Talk:IslamicAwakening.com/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 3 May 2016. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

They've woken up

I figured from the recent bout of vandalism attempts that they'd found out about us, and sure enough: http://forums.islamicawakening.com/f38/we-have-our-own-wiki-48911/

That link includes a picture of one of the evil cartoons mocking Prophet Muhammad (peace & blessings be upon him). I ask Allah to grant a miserable life to everyone intentionally involved in mocking the Prophet (peace & blessings be upon him). P.S. It's very easy to go on a message board and collect random statements to blow them out of proportion or purposely misconstrue them for sensationalism or mockery, etc. I'm not amused. P.P.S. It's enough to know that such people hate us for our beliefs regardless of a few extreme posts they're able to collect and put up on some wikis here or there. That means you can be the most respectful, humble, moderate, level-headed Muslim - and you will still be mocked and fought and ridiculed simply because you say 'My Lord is Allah.' History has proven this fact over and over and over again. So in the end it will come down to: Will you stand up for your beliefs or not? If you shy away from them and begin shedding them one-by-one to appear less 'extreme' or 'weird' in front of the kuffar, you will not stop until you're all out of principles and beliefs. And guess what? They'll still hate you. Until you totally give it all up and conform to their ways. "And we are a people who don't compromise *** Chests out facing all the nations, or the grave." To the wiki writers: Perish in your rage. Allah knows best.

And the guy who created the page is a British faggot ape: User:Baljit - RationalWiki

aww, i got blocked well, time to learn how to hack into servers. ps. to our islamaphobic guests, that was a joke. or was it?

Baljit (talk) 08:02, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

pfff... I wish they were parodists. idiots like these are setting back relations by centuries--User:Brxbrx/sig 08:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

That's okay, I am in their fractional-reserve banking and have stolen all their moneys. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 08:30, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

If you want a laugh, compare their reaction with that of the Anglo-Saxon Foundation, here:

IA: "Whoever compiled that trash seriously needs to get a life ASAP." ASF: "The twerp who penned this piece of childishness best be careful for he has now crossed the line where libel laws come into play"

IA: "It's very easy to go on a message board and collect random statements to blow them out of proportion or purposely misconstrue them for sensationalism or mockery, etc."

ASF: "Somebody has read through our offerings VERY carefully and highlighted the most OTT comments to make their slanted points about us."

IA: "You can be the weakest, most miskeen Muslim and they will still hate you."

ASF: "i decided this was the right place for these smug self satisfied antienglish pillocks due to there unthinking automatic knee jerk reaction to anyone showing pride in being english"

Maybe they should get together, they have a lot in common. Baljit (talk) 09:53, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

We need to start collecting these. I've always maintained that if you're not pissing people off, you're doing something wrong. ADK^{...I'll castrate your salad fork!} 10:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Indeed there is a lot of similarity between the reactions of the two sites. One of them claims in the post above that only the most OTT stuff has been quoted - though whether they would disavow this lunacy is not stated.

Out of curiosity I checked this thread. It's a discussion of a Youtube video of an Islamic daemon possessing somebody in the middle of a telephone conversation. It's difficult to find a single comment which isn't OTT.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 11:02, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

May I propose a "pissed at RationalWiki" category? Baljit (talk) 11:35, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd be up for that, though I'd also recommend a RationalWiki:Pissed at us article to store it in. ADK^{...I'll edit your nostril!} 13:15, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

When stuff like this happens you know we're doing it right. But what is the 'Brothers Section' they refer to in the thread on us? I'm guessing there's even worse stuff in there. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 14:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

male muslims only section of the forum. There is also an equiv sisters section.Geni (talk) 17:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

When all this started of I got me a membership. Now I say stupid things to be me access to private area. Tell all later. Sorry for pour English. 69.195.136.106 (talk) 19:03, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

"It's difficult to find a single comment which isn't OTT." Yeah, they have a bunch of anti-Semites on there, the only way it could get more over-the-top is if they started talking about "the Jewish Money Power" or "the Judeo-Masonic conspiracy." Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd say they've already gone that far. I saw one thread where someone had copypasted an enormous article about the Illuminati (it took up several pages), but changed each instance of "alien" to "jinn". Baljit (talk) 21:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

According to this chap, we're "kikes", "hooknoses" and "hebes". They're not even trying to look moderate anymore. Baljit (talk) 18:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

And this thread appears to be directed at us. To answer your question, AbuMubarak, no, there is no difference. Baljit (talk) 18:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

An odd question. Do they think we support the lunatics in the EDL?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 18:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

EDL members often claim that anyone who criticises them supports Islamic extremism, so I suppose we shouldn't be surprised if Islamic extremists assume that anyone who criticises them supports the EDL... Baljit (talk) 18:56, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

It's black-and-white thinking common to extremists. Cf. alties: You called homeopathy quackery? You must secretly be on the payroll of BIG PHARMA! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Love the inevitable "We can't be anti-Semites because Arabs are Semites hurr durr!" posts. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I tried to create myself an account, to teach them the wonderous virtues of shirk, and of the intercession of the three exalted gharaniq, Allāt (Allah's wife or daughter), Manāt, and al-‘Uzzá. Sadly, they would not accept! (((Zack Martin)))^™ 20:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello Islamophobes. Wow you have a lot of time to kill. Get a job/life/wife.^{— Unsigned, by: 195.188.152.14 / talk / contribs}

A wife? For all of us? Including the women? I didn't know you lot endorsed polygamy and lesbianism. Baljit (talk) 17:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

do they mean what words they use. Irony is after all the articles,news,websites distinguishing thought,words and action i.e combatants and non combatants was observed.now it's all public instead of private probably.introduction to Islamic websites.17br9 (talk) 18:59, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Failure to understand

Looking at their thread it's pretty clear that they don't understand very much about the wiki world or software.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 19:41, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I think that's taken as read when people criticise Wikipedia, or should I say, anything running on Media Wiki which they will mistake for Wikipedia. ADK^{...I'll extrude your muskrat!} 20:04, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Well they figured out who wrote the article. Can't be that dumb. Or baljit has a sock there and was looking for more lulz.--User:Brxbrx/sig 19:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

They're dumb in a crazy extremist 'oh no we're being oppressed!' way. By writing this article we are apparently attacking their right to free speech. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 19:39, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Another common misconception on the 'net: a lot of people think that freedom of speech somehow entails freedom from being criticised. Baljit (talk) 19:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Found these in the rules

"1. Smiling or winking emoticons directed at the opposite gender are not allowed.

2. LOLing at the opposite gender is not allowed.

3. Joking with the opposite gender is not allowed.

4. Excessively praising the opposite gender is not allowed.

5. Flattering the opposite gender is not allowed.

6. Declaring your love (for the sake of Allah) to the opposite gender is not allowed.

7. Friends request should not be made to the opposite gender, this is considered free-mixing and will be moderated." Here. The LOLing and emoticons cracked me up. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 10:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

That's priceless, I've added it to the article. Baljit (talk) 10:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

They actualy have to have a reminder recentlyGeni (talk) 15:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

You know, if they were going to really strict, shouldn't they have a segregated forum? One for men and another for women? Having the sexes mix like that is an obvious invitation for flirting and such like.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 16:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe they do have a segregated forum.--User:Brxbrx/sig 17:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

And back to sleep

Too bad, they've closed the thread. Still, they gave us one last gem: http://forums.islamicawakening.com/f38/we-have-our-own-wiki-48911/index5.html#post510199 Baljit (talk) 16:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Shame they had to close their own comments. It was funny while it lasted. Guess they couldn't handle the idea of real open debate.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 21:17, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Islamic Awakening vs. the skeptics

Note: User:17br9 has the shitty habit of editing his posts long time after they were actually made. In many cases, the people replying to 17br9 didn't see the same text you see now.--ZooGuard (talk) 20:09, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

This forum attracted quite a bit of attention following its possible connection to the Queen Mary University incident. The thread about it has turned into an argument with some newly-registered skeptics, starting around page 7. There's some similar action going on in this thread about homosexuality at the same time. A lot of it's the same old creationist waffle, but it's interesting to see it coming from a slightly skewed angle - a few of these people appear to think that Christians and atheists are the same group. Makes a change from being lumped in with Islamists, I suppose. (Quote of the day: "lol bro you actually responded to this jerry springer bikini genocidal kaffir who believes that something can come from nothing?") Balaam (talk) 14:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

when using Internet it is difficult to say who is who. IA members must give link to their FB profiles that identify them.IA has become popular they should stop anonymity on Internet everywhere.Its stressful and creates confusion.IA members are possibly ways better than those who make it look like I am someone doing something.17br9 (talk) 09:55, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Why? Why are you still posting here? Surely you've noticed by now that nobody here can understand what you're talking about? If it's so "stressful" for you then just stop visiting this site. Balaam (talk) 11:06, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

this site? Meaning what? like that possibly should be asked.17br9 (talk) 11:41, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Meaning RationalWiki. We have gained nothing from you and you have gained nothing from us. Balaam (talk) 12:08, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

they have hinted at DBZ in Actual World. guess not ever mentioning is better than mention given. World has become small.17br9 (talk) 10:28, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

You make no sense whatever. You are like a Muslim(?) RobSmith.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 12:33, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

"DBZ" had better not stand for what I think it does. Balaam (talk) 19:10, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I got pissed at purportedly meaning mocked in Internet lexicon.That Website fucks up your life.What you come across on Internet can change your life.Its not a different matter.Oh and what was Akira Toriyama thinking when he did that cartoon.17br9 (talk) 17:50, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

So yes, apparently English is not your first language. "to be pissed at somebody" means to be irritated by them or angry at them. As the name and the description of RationalWiki:Pissed at us suggests, the page is a list of people who are angry at us. If it was the meaning you suggest, it would have been "pissed at by us". --ZooGuard (talk) 17:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

my ass or arse in Internet lexicon will mean disbelief. Rape article is good.What you read on Internet affects you tangibly. 17br9 (talk) 06:39, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

You are not making any sense, again. Are you trying to threaten us/me?--ZooGuard (talk) 08:13, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

no way think not in this manner.What you think it means is not meant. Meaning ends up being different altogether.17br9^(talk) 14:31, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Does not compute. Copperhead^Hisssssss 14:46, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm starting to think this is a chatbot.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 14:53, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

That gives me an idea... Peter ^{tanquam ex ungue leonem} 21:43, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

what is your idea be not misguided lacking knowledge misunderstanding hiding true self.17br9 (talk) 23:46, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps we are a test case and we are unwittingly taking part in somebody's thesis on "Chatbot Interactions on the Internet" without knowing about it? --Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 06:43, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Nah, Markov chains tend to produce better results. ^postate 10:15, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

when powerful nations are involved in conflict it becomes collateral. hollow distracting arguments wannabes lead no where in these matters.that Website might be insulting to some but it's clear that its Information Purposes on Islamic religion.17br9 (talk) 16:02, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

elephants fly on marshmallows coming now! follow the dawn before bird-flight but quickly comes the grafting sooth-light bewaring over the meadow slow.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 16:07, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Jack Hughes (talk) 16:33, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

after that Website the Discussions you simply keep reading dont they know others are reading.somebody should register at IA inquiring asking them that way confusion will go away.that Website its sure created roadblocks take a look at this.17br9 (talk) 14:53, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

this thread is invaluable IN actually means Islamicnetwork.com and this and this is invaluable too.17br9 (talk) 11:03, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Audios

Based on life and actions of a person that person can be prosecuted according to law of the land or tried.That Website is public information platform document its permanent. The audios of Anwar Al Awlaki are also there at: http://www.archive.org/details/Anwar.Awlaki.Audio.Archive 17br3 (talk) 06:44, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

So... you're saying we should judge him on the basis of these recordings? You're not very clear. Peter ^{horas non numero nisi serenas} 06:19, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm still not getting you, I'm afraid. Peter ^{horas non numero nisi serenas} 06:46, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

you get the backing behind that Website right.seems problem is with all those countless internet hate comments threatening so much its shocking to all that UK maintained a moral code distinguishing between combatants and non combatants.this article calls IA members Psychopaths then those who made comment after comment on Internet full of hate.they were living in a dream world or were Psychopaths. same thing it is.17br9 (talk) 07:24, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Yoda.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 17:42, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

P.S. one word for this incomparable.17br9 (talk) 14:13, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

produce confusion.18br0 (talk) 04:26, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

What is Islamic Awakening

Is it Islamic extremist Website with Al Qaeda leanings?what is it hinting at?what if after visiting that Website a guy gets radicalised starts wanting to commit crimes?what if a guy gets scarred forever after visiting that Website?what if a guy makes no posts joining to discuss with Forum members?why are the audio tapes on that Website showing variation?17br9 (talk) 07:58, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

What, so you're against IA now? I thought you were defending it. Balaam (talk) 08:30, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think he is against it, more challenging us in some incomprehensible way, but it's rather hard to tell. Peter ^{tanquam ex ungue leonem} 08:40, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

This might make a guy to start wishing nobody existed in this world wishing he didn't breathe.An argument repeated by certain IA members is that the Bible is or got corrupted.Do they mean this and other passages.17br0 (talk) 16:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)