Heh, sorry to disappoint you, I am not a Muslim. But I guess the reason they let so few speak for them is because the majority also feel the bias and the discrimination from the West and sympathize with those few extremist. Maybe if you take that away, they will start to speak out against those extremist more.
Heh, sorry to disappoint you, I am not a Muslim. But I guess the reason they let so few speak for them is because the majority also feel the bias and the discrimination from the West and sympathize with those few extremist. Maybe if you take that away, they will start to speak out against those extremist more.
LMAO. The exact reverse is also true.
It's interesting that you critisize the west about cartoons while the Muslims who are kidnaping and beheading people, burning embasies, etc. get a free ride from you.
GWB was an idiot who never should have went into Iraq, but I can't change the past. All I can do is prepare for the future and after talking to you and what I have seen from others on here it is apparent that the majority of Muslims not only want, but welcome a confrontation.
Be careful what you wish for, you might get it.
So many trolls, so little time ...
To be fair: it is not in the Quran teachings to kill people. Islam established complete equality between Muslims and non - Muslims, believing people should enjoy the freedom of practicing any faith or religion they choose without interference or discrimination and that they should be able to freely express their opinions.
In fact, Mohamed said 'One who hurts a non - Muslim, he hurts me, and one who hurts me, hurts God.'
The problem with so many of these inbred lunatics (yea the 1.2 billion) is that they misinterpret their own religious doctrine!
The dichotomies and deviations started a long time ago. Example: Islam is divided into Sunni and Shiites who can't agree on a common prophet. Sunnis follow Mohammed, while Shiites follow his cousin.
Anyone who says its our fault for inciting violence is actually making my argument. You are saying that we ought not provoke them, and if we do its our fault.
Kind of like not poking orangutangs with a stick or baiting aligators. Many of the 1.2billion are inbred, violent, lunatic fringe people.
Therefore, yes, i agree we should not poke them with a stick. We ought to systematically eradicate this disease. I say this with full knowledge that i am propagating violence and thus in many ways guilty of what they are doing.
But you know what, I'm well versed in religion, philosophy, history and politics, thus I don't speak out of ignorance. i speak out of frustration. enough is enough.
To be fair: it is not in the Quran teachings to kill people. Islam established complete equality between Muslims and non - Muslims, believing people should enjoy the freedom of practicing any faith or religion they choose without interference or discrimination and that they should be able to freely express their opinions.
In fact, Mohamed said 'One who hurts a non - Muslim, he hurts me, and one who hurts me, hurts God.'
The problem with so many of these inbred lunatics (yea the 1.2 billion) is that they misinterpret their own religious doctrine!
The dichotomies and deviations started a long time ago. Example: Islam is divided into Sunni and Shiites who can't agree on a common prophet. Sunnis follow Mohammed, while Shiites follow his cousin.
Anyone who says its our fault for inciting violence is actually making my argument. You are saying that we ought not provoke them, and if we do its our fault.
Kind of like not poking orangutangs with a stick or baiting aligators. Many of the 1.2billion are inbred, violent, lunatic fringe people.
Therefore, yes, i agree we should not poke them with a stick. We ought to systematically eradicate this disease. I say this with full knowledge that i am propagating violence and thus in many ways guilty of what they are doing.
But you know what, I'm well versed in religion, philosophy, history and politics, thus I don't speak out of ignorance. i speak out of frustration. enough is enough.
Who made you a scholar in Islam ?
I am a Sunni Muslim, and I have a good number of Shiite relatives and friends + neighbours & acquintences, FYI Islam has what few others don't, no matter what sect you pick of Islam be it a Shiite sect or a Sunni sect you would come to realise that all the sects of Islam have one main thing in commen, which the same exact unaltered Holy Book. Building on that point, in that Holy book, nothing is mentioned about Ali (the cousine of Mohammad PBUH), and it says in many several verses that Mohammad is the last Prophet and the only one of his time period.
Now the question that presents itself is : If they all (the different sects) have the same Holy Book in common (the Quran), then why are there different sects ?
That's a good question, you see as a Muslim a person is supposed to follow two main and essential rules :
1- The Holy Quran
2- The instructions of the prophet Mohammad (PBUH either it be from actions he has taken ,noted down by witnesses of his time (and the more witnesses that note that the more credible it becomes), or commandments he gave the Muslims of his time period) that expand on what the Quran actually asks of Muslims to do, and there is a rule of logic to be followed if anything is claimed to be an action of Muhammad (PBUH) then it CAN'T be in any way in conflict with the teachings of the Holy Quran.
So building on those two points, different sects of Islam have minor diffences, that are not enough to classify any one of them as being non-Muslim.
Why ? Well because in contrary to what people think, the Quran encourages it's readers throughout it's noble verses to put things into prespective, and to think about what they are reading, not to follow it blindly and not think about it.
Several verses in the Quran canno't be interpreted in a wrong way and at the same time there is no right way either, such verses require Philosophical debate and as we know when it comes to Philosophy you can't prove an argument wrong due to it's non-materialistic nature.
Therefore different points of view arise and each will explain how they interpreted it and why ?
That way each point of view after being explained to people well either make sense, or not.
So you will have people convinced by one point and not so by the other,and it becomes a matter of faith.
As for Ali (may God bless his soul) he was Muhammad's right hand, he even saved Muhammad's life once, and he was more of a brother to him than he was a cousine, there was never a conflict between them during Muhammad's lifetime. And to add to that, Ali married the Prophet's daughter
However when Muhammad (PBUH) was dying he told those who were in his presence, about the chain of command after him, which is known as the Khelafa in Arabic language, meaning the hierarchy of taking command. It specefied who will lead the Islamic nation after him, and by what order.
When the time came, and it became Ali's role to rule Maweya Bin Sufian had an issue with that and a whole controversy occured about it, and it lead to war in between his supporters and Maweya's.
To make a long story short, it ended with Ali's sons being killed in Iraq (if Karbala and Najaf ring a bell, that's why they are holy cities to the Shiites).
To get to my point the rise behind the Shiite sect was political more than it was relegious, and it has some Philosophical background to it too, that's why the aspects of difference in between the two are focused on how a state is run, judicial matters and so on. And if you look at them closely you will find that there isn't much of a difference in between both and they both hold Muhammad (PBUH) as the seal of Prophets and end of discussion.
So your argument is false and I would suggest you study Islam closer before more sht hits the fan!
You know, this is all too typical in this forum and the West. Everyone here suddenly becomes an expert in Islam or knows how every single Muslim feels after seeing some news clip from the West Media and newspapers. Or reading some $hitty translation of Koran somewhere on the web from some a$$hole who want nothing but stirring up people's emotion.
Everyone here is so certain that they know for a fact that Islam is about violence, Mohammed rewards sucide bomber with virgin blah blah blah. Yeap, just like everyone knows for sure Iraq had WMD, or Saddam is responsible for 911.
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
Well what a shock to you. This is exactly the kind of thing I expected but you were all high and mighty. Your high levels of smartness.
As has been said, the majority of muslims want no part of this, yet who among them is saying "Stop this"? We still hear their apologists.
Get this message. Burning and killing and threatening to kill? You bet I would love a case of that toilet paper. I insult, they burn.
BTW go to Saudi Arabia or Iran and walk down the street with a beer and see what happens. Why don't they respect my rights? Waaa.
Well it's their country dammit, and if I go there I had better understand that I am expected to behave in certain ways. If not I had better get out.
What about these people and others like them who were imprisoned by an Islamic government?
Make that two cases of toilet paper for me. All are expected to play by their rules. Well if they don't like it, they can protest. I don't care. When they start firebombing embassies, they have surrendered THEIR rights.
Now I don't WANT violence against muslims in Europe, but it is in the nature of people to push back when they are attacked. The so called wimps of France and elsewhere WILL get fed up, and if the muslim community does not get control of the more extreme elements, all of them will suffer. It isn't if, but when.
Oh hey, there is this little piece I found in the same link:
In Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim nation, President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono denounced the cartoons as insensitive.
But "as religious people, we should accept the apology extended by the Danish government," he added.
I guess it's just convienent for you people to miss out this part that the president of the largest Muslim nation didn't support violence, and surprise, accepted the apology from Danish government.
You are an idiot, can't you see how much of an idiot you are ?
you are trying to defend your position and still bringing on the same provocative and relegious slurs about toilet paper and Muhammad, are you trying to convince me and AT that you are better than those extremists ?
I am here posting that I disagree with what those idiots are doing and is in no way it's inn accordance with the teachings of Islam nor it's civilized to do.
I AM A MUSLIM AND I AM TELLING YOU I % 100 DISAGREE WITH WHAT HAPPENED AND DON'T THINK THAT IT'S ACCEPTABEL IN ANY WAY NOR IT"S APPROVABLE BY ISLAM, AND YOU KEEP GOING ON INSULTING ME WITH YOUR IGNORANT STATEMENTS AND MENTIONING HOW YOU WANT TO HAVE THE PROHPHET THAT I BELIEVE IN ON TOILET PAPER AND THAT ALL MUSLIMS BELIEVE IN VIOLENCE TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM ,
HOW THE ****** DO YOU MANAGE TO BREATH ??
CAN'T YOU SEE HOW MUCH OF A BIGOT YOU ARE ?
YOU KEEP STICKING THESE INSULTS IN MY FACE , HAVE I EVER DONE SUCH A THING TO YOU ? OR YOUR RELEGION ? But you see since you are a racist and an extremist it's fun to bash a Muslim even though he is in no way agreeing to what is happening, you see this is where the west loses touch with Muslims, you refuse to accept that there are Muslims out there that are not violent.
IF THIS WAS A MUSLIM ON THESE FORUMS THAT KEEPS SAYING SUCH THINGS TO A NON-MUSLIM HE WOULD HAVE BEEN IN BANNATION LAND LONG AGO, BUT I GUESS IT'S OK SINCE YOU ARE NOT!!
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
You spit so much you missed this:
As has been said, the majority of muslims want no part of this.
and
BTW go to Saudi Arabia or Iran and walk down the street with a beer and see what happens. Why don't they respect my rights? Waaa.
Well it's their country dammit, and if I go there I had better understand that I am expected to behave in certain ways. If not I had better get out.
---------------------------------------------------------------
You see, my anger is directed at these people, and if I had a chance to insult them I would. Maybe you don't like it, but hey I'm not looking to lock you up or beat you or anything else.
So call me anything you like, and while you won't believe it, I would be one of the native born in this country helping to prevent you being locked up like the Japanese. You are just going to have to deal with that apparent contradiction.
Originally posted by: The Linuxator
Who made you a scholar in Islam ?
/Snip
To get to my point the rise behind the Shiite sect was political more than it was relegious, and it has some Philosophical background to it too, that's why the aspects of difference in between the two are focused on how a state is run, judicial matters and so on. And if you look at them closely you will find that there isn't much of a difference in between both and they both hold Muhammad (PBUH) as the seal of Prophets and end of discussion.
So your argument is false and I would suggest you study Islam closer before more sht hits the fan!
I'll do that.
My argument is not false. Through that ludicrous amount of ranting rhetoric you spewed forth, you've only explained origin. My argument is this - a) even though Muhammad (peace on him and all that) said you have to exercise tolerance, how do you twist the scripture so it comes out completely the opposite; and b) if we are at fault for poking a gorilla with a stick, then these people are akin to gorillas in intellect.
PB on you.
Did you actually understand that people who are not muslim (i.e. 6 billion of them), Mohammed means nothing and is no more of a prophet than any other blood thirsty dictator. In fact, a very common view among jews is that Mohammed was a back stabber because when he was on the run from his enemies he sought refuge amongst jewish tribes in Arabia, who protected him and treated him like their own. He even promised them peaceful co-existence if he ever came into power, but once he did, he decided to kill them all. That is why many jews believe arabs cannot be trusted. Just look up any Israeli newspaper and you'll see a mention of this fact very often. Is this offensive to muslims that the establisher of their religion is considered a blood thirsty backstabbing traitor by some people ? great, now go sue them ! And when arab media pribts cartoons implying america is going into the middle east to molest arab, to take over islam holy sites, to take over oil, to subdue all arabs, etc - should the US feel unsulted and sue the oublishers ?
Dude, accept the fact that people have different beliefs and one religion's prophet is no more than a dirty traitor in the eyes of other religions, Kapish ? I think that so-called "prophet" Mohammed toilet paper will be a huge hit in some places, just like the israeli flag floor mat is a huge hit in some arab coutries where people like to show their disrespect by rubbing their feet on it (yes, that's a true fact).
Dude, accept the fact that people have different beliefs and one religion's prophet is no more than a dirty traitor in the eyes of other religions, Kapish ? I think that so-called "prophet" Mohammed toilet paper will be a huge hit in some places, just like the israeli flag floor mat is a huge hit in some arab coutries where people like to show their disrespect by rubbing their feet on it (yes, that's a true fact).
Just because you don't believe in it, there is no need for you to insult and disrespect the people who believe in it. And if you do, don't go home and cry to your mommy that some one is mean to you.
I'm not trying to insult, but it just happens that some people's beliefs, such as the Mahammed was a sneaky traitor and had as much connection with god as lunatic in a mental asylum, may be insulting to them. Deal with it. Not everyone shares your beliefs, and you can't tell people what to believe, and these people are free to express their beliefs. You can ignore it or respond to it in a civilized manner. Unlike what is happening.
All of the Muslims who are rioting and giving death threats seriously need to get over themselves. You know what they're doing? They're attracting publicity to exactly the pictures they don't want people to see! And furthermore, are justifying those same exact political cartoons in doing it!
It's called tact. And the Islamic religion, it seems to me, has none at all.
It's called tact. And the Islamic religion, it seems to me, has none at all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad
I'm not saying this claim is true as it is disputed like many historical events. But a lot of jews believe it and it is repeated countless times. The point here is about taking offense. You need to grow a thicker skin.
Cerb
Elite Member
- Aug 26, 2000
- 17,484
- 33
- 86
You're changing the subject--again.
All right and proected as freedom ar enot the same thing. You can say unethical things, and it may not be alright, but it is still protected. Whether you think it is good or bad is not the issue. It's whether the speech itself is misrepresenting facts ("Muslims are all terrorists" is not stating a fact, whether it is correct or not), or if the speech is harming anyone. (child porn, FI, would be directly harmful speech).
I don't think anyone is arguing whether the Danish newspaper had the RIGHT to publish the cartoons. Of course they have the RIGHT to, they can do whatever the fvck they bloody well please. But they shouldn't have, and they should apologize, because they not only offended, but INSULTED a quarter of the world. And the rest of the western world should stop treating this like a free speech issue and making things worse than they already are.
Cerb
Elite Member
- Aug 26, 2000
- 17,484
- 33
- 86
Then these people should learn to deal with these issues in a different way. They are not doing anyone any good by threatening and committing violence, and are giving a bad image to their whole religion, of which they are the vocal minority, and possibly even a smaller minority than Fundy Christians. Indonesia's President did it right. Publicly denouncing it, and calling for an apology, is fine. Massive public protest is fine. Threatening violence isn't.
How is it NOT a freedom of speech issue? Freedom of speech requires that others respect another's freedom of speech, and do not see it as their place to treat speech they do not like as a crime that requires punishment. It does not exist because one person says so, but because many can agree. This kind of response is not respectful of that, and such respect is a major issue that needs to be resolved for us to start getting along.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter