If you believe in Islamophobia...

[Victorian Gray]

now you are just trolling, pretty much par your game.

You're the one pushing bullshit propaganda. I just gave you the answer you deserved.

 

[Victorian Gray]

watch the video i posted, thats all you need to know about Islam. again I ask you are the muslims in the British video moderates?

Played like Paganini's fiddle, you betcha! Push that propaganda, push it!

 

[realibrad]

Victorian

Do you believe Muslims commit a disproportionate amount of terrorism when compared to other religious groups?

If yes, why?

If no, then why does data show they do?

 

[Omar F1]

You won't get it. These are the same people who quote single lines from the Quran while ignoring the meaning of the entire passage as a way to claim it advocates active violent aggression. Doesn't matter if the passage is actually about descriptions of historical events or teachings of defending oneself. They will completely shut out anyone trying to show them.

These are the people who claim Muslims never speak out against violence and then ignore when they do or say they are lying.

They are the ones who listen when Trump (yesterday) claims that thousands of Muslims were celebrating in New Jersey on 9/11 and believe every word because it feeds their hatred. They won't bother to check to see that it never happened.

You're sadly fighting a losing battle with some of these people.

I wonder, how many out there is fully aware that Mohamed endured 13-years of only-peaceful preaching after beginning of the prophecy. 13-Years had passed where he was met with all kinds of humiliation, torture, blockage, heath of his wife & son, assassination attempts, being called names he was never called by before the prophecy (he used to be called 'the honest & trustful').
And two years later after he settled in Madina, it was his enemies whom declared war on him, and it continued like that for the next 10-years.
So, 13 peaceful years out of the total 23 of his life after the prophecy, and yet he would still be called a war-monger. Ironic, when it comes from the great powers nowadays.


Neither they're aware of a very important fact, that the great Arab-Islamic empire was over since 1100 AD.

Whereas the recent bloody wars and colonization crimes that harvested millions of innocent lives has nothing to do with neither Islam nor Arab.


Lets twist the facts, lie, omit and rewrite history.
The West probably would continue it's ongoing propaganda against this region; but the truth would always be that it's all about balancing the power scale, leading the initiative, create phantom enemies in order to justify your moves toward control of power sources (oil). It has been going on since the ancient empires, and yet history kept repeating itself.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Victorian

Do you believe Muslims commit a disproportionate amount of terrorism when compared to other religious groups?

If yes, why?

If no, then why does data show they do?

Find someone else to play these 'gotcha' games with. I'm not interested.

 

[MajinCry]

I wonder, how many out there is fully aware that Mohamed endured 13-years of only-peaceful preaching after beginning of the prophecy. 13-Years had passed where he was met with all kinds of humiliation, torture, blockage, heath of his wife & son, assassination attempts, being called names he was never called by before the prophecy (he used to be called 'the honest & trustful').
And two years later after he settled in Madina, it was his enemies whom declared war on him, and it continued like that for the next 10-years.
So, 13 peaceful years out of the total 23 of his life after the prophecy, and yet he would still be called a war-monger. Ironic, when it comes from the great powers nowadays.

So that makes it alright for him to have raped, to have molested a child, to have instructed men to impregnate sex slaves if they are to rape them, to have made women into sex slaves, to have waged war?

Please.

I'll refer back to my Jimmy Saville parallel; he gave millions of pounds to charity, but he also raped kids. Naturally, he's an evil man.

Or to go back to Hitler; the Nazis spurred some rather serious scientific advances, to the point that the USA protected various Nazi scientists from persecution in exchange for their skills.

Hitler also bolstered Germany's economy, and for at least seventeen years from his birth onward, he was a peaceful man with a penchant for Norse mythology and painting.

Doesn't make him any less of an evil man.

 

[Omar F1]

Victorian

Do you believe Muslims commit a disproportionate amount of terrorism when compared to other religious groups?

If yes, why?

If no, then why does data show they do?

Without getting touchy here, but why do guys have chosen to completely turn a blind eye to the terrorism caused by very recent invasion of two nations that has nothing to do at all with 9/11 crime.


Question to everyone, do you have the slightest clue what was the Arab main national cause pre-9/11 attacks?

 

[Omar F1]

So that makes it alright for him to have raped, to have molested a child, to have instructed men to impregnate sex slaves if they are to rape them, to have made women into sex slaves, to have waged war?

Please.

I'll refer back to my Jimmy Saville parallel; he gave millions of pounds to charity, but he also raped kids. Naturally, he's an evil man.

Or to go back to Hitler; the Nazis spurred some rather serious scientific advances, to the point that the USA protected various Nazi scientists from persecution in exchange for their skills.

Hitler also bolstered Germany's economy, and for at least seventeen years from his birth onward, he was a peaceful man with a penchant for Norse mythology and painting.

Doesn't make him any less of an evil man.

Huh, Hitler? All of the great-powers are convicted of war crimes against humanity in that conflict.
Oh yea, we're the righteous ones and we can decide what's right or wrong as well as write the history the way we see it.


I clarified our view of Mohamed's issue regard his marriage to Aisha, you'd find it in last page atJoy of religion thread. Whether convinced or not, that's up to you.

As for war slaves, that was the known rules back then, and I bet large part of them were freed ultimately. I'm talking about early Islamic history.

 

[MajinCry]

Huh, Hitler? All of the great-powers are convicted of war crimes against humanity in that conflict.

So?

Oh yea, we're the righteous ones and we can decide what's right or wrong as well as write the history the way we see it.

It's very easy to determine what is right or wrong. You merely have to weigh up the harm done by an act, and/or the harm prevented due to an act. The more harm done, the more morally black it is. The more harm prevented, the more morally white.

...Are you really trying to say that Hitler wasn't evil? Is that what you're trying to posit?

Wouldn't surprise me, really. It was Muslims who chanted "Allah's in heaven, Hitler's on Earth" , after all.

I clarified our view of Mohamed's issue regard his marriage to Aisha, you'd find it in last page atJoy of religion thread. Whether convinced or not, that's up to you.

Oh gee, he married a nine year old girl. There's nothing wrong with that. Nope. No sir. He even raped her on their wedding night. How romantic.

Oh, he even molested her when she was on her period! How saintly!

You also made it apparent that you're a moral relativist. A moral relativist is indistinguishable from a moral coward, at best. Because everybody else was raping, that makes rape okay?

What is wrong with you? You're disgusting as hell.

As for war slaves, that was the known rules back then, and I bet large part of them were freed ultimately. I'm talking about early Islamic history.

Oh, so that makes it okay? 'Sure, I raped the women I kept as sex slaves a bunch, but come on! I let them go after a while!'

You're vile.

 

[1prophet]

I'm confused....
Do we now "LIKE" hispanics?
Or did we just add Muslims to the hate list?
Please clarify, white folks.

When you can find the one person that was born Muslim due to their parents biological/ethnic lineage like the white or Hispanics mentioned in your post, your confusion will end.

And no, Obama doesn't count, no matter how much idiot conservatives believe he inherited the Muslim genes from his father or fool liberals keep trying to equate Islam with race.

 

[buckshot24]

I wonder if the bible gives any horrifying commands that Christians (usually) don't take literally.

No it doesn't.

 

[buckshot24]

Un christian? It's very Abrahamic. Jews, Christians and Muslims have commandments calling for the deaths of homosexuals.

No we don't.

 

[MajinCry]

No we don't.

Leviticus 20:13 - "If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives."

 

[buckshot24]

Victorian

Do you believe Muslims commit a disproportionate amount of terrorism when compared to other religious groups?

If yes, why?

If no, then why does data show they do?

Because the Koran explicitly states to kill unbelievers and the only way to guarantee entry to paradise is to die fighting for Allah.

 

[MongGrel]

Lots of pretty confused people round these here parts of the woods.

 

[buckshot24]

Leviticus 20:13 - "If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives."

That is a commandment made to the Hebrews. Plus the penalty is for the act itself, not for wanting to do the act.

 

[MajinCry]

That is a commandment made to the Hebrews. Plus the penalty is for the act itself, not for wanting to do the act.

You will have to prove to me where the Bible says that the commandments are binding only to Israelites, because as far as I know, once you become a worshiper of Yahweh (a Jew or a Christian), you have entered his covenant.

The NT does lay a foundation for that which will allow the seventh covenant to be in effect, but the conditions have not yet been met, which is that everybody is to be a worshiper of Yahweh, as stated in Jeremiah 31:31-34.


Either way, this is getting off-topic. We're supposed to be focusing on Islam.

 

[buckshot24]

You will have to prove to me where the Bible says that the commandments are binding only to Israelites, because as far as I know, once you become a worshiper of Yahweh (a Jew or a Christian), you have entered his covenant.

The NT does lay a foundation for that which will allow the seventh covenant to be in effect, but the conditions have not yet been met, which is that everybody is to be a worshiper of Yahweh, as stated in Jeremiah 31:31-34.


Either way, this is getting off-topic. We're supposed to be focusing on Islam.

You've already been refuted on your Jeremiah nonsense. Bringing it up again as if that never happened is dishonest.

 

[MajinCry]

You've already been refuted on your Jeremiah nonsense. Bringing it up again as if that never happened is dishonest.

I have? I do remember you bringing up the people of Judah, but the outcome is the same; you enter the covenant when you worship Yahweh pertaining to Christianity.

 

[buckshot24]

I have? I do remember you bringing up the people of Judah, but the outcome is the same; you enter the covenant when you worship Yahweh pertaining to Christianity.

Then I'm not sure how refuting you on other things is a good use of my time.

 

[Grooveriding]

The god myth of the old testament is the same god that Christians worship. Take a look at Leviticus and Deuteronomy. Reasons are given to murder, enslave, commit misogyny and for genocide. The old testament also contains all the ridiculous scientific claims about how the world and life came about, all proven false, but people still believe.

Judaisim/Christianity has chosen to ignore, talk down and ignore all those horrible ideas , the same way they have tried to adopt scientific discoveries that disproved the bible's claims as their own in trying to stay relevant and still be believable. It's ironic if you look across history when initial discoveries of the true nature of the universe landed people in prison or executed at the church's behest. Now the evidence is so overwhelming that they've had to morph and adapt their story to fit the evidence; claiming domain over the big bang's initiation and admitting that yes there actually was evolution and the dinosaur fossils were not just put there to test your faith But their books are supposed to be, like Islam, the word of the god they worship either directly or given directly as inspiration to the men who wrote it. So there is an obvious hypocrisy there.

That's what Islam has not done that the other Abrahamic religions have; water down, discard and morph the message of their book to be more palatable and acceptable for modern times. I think this is because of the countries that use the religion as law, which allows it to maintain an archaic bronze age world view. Imagine if in the West we lived under laws as set forth by Christianity or Judaism, it would be a nightmare. I also think it is because they do not have the same sort of structure that is behind Christianity. The Catholic church is basically a political organization with a vested interest and complexity of bureaucracy that has allowed them to water their message down to remain viable.

If the countries using Islam as law had their religion secular from politics, I think it would lessen the ability of these terrorists to use their religion's extreme messaging to reel people into their cause. The separation of religion from politics allows the legitimacy of the crazy notions you see in religions to be kept at bay, like we see here and in Europe. Where we tend to raise our eyebrows when exposed to the crazier evangelists still taking their bible as the literal word of a god they believe in, rather than collectively nod and proselytize ourselves.

Religion appears to be less dangerous when its believers pick and choose what they want to believe, discarding the crazy stuff, going on what we see with the other Abrahamic religions.

 

[MongGrel]

Then I'm not sure how refuting you on other things is a good use of my time.

It is not a good use of your time.

But you persist in hanging out saying silly things.

 

[buckshot24]

It is not a good use of your time.

But you persist in hanging out saying silly things.

I now remember why I put you on ignore. Back to the list.

 

[mikeymikec]

Un christian? It's very Abrahamic. Jews, Christians and Muslims have commandments calling for the deaths of homosexuals.

And it was an Abrahamic religion that the colonists adhered to.

I was responding to your points where you were claiming that Christians had come a long way since those days.

But what about the countries that weren't colonized? Saudi Arabia, for example. The punishment of homosexuality ranges from fines, to lashes and crucifixion.

I'm not attempting to argue which society has come further in my view. Every society is flawed, and I would be demonstrating some serious flaws if I thought that I could act as judge of multitudes of people based on such flaws.

And the problem lies squarely with religion,

People are flawed because of religion? What a load of horseshit, for the obvious implication that if religion didn't exist, such people wouldn't still be flawed.

Believing in "invisible pink unicorns" is you trying to wiggle out.

Aaaand you missed my point completely. You can try again if you like, just dial down the contraryness to the point that your head clears.

So?

Seriously, context. Plenty of horrible things have been done to people because it was thought to be the right thing to do. Mentally ill people who were presumed to be 'possessed by demons', for example. America and the systematic subjugation of black people even in the 20th century, right under the noses of people claiming to be Christian.

Are you going to say that all Japanese people are immoral because the age of consent in Japan is 13?

That's what Islam has not done that the other Abrahamic religions have; water down, discard and morph the message of their book to be more palatable and acceptable for modern times.

You know, that's odd because from what I've seen, millions of people of various religions including Muslims are living together without problem. AFAIK, ISIS is the potential first example of a mass jihad for hundreds of years.

Personally I think that the reason why Islam hasn't been more watered down over the years (at least from my perception, I don't claim to have first-hand experience of many Islamic cultures) is because in many Muslim countries might be* the lack of separation of religion and state. Yet many "developed" countries have similar problems, including the US.

* - ie. I don't know this for a fact, but it's a theory that fits the evidence that I'm aware of.

It would be interesting to trace the country of origin of every member of ISIS to see whether there's a correlation along those lines.

If the countries using Islam as law had their religion secular from politics, I think it would lessen the ability of these terrorists to use their religion's extreme messaging to reel people into their cause.

Ah, you went on to say this I don't know, it doesn't seem to lessen the amount of people who believe that most/almost all Muslims are "radicalised" (ie. "their enemy", etc). People believe some crazy shit when they want to.

I wonder if the bible gives any horrifying commands that Christians (usually) don't take literally.

http://www.openbible.info/topics/jihad

Take your pick. I wasn't surprised that there would be some, but I was surprised just how explicit some of them are.

That is a commandment made to the Hebrews. Plus the penalty is for the act itself, not for wanting to do the act.

Implication: "that commandment was to the Hebrews, not us"
Yet the stereotypical homophobic Christian justification follows...

 

[JEDIYoda]

Do you seriously think you have became expert on Islamic religion matters, based on your research? Yes or No please.<-- I vote YES!!!

Also, do you think that the majority of Islamic scholars and most of muslim individuals are blatantly lying to the west, when we claim that IS does not represent Islam in any way? <-- what reason would they have for being truthful??? Good question, huh!!!


Is there the slightest chance that myself, whom never sat a foot on US soil, could possibly be more educated and knowledgeable about the US' many social/federal/state systems, history and the average life of American citizens, more than the educated American scholars themselves? <---- there is a hell of a good chance that don`t know jack!!


Taking into consideration that I've read a few books/articles, followed the news and watched many movies.
Can I have unbiased/rational answer here...

short answer -- Your full of yourself!! <-- that`s as unbiased as it gets!!