islam, the religion of love...
 

This is a Saudi textbook. (After the intolerance was removed.) - washingtonpost.com

And some people claim that Western imperialism is the cause...

If one reads the Kuran carefully, one will notice that the book cleary calls for the elimination of non muslims. So does the Bible for Jews and Christians, and it's true. However, both the folllowers of these religions - for the most part - have put aside their book and used reason.

With their access to modern weapons, Islam truly is a scary religion.

Or is it just a handful of extremists?

Read: selectively; ultraconservatively.

Fanatics and the ignorant are too easily ready to use text for their own ends. Specific religion doesn't matter as much as education. Unfortunately, with ultraconservatives controlling state institutions, and vocal Imams playing politics by condemning the West, ignorance is rampant in the middle east right now.

Are you joking. Do you know any Muslims? Do you know how popular the religion is and how many followers there are? Do you know that most practicing Muslims (and when I say "most," it's the vast majority) are completely benign individuals who worship without hate?

Now. Do you know how many Christians in the United States alone spew a lot of doublespeak hate talk?

I apologize in advance if this post seems hostile. I am just absolutely SICK of people judging an otherwise peaceful religion based on a few crazies.

I'd just like to say that I'm laughing at the "BEAUTIFUL MUSLIM SINGLES FOR MATRIMONY" ad at the bottom of the page. Especially since the woman in the picture is wearing a headscarf.

Well, if she wasn't wearing a scarf, she wouldn't be beautiful.

She'd be a filthy, unmarriageable whore who must be stoned.

There's an arab girl (black American muslim) in my International Law class who doesn't care much for Israel. It's pretty funny.

The End of Faith - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reason trumps belief. We've been conversationally tolerant long enough. Etc.

And once all the rage of internet atheists is coalesced no force will be able to stop the intellectual prowess of thousands of skinny white guys. Certainly no god (which doesn't even exist).

But if it is HER FREE choice to wear one; who are you to judge?

There were alot of gals at my university who wore them happily; you just don't notice after a while.

Sikhs wear turbans. Jews the Kippah; so why people can't get over a woman wearing a religious article oh my God they must be opressed.

Those aren't the best examples. Sikhs have also run into trouble from secular society due to their headgear fetish (for example Sikhs working in construction who refuse to wear hardhats because they'd have to take their turbans off).

The ceremonial daggers are also problematic.

And Brady can get as bent out of shape as he wants, but at the end of the day, we all know he's as frustrated as any of us by religious zealotry. And probably more than the rest of us when it comes to religion mingling with politics.

(P.S. Since when am I skinny?)

Actually yes, in many cases that's exactly what's happening.

Turbans and Kippahs aren't even remotely comparable to common Islamic female dresscode since they aren't designed to hide gender-specific features.

man beaten so hard on this

Additional Spam:
I'm certainly no fan.

At the same time, hardline literature is precisely what helps stoke the fires of fanaticism. If previous religious revivals were initiated due to the onsaught of people drinking a lot or not going to church what do you think will happen if atheists re-ignite the culture war?

You see the same problem in leftist intellectualism and its relation to politics. Regardless of any objective "correctness" the reality is that a lot of activists are highly condescending, which helped generate the kind of conservative backlash that put Nixon and Bush into office.

Can we just bring up female circumcision, nazis and how 9/11 was all Islam's fault right now? Just so when it comes up later no one will have to feign shock that someone dared do it?

I just think it's easier this way.

I actually was going to bring up female circumcision and how the aforementioned arab girl thought that granting asylum to a girl and her family based on fears of female genital mutilation was bunk, but I felt it would be too complicated for the argument I was going to attempt to make about determining consent.

Opportunity lost. :(

Show up to school one day driving a SAAB, wearing a yamaka and a t-shirt that says "REPPING FOR JUDEN."

Offer her a ride.

Film the results.

So have women in Turkey, its a huge national issue over there, theres been riots and protests since Turkey turned secular.

I have studied Ethinic Minorities and Law with one of the best professors literally in the Uk and possibly the World this year as one of my 4 core Law modules and I know the shit these people take. In regards to Sikhs, its a lack of common sense and in the UK many cases have gone to court and won on the grounds of racial discriminition or Art. 9 of the ECHR. The point is with women and headscarves its a different type of prejudice alltogether.

In regards to Women headscarves its been utter shite some of the stuff UK politicians, the press and the general attitude of the public. Look at the English case of Sabina Begum v SB Denbigh Highschool, it was overturned TWICE on appeal. Just because she herself wanted to wear the Jilbab (covers body) she was thrown out of school because the other children and teachers 'found her a bit scary'. The case is one of the biggest bollocks I've seen in the past 10 years, and seeing the Judge's backtrack due to the negative Muslim coverage in the press in regards to the said case was shameful.

Point is if she wants as a woman to express her religion through her free choice of wearing those clothes, who are Judges and uneducated persons to turn around and say oh she's opressed, or oh she doesn't or cannot fit into our society, oh she can't become a functioning member of our society.

In the UK a woman was denied a hairdressers job becuase she wore a headscarve, the propestive employer told it straight to her face. As such they were fined £5000 and rightly so. It simply had nothing to do with her ability to cut hair. And that it simply highlights the negative attitude that these poor woman suffer due to others prejudices or fixed minds.

However in the Uk we become tolerant for example in the 70's we have specific acts to allow the slaughter of animals (halal and Kosher), carrying of ceremonial daggers, changes in traffic laws etc..

Problem is it makes life easier for minorities but still doesn't change our attitude.

The fact is you even think the word Sharia over here and it sparks negative press, wthout people actually being Educated on Sharia law. The fact is the stupid press keep quiet of the Sharia Law thats already in our Legal system thanks to case precedent.

She's honestly a smart girl and the class is the better for the kind of issues she raises but the whole problem is the bias and how it completely dominates her worldview and ISRAELAPARTHEIDMASSMURDERHOLOCAUST

Damn those activist judges, presuming that an article of clothing which makes you a formless non-entity could be de-humanizing or indoctrinal.

Well I've studied Anthropology at some of the top universities in the world, with some of the top professors in the field and I can tell you: No, you really don't.

Want to keep the academic pissing contest going or can we move on with our lives now?

You've offered some examples of what are obviously overreactions by people towards Islam.

But you know what's just as stupid and dangerous? Assuming you have a full grasp of thousands of years of history, religion and belief because you took some classes on law.

Blanket acceptance is just as idiotic as blind rejection.

EDIT FOR BRADY

It's the danger of a belief in anything, really. Once you wholeheartedly buy into any given system, be it secular or religious, you're generally cutting off certain logical options.

In summation:

Grow a set of those dangly hair thingies the rabbis rock and look into learning the Israeli national anthem.

By definition anyone whose life is defined so strongly by their beliefs as to tell them how to dress is necessarily an outsider in society. Of course we shouldn't discriminate against them, but we don't need to. They discriminate against themselves by their decision to knowingly appear alien. Their choices make it difficult or impossible for them to "fit into society" because (like it or not) a society is and must be defined by something more than "let's be tolerant of everybody". Sure, people have the right to wear what they want... but at the same time don't you think I'd get some funny looks if I went to work every day in a toga and a top hat? Do you think my boss would like that very much? Oh, I could sue for the right to go to work in my toga and top hat, and I might even win, but — I could also just get over myself and wear appropriate clothing in the style common to wherever I live. Otherwise I'll always be "that toga guy", moaning about how people treat him like he's weird or something! Of course I'm weird! I'm wearing a fucking toga! I'm wearing a full-body burlap sack in the middle of a California summer in a society where naked people appear frequently on billboards!

Absolutely. One of the main things fueling the current American revival in conservative Christianity is the notion that they're somehow being oppressed, and every stamp-out-the-loonies book and editorial just gives them more fuel for that delusional fire. While the notion that kooks shouldn't have to be tolerated is a valid one, it's flatly impossible by definition to reduce extremism via a zero-tolerance policy. Persecution (or the appearance of persecution) strengthens cult behavior.

But they are being oppressed, Pang. They've only had 43 Presidents be of their faith. And though that might seem impressive from a percentage standpoint, it's absolutely horrific when you think of it in terms of a number.

I mean 43 is a lot less than a million.

And that's terrifying.

Oh, most of those Presidents weren't really Christians, Deni. Not Real True Christians. One of them was even a Papist, don'tcha know.

No President will be a Real Christian in the eyes of the modern fundamentalist movement until he deploys troops specifically to secure the Temple Mount for Israel (at which point the Messiah may return to Earth and the Saved will be raptured, yes lord god jesus amen).

Overraction isn't just the problem, its a lack of willing self education.

People always put personal law into the unoffical sphere. They don't think wearing a headscarve for example as a personal law, rather a mere cultural practice. Same goes for Sharia Law, the stuff always finds itself into the system so why not do it properly rather than sweep it under the rug.

Whats wrong with a controlled blanket acceptance, you either have a type 1 model which we have in the UK of a Uniform law with granted exceptions. (This doesn't work at all amd is highly discriminatory). Or you have a type 2 Ballard model whereby you allow the use of codified personal laws into the uniform and make futher exceptions on a cases by case basis. The problem is things like Sharia are a political no no, so its not even considered. For example rules governing Talaq are very important.

There is one thing that holds true, any state never discriminates or opresses against a Muslim because they are Muslim. They do it because they refuse to assimilate into the states official system. The same goes for most of you people.

You're being smarmy, but when Earth 2 happens, I'm going to be chillaxing on a beach that's almost exactly (but not quite) the South of France and you'll be burning in hell for using sarcasm about our Lord's return and the rapture.

Or in some sort of mass void of nothingness.

The scripture is a little vague on that.

But it is clear on being anti-fag. Sorry half of GFF. :(

Some of them were even Deists!

This nation was founded on the notion that God is not an active universal participant! VOTE SECESSION

They knew what would happen when they chose to be gay.

Your currant av and sig combination makes your political motivations suspect, Mr. Lama.

Soviet-era propaganda posters are badass is my motivation.

The best ones are the posters that tell people to smoke cigarettes with the sex appeal of 20 Marlboro men and then the ones that came out in the 50's telling people not to smoke.

Until you can show me a picture of Joe Camel working for the good of the people, I won't be impressed.

A Soviet Poster A Day
http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h3...cigarettes.jpg
http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h3...ama/Pachka.jpg
http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h38/Bradylama/226.jpg
http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h38/Bradylama/169.jpg
Caption: "Everyone Smokes!"

http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h3...ylama/1940.jpg
"Tobacco is a poison. Quit smoking!"

My favorite poster, conceptually, is this one:

While Lenin was out hanging Kulaks, Russia still needed foreign investment. So Armand Hammer, convinces Lenin to let him develop some lucrative oil and coal interests. What he was most famous for, though, was building a pencil factory that produced high quality pencils. So here you have a Leninist-era poster celebrating the efforts of an American capitalist in the education of young Bolsheviks. :psyduck:

Going back to the OP.

I can read newspaper articles too.

Huh? Have you even read the Qur'an? No it doesn't; its not some death book. What most people don't realise it actually details ancient wars, which most extremist fags think its fine to do recreate in our current day and age. These child suicide bombers are brainwashed into thinking they are doing God's work when really they are serving a fanatic's twisted fantasy. The Qu'ran doesn't say bomb, murder or pilage; God has reserved pre-planned punishments for those that do. The fact is people don't understand the true meaning and the historical context of the use of Jihad which is very different to what the Fanatics say it means in todays times. of course it has somethings which are outdated and deplorable (stuff which alot of Muslim countries have stopped the practice of), but people allow the small stuff to cloud the image of the big picture.

Alot of the Qur'an tells you how to practice being a Muslim i.e how to worship God (the 5 pillars) and how one should behave to get into heaven. It tells you right from wrong, which unfortunately the extremists a) ignore and b) re interpret for their means.

Most people don't even know that it considers Jesus a prophet and Adam the first Man with Eve his spouse.

Nearly everything about Armand Hammer is fucking ridiculous, honestly

Well, yes. Because they choose to make themselves stand out, they are easy to discriminate (To distinguish by noting differences). So long as their behavior is easily distinguished from the behavior of the culture they are integrating into, they will provoke resistance. This is ordinary human behavior. If you attempt to become a member of Tribe B while still acting like a member of Tribe A — why, of course Tribe B will resent you. They will say amongst themselves What does this A-Tribesman want from us? He only intends to steal the bounty of our hunt and take it back to Tribe A!

Or, for another example, let's think of a library. A library exists for the purpose of reading books (or checking out books and reading them elsewhere). Therefore, if you have no interest in books, you should not be at a library — and if you have no interest in Western culture, you shouldn't live in a Western nation. This is why the world is divided into nations in the first place; irreconcilable cultural differences.

You are joking right. Since when do they choose to make themselves stand out. Your right they should all convert to Christianity and take a dose of their 'shut the fuck up' medicine. For example if they come to intergrate into British culture, what the fuck is British culture? Because I'm British and I can't define it. You don't have to have an interest in western culture to live in the Western World, I know I don't. Plus what is Western culture where does the western World begin and end? How do you define it? Or are you simpy defining it as anti - Muslim?

Ahh the ol' 'if you don't like it why don't you go back home argument'. Rosa Parks should have pissed off back to Africa if she didn't like standing on the Bus.To this day that is one of the most primative arguments I have ever heard from many a folk. As an extreme example being gay could be noted a cultural change it was literally illegal in the UK as buggery was illegal so should they have moved somewhere else. Look at Jews and Muslims should they have gone home if they couldn't slaughter meat in line with their religion? Should Sikhs go home because they can't wear the Turban in Turkey? No you provide resistence, you complain, you protest for change. That is why the law is changed for a better more equal and tolerant society. And it will again in the future as Muslims vote too ya know. Problem is hypocrite people who state they are all for acceptance but utter the word Jilbab or Sharia and they run a mile. Even the state is guilty in the Uk we have the HRA 1998 art.14 and art.9 but you can probably wipe your arse with them. The main issue I feel is people nor politicians like Muslims arguing for change and thats quite shameful and I guarantee 99% is down to a lack of education in regards to what they are really protesting for.

Why aren't New York and Alabama different countries rather than states in the nation of America I'm sure they have cultural differences? I don't like your argument even more because what your saying means you cannot be Muslim, English and British at the same time. Your simply Muslim because you cannot accept parts of British culture but we'll give you a passport anyway. I know folks who are Muslim BUT consider themselves to be British. Should they just go home because they don't like Britain's stance on Sharia? Who says nations are divided simply by cultural differences. And not say over territorial land disputes, Look at China and Taiwan, Kashmir, the Islands outside of Japan and Korea. Looking at culture is too simplistic (what is culture is it a lifestyle, religious practice, personal law, or postulate), you also have race which splits into colour, nationality, nationhood (distinct) as other examples of dividers between countries.

Mister, you give me a headache.

You can easily be Muslim and British at the same time. I am sure thousands of people do it without any trouble at all. The people who encounter conflict are those who refuse to compromise for the sake of avoiding that conflict. Why is this so hard to understand?

Let's return to the library analogy. I am a librarian. My job is to sort and distribute books while maintaining a quiet reading environment. You barge into my library, shouting and tracking mud all over the carpet, and I say "Sir, please keep quiet in the library: we prefer a peaceful environment here."

Your response is "QUIT OPPRESSING ME, FASCIST. I HAVE A RIGHT TO BE AN OBNOXIOUS JERK WHEREVER I PLEASE!"

But you don't have that right, because the library's desire to keep the peace and quiet overrules your desire to be loud and filthy. Existing Precedent Tends To Dominate. Therefore, should you wish to be welcome at the library, you should make at least a nominal effort to be quiet and literate.


Of course now you're going to say I'm calling all Muslims a bunch of mud-tracking illiterates; I'm doing no such thing but it became pretty clear you left rationality behind when you compared the historical racism of the American South with some lady who refused to take off her fucking scarf.

Hey. If you insist on using those examples, there is a difference between wearing a headscarf in public places, which you may decide to do or not to do, and being black or being gay, characteristics over which you have very little control.

Face, don't worry, in 50 years, the Mona Lisa will be burned for being idolatrous in the Great Louvre Purge under the new Caliphate of Paris.

I think a possible problem with identity is what you would put as your primary identity. For some, it is their nation, others it might race or religion, or even some other arbitrary category. Therefore, conflicts will arise when people clash over which identity they assume to be primary. There is a distinction between someone who identifies as Muslim and someone who proclaims they are a citizen of a nation and "happens to be Muslim".

in my opion not all arab agree with elimination of others,
there a lot of fanatiks in world thos fanatiks need to ban and jail to life.
there a sentence in israel "good arab is a dead arab" I disagree with that not all arab are bad arab but the arab's teach their kids to hate and that's wrong.

Oh I see great things in your future.

thanks dude

While we're on that, there's also a substantial difference between wearing a piece of cloth and ... being loud and filthy in a library. Can we provide better analogies, such as the goth couple that got chased off a bus because passengers didn't like the man dragging his girl around on a leash.

God I hate contextual ads

Islamic dress code is disruptive in more ways than mere nuisances. Teachers are supposed to be looking out for the best interest of our students and its our duty to report potential abuse. Something like the Jilbab effectively hides bruises everywhere except the hands and face.

Hijab/headscarf is equivalent to what nun wears in church, is there is difference, no.

Islam is about equality so everyone falls into one umbrella of wearing scarf[females], unlike christians where only nuns wear scarf, confined in church[feeling they are special, unequality actually].

so every muslim girl = every special nurse in layman terms.

As far as Bible goes i can point verses , and text supporting wars, killing non christians etc.

The whole issue of Islamic Book saying war is taken out of context, read it , different translations, and then make topic.
[just like there are 200 versions of bible, not a single one in original language, also the word trinity is selfmade word, not present in original old testament as well as new testament].

get the old version form museums since latest version can be fabricated for presnt ignorant generation like you.

But my point is see how it is now become basic for evry christian, triniy concept i mean, a word created by not Prophet of religion but a man.

remember in this age of information warfare, you are likely to get more misinformation than real facts.
People just become victim of consensus reality, too ignorant to rectify the source.

Cehck the source and compare if you want real meaning of what Book says, check source with multiple translations to see if someone has created error or not, because people who spoil image of other religions[be it anyone] have normally different 'agendas'.

Arabic is really complex language,complex grammar, there are 50+ names just for snake.

There are multiple meanings of many words taken[out of context] by many christiany missionaries, while translating, just to well complete their mission.

Not all catholic women dress like nuns.

Becoming a nun is also a conscious decision. Being muslim is the default for the majority of Islamic women. The consent involved in covering yourself as a muslim has as much to do with where you live as who you live with.

Becoming a nun, thats the problem there.

Islamic doesnt teach you to become people of different status, evry muslim falls under one roof of principle , be it any practice, irrespective of status,color,height,breed etc.

Becoming nun actually puts you in different status.
Nuns are like , giving life to religion, by makng a decision.

For accepting islam you give life to religion, by making a decision of becoming muslim, not acheive status, but become equal to all humanbeings, yes equal to even nonmuslims.


How much faith and sacrifice are you willing to give for religion?

Christians decide that by becoming priests and nuns, and rest of the crop do everything what the want in the wake of original sin.

Drinking alcohol, having sex out of wedlock, eating pork etc all things Jesus said to avoid.

Why to become nun to avoid that?

It ,means you become 'right' or 'true' christian only when you become nun or preist?

No, it doesn't mean that at all.

And by "different status" do you mean things like codified gender roles which place men and women on unequal status by default?

Who would have guessed, someone named Sexninja is a complete fucking idiot.

No, you don't become a "proper" christian by being a nun. You become an ascetic by becoming a nun. A sub-category of a religion. You don't need it to be christian, it's an extreme choice that is offered to people who desire to follow it.

Please read a book before you speak. At least one. Please.

Also, Fernando, you're ridiculously outclassed here. Just stop thrashing about. People argue logic, and you set your dial to 11 and start screaming in a disgustingly reactionary manner. Enough.

You can't just interweave two cultures with opposing value systems with the magic of tolerance. Just because you want to push your idiotic university liberal bullshit doesn't mean intelligent people need to pretend like it makes sense. It doesn't. Not everyone can be accepted into a given society. You can't simply blend different cultures that don't have the ability to be blended. You're being an ethnocentric git if you think for one second that anyone can simply become involved with anyone else so long as there is tolerance. No. The state apparatus exists as an entity created by the whole of the people who support it. It has certain doctrines and beliefs that are integral to its worldview. And you can't just squash another culture into it that has a completely alien worldview. It doesn't work that way. It has never worked that way. It shouldn't work that way.

No one here is saying you can't be Muslim AND something else. What people are saying is that if people come to a new country, though small concessions must be made by the state, the burden of changing one's perspective is on the immigrant. You don't leave Iran to become Iranian in America. You leave Iran to become an American-Iranian. There are clashing value systems, and you can't just magic those away with tolerance.

Please stop being a reactionary twit and think before you speak. It'd do you wonders.

So by your logic, it should be totally ok for me to move to Iran and open a pub and lapdancing club right? They'd be totally opressing me when they came to behead me.

Who created this subcategory?
where Jesus said this, point me the text said by Jesus himself.

Extreme choice offered by who?
again where Jesus said this?

Its all selfmade stuff, not words of Prophet himself.


Enlghten me please.


Also, why such categories exist?With time religion being altered to suit oneself?
So many sects so many fundamentals?
Why to call it religion then when its so elastic?

Why your morals, ethics differ that from nun?
Why such juxtapositions?

I know people who like to bang evry chick and treat women as objects, and call themselves chritians and tainted.

I asked what tainted means, they say Jesus has taken all sins to himself and died for his race, so his race can do sins indiscriminately, the so called original sin conept, so i have to say man this religion is really dynamic for you, and good for you.

Though i dont believe it.
I have read all Holy books, multiple translations, actual textbooks from various sources[not google/wikipedia workof], and i am student of comparitive religion, be it hebrew or hindu scriptures evrything, and i dont believe in anything except what all Prophets said themselves, and have faith in all books , though i know where with time selfappointed priests have altered the texts.

So i dont believe things put by ppl only believe things said by Prophets and one should try to do that.

And you know the worst person on earth is said to be hitler, he was hitler too, so who is extreme in this case , muslim?

Do you know rape rate for US?

In every two minutes one woman is raped, and then compare it to islamic states.

But why would you , women are objects , no?
Facial cums, bukake, drinking urine, this is your worth of women?
And when some society renders policy to keep the humans civil and less animal , they get blamed for
less liberal.

Scarf is for women own safety purposes, if you are going to show stuff to world dominated by men, they will attack you naturally.

Malaysia hs rendered new policy of less makeup and lighter lipsticks, and no high heels.

These policies help building more civil society for women.Women are not objects but equal to men in
Islam.

and btw, sexninja is online ID , dont take it personally and even if you are literal, in evry religion sex is lawful as long as. it is within wedlock.

Additional Spam:
"And you know the worst person on earth is said to be hitler, he was christian too[correct me if i am wrong], so who is extreme in this case , muslim?"


P.S=Edit isnt working, the page isn't showing edit option.

This post.

It is incredible.

holy shit

My friend, while i believe that none of you have the personal experience to even be allowed to talk about this whole immigration and religion abuse topic, this sentence right here puts your credibility so far down that even Ron Jeremy's dick wont reach you.

That may be the funniest damn thing I've ever read on here. "NOTHING BAD HAPPENS IN ISLAMIC COUNTRIES."

Hilarious.

It doesn't count as rape if there's a mercy killing. http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h3...gf-colbert.gif

They call it "restoring the honor of her family".

really? What other senses can we make out of ''a man lying with a man as with a woman is an abomination; they shoudl be killed''? and the several passages calling for the utter massacre of people not believing in the right god? and the ones calling for the women to be quiet and submit to their husbands? and, in the kuran, the ones calling for a hloy war against infidels?

And, although i know not MOST muslims are likely to blow themselves up, there are still far too many people willing to kill in the name of god.

Finally, if what i read is true, most terrorists and suicide bombers are fairly educated; dfoesn't bin-laden have an engineering degree?

Al Jazeera English - Asia-Pacific - Pope to apologise for sex scandals

"The group says more than 50 Australian """""priests"""""" and brothers have been prosecuted for sexual crimes."


Al Jazeera English - Asia-Pacific - Pope meets sex abuse victims

"Pope to apologise for "sex" scandal"

Catholic sex abuse cases - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NationMaster - Rapes (per capita) (most recent) by country





So even the holy places aren't safe, in countries that are sane and developed, where literacy rate is even high.

what makes one animal then?


Church is scary place , no?
Not safe anymore, watch out for priests.

Stop posting.

Sexninja, I know you're trying to defend Islam in your posts here, and I can understand that, but the best way for you to defend Islam from here on out is to not say anything else. You see, when you say things, the things you say are stupid, and do nothing to help Islam in any way. Nor does it help anything else, other than reinforcing the impression that you're an idiot. In fact, your saying things serves to tarnish Islam by association with you.

So if you truly care about Islam, turn around, walk out of the thread, and never come back.

Yes. Those passages do exist. They comprise a small minority of the total text. That is what is meant by "selectively".

Who is defending, merely pointing out that first rectify flaws in your own religion and your own society before sweating for others.

Oh, nobody's sweating at all, pointing out that your views are helplessly ignorant and mind-numbingly retarded is a pretty simple thing to do.

Blah is right, and I'll add to it:

Christianity isn't a state. We don't have a christian state. I'm not religious, a lot of people arguing with you aren't religious. We're people who have a problem with a lot of religion, we're just able to spot the especially idiotic ones from a non-biased perspective.

What would you do if it turns out a bunch of us are Islamic?

There's a fair old amount of that shit in the Old Testament too. Remember how God wiped out Sodom and Gomorrah just because the guys there enjoyed a bit of bum fun and swinging now and then?

Smiting and massacres were the in thing back in the days when most religious texts were written and the authors would obviously want to play to their audience. Suggesting that God would like you to enter into a civilised discourse and schedule some meetings to reconcile your differences with your enemies to a 12th Century warlord is unlikely to have got you a new monastry so the religious types spread happy tales of fire and brimstone. Even when the Christians revised their policy with the happy-clapping New Testament, they still left in the old stuff and still managed to engineer an excuse to pillaging in the Holy Lands. I'm sure the percentage of Muslims who choose to interpret the writings of the Qu'ran as an excuse to blow people up and shit is comperable to the percentage of Christians who use the Bible as an excuse to set fire to gays.

I guess you are trying to do a nice thing, but you should know that "rape" doesnt really mean anything in middle east. Women that go to the police without their husband very very rarely get any help. If anything they'll just go home, get beaten and then cook food.

Just because you live in Iran, doesnt make you a full blown muslim. So even if Islam is peacefull it doesn't suddenly make everyone super nice and nice.

Im not talking out of my ass either, my parents immigrated to Sweden, I grew up facing everyday racism and never fitting in. Later I moved back to Iran, lived in the ghettos of Tehran, saw the good and the bad. The hateful and the friendly.

So please, stop trying to defend something you know shit about, you are embaressing us.

Every religion tells us to be good and kind to others. Of course there are times when people wage war to each other for the sake of their religion. Which religion is right? Which one is wrong?

For me, the people are always right. War are wage mostly because the leader 'wants' to carve his name in the history book. Glory. Never in the heart of people wanting to kill each other.

If there is a person ask you to hurt somebody. Ignore this person. If religion ask you to kill another, ignore this religion. We do not need casualty in every conflicts. I believe that people can avoid war through negotiation only if the representatives are thinking for the sake of the people not for the sake of one race.

Nowadays, it seems like Islam is not a religion of peace but is it true? I never see an Islamic country suddenly attack another country. Islamic country are passive. Counterattack after being attacked but then labeled as the one who attacks first. This I do not understand.

See Israel who attacks Palestine first. See America who attacks Iraq first. Most of us still remember 9/11, strangely; no Israeli were hurt in that accident. Why is that?

According to this, you're old enough to have seen Iraq "suddenly attack" Kuwait.

Did... he just say Israel was responsible for the attacks on 9/11? Wow.

Someone dropped a lot of pennies.

Let's not oversimplify religion here. They all "tell us to be good", sure, but I'm sure you would disagree with the "good" called for in classical Islamic law. Of course, none of the Muslims I know (~2) follow or want to follow classical Islamic law--just like no Catholic really reads the catechisms of the church. That's not to say that Islam and Catholicism have equally 'modern' values. Most Muslims in the West are only a few generations away from poorer societies with more traditional values. This carries over into their lives but is generally being lost in the next generation--it really depends. The biggest mistake that people make is trying to pretend there is a "true Islam". It's idiocy to believe that the sources of Islam only have one meaning especially when it's not something you believe in. All kinds of Muslims interpret it differently and pretending that you are Muslim so you believe X is ... well, wrong. And it's just as stupid when liberal folks say "Islam is a religion of peace". For some it is. For some it's not. It's really not that hard... you don't need to make a sweeping decision about whether it's a good or bad religion. And while it may be a handful of extremists who want to fly planes into buildings. It's not a handful who greatly resent Israel and Western power. Most of them aren't going to take up arms or preemptively attack but when our soldiers cause them harm pent up anger explodes... along with some shrapnel.

Leaders don't go to war just to put their names in history books. There are many reasons--not just one cause. It's not just oil and it's not just pride. There are lots of reasons which historians will try to reconstruct.

And you should read some history to see Muslim nations go to war with each other. They are not "passive" Iran saber rattles. Iraq saber rattled. But so does a lot of the developing world. But it's by no means passive. Iran went to War with Iraq. Iraq invaded Kuwait. Indonesia and Malaysia were on the brink of war. But nor are they pugilistic in general.

As for the Jews not dying in the WTC... well, the crematoria of yesteryear helped them develop heat resistant skin. They just rolled up into balls and went home. Not their fault they adapted well.

*ahem*

I believe that the following is what we in the cartooning world like to call "tit for tat"

http://mechristian.files.wordpress.c...ish-thumb.jpeg

http://www.tonyrogers.com/news/image...d_cartoon1.jpg

http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_i...n_crescent.jpg

http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_i...sten_glory.jpg



http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_i...ten_thumb2.jpg

http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_i...cartoonist.jpg

http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_i...reaching.0.jpg

http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_i...choolboy.0.jpg

http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_i...ergaard_1_.gif

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/images2/jesusmuhammad.jpg


Cartoons is scary place , no?
Not safe anymore, watch out for artists.

Miles is totally going to get jihaded now.

from time to time? Europe was ravaged by wars mainly because of religion (Spain against the muslims, france agains the protestants, england vs france, iraq vs iran, india vs pakistan). Religion is probably the single most "useful" purpose to wage a war. UNless people get over with it and realize that, we are doomed. Just imagine if the crusaders had had the A-bomb...

The point of the crusades, by and large, was to return what were seen as important cities to Christian control. The idea of dropping a massive fireball on Jerusalem that would poison it for decades would have been abominable to them.

I wouldn't bet my life on your claim. The bible, too, calls for the massacre of infidels. Had the pope of the time have it, he would have gladly use it and say, ''I have cleared the Earth from infidels''

This is why controlling iran (and surrounding countries) is important. THEY don't have the rule of law, they have the sharia (law from the kuran). And because such a law also calls for the extinction of infidels, we must be very careful.

Of course, imposing democracy like it is done in iraq is no solution. Prosperity brings democracy, not the other way around

Sharia is law. While Sharia may be objectionable to Western values it is a code of law, and countries like Iran and even areas of Somalia that were controlled by the Islamic Courts Union had rule of law.

You're dumb. Let's say I steal your car. What do you want? Obviously, you want the car back. You're going to resent me, yes. You may want to kill me, and let's suppose further that you have a deadly bomb that will kill me without fail. Job One is getting back the fucking car, however. You can't blow me up when I'm in the car, because that would BLOW UP THE CAR. And that's the goal: TO GET THE CAR BACK.

You're dumb. People aren't cartoons. They have GOALS which usually override their immediate prejudices. The Crusades had a significant undercurrent of bigotry, yes, but they were primarily about real estate.

You're dumb. Now go read a book and don't open your mouth again until you have.

You're dumb.

YouTube Video

Ok, let me rephrase: our culture is based on the rule of law which has evolved over the years; too many islamic countries are based on the sharia, a law writtent by men in a time when people believed the earth was flat. SUch important things as law codes, when they don't evolve, keep barbaric "traditions" like stoning adulteress (??) or RAPED women. And they teach that in schools

in other words, you have no arguments left so you insult me

a part of it for sure, but when a pope is said to have said then religion is the primary motive. LEt's just hope that muslims don't do the same. After all, they could reclaim spain...

Oh, sure. Malaysia has Sharia law but you don't see women getting stoned or thieves getting their hands cut off. It's worth noting that that most populous Muslim nation in the world (Indonesia) doesn't even enforce Sharia law.

And all that has got us is a ludicrous society of blame where companies have to warn fucking idiots that the cup of coffee they just bought is hot in case they sue the vendor when they burn themselves on it and you can't send people to jail anymore in case you infringe their human rights.

To you, Sharia law might seem barbaric but to them, our and America's laws probably seem incredibly soft and no deterrent to criminals (Which by and large they no longer are). Just because something is different to your experiences doesn't mean it's automatically bad or wrong and you shouldn't look at stuff in such black and white terms. You're basically an un-educated bigot and each post you make, makes you look more of an idiot. If I were you, I'd quit while I still had a choice.

Actually, the primary reason for the crusades was the consolidation and expansion of papal authority over the Christian states of Europe. The history of the Roman Catholic Church leading up to Pope Urban II's proclamation at the Council of of Clement is one of massive power struggles, both within the church and between the church and other powers. Suggesting Urban II's reasons for begining the Crusades were anything other than those above is just silly.

Just thought I'd, you know, clear that up. Go on back to fighting a losing battle now.

No. In other words, your head is a great granite pineapple which is impervious to reasonable logic. When I insult you, it's not meant as an alternative to my showing you up as the ignorant shitheap that you are (since I did that as well). It's meant as an added bonus gift. You get to learn two things from that post: you're dumb, and The Crusades had major political motivations beyond the facade of religiosity. So it's like an education giveaway, baby, all for you!

See, this is sort of thing is why I call you dumb. You are taking public remarks from a figurehead and assuming them to somehow be the actual rationale. No war is EVER fought for the declared public reason, silly-billy! It's fought for the strategic reason. But! The strategic reason is never-ever public, because Joe Average would never sign up for a war if you put it in the starkly neutral terms of reality. Nobody ever signs up to fight and die so some fat Italian can have a place to build his summer cottage.

I mean this in the kindest way: stop to examine things. Don't be so gullible.

I don't. I admit that islam is probably the must « humbling » religion there is, where the richest and the poorest really are on the same level (fasting, praying)

However, like other religions (including christianity), a big part of it is based on primitive beliefs that, among others, women are inferior. Just look at the recent move of the anglican church: there could be a schism because women are now allowed in higher positions. Even the pope perpetuated the mysogynist tradition of the church by saying that this was against the apostolic tradition

Misogyny isn't exactly exclusive to religion...

Arguably the belief that bitches ain't shit seems a lot more reasonable when the Lord Of Creation has your back, though

The best part of this is watching Janus backpedal as fast as possible when he realises how obscenely outclassed he is.

Could you provide a specific reference for this claim? I'd like to know what book, chapter, and verse "calls for the massacre of infidels."

Just sayin'.

rock n roll jesus christ

Tch, that's the Jews, not the Christians. You should know that Jesus died so we wouldn't have to care about Deuteronomy and all that jazz (see: Old Testament).

Besides, it doesn't say infidels.

Say... has the Catholic Church ever even used that term? I never even thought of that, before. I can't recall any specific time a Christian has used it.

I'm sure "heretic" has been used quite often in Catholic times.

Yeah uh about that, Matthew 5 has some small discrepancies to point out


17 “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.

18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.

19 Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

20 For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.

You're dumb.

I think this is what he was talking about:

Gal 2:15 - Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

Thus, the old school way of doing business that Sass pointed out in Deuteronomy doesn't really apply. Otherwise, we'd still be doing animal sacrifice and stuff.

It does seem like you Christians are pretty selective, yes.

Please, all I have to do to shoot holes in that argument is put it in context.

I don't see how that contradicts the quotation from Matthew. All that Paul appears to be saying here is that faith is more important than the law (of course it is, all the burnt offerings are pretty pointless if you don't even believe); he's not saying the law should be abandoned.

And — even if he were, you'd be putting a quote attributed to Paul up against a quote attributed to Christ and saying it's more important, which NO.

As for "animal sacrifice", I don't really see how "sport hunting" is anything else but that. "I killed that deer!" "Are you gonna eat it?" "Naw."

Not to mention that in the Matthew quote, it specifically says Jesus came to fulfill the Law. What do you suppose that means? If it's fulfilled, what is there left to do?

If fulfilling something ends it, and abolishing something ends it, in what sense is it possible to fulfill the law but not abolish it? You've made Jesus into either a liar or self-contradictory.

I'm not really sure how this isn't clear. Say there's a law that says "If you do X, you will pay consequence Y". Well, we could either abolish the law - that is to say, we make it null and void in that we decide there is no longer any need for consequence Y. But if that were that case, what justified the law in the first place?

Or we can fulfill the law by taking consquence Y.

Ok, say I steal a TV, and I go to jail for it. I've now fulfilled the law that stealing TVs will make me go to jail. Yes. But: the next guy who steals a TV will also go to jail, and so on., indefinitely.

Your position is that since I went to jail (fulfilling the anti-theft law), it's now a burglary-free-for-all with no consequences for everyone else. Except it's not, since he did not abolish the law.

Pang, you realise you're trying to argue logic with Minion, right? You might as well slam your head into a brick wall.

Wait. Minion came back to argue religion?

God. Try and be less predictable.

It would certainly be hard to be more predictable.

Well, I guess to do that he would have to come back when some random girl on the boards had a tragic turn of events, and he would try and slime his way into her panties.

That would be more classic minion.

Well, at this point we aren't arguing over religion so much as arguing over hair-splitting linguistic distinctions

Which, okay, still pretty sad, but

Pang, you're so silly!

And example of the law "fulfilled."

The Law:

Deuteronomy 19:21 - "And thine eye shall not pity; but life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot."

Fulfilled:

Matthew 5:38-42 - "You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you."

Sounds like he changed it from "kill the killers!" to "kill em with kindness!"

Also,

Hunting: The legal tracking and killing of a wild animal for the sake of food, taxidermy trophy/art, recreation, or trade.

Animal sacrifice: The ritualistic slaughter of a domesticated animal in a religious ceremony, often for the atonement of sins.

Oh, so it's not animal sacrifice (even though an animal is sacrificed)! It's much more pointless. Here I was, giving people too much credit. Thanks Meth! :)

And, once again, the meanings of two different words are being confused.

If Jesus says "this used to be the law; here is a new law" what he's doing THERE is abolishing the old law (But wait! He said he wouldn't do that.) The law has been banished from existence.

To Jesus to fulfill the law of an-eye-for-an-eye would require him to personally engage in an act of precisely mitigatory revenge, which — well, that seems a bit uncharacteristic of him, if I may say so.

So I cruised over to Dictionary.com and looked up "fulfill."

"4. to bring to an end; finish or complete, as a period of time: He felt that life was over when one had fulfilled his threescore years and ten."

Perhaps Christ means that by fulfilling the old law, he brings it to an end, not that he carries it out. Any Greek scholars in the crowd wanna give us insight on the translation of the word "fulfill" as it is used in Matthew 5?

Wow... so you consider "sacrificing" a wild animal for the sake of food, taxidermy trophy/art, recreation, or trade, completely pointless?

What was this thread about again? If I run into Abraham, I'm gonna kick him in the balls for all the trouble he's started.

Well, exactly. But if you interpret "fulfill" as meaning 'bring to an end" then it becomes a near-synonym for "abolish". I don't think it's reasonable to assume that Christ is saying "I come not to end the law, but to end it."

edit: Actually, some translations replace law with "teachings of the prophets" which makes much more sense

As for the hunting, I specifically said "sport" hunting. If you intend to eat what you kill (or trade it to someone else who will eat it), it's not sport.

Like you said earlier, it's a "hair-splitting linguistic distinction" that might be more clear if we knew the original language. Perhaps he's saying something to the effect of: "I haven't come to discredit the teachings of the prophets, but to bring their age to an end."

Could you show me where you're getting your definition for "sport hunting?" Many (perhaps most) people who hunt for sport actually eat what they kill cause they like wild game. You might be confusing sport hunting with poaching.

Well, if you're killing the animal for a practical reason it's not a sport is it

We both know there are plenty of people who hunt just for the sake of hunting and don't do anything more with the meat other than leave it on the ground after they cut off the ever-so-precious trophy skull (or else they drag the entire carcass to a taxidermist). Are these people the majority? No. Didn't say they were.

Practical is a bit of a relative term. Tracking and killing a wild animal and then removing and stuffing it's head or entire body to be put on display as an art piece...wait a sec, why the fuck are we even talking about this shit in here? Where the hell did Janus X go? The thread should be re-titled: islam, the religion of love, interpretations of the fulfillment of Judaic law, and the practicality of taxidermy.

DAMMIT JANUS X COME BACK HERE SO WE CAN YELL AT YOU MORE

ARGUING WITH PEOPLE WHO ARE SMARTER THAN YOU IS A LOT OF WORK

To comment the original post:

If I recall correctly, in the back of the Quran there's a chapter that says what to do when a non-believer crosses your path. "Say: my god is not your god, your god is not my god. I will not accept your god, nor will you accept mine. You then leave them in peace"
or something to that basic effect.

Quran Viewer | Arabic - Yusuf Ali | Surah 109 :: AL-KAFIROON :: (THE DISBELIEVERS, ATHEISTS) :: | mysticletters.com

mind you, that sounds very non-violent to me.

It doesn't fit in the box. :(

Try 'ISLAM: EAT PORK WITH YOUR FORK AND YOU'RE A DORK, ALLAHU-ACKBAR'

Actually, the first crusade was way more "honest" than what most people want to make it look like. Jerusalem had been conquered by Saracens a while ago already. It was only when the Turks kicked the Saracens' out of it and started killing the Christian pilgrims (that the Saracens were accepting) and destroying the Christian places in the city that the Christian world reacted so strongly.

This also gives an example of Islam laws being enforced differently, btw.

After the first crusade, things become way more complicated and become mixed with geopolitical interests, but it's never that simple either.

As for the interpretation of Jesus' message concerning the Old Testament laws, it's not like you guys will come to an agreement on something that is like one of the hottest theological controversy ever ~

Exactly. When I brought it up, I was WELL AWARE of the quote from Matthew, Pang. I was just being a shithead. (But not dumb. :()

Oh well, theological debates for all!

Besides, guys, isn't the fact that we're debating what Jesus meant by his contradictions a perfect analogy to the point of this thread? Islam can be the "religion of love", if you're selective. But it can also be an intolerant religion.

At most, it seems the Abrahamic faiths are characterized more by being contradictory than by kindness/cruelty.

^Truth.

Some religions make it easier to find cruelty than others. It's easier to find hate in Islam texts and Old Testament texts than it is to find it in New Testament texts. You don't need to be "ultraconservative" to find this hate in religious texts, because it's obviously in there and was felt by the people who wrote the books. Doing back bends to turn hateful versus into positive ones is a wasted mental exercise that leads only to self-deception concerning the nature of the authors who wrote the books. Moral revolution in society always comes from humans recognizing suffering in their fellow humans, not from reading 2,000 year old books in a new context. We should all be immensely grateful that our compassion towards others is not restrained by the words of long dead men.

*edit x 25*

Those who keep these hateful texts close to their hearts shouldn't be considered "ultraconservative" or "fanatics" because really, in most cases, they're not. They're just more faithful to their Religious text than the rest of us. That's how they view themselves, and that's how we should view them. We reject the blind faith which all of these religious texts adamantly call for, and we actively reject versus that don't suit our own personal reasoning (in most cases). You can say that these faithful followers are "ignorant", but what exactly are they ignorant of? If anything, they're ignorant to the idea of rejecting religious faith and replacing it with modern day morality. Unfortunately, most people in society still enjoy idolizing the idea of faith so much that they make the object of that faith immaterial.

p.s. It's good to see that there are more people than just me arguing for this position, as it was a year before when I originally created a thread on this subject.

We have a big problem with christians in the US with their horrible hate speak. They vote agianst gay rights, they preach that homosexuality is a sin and maybe once or twice a year they shoot up a church full of homosexuals.

10% of muslims hate the US, 1.200 billion, CAIR (Council on American-Islamic relations) So a pro islamic rights group says there are 1.2 billion so 10% of them hate Western / Euro way of life.

So we have the US here with all these nasty christians talking bad about homosexuals but lets delve into what muslims do.

Iran they are whiped / hung in public. Saudis whip / kill them. When the taliban was in power all gays were casterated / killed.

Granted the bible says to stone them ( in the old testament ) new testament god says judge not least ye be judged.

Do you see gay lead mosques? Do you see gay lead churches? Think about it

So I'm guessing you're pretty gay, huh

No just mildly gay. Ever notice how all these far left people always pick on christians but never make fun of islam? We get all sorts of crap with jesus sucking a cock but what about muhamad? Makes you wonder...

"far left people"?

So you're a gay Republican, then.

Nope, independant I'm also pro choice

A gay libertarian abortionist :(

Makes you wonder what percentage of US/Europeans hate the "Muslim" way of life.

Well considering the human / womens rights issues combined with how they try to impress their way of life on Americans using democracy I would say a lot, I know I do.

A hateful gay libertarian abortionist :( :(

So not liking something has turned into hate. I think your problem is you try to define someone else instead of define / discuss the issue. Not all cultures are equal and most certainly not all religions are as tollerent as each other. Islam when practiced in a democracy can be practiced with respect to other religions. Islam practiced in a therocracy is almost never tollerent of other religions or life styles that go against it.

I will gladly dislike / hate any religion that has not caught up with the times and embraces human rights. Womens, Gays, choices etc..

A hair-splitting hateful gay libertarian abortionist :( :( :(

Well...
If you don't want people to draw the conclusion that you hate something, you probably shouldn't say that you hate it.

I was waiting for one of them to call me a raciest or something lol I get that a lot from ignorant people. Little do they know we are talking about a religion that preaches / acts on hate values versus a religon whos final word was love thy neighbor and judge not least ye be judged. Seems when it comes time for a little religious intollerance christians / jesus serves as the foot stool for the shit versus allah/muhamad.


You guys know that islam used to be an elightened religion? You know right arround the 8th century they were sharing knowledge with various other countries even ones they conquered? Muslims consider jesus a prophet same as muhamad. Christians consider jesus the son of god but lets say for the sake of arguement they both were prophets.

Jesus healed the sick, preached love thy neighbor, give to the poor etc. Muhamad was involved in many bloody wars, married a 9 year old. Christianity has had its roots in being spread by the sword, I won't argue that. The difference between the two religions is pretty simple. The bible taught against it while the koran endorces it.

Alright hatefull lable is fine but lets keep it in perspective in the topic on hand.

Have you even read either of the holy books?

'Cause, I mean, you really seem to be working hard to convince us that you haven't.

The funny thing is all three of the major Judeo-Christian religions are based on the same principles, with Christianity coming out of Judaism, and Islam following by taking parts of its two predecessors. The differences between the three faiths are negligible in the grand scheme of things.

We should learn to discern between what is written and how its adherents choose to interpret it.

Except that child bride's were fully acceptable at the time, and Mary Magdalene--who was more than likely married to Jesus--was an underage prostitute by our standards. Jesus also whipped people in a temple, but hey. Dude was all hugs and flowers, right?

But here's your problem: Jesus and Mohammed are neither of them the basis of the religion. God and Allah are. And you know who are really, really similar? God and Allah.

You say the bible teaches tolerance, but it simply doesn't. Anti-homosexual (men who lay with men etc), anti-tolerance (no gods before me), anti-free thought (tree of knowledge), and very much pro-war on the unbelievers.

You can try and justify your arguments anyway you like, but anyone with a lick of logic realises that the difference between the Muslim faith and the Christian faith is a political one and nothing more. The one thing you've made abundantly clear through your idiotic ranting thus far is that you've never actually studied either faith. Watching CNN and reading the Cole's Notes on the bible doesn't make a religious studies major. This concept that either religion is worse than the other, or that christian faith wouldn't be as iron fist-y if they had a theocracy in our country is ridiculous. You're arguing politics, not religion, and you're doing -that- poorly as well. Feel free to shove the fuck off until you read a little more.

A bigger problem is when the hate easily transforms itself into acts of violence, and I'd say Muslims win that round hands down. That is mostly due to their level of faith in their religion, and believing that being a martyr and sacrificing yourself really does get them into heaven.

This is ridiculous. Do you know why Islam-dominated areas see significantly more religious violence than Christianity-dominated areas? Would you like to know?

Take some time to compare the average standard of living in these areas relative to each other. You might discover something interesting about the sort of things that make a man desperate enough to explode himself.

I think he argues with emotions rather than facts however you guys fuel it by petty smack talk. People not normaly involved in politics get drawn into it by other people who use religion as a way to bridge the gap

Both religions have had their hands full with much ill in the world however lets stop looking in the past. I would rather live in a Hindu, Buddist, Christian country than an islamic country. WHY? Simple, people tend to have more rights in said countries where any religion besides Islam dominates. Not to mention Islam has far largers numbers of radicals that act rather talk or vote on their far flung beliefs.

Would you want to live in a country that has state sanctioned hangings for such things as being LBG or being seen with another man who is not married or a relitive to you?

Idealy I would love to see religion be something people keep in their homes with out being pushed on others.


LiveLeak.com - islam to stone 9 people to death.



This guy pretty much sums up my feelings, here is a video of him.

YouTube - The myth of Islamophobia

Shively, the secret to a successful dupe account is making some kind of attempt to alter your public behavior. Otherwise, your personality tics (bigotry, holding a grudge, randomly dissing posts that have nothing to do with you) are extremely obvious to anyone with the slightest curiosity.

Just walk away and don't come back until you've figured out how to do this without embarrassing yourself.

Economics can very well help lead Muslims to put blind faith into Islam, but Islam is what justifies the violence. Muslims don't say "I will kill Americans because I am poor and living in an oppressive culture." They say "I will kill Americans for Muhammad, just as the Koran says." If you remove the religious/dogmatic motivations from fundamentalists they would lose all sense of purpose in their violence, which is why faith in Islam is the most fundamental aspect of the cause of violence. If the mideast were devoted to Janism instead of Islam it would be impossible for them to use violence as a means to end, simply because Janism renounces any and all violence, period.

So... if they were pacifists, they'd be pacifistic? How insightful. Listen, I can't deal with you right now so I've asked a friend to explain my position to you in my stead. I hope you don't mind.

http://www.saxypunch.com/miscimg/MANOFSTEEL.jpg

So you take our conversation, which was in context of the Mideast culture, and move it into the Soviet Union to prove Religion isn't justifying violence in the Mideast? You fail at logic. Thanks for going the extra mile and criticizing an argument I never tried to make.

Religion is a form of dogma, though less malleable then political versions of dogma due to it being bound to what ancient texts say. Dogmatic political system (such as, hmm, the communist party of Stalin) can justify violence as long as those who carry out the violence have blind faith in the system. In both Religious or political systems, violence comes about through individuals putting blind faith into a dogma.

If the Mideast had no Religion to justify their violence, they may very well resort to a different dogma to justify the violence, or they very well may not. It would take all sorts of imagination to figure out how a non-religious Mideast would pan out, but I'd bet the number of suicide bombings would become nonexistent if they didn't think they'd get into heaven for doing it. In any case, getting rid of their blind faith in Religion would be an invaluable step towards reaching peace.

Though I'm not sure why I'm explaining my position to you when you'd more easily understand pictures with insults.

You don't need to explain your position to me, FallDragon. I already know your position, because it's a position I've held myself.

When I was in junior high.

Desperate people do desperate things. This is basic! Do people rob banks because of their religion? Do they hold people for ransom based upon a philosophical dogma? Mostly no. They do it because they feel that their situation is unbearable and will continue to be unbearable unless they get some fucking money. Now, of course, this notion is generally not rational, but neither is it dogmatic. I'm sure we would see a lot less people going ker-blooie if we could somehow render the entirety of the human race into utterly rational creatures, but it's not going to happen.

Suicide bombings occur largely because they are the most effective tool that disenfranchised, desperate people have to work with. You can try to pretend that somehow these people are different than other human beings just because they're in the Middle-East (how dare you compare them to other people!!!), but it's delusional.

Could you go into a little more detail here? I honestly don't understand the comparison between robbing banks and suicide bombings. I can see their both done out of some severe desperation, but other than that I'm afraid I'm lost.

Robbing banks and holding rich motherfuckers for ransom leaves some hope for personal advancement, wheras suicide bombings do not. While I agree that it's silly to blame solely Islam on the readiness of those who strap explosives to their chest I'm afraid I can't follow how you're drawing such a hard line (or so it seems) between Bonnie & Clyde and Sajida Rishawi.

It's obvious there's something in the middle-east aside from personal depseration driving people to do these things, and while it's not necessarily religion I think you're trying to oversimplify the situation.

There's an interesting theory that middle eastern men are driven to be suicide bombers because of the practice of polygamy. If all the successful and wealthy men have 2 or more wives, that doesn't leave much for all of the poor, low-status males. This often means the only sex they'll be getting is in the afterlife.

Psychology Today: Ten Politically Incorrect Truths About Human Nature (point no. 4)

This might be an oversimplification too, but it's an interesting one, and explains it a bit better than just poverty alone.

Pang isn't making a direct comparison between suicide bombings and bank robbing, what he's saying is that desperation breeds actions that a rational man would find off-putting. A poor man will rob a bank, risking incarceration or death, because his life simply isn't that good to begin with. For him, the benefit outweighs the risk. The same is true of suicide bombers. Religion is the outlet, but it isn't the cause for the act. If there was a standard of living, and a situation where the benefits of death (possible afterlife reward) didn't outweigh the benefits of life (poor, no food, no women, no hockey) you wouldn't see it happening. It's very easy to be reasonable and logical when you aren't living in a desperate situation. I think that's what Pang was getting at, anyway.

I don't know why people think suicide bombing is this integral part of Islam and that non-sandniggers couldn't be driven to kill themselves for some warped 'greater good'. Did you guys forget what kamikaze pilots were?

Kami-whatsy? Did that come out before or after Evangelion?

Vwdoew.

The greatest warriors of glorious Nippon.

reading Da Vinci Code =/= studying a faith ~

It can also be taken the other way around to explain the current Islamic expansion in Africa to the detriment of Christianity and the pretty much huge lack of wealthy Islamic countries compared to the Christian ones, though.

A) I couldn't make it through twenty pages of Dan Brown without dry heaving.

B) I did read Holy Blood Holy Grail, and it was obviously bullshit.

C) What I'm stating isn't some modern fiction, it's the gnostics. It's a fact accepted by many scholars, and it's even thought she may be the author of the fourth gospel. Pagels and Brown ran with it, and it's certainly a valid opinion supported by facts and textual clues if you understand the culture at the time of Jesus. Is it true? Who knows. But it's as plausible as anything else in there.

You're right, reading the Da Vinci code doesn't equal studying a faith. But you know what does? Years of studying a faith.

Coming back from a break after a lot of people felt you were being a git? Free.

Posting in a random thread on religion with an attempted pissy remark? Free.

Getting slapped in the face because you don't know what you're talking about? Priceless.

Suicide bombing is a "tool" that they work with? You don't seem to understand what happens when one suicide-bombs them self. They cease to exist. They die. They pull a trigger to knowingly blow themselves into tiny bloody bits. This is a dramatically different situation then a bank robber. Bank robbers have plans for escaping, etc, etc. If a bank robber knew going into a robbery that he would get caught and killed he would not do it. Do you not see this incredibly dramatic difference??


The problem is that when you're dealing with Religion, nothing on Earth is better than the benefits of a righteous death.

Now to tackle this "desperate" issue. Yes, people living in the Mideast are desperate for hope. Islam is providing that hope. Unfortunately, as with most Religions, the vast majority of that hope reveals itself only after they die. In the words of John Lennon:

Imagine there's no Heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today

Fundamental Muslims, no matter how desperate, aren't contemplating "how can I make today better," they're contemplating "how can I make my Heaven better." This is all due to their Religious faith (note to Pang: don't generalizing this argument to include all Muslims, as you're prone to do in order to "prove me wrong"). If you don't think Fundamental Muslims really think this way, then you don't really know what it's like to be a True Believer (and should therefore read The True Believer by Eric Hoffer).

Or, you could just explain to me how desperate the 9/11 hijackers were to escape their well-educated, middle-class American way of life?

Oh, so this is one of those things where you read an Enlightening Work Of Literature and now you Know How It Really Is. Why didn't you say so in the first place and save us all the trouble of assuming you could be reasoned with?

I think this has more to do with anti-imperialist knee-jerk Western opposition than desperation.

Actually, it was one of those things where I used to be a very Fundamental Christian and gradually came to understand the manipulative mind games that Religion was playing on me concerning desperation, virtue, and alienation. But I figured you might not want to go through that, so a book seemed appropriate.

Heh, I dunno. Maybe if you stopped sounding like a 17 years old spitting all the common anti religious cliches as facts people would stop assuming you're full of shit ?

lol @ all the personal stuff.

Probably a mix of both in some places? I have no idea, sincerely. Was just throwing the idea around.

The idea that Christianity = western world isn't obvious in many places of Africa that were Christened way before Europe was, too.

Also, American Evangelists have a lot of success in large parts of Africa as well. They're pretty scary in a different way, though.

Anti-Religion? So, I'm being anti-religion by using religious history and religious scholars as a basis for an argument stating one religion isn't inherently worse than another?

Or maybe you mean I'm anti-religion because I'm not saying Islam is inherently worse than Christianity? Or maybe what you mean is you got caught with your pants down because you don't know any actual religious history beyond the DaVinci Code and your snide remark bit you in the ass.

Or maybe what you mean is that stating that Christianity isn't a doctrine of love and acceptance is anti-religion? Or maybe what you mean is that you don't actually comprehend any of the discussion at hand, but you want people to think you do. Because you're not doing a very good job of that, either. You clearly haven't done anything but briskly scan the discussion at hand and make a few backhanded comments like a bitch.

Or maybe it was anti-religion because I said prophets aren't the basis of a faith, but merely the conveyance of a message? But you're right. I've been going up and down this thread talking about how we should throw all catholics in prison, all muslims are terrorists and we should murder the jews to free us of the Zionist agenda. Get fucked, cunt. Sorry your big return was ruined by the fact you apparently can't read.

Also, trying not to laugh out loud at your comment about asserting the gnostics are 17 year old anti-religious bullshit. As if any biblical text is a more valid historical document than another.

Or maybe I just mean what I already stated. I don't care how many years of study you've taken. If you're going to sound like an oversimplifying retard, I'm going to call you one.

You know, it's just like your pope = Hitler's buddy tirade. You tell me how many years of study it takes to be that dumbfully wrong.

Keep it up with the trying to turn this into a personal issue, though. That's all you're really good for. :3

It absolutely is, for the people telling desperate teenagers to blow themselves up. The message holds because the places where suicide bombings occur are much shittier than your house.

Or did you think kamikaze pilots just emerged from the masses, planes and all, and decided that moon-heaven would be better than losing to the roundeye?

Actually, they did. The first kamikaze unit ever was even composed of elite students. When appliances became open to anyone who'd volunteer, people from all backgrounds joined and they even had to refuse people. Japan always had a pretty unique tradition towards things like suicide and abnegation.

Well, of course they do. The Japanese basically magnify the worst of the Asian mindset to proportions that seem unimaginable to even other Asians.

You're not disagreeing with me re: suicide attacks coming out of a truly shitty situation. That Japan has a massive fetish for martyrdom doesn't mean they weren't in Circumstances at the time, as you rarely see Japanese businessmen blowing themselves up in the lobbies of their employers' competition.

Oh yeah, desperation sure is a common factor to a certain extent. However, I still think Islamic suicide bombing and Japanese kamikaze concepts aren't that comparable, as one takes advantage of an already established state of strong despair to influence confused individuals by using the ugliest face of a religion, while the other is the symptom of a perfectly culturally accepted concept pushed to the extreme.

Of course, we could be both wrong, since there have been very well educated Islamic suicide bombers examples, especially for 9/11. =/

Finally, one is an act of terrorism, while the other is an act of war. Terrorism is often perceived as a justified act of war from the perpetrators point of view, though. ~_~

Desperation doesn't lead people to commit suicide while simultaneously murdering innocent civilians and soldiers. What leads them to commit these acts is their perspective on the world. Their Religion can easily convince them that:

1) It's not suicide, it martyrdom to get into Heaven

2) It's not murdering innocent civilians and soldiers, it's killing infidels that work against the purpose of Allah.

Hate always begins when one views their fellow human being as less then equal. Suicide bombers aren't desperate enough to kill innocent people, but they are desperate enough to kill infidels. If they suddenly had no Religion, they would have to somehow convince themselves that it's OK to murder perfectly innocent people while killing themselves without a purpose, and that is an incredibly tough pill to swallow.

As for Japanese suicide bombers, the same thing goes. Honor-infused dogma easily convinced them that it's not suicide, it's an honorable death in tribute to your country and Emperor.

Faith-based ideas embellish obvious immoral acts to disguise their true nature.

The only thing I've ever said about the Pope in any seriousness is that he looks like Sidious and was in the Hitler Youth. After which I quickly pointed out you sort of had to be if you grew up in Germany in that era.

And I'm the one who's making things personal. I'm sure you didn't come in singling me out for an obvious disproving of a bullshit theory largely because I've made you look like a clown and hurt your precious e-rep in the past.

But you keep talking shit, niki. You're not even good for that.

And you want to talk about being an oversimplifying retard, how about storming into the room and flailing like a faggot about idiotic fiction just because you feel slighted you can't ban me when I show you up anymore. Because I was having a serious academic discussion with someone who said Jesus was the nicest guy ever and Mohammed was a pedo fuck and can we all just agree christianity is great. I should have quoted from the Gnostics directly instead of giving a rough outline of why he was wrong. Grow up.

Get fucked, dipshit. You're still useless. No one bought your pissy little backhanded faux-pacifism bullshit three years ago, and it's even more laughable now that you've been outed as a reactionary asshole. Lose the Minion impression, it isn't cute.

People keep talking about suicide bombers like the only incentive is heaven. Perhaps I'm wrong in this, but I could have sworn there was a big to do because martyr's families were getting support/money/status from the deaths of their children?

Isn't the middle east still very heavily tribal in nature? If it is, I'd say that advancing the status and wealth of your family becomes paramount even over self. You could have purely economic incentives for blowing yourself up too. It doesn't have to be delusional kids who think they're going to get to fuck women for all eternity. Nor does it have to be some lower brain function driving men who aren't getting pussy to blow themselves up so they can somehow satisfy their procreative urges in the afterlife.

If you're one of six kids, and not the eldest, then perhaps the best thing for you to do is to go kerblooie.

Actually they don't. Kamikaze doctrine was basically an intentional perversion of Bushido stating that it was honorable to kill yourself in the name of the Emperor, when Bushido advocated just about everything but killing yourself to kill an enemy. (what good is a dead samurai when you paid all that money to train and equip him?)

Japan has more of a problem with collectivism and conformity, which manifested itself as unquestioning loyalty to the state. The US bombing campaign wasn't even in full swing by the time Kamikaze doctrine was implemented. While desperation is a factor, it was only a factor in that the Japanese feared for the long-term perpetuation of the state and its Emperor.

With Muslim suicide bombers you have people living in extreme poverty with no prospect for their individual future being promised reward in the afterlife and oh hey also we'll give your family a monthly income donated by like-minded muslims.

I don't even care how many technicalities there are between 'war' and 'terrorism' or much of a stiffy the Japanese had or may have in the future for killing themselves, all I was saying was that suicide attackers can be used as tools and directed by people who are not currently blowing themselves up, and that furthermore FallDragon should stop beating his childlike fists against organized religion because, when he was ten years old, he honestly and truly believed he would suffer eternal torment if he stole a cookie from the cookie jar.

In conclusion, get off my balls,
A. Lurker, Esq.

nigga why you gotta come at me with facts and shit?

:tpg:

Heh, so full of hate. Surely your life must be as fulfilling as you make it sound for you to always react so pathologically.

See ? That was personal.

I'm afraid I'm not pop00lar enough anymore to get a "let's be friends" pm this time, though. :(

Actually, the Japanese did take a liking towards martyrdom in the Showa period, unrelated to the bushido (a point that I agree on with you, just to avoid an unnecessary argument). It's true the doctrine used bushido as a validation, but the real ideology and reasoning behind it went back to the early 30s, and was less based on collectivism than it was on individual glorification. Being brave on the battlefield, and supporting the troops in Japan were still seen as the best way to show your loyalty to the country, these sacrifices are more linked to individualistic competition.

This is excellently shown in the fictionalized story of Kogo Dentaro, a Japanese commander during the Manchurian incident, who got an entire platoon killed when he tried to save the flag (although in reality he tried to save his own ass after making a fatal and rash decision). You see a bunch of soldiers trying to save the flag and failing one after another, focusing on their INDIVIDUAL suicidal attempts to complete their commander's mission, not driven by a sense of duty towards the empire, but a chance at becoming a hero. sacrifice through death became the only way to achieve this status, the loyalty to Japan wasn't as important.

Also, could you be even more of an ass Deni?

Except what I said there wasn't tying the current pope to nazis, but rather commenting on their silence during World War II and their declining to comment on the slave trade.

Good hustle though.

And see, the reason you didn't get a PM trying to work out this little spat is because a few years ago, you were a rational person I just disagreed with. But you've declined horridly since then, and aren't worth it anymore. I don't know when you decided to just go with what you know instead of bringing something to the table, but it's pathetic. Why do you think you want from being popular to no one really caring that you left? Because you fell the fuck off, that's why. There was a time when you could bring something interesting to this discussion, but we haven't seen that in years. And it's too bad, because there was a time you didn't suck.

Well, the best thing for you to do is to have one of the other younger brothers go kerblooie. I'll incorporate your idea into one of my previous comments though, because you make a legitimate point.

Suicide bombers aren't desperate enough to kill innocent people*, but they are desperate enough to kill infidels and themselves*.

* for money, protection, and/or purpose

The transition from "innocent" to "infidel" can only be provided through faith-based dogmas, though.

Are you and Pang related in some way? When you both fail at debating logic you resort to a final post of personal insults. You better double check on who's having the tantrum here, poopyhead.

Using your logic, no war could ever have been perpetrated.

There are limitless ways of turning man against man. Religion is surely one of them, but it's hardly the only one.

A man who has been beating his head against a brick wall for nigh on a week without convincing anyone is trying to pretend at being a supreme logician. Isn't the point of a debate to, I don't know, prove something? How's that coming along for you? Not so well, huh.

I will tell you a secret of the Ancient Debating Masters. Are you ready? The secret is this: No One But You Is Taking This Seriously.

Use this Ancient Wisdom only for good! Never evil! The Secret Masters watch always.

No, you just did what you do the most: throwing horribly distorted punchlines as facts. You don't give a fuck about debating. It's all about knocking your opponents down with whatever fits you. Oh yeah, you're truly a brilliant scholar.

Let's not even get into your motivations. It could become one of those rare occurrences where me and Freud actually agree. :(

tl;dr i'm a cocksucker who goes with the crowd

That's always been my impression of you since the first time you joined here and started carefully picking your targets, like you still do to this day. The way you IMed me instantly when I picked on you in a Sewers thread to explain how we should be buddies was cute, too.

They say the first impression is always the good one, right ? :3

I have to disagree. Niki brings a lot to the table, and he has continuously since the days when I first noticed him back in 2002. He may not be present here as ubiquitously as he was in those days, but life and other pursuits have gotten in the way, as they have for everyone here as they've gotten older. Just because he doesn't match up to your "standards" for the kinds of people you want around here, doesn't mean he isn't quality.

I do have to say I admire the Frenchman for what he's accomplished in this thread. Bravo.

I've been distracted with Falldragon pissing all over the linoleum. What did niki accomplish?

He got Deni all mad for whatever reason I dunno what it was I wasn't paying attention either. Deni gets mad a lot is the cause, I think.

no I saw the big gay angry sex they were having, I figured Squirrel wasn't talking about getting porked though.

No, I wasn't really interested in the porking. I was talking about how Niki reduced Deni to a quivering caricature of himself in the span of two posts.

or is that the porking?

I love the way you keep bringing up the fact I tried to avoid escalating a conflict with someone I liked at the time as a bad thing. Good hustle.

Also nice job on trying to change the argument yet again, but the point you were trying to make had nothing to do with my arguing style, you were busy trying to prove I said the pope was a nazi. Good try, though. I'm sure no one else saw what you did there.

And it's going to take more than Secret Squirrel biting at my heels (yet again) to sway my opinion that you've done anything beyond show up, run your mouth accomplishing nothing, and quickly fuck right off again. You can play up the "Deni is mean" card all you like, but it doesn't change the fact you've yet to refute a single thing I've said in this thread.

This from a guy who wandered in saying I was quoting from the DaVinci code (wrong), was using high school anti-religion arguments (wrong) and haven't studied religion (wrong.)

Cute.

When have I ever been biting at your heels? And your opinion certainly isn't amongst any that I might be trying to sway here.

Upon actually looking back at the thread I was referring to, I had you confused with someone else.

I accused Saka of being Aard earlier, too. Names are not sticking in my brain, lately. Sorry, SS.

Though the comment about swaying my opinion was more aimed at niki, than you. In short: It takes more than him being propped by a few people who don't like me to change my opinion that he's done nothing in this thread but exactly what he's accusing me of doing.

hahaha, oh well, guess if I kept feeding you the internet would collapse from the sheer mass of your bad faith, so let's stop here shall we.

lol @ you doing exactly what I described with SS though xD

Admitting when I was wrong when it's pointed out to me and I verify it?

O yeah, what a jerk. Let's not propagate that behaviour. God, you're a joke.

Deni, learn to recognize when you're being trolled.

niki, fucking relax for the love of christ when the hell did you decide to Get Very Angry

Squirrel, stop cramming your nose directly up niki's ass (don't even deny it)

But he's just so... handsome. http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y16...emot-blush.gif

One more homosexual allusion to my person ? That's it, I'm leaving GFF forever :mad:

I never ever get involved in discussions like this, but i feel compelled to respond on this occasion.

Firstly, if memory serves, the hairdresser in question simply did not think it right that she should employ someone who was not prepared to show her own hair. The employer was not racist or anti muslim and I am sure she would have declined to employ ANYONE that insisted on wearing a headscarf. Yet, she was fined which was an appalling decision.

In the UK, we have become more tolerant, but perhaps we have become too tolerant. At the moment, we have 2 high ranking Asian policeman who were conceivably promoted beyond their abilities, taking the MET police to a tribunal claiming they were denied promotion because they were not white or Christian. The problem with becoming too tolerant is that anyone who does not get what they want can immediately play the race or religion card.

I honestly think that in England we have bent over backwards to try not to offend Muslims or ethnic minorities, but nothing seems to be good enough. Christmas celebrations have been cancelled in many offices, Christmas cards and Christmas lights have had to be renamed, but still there are some that will whinge. Muslim fanatics that rampaged through Oxford Street with "Kill all non believers" placards went unmolested whilst an aged couple of Christians were pulled in by the police and questioned for 4 hours for daring to hand out leaflets questioning the positives of the growth of Islam in the UK. It is not the ethnic minorities or Muslims that are being oppressed in the UK my friend, it is the English.

It appears to be perfectly in order to advertise jobs where applications only from Ethnic Minorities will be considered, but God help anyone that placed an advert for White Christians only. They would be in court before you could blink.

Perhaps we should not be changing our laws and customs to suit others, but expect just a little effort for them to have respect for ours.

Unlike you, i have not studied law and i have never spoken to a professor. I am just an ordinary Englishman who feels like it is now illegal in the UK, to be White, Christian and proud of it.

Thal