h-n's reflections

People say that Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him did not show any miracles, there are some mentioned BUT we are happy that we did NOT become Muslims because he showed us miracles!!! Some of the the miracles mentioned were after people already became Muslims!!

We believe that everyone already knows the existance of Allah (as per No such Atheism thread).

Prophet Noah, Lut, Moses, Muhammad peace be upon them etc did NOT perform miracles on the first day, then told people to believe in them, rather that they gave the message of Islam FIRST!!! With Prophet Jesus peace be upon him when he spoke when he was born, he was already with people who were believers in Allah. Of course Prophet Jesus peace be upon him's Mother was looked after by servants of Allah!

As Allah has stated in the Quran;-

- If miracles worked then why are they not all worshipping Allah now?? Do you think that Allah has to perform miracles when Allah has already spoken of the rain falling, the various fruits, is this not enough?? After all that Allah has already provided them with they dare to ask for more??

- If miracles did work then why did the people take the cow idol for worship whilst Prophet Moses peace be upon him was away?? After the parting of the sea and the various plagues of Egypt, they dare to take a cow idol to worship?? Allah himself has said they were in error that they had done this.

- have they forgotten of the story of the camel at the time of Prophet Salih peace be upon him? The people were wrongdoers and strung the camel and they were destroyed.

-this is a follow up from "Show me, show me (but we're humans) thread (which will bump up)
-also a follow up from "Satan refusing to prostrate" which explains my test and your test.
-also the "Jewish problem" thread in the comparitive section.

Of course I will not as per other threads not bothering to reply as per my threads being derailed and being closed.

bump in reference to the "Miracles (you want one but...)" thread.

bump in reference to "Miracles (you want one but...)" thread.

I haven't actually cross referenced this, just haven't had the time, so I thought I'll just add this on, incase others would like to read it and check it out for themselves (as we are only here for a short amount of time in this world, so I thought it would be wasted of not posting this up and letting people read it themselves). Also again I would like to add that it appears that they tried to oust Hitler as leader, as with Ahmednijad in Iran, the difference is Hitler went on the offensive, unlike Ahmednijad, but of course the Governments try and portray themselves as the innocent parties (which I refuse to believe that they are innocent).


Jews involvement in the holocaust

It is a historical fact that in 1941 and again in 1942, the German Gestapo offered all European Jews transit to Spain, if they would relinquish all their property in Germany and Occupied France; on condition that:
a) None of the deportees travel from Spain to Palestine; and b) All the deportees be transported from Spain to the USA or British colonies, and there to remain; with entry visas to be arranged by the Jews living there; and c) $1000.00 ransom for each family to be furnished by the Agency, payable upon the arrival of the family at the Spanish border at the rate of 1000 families daily.

The Jewish leaders in Switzerland and Turkey received this offer with the clear understanding that the exclusion of Palestine as a destination for the deportees was based on an agreement between the Gestapo and the Mufti.

The answer of the Zionist leaders was negative, with the following comments:
a) ONLY Palestine would be considered as a destination for the deportees.
b) The European Jews must accede to suffering and death greater in measure than the other nations, in order that the victorious allies agree to a "Jewish State" at the end of the war.
c) No ransom will be paid. This response to the Gestapo's offer was made with the full knowledge that the alternative to this offer was internment camps.
These Jew leaders betrayed their own flesh and blood. Zionism was never an option for Jewish salvation. Quite the opposite, it was a formula for human beings to be used as pawns for the power trip of several desperadoes. A betrayal beyond description.

In 1944, at the time of the Hungarian deportations, a similar offer was made, whereby all Hungarian Jewry could be saved. The same Jewish hierarchy again refused this offer.

The British government granted visas to 300 rabbis and their families to the Colony of Mauritius, with passage for the evacuees through Turkey. The "Jewish Agency" leaders sabotaged this plan with the observation that the plan was disloyal to Palestine, and the 300 rabbis and their families should be killed.

On December 17, 1942 both houses of the British Parliament declared its readiness to find temporary refuge for endangered persons. The British Parliament proposed to evacuate 500,000 Jews from Europe, and resettle them in British colonies, as a part of diplomatic negotiations with Germany. This motion received within two weeks a total of 277 Parliamentary signatures. On Jan. 27, when the next steps were being pursued by over 100 M.P.'s and Lords, a Jewish spokesman announced that the Jews would oppose the motion because Palestine was omitted.

On Feb. 16, 1943 Romania offered 70,000 Jewish refugees of the Trans-Dniestria the option to leave at the cost of $50 each. This was publicized in the New York papers. Yitzhak Greenbaum, Chairman of the Rescue Committee of the Jewish Agency, addressing the Zionist Executive Council in Tel Aviv Feb. 18 1943 said:

"When they asked me, "couldn't you give money out of the United Jewish Appeal funds for the rescue of Jews in Europe, I said NO! and I say again, NO!...one should resist this wave which pushes the Zionist activities to secondary importance."

On Feb. 24, 1943 Stephen Wise, President of the American Jewish Congress and leader of the American Zionists issued a public refusal to this offer and declared no collection of funds would seem justified. In 1944, the Emergency Committee to Save the Jewish People called upon the American government to establish a War Refugee Board. Stephen Wise testifying before a special committee of Congress objected to this proposal.

During the course of the negotiations mentioned above, Chaim Weizman, the first "Jewish statesman" stated:

"The most valuable part of the Jewish nation is already in Palestine, and those Jews living outside Palestine are not too important".

Weizman's cohort, Greenbaum, amplified this statement with the observation:

"One cow in Palestine is worth more than all the Jews in Europe".

And then, these Jewish "statesmen" lured the refugees into the camps to remain in hunger and deprivation, and refused relocation to any place but Palestine.

In 1947 Congressman William Stration sponsored a bill to immediately grant entry to the United States of 400,000 displaced persons. The bill was not passed after it was publicly denounced by the Jewish leadership.

How can it be explained that at a time during the last phase of the war, when the Nazis were willing to barter Jews for money, partly because of their desires to establish contact with the Western powers which, they believed, were under Jewish influence, how was it possible that the self-proclaimed "Jewish leaders" did not move heaven and earth to save the last remnant of their brothers?

On Feb. 23, 1956 the Hon. J. W. Pickersgill, Minister for Immigration was asked in the Canadian House of Commons :

"Would he open the doors of Canada to Jewish refugees". He replied "the government has made no progress in that direction because the government of Israel....does not wish us to do so".

In 1972, the Jewish leadership successfully opposed an effort in the United States Congress to allow 20,000-30,000 Russian refugees to enter the United States. Jewish relief organizations, Joint and HIAS, were being pressured to abandon these refugees in Vienna, Rome and other Europiean cities.

The pattern is clear!!! Humanitarian rescue efforts are subverted to narrow Jewish interests.

There were many more shocking crimes committed by these abject degenerates known as "Jewish statesmen". Ultimately, the Jewish responsibility for their "Holocaust" is twofold.

1. Jewish leaders openly withheld support, both financially and otherwise, to save their fellow tribes people.
2. The leaders of the Zionist movement cooperated with Hitler and his cohorts on many occasions and in many ways.

Jews Offered a Military Alliance with Hitler
The leaders of the Jewish Zionist movement sat back and ignored the plight of their brothers and sisters. Not only did they publicly refuse to assist in their rescue, but they actively participated with Hitler and the Nazi regime. Early in 1935, a passenger ship bound for Haifa in Palestine left the German port of Bremerhaven. Its stern bore the Hebrew letter for its name, "Tel Aviv", while a swastika banner fluttered from the mast. And although the ship was Jewish owned, its captain was a National Socialist Party (Nazi) member. Many years later a traveller aboard the ship recalled this symbolic combination as a "metaphysical absurdity".

Absurd or not, this is but one vignette from a little-known chapter of history: The wide ranging collaboration between Jews and Hitler's Third Reich. In early January 1941 a small but important Jewish organization submitted a formal proposal to German diplomats in Beirut for a military-political alliance with wartime Germany. The offer was made by the radical underground "Fighters for the Freedom of Israel", better known as the Lehi or Stern Gang. Its leader, Avraham Stern, had recently broken with the radical nationalist "National Military Organization" (Irgun Zvai Leumi - Etzel) over the group's attitude toward Britain, which had effectively banned further Jewish settlement of Palestine. Stern regarded Britain as the main enemy of Zionism.

This remarkable proposal "for the solution of the Jewish question in Europe and the active participation on the NMO [Lehi] in the war on the side of Germany" is worth quoting at some length:

"The NMO which is very familiar with the goodwill of the German Reich government and its officials towards Zionist activities within Germany and the Zionist emigration program takes the view that:
1. Common interests can exist between a European New Order based on the German concept and the true national aspirations of the Jewish people as embodied by the NMO.

2. Cooperation is possible between the New Germany and a renewed, folkish-national Jewry.

3. The establishment of the Jewish state on a national and totalitarian basis, and bound by treaty, with the German Reich, would be in the interest of maintaining and strengthening the future German position of power in the Near East.

On the basis of these considerations, and upon the condition that the German Reich government recognize the national aspirations of the Israel Freedom Movement mentioned above, the NMO in Palestine offers to actively take part in the war on the side of Germany.

This offer by the NMO could include military, political and informational activity within Palestine and, after certain organizational measures, outside as well. Along with this the "Jewish" men of Europe would be militarily trained and organized in military units under the leadership and command of the NMO. They would take part in combat operations for the purpose of conquering Palestine, should such a front be formed

Many people in the West talk about just living in peace, they say why can't we just accept one another, and live happily. When we Muslims have already lived side by side with them.

What they forget is;-

1. Prophet Jesus, Moses, Ibrahim, Noah, Lut, David, Solomon peace be upon them etc did NOT say that you live happy in this world and get along together and that is all that matters. The Prophets told people to repent and worship Allah and remember the Day of Judgement and Paradise and Hell.

2. No Prophet has ever said that if you do not worship Allah you are a good person, no non-Muslim is classified as a good person.

- Prophet Lut peace be upon him did NOT say the homosexuals were good.

-Prophet Noah peace be upon him did NOT say that the people who refused to repent were good JUST because they wanted to be happy in this world and have children too! Of course they got drowned in the flood.

3. They prefer to quote living in peace as per "Freedom and evil acceptance" thread, of course evil people want others to accept them, be nice to them, that is what Satan prefers to, and even the Dajjal (the anti-christ), will not be attacking those that side with him. Saying that you reject Islam and care about people just getting along with you proves nothing. At least the Muslims only ask that Allah be pleased with them and even aforetime when the believers were being persecuted they did not complain, of course the rejectors of Islam are only showing that they too would be siding with Pharaoh if they were alive at the time, and only showing too, that if they were alive at the time of Prophet Noah peace be upon him, they would have been drowned.

4. Being good is worshipping Allah and remembering the Day of Judgement and Paradise and Hell. There is no other definition of being good. IF you say otherwise, then do they dare to say that Prophets Jesus, Noah, Lut, Ibrahim, Moses, Muhammad, David, Solomon peace be upon them are wrong??? We would NEVER listen to the non-Muslims over the Prophets! Ask them, why should we listen to them instead of the Prophets? Do they deem themselves better then the Prophets? ARe they rightly guided?? They are in error manifest. To them be there way, and ours our way. They lie about intergration, what do they expect Muslims and other people to do?? We are in this world to be tested, we only have a short amount of time, we work, we come home to our families, instead of going to the pub etc.

We have and continue to do, is be tolerant of others and we have shown that. Allah has never said that we kill somone if they refuse to become a Muslim they are being tested and they will be destroyed by Allah. This thread just going over that no Prophet has ever accepted anyone who refused to worship the one God, remember the Day of Judgement and Hell and Paradise is a good person.

Hollywood's "gay mafia" or "velvet mafia" or "lavender mob" has long been the subject of gossip, with occasional blips into the mainstream press.

Terms such as "Gay mafia" refer to a group of powerful homosexuals who exercise extraordinary influence in the entertainment industry.

"Gay mafia" is not a term used publicly or within polite company. It's not something we're supposed to talk about it. To do so, according to conventional wisdom, is to engage in homophobia or paranoia. It is the moral equivalent of anti-Semitism.

The arts community has long had a disproportionate number of homosexuals and Jews. More than half of the leading power brokers in Hollywood are Jewish, and about a third of the powerful are homosexual, including David Geffen, Ray Stark, Calvin Klein, Aaron Spelling, Steve Tisch, Barry Diller and agent Sandy Gallin. This creates an atmosphere conducive to pushing "gay rights" and inimical to "gay bashing."

In his 1999 book "Tabloid Baby," Burt Kearns, former managing editor for such tabloid TV shows as A Current Affair and Hard Copy, writes about the clash between his Australian tabloid buddies and Fox's head at the time, Barry Diller and his "Velvet Mafia."

To Diller, "the Aussies were unwashing homophobic ruffians... Hollywood was a place where untold secrets unfolded in the back of limousines and behind the walls of cloistered mansions, where rubber sheets covered priceless bedspreads...

"The manly men from Down Under had little reverence for the pampered poobahs of screenland and the secrets they held. They laughed at the Diller crowd and their fancy-pants airs. To be blunt, the Aussies regarded Barry Diller and many of his young male executives to be gay, and the Aussies referred to gays as "poofters." Diller... hated A Current Affair ..."

A Current Affair planned to do a story claiming that homosexual Cary Grant was straight. Their ad, written by Greg Snead, read: "Cary Grant: No More Fairy Tales."

Diller phoned: "The...word...fairy...makes...my...BLOOD...BOI L!"

Diller cancelled the entire month of A Current Affair's TV Guide ads and demanded to see copies of every promotional item Greg Snead had written in the past two years. (Tabloid Baby, pg. 46)

Kearns hired homosexual Paul Nichols, to directed a pilot of FUNY, as in F--- You New York. Paul couldn't understand a heterosexual funny bit with a beautiful woman doing a US weather map while wearing a spandex miniskirt.

Gordon Elliott read his script as sportcaster Adrian L. Adrian in a lisping effeminate voice of the stereotypical Aussie "poof." Paul got mad and walked out of the control room. Everything stopped until Elliott agreed to read it "straight." (Tabloid Baby, pg. 112)

Spy magazine published Mark Ebner's controversial essay on the gay mafia in its June 1995 issue. For years afterwards, Ebner was blackballed in Hollywood. It was not until about 1999 that he started selling scripts again.

From Taki's column in the 3/7/00 NYPress.com:

I’m not at all surprised to read that Hollywood is dominated by a Velvet Mafia of rich homosexuals who demand sexual favors in return for work in the movies. In fact I would have been surprised if it were the other way round. Those old Mittel-Europa Jews who ran Tinseltown in its heyday established the casting-couch practice long ago; but, as they say, at least they did it with style and with the opposite sex. ...

But what bothers me is not the bestiality and arrogance of the Velvet Mafiosi. It is the message they send out through their movies. American Beauty, for example, is said to be a well-made film–I haven’t seen it–that will probably win many Oscars, but carries a subliminal message against the family. (Geffen, as rumor has it, is supposed to have been thrilled that in the movie a homophobe father beats up his son when he suspects him to have had a gay affair with Kevin Spacey’s character, and even more thrilled when it is later revealed that the homophobe was actually a repressed gay.) Geffen, of course, denies there is such a thing as a homosexual cabal, and, typically, charges anti-Semitism. ...

Which brings me to the point I wish to make. Political correctness is the best way the left has to stamp out thought it doesn’t agree with. As the Spectator of London wrote recently, "If it’s impossible to say or write certain things, then it becomes impossible to think them and conformity is guaranteed for ever and ever." George Orwell’s 1984 is alive and thriving with p.c., except that this time it’s for real.

What the left and its p.c. adherents have managed to do is to turn everyone who is not mainstream into a persecuted racial minority. As Paul Craig Roberts (the best columnist by far) pointed out in the John Rocker case, "Bud Selig thinks that kids with purple hair, repeat felons, welfare moms and homosexuals with AIDS are ‘ethnicities.’" Selig, in his haste to please the politically correct, misinterpreted Rocker’s remarks. Most kids with purple hair are white, not black, and repeat felons are criminals, not a racial classification. There are many white immigrants who don’t speak English–as in Russians–but try to explain this to p.c. commissars. Geffen and his ilk know all this. Ergo the anti-Semitism defense.

Hollywood has never exactly been a moral place, far from it, but until the 60s and 70s it preached a hell of a moral lesson. God, the family, patriotism, even Mom were sacrosanct. Now it’s the exact opposite. Criminals are sympathetically portrayed, cops always negatively; people who think same-gender sex is wrong are fascists; businessmen are all crooks, while crooks are nice and quaint; drug-takers are cool, drinkers are fascist bullies. Well, you get the point. AIDS ribbons are in, while battle decorations are a real no-no. HIV, like lung cancer, is a lifestyle disease, but HIV carriers are celebrated in the manner winners of the Congressional Medal of Honor used to be.

It is a topsy-turvy world, Hollywood, and I can’t wait to read Tom King’s book. In the meantime, don’t hold your breath before the Geffen spin machine, in cahoots with such Clinton flacks as the grotesque Geraldo Rivera, go to work on the author. After all, if a phony like Jeffrey Toobin can demonize Starr and acquit Bill Clinton, think what his kind can do in defense of the ghastly Geffen. ...

The word "outing" refers to the publicizing of a person's homosexuality. "Outing" as in "out of the closet." "Outing" became widely used during the 1990s.

Michelangelo Signorile, author of "Queer in America: Sex, the Media and the Closets of Power," is one of the leading advocates of "outing." But the outing pioneer is San Francisco Chronicle homosexual columnist Armistead Maupin who "outed" actor Rock Hudson.

"When I came out of the closet (in 1973), I came to the revolutionary conclusion that there was nothing wrong with being gay and that included everyone else as well," Maupin told the LA Times. "It became clear to me that the only way to lift the onus was being as matter of fact about it as I possibly could. I've never accused anyone of being gay because I don't think it's worthy of an accusation."

After Hudson, the next celebrity revealed to be homosexual was publisher Malcolm Forbes. A month after Forbes' death in February, 1990, Signorile wrote a cover story for the now-defunct magazine Outweek, "The Secret Gay Life of Malcolm Forbes."

Rolling Stone publisher Jann Wenner was written up in early 1995 for taking up with a male companion, following Wenner's divorce. ...

Homosexuality can also be a common bond in an industry where contacts and information are everything. Everyone knows Hollywood is a "boy's club," meaning straight men run it, but even if the straight boys don't accept someone, there are plenty of gays and lesbians to bond with, and there has even arisen, in the media, a phrase, "the gay Mafia." It's a term one reads in the press but one seldom hears it in the business. It's a sneaky, double- edged coinage.

On one level, "gay Mafia" pays homage to the supposed "gay power" in Hollywood, but on the other it makes that power seem sinister. One of the unspoken implications of "gay Mafia" is that gay actors are sleeping their way to the top with gay executives. "I don't know if it's to the top, but there are many who have slept their way to the middle," Leed says.

It's nothing new. Gore Vidal's recently published memoirs report that way back during the making of "Rebel Without a Cause," Sal Mineo was fooling around with the director Nicholas Ray. Ray had been married to Gloria Grahame, an actress who specialized in dangerous allure and played the town tramp in "It's a Wonderful Life." She also turns up in "The Celluloid Closet," getting a massage from a big, mannish masseuse in a scene from "In a Lonely Place," also directed by Ray.

Hollywood's Heterophobia

I found this article by Daniel Jeffreys in the 4/1/00 Daily Mail.

AT THE start of the film American Beauty, Kevin Spacey's character, Lester Burnham, says: 'In a year, I will be dead' - and by the movie's end, he is, killed by his repressed homosexual next-door neighbour. In the meantime, his middle-class life implodes as he falls in love with his teenage daughter's best friend and his wife finds comfort in the arms of a reptilian estate agent. We are left feeling that suburbia is a hellish place where happiness will for ever be absent.

Everyone in the film is explosively dysfunctional, except for the Burnhams' other set of neighbours, an affluent gay couple who float through the mayhem with disarming serenity.

To some, the film is a thought-provoking lesson in the importance of not taking stereotypes at face value and of seeking out the joy and wonder we otherwise take for granted in modern life.

To the more sceptical, its main mesage seems clear: if only we could all be gay and out of the closet, we would be happy. The flip side to that message is that, as heterosexuals, we are doomed to unhappiness and strife. If we are lucky, the best we can achieve is manic depression. At worst, we will be murdered by some causality of heterosexual deviancy.

The film that dominated the Oscars is a triumph of dark cynicism with some wonderful acting and direction, but I believe that it was only made because of what I call its 'heterophobia' - the systematic denigration of heterosexual lifestyles - that has become part of the Hollywood mainstream.

American Beauty is heterophobia's propaganda masterpiece.

Its sweep of the Academy Awards' top categories thrilled Hollywood's gay community, who have been trying to prove for a long time that heterosexuality is a sad form of sexual dysfunction.

American Beauty is now regarded as a classic in the same mould as The Graduate, but far more interesting are the characters behind the movie and the agenda they hope to promote.

In the Seventies, homosexuals had legitimate grievances. They were persecuted for their sexuality and discriminated in ways that were repellent.

THE GAY rights movement that became increasingly vocal in the Eighties won deserved new freedoms for homosexuals.

Nobody should be persecuted for their sexuality, except those who prey on young children.

Yet at some time in the past ten years, a new theory gained currency among gays, especially in the entertainment business. This held that heterosexuality was a curse to be denigrated and mocked wherever possible, and that gays could never win the power they craved in society without undermining heterosexuals whenever possible.

At the same time, gays who held this view began agitating for homosexuality to be accepted as a form of behaviour on a par with heterosexual activity.

This was to be done in two ways.

On the positive front, these radical gays argued that homosexuals should be entitled to get married in the same way as heterosexual couples, and that schools should teach about gay sex as if it were no more normal or abnormal than male-female intercourse.

Academics began writing papers arguing for gay parenting, using statistics to suggest that children of gay couples had no more emotional problems that the average child of a 'straight' family.

On the negative end, gays began countering undesirable images of homosexuality - such as the spread of Aids - with a bleak picture of what they derisively called 'straight sex'. Lesbians began affirming that any woman who had a sexual relationship with a man must, at some point, submit to rape.

Workplace behaviour, such as mild flirting, once regarded as innocent, was lumped together with flagrantly intrusive and unacceptable advances, and all of it labelled 'sexual harassment'.

The point of this exercise was to demonise normal heterosexual behaviour, and to make the ordinary rituals of attraction and relationships seem aberrant, so that gays could advance their own cause by claiming 'straights' led lives that were much worse than theirs.

Along the way, sexual harassment law, and the industry which has developed around it, distorted from a sensible set of safeguards into something which could be used to attack heterosexuality at its roots, effectively conveying the idea that a heterosexual male was inherently dangerous and needed to be constrained by Draconian laws just as bars might hold back a rabid tiger.

Into this picture enter the men responsible for American Beauty, who must be stunned that their insidious attack on heterosexuality has not only become an Oscar-winner but has broken box office records.

The screenwriter, who won an Oscar for Best Screenplay, is Alan Ball. He grew up in the American South, in Georgia. ...

LONG before it became an Oscar hit, Ball's script was picked up by Dan Jinks and Bruce Cohen, who eventually produced the film and were on stage last Sunday to collect the Oscar for Best Picture. ...

Given their Out There affiliation, Jinks and Cohen knew just where to take the American Beauty script to get it made - to fellow Out There sympathizer David Geffen, Steven Spielberg's partner in Dreamworks.

As, The Operator, a new biography of Geffen makes clear, Geffen is a predatory homosexual who has devoted considerable energy to projects that target heterosexuality.

He is allegedly the main force in the Velvet Mafia, a loose association of powerful gay men who use their influence in Hollywood to advance gay issues.

Sources say Geffen has frequently changed scripts if they seem to be too sympathetic towards heterosexual love or if they show any hint of antipathy towards gays.

In 20 years of filmmaking, Geffen has become infamous for making or breaking careers based on whether the people involved are gay and willing to be part of his extremely active sex life.

His summer parties at Fire Island, a gay resort 30 miles outside Manhattan, are legendary as the place the Velvet Mafia meet to indulge in extraordinary bacchanals.

HIS GUEST list begins with designer Calvin Klein and includes other Velvet Mafia members such as Barry Diller (who helped create The Simpsons), George Michael and Sandy Gallin, the super-powerful talent agent who discovered Madonna, Tom Cruise and Julia Roberts.

In recent years, several guests at Geffen's Fire Island house have described weekend-long orgies, fuelled by drugs, at which Geffen and his powerful friends ran a 'meat market', selecting young men for either sex or stardom.

'If you weren't incredibly handsome and well-built, there was no way you would get in,' says a New York movie agent who has been to several Geffen parties. 'Dress was minimal or nonexistent, and Geffen would prowl with his friends, squeezing men like they were cattle.'

When Jinks and Cohen took American Beauty to Geffen, the billionaire producer was ecstatic.

He rushed the script through the approval process - virtually unheard of for a screenplay by a writer with no previous movie hits - and maintained a close personal interest in casting.

Geffen, Jinks, Cohen and Ball all attended half a dozen Oscar parties after the triumph of American Beauty. One producer who is close to Ball said they had good reason to be happy.

After all, he said, they have created a film that is both a masterpiece and the most corrosive satire of heterosexual life that has ever made $100 million from the very people it vilifies.

And that is the hard truth about American Beauty. It exists and triumphed because, for some gays, it is not enough to win civil rights and equality of opportunity.

They want more: a society in which heterosexuality is so condemned that homosexuals can win any increases in power they might choose. ................

Camille Paglia writes 5/26/99 in Salon.com: Would an admission of gayness hurt a young male singer's career? Of course it would: This junior Adonis type requires the electric charge produced by the mass projection of adolescent girls in erotic hysteria. Elton John, after his sham marriage, could afford to be openly gay because he caricatured himself as a sad-sack clown, crying through his sequins. Pretty boys, with their androgynous glow, have a more direct and dangerous sensual appeal. If Ricky Martin turned out to be just another buff gay clone, he'd cut himself off at the knees as an international artist. Current gay male culture is too shallow to provide the kind of psychological development that a performer needs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvay2...layer_embedded

Apostasy

An old reply that I had written for some people on another forum;-

As some people are getting confused on the seperate issue of killing a Muslim if he rejects Islam, this is because they are forgetting that we are referring to Muslims who ALREADY accepted Islam and learnt and practised it and had faith in it-like Iblis for example he learnt of Islam, worshipped Allah but then rejected it-that's why he cannot have anything else-he already believed and knows that Allah exists, and the believeing Men and women are at a similar level! So its about believing men and women who rejected Islam like Iblis and then causing problems like Iblis getting others to also be unreligious. So they don't need anything more in this world to help them pass their test and be good -they've already rejected Islam and even Iblis isn't going to get anything else for this reason and that they have rejected Islam KNOWING that Allah exists they get killed. Christians confuse this thinking about people who don't have faith in Allah-but these people KNOW that Allah existed and had faith, were not talking about people who casually walk around and aren't particularly religious we are talking about people who have faith and who were at a good level-like Iblis was. As per the below quotes about people who have already accepted Islam and believed in it:-

Bukhari (52:260) - "...The Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.' "

Bukhari (83:37) - "Allah's Apostle never killed anyone except in one of the following three situations: (1) A person who killed somebody unjustly, was killed (in Qisas,) (2) a married person who committed illegal sexual intercourse and (3) a man who fought against Allah and His Apostle and deserted Islam and became an apostate."

Bukhari (84:57) - "[In the words of] Allah's Apostle, 'Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'"

Bukhari (89:271) - A man who embraces Islam, then reverts to Judaism is to be killed according to "the verdict of Allah and his apostle."

This confusion has therefore started because people were calling everyone Muslims and the majority that were leaving did not have faith so the killing wouldn't apply to them anyway.

So we are not referring to people who call themselves Muslims by name, and not learnt of Islam and never accepted it. Because I've even see males and females who have never cared about being a Muslim only care about living in this world, greed and gossiping about other people-so this does not apply to them as they have not embraced Islam, as they have not shown that they had faith. Like there are Christians who never learn about Christianity but call themselves Christians anyway. So they were never religious people they never accepted Islam.

There have been people who have said that they rejected Islam purely because of society issues-NOT because of their faith in Allah, so they did not leave Islam after having faith in it anyway!

Right now the good and the evil people are being sorted out in the Muslim world that has been the benefit of the War against so called terror. As there were people calling themselves Muslims but were not-its about choosing your side, so when the Dajjal (anti-christ) there won't be anymore dialogue. so we aren't practising killing people who reject their religion after faith as they are not living in an Islamic state and this time its about Allah giving time for people to learn and to repent-which is nearly over.

Even the good and the bad people are still being sorted out at the time of the Dajjal (anti-christ) there is reference to people fleeing Mecca- and of course only wrong-doers would do this!

So when the Dajjal (anti-christ) arrives it fight after fight not sitting there listening to what evil people have to say whether its about the rejection of the one God, or they believe homosexuality is acceptable. Even the Christians have confirmed that only one religion is accepted when the Prophet Jesus peace be upon him comes back-and we believe that is Islam!



Actually what you have been stating in the comparitive section no Muslim or ex-Muslim would have questioned so I'm not convinced that you had faith, learnt and practised Islam genuinely. Though, you don't have much time to think it over as you are siding with disbelievers ideals such as marriage issues-please read about the Day of Judgement-I already have written a thread on this on the General section last week I think-and it covers the Islamic prespective on why these countries are collapsing-the first couple of paragraphs on people being tested!

Also you should have read the article carefully -because I obviously mentioned that a believer not someone who called themselves a Muslim by name who rejects Islam-on one of the quotes its says a person who embraces Islam. These quotes were from people who genuinely were accepting Islam when the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him had arrived. Of course they didn't become a Muslim to enjoy themselves in this world, they put up with persecution, battles that were waged on them etc.

I think you were more bothered about bringing your misconceptions about Islam and attacking it! That's why you asked if you should be killed-please read the article again-I've obviously mentioned that its to do with believers not people who called themselves Muslims because they were born in a Muslim family etc. So I suggest that you also look at what is happening around you as the US, UK etc won't be here it'll have a knock on effect around the world and you wouldn't be able to say that your an atheist as the dialogue has ended!

I on the other do qualify, because I have learnt, practised Islam-so I don't care if I don't live in an Islamic state or not, I know fully well that I have received so much from Allah and for me to turn my back I deserve a dreadful ending whether it'll be by a person's hand or by Allah's! If a person in this world gave you food, clothes, shelter and you refused to thank them then people of course would say you don't deserve that person's assistance! So why would I deserve Allah's when I've received food, water etc.

Again its like Iblis (Satan) when he lived in heaven-what more should he receive then he already has done so? The answer of course is nothing. So why should I receive more then I've already done just to make me good-I don't need anything else to help me to be good-I already have sufficient knowledge, understanding from the Quran for myself to be a Muslim!

you have condemned a whole group of people, if you are sickened by them then you have not accepted anything of them.
also your threads seem to repeat the same message over and over...that all those that are not muslims at this moment in time are hell bound.
this may be the case but the verse you chose is this:

They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them, 4.89



They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them, 4.89

it seems you have stopped trying, worse still you are the doom monger that brings no hope... you must see hundreds of people each day and look upon them with disdain.. and this is anything but islam.

you have condemned a whole group of people, if you are sickened by them then you have not accepted anything of them.
also your threads seem to repeat the same message over and over...that all those that are not muslims at this moment in time are hell bound.
this may be the case but the verse you chose is this:

They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them, 4.89



They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them, 4.89

it seems you have stopped trying, worse still you are the doom monger that brings no hope... you must see hundreds of people each day and look upon them with disdain.. and this is anything but islam.

on a brighter note, they dont look at women so there half way there lol

edit* double post whooop. i dont know how to sort this.

yes im talking to you personally, not to try and hurt you but for you to think of things outside your normal way of thinking.
iv read your other threads, we are locked into our ways of thinking but the ideas must expand over time.. you know more than you did yesterday about your religion, your god, the world, the people of the world...and this should be reflected in your threads. if this is not the case then we have stopped learning...you cant possibly know everything. i get my ass kicked all the time...its part of learning i guess.

i have my own thread...not much interest im afraid lol.