Muslims Stone Christians near Jakarta [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Muslims Stone Christians near Jakarta


DonGlock26
05-18-2012, 19:57
Hardliners in Bekasi Throw Stones at Ascension Day Service

http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/news/hardliners-in-bekasi-throw-stones-at-ascension-day-service/518398#Scene_1




LOL! I've heard apologists hold up Indonesia as an example of Muslim tolerance. They are ill-equipped to keep up with the times.

Islam is returning to its violent supremacist roots.

_

ArtificialGrape
05-18-2012, 20:01
Allow me...

Bad, bad Muslims.

juggy4711
05-18-2012, 20:27
Allow me...

Bad, bad Muslims.

I've seen you post that in response to threads where Muslims have done something jacked up. What is your point?

ArtificialGrape
05-18-2012, 20:51
I've seen you post that in response to threads where Muslims have done something jacked up. What is your point?

Merely reprimanding those bad, bad Muslims. There is no question that there are Muslims committing atrocious acts, but there are Christians here that act as if not condemning those acts is implicitly condoning them -- or at least that appears to be the standard applied to the atheists here.

As sad as the stories often are, most of them aren't particularly interesting and worthy of comment, at least to me. That is not meant to be cruel, but what if somebody posted a thread every time that a girl was raped along with her photo, hopes and dreams? As horrible as each rape is, is every one worthy of discussion? Now what if not commenting on how horrific each one is meant that you must be a supporter of, or at least sympathetic to, people who rape little girls?

That is the reason I jump in to admonish the bad guys.

-ArtificialGrape

creaky
05-18-2012, 20:53
Allow me...

Bad, bad Muslims.

Everyone knows where your sympathies lie. No need to keep up the reminders.

Sad.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Fred Hansen
05-18-2012, 20:56
No doubt it was a peaceful stoning. They probably retired to their mud huts afterward for a nice meal of sate jamu.

ArtificialGrape
05-18-2012, 20:57
Perfect example of what I'm talking about from another thread.

A thread discussing the evil intent of some within the islamic religion. I find it odd that no athiet has commented here. I wonder why? Do they only argue to the bitter end against Christians?

Yep, that's the pattern for years.

ArtificialGrape
05-18-2012, 21:02
Everyone knows where your sympathies lie. No need to keep up the reminders.

Sad.
Feel free to show where I've been sympathetic to Islamic terrorism.

Thanks.

janice6
05-18-2012, 21:03
Why don't we get to stone someone sometime? Turnabout is fair play.

Paul7
05-18-2012, 22:05
Hardliners in Bekasi Throw Stones at Ascension Day Service

http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/news/hardliners-in-bekasi-throw-stones-at-ascension-day-service/518398#Scene_1




LOL! I've heard apologists hold up Indonesia as an example of Muslim tolerance. They are ill-equipped to keep up with the times.

Islam is returning to its violent supremacist roots.

_

Yes, remember the item I posted a while back on the Indonesian concentration camp for 'infidels', complete with barbed-wire fencing? To AM, that's the equivalent to a child abuse case by a single Christian parent.

Animal Mother
05-18-2012, 22:42
Yes, remember the item I posted a while back on the Indonesian concentration camp for 'infidels', complete with barbed-wire fencing? To AM, that's the equivalent to a child abuse case by a single Christian parent. Where did I say that? Could you point it out specifically please?

creaky
05-19-2012, 13:03
Feel free to show where I've been sympathetic to Islamic terrorism.

Thanks.

All one has to do is read your posts in this thread. Pretty simple, really.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

creaky
05-19-2012, 13:09
Where did I say that? Could you point it out specifically please?

You dont have to say things specifically. The whole body of your writing is what condemns you.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

juggy4711
05-19-2012, 19:39
...That is the reason I jump in to admonish the bad guys.

-ArtificialGrape

I get where you are coming from but the response seems dismissive and disingenuous. Christians do bad things also, sometimes because of their religion but in comparison, the numbers of such incidents in Islamic culture are epidemic.

Christianity and Judaism have evolved to be benign for the most part. Islam has not done so in anywhere near the same context.

While Islam is certainly not the greatest threat to the US/the World it is a significant religious/cultural threat. I think the Christians are giving you and others crap because they take the amount or your criticism of Christianity and not as much/lack thereof regarding Islam, as though they have parity.

Animal Mother
05-19-2012, 21:18
You dont have to say things specifically. The whole body of your writing is what condemns you.Making this yet another conclusion you reach with a complete absence of supporting evidence.

juggy4711
05-19-2012, 22:54
Making this yet another conclusion you reach with a complete absence of supporting evidence.

Honestly I can not recall a single time you took issue with Islam the same way you do Christianity. Same with Grape. I think that is why you both get accused of being Christian haters. Some constancy with religions being foul, rather than harping on just one would go a long way.

The issues I see you, Grape and others extoll about Christianity, Islam is currently guilty of ten times over.

Animal Mother
05-19-2012, 23:29
Honestly I can not recall a single time you took issue with Islam the same way you do Christianity. I have, as has AG, when Muslims here have made the same kind of claims routinely made by Christians. That their holy book is absolutely true and should be followed by everyone to the exclusion of any contrary evidence. The difference is that those claims are made by Christians here every day and only rarely by Muslims, who are usually shouted down within a week and choose to leave.
I think that is why you both get accused of being Christian haters. Some constancy with religions being foul, rather than harping on just one would go a long way. I can only respond to the posts that are made. The problem I have with threads like this one is the attempt to equate and indict all Muslims based on the actions of a minute minority of their faith, while the same actions by Christians are ignored or forgiven or explained away with an invocation of No True Scotsman.
The issues I see you, Grape and others extoll about Christianity, Islam is currently guilty of ten times over. Harun Yahya is unquestionably as big a creationist loon as Ken Ham or Carl Baugh ever thought about being, but no one ever invokes him here, so there's no reason to bring him up.

juggy4711
05-20-2012, 00:31
I have, as has AG, when Muslims here have made the same kind of claims routinely made by Christians. That their holy book is absolutely true and should be followed by everyone to the exclusion of any contrary evidence. The difference is that those claims are made by Christians here every day and only rarely by Muslims, who are usually shouted down within a week and choose to leave.

I can only respond to the posts that are made. The problem I have with threads like this one is the attempt to equate and indict all Muslims based on the actions of a minute minority of their faith, while the same actions by Christians are ignored or forgiven or explained away with an invocation of No True Scotsman.

Harun Yahya is unquestionably as big a creationist loon as Ken Ham or Carl Baugh ever thought about being, but no one ever invokes him here, so there's no reason to bring him up.

OK I can dig on that considering there are not a lot of Muslims posting here. However when you state that it is only a minute minority of Muslims that is disingenuous. In comparison it is not a minute minority of their faith. There is no parity between modern Christians/Jews and Islam. Yes they are both guilty but to pretend that they are the same at this point and time is ridiculous.

Animal Mother
05-20-2012, 02:04
OK I can dig on that considering there are not a lot of Muslims posting here. However when you state that it is only a minute minority of Muslims that is disingenuous. Yesterday, snowbird quoted a number of 18,908, attacks by Muslims since 9/11. That's roughly 10 and a half years. Even if 100 different people were involved in each attack, that's 189,080 out of a population of 1.6 Billion Muslims. If .01% isn't a minute percentage what is?
In comparison it is not a minute minority of their faith. It's obvious that the majority of sectarian violence at this point in time is Muslim v. Christian and that the Muslims are frequently the aggressors. It's so obvious that constantly repeating is at best a barely concealed effort to paint all Muslims as complicit with Islamic terrorism.
There is no parity between modern Christians/Jews and Islam. Yes they are both guilty but to pretend that they are the same at this point and time is ridiculous. Who is pretending that? I'm pointing out that when it's violence committed by Muslims, the implication is that it is part and parcel of Islam, but that when it's violence committed by Christians, it is either explained away or (as we can see on the other ongoing thread) explained away by invoking No True Scotsman.

Paul7
05-20-2012, 08:38
I get where you are coming from but the response seems dismissive and disingenuous. Christians do bad things also, sometimes because of their religion but in comparison, the numbers of such incidents in Islamic culture are epidemic.

Christianity and Judaism have evolved to be benign for the most part. Islam has not done so in anywhere near the same context.

While Islam is certainly not the greatest threat to the US/the World it is a significant religious/cultural threat. I think the Christians are giving you and others crap because they take the amount or your criticism of Christianity and not as much/lack thereof regarding Islam, as though they have parity.

I nominate Juggy for the Christopher Hitchens honesty award for acknowledging the threat from radical Islam. It is clearly the #1 threat in the world today for Western style human rights we all value and take for granted.

Islam may not be a threat to us today as it is in Europe, but I have heard of a reasonable scenario where it could be. Say in 50 years (less in Europe) an area with lots of Muslims like Detroit demands Sharia Law. This is rejected by the federal government, which triggers a Chechnya-style terror war, complete with attacks on schools, blowing up apartment buildings etc.

Paul7
05-20-2012, 08:41
Yesterday, snowbird quoted a number of 18,908, attacks by Muslims since 9/11. That's roughly 10 and a half years. Even if 100 different people were involved in each attack, that's 189,080 out of a population of 1.6 Billion Muslims. If .01% isn't a minute percentage what is?
It's obvious that the majority of sectarian violence at this point in time is Muslim v. Christian and that the Muslims are frequently the aggressors. It's so obvious that constantly repeating is at best a barely concealed effort to paint all Muslims as complicit with Islamic terrorism.
Who is pretending that? I'm pointing out that when it's violence committed by Muslims, the implication is that it is part and parcel of Islam, but that when it's violence committed by Christians, it is either explained away or (as we can see on the other ongoing thread) explained away by invoking No True Scotsman.

You are a Muslim apologist, who believes Islam is being misinterpreted by Jihadists. The fact is, Islam has already been interpreted, it is called Sharia Law, which gives us death for 'apostates', gender apartheid, etc., etc.

97% of Koranic references to Jihad are violent. Even if we accept your theory that the Jihadists are isolated screwballs, why is it that Islam has more screwballs than all other religions put together?

kirgi08
05-20-2012, 08:58
Or the non-violent worshippers don't stop the violent ones.'08.

Paul7
05-20-2012, 09:14
Or the non-violent worshippers don't stop the violent ones.'08.

Exactly. As Ayaan Hirsi Ali (friend to the murdered Theo Van Gogh) said, "Islamic terroirism, both in the Netherlands and abroad, is able to thrive because it is embedded in a wider circle of fellow Muslims."

We have Christian friends in Egypt who e-mailed us that when Bin Laden was killed, they didn't see any Muslims who were were happy about it. Some were apathetic, but most were sad.

Animal Mother
05-20-2012, 17:07
You are a Muslim apologist, who believes Islam is being misinterpreted by Jihadists. The fact is, Islam has already been interpreted, it is called Sharia Law, which gives us death for 'apostates', gender apartheid, etc., etc. I'm certainly not an apologist for any religion. You're the one who happily points out the worst aspects of Islam while hand waving away all the matching aspects of Christianity. When confronted with Christians who advocate a legal system essentially identical to sharia, you simply claim not to know about it and launch another attack on Muslims.
97% of Koranic references to Jihad are violent. Even if we accept your theory that the Jihadists are isolated screwballs, why is it that Islam has more screwballs than all other religions put together?There's no reason to believe they do. What does exist is conditions in Muslim lands that place fewer restrictions on the preaching of extremist views and the influence of those who advocate that form of extremism.

Paul7
05-20-2012, 17:44
I'm certainly not an apologist for any religion. You're the one who happily points out the worst aspects of Islam while hand waving away all the matching aspects of Christianity.

Except there aren't any matching Christian aspects to Muslim crimes. Are there 18K Christian terror acts since 2001 I'm not aware of?

When confronted with Christians who advocate a legal system essentially identical to sharia, you simply claim not to know about it and launch another attack on Muslims.

Where is this proposed Christian legal system that advocates killing apostates, for example, other than in your head?

There's no reason to believe they do.

Not if you ignore the 18K Muslim terror acts since 2001.

Animal Mother
05-20-2012, 18:00
Except there aren't any matching Christian aspects to Muslim crimes. Are there 18K Christian terror acts since 2001 I'm not aware of? Since 2001? Perhaps not, but why are you reducing it to such a small slice of time? Shouldn't a religion or philosophy be judged on the whole of its existence?
Where is this proposed Christian legal system that advocates killing apostates, for example, other than in your head? Deuteronomy 13:6-9, 2 Chronicles 15:10-15, those are from a book you might have heard of. Before trying the "those are only for bronze age Israel dodge, you should read Rushdoony's The Institutes of Biblical Law.
Not if you ignore the 18K Muslim terror acts since 2001.No one is ignoring, or forgiving, any acts of terror by Muslims. The question I have asked, and haven't gotten an answer for, is why some see fit to forgive the same sort of acts when committed by members of other faiths.

DonGlock26
05-20-2012, 19:04
Yes, remember the item I posted a while back on the Indonesian concentration camp for 'infidels', complete with barbed-wire fencing? To AM, that's the equivalent to a child abuse case by a single Christian parent.

LOL!! Pathetic.


_

DonGlock26
05-20-2012, 19:06
Yesterday, snowbird quoted a number of 18,908, attacks by Muslims since 9/11. That's roughly 10 and a half years. .

Finally admitting to the attacks. You would accept the RoP data before. I guess 10+ years of news stories woke you up.


_

juggy4711
05-20-2012, 21:00
Yesterday, snowbird quoted a number of 18,908, attacks by Muslims since 9/11. That's roughly 10 and a half years. Even if 100 different people were involved in each attack, that's 189,080 out of a population of 1.6 Billion Muslims. If .01% isn't a minute percentage what is?

What snowbird posts doesn't mean diddly. 18,908 or whatever the number is besides the point. Does that number include the honor killings, the women disfigured with acid, stoned to death and other general oppression of the fairer sex? The problems with Islam go way beyond terrorism.

It's obvious that the majority of sectarian violence at this point in time is Muslim v. Christian and that the Muslims are frequently the aggressors. It's so obvious that constantly repeating is at best a barely concealed effort to paint all Muslims as complicit with Islamic terrorism.

While terrorism is the stand out issue with Islam it is not the only thing for which Muslims should be painted negatively. The religion is jacked way beyond just terrorism.

The reason there are no more Salem Trials, Inquisitions or other such atrocities by Christians is because of the secular nature of their governing countries which is possible because the vast majority of Christians won't put up with it.

Muslims by religion and culture submit to barbaric, despotic and tyrannical governments and rulers. That is endemic of Islam.

Who is pretending that? I'm pointing out that when it's violence committed by Muslims, the implication is that it is part and parcel of Islam, but that when it's violence committed by Christians, it is either explained away or (as we can see on the other ongoing thread) explained away by invoking No True Scotsman.

You won't find me accepting the NTS excuse when Christians do wicked thing in the name of Christianity. But to imply that somehow the modern practice of it has any equivalency to all of the horrors that are indeed part and parcel to Islam as currently practiced by a vastly larger number of folks is BS.

I nominate Juggy for the Christopher Hitchens honesty award for acknowledging the threat from radical Islam. It is clearly the #1 threat in the world today for Western style human rights we all value and take for granted.

I would politely decline that award. While I realize Islam as a threat, especially to human rights, I find our own government's reckless, belligerent spending, over taxation and violation of the CotUS as a far greater threat than Islam could ever be.

Islam may not be a threat to us today as it is in Europe, but I have heard of a reasonable scenario where it could be. Say in 50 years (less in Europe) an area with lots of Muslims like Detroit demands Sharia Law. This is rejected by the federal government, which triggers a Chechnya-style terror war, complete with attacks on schools, blowing up apartment buildings etc.

Even in that circumstance, which would be empowered/made possible by our governments failings, I would find that less threatening than the infringement on our liberties the government would use such attacks as an excuse for.

Since 2001? Perhaps not, but why are you reducing it to such a small slice of time? Shouldn't a religion or philosophy be judged on the whole of its existence?

No a religion should not. It should be judged in context of the time and fashion in which it is being practiced. That kind of reasoning suggests that the USA is evil and should be judged by today's standards for it's past action of conquering the nation, "stealing" it unjustly from the Native Americans. Nonsense. History and time are relative. One can not judge the past based on the present.

Deuteronomy 13:6-9, 2 Chronicles 15:10-15, those are from a book you might have heard of. Before trying the "those are only for bronze age Israel dodge, you should read Rushdoony's The Institutes of Biblical Law.
No one is ignoring, or forgiving, any acts of terror by Muslims. The question I have asked, and haven't gotten an answer for, is why some see fit to forgive the same sort of acts when committed by members of other faiths.

Again you will not find me doing so. In comparison however, one must look at least a couple hundred years in the past to find equivalence between the faults of Christianity and Islam.

Animal Mother
05-20-2012, 21:12
Finally admitting to the attacks. Find anywhere I've denied they happen. Please, post a link.

Animal Mother
05-20-2012, 21:51
What snowbird posts doesn't mean diddly. 18,908 or whatever the number is besides the point. Does that number include the honor killings, the women disfigured with acid, stoned to death and other general oppression of the fairer sex? The problems with Islam go way beyond terrorism. But they're problems that are shared by all religions.
While terrorism is the stand out issue with Islam it is not the only thing for which Muslims should be painted negatively. The religion is jacked way beyond just terrorism. As are most others, but in this forum, the attacks are always exclusively against Islam. Islam has the same ability to coexist peacefully that other religions do and other religions have the same capacity for sectarian violence we see in Islam.
The reason there are no more Salem Trials, Inquisitions or other such atrocities by Christians is because of the secular nature of their governing countries which is possible because the vast majority of Christians won't put up with it. I think you're overlooking a significant population of Christian adherents who are eager to implement exactly the kind of religiously based legal codes found under Sharia. How many politicians in the US use "Take back the nation for God" as a rallying cry? What about the anti-homosexuality laws in Uganda?
Muslims by religion and culture submit to barbaric, despotic and tyrannical governments and rulers. That is endemic of Islam. That's endemic of all peoples, the number of non tyrannical governments throughout history are only a fraction of the whole.
You won't find me accepting the NTS excuse when Christians do wicked thing in the name of Christianity. But to imply that somehow the modern practice of it has any equivalency to all of the horrors that are indeed part and parcel to Islam as currently practiced by a vastly larger number of folks is BS. Unquestionably the Muslim areas of the world have far more problems than the historically Christian nations, at this point in time, but can those conflicts be attributed solely to religion? The tribal violence in Afghanistan is not only among adherents to Islam, it's been going on since before Mohammed was even born.
No a religion should not. It should be judged in context of the time and fashion in which it is being practiced. That kind of reasoning suggests that the USA is evil and should be judged by today's standards for it's past action of conquering the nation, "stealing" it unjustly from the Native Americans. Nonsense. History and time are relative. One can not judge the past based on the present. Where would you draw the line? Every 10 years the slate is wiped clean? Every 20? How far does a group have to go towards acts of violence before their who belief system or philosophy is condemned? Are the Muslims who live in the US, integrate into the general society and don't advocate either Sharia or violence as guilty as those who don't do those things?

The point is that the question isn't a binary, yes/no, good/bad issue, despite the desire of some to reduce it to such an easily understood level.
Again you will not find me doing so. In comparison however, one must look at least a couple hundred years in the past to find equivalence between the faults of Christianity and Islam.Rushdoony's book was written in 1973, there is currently a Christian movement to choose a state, fill it with those of similar beliefs and take over the government through voting, then secede from the US if necessary to enforce their version of Biblical law.

juggy4711
05-20-2012, 23:09
But they're problems that are shared by all religions.
As are most others, but in this forum, the attacks are always exclusively against Islam. Islam has the same ability to coexist peacefully that other religions do and other religions have the same capacity for sectarian violence we see in Islam.
I think you're overlooking a significant population of Christian adherents who are eager to implement exactly the kind of religiously based legal codes found under Sharia. How many politicians in the US use "Take back the nation for God" as a rallying cry? What about the anti-homosexuality laws in Uganda?
That's endemic of all peoples, the number of non tyrannical governments throughout history are only a fraction of the whole.
Unquestionably the Muslim areas of the world have far more problems than the historically Christian nations, at this point in time, but can those conflicts be attributed solely to religion? The tribal violence in Afghanistan is not only among adherents to Islam, it's been going on since before Mohammed was even born.
Where would you draw the line? Every 10 years the slate is wiped clean? Every 20? How far does a group have to go towards acts of violence before their who belief system or philosophy is condemned? Are the Muslims who live in the US, integrate into the general society and don't advocate either Sharia or violence as guilty as those who don't do those things?

The point is that the question isn't a binary, yes/no, good/bad issue, despite the desire of some to reduce it to such an easily understood level.
Rushdoony's book was written in 1973, there is currently a Christian movement to choose a state, fill it with those of similar beliefs and take over the government through voting, then secede from the US if necessary to enforce their version of Biblical law.

If I didn't know better I would swear you were going out of you way to prove the point being made against you. You say you make no claim of parity then argue that there is? Potential sure. Actuality in practice not even close. Your context is all out of whack.

I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt but all you have managed to do so far is show you have a hard on against Christians.

Islam, as practiced today by a vastly larger number of folks, is far more dangerous to civilization than Christianity.

I take it back Paul. I accept the award.

Animal Mother
05-20-2012, 23:14
If I didn't know better I would swear you were going out of you way to prove the point being made against you. You say you make no claim of parity then argue that there is? Potential sure. Actuality in practice not even close. Here you've admitted the point I'm trying to make. Thank you. At this specific moment in time, no there isn't parity between the two faiths in terms of violence done in their name, but that's a this moment in time. As you agree, the potential is their in either of these religions, and in most others.

I have no problem acknowledging that there is violence inherent in the way Islam is practiced in many instances, but I don't agree that indicts the whole of Islam any more than the potential for violence should indict the whole of Christianity or the whole of Hinduism. Specific instances of violence need to be addressed, no matter what the claimed basis or justification.

Paul7
05-21-2012, 19:02
Since 2001? Perhaps not, but why are you reducing it to such a small slice of time? Shouldn't a religion or philosophy be judged on the whole of its existence?

Yes, why don't we look at Muslim activities on the Indian subcontinent from 1000 AD -1525 AD, when an estimated 80,000,000 'infidels' were killed. Was that violence Israel's fault?

http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/29320

Perhaps the rare peaceful times of Islamic history are the aberrations.

Deuteronomy 13:6-9, 2 Chronicles 15:10-15, those are from a book you might have heard of. Before trying the "those are only for bronze age Israel dodge, you should read Rushdoony's The Institutes of Biblical Law.

Never heard of Rushdoony. Is he some kind of threat to you?

No one is ignoring, or forgiving, any acts of terror by Muslims. The question I have asked, and haven't gotten an answer for, is why some see fit to forgive the same sort of acts when committed by members of other faiths.

I will forgive anyone repentant of their crimes. Have the Jihadists done that?

Hey, keep it up, AM, the more of your nonsensical posts on Islam the more others are awakened to the serious threat of radical Islam. We have more material on it everyday if you want to keep going.

Paul7
05-21-2012, 19:04
If I didn't know better I would swear you were going out of you way to prove the point being made against you. You say you make no claim of parity then argue that there is? Potential sure. Actuality in practice not even close. Your context is all out of whack.

I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt but all you have managed to do so far is show you have a hard on against Christians.

Islam, as practiced today by a vastly larger number of folks, is far more dangerous to civilization than Christianity.

I take it back Paul. I accept the award.

You're welcome Juggy. I can respect an honest atheist, as Christopher Hitchens was when it came to the threat of radical Islam. Perhaps AM thinks he was a bigot also.

Animal Mother
05-21-2012, 23:22
Yes, why don't we look at Muslim activities on the Indian subcontinent from 1000 AD -1525 AD, when an estimated 80,000,000 'infidels' were killed. Was that violence Israel's fault? Where do you get Israel from? Obviously, following your "logic" it's Stalin's fault, just like the depopulations of Africa and the Americas.
Perhaps the rare peaceful times of Islamic history are the aberrations. That's true of any kind of human grouping though.
Never heard of Rushdoony. Is he some kind of threat to you? His way of thinking is a threat to everyone who disagrees with it. Odd that you wouldn't have heard of the man though, considering his influence on both the Christian Right and the homeschooling movement.
I will forgive anyone repentant of their crimes. Then how can you continue to advocate genocide?

juggy4711
05-22-2012, 01:00
Here you've admitted the point I'm trying to make. Thank you. At this specific moment in time, no there isn't parity between the two faiths in terms of violence done in their name, but that's a this moment in time. As you agree, the potential is their in either of these religions, and in most others.

I have no problem acknowledging that there is violence inherent in the way Islam is practiced in many instances, but I don't agree that indicts the whole of Islam any more than the potential for violence should indict the whole of Christianity or the whole of Hinduism. Specific instances of violence need to be addressed, no matter what the claimed basis or justification.

I can understand that and agree.

You're welcome Juggy. I can respect an honest atheist, as Christopher Hitchens was when it came to the threat of radical Islam. Perhaps AM thinks he was a bigot also.

Hitchens had it out for religion in a major way. Since Islam is actively a threat like no other major religion currently is he railed against it vehemently.

Oh and I'm not an atheist but thanks anyway.

Akil8290
05-22-2012, 01:36
Hardliners in Bekasi Throw Stones at Ascension Day Service

http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/news/hardliners-in-bekasi-throw-stones-at-ascension-day-service/518398#Scene_1




LOL! I've heard apologists hold up Indonesia as an example of Muslim tolerance. They are ill-equipped to keep up with the times.

Islam is returning to its violent supremacist roots.

_

There's actually not a single thing that's Islamic about this. We as Muslims are actually commanded to protect "People of The Book" from violence, especially in an Islamic majority nation, not to mention we are obligated to protect their holy sites, churches, synagogues and religious artifacts from destruction.

Also, after reading the article, what exactly is an Islamic "hard liner"?:dunno:

Nice try, Don.

Paul7
05-22-2012, 07:50
Where do you get Israel from?

Often Muslim violence is blamed in Israel.

Odd that you wouldn't have heard of the man though, considering his influence on both the Christian Right and the homeschooling movement.

Sorry, my wife never heard of him either, she's been to many homeschool conferences.

Then how can you continue to advocate genocide?

I don't.

Paul7
05-22-2012, 07:57
There's actually not a single thing that's Islamic about this. We as Muslims are actually commanded to protect "People of The Book" from violence, especially in an Islamic majority nation, not to mention we are obligated to protect their holy sites, churches, synagogues and religious artifacts from destruction.


Tell it to Christians in Egypt, or most other Muslim nations. Even if they have the very minimal standard of being protected from violence, they do not have anything close to freedom of worship as we know it in the West. From an internet site:




"The Myth:

Religious minorities have flourished under Islam. Muslims are commanded to protect Jews and Christians (the People of the Book) and do them no harm. The Quran says in Sura 109, "To you, your religion. To me, mine."

The Truth:

Religious minorities have not “flourished” under Islam. In fact, they have dwindled to mere shadows after centuries of persecution and discrimination. Some were converted from their native religion by brute force, others under the agonizing strain of dhimmitude.

What Muslims call “tolerance,” others correctly identify as institutionalized discrimination. The consignment of Jews and Christians to dhimmis under Islamic rule means that they are not allowed the same religious rights and freedoms as Muslims. They cannot share their faith, for example, or build houses of worship without permission.

Historically, dhimmis have often had to wear distinguishing clothing or cut their hair in a particular manner that indicates their position of inferiority and humiliation. They do not share the same legal rights as Muslims, and must even pay a poll tax (the jizya). They are to be killed or have their children taken from them if they cannot satisfy the tax collector’s requirements.

For hundreds of years, the Christian population in occupied Europe had their sons taken away and forcibly converted into Muslim warriors (known as Jannisaries) by the Ottoman Turks.

It is under this burden of discrimination and third-class status that so many religious minorities converted to Islam over the centuries. Those who didn’t often faced economic and social hardships that persist to this day and are appalling by Western standards of true religious tolerance and pluralism.

For those who are not “the People of the Book,” such as Hindus and atheists, there is very little tolerance to be found once Islam establishes political superiority. The Quran tells Muslims to “fight in the way of Allah” until “religion is only for Allah.” The conquered populations face death if they do not establish regular prayer and charity in the Islamic tradition (ie. the pillars of Islam).

Tamerlane and other Muslim warriors slaughtered tens of millions of Hindus and Buddhists, and displaced or forcibly converted millions more over the last thousand years. Islamists in Somalia behead Christians. In Iran, they are jailed.

One of the great ironies of Islam is that non-Muslims are to be treated according to the very standards by which Muslims themselves would claim the right to violent self-defense were the shoe on the other foot. Islam is its own justification. Most Muslims therefore feel no need to explain the ingrained arrogance and double standard.

There are about 500 verses in the Quran that speak of Allah’s hatred for non-Muslims and the punishment that he has prepared for their unbelief. There is also a tiny handful that say otherwise, but these are mostly earlier verses that many scholars consider to be abrogated by the later, more violent ones.

As for Sura 109, any true Quran scholar will point out that the purpose of the verse was to distinguish Islam from the gods of the Quraysh (one of which was named "Allah") rather than to advocate religious tolerance for non-Muslims. At the time that he narrated this very early verse, Muhammad did not have any power, and thus no choice but to be "tolerant" of others. By contrast, there was no true tolerance shown when he returned to Mecca with power many years later and demanded the eviction or death of anyone who would not convert to Islam. In fact, he physically destroyed the cherished idols of the people to whom he had previously addressed in Sura 109.

If tolerance simply means discouraging the mass slaughter of those of a different faith, then today's Islam generally meets this standard more often than not. But, if tolerance means allowing people of other faiths the same religious liberties that Muslims enjoy, then Islam is fundamentally the most intolerant religion under the sun."

Paul7
05-22-2012, 08:00
As you agree, the potential is their in either of these religions, and in most others.


Amazing how you equate real, ongoing Muslim terror today with a non-existent 'potential' for violence of other religions. Does atheism have the potential for violence? Do you know what they did last century?

snowbird
05-22-2012, 08:48
We as Muslims are actually commanded to protect "People of The Book" from violence

Don't tell us, tell PFC Naser Jason Abdo.

He's the Muslim who, in 2010, said he wanted to combat "Islamophobia", that he wanted to show "that Islam is a good, peaceful religion. We're not all terrorists, you know?"

Of course, the Koran actually commands jihad until all submit to Allah's sharia; lying (takiyya) and genocide (remember those 1.5 million Armenians?) are perfectly okay if they help achieve that goal. But, shush, don't let the infidels suspect anything until it's too late...okay?
So, while PFC Abdo outwardly talked 'peace', inwardly he plotted to bomb fellow GIs in what would have been a second Muslim terror attack at Fort Hood. Now, at his trial, he is so 'peaceful' that they have to keep a mask on him to protect nearby US marshals from him biting his lip and spitting blood.

For their own good, to 'protect' these People of the Book from any violence, of course.:upeyes:

Paul7
05-22-2012, 11:01
Don't tell us, tell PFC Naser Jason Abdo.

He's the Muslim who, in 2010, said he wanted to combat "Islamophobia", that he wanted to show "that Islam is a good, peaceful religion. We're not all terrorists, you know?"

Of course, the Koran actually commands jihad until all submit to Allah's sharia; lying (takiyya) and genocide (remember those 1.5 million Armenians?) are perfectly okay if they help achieve that goal. But, shush, don't let the infidels suspect anything until it's too late...okay?
So, while PFC Abdo outwardly talked 'peace', inwardly he plotted to bomb fellow GIs in what would have been a second Muslim terror attack at Fort Hood. Now, at his trial, he is so 'peaceful' that they have to keep a mask on him to protect nearby US marshals from him biting his lip and spitting blood.

For their own good, to 'protect' these People of the Book from any violence, of course.:upeyes:

Abdo sounds like a practitioner of this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taqiyya

Hopefully the little creep gets the death penalty.

Akil8290
05-22-2012, 13:16
Tell it to Christians in Egypt, or most other Muslim nations. Even if they have the very minimal standard of being protected from violence, they do not have anything close to freedom of worship as we know it in the West. From an internet site:

And if Muslims lived under a Christian theocracy, we wouldn't either. That's why theocracies of any kind DO NOT WORK.



"The Myth:

Religious minorities have flourished under Islam. Muslims are commanded to protect Jews and Christians (the People of the Book) and do them no harm. The Quran says in Sura 109, "To you, your religion. To me, mine."

The Truth:

Religious minorities have not “flourished” under Islam. In fact, they have dwindled to mere shadows after centuries of persecution and discrimination. Some were converted from their native religion by brute force, others under the agonizing strain of dhimmitude.

What Muslims call “tolerance,” others correctly identify as institutionalized discrimination. The consignment of Jews and Christians to dhimmis under Islamic rule means that they are not allowed the same religious rights and freedoms as Muslims. They cannot share their faith, for example, or build houses of worship without permission.

Shockingly enough, there are people here who present themselves to be "Christians" and would advocate the same type of treatment be applied to Muslims here in the Unites States.

The interesting thing about Shariah is that the concept came into fruition AFTER the death of The Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). Shariah began as interpretation of how Islam can apply to everyday life; yet, nobody applies it the same way and its not universally agreed upon by any Islamic scholars, either past or present.

Historically, dhimmis have often had to wear distinguishing clothing or cut their hair in a particular manner that indicates their position of inferiority and humiliation. They do not share the same legal rights as Muslims, and must even pay a poll tax (the jizya). They are to be killed or have their children taken from them if they cannot satisfy the tax collector’s requirements.

Bullsh-t. Plain and simple. The jizya tax is actually exponentially LESS than the zakat, which Muslims pay. Not to mention people like women, children, invalids, the elderly, monks, the unemployed and the mentally ill were exempt from paying it. The jizya tax was only to offer full protection of the Muslim state and its not even being collected anymore.

For hundreds of years, the Christian population in occupied Europe had their sons taken away and forcibly converted into Muslim warriors (known as Jannisaries) by the Ottoman Turks.

This about half way true; most of the Jannisaries actually remained as Christians. If any of you here support the draft being applied in the U.S., this is the Ottoman Empire version of it.

It is under this burden of discrimination and third-class status that so many religious minorities converted to Islam over the centuries. Those who didn’t often faced economic and social hardships that persist to this day and are appalling by Western standards of true religious tolerance and pluralism.

There were also forced conversions to Christianity in European societies, mainly Roman Catholicism; want to talk about those?

For those who are not “the People of the Book,” such as Hindus and atheists, there is very little tolerance to be found once Islam establishes political superiority. The Quran tells Muslims to “fight in the way of Allah” until “religion is only for Allah.” The conquered populations face death if they do not establish regular prayer and charity in the Islamic tradition (ie. the pillars of Islam).

Uh..no. To "fight in the way of Allah (SWT)" means to defend the Ummah. Nothing more; nothing less. War is only justified in Islam if fought defensively.

Tamerlane and other Muslim warriors slaughtered tens of millions of Hindus and Buddhists, and displaced or forcibly converted millions more over the last thousand years. Islamists in Somalia behead Christians. In Iran, they are jailed.

All of which is wrong against the teaching of the Prophet.

One of the great ironies of Islam is that non-Muslims are to be treated according to the very standards by which Muslims themselves would claim the right to violent self-defense were the shoe on the other foot. Islam is its own justification. Most Muslims therefore feel no need to explain the ingrained arrogance and double standard.

Someone's idea of an "informed opinion", I guess.

There are about 500 verses in the Quran that speak of Allah’s hatred for non-Muslims and the punishment that he has prepared for their unbelief. There is also a tiny handful that say otherwise, but these are mostly earlier verses that many scholars consider to be abrogated by the later, more violent ones.

As for Sura 109, any true Quran scholar will point out that the purpose of the verse was to distinguish Islam from the gods of the Quraysh (one of which was named "Allah") rather than to advocate religious tolerance for non-Muslims. At the time that he narrated this very early verse, Muhammad did not have any power, and thus no choice but to be "tolerant" of others. By contrast, there was no true tolerance shown when he returned to Mecca with power many years later and demanded the eviction or death of anyone who would not convert to Islam. In fact, he physically destroyed the cherished idols of the people to whom he had previously addressed in Sura 109.

If tolerance simply means discouraging the mass slaughter of those of a different faith, then today's Islam generally meets this standard more often than not. But, if tolerance means allowing people of other faiths the same religious liberties that Muslims enjoy, then Islam is fundamentally the most intolerant religion under the sun."

I would love to see wich "website" you pulled this nonsense from. If its RoP, save it, I already questioned its validity and was met with silence. As for Surah 109, it clearly defines the right attitude for those that reject the faith and it is determined that there is no need to abuse anyone for their beliefs or lack of faith. You can't blame the Qur'an for those who read it and disregard it; blame them.

Akil8290
05-22-2012, 13:19
Don't tell us, tell PFC Naser Jason Abdo.

He's the Muslim who, in 2010, said he wanted to combat "Islamophobia", that he wanted to show "that Islam is a good, peaceful religion. We're not all terrorists, you know?"

Of course, the Koran actually commands jihad until all submit to Allah's sharia; lying (takiyya) and genocide (remember those 1.5 million Armenians?) are perfectly okay if they help achieve that goal. But, shush, don't let the infidels suspect anything until it's too late...okay?
So, while PFC Abdo outwardly talked 'peace', inwardly he plotted to bomb fellow GIs in what would have been a second Muslim terror attack at Fort Hood. Now, at his trial, he is so 'peaceful' that they have to keep a mask on him to protect nearby US marshals from him biting his lip and spitting blood.

For their own good, to 'protect' these People of the Book from any violence, of course.:upeyes:

Another sick and twisted individual; you two probably have a lot in common, albeit operating from opposite ends of the spectrum.

I don't condone his actions and nor are they justified, by any faith.

Akil8290
05-22-2012, 13:27
Abdo sounds like a practitioner of this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taqiyya

Hopefully the little creep gets the death penalty.

Just curious, Paul, did you even read the link you posted?

It clearly says very early into the article: "This practice emphasized in Shi'a Islam whereby adherents may conceal their faith when under threat, persecution, or compulsion. [sic]"

This is what I've been telling all of you everytime someone here brings it up when a person claiming to be a Muslim commits a crime.

There is no correlation between criminal acts and taqiyya.

Paul7
05-22-2012, 14:30
I have a serious question for you, Akil. Let's say your thinking is right that there is absolutely nothing in the Koran to inspire the violent Jihadists criminals, and that they are just individual nuts. Why is it that your religion has more of these nuts than the rest of the religions put together?

juggy4711
05-22-2012, 20:50
There's actually not a single thing that's Islamic about this. We as Muslims are actually commanded to protect "People of The Book" from violence, especially in an Islamic majority nation, not to mention we are obligated to protect their holy sites, churches, synagogues and religious artifacts from destruction.

Also, after reading the article, what exactly is an Islamic "hard liner"?:dunno:

Nice try, Don.

Nice try Akil but this is the No True Scotsmen fallacy AM was talking about. I don't buy it from Christians and I don't buy it from Muslims. There are members of religions that do not follow all tenants of their religion yet claim their behavior is justified by it. It does not matter if your view of Islam dictates those are not valid Islamic beliefs. What matters is that there are Muslims that use Islam as justification for such actions.

Unfortunately for Muslims around the world there are so many doing so that it resonates poorly on the entire religion. It won't get better until Muslims stop putting up with it, the same way Christians did a few hundred years ago.

It was up to Christians to put a stop to the grievances they were causing around the world and it will be up to Muslims to do the same for Islam. As long as there are not enough Muslims willing to take sides against other Muslims because such actions might be in support of non-Muslims, Islam will be self demonized and deservedly so.

Islam needs a Lutheran like reformation where is it willing to combat itself. Had it not been for the protestants willing to buck the RCC, Christianity would still be a scourge.

Wars might have to be fought over it much like happened in Christendom. But unless that happens Islam will always be viewed by others as an aggressive threat.

However with the "external threat" of non-Muslims it may very well be that Islam will never have that chance, unwilling as a whole or a majority, to internally reform preoccupied with a perceived outside influence/enemy.

Animal Mother
05-22-2012, 22:19
Often Muslim violence is blamed in Israel. I think you mean on Israel, and since I don't make a habit of doing that, I don't know why you'd bring it up in reference to either me or something that happened hundreds of years before Israel existed.
Sorry, my wife never heard of him either, she's been to many homeschool conferences. If only there were a tool which you could use to learn about these things. Your family's ignorance aside, the influence of Rushdoony and Van Til on a significant percentage of the Christian evangelical population is undeniable.
I don't.Don't be shy, of course you do. As long as it's justified by orders from God, you're all for it.

Akil8290
05-22-2012, 22:58
I have a serious question for you, Akil. Let's say your thinking is right that there is absolutely nothing in the Koran to inspire the violent Jihadists criminals, and that they are just individual nuts. Why is it that your religion has more of these nuts than the rest of the religions put together?

It doesn't; the small minority of these "nuts" are a VERY vocal minority.

And my "thinking" is absolutely correct; there is NOTHING in scripture that justifies criminal acts. Terms like "jihadist" or "jihadi" are pure creations of the media; the correct term would be mujahid or mujahideen. Its still quite clear that you lack even a cursory understanding of the concept of jihad and what exactly it entails and justifies.

Akil8290
05-22-2012, 23:19
Nice try Akil but this is the No True Scotsmen fallacy AM was talking about. I don't buy it from Christians and I don't buy it from Muslims. There are members of religions that do not follow all tenants of their religion yet claim their behavior is justified by it. It does not matter if your view of Islam dictates those are not valid Islamic beliefs. What matters is that there are Muslims that use Islam as justification for such actions.

It isn't my "view" that dictates if these acts are Islamic or not; this was all long established by the Qur'an, haddith and fiqh long before you or I were even around. These people may claim to be Muslims, but their acts say otherwise.

Unfortunately for Muslims around the world there are so many doing so that it resonates poorly on the entire religion. It won't get better until Muslims stop putting up with it, the same way Christians did a few hundred years ago.

Correct, but these things can't be stopped overnight. Furthermore, if you really bothered to do any research, you'd see that extremism is denounced around the world by ranking clerics, groups and other Islamic individuals and organizations. For example, recently the head Mufti of Saudi Arabia issued a fatwa for ALL of the churches to be destroyed in Gulf region. The Grand Mufti of Turkey countered and publically lambasted the Mufti of Saudi Arabia for his un-Islamic ruling and even cited the Qur'an as a point of reference, specifically scripture in which Muslims are commanded by God to protect holy sites, churches, synagogues and holy artifacts that belong to "People of The Book." These people are out there..look.

It was up to Christians to put a stop to the grievances they were causing around the world and it will be up to Muslims to do the same for Islam. As long as there are not enough Muslims willing to take sides against other Muslims because such actions might be in support of non-Muslims, Islam will be self demonized and deservedly so.

Once secularism reaches every Muslim majority nation (40 out of 48 are secular or close to it) this will be well within our grasp.

Islam needs a Lutheran like reformation where is it willing to combat itself. Had it not been for the protestants willing to buck the RCC, Christianity would still be a scourge.

We have the Shiites; they are the Islamic version of the Protestants. Of course, you do understand that there is no caliphate anymore and there is no single body that rules over the imams, sheikhs, muftis and ayatollahs of the world, unlike Catholicism, in which the Vatican has executive authority over all its parishes, archdioceses, deacons, priests, bishops and cardinals. Because of this, its far more difficult to simply reform.

Wars might have to be fought over it much like happened in Christendom. But unless that happens Islam will always be viewed by others as an aggressive threat.

However with the "external threat" of non-Muslims it may very well be that Islam will never have that chance, unwilling as a whole or a majority, to internally reform preoccupied with a perceived outside influence/enemy.

See above.

snowbird
05-23-2012, 09:18
...the influence of Rushdoony and Van Til on a significant percentage of the Christian evangelical population is undeniable...

...only if you're a conspiracy-theorizing Christophobe.

I looked up Rushdoony (never heard of him or Van Til), and it seems he died in 2001 at age 84. How many deadly terror attacks did he instigate? Keep in mind that, as of today, there have been 18,930 deadly Muslim attacks just since 9/11.

It seems that real haters hate the truth, and try to cover it up.

Paul7
05-23-2012, 09:59
Your family's ignorance aside, the influence of Rushdoony and Van Til on a significant percentage of the Christian evangelical population is undeniable.


It is quite deniable. It seems nobody has heard of this man you are so afraid of. I can see how a mistake like this could happen, not being part of the evangelical community yourself.

Paul7
05-23-2012, 10:00
It doesn't; the small minority of these "nuts" are a VERY vocal minority.

And my "thinking" is absolutely correct; there is NOTHING in scripture that justifies criminal acts. Terms like "jihadist" or "jihadi" are pure creations of the media; the correct term would be mujahid or mujahideen. Its still quite clear that you lack even a cursory understanding of the concept of jihad and what exactly it entails and justifies.

Are you going to answer my question of why is it your religion has far more of these 'nuts' than all other faith groups put together?

Akil8290
05-23-2012, 22:26
Are you going to answer my question of why is it your religion has far more of these 'nuts' than all other faith groups put together?

It doesn't. The 'honor killings' and attacking of religious minorities that are frequently seen in the media is a result of the biased media jumping to conclusions by presenting these things as being Islamic; they are not. Honor killings are tribal and are prominent in non-Muslim communities, as well; such as the Hmong in Southeast Asia. When you read an article about 'Muslims' attacking 'Christians', its never actually mentioned why they are attacked; the article is instead written in such a way that it tends to lead the reader to believe the motive was rooted in prejudice. So people jump to conclusions and say, "Hey, those Muslims threw rocks at or attacked those people, because they were Christian," meanwhile it was never actually mentioned in the article.

Nobody is interested in reading an article about Muslims protecting Coptic Christians in Egypt, though they are out there (I read one on the L.A. Times website a while back). Nobody cares when a Mufti or a Sheikh gives a lecture speaking out about the dangers of extremist thinking and denouncing terrorism; its far more interesting to read an article about the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia calling for the destruction of churches in the Gulf region. Why? Because it serves as a constant reminder of what people with biases think actually represents the whole religion; that they are right, and people love to believe they are right. Its all about biased reporting and perception.

If you bothered to research beyond what everyone else tells you to believe, you might reach a very different conclusion, as opposed to why Islam seems to have more 'nuts' than all the religions put together.

Animal Mother
05-24-2012, 01:53
It is quite deniable. It seems nobody has heard of this man you are so afraid of. I find that odd, considering how frequently the evangelical right cites him, until they decide they need broader appeal and should downplay a connection to someone advocating a dominionist position. He was interviewed on both the 700 club and by James Kennedy. Maybe you've heard of them.
I can see how a mistake like this could happen, not being part of the evangelical community yourself.Maybe you're not as much a part of it as you think.

Paul7
05-24-2012, 07:23
I find that odd, considering how frequently the evangelical right cites him, until they decide they need broader appeal and should downplay a connection to someone advocating a dominionist position. He was interviewed on both the 700 club and by James Kennedy. Maybe you've heard of them.


Yes, Kennedy is also dead. Tell me again why this man so frightens you, apparently more than the 18,000 Muslim terror attacks since 9/11?

Paul7
05-24-2012, 07:32
It doesn't. The 'honor killings' and attacking of religious minorities that are frequently seen in the media is a result of the biased media jumping to conclusions by presenting these things as being Islamic; they are not. Honor killings are tribal and are prominent in non-Muslim communities, as well; such as the Hmong in Southeast Asia.

Nobody ever said honor killings were only done by Muslims, they are mainly done by Muslims.

When you read an article about 'Muslims' attacking 'Christians', its never actually mentioned why they are attacked;

Perhaps because the Koran says to attack infidels?

"Slay them wherever you find them. Drive them out of the places from which they drove you. Idolatry is worse than carnage. . . . [I]f they attack you put them to the sword. Thus shall the unbelievers be rewarded: but if they desist, God is forgiving and merciful. Fight against them until idolatry is no more and God's religion reigns supreme. But if they desist, fight none except the evil-doers"(2:190–93).

the article is instead written in such a way that it tends to lead the reader to believe the motive was rooted in prejudice. So people jump to conclusions and say, "Hey, those Muslims threw rocks at or attacked those people, because they were Christian," meanwhile it was never actually mentioned in the article.

Nobody is interested in reading an article about Muslims protecting Coptic Christians in Egypt, though they are out there (I read one on the L.A. Times website a while back).

I'm glad, but is that supposed to prove Copts aren't horribly treated by Muslims in Egypt? What were they being protected from? As I've said before, we have Egyptian Christian friends who know that sad situation well. The latest story they told me was of a Coptic priest who was arrested for performing a marriage of two Christians, one of whom had converted from Islam. This priest had had nothing to do with the conversion (not that it should matter in a civilized society), yet he was still arrested.

Nobody cares when a Mufti or a Sheikh gives a lecture speaking out about the dangers of extremist thinking and denouncing terrorism; its far more interesting to read an article about the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia calling for the destruction of churches in the Gulf region.

Is the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia not a fairly significant figure in Islam? I care about what people do, not what they say, and Muslims are doing crimes every day against 'infidels'. It's been estimated that 275 Christians are martyred daily, mainly at the hands of your fellow Muslims.

Why? Because it serves as a constant reminder of what people with biases think actually represents the whole religion; that they are right, and people love to believe they are right. Its all about biased reporting and perception.

If anything, the MSM under reports these ongoing atrocities. When they do report them, they tend to say it is fighting between two groups, rather than Muslim religious cleansing. It would be like reporting the treatment of Jews in WWII Germany as a conflict between two groups.

If you bothered to research beyond what everyone else tells you to believe, you might reach a very different conclusion, as opposed to why Islam seems to have more 'nuts' than all the religions put together.

I don't know what you're saying here, are you saying the daily Muslim crimes aren't really happening? They are done either by devout Muslims following the Koran or nuts. In either case, why does your religion have so many more than anyone else?

Animal Mother
05-24-2012, 07:47
Yes, Kennedy is also dead. Tell me again why this man so frightens you, apparently more than the 18,000 Muslim terror attacks since 9/11? Where did I say the men scared me? Could you point out the specific post?

Paul7
05-24-2012, 10:51
Where did I say the men scared me? Could you point out the specific post?

Do you not think he is some kind of danger? You talk about him more than you do the jihadists.

Animal Mother
05-24-2012, 13:26
Do you not think he is some kind of danger? You talk about him more than you do the jihadists. What do you mean? You hadn't even heard of him until I mentioned his name a couple of day ago, how much could I be talking about him?

Paul7
05-24-2012, 14:11
What do you mean? You hadn't even heard of him until I mentioned his name a couple of day ago, how much could I be talking about him?

I haven't heard of him outside of you, which doesn't mean much.

juggy4711
05-24-2012, 20:10
See above.

Glad you and other Muslims are outspoken about radical Islam. None of that changes any of my points. It's still a NTSM argument. Radicals might not be Muslims that you like but they are still Muslims. And like I said speaking out might not cut it. It may be that Muslims are going to have to fight wars with other Muslims to put and end to the practice of Islam you do not approve of. Good luck and I hope your side wins.

Animal Mother
05-24-2012, 23:08
I haven't heard of him outside of you, which doesn't mean much.It apparently means I know more about the evangelical/political movement in the US than you do, which is disappointing, if not surprising.

snowbird
05-25-2012, 08:02
... people jump to conclusions and say, "Hey, those Muslims threw rocks at or attacked those people, because they were Christian,"...

Nobody is interested in reading an article about Muslims protecting Coptic Christians in Egypt... Nobody cares when a Mufti or a Sheikh gives a lecture speaking out ...denouncing terrorism;...Its all about biased reporting and perception.
.

So Dutch Party for Freedom leader, Geert Wilders, has been needlessly concerned for his safety all these years? The book he wrote, "Marked For Death: Islam's War Against the West and Me", is just paranoid delusion? He didn't really need round-the-clock security for 8 years now and counting? Those Muslims who murdered fellow Dutchmen Pym Fortuyn (sp?) and Theo Van Gogh, weren't True Muslims?

You wouldn't kid us, now would you?

Whoops, I almost forgot, the Koran DOES authorize Muslims to lie to infidels (AND cut their throats, blow them up, etc, etc) to help conquer them. Hmmm...

snowbird
05-25-2012, 08:30
It apparently means I know more about the evangelical/political movement in the US than you do, which is disappointing, if not surprising.

A pundit has done a good job of rebutting your position:

The Brain Rot of White Socialists

Leftist leaders falsely believe that immigration is needed to keep up the tax base and support the elderly. They idiotically import "the culture with the worst work and education ethic, and that is unassimilable due to a supremacist colonist ideology in tandem with a unique legal system sharia that contradicts Western law".

Why do we keep re-electing such suicidal fools after noticing that the newcomers are not emptying bedpans in nursing homes, but lolling about on Welfare, making mischief such as rape and vandalism and more parasites hostile to education?

The explanation is, many have been brainwashed into white guilt...they'd rather see their culture die than be called racist by a non-white world and their lib enablers, both of which seethe with racism themselves.

This sickness is only found among whites who are socialists. Neither factor alone is sufficient. Black socialists don't develop race shame about their much greater failures and lack of achievement. And white conservatives do not prostrate themselves to inferior cultures and political systems.

It's only in white socialists that one sees the full effect of brain rot and resultant masochism.

Akil8290
05-26-2012, 18:22
Nobody ever said honor killings were only done by Muslims, they are mainly done by Muslims.

The funny thing is: honor killings aren't even Islamic. Not that it matters to you.



Perhaps because the Koran says to attack infidels?

"Slay them wherever you find them. Drive them out of the places from which they drove you. Idolatry is worse than carnage. . . . [I]f they attack you put them to the sword. Thus shall the unbelievers be rewarded: but if they desist, God is forgiving and merciful. Fight against them until idolatry is no more and God's religion reigns supreme. But if they desist, fight none except the evil-doers"(2:190–93).

You quoting the Qur'an; that's precious. You do realize that you COMPLETELY FORGOT the beginning ayah of that Surah, right? Here, I'll help:

"Fight in the cause of Allah
Those who fight you,
But do not transgress limits;
For Allah loveth not the transgressors."

-Surah 2:190, The Holy Qur'an (Abdullah Yusuf Ali translation)

The rest of the Surah (surprisingly) you posted is correct.

What this means is if you stop me from worshipping God, if you oppress me in any way, if you attempt to harm me in any way; I can and would fight you. Of course, war can only be waged defensively, as those instances above would warrant, and it though it must be waged with vigor, there are still strict limits that are imposed. I've gone over these before.

I'm glad, but is that supposed to prove Copts aren't horribly treated by Muslims in Egypt? What were they being protected from? As I've said before, we have Egyptian Christian friends who know that sad situation well. The latest story they told me was of a Coptic priest who was arrested for performing a marriage of two Christians, one of whom had converted from Islam. This priest had had nothing to do with the conversion (not that it should matter in a civilized society), yet he was still arrested.

They are rapidly approaching a total Islamist ruling regime there; you expected differently? I've also explained the difference between Islam and Islamism. Islam is to shape Muslims; Islamism is what happens when Muslims attempt to shape Islam for their own political gains and means.



Is the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia not a fairly significant figure in Islam? I care about what people do, not what they say, and Muslims are doing crimes every day against 'infidels'. It's been estimated that 275 Christians are martyred daily, mainly at the hands of your fellow Muslims.

Sure he is, but so is the Grand Mufti of Turkey. Do his objections to the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia's fatwas mean nothing to you? I would think you of all people would be happy to see the ruling Sunni cleric of Turkey demonstrate such sensibility. Furthermore, the Grand Mufti of Turkey supported his position with references from the Qur'an; the Saudi Mufti not so much.

If anything, the MSM under reports these ongoing atrocities. When they do report them, they tend to say it is fighting between two groups, rather than Muslim religious cleansing. It would be like reporting the treatment of Jews in WWII Germany as a conflict between two groups.

I can't tell you how many articles I've read with buzz words like 'Islamist' and 'radical Muslims' in them.

I don't know what you're saying here, are you saying the daily Muslim crimes aren't really happening? They are done either by devout Muslims following the Koran or nuts. In either case, why does your religion have so many more than anyone else?

Nope. There is no such thing as a 'Muslim crime'. You ever heard of a 'Jewish crime' or 'Christian crime'? What exactly are they following in the Qur'an? Slaying infidels? Jews and Christians aren't infidels; they are People of The Book and they are to be respected. If a Muslim attacks a Christian for being a Christian, they have ceased to be a Muslim right then and there. There's a story of Ali, the Prophet's cousin, who was fighting an unbeliever in war and just as Ali was getting ready to level his sword for the death blow, the unbeliever spat on him; Ali dropped his sword and refused to fight him. Why? Because if Ali had fought him after that it would've been personal and not for God. If that doesn't demonstrate the Islamic position of 'slaying infidels' for you; I don't know what does.

Akil8290
05-26-2012, 18:33
Those Muslims who murdered fellow Dutchmen Pym Fortuyn (sp?) and Theo Van Gogh, weren't True Muslims?

Absolutely not. Even if Pym and Theo met the criteria to be considered 'infidels' that doesn't give ANY Muslim carte blanche to kill them just for simply being unbelievers. Those two men were harming nobody and were not preventing any Muslims from worshipping God nor were they oppressing anyone. Those murderers will be judged and rightfully so.

You wouldn't kid us, now would you?

I'm too fed up with this group here to kid anyone.

Whoops, I almost forgot, the Koran DOES authorize Muslims to lie to infidels (AND cut their throats, blow them up, etc, etc) to help conquer them. Hmmm...

Really? O-kay, let's have those ayahs and Surahs and I'll explain them to you, AGAIN.

And while we're at it, give me the definition of an 'infidel'.

juggy4711
05-26-2012, 19:49
Really? O-kay, let's have those ayahs and Surahs and I'll explain them to you, AGAIN.

And while we're at it, give me the definition of an 'infidel'.

It wouldn't matter what the correct translation of anything was. Christians seem to be experts at telling others that can read things in the original language what it actually means.

Paul7
05-26-2012, 20:46
It wouldn't matter what the correct translation of anything was. Christians seem to be experts at telling others that can read things in the original language what it actually means.

I would rather he explain them to Muslim Jihadists. It is irrelevant what you, me, or Akil think a verse means, violent Jihadists are committing crimes in the name of Islam every day. As I've asked before, even if Akil is right that there is absolutely no justification in the Koran for these things (let's close our eyes to the word and deed of Muhammed for a minute) and it is just a bunch of nuts, why does Islam have way more nuts than all other religions put together?

The Koran has already been interpreted, it's called Sharia Law, which is about gender apartheid, among other outrages.

Paul7
05-26-2012, 21:03
And while we're at it, give me the definition of an 'infidel'.

"Infidel is an English language word commonly used to translate the equivalent Arabic language word for non-Muslims; kafir, literally the one who "covers", is usually translated as "disbeliever"; i.e. in English translations of the Quranic verse, 109:1"

http://www.truthdig.com/images/diguploads/verses.html

"On almost every page, the Koran instructs observant Muslims to despise nonbelievers. On almost every page, it prepares the ground for religious conflict. Anyone who can read passages like those quoted above and still not see a link between Muslim faith and Muslim violence should probably consult a neurologist."

juggy4711
05-26-2012, 21:38
I would rather he explain them to Muslim Jihadists. It is irrelevant what you, me, or Akil think a verse means, violent Jihadists are committing crimes in the name of Islam every day. As I've asked before, even if Akil is right that there is absolutely no justification in the Koran for these things (let's close our eyes to the word and deed of Muhammed for a minute) and it is just a bunch of nuts, why does Islam have way more nuts than all other religions put together?

The Koran has already been interpreted, it's called Sharia Law, which is about gender apartheid, among other outrages.

Because Islam has not undergone the reformation that Christianity/Judaism has. I though I had been pretty clear in that regard. Doesn't change the fact that it is completely ridiculous for you to think that you understand OT scripture better than Jewish Rabbis do.

Paul7
05-27-2012, 08:25
Because Islam has not undergone the reformation that Christianity/Judaism has. I though I had been pretty clear in that regard.

And it will not, IMHO. Where do you see the Koran being criticized? That's a good way to be beheaded.

BTW, the change in Christianity was not from a reinterpretation of the NT, but getting back to Jesus' teaching. He harmed nobody. The 'prophet' certainly did.

Doesn't change the fact that it is completely ridiculous for you to think that you understand OT scripture better than Jewish Rabbis do.

Jesus Christ wrote OT scriptures, my interpretation is the same as His.

Akil8290
05-27-2012, 09:08
It wouldn't matter what the correct translation of anything was. Christians seem to be experts at telling others that can read things in the original language what it actually means.

I wouldn't say that Christians in general are; the Christians that I encounter here that do those things aren't typical to the ones I meet in person.

But, yes, you are right to a degree. A shining example of such is Paul giving me the definition of infidel, which he has altered to fit his definition, no matter how misinformed he may be.

Akil8290
05-27-2012, 09:24
"Infidel is an English language word commonly used to translate the equivalent Arabic language word for non-Muslims; kafir, literally the one who "covers", is usually translated as "disbeliever"; i.e. in English translations of the Quranic verse, 109:1"

Surah 109 reads as follows:

"Say: O ye
That reject Faith!

I worship not that
Which ye worship,

Nor will ye worship
That which I worship,

And I will not worship
That which ye have been
Wont to worship,

Nor will ye worship
That which I worship

To you be your Way,
And to me mine."

Surah 109 Al Kafirun (Those Who Reject Faith)
The Holy Qur'an (Abdullah Yusuf Ali translation)

Infidel is defined as anyone who does not believe in the God of Abraham; Jews and Christians do not fit this description, as they, like Muslims, worship the God of Abraham. When terms such as 'unbeliever', 'infidel' and less common in English translations of the Qur'an, 'kafir', appear in the Qur'an it is in reference to the Pagans who occupied the Arabian peninsula at the time of The Prophet. Kafir means one who rejects God; Jews and Christians have never been kafirs. So when you report that Muslims are attacking Christians and this is justified in the Qur'an as "slaying the infidel", you are so wrong its not even funny.

http://www.truthdig.com/images/diguploads/verses.html

"On almost every page, the Koran instructs observant Muslims to despise nonbelievers. On almost every page, it prepares the ground for religious conflict. Anyone who can read passages like those quoted above and still not see a link between Muslim faith and Muslim violence should probably consult a neurologist."

This is right out the Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and The Crusades by Robert Spencer. Come on, Paul, at least be original.

Paul7
05-27-2012, 20:17
This is right out the Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and The Crusades by Robert Spencer. Come on, Paul, at least be original.

You may have a problem with Robert Spencer, I don't. The quotation marks give it away that it wasn't me saying that.

Akil8290
05-27-2012, 20:53
You may have a problem with Robert Spencer, I don't. The quotation marks give it away that it wasn't me saying that.

Of course you don't have a problem with Spencer; you're quoting him as if what he says has merit. Some even consider him an Islamic scholar, which is laughable to epic proportions. I've read The Politically Incorrect Guide To Islam (And The Crusades) and if it wasn't such an offensive, one-sided and a gross misrepresentation of Islam, I would've found it humorous. Sad, but humorous. If you're thinking of reading any of his other abominations such as The Complete Infidels' Guide to the Koran, don't bother; its simply more of the same slanted view, but just focused primarily on the scriptures rather than the Prophet and din.

The point is I'm having a conversation with you; not Robert Spencer. I want your own view points on Islam, the Prophet and Muslims; not Spencer's. If I wanted more of Spencer's myopic perspective, I'd pop over to the Huffington Post and read his blogs or even engage him in discussion in an open forum there. You ought to do your own research and come to your own conclusions; not piggy back off of the likes of DonGlock26, snowbird or Robert Spencer. I was once told to not let have anyone tell me what's in the Qur'an, rather to read it for myself and decide what it says to me. I'm passing this sage advice onto you.

Just curious, Paul; do you own a Qur'an or have you at least ever physically read from one? Because, the ayahs and Surahs you post on here, for example the most recent Surah 109, clearly are not taken from ANY Qur'an directly; they are butchered and obviously edited by a person with a bias towards Islam.

Paul7
05-27-2012, 20:55
Of course you don't have a problem with Spencer; you're quoting him as if what he says has merit. Some even consider him an Islamic scholar, which is laughable to epic proportions. I've read The Politically Incorrect Guide To Islam (And The Crusades) and if it wasn't such an offensive, one-sided and a gross misrepresentation of Islam, I would've found it humorous. Sad, but humorous. If you're thinking of reading any of his other abominations such as The Complete Infidels' Guide to the Koran, don't bother; its simply more of the same slanted view, but just focused primarily on the scriptures rather than the Prophet and din.

The point is I'm having a conversation with you; not Robert Spencer. I want your own view points on Islam, the Prophet and Muslims; not Spencer's. If I wanted more of Spencer's myopic perspective, I'd pop over to the Huffington Post and read his blogs or even engage him in discussion in an open forum there. You ought to do your own research and come to your own conclusions; not piggy back off of the likes of DonGlock26, snowbird or Robert Spencer. I was once told to not let have anyone tell me what's in the Qur'an, rather to read it for myself and decide what it says to me. I'm passing this sage advice onto you.

Just curious, Paul; do you own a Qur'an or have you at least ever physically read from one? Because, the ayahs and Surahs you post on here, for example the most recent Surah 109, clearly are not taken from ANY Qur'an directly; they are butchered and obviously edited by a person with a bias towards Islam.

Since you asked the question, why don't you tell me what an infidel is. Not that your definition matters to the several hundred Christians being slaughtered daily for being one.

Akil8290
05-27-2012, 21:16
Since you asked the question, why don't you tell me what an infidel is. Not that your definition matters to the several hundred Christians being slaughtered daily for being one.

I'll answer the question, but I will point out how you completely skipped over what I just asked you.

An infidel is one who does not believe in God; not a Jew or a Christian. Furthermore, simply being an infidel does not mean they should be killed; the Qur'an is very specific in which Muslims can make war with unbelievers. There is no Islamic justification for killing someone for simply being what they are; believer or unbeliever. As for the so called "Muslims" who are murdering Christians for being Christians, they will be judged by God for those sins and rightfully so.

juggy4711
05-27-2012, 21:30
And it will not, IMHO. Where do you see the Koran being criticized? That's a good way to be beheaded.

BTW, the change in Christianity was not from a reinterpretation of the NT, but getting back to Jesus' teaching. He harmed nobody. The 'prophet' certainly did.

Jesus Christ wrote OT scriptures, my interpretation is the same as His.

I criticize the Koran and so do you on a fairly regular basis. We both still have our heads judging by the fact we keep posting here.

Wait let me get this straight. Jesus wrote the OT? :rofl: Your need to believe has caused you to make a damn fool of yourself. News flash. Jesus didn't even write the NT much less the OT.

Paul7
05-30-2012, 13:08
I criticize the Koran and so do you on a fairly regular basis. We both still have our heads judging by the fact we keep posting here.

Wait let me get this straight. Jesus wrote the OT? :rofl: Your need to believe has caused you to make a damn fool of yourself.

Pot, meet kettle.

News flash. Jesus didn't even write the NT much less the OT.

Jesus Christ, being God, inspired both testaments.

2 Timothy 3:16 states that “All scripture is inspired by God….” In 2 Peter 1:20-21, Peter says, “know this first of all, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, … but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.”

Tilley
05-30-2012, 17:30
I'll answer the question, but I will point out how you completely skipped over what I just asked you.

An infidel is one who does not believe in God; not a Jew or a Christian. Furthermore, simply being an infidel does not mean they should be killed; the Qur'an is very specific in which Muslims can make war with unbelievers. There is no Islamic justification for killing someone for simply being what they are; believer or unbeliever. As for the so called "Muslims" who are murdering Christians for being Christians, they will be judged by God for those sins and rightfully so.

Hi Akil. I wish you could preach this message to the Islamic Extremists.

void *
05-30-2012, 17:41
the Qur'an is very specific in which Muslims can make war with unbelievers. There is no Islamic justification for killing someone for simply being what they are; believer or unbeliever.

What are the specific conditions? I'm kind of interested in seeing what the actual quotes/context is.

(To me, it looks a whole lot like some people are potentially reading/interpreting one way, and others another. Kind of like how around the civil war era various people used a particular religious text as both support and condemnation for slavery).

Akil8290
05-30-2012, 19:19
Hi Akil. I wish you could preach this message to the Islamic Extremists.

If I ever meet some, I will. Of course, I will make sure to have my Colt 6720 handy just in case the message isn't appreciated.

Akil8290
05-30-2012, 19:41
What are the specific conditions? I'm kind of interested in seeing what the actual quotes/context is.

(To me, it looks a whole lot like some people are potentially reading/interpreting one way, and others another. Kind of like how around the civil war era various people used a particular religious text as both support and condemnation for slavery).

War in Islam is only allowed if waged in a defensive effort. Fiqh, Islamic jurisprudence, is very specific in how war must be waged. Examples would be:

-No harming innocent civilians, unless they pose a threat.
-No harming domesticated animals or live stock, unless they pose a threat.
-No destruction of residential housing, schools, religious buildings and sites.
-No destruction of cultivated lands (trees, crops).
-No poisoning of wells; in present day this equates to tampering with water supplies and/or use of biological weapons.
-Only can be waged by an official military of the Islamic state and can only be in a defensive effort.

There are also other provisions such as not beginning hostilities and caring for and protecting prisoners of war as if they were your own men.

Surah 2:190:

"Fight in the cause of Allah
Those who fight you,
But do not transgress limits;
For Allah loveth not transgressors."

Surah 2:191:

"And slay them
Wherever ye catch them,
And turn them out,
For where they have
Turned ye out;
For tumult and oppression
are worse than slaughter;
But fight them not
At the Sacred Mosque,
Unless they (first)
Fight you there;
But if they fight you,
Slay them.
Such is a reward
For those who supress Faith."

Surah 2:192:

"But if they cease,
Allah is Oft-Forgiving,
Most Merciful."

Surah 2:193:

"And fight them on
Until there is no more
Tumult or oppression,
And there prevail
Justice and faith in Allah;
But if they cease,
Let there be no hostility
Except to those
Who practise oppression."

The Holy Qur'an, Abdullah Yusuf Ali translation

juggy4711
05-30-2012, 22:53
Pot, meet kettle.

Jesus Christ, being God, inspired both testaments.

2 Timothy 3:16 states that “All scripture is inspired by God….” In 2 Peter 1:20-21, Peter says, “know this first of all, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, … but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.”

Wait I thought JC was the son of God born well after the OT was written. Now I see how that whole trinity thing comes in handy. Quite convenient. Can't wait to see what NT scripture you post, translated in error from a language you can't read or speak, into another language you can't read or speak, finally into a language you have limited grasp of, that somehow proves your point.

Paul7
05-31-2012, 12:46
Wait I thought JC was the son of God born well after the OT was written.

Jesus Christ incarnate as man, yes. Jesus Christ the third person of the trinity has always existed, and will always exist.

Maybe you should stop running from Him?