rev. 21:27).
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0511sbs.asp
I am not saying I agree with the Catholic argument here.. in fact I would say I lean away from it... but I can tell you this --- just about every major Catholic doctrine is at least partly grounded in the bible.
Whenever someone says Catholics just made it up... I have to wonder who is teaching them.
If you study what the protestants believe and what the Catholics believe... you eventually come to a pretty solid and comprehensive understanding of the bible.
Leftist media in full spin mode. He wasn't a muslim terrorist. He was just an "American Citizen" who fell on hard times and, of course, was mad at George Bush. Anything to distract from the reality of the situation, which is, terrorism from radical Islam has not diminished just because the "chosen one" got elected.
BRIDGEPORT, Conn. â Not long ago, Faisal Shahzad had a pretty enviable life: He became an American citizen after emigrating from Pakistan, where he came from a wealthy family. He earned an MBA. He had a well-educated wife and two kids and owned a house in a middle-class Connecticut suburb.
In the past couple of years, though, his life seemed to unravel: He left a job at a global marketing firm he'd held for three years, lost his home to foreclosure and moved into an apartment in an impoverished neighborhood in Bridgeport. And last weekend, authorities say, he drove an SUV loaded with explosives into Times Square intent on blowing it up.
Shahzad's behavior sometimes seemed odd to his neighbors, and he surprised a real estate broker he hardly knew with his outspokenness about President George W. Bush and the Iraq war.
"He mentioned that he didn't like Bush policies in Iraq," said Igor Djuric, who represented Shahzad in 2004 when he was buying a home.
Djuric said he couldn't remember the exact words Shahzad used about Bush but "something to the effect of he doesn't know what he's doing and it's the wrong thing that he's doing."
"I don't know if he mentioned 9/11," Djuric said, "but something like that, Iraq has nothing to do with anything."
BRIDGEPORT, Conn. â Not long ago, Faisal Shahzad had a pretty enviable life: He became an American citizen after emigrating from Pakistan, where he came from a wealthy family. He earned an MBA. He had a well-educated wife and two kids and owned a house in a middle-class Connecticut suburb.
In the past couple of years, though, his life seemed to unravel: He left a job at a global marketing firm he'd held for three years, lost his home to foreclosure and moved into an apartment in an impoverished neighborhood in Bridgeport. And last weekend, authorities say, he drove an SUV loaded with explosives into Times Square intent on blowing it up.
Shahzad's behavior sometimes seemed odd to his neighbors, and he surprised a real estate broker he hardly knew with his outspokenness about President George W. Bush and the Iraq war.
"He mentioned that he didn't like Bush policies in Iraq," said Igor Djuric, who represented Shahzad in 2004 when he was buying a home.
Djuric said he couldn't remember the exact words Shahzad used about Bush but "something to the effect of he doesn't know what he's doing and it's the wrong thing that he's doing."
"I don't know if he mentioned 9/11," Djuric said, "but something like that, Iraq has nothing to do with anything."
You yourself mentioned earlier the "head cases" in that group, so why the objection to a discussion of psychological factors? He may be Muslim, he may say he disagrees, vehemently even, with US foreign policy in Muslim lands, but why did he, of the many who no doubt also fit that generalized description, go so far as to cross the line? The media is not spinning, they are factoring out the constants.
What difference does it make? While not every muslim is a terrorist, the overwhelming majority of terrorists (a few nutcases like timothy mcveigh notwithstanding) are muslims. If you can't see the common denominator of the terror all over the world now, you never will. Discussing why one muslim snapped and crossed the line while another did not (while tacitly approving the first instead) is a useless exercise in mental masturbation. The fact that Islam creates a disproportionately high number of terrorists is simply undeniable.