# Muslim woman kills child, shouts 'Allahu Akbar'



## Matariki (Feb 29, 2016)

> Horrific new details of how a nanny beheaded a four-year-old girl and paraded through the streets of Moscow with her severed head have been revealed.
> 
> The woman, dressed in a burka, threatened to blow herself up as she walked near Oktyabrskoye Pole metro station holding up the little girl's head.
> 
> Investigators claim she murdered the girl, who is believed to have learning difficulties, after starting a fire at the child's family home in a block of flats.


----------



## Savior (Feb 29, 2016)

The Daily Mail?


----------



## Amanda (Feb 29, 2016)

I really doubt the issue here is that she's a Muslim, and rather that she's obviously violently insane. 

And I don't want to read news like this for a while. Time to curl under the blankets for a while.


----------



## ExoSkel (Feb 29, 2016)

Amanda said:


> I really doubt the issue here is that she's a Muslim


"beheaded", "allahu akbar"

yup definitely not muslim issue


----------



## Kafuka de Vil (Feb 29, 2016)

Muzzies gonna muzz


----------



## Onomatopoeia (Feb 29, 2016)

Religion of PEACE.


----------



## Lina Inverse (Feb 29, 2016)

This is why we can't have nice things


----------



## Deleted member 235437 (Feb 29, 2016)

Islam makes me sick in general but women who actually follow this misogynistic religion are even more annoying


----------



## Linkdarkside (Feb 29, 2016)

we need a new Crusade and Inquisition.


----------



## NeoDestiny (Feb 29, 2016)

ExoSkel said:


> "beheaded", "allahu akbar"
> 
> yup definitely not muslim issue



Let's just blame child molestation and rape on Catholics too. Spotlight did win a few Oscars. Let's rally behind this, I mean if we are going to make beheading exclusive to Islam. 

[YOUTUBE]56jw6tasomc[/YOUTUBE]



Onomatopoeia said:


> Religion of PEACE.



Catholicism the religion of child pornography, molestation and rape.


----------



## Onomatopoeia (Feb 29, 2016)

I'm not Catholic, so go nuts. It's just a meme, dude.


----------



## Deleted member 235437 (Feb 29, 2016)

Nobody is saying its exclusive to Islam but in this particular instance what she did is no different then what ISIS do everyday which is a Islam issue. The fact that she yelled "Allahu Akbar" as though she did it for God also makes it an Islam issue


The sooner Muslims accept this, the sooner they can address the clear problem they have in their communities that leads to creating individuals such as these


----------



## Mider T (Feb 29, 2016)

How would she be punished in Sharia Law?


----------



## NeoDestiny (Feb 29, 2016)

Khaleesi said:


> Nobody is saying its exclusive to Islam but in this particular instance what she did is no different then what ISIS do everyday which is a Islam issue. The fact that she yelled "Allahu Akbar" as though she did it for God also makes it an Islam issue
> 
> 
> The sooner Muslims accept this, the sooner they can address the clear problem they have in their communities that leads to creating individuals such as these



You know what's funny is whenever I make that analogy. It is completely ignored. Like you didn't even comprehend the analogy or you just decide to brush it off and pretend it doesn't make these anti-Islam circle jerks look stupid. 

The sooner Catholics stop raping little boys and girls, the sooner they can address the clear problem the Catholic Church has with their secret p*d*p**** communities and cults that lead to movies like Spotlight winning awards at the Oscars. 

Threads like this just evolve into Islam hate threads. I could literally post a dozen different threads every single day- each with a separate story on how a Catholic priest just raped someone. Don't believe me? Go to google. Type "priest child rape molestation child pornography" and click "News." 

It's really that easy. Of course, Western media doesn't put the "Spotlight" on news like this. Oh- holy shit is that why the movie is called "Spotlight."


----------



## Deleted member 235437 (Feb 29, 2016)

Then make a thread about Catholics raping little boys? You're the one that's missing the point, this article is about a Muslim woman so of course Islam is going to be discussed



And I never denied it but I'm also not going to sit here and talk about something that's completely irrelevant to the article


----------



## Banhammer (Feb 29, 2016)

NeoDestiny said:


> Catholicism the religion of child pornography, molestation and rape.




Tell you what:


Yes.

Let's do this "b-but what about chrtjaaans" whine, but let's do it all the way baby.

We'll drop an inquisition on both these houses 


But what do you say, following the ineffable logic of this brilliant argument, that we at least we take care of the baby beheading one first, and then the one with the preteen fiddling?


----------



## NeoDestiny (Feb 29, 2016)

Khaleesi said:


> Then make a thread about Catholics raping little boys? You're the one that's missing the point, this article is about a Muslim woman so of course Islam is going to be discussed



Don't pretend these threads are anything but anti-Muslim circle jerks. It's one thing to say "that lady sure is a psychopath" or "that's fucked up" and it's another thing to turn all of these threads in Islam "discussions." 

If you wan't to discuss Islam so badly why don't you just post in this ?

I believe that is the entire point of "."


----------



## Deleted member 235437 (Feb 29, 2016)

The article is about a Muslim woman be heading a child, something a known Islamic terrorist group does everyday. 

I'm going to criticize Islam here.

So is everyone else.


Don't like it? 

Can't handle it? 

Feelings getting hurt? 


Don't post in the thread


----------



## RobbStark1 (Feb 29, 2016)

Khaleesi said:


> Nobody is saying its exclusive to Islam but in this particular instance what she did is no different then what ISIS do everyday which is a Islam issue. The fact that she yelled "Allahu Akbar" as though she did it for God also makes it an Islam issue
> 
> 
> The sooner Muslims accept this, the sooner they can address the clear problem they have in their communities that leads to creating individuals such as these



Neither ISIS nor this woman are an "Islam issue." The problem is fanaticism, extremism and intolerance. The same way priests used to hate speech against homosexuals.


----------



## NeoDestiny (Feb 29, 2016)

Khaleesi said:


> The article is about a Muslim woman be heading a child, something a known Islamic terrorist group does everyday.
> 
> I'm going to criticize Islam here.
> 
> ...



Great response, very intellectual, and well-thought-out. Completely ignored the fact that there is a thread called " for discussing Islam if you want to actually discuss and debate the religion.

Don't worry, I'm done interrupting your anti-Islam circle jerk. 



Khaleesi said:


> Islam makes me sick in general but women who actually follow this misogynistic religion are even more annoying



It's like reading the comments on some extremist far-right YouTube video.


----------



## Banhammer (Feb 29, 2016)

> Don't pretend these threads are anything but anti-Muslim circle jerks. It's one thing to say "that lady sure is a psychopath" or "that's fucked up" and it's another thing to turn all of these threads in Islam "discussions."



Yo, that lady is a psychopath

And that is fucked up

But I came in here and saw you going "Muh Deus Vult", so there's that


----------



## NeoDestiny (Feb 29, 2016)

Banhammer said:


> Yo, that lady is a psychopath
> 
> And that is fucked up
> 
> But I came in here and saw you going "*My God wills it...?*", so there's that



I honestly do not understand what you mean by that.


----------



## FLORIDA MAN (Feb 29, 2016)

RobbStark1 said:


> Neither ISIS nor this woman are an "Islam issue." The problem is fanaticism, extremism and intolerance. The same way priests used to hate speech against homosexuals.



Islam's issues specifically is it's especially prone to fanaticism, extremism, and intolerance among the Abrahamic religions.


----------



## Parallax (Feb 29, 2016)

I think it's fair to at least ask why aren't other Christians and Jews not prone to excessively violent outbursts like that.  I mean sure there are extremists, but not on this level.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Feb 29, 2016)

NeoDestiny said:


> You know what's funny is whenever I make that analogy. It is completely ignored. Like you didn't even comprehend the analogy or you just decide to brush it off and pretend it doesn't make these anti-Islam circle jerks look stupid.
> 
> The sooner Catholics stop raping little boys and girls, the sooner they can address the clear problem the Catholic Church has with their secret p*d*p**** communities and cults that lead to movies like Spotlight winning awards at the Oscars.
> 
> ...



You're deflecting, and it's pathetic.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Feb 29, 2016)

NeoDestiny said:


> It probably has something to do with the the Middle East being the world's largest shatterbelt. Dictators constantly being overthrown, failed wars, failed proxy wars, the West creating ISIS, etc.
> 
> I suppose if we forget things like the Bosnian genocide in the 90s, the Holocaust, etc. Christianity definitely seems like a peaceful religion with no violent outbursts.
> 
> Then again I feel like I've had this discussion before... Oh- yeah, starting with this  and then basically any example of violent Christian atrocities being ignored over and over again.



The west didn't create ISIS, the formation of ISIS was caused primarily due to the destabilization in Syria. Of which is not at all the west's fault, Assad did pretty much declare war on his people. Like many of these wars, the instability spread past its borders, much the same with the invasion of Iraq allowed Al Qaeda to spread into the nation. The resulting conflicts creating a vacuum of power that Islamists have sought, and sought to fill, for the longest time. 

Nobody is defending Christianity. It is irrelevant to the matter at hand. Once again, you're deflecting and it's pathetic. You're completely incapable of addressing the criticisms toward Islam so you are trying to divert it to the matter of Christianity as if people are going to defend it. It's the classic case of a person having for one, a kneejerk reaction to what they see, and a complete lack of nuance. Thinking only in the absolutes that if one is X then they must be Y, and if one holds a particular position they must only do so in its most extreme form.

You're ignorantly trying to make it as if all of what you perceive here is all there is. Ignoring that this forum has gone on years before you even showed up, and that for years, more consistently Christianity and specifically the Catholic church was criticized for its various actions in this modern day alone.



> The arm-chair psychology never ceases to amaze me. Analogy =/= Deflection. Sure thing, boss.
> 
> How much do you charge by the way?



1. You mean psychiatrist don't you? 

2. What you presented was not an analogy, it was deflection and it was pathetic.


----------



## Jagger (Feb 29, 2016)

NeoDestiny said:


> Let's just blame child molestation and rape on Catholics too. Spotlight did win a few Oscars. Let's rally behind this, I mean if we are going to make beheading exclusive to Islam.
> 
> [YOUTUBE]56jw6tasomc[/YOUTUBE]
> 
> ...


That's because your point is utterly irrelevant to the news posted in the thread. Yes, Catholicism can be equally barbaric and violent as Islam, yet, that's not the issue at hand. Mentions and reports done of violent deeds commited by Catholics are far less prominent than those done by radical backwards islam followers. 

Everytime someone makes a mention of this particular issue, you're the one who comes and starts protesting "BUT CATHOLICS DO IT TOO!!", which isn't really helpful.


----------



## NeoDestiny (Feb 29, 2016)

Seto Kaiba said:


> The west didn't create ISIS, the formation of ISIS was caused primarily due to the destabilization in Syria. Of which is not at all the west's fault, Assad did pretty much declare war on his people. Like many of these wars, the instability spread past its borders, much the same with the invasion of Iraq allowed Al Qaeda to spread into the nation. The resulting conflicts creating a vacuum of power that Islamists have sought, and sought to fill, for the longest time.
> 
> Nobody is defending Christianity. It is irrelevant to the matter at hand. Once again, you're deflecting and it's pathetic. You're completely incapable of addressing the criticisms toward Islam so you are trying to divert it to the matter of Christianity as if people are going to defend it. It's the classic case of a person having for one, a kneejerk reaction to what they see, and a complete lack of nuance. Thinking only in the absolutes that if one is X then they must be Y, and if one holds a particular position they must only do so in its most extreme form.
> 
> You're ignorantly trying to make it as if all of what you perceive here is all there is. Ignoring that this forum has gone on years before you even showed up, and that for years, more consistently Christianity and specifically the Catholic church was criticized for its various actions in this modern day alone.



Great wall of text.

We've had this discussion before. I basically blame the shatterbelt in the Middle East and the creation of ISIS on the West (with irrefutable evidence). You blame the shatterbelt on the actual religion of Islam. I spend hours typing posts only to get tweet responses like this from you:



Seto Kaiba said:


> Islam is a religion of violence and barbarism though.



You're not going to troll me this time and make me waste several hours digging up articles, evidence, and facts just to have it replied with a response that takes you less than a minute to type.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Feb 29, 2016)

NeoDestiny said:


> Great wall of text.
> 
> We've had this discussion before. I spend hours typing posts only to get tweet responses like this from you:



Pathetic. You can't address my points so you completely avoid them. 

Islam *IS* a religion of barbarism and violence.

Also there you go again, not only are you deflecting, you're again trying to pretend that all you are capable of perceiving is all there is. I've been here for ten years, you evidently know jack shit on my discussions on Islam or Christianity.


----------



## NeoDestiny (Feb 29, 2016)

Seto Kaiba said:


> P
> Islam *IS* a religion of barbarism and violence.



Oh- there it is again.

I've already proved you wrong before. Of course, you will obviously continue believing what you believe about Islam. It would be incredible if someday you understood the geopolitics of the Middle East and understood the impact these conflicts have on the Muslim population that lives there.

You know you disregard everything I post, even if it is from credible sources. Let's agree to disagree.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Feb 29, 2016)

NeoDestiny said:


> Oh- there it is again.
> 
> I've already proved you wrong before. Of course, you will obviously continue believing what you believe about Islam.



You've not made a single argument in this thread or the one prior.

All you did, and all you are doing now, is reacting before you think. Deflecting by darting from one irrelevant matter to another, and completely dodging any arguments that are clearly too difficult and complex for you to process, even moreso refute. 

The fact that you are clinging to life on this statement, without making a single relevant point says more than enough.

Islam was founded by a warlord, and was spread in those days by the sword. Many of the demands it makes of followers are violent, and the terrorist organizations you see today are a result of seeing followers try to follow those violent decrees to the letter. In the many centuries thereafter, it was spread by the sword. The nations today that ranked among the worst human rights records are those Islamic nations in the Middle East and North Africa most notably. The religion that struggles the most coexisting with various issues relating to personal freedoms, and most notably that of violent extremism today, is Islam.

Now, since it's too difficult for you to process, this has nothing to do with my position or anyone else's, on Christianity. To criticize Islam is not to be apologetic toward the wrongdoings of the other Abrahamic religions. Something I told you before, but like with so many things, you dodged. So bringing any other religion up is irrelevant to this matter.


----------



## Deleted member 235437 (Feb 29, 2016)

NeoDestiny said:


> Oh- there it is again.
> 
> I've already proved you wrong before. Of course, you will obviously continue believing what you believe about Islam. I*t would be incredible if someday you understood the geopolitics of the Middle East and understood the impact these conflicts have on the Muslim population that lives there.
> *
> You know you disregard everything I post, even if it is from credible sources. Let's agree to disagree.



I'm Kurdish, and have family there that are personally affected by these conflicts, I'm also an ex Muslim, and my background has shaped and impacted my view of Islam more than anything

What exactly is your point here?


----------



## RobbStark1 (Feb 29, 2016)

WAD said:


> Islam's issues specifically is it's especially prone to fanaticism, extremism, and intolerance among the Abrahamic religions.



Majority of Muslims are relatively peaceful and rational. That's like saying Caucasians are prone to lynching blacks based on the actions of the KKK. Or antisemitism is inherent in Germans. Shitty argument.


----------



## Gilgamesh (Feb 29, 2016)

b-b-but islam is supposed to be a religion of peace


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Feb 29, 2016)

RobbStark1 said:


> Majority of Muslims are relatively peaceful and rational. That's like Caucasians are prone to lynching blacks based on the actions of the KKK. Or antisemitism is inherent in Germans. Shitty argument.



No it isn't, because we are talking about a religion with an established dogma and set of demands on what it deems to be ideal behavior of its followers. While most Muslims are not violent, the truth of the matter is that a disturbingly high number believe in a number of things that we find at best, backwards and at worst absolutely deplorable. It depends on the nation, as some are worst than others but the fact that you have even say, a third or a quarter, believing that death is appropriate for apostasy for example says a lot.


----------



## RobbStark1 (Feb 29, 2016)

Seto Kaiba said:


> No it isn't, because we are talking about a religion with an established dogma and set of demands on what it deems to be ideal behavior of its followers. While most Muslims are not violent, the truth of the matter is that a disturbingly high number believe in a number of things that we find at best, backwards and at worst absolutely deplorable. It depends on the nation, as some are worst than others but the fact that you have even say, a third or a quarter, believing that death is appropriate for apostasy for example says a lot.



Um what? Various acts of violence are carried out by radical groups, emphasis on RADICALS. Outside that, you have corrupt governments and dictators scattered across war-torn nations in the Middle-East. Outside these two factors (radicalist factions and corrupt regimes) can you tell me where you're getting "a quarter of all Muslims follow ideals we find deplorable?" Where did you get that percentage and what, pray tell, deplorable ideals do they subscribe to?


----------



## Amanda (Feb 29, 2016)

ExoSkel said:


> "beheaded", "allahu akbar"
> 
> yup definitely not muslim issue




If Islam caused her to become a child killer, then yes. But the impression I get front her actions based on this is that she's crazy on her own right - I mean she walked with the head on the street. Regular ISIS or other Jihadist turds in infidel lands don't do that.

But hey, I'm could be wrong. Aren't too excited about reading more details.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Feb 29, 2016)

RobbStark1 said:


> Um what? Various acts of violence are carried out by radical groups, emphasis on RADICALS. Outside that, you have corrupt governments and dictators scattered across war-torn nations in the Middle-East. Outside these two factors (radicalist factions and corrupt regimes) can you tell me where you're getting "a quarter of all Muslims follow ideals we find deplorable?" Where did you get that percentage and what, pray tell, deplorable ideals do they subscribe to?



"Radicals" does not serve to address why they are radicals, and what motivates them to radicalism. What motivates this particular set of radicals is Islam and its violent creeds, as well as a desire to emulate the religion's founder.














Like I said, the majority are not violent extremists, they don't support suicide bombing by and large for example, but a high number do support a number of regressive practices. We are talking of a religion of over a billion, and these nations specifically having millions of individuals.


----------



## Jagger (Mar 1, 2016)

If Seto is a Bible thumper, then he's a hilariously bad one considering he's equally criticized Christianity before.


----------



## NeoDestiny (Mar 1, 2016)

Jagger said:


> If Seto is a Bible thumper, then he's a hilariously bad one considering he's equally criticized Christianity before.



He literally just copies and pastes this.



Seto Kaiba said:


> Islam *IS* a religion of barbarism and violence.



I would like to see his brief and simple description of Christianity in one sentence.

If he isn't a Bible thumper, he is definitely not atheist or agnostic because the general consensus amongst them is all religions are psychotic, pointless, and/or useless. They typically have no favorites to pick on. 

Seto Kaiba probably has an "Islam" folder on his desktop that he refers to, on a daily basis.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Mar 1, 2016)

NeoDestiny said:


> Don't bother trying to have a rational discuss with Seto Kaiba.
> 
> I already told him like a million times that 95% of terrorism victims are Muslim. Based on that irrefutable evidence he concludes Islam is a violent and barbaric religion. He's one of those internet trolls that are actually secret Bible thumpers but he pretends he isn't so his passive-aggressive approach to Islam seems legit.
> 
> Have you ever seen an atheist or agnostic individual that passionate about Islam? I haven't. I would know, I spend more time on atheist forums than on here.



Relevant:



Seto Kaiba said:


> Nobody is defending Christianity. It is irrelevant to the matter at hand. Once again, you're deflecting and it's pathetic. You're completely incapable of addressing the criticisms toward Islam so you are trying to divert it to the matter of Christianity as if people are going to defend it. It's the classic case of a person having for one, a kneejerk reaction to what they see, and a complete lack of nuance. Thinking only in the absolutes that if one is X then they must be Y, and if one holds a particular position they must only do so in its most extreme form.
> 
> You're ignorantly trying to make it as if all of what you perceive here is all there is. Ignoring that this forum has gone on years before you even showed up, and that for years, more consistently Christianity and specifically the Catholic church was criticized for its various actions in this modern day alone.


----------



## NeoDestiny (Mar 1, 2016)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Relevant:



I'm still waiting for a brief and simple sentence that defines Christianity from you.

Similar to this:



Seto Kaiba said:


> Islam *IS* a religion of barbarism and violence.



I don't need some paragraph of bullshit arm-chair psychology about diversion and deflection whenever you talk about Christianity. 

Give me your brief and to the point analysis of Christianity in a sentence. You describe the religion of Islam in two words "barbaric" and "violent." What two words would you use to describe and analyze Christianity?

Religion helps all criminals and sociopaths justify their crimes. This is the rational mindset of the vast majority of atheists and agnostics. I'm curious are you actually either of those? Because you sound like a Bible thumper to me.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Mar 1, 2016)

Wallow in your ignorance. Anyone that's been here for a while knows my position on religion. 

Hilariously enough you're only making my point here. You are inept at actually debating a point, and can only think in flawed absolutes.

What's even more hilarious is you are engaging in the same accusatory mindsets that promote what you seem to take offense to.


----------



## NeoDestiny (Mar 1, 2016)

Seto Kaiba said:


> It's funny because you're doing a lot of reacting, but not a lot of thinking.



Here let me post this for you again. Let me know when you're ready. 



NeoDestiny said:


> I'm still waiting for a brief and simple sentence that defines Christianity from you.
> 
> Similar to this:
> 
> ...


----------



## NeoDestiny (Mar 1, 2016)

Seto Kaiba said:


> I would rather see how far deep into this hole you're willing to dig yourself into.



I would rather see you reply to a simple question. 



NeoDestiny said:


> I'm still waiting for a brief and simple sentence that defines Christianity from you.
> 
> Similar to this:
> 
> ...


----------



## NeoDestiny (Mar 1, 2016)

Seto Kaiba said:


> You resorted to a desperate accusation because you could not respond to my arguments to begin with. Something you did with not only myself, but anyone that responded to you. Yet you demand that of others address the few, irrelevant points you have? Have a bit of self-awareness.
> 
> Also, keep digging that hole. Let's see how far you take this.



Nice wall of text but it sounds like you are still dodging a really easy question. 



NeoDestiny said:


> *What two words would you use to describe and analyze Christianity?*



You easily answered the question in regards to Islam.



Seto Kaiba said:


> Islam *IS* a religion of barbarism and violence.


----------



## RobbStark1 (Mar 1, 2016)

Seto Kaiba said:


> "Radicals" does not serve to address why they are radicals, and what motivates them to radicalism. What motivates this particular set of radicals is Islam and its violent creeds, as well as a desire to emulate the religion's founder.
> 
> 
> Like I said, the majority are not violent extremists, they don't support suicide bombing by and large for example, but a high number do support a number of regressive practices.* We are talking of a religion of over a billion, and these nations specifically having millions of individuals.*



*not allowed to post links/images until I have ten posts so I had to remove your stuff*

The study clearly says 38,000 Muslims were interviewed. Such a small sample size is hardly indicative of followers as a whole. The highest medians in this study came from largely war-torn and hostile nations such as Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Secondly



> The survey also finds that views about instituting sharia in the domestic-civil sphere frequently mirror a country’s existing legal system. Asked whether religious judges should decide family and property disputes, at least half of Muslims living in countries that have religious family courts answer yes.4 By contrast, in countries where secular courts oversee family matters, fewer than half of Muslims think that family and property disputes should be within the purview of religious judges.
> 
> When comparing Muslim attitudes toward sharia as official law and its specific application in the domestic sphere, three countries are particularly instructive: Lebanon, Tunisia and Turkey.
> 
> ...



Your study points out early on that out of the Muslims interviewed, those supporting Sharia as law of the land were located in nations that already subscribed to religious law. By this notion, it also showed in the study that Muslims residing in secular notions were NOT favorable to Sharia. The article even gives the example of Turkey, which underwent political reform and is no longer favorable to Sharia. The entire study follows this pattern which leads back to what I was saying about corrupt regimes and radical groups. The people are the problem, not the religion.

And for all the backwards ideals and misogyny Islam catches, Pakistan has had a female Prime Minister. America has yet to elect a female President.


----------



## Mider T (Mar 1, 2016)

Islamist apologists coming out of the woodwork today.


----------



## NeoDestiny (Mar 1, 2016)

Mider T said:


> Islamist apologists coming out of the woodwork today.



That would make sense if I didn't believe _*all*_ religions are excuses for crimes, war, and hatred.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Mar 1, 2016)

RobbStark1 said:


> *not allowed to post links/images until I have ten posts so I had to remove your stuff*
> 
> The study clear says 38,000 Muslims were interviewed. Such a small sample size is hardly indicative of followers as a whole. The highest medians in this study came from largely war-torn and hostile nations such as Pakistan and Afghanistan.



Learn how statistics work, specifically on polling these matters. 



> Secondly
> 
> Your study points out early on that out of the Muslims interviewed, those supporting Sharia as law of the land were located in nations that already subscribed to religious law. By this notion, it also showed in the study that Muslims residing in secular notions were NOT favorable to Sharia.



Yes, but where is the hotbed of extremism occuring most frequently? Those Islamic nations. The majority of most of these nations support Sharia, and depending on the topic, a majority of those support a number of regressive practices. Extremism is more or less the "logical" end of following those practices and the demands of the religion at large to the letter. 



> The article even gives the example of Turkey, which underwent political reform and is no longer favorable to Sharia. The entire study follows this pattern which leads back to what I was saying about corrupt regimes and radical groups. The people are the problem, not the religion.



The religion is the problem as well as the people. The religion purports violent and backwards ideals, and there are people who choose to follow them. It is contingent among each of the faithful on whether they choose to follow those backwards demands. Many do not, however a great deal do. Enough so that it is a relevant issue in the religion in particular.



> And for all the backwards ideals and misogyny Islam catches, Pakistan has had a female Prime Minister. America had yet to elect a female President.



So? America far exceeds Pakistan on women's rights and general human rights. You're pathetically clinging to an extreme exception, one of which will probably be irrelevant by the end of this year, to play apologist for a nation that has seen an increase of Islamic fundamentalism, and worse yet, extremism.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Mar 1, 2016)

NeoDestiny said:


> Nice wall of text but it sounds like you are still dodging a really easy question.
> 
> 
> 
> You easily answered the question in regards to Islam.



I wasn't answering a question then, I was stating a matter of fact.

You made a desperate accusation. One of which would not have been made if you bothered using your head before you reacted. You're digging yourself in a hole, and I won't help you out of it.

You want to think I'm a Christian because it would alleviate your own internal conflict on what I'm saying. It would excuse your own ignorance and ineptitude in addressing what I'm stating. Because if I was a Christian stating these things, then you can justify avoiding and dismissing them under the rationale that they were religious favoritism. It's the easy, simple-minded way out for one that is beyond their depth.


----------



## NeoDestiny (Mar 1, 2016)

Seto Kaiba said:


> I wasn't answering a question then, I was stating a matter of fact.
> 
> You made a desperate accusation. One of which would not have been made if you bothered using your head before you reacted. You're digging yourself in a hole, and I won't help you out of it.



Ignoring such a simple question is a great strategy but it doesn't hide the fact that you've been exposed. 

You're replies all have one thing in common. You refuse to answer such a simple question for someone who considers themselves such an expert on all religions. 



NeoDestiny said:


> I'm still waiting for a brief and simple sentence that defines Christianity from you.
> 
> Similar to this:
> 
> ...



Help me out here because I am actually dying to know. I'm obviously new here so I can't possibly look through all 37,363 of your posts right? I'm genuinely curious here. 

You have this elegant knack for summarizing Islam in a single sentence with two adjectives. I really would love to see you use that that natural skill and make a Christian version of that.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Mar 1, 2016)

NeoDestiny said:


> Ignoring such a simple question is a great strategy but it doesn't hide the fact that you've been exposed.
> 
> You're replies all have one thing in common. You refuse to answer such a simple question for someone who considers themselves such an expert on all religions.
> 
> ...



I think I've more than elaborated on Islam beyond that...you just avoided it. On that point, do not ask of others what you are not willing to give yourself. You spent this entire time dodging the points people made. Continue to wallow in your ignorant accusations. It only makes yourself look bad.

There's a very, very easy way for you to find out if your accusations hold ground. The fact that you did not use such means only goes to my point that you are reacting a lot, but not thinking. Your accusation is a reaction, not a well-thought conclusion.


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Mar 1, 2016)

> What two words would you use to describe and analyze Christianity?



Outdated and unnecessary.

Much like Islam. 

Islam much moreso.


----------



## NeoDestiny (Mar 1, 2016)

Seto Kaiba said:


> I think I've more than elaborated on Islam beyond that...you just avoided it. On that point, do not ask of others what you are not willing to give yourself. You spent this entire time dodging the points people made. Continue to wallow in your ignorant accusations. It only makes yourself look bad.
> 
> There's a very, very easy way for you to find out if your accusations hold ground. The fact that you did not use such means only goes to my point that you are reacting a lot, but not thinking. Your accusation is a reaction, not a well-thought conclusion.



Your wall of text and still doesn't answer a really simple question. 



NeoDestiny said:


> I'm still waiting for a brief and simple sentence that defines Christianity from you.
> 
> Similar to this:
> 
> ...



If it's so easy for you to talk about Islam. Why does it feel like I'm pulling teeth out when I bring up Christianity with you? Like I said you have over 37,000 posts. It's obviously impossible for me to go through all of them. Help me understand your view on a religion like Christianity. You seem the be the expert on religions around here. 

I've addressed pretty much every single ignorant "point" you've ever made on Islam in my first few posts on this forum. You've seen those posts and you've ignored them. 

Don't pretend like I haven't given you more than enough text on the topic of Islam. I've spent literally hours posting on Islam, posting research, statistic, my personal experiences and actual facts. You will never listen to me when I discuss Islam. You are not even open to the idea of changing your ignorant view of Islam. 

This is basically your response that you copy and paste all the time.



Seto Kaiba said:


> Islam *IS* a religion of barbarism and violence.


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Mar 1, 2016)

Neo, the only one copy and pasting that statement at this point at you.

That being said, regardless of whoever is the one _doing_ the copy and pasting of that statement, doesn't make it invalid. 

Please understand.


----------



## NeoDestiny (Mar 1, 2016)

Yami Munesanzun said:


> Outdated and unnecessary.
> 
> Much like Islam.
> 
> Islam much moreso.



I completely agree. 

Islam may seem more "outdated" and "unnecessary" because the Middle East is a shatterbelt. In more advanced countries like Turkey where Islam is 99.8% of the population I would argue that Islam is about as outdated and unnecessary as any other religion in a technology developed country.



Yami Munesanzun said:


> Neo, the only one copy and pasting that statement at this point at you.
> 
> That being said, regardless of whoever is the one _doing_ the copy and pasting of that statement, doesn't make it invalid.
> 
> Please understand.



I'm just simply asking him a question. Do you believe he really doesn't have answer to it? You just answered my question pretty quickly. We've already found a common-ground. The Middle East is unstable and obviously the most common religion there is going to be manipulated by regimes and dictators. Maybe you don't agree with my latter point but at least you're willing to meet me on some common-ground on an issue.


----------



## RobbStark1 (Mar 1, 2016)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Learn how statistics work, specifically on polling these matters.



Fairly decent in stats, thanks.



> Yes, but where is the hotbed of extremism occuring most frequently? Those Islamic nations. The majority of most of these nations support Sharia, and depending on the topic, a majority of those support a number of regressive practices.



You didn't refute my argument at all. These nations support Sharia because they have yet to encounter a secular, stable government.



> Extremism is more or less the "logical" end of following those practices and the demands of the religion at large to the letter.



No, extremism happens based on education and environment. It's a sociopolitical phenomena and derived from out-of-context verses of the Quran..



> The religion is the problem as well as the people. The religion purports violent and backwards ideals, and there are people who choose to follow them.



The religion also promotes peace and progression. How much of it have you actually read?



> It is contingent among each of the faithful on whether they choose to follow those backwards demands.



See above.



> Many do not, however a great deal do. Enough so that it is a relevant issue in the religion in particular.



On the surface, rap music seems to promote criminal activities and black-on-black violence. Are we going to attribute the deterioration of black America to rap, despite it actually being quite a rich genre?

It's also backwards to believe homosexuals are going to hell, or that Jews are the "chosen people." Each Abrahamic religion holds backwards ideals, and enough people believe in each of them for them to be a relevant issue in _every_ faith.





> So? America far exceeds Pakistan on women's rights and general human rights. You're pathetically clinging to an extreme exception, one of which will probably be irrelevant by the end of this year, to play apologist for a nation that has seen an increase of Islamic fundamentalism, and worse yet, extremism.



America didnt see the end of segregation til the 60's, and racially-charged murders are occurring at an alarming rate. Spare me the apologist spiel, I'm simply stating the obvious.

It's fine if you want to call certain followers of Islam idiots, but to attack the religion is a show of intolerance on your part.


----------



## Deleted member 235437 (Mar 1, 2016)

The one being ignorant is you Neo, you refuse to aknowldge the clear cut evidence that Islam is barbaric, backwards and toxic on all kinds of levels. 


You like the majority of other Muslims, get defensive when people rightfully criticize Islam, instead of acknowledging the fact that the religion is toxic but instead deflect said accusations


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Mar 1, 2016)

RobbStark1 said:


> Fairly decent in stats, thanks.



Then you should be aware of the concept of sample sizes, projections, and margins of error. 



> You didn't refute my argument at all. These nations support Sharia because they have yet to encounter a secular, stable government.



It's irrelevant really. These are where Islam has the most influence, it reflects on the religion. 



> No, extremism happens based on education and environment. It's a sociopolitical phenomena and derived from out-of-context verses of the Quran..



Bin Laden, Al-Awaki, and the numerous religious leaders of the religion that promote fundamentalism and extremism tend to be quite educated. So it is not that simple. The average populace that is educated tends to be more secular, this is true, but you are not really acknowledging the deep influence of the religion over all economic and educational classes of individuals in these places. 

Everyone says that this or that verse is out of context, but the truth is thtat it has violent and backwards decrees. What defines a moderate from a radical, and a radical from an extremist is how closely or how willing they are to follow such decrees.



> The religion also promotes peace and progression. How much of it have you actually read?



Plenty. It is, not unlike its brethren, riddled with contradictions. It gradually progresses into glorification of Mohammed's militarism and promotion of more militaristic ideals alongside ardent demands of piousness. 



> See above.
> 
> On the surface, rap music seems to promote criminal activities and black-on-black violence. Are we going to attribute the deterioration of black America to rap, despite it actually being quite a rich genre?



If the calling card of those gangs and individuals that commit such crimes are that, and the rap songs explicitly give out commands for such behavior, then yes. However, that would be illegal. Because such calls to action are not permitted. 

Islam makes explicit calls to action, what you see in the extremists is taking those demands seriously and literally. Once again, they are trying to emulate the campaigns of their prophet as well. They seek to establish a foothold in the Islamic world that spreads the Islam they wish to be the law of the land.



> It's also backwards to believe homosexuals are going to hell, or that Jews are the "chosen people." Each Abrahamic religion holds backwards ideals, and enough people believe in each of them for them to be a relevant issue in _every_ faith.



Irrelevant, as at no point did I excuse, defend, or bring up the other faiths. 

What is with you people in failing to understand this?



> America didnt see the end of segregation til the 60's, and racially-charged murders are occurring at an alarming rate. Spare me the apologist spiel, I'm simply stating the obvious.



The only apologist here is you. You are again trying to drag irrelevant matters to obscufate the point made here. America far exceeds Pakistan or any other Islamic nation in social progress. 

Actually "racially-charged" murders are an extreme minority, statistically speaking. Most are intraracial.



> It's fine if you want to call certain followers of Islam idiots, but to attack the religion is a show of intolerance on your part.



No it isn't, because the religion is a set of ideas and demands. 

What would be intolerant is to think all that claim to follow the religion reflect those backwards demands and ideals.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Mar 1, 2016)

NeoDestiny said:


> Your wall of text and still doesn't answer a really simple question.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Y--You caught me...It is true I am a Bible-thumping Christian...

Not once, in the entire time I've been here have I been critical of Christianity. As it is the one, true religion and the one, true way to worship God. Jesus Christ is his son and our lord and savior, and he will deliver those that accept his mercy in the end times and punish all nonbelievers. This is what I believe. For real.


----------



## NeoDestiny (Mar 1, 2016)

Khaleesi said:


> The one being ignorant is you Neo, you refuse to aknowldge the clear cut evidence that Islam is barbaric, backwards and toxic on all kinds of levels.
> 
> 
> You are like the majority of other Muslims, get defensive when people rightfully criticize Islam, instead of acknowledging the fact that the religion is toxic or at the very least the modern teachings of it are toxic but instead deflect said accusations



First of all, I'm not Muslim. I'm atheist. Second of all, I get defensive when people make one religion seem inferior to another. There is a difference. 

I actually acknowledge that the Middle East is a shatterbelt and that Islam is being manipulated by radical regimes and dictators. 95% of terrorism victims are Muslim. You and Kaiba make it sound like the 95% of those victims enjoy getting blown up or having their heads cut off. It's disgusting.

If Islam is so violent why are so many Muslims victims of terrorism? Why don't those victims fight back? They are terrorized by radical groups like ISIS who control the region. Wait- you mean innocent civilians are actually terrorized by terrorists? What the fuck? That's insane. It's almost like that's what terrorists do or something. 

What the hell would you do if you were born there and had a family? Join the latest "freedom fighters" funded by the U.S. only to be abandoned a few years later? Does Iraq ring any bells? Yeah- we left Iraq to fight for themselves. ISIS has completely taken over Iraq. How do you think people feel about fighting on America's side in Iraq. You are literally a disgusting human-being if you can't sympathize with the poor souls who are suffering over there from constantly being threatened and manipulated by superpowers bigger than them. You blame their religion for their suffering and not the violent regimes, dictators and superpowers playing God with people's lives over resources. 



Look at how complex the conflict is in Syria. You actually believe it's as simple as "Islam is barbaric." It's disgusting that people like you and Kaiba are not seen as toxic trolls on here. 

The Middle East is so complex- the players involved are greater than the religion of Islam. The Middle East is a battle purely for resources. Bible thumpers like you two try to make it an "Islam issue" when it's really just a war zone for resources- where 95% of the victims are Muslims. The people dying every single day in the Middle East are Muslims. 

In the wars that followed in Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. not only killed millions, but systematically destroyed the infrastructure necessary for healthy, prosperous life in those countries, then used rebuilding efforts as opportunities for profit, rather than to benefit the occupied populations.

The U.S. has contributed to further destabilization and death in the region by supporting the rise of the self-declared Islamic State of Iraq and Syria by arming rebel groups on all sides of the conflict.

You two need a reality check. If you seriously believe this entire shitstorm in the Middle East is because of a religion. You're either a Bible thumper or delusional and confused. It's honestly depressing that people like you exist. You are literally blind to what the Middle East is actually about. ISIS doesn't give a shit about Islam. They are ISIS the world's richest terror group. These psychos are not Muslims, they are the richest people in the Middle East besides Saudi Arabia and everyone else wants a piece. 



[YOUTUBE]Z1aDciHCejA[/YOUTUBE]

[YOUTUBE]OQuceU3x2Ww[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Mar 1, 2016)

> I actually acknowledge that the Middle East is a shatterbelt and that Islam is being manipulated by radical regimes and dictators. 95% of terrorism victims are Muslim. You and Kaiba make it sound like the 95% of those victims enjoy getting blown up or having their heads cut off. It's disgusting.



It's gross, it's racist!

No we don't. This is just another case of you simply reacting to what is being said, and putting no thought behind it. It's brainless, kneejerk, emotional defenses that do not at all serve to address the criticisms laid out that you take offense to.



> If Islam is so violent why are so many Muslims victims of terrorism?



I guess because those killing them *are also MUSLIMS*



> Why don't they fight back? They are terrorized by radical groups like ISIS who control the region. What the hell would you do if you were born there and had a family? Join the latest "freedom fighters" funded by the U.S. only to be abandoned a few years later? You are literally a disgusting human-being if you can't sympathize with the poor souls who are suffering over there. You blame their religion for their suffering and not the violent regimes and dictators.



The violent regimes and dictators use Islam as the basis of their authority. Even otuside of that, the way certain practices are justified is through the religion. You pathetically try to blame the U.S. for all of the region's woes, completely ignoring that it has had dealt with this conflict long before we came into the picture. Sectarian violence is a thing there, and is a big part of tearing the region apart. The most significant reason I'd say.


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Mar 1, 2016)

I just want to point out that the Islamic doctrine calls for the culling of infidels, which include non-believers _and_ moderates.

Just in case _anybody_ was confused on that point.


----------



## Sōsuke Aizen (Mar 1, 2016)

NeoDestiny said:


> First of all, I'm not Muslim. I'm atheist. Second of all, I get defensive when people make one religion seem inferior to another. There is a difference.
> 
> I actually acknowledge that the Middle East is a shatterbelt and that Islam is being manipulated by radical regimes and dictators. 95% of terrorism victims are Muslim. You and Kaiba make it sound like the 95% of those victims enjoy getting blown up or having their heads cut off. It's disgusting.
> 
> ...



It doesn't surprise me one bit that the war in the middle east is that complex.


----------



## Deleted member 235437 (Mar 1, 2016)

NeoDestiny said:


> First of all, I'm not Muslim. I'm atheist. Second of all, I get defensive when people make one religion seem inferior to another. There is a difference.
> 
> I actually acknowledge that the Middle East is a shatterbelt and that Islam is being manipulated by radical regimes and dictators. 95% of terrorism victims are Muslim. You and Kaiba make it sound like the 95% of those victims enjoy getting blown up or having their heads cut off. It's disgusting.
> 
> ...



Who is exactly is making one religion seem inferior to another? I dislike all forms of religion, doesn't matter what it is but of course twist my words to form your own warped agenda. 

And that is where we disagree, the Middle East is a shithole and dictators and regimes have obviously had a hand in it, but you're delusional if you  think Islam hasn't played a role in what it's become now.

Don't assume things about me. I told you before I'm Kurdish, I was born in the Middle East and I have family in the Kurdish region of Iraq. Don't act as though you're the only one with this insight as to what's it's like over there. I know first hand what Islam does. It was spread through violence and it's still being spread through violence. Nothing has changed since the Arabs spread it through out the region like a cancer. 

My problem is Muslims don't want to condemn these groups, when I was Muslim and was immersed in the religion and talked to many other Muslkm people it seemed like all they wanted to do was blame the West "oh the big bad west did this" but when it comes to groups like ISIS it's "not all Muslims" instead of acknowledging the lives that they take daily, they however just want to ignore the problem and blame the west. 

And I'm not saying the west hasn't had a hand in all of it, they obviously had but I'm also not an Islam apologist like you and can see that Islam has also had a hand in the shithole the Middle East has become


----------



## NeoDestiny (Mar 1, 2016)

Seto Kaiba said:


> It's gross, it's racist!
> 
> No we don't. This is just another case of you simply reacting to what is being said, and putting no thought behind it. It's brainless, kneejerk, emotional defenses that do not at all serve to address the criticisms laid out that you take offense to.
> 
> ...



Great response Bible thumper. It took you like two minutes to type that. You criticize me for not responding to your Islamophobia bullshit and when I do you don't even reply to everything word for word. Your bigotry is so obvious and the fact that it is condoned here is disappointing. Should just make it an official rule that racism and bigotry is actually allowed in the NF Caf?. It brings me back to my original point. People like you just want to turn these threads into anti-Islam circle jerks. 

You don't even make an attempt to break down my longer posts and if my posts are short and dumbed down for you- there is no answer or response and you complain that I don't respond to your points. There is no way to rationalize with someone that is clearly a bigot and a racist. I don't even know why I reply to people like you. Perhaps because I feel it's important someone in this section of the forum stands up to a group of people being antagonized. Not that it'll make a difference. You've made that pretty obvious.


----------



## RobbStark1 (Mar 1, 2016)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Then you should be aware of the concept of sample sizes, projections, and margins of error.



I am. That's exactly what I was talking about.



> It's irrelevant really. These are where Islam has the most influence, it reflects on the religion.



See, this is the problem you guys have. This isn't where Islam has the most influence, this is where Muslim _extremists_ have the most influence, hence why they're constantly being uprooted. Turkey is relatively peaceful despite having a large Muslim population, for example.




> Bin Laden, Al-Awaki, and the numerous religious leaders of the religion that promote fundamentalism and extremism tend to be quite educated. So it is not that simple. The average populace that is educated tends to be more secular, this is true, but you are not really acknowledging the deep influence of the religion over all economic and educational classes of individuals in these places.



Extremists > teach religion > to children > who adopt extremist views. I already said extremism is a sociopolitical phenomena. This isn't hard. In secular nations, religion stays out of society unless people actively seek it out, so it's harder for fundamentalists to spread via indoctrination.



> Everyone says that this or that verse is out of context, but the truth is thtat it has violent and backwards decrees. What defines a moderate from a radical, and a radical from an extremist is how closely or how willing they are to follow such decrees.



Yes it does have violent decrees. However, it also promotes peace and unity so it's up to the teacher or the parents to avoid instilling radical ideas (72 virgins)



> Plenty. It is, not unlike its brethren, riddled with contradictions. It gradually progresses into glorification of Mohammed's militarism and promotion of more militaristic ideals alongside ardent demands of piousness.



If you lives in a nation held hostage by jihadists, the likely outcome is you will be indoctrinated with militaristic dogma. Why is it that Muslims living in the Western world aren't carrying out atrocities with the gusto of their Middle-Eastern contemporaries. Religion, like everything else, is a societal construct.



> If the calling card of those gangs and individuals that commit such crimes are that, and the rap songs explicitly give out commands for such behavior, then yes. However, that would be illegal. Because such calls to action are not permitted.
> 
> Islam makes explicit calls to action, what you see in the extremists is taking those demands seriously and literally. Once again, they are trying to emulate the campaigns of their prophet as well. They seek to establish a foothold in the Islamic world that spreads the Islam they wish to be the law of the land.



That's why they're extremists..They are _taught_ the Quran with militaristic overtones, so they act it out. The Quran also gives explicit commands to let disbelievers be and to maintain peace as much as possible.



> Irrelevant, as at no point did I excuse, defend, or bring up the other faiths.
> 
> What is with you people in failing to understand this?



I'm responding to the general consensus in the thread. Every religion is backwards but this seems like a poorly-veiled attempt at ridiculing Islam.



> The only apologist here is you. You are again trying to drag irrelevant matters to obscufate the point made here. America far exceeds Pakistan or any other Islamic nation in social progress.
> 
> Actually "racially-charged" murders are an extreme minority, statistically speaking. Most are intraracial.



Well, yeah. Fair enough.



> No it isn't, because the religion is a set of ideas and demands.
> 
> What would be intolerant is to think all that claim to follow the religion reflect those backwards demands and ideals.



The Quran is not just demands.


----------



## Mider T (Mar 1, 2016)

NeoDestiny said:


> I'm pretty much done with this forum. The fact that people like you are allowed to spout so much hatred and bullshit is the last thing I was expecting when I signed up on here. This place feels like some Neo-Nazi white supremacy forum-board. Don't worry, I'm done. You guys have fun with your anti-Islam cult on here.



Neo-Nazi?


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Mar 1, 2016)

NeoDestiny said:


> I'm pretty much done with this forum. The fact that people like you are allowed to spout so much hatred and bullshit is the last thing I was expecting when I signed up on here. This place feels like some Neo-Nazi white supremacy forum-board. Don't worry, I'm done. You guys have fun with your anti-Islam cult on here.



You seriously just took such a blatant display of facetiousness at face value.



M'kay. You know where the door is. Don't let reality hit you on the way out.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Mar 1, 2016)

RobbStark1 said:


> I am. That's exactly what I was talking about.



Then you would not have brought up the number polled, if you really knew anything about sample sizes, and the projected margins of error. You seriously think a center like Pewresearch does not account for these things?



> See, this is the problem you guys have. This isn't where Islam has the most influence, this is where Muslim _extremists_ have the most influence, hence why they're constantly being uprooted. Turkey is relatively peaceful despite having a large Muslim population, for example.



Muslim extremists are proponents of Islam. They are the ones that follow its violent decrees to the letter, or closer to it than any other group. What you are seeing is just how incompatible those decrees are with the idea of a modern society. Particular ideals undermine, to society's benefit, the backwards religious influences which is why you don't see Christians by and large in the west killing nonbelievers.



> Extremists > teach religion > to children > who adopt extremist views. I already said extremism is a sociopolitical phenomena. This isn't hard. In secular nations, religion stays out of society unless people actively seek it out, so it's harder for fundamentalists to spread via indoctrination.



Then you concede to the fact that Islam is a central core of the regressive practices and even the violent extremism that pervades the region, and has expanded into a global terrorist network even.



> Yes it does have violent decrees. However, it also promotes peace and unity so it's up to the teacher or the parents to avoid instilling radical ideas (72 virgins)



Which is what I said. So you have to concede again to the fact that the religion has violent demands, a great many, that it is up to the individual follower to adhere to or not. As it was a religious founded in violence, there is a strong basis through it to justify violent actions. 



> If you lives in a nation held hostage by jihadists, the likely outcome is you will be indoctrinated with militaristic dogma. Why is it that Muslims living in the Western world aren't carrying out atrocities with the gusto of their Middle-Eastern contemporaries. Religion, like everything else, is a societal construct.



Yes, so Islam in this particular case is the core factor driving those regressive beliefs and attitudes, and what is the motivation for the extremism that goes on in the region.

Also, we have had some issue with those born in western nations converting to extremism. A minute one in the U.S., moreso in Europe where most tend to be 2nd-generation citizens. 



> That's why they're extremists..They are _taught_ the Quran with militaristic overtones, so they act it out. The Quran also gives explicit commands to let disbelievers be and to maintain peace as much as possible.



But it also tells to kill nonbelievers and that the definition of "peace" is a reality where Islam is the ruling religion and its tenets are the law of the land. So you can see how it can be used for violent ends. 



> I'm responding to the general consensus in the thread. Every religion is backwards but this seems like a poorly-veiled attempt at ridiculing Islam.



A ridicule that it is not at all exclusive to the religion. Learn to understand this.



> The Quran is not just demands.



No, but the fact remains that it contains them, many of which makes sense of the extremism going on. Does not justify it, does not make it right, but makes sense of it. It is what naturally happens when a group of peopel elect to follow the violent demands within it.


----------



## Deleted member 73050 (Mar 1, 2016)

Religion of PEACE


----------



## Punished Kiba (Mar 1, 2016)

Shhhh.....Religion of peace......Shhhh.


----------



## RobbStark1 (Mar 1, 2016)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Then you would not have brought up the number polled, if you really knew anything about sample sizes, and the projected margins of error. You seriously think a center like Pewresearch does not account for these things?



Never heard of Pewresearch before now, just covering my bases is all.



> Muslim extremists are proponents of Islam. They are the ones that follow its violent decrees to the letter, or closer to it than any other group. What you are seeing is just how incompatible those decrees are with the idea of a modern society. Particular ideals undermine, to society's benefit, the backwards religious influences which is why you don't see Christians by and large in the west killing nonbelievers.



The radicalists is the Middle-East aren't killing nonbelievers, they're killing fellow Muslims for the most part, barring the odd bombings that happen in the west.

They adhere to its cries for war because that is where the emphasis was in their education, not the portions dedicated to peace.



> Then you concede to the fact that Islam is a central core of the regressive practices and even the violent extremism that pervades the region, and has expanded into a global terrorist network even.



No, I'm saying radical factions and regimes have used Islam to engineer war in the Middle-East. While the Quran does contain a lot of violence, it also contains alot of peace and non-violent worship of an omnipotent deity.



> Which is what I said. So you have to concede again to the fact that the religion has violent demands, a great many, that it is up to the individual follower to adhere to or not. As it was a religious founded in violence, there is a strong basis through it to justify violent actions.



Yes. However, overlooking all the calls to peace and worship in favor of a call to arms means you've only read part of the book, so by that logic they shouldn't even be considered Muslim in the first place.



> Yes, so Islam in this particular case is the core factor driving those regressive beliefs and attitudes, and what is the motivation for the extremism that goes on in the region.



No, it is the radical interpretation of Islam that is the core factor of these regressive beliefs.



> Also, we have had some issue with those born in western nations converting to extremism. A minute one in the U.S., moreso in Europe where most tend to be 2nd-generation citizens.



There havent been any attacks in America by domestic Muslim extremists. Not recently, anyways. If I'm wrong, let me know.



> But it also tells to kill nonbelievers and that the definition of "peace" is a reality where Islam is the ruling religion and its tenets are the law of the land. So you can see how it can be used for violent ends.



Again, you would have to ignore all the places where it says Allah will be the only one who can cast judgment and to let nonbelievers wallow in their ignorance.



> A ridicule that it is not at all exclusive to the religion. Learn to understand this.



The reaction to the thread was "Islam strikes again," where it actually should've been "Wow, that bitch was crazy." If it had been about a Christian or a Jew, the blame would have rested on the individual, not the religion - This, I'm sure of.



> No, but the fact remains that it contains them, many of which makes sense of the extremism going on. Does not justify it, does not make it right, but makes sense of it. It is what naturally happens when a group of peopel elect to follow the violent demands within it.



See above.


----------



## Mider T (Mar 1, 2016)

RobbStark1 said:


> The radicalists is the Middle-East aren't killing nonbelievers, they're killing fellow Muslims for the most part, barring the odd bombings that happen in the west.



Oh really?


----------



## stream (Mar 1, 2016)

Parallax said:


> I think it's fair to at least ask why aren't other Christians and Jews not prone to excessively violent outbursts like that.  I mean sure there are extremists, but not on this level.



You want me to find horrific acts made by crazy Christians in the name of their god? Because there totally are Christians who stab or beat children to death in order to exorcise them.

Whenever you feel like saying "why is it always X that do Y", chances are it's not. It's reporting and confirmation bias. For instance, India has right now a reputation of rape, because a few high-profile cases. When you look at the numbers, they're not particularly high; there are many countries were rapes are more prevalent. It's just that people got the idea in their head, and every time they see a report about India it confirms the idea, and every time the report is about a different country they ignore it.

There are more act of terrorism caused by Muslims than Christians, but not every horrific act caused by a Muslim is terrorism. In fact, the police is not treating this case as terrorism.


----------



## Xyloxi (Mar 1, 2016)

Ok, Islam and Christianity are both pretty backwards when it comes to scripture, but their geographical bases differ because Christianity had the European enlightenment and Islam had financial development from the oil industry, but not the social change necessary to join the modern world. Christians are only better behaved because they had an enlightenment, not because the nature of Islam makes people do bad things. Just look at Africa as an example of this, both Muslims and Christians are pretty messed up down there.


----------



## Megaharrison (Mar 1, 2016)

Gonna have to stop flaming each other in this thread now


----------



## Amol (Mar 1, 2016)

I am not touching 'discussion' over Religion with ten foot pole but I don't think islam has anything to do with this particular crime. That woman just seems insane to me.
OT : News says that mother of child collapsed after hearing the news and is in hospital now. Poor soul.
I don't even want to imagine through what she is going now. This kind of things makes me so angry.
I wish this woman dies with worst possible punishment.


----------



## Xyloxi (Mar 1, 2016)

I <3 Kitsune said:


> Gonna have to stop flaming each other in this thread now



You love the conflict really though.


----------



## Catamount (Mar 1, 2016)

The thread is horror incarnated.

What the fuck happened to Neo.

And omfg Khaleesi your patience is endless.

Totally missing a fact a child was killed.
Child.
Killed.
Yes, children are killed and molested everyday, but this is another contribution to it. There are many moments in the situation that just scream about being careful with whom you intrust your child to. Not on the intolerance basis, but because of the cultural difference. You want your child follow your steps? Choose a person who is alike. Choose a person who has proper education and is being monitored by an agency.
It also seems an issue of mental problems of that woman more that her believes, since I've already read few articles on this matter. So I take it as a horrific tragedy and not another chance to flame religion.

One must not kill children.
Whenever, wherever.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Mar 1, 2016)

stream said:


> You want me to find horrific acts made by crazy Christians in the name of their god? Because there totally are Christians who stab or beat children to death in order to exorcise them.
> 
> Whenever you feel like saying "why is it always X that do Y", chances are it's not. It's reporting and confirmation bias. For instance, India has right now a reputation of rape, because a few high-profile cases. When you look at the numbers, they're not particularly high; there are many countries were rapes are more prevalent. It's just that people got the idea in their head, and every time they see a report about India it confirms the idea, and every time the report is about a different country they ignore it.
> 
> There are more act of terrorism caused by Muslims than Christians, but not every horrific act caused by a Muslim is terrorism. In fact, the police is not treating this case as terrorism.



Not really relevant to the point he was making...Also, spare me the self-righteous admonishment, thank you.


----------



## Deleted member 73050 (Mar 1, 2016)

Adamant said:


> One must not kill children.
> Whenever, wherever.



Unless they try to kill you with a knife

\Israeli


----------



## Amanda (Mar 1, 2016)

Amol said:


> I am not touching 'discussion' over Religion with ten foot pole but I don't think islam has anything to do with this particular crime. That woman just seems insane to me.




My sentiment as well. 

Violent Islam is a huge problem, but this particular case just seems to be a freak case with a mentally insane woman. Again, I don't know all the facts so I could be wrong.


----------



## Onomatopoeia (Mar 1, 2016)

What if the child is legit possessed by an evil demon and the only way to save the world is to kill the kid.


----------



## Pliskin (Mar 1, 2016)

Trump thread Neo: 'Why, Oh why do people feel the need to call people who disagree such uggly uggly names? Can't we have a civilized discussion about Drumpf?'

This thread Neo:'Y'all a bunch of racist nazi biggot communist bible thumpers'

Dupe or schizophrenia?


----------



## Catamount (Mar 1, 2016)

Vino said:


> Unless they try to kill you with a knife
> 
> \Israeli


I know, I know, also rebels in certain African regions, but this is different, and I was talking about the situation when a child is just an innocent bystander who hasn't yet gotten into the adult fights based on having too much free time.



Pliskin said:


> Trump thread Neo: 'Why, Oh why do people feel  the need to call people who disagree such uggly uggly names? Can't we  have a civilized discussion about Drumpf?'
> 
> This thread Neo:'Y'all a bunch of racist nazi biggot communist bible thumpers'
> 
> Dupe or schizophrenia?


  or just boredom and... too. much. free. time.


----------



## sworder (Mar 1, 2016)

Khaleesi said:


> My problem is Muslims don't want to condemn these groups, when I was Muslim and was immersed in the religion and talked to many other Muslkm people it seemed like all they wanted to do was blame the West "oh the big bad west did this" but when it comes to groups like ISIS it's "not all Muslims" instead of acknowledging the lives that they take daily, they however just want to ignore the problem and blame the west.



The Muslims are not a very happy people........

-They're not happy in Gaza.
-They're not happy in Egypt.
-They're not happy in Libya.
-They're not happy in Morocco.
-They're not happy in Iran.
-They're not happy in Iraq.
-They're not happy in Yemen.
-They're not happy in Bangladesh.
-They're not happy in Afghanistan.
-They're not happy in Pakistan.
-They're not happy in Syria.
-They're not happy in Lebanon.
-They're not happy in Nigeria.
-They're not happy in Chad.
-They're not happy in Somalia.


So, where are they happy?


-They're happy in Canada.
-They're happy in Australia.
-They're happy in New Zeland.
-They're happy in Spain.
-They're happy in Ireland.
-They're happy in United Kingdom
-They're happy in Italy.
-They're happy in Japan.
-They're happy in Germany.
-They're happy in England.
-They're happy in France.
-They're happy in Italy.
-They're happy in Germany.
-They're happy in Sweden.
-They're happy in Norway.
-They're happy in the USA.

They're happy in every country that is not Islamic! And who do they blame?

-Not Islam.
-Not their leadership.
-Not themselves.

THEY BLAME THE COUNTRIES THEY ARE HAPPY IN! AND THEY WANT TO CHANGE THEM TO BE LIKE THE COUNTRY THEY CAME FROM, WHERE THEY WERE SO UNHAPPY.


*Spoiler*: __


----------



## Son of Goku (Mar 1, 2016)

I'm quite shocked to see that someone who supports Trump would refuse to join an anti-islam circle jerking. Neo, are you sure you're comfortable with supporting Trump, when you're possibly the only person amongst his supporters who doesn't see muslims/islam as a threat?


----------



## Lucaniel (Mar 1, 2016)

that reminds me





> Trump’s fans tend to express little regard for political norms. They cheer at his most outlandish statements. O’Reilly asked Trump if he meant it when he said that he would “take out” the family members of terrorists. He didn’t believe that Trump would “put out hits on women and children” if he were elected. Trump replied, “I would do pretty severe stuff.” The Mesa crowd erupted in applause. “Yeah, baby!” a man near me yelled. I had never previously been to a political event at which people cheered for the murder of women and children.


----------



## Son of Goku (Mar 1, 2016)

Seto Kaiba said:


> "Radicals" does not serve to address why they are radicals, and what motivates them to radicalism. What motivates this particular set of radicals is Islam and its violent creeds, as well as a desire to emulate the religion's founder.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yeah, not sure I trust that poll. 



> * Bill Maher and Sam Harris? proof is wrong: Their argument is based on an untrustworthy poll
> 
> Maher, Harris back their Islam arguments up with a Pew Research poll, but those respondents couldn't answer freely
> *
> ...


----------



## Punished Pathos (Mar 1, 2016)

Muslims/Islam a threat?
Tell that to the Saudis that finance terrorism and the West that arms the "rebel" groups to spark civil unrest which pretty much leads to the immigration and the potential radical terrorist getting in through blending in with the immigrants

Why can't Trump supporters identify themselves as "Anti-radical terrorist?"
Oh because the media and the people that follow the narrative get to label the bad bad people that support Trump. 

The ban, in theory is just temporary until things get settled out.
I mean is America simply just going to continue their poor system of vetting people in?
Goes well with how bad we are handling foreign policy in the ME, so I guess we deserve those immigrants and the terrorists since we pretty much tried to force a regime change in Syria


----------



## Catamount (Mar 1, 2016)

sworder said:


> The cognitive dissonance is pretty strong in him
> 
> There is no bigger "anti-Islam cult" than Trump's campaign


In _her _and this probably explains sudden rage (lmao and at whom? raging at Khaleesi!) and at the same time ignoring the worst and the scariest shit in discussion.


----------



## Amanda (Mar 1, 2016)

Son of Goku said:


> I'm quite shocked to see that someone who supports Trump would refuse to join an anti-islam circle jerking. Neo, are you sure you're comfortable with supporting Trump, when you're possibly the only person amongst his supporters who doesn't see muslims/islam as a threat?




It's understandable that she doesn't want to join the anti-Islam crowd, considering she comes from a Muslim family and has Muslim friends. As far as her Trump supporting goes, she argues that efforts that would stop any and all Muslim terrorist attacks in USA would be in the best interest of the local Muslims.


----------



## stream (Mar 1, 2016)

Amanda said:


> It's understandable that she doesn't want to join the anti-Islam crowd, considering she comes from a Muslim family and has Muslim friends. As far as her Drumpf supporting goes, she argues that efforts that would stop any and all Muslim terrorist attacks in USA would be in the best interest of the local Muslims.



I think it might be misguided for local Muslims to support Trump. It's not like there's a way to only punish the bad apples and leave the good people in peace.

I sometimes wonder if local Muslims in the US are afraid of publicly condemning  extremism because they don't want to make enemies with the small number of sympathizers in their midst.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Mar 1, 2016)

Son of Goku said:


> Yeah, not sure I trust that poll.



Because you're unwilling to face the reality of its implications. I mean the Salon, really?


----------



## Garfield (Mar 1, 2016)

Not sure how Islam is relevant in all this. Horrific act by a deranged individual is what it appears on the outset. Can anyone point to evidence for establishment of causality?



> *Spoiler*: __
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Bro I hope this was at least somewhat a troll post


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Mar 1, 2016)

No it's an opinion piece from a trash source, it is only something used to fuel your denial.


----------



## Son of Goku (Mar 1, 2016)

Seto Kaiba said:


> No it's an opinion piece from a trash source, it is only something used to fuel your denial.



Yes it's an opinion piece written by a person who is making a lot of sense, which is all that matters. If you wanna argue that muslims in oppressive islamic societies have no reason to appear more religious/radical than they are in front of a total stranger who asks them questions about their state-religion, than do so and stop evading by pointing at the source.


----------



## Hand Banana (Mar 1, 2016)

Allahu Akbar... what does that mean?


----------



## Deleted member 235437 (Mar 1, 2016)

sworder said:


> The Muslims are not a very happy people........
> 
> -They're not happy in Gaza.
> -They're not happy in Egypt.
> ...



I find it hilarious how Muslims in the Weat love to practice their freedom of speech trashing everything the west stands for while making the Middle East put to be some paradise when they wouldn't even have the same freedom of speech they have here over there, in fact if they criticized the government there they'd be killed


----------



## Deleted member 73050 (Mar 1, 2016)

ReLiGiOn Of PeAcE!


----------



## Amanda (Mar 1, 2016)

Khaleesi said:


> I find it hilarious how Muslims in the Weat love to practice their freedom of speech trashing everything the west stands for while making the Middle East put to be some paradise when they wouldn't even have the same freedom of speech they have here over there, in fact if they criticized the government there they'd be killed




Plenty of Westererns do the same. Way to understand and appreciate the freedom into which you were born.


----------



## Son of Goku (Mar 1, 2016)

So this happened in Moscow I see... Well this will certainly help Putin gain/keep support for his 'war on terror' in Syria.


----------



## baconbits (Mar 1, 2016)

I don't see how this thread generated this much heat.  I'm still perplexed by that.


----------



## Hitt (Mar 1, 2016)

baconbits said:


> I don't see how this thread generated this much heat.  I'm still perplexed by that.



You don't?  Come on Bacon, it's religion.  The twin headed dragon, Politics and Religion.  No better way to get people at each other's throats.  It's the power of emotion, after all.


----------



## Amanda (Mar 1, 2016)

Son of Goku said:


> So this happened in Moscow I see... Well this will certainly help Putin gain/keep support for his 'war on terror' in Syria.




I wonder if the Russians see it more as war on terror or opposing America/the unipolar world. Probably terror. In which case a good old false flag will do if the need arises. 



baconbits said:


> I don't see how this thread generated this much heat.  I'm still perplexed by that.




You don't? Islam was mentioned, a child was involved, somebody lost a head, the reaction was countered by accusing Christianity, it got personal. It's an automaton, or a snowball that starts rolling down the hill and can't be stopped as it turns into an avalanche.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Mar 1, 2016)

Son of Goku said:


> Yes it's an opinion piece written by a person who is making a lot of sense, which is all that matters. If you wanna argue that muslims in oppressive islamic societies have no reason to appear more religious/radical than they are in front of a total stranger who asks them questions about their state-religion, than do so and stop evading by pointing at the source.



By a person that engages in the same apologetics that you do maybe. 

I would think the burden of proof is on the one making the claim. Since they presented the rationale, I would figure they have proof. They do not however. So again, you would cite a worthless opinion piece from a trash source in the face of extensive study done by a very reputable organization. You and the author alike have nothing but your own denial in the face of the cold, hard truth.


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Mar 1, 2016)

fuck off mega i didn't even flame anyone u fabulous semite



Son of Goku said:


> Yes it's an opinion piece written by a person who is making a lot of sense, which is all that matters. If you wanna argue that muslims in oppressive islamic societies have no reason to appear more religious/radical than they are in front of a total stranger who asks them questions about their state-religion, than do so and stop evading by pointing at the source.



More like written by a dogmatic sophist.  How do you explain the fact that only a quarter of Afghans think honor killing is never justified, despite it being against the law? How do you explain that away with apologetics?  The fact of the matter is these Islam-dominated countries are unequivocally landmines for human rights and hotbeds for misogyny and religious fundamentalism.  Immigrants from these medieval cribs don't all magically shed all the indoctrination they grew up with, and many of them will seriously think their poisonous filth would help the west.  

There's a lot of misconceptions about Middle Eastern people; half the people dehumanizing them outright would be treated with hospitality in any village backdrop of these shit holes, meet various people of various interests, personalities and aspirations etc.  But those same people in many cases will hold principles, either exposed or hidden, that contradict the very pillars of western civilization.  The old man that spends most of his day giving away fresh produce to his neighbors could believe that homosexuals should be put to death.  The aspiring engineer that idolozes Arnold Schwarzenegger could feel sympathetic to an honor killing done by relatives.  And so on.  People aren't black and white, and just because certain views of Middle Eastern people can be warped doesn't mean that certain hideous beliefs aren't extremely common in those areas.  

Entertaining the prospect that some of them answered more extremely than is representative of their beliefs, and thus there should be a slight added margin of error to the poll, is one thing.  But to put a giant asterisk on the whole thing because of it is hilariously incredulous.


----------



## Catalyst75 (Mar 1, 2016)

Bats-in-the-belfry insanity is basically the essence of what went on here.  That is a troublesome thing about any group with an ideology: people will use their beliefs to "justify" insane acts such as this one.


----------



## Prince Vegeta (Mar 2, 2016)

Meh people usually tend to use Religion to do their dirty work. 



Rumi is one of the few who truly understood Islam, Sufism is a branch of Islam that's truly amazing. 

Rumi is even respected in the west.

“Christian, Jew, Muslim, shaman, Zoroastrian, stone, ground, mountain, river, each has a secret way of being with the mystery, unique and not to be judged” ~Rumi

if everyone had that mentality we would have avoided so many wars.


----------



## Amanda (Mar 2, 2016)

Prince Vegeta said:


> Rumi is one of the few who truly understood Islam, Sufism is a branch of Islam that's truly amazing.
> 
> Rumi is even respected in the west.
> 
> ...




Sufism interests me, should probably one day learn more...


----------



## Prince Vegeta (Mar 2, 2016)

Amanda said:


> Sufism interests me, should probably one day learn more...



I have been involved with it since 2009 feel free PM me if you have any questions.


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Mar 3, 2016)

Amanda said:


> Sufism interests me, should probably one day learn more...



[YOUTUBE]xPBzM_XXZ7Y[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Gilgamesh (Mar 3, 2016)




----------



## Amanda (Mar 3, 2016)

afgpride said:


> [YOUTUBE]xPBzM_XXZ7Y[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Sherlōck (Mar 3, 2016)

Yeah, Sufism is great. 

On the other hand just like NF to jump on the bandwagon to criticize Islam when there is no proof it was religiously motivated or any Quranic verse supporting this particular action by this deranged woman. This woman is mentally ill.


----------



## Pliskin (Mar 3, 2016)

Sherlōck said:


> Yeah, Sufism is great.
> 
> On the other hand just like NF to jump on the bandwagon to criticize Islam when there is no proof it was religiously motivated or any Quranic verse supporting this particular action by this deranged woman. This woman is mentally ill.





I would count her saying it was religiously motivated as evidence that it was religiously motivated, but maybe I am just old fashioned like that.


----------



## Amanda (Mar 3, 2016)

Pliskin said:


> I would count her saying it was religiously motivated as evidence that it was religiously motivated, but maybe I am just old fashioned like that.




Ah, finally concrete facts. 

Well, that seals it.



> The investigation also concluded that the nanny had “instigators” who prompted her to kill the girl.
> 
> Later an investigation source told TASS that the experts should check all possible scenarios, including “possible incitement.”
> 
> ...




 So it was religiously motivated, there perhaps are others behind her, and her weird behaviour does come from mental illness?


----------



## Pliskin (Mar 3, 2016)

Yeah. Hope Russian based muslims don't get too much heat, news like this incite mobs in the west, I dread what happens in Russia over this.


----------



## Amanda (Mar 3, 2016)

The Russian Muslims would be getting heat no matter what because the general rise of intolerance and xenophobia, but ISIS being an issue there too doesn't help. 

Heh, they want too include southern Russia into their empire just like the Balkans and the Iberian Peninsula.


----------



## Sherlōck (Mar 3, 2016)

Pliskin said:


> I would count her saying it was religiously motivated as evidence that it was religiously motivated, but maybe I am just old fashioned like that.



While it does seem religiously motivated to a point "Allah ordered her" makes me lean towards to the point of mental illness. Cause big bad boy certainly didn't. She is most probably delusional.


----------



## Mael (Mar 3, 2016)

If people fear "Islamophobia" in the West, wait'll they get a load of it in Russia.


----------



## Rain (Mar 3, 2016)

Seto Kaiba said:


> "Radicals" does not serve to address why they are radicals, and what motivates them to radicalism. What motivates this particular set of radicals is Islam and its violent creeds, as well as a desire to emulate the religion's founder.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yet if these polls were conducted 40 years ago,results would've been very different. This alone tells us that religion, in and of itself isn't what enables these people to become jihadists. Instead, there are much more complex socio economic factors here at work, religion is merely an instrument of articulating this socio economic misery. 

More popular secular alternative did exist, and West considered it a threat to their interests, so they enabled Saudi Arabia to spread Wahhabism and drown progressive movements. With the traumatic (in economic and cultural sense) start of globalization and fall of the Soviet Union and it's allies in the region, Islamist groups became stronger than ever and filled the vacuum by addressing people's immediate needs, to a certain level, through setting up various social services be it education or medical help, helping unemployed and so on, all with religious tones combined with the rethoric of cultural clash with the Western decadence and so on. 

The point is that religion is never sufficient unto itself, there must exist some ACTUAL, tangible social misery which religion seeks to alleviate.


----------



## Prince Vegeta (Mar 3, 2016)

afgpride said:


> [YOUTUBE]xPBzM_XXZ7Y[/YOUTUBE]



this is not sufism as sufism is all about secrets of god and  a person's inner and his/her connection to god they dont make videos about it and put it on youtube. 

in fact real sufi's try to avoid telling people they're even Muslims. 

this video is just stupidity. seen it before even religious people (where I am from ) watch it for fun and don't take it seriously


----------



## Kusa (Mar 3, 2016)

Not defensing islam here, but you know a child is considered a muslim in islam anyway, before it hits purberty. You can't call a child an unbeliever. So she killed that child for the islam can't be accurate here or she got something really wrong.


----------



## Prince Vegeta (Mar 3, 2016)

sworder said:


> The Muslims are not a very happy people........
> 
> -They're not happy in Gaza.
> -They're not happy in Egypt.
> ...




OKAY LET'S GET STUPID TOGETHER.

that's why first and second world wars were in European countries and 90% if not more involved in those wars weren't NOT Islamic countries. 

and how do you explain slavery? 

it's the white people that have brought the most pain to this world by far. and no they're not Muslims are they?


----------



## NeoDestiny (Mar 3, 2016)

Prince Vegeta said:


> OKAY LET'S GET STUPID TOGETHER.
> 
> that's why first and second world wars were in European countries and 90% if not more involved in those wars weren't NOT Islamic countries.
> 
> ...



I tried that already, the excuse is "but that happened a long time ago." So, don't bother.


----------



## Prince Vegeta (Mar 3, 2016)

NeoDestiny said:


> I tried that already, the excuse is "but that happened a long time ago." So, don't bother.



so if you killed thier mom long time ago.it's okay because that happened a long time ago.

so let those terrorists do what ever they want now

after a few 100 years it's all okay because it happened a long time ago.


----------



## Bringer (Mar 3, 2016)

As a few sensible people have said, this isn't a Muslim problem, this is a crazy problem.


----------



## Deleted member 235437 (Mar 3, 2016)

Kusanagi said:


> Not defensing islam here, but you know a child is considered a muslim in islam anyway, before it hits purberty. You can't call a child an unbeliever. So she killed that child for the islam can't be accurate here or she got something really wrong.



Most extremists don't make sense and kill Muslims as well but imo that doesn't mean they're not Muslim, she probably does have some problems mentally but she still did the act for Allah


----------



## Amanda (Mar 3, 2016)

Sherlōck said:


> While it does seem religiously motivated to a point "Allah ordered her" makes me lean towards to the point of mental illness. Cause big bad boy certainly didn't. She is most probably delusional.




It seems possible her mental illness made her vulnerable to the extremists. 



Mael said:


> If people fear "Islamophobia" in the West, wait'll they get a load of it in Russia.




The difference between Western and Russian Islamophobia is that Russians take no prisoners nor bother to pretend otherwise. 

Oh.

I read news about some immigrants from ME trying to do the gang harassing of women thing in Murmansk. What happened was the local men formed a gang too and attacked them. Then someone called the police... And they came and started beating the immigrants as well. 

Not sure if true, but wouldn't be too far fetched.


----------



## Venom (Mar 3, 2016)

Holy shit
This Anti Islam circlejerk here doe 
>baby is killed by a crazy woman
>people trying to blame this on the religion
Like jeeesus


----------



## FLORIDA MAN (Mar 3, 2016)

BringerOfChaos said:


> As a few sensible people have said, this isn't a Muslim problem, this is a crazy problem.



A crazy problem that's fostered, amplified, and exacerbated because of one's exposure to toxic, primitive, barbaric muslim culture


----------



## Kusa (Mar 3, 2016)

But that act was something 'Allah' would have not wanted from her, simply because  any child is  muslim in Islam, so in this special case she and her mental problems should be the only thing to be blamed because if she did it in the name of Islam, she interpreted/understood something wrong (that you can kill children if they are "apparently" non believers") and so the blame and responsibilty should be only on her.


----------



## Prince Vegeta (Mar 3, 2016)

If this was for the Sake of allah then she was wrong as it's said in the quran that killing on human being is as if you have killed all mankind and saving one person's life is the same as if saving all mankind. 

she was mentally ill or just a killer. 
but people usually love to blame the r islam whenever shit happens. 

this reminds of me of couples who break up and blame it on love saying love sucks and it doesn't exist when it's their stupidity that made the relationship not work in the first place.


----------



## Venom (Mar 3, 2016)

Khaleesi said:


> Most extremists don't make sense and kill Muslims as well but imo that doesn't mean they're not Muslim, she probably does have some problems mentally but she still did the act for Allah



You know Loz I could just go on a killing spree rn for literally no reason and shout in the name of Allah
How could you possibly fault Islam for that doe?
Killing a 2 yo child is genuinely just being completely out of your mind.


----------



## Deleted member 235437 (Mar 3, 2016)

Kusanagi said:


> But that act was something 'Allah' would have not wanted from her, simply because  a child is  muslim in Islam, so in this special case she and her mental problems should be the only thing to be blamed because if she did it in the name of Islam, she interpreted/understood something wrong (that you can kill children if they are "apparently" non believers") and so the blame and responsibilty should be only on her.



I understand that but groups like ISIS kill other Muslims too but they still represent a problem within the Muslim community itself even if other Muslims don't want to acknowledge that. I'm not going to rule out Islam as a factor because like I said extremists like this lady kill other Muslims all the time, was she mentally ill? Probably, I mean what kind of person who does this sort of thing isn't? But you can't rule out Islam as a factor to this as well


----------



## Bringer (Mar 3, 2016)

Khaleesi said:


> Most extremists don't make sense and kill Muslims as well but imo that doesn't mean they're not Muslim, she probably does have some problems mentally but she still did the act for Allah



What exactly is your view on "religiously motivated"? For me, religiously motivated means that the religion orders it, but it feels like to you for something to be religiously motivated somehow just has to say they did it because of the religion even though the religion clearly forbids it. 

Look at Christians in Africa who circumcise their women. To me, that isn't religiously motivated, but why do I get the feeling you'd blame Christianity for that.


----------



## Deleted member 235437 (Mar 3, 2016)

Venom said:


> You know Loz I could just go on a killing spree rn for literally no reason and shout in the name of Allah
> How could you possibly fault Islam for that doe?
> Killing a 2 yo child is genuinely just being completely out of your mind.



Because you're doing it for Allah?? And literally saying you're doing it for Allah?? To me this woman is no different than any other extremist out there


----------



## Prince Vegeta (Mar 3, 2016)

Kusanagi said:


> But that act was something* 'Allah' would have not wanted from her, simply because  any child is  muslim* in Islam, so in this special case she and her mental problems should be the only thing to be blamed because if she did it in the name of Islam, she interpreted/understood something wrong (that you can kill children if they are "apparently" non believers") and so the blame and responsibilty should be only on her.



so in other words if the child wasn't a muslim "Allah" would have wanted her to kill the child?


----------



## Venom (Mar 3, 2016)

Khaleesi said:


> I understand that but groups like ISIS kill other Muslims too but they still represent a problem within the Muslim community itself even if other Muslims don't want to acknowledge that. I'm not going to rule out Islam as a factor because like I said extremists like this lady kill other Muslims all the time, was she mentally ill? Probably, I mean what kind of person who does this sort of thing isn't? But you can't rule out Islam as a factor to this as well



There definitely is a problem with the Muslim community and Islam definitely plays a role but the main reason for these acts of terrorism is more the people themselves than the actual religion.
I mean look at the countries east to Turkey.
It's like a shithole everywhere. Not just in Muslim countries.
India, Sri Lanka and many African countries.


----------



## Kusa (Mar 3, 2016)

ISIS  usually kills muslims who are not muslims in their eyes but actually unbelievers, but a 2 year old is a 2 year old, so there won't be even a 'you are not a muslim but an unbeliever" excuse to kill the little child.

I mean if you think you are doing something for someone but that someone never expected that from you even if that someone is *still involved*, it will be not that someones fault but only yours.


----------



## baconbits (Mar 3, 2016)

Venom said:


> Holy shit
> This Anti Islam circlejerk here doe
> >baby is killed by a crazy woman
> >people trying to blame this on the religion
> Like jeeesus



How is this trying to "blame this on religion" when the woman herself said Islam inspired her actions?


----------



## Venom (Mar 3, 2016)

Khaleesi said:


> Because you're doing it for Allah?? And literally saying you're doing it for Allah?? To me this woman is no different than any other extremist out there



Just because I say that I do it for Allah it doesn't really mean that I am doing the right thing with regard to Islam.
Could also kill people in the name of Buddha so that means Buddhism is fault?



Prince Vegeta said:


> so in other words if the child wasn't a muslim "Allah" would have wanted her to kill the child?



Not really but nice try doe


----------



## Prince Vegeta (Mar 3, 2016)

baconbits said:


> How is this trying to "blame this on religion" when the woman herself said Islam inspired her actions?



she probably did it to justify her actions. but yes you can still blame Islam for it. because in her head Islam motivated her to do this. even though Islam itself is against it. 

meh people are people and they will always find an excuse to kill.


----------



## Prince Vegeta (Mar 3, 2016)

Venom said:


> Just because I say that I do it for Allah it doesn't really mean that I am doing the right thing with regard to Islam.
> Could also kill people in the name of Buddha so that means Buddhism is fault?
> 
> 
> ...



exactly she did make it seem like that even though she didn't mean to.


----------



## WT (Mar 3, 2016)

baconbits said:


> How is this trying to "blame this on religion" when the woman herself said Islam inspired her actions?



Come on, you legit think killing babies is acceptable in any religion....?


----------



## Venom (Mar 3, 2016)

baconbits said:


> How is this trying to "blame this on religion" when the woman herself said Islam inspired her actions?



Because killing a 2 y/o baby has literally nothing to do with the religion at this point.
It's plain and simple retardation and I'd assume everyone in here is smart enough to figure it out but instead I'm reading walls of text about how Islam factors into this.
Like come on


----------



## Prince Vegeta (Mar 3, 2016)

WT said:


> Come on, you legit think killing babies is acceptable in any religion....?



there are people who will tell you when it's Islam then Yes. 

makes you wonder why there are so many Muslims on earth lol.


----------



## Deleted member 235437 (Mar 3, 2016)

Venom said:


> There definitely is a problem with the Muslim community and Islam definitely plays a role but the main reason for these acts of terrorism is more the people themselves than the actual religion.
> I mean look at the countries east to Turkey.
> It's like a shithole everywhere. Not just in Muslim countries.
> India, Sri Lanka and many African countries.



You can't deflect it by comparing it to other countries. Islam is one of the main reasons the Middle East is the shit hole it is today. Are there other shitty countries? Yes, but doesn't take the blame off of the religion, people in that region are influenced by what they are around and Islam is practically ingrained in their brains and cultivated usually in a warped and twisted way. 



Kusanagi said:


> ISIS  usually kills muslims who are not muslims in their eyes but actually unbelievers, but a 2 year old is a 2 year old, so there won't be even a 'you are not a muslim but an unbeliever" excuse to kill the little child.
> 
> I mean if you think you are doing something for someone but that someone never expected that from you even if that someone is *still involved*, it will be not that someones fault but only yours.



Extremists kill children all the time, young children too so the excuse that they were only 2 years old thus a Muslim thus not a non believer doesn't work


----------



## Bringer (Mar 3, 2016)

baconbits said:


> How is this trying to "blame this on religion" when the woman herself said Islam inspired her actions?



Yo, this is rich coming from you. I assume Khaleesi is atheist so she can get away with it, but you 

Christians in Africa practice female circumcision, is Christianity to blame?

What about that girl in Argentina who was "possessed" so the pastor had her raped and had her sisters gouge her eyes out during the exorcism. Is Christianity to blame?

edit: Mind answering my question, Khaleesi?



Khaleesi said:


> Most extremists don't make sense and kill Muslims as well but imo that doesn't mean they're not Muslim, she probably does have some problems mentally but she still did the act for Allah



What exactly is your view on "religiously motivated"? For me, religiously motivated means that the religion orders it, but it feels like to you for something to be religiously motivated somehow just has to say they did it because of the religion even though the religion clearly forbids it. 

Look at Christians in Africa who circumcise their women. To me, that isn't religiously motivated, but why do I get the feeling you'd blame Christianity for that.


----------



## NeoDestiny (Mar 3, 2016)

Khaleesi said:


> Most extremists don't make sense and kill Muslims as well but imo that doesn't mean they're not Muslim, she probably does have some problems mentally but she still did the act for Allah




Religion is just a concept based on belief. If extremists or mentally ill people hijack a religion, there is nothing anyone can actually do except disavow or exterminate the radicals and that's almost impossible because there will always be traces of radicalism left. 

I'm assuming most Christians do not approve of the Lord's Resistance Army originally known as the United Holy Salvation Army and Uganda Christian Army/Movement, the Ku Klux Klan, National Liberation Front of Tripura, Antibalaka, The Christian Identity Movement, The Aryan Nations, etc. 



Khaleesi said:


> I understand that but groups like ISIS kill other Muslims too but they still represent a problem within the Muslim community itself even if other Muslims don't want to acknowledge that. I'm not going to rule out Islam as a factor because like I said extremists like this lady kill other Muslims all the time, was she mentally ill? Probably, I mean what kind of person who does this sort of thing isn't? But you can't rule out Islam as a factor to this as well




Muslims acknowledge that ISIS is a problem but even from the viewpoint of a casual observer, ISIS is an abomination to Islam. Just because you shout God’s name while committing murder doesn’t make your actions righteous. That goes for any violent act committed in the name of a God. Virtually every single American Muslim organization has publicly disavowed both the ideology and the practices of ISIS. Like I said before, there is nothing else Muslims can do except disavow ISIS. Countless Islamic groups around the globe have also vehemently rejected ISIS. 

Dozens of Muslim American clerics and community leaders have distanced their religion from the beliefs of the terrorist extremists like ISIS. There is only so much your average Muslim can do. Condemning ISIS is something Muslims have been doing for a long time but some people like Seto Kaiba just don't listen. 

The Ku Klux Klan burns crosses and preaches hate in the name of Jesus Christ, and the ostensibly Christian “Lord’s Resistance Army” regularly ravages villages and recruits child soldiers in Western Africa. Hindu extremists burned mosques and sparked violence in India in the 1990s. Buddhist extremists exist, and are spewing hatred in several parts of Asia. The genocide in the Balkans in the 1990s had an estimated 100,000 Muslim men, women and children killed. But in all of these cases, the vast majority of believers worked or are working to disavow the actions of fanatics and preserve the core, peaceful principles of their faith- just as Muslims are now doing with ISIS.



baconbits said:


> How is this trying to "blame this on religion" when the woman herself said Islam inspired her actions?




I've said it before, I'm atheist but I like to think that any religion in it's purest form is quite healthy for your well-being. I've tried to believe in several different God(s) throughout my life, but ultimately failed. I did learn a lot about the different religions and the communities in them. The vast majority of human-beings practice religion because it helps cope with big questions, it provides a sense of community, and morals. There will always be those who twist religion to kill and gain power. Islam is not the only religion in the world that is manipulated and hijacked by psychopaths. The argument that, "Islam is more violent because- just look at the Middle East" only goes so far if you ignore history altogether. Some of the deadliest U.S. mass shootings in history have had religion involved but it is always blamed on mental illnesses. This lady was clearly mentally insane.



Khaleesi said:


> You can't deflect it by comparing it to other countries. Islam is one of the main reasons the Middle East is the shit hole it is today. Are there other shitty countries? Yes, but doesn't take the blame off of the religion, people in that region are influenced by what they are around and Islam is practically ingrained in their brains and cultivated usually in a warped and twisted way




You and Seto Kabai should really stop using "deflect" incorrectly in a debate/argument... No matter how many times you blame Islam for everything, other religions and regions will immediately get brought up as a counter argument. Nobody is going to ignore the geopolitics of the rest of the world. You're obviously never going to be convinced otherwise. What is your goal exactly? Do you hope to somehow convince peaceful Muslims that their religion is violent and/or wrong? That's never going to happen. You're talking about the second largest religion in the world. Islam is growing more rapidly than any other religion in the world, and it is estimated that it will soon surpass Christianity... You can either actually have a real debate on the subject or keep spamming "stop deflecting" over and over again whenever someone brings up a perfectly reasonable comparison. You're better off just going onto some white-supremacy forum and blaming Islam for everything. You'll get no opposition there. I'm not even trying to be rude, like I'm just curious what your end-game is on this subject? Typically in a debate/argument each individual has a goal. What's your goal with all of this anti-Islam rhetoric? 

The number of Muslims is expected to increase by 73% – from 1.6 billion in 2010 to 2.8 billion in 2050. Muslims make up around 23.2% of the global population. Your smear campaign on Islam is so pointless. I'd much rather discuss what real harsh conditions made this lady mentally insane but obviously you are hell-bent on blaming religion for her actions. This is the reason I've called some people BIble-thumpers on here. Normally most people that are interested in science in general would discuss the psychological and sociological aspects of this headline and not immediately jump to blaming it on religion. It's so much more complex than just "she did because she is Muslim."


----------



## Kusa (Mar 3, 2016)

But it should work or they are acting against their own words or the Islam if they apparently doing it only for the name of it.

I am not defending Islam again,  I do recognize strongly that there are things written there that should be not compatible with the ethics of a healthy modern individual, however even if she did in the name of it and therefore the islam was a factor in her act, I think that any religion should be only criticized for their sole content and not how some psycho understands it and from the content of the Quran, children are muslims and not able to sin until they hit purberty.


----------



## Venom (Mar 3, 2016)

Khaleesi said:


> You can't deflect it by comparing it to other countries. Islam is one of the main reasons the Middle East is the shit hole it is today. Are there other shitty countries? Yes, but doesn't take the blame off of the religion, people in that region are influenced by what they are around and Islam is practically ingrained in their brains and cultivated usually in a warped and twisted way.
> 
> 
> 
> Extremists kill children all the time, young children too so the excuse that they were only 2 years old thus a Muslim thus not a non believer doesn't work



You are mistaking cause and effect IMO
As you said
Cultivated in a warped and twisted way
As it is the shithole it is many people just desperately cling to things where they think they can actually
be part of something.A meaning in their life.
E.g. quite a lot of Germans went over to IS because of their "miserable" lives.
They look for something to hold on to.
And that's one of the reasons why we have extremists.


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Mar 3, 2016)

'When his son was old enough to work with him, he said, "My son, I have had a dream that I must sacrifice you. What do you think of this?" He replied, "Father, fulfill whatever you are commanded to do and you will find me patient, by the will of God".

Then, when they had both surrendered (to Allah), and he had flung him down upon his face,

We called unto him: O Abraham! You have fulfilled what you were commanded to do in your dream." Thus do We reward the righteous ones.'
- Quran: 37:102-105


The woman was clearly, obviously, mentally ill.  But this is the problem; what does a religion with passages like these really do to prevent the mentally ill from carrying out these acts?   You have the validation of superstition and the precedence of willing violence in the name of Allah.  You have someone that once literally was told to sacrifice his son for no fucking reason other than to please God, and God was pleased when he was about to follow through with it.  You have the constant reaffirmation that believing you're really communicating with your invisible sky-daddy, either through prayer, or a 1 on 1 conversation, is entirely normal.  What happens when someone who is mentally ill like Abraham and Muhammad were decides to prioritize their faith over the standards of the society surrounding them?  Well you get this. 

You can find passages in the Quran condemning her acts and you can find passages showing that at the very least similar situations have been validated by Allah in the Quran.  At the end of the day people that are saying so and so isn't a #REAL Muslim and #hadnothingtodowithIslam are the same people that decry ISIS for holding sex slaves despite it being condoned in the Quran, the same people that decry child marriages despite it being done by Muhammad, the same people that decry slavery, domestic violence, sexism, homophobia and religious intolerance despite it all being gold studded across Muslim texts.  

The point is issues like these work both ways.  On the one hand it should be acknowledged that people like this woman are severely mentally ill, and on the other the catalysis of religion shouldn't be waived off simply because she's mentally ill.  Mental illness can be and is often helped by religious influence.


----------



## NeoDestiny (Mar 3, 2016)

afgpride said:


> On the one hand it should be acknowledged that people like this woman are severely mentally ill, and on the other the catalysis of religion shouldn't be waived off simply because she's mentally ill.  Mental illness can be and is often helped by religious influence.




If you want to talk about how religious text in general is flawed and prone to manipulation, I wouldn't disagree with a single word. I could spend all day criticizing religious text in the Quran and the Bible. I mean you're pretty much never going to win that argument using that method because religious text is read differently by everyone. Some people read it literally, and others ignore certain parts. I used to avidly criticize religion but I just got tired of it. In 2012, 84 percent of the world was religious so eight-in-ten people identified with a religious group. It's easy to pull lines from religious text and make religion look stupid but it's never going to convince the vast majority of the population to give up on their faith. 

The vast majority of people that practice religion are peaceful and normal. I'm not going to criticize people for their faith if they aren't radical extremists that force their religious beliefs and values onto others, especially me. Half of my family is Muslim and the other is Christian, thanks to my Muslim uncle's interesting marriage. He passed away about a year ago and the pastor at funeral said he was going to heaven (even though he never disavowed his faith in Islam) but he would not see his Muslim family because they were in hell. Yeah, he said that a funeral. 

He pulled verses from the Bible and made it pretty clear at the funeral to everyone there that the family on my uncle's side was going to burn in hell. Surprisingly all the Muslims at the funeral peacefully walked out without saying a word to the pastor, disgusted. I didn't really care that much because I've always been under the impression that death is the same for everyone, eternal oblivion and nothingness. 

Point is, religion sucks but I tolerate it. I'm not going to condemn an entire religion because of extremists and radicals like that pastor at my uncle's funeral. I actually spoke with my former ethic's professor who is a pastor at a Church and a great mentor of mine even though he knows I am atheist and I told him about this event and he completely disagreed with everything that pastor said about my uncle's Muslim family burning in hell. Everyone reads religious text differently. 

These people that manipulate religious text for violence and wealth are the minority and do not represent the majority. Like you said, and I would add on top of mental illness- stupidity combined with a religion as being dangerous. However, the majority of the world appears to enjoy believing in an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do. I will never accept the God formula, but I'm also never going to be a bigot. If you want to blame religion in general for shit, I'm never going to disagree with you. 

Whenever I see tragic news where religion is involved, I just shake my head. I just don't like the idea that some people paint this picture that Islam is somehow the most violent religion in history. I would argue like Dan Brown said that all "religion is flawed, but only because man is flawed.” There is line that is crossed when things like this happen.



This happens because people spew bigotry. It is depressing when peaceful innocent people are victims of ignorant hatred. Some of the people posting have made it pretty clear that they hate Muslims. Obviously, nobody is going to go outright and type "I hate Muslims" in here, but it's pretty clear to me who is just constantly and relentlessly attacking Islam with a passion that is only a common trait in someone of a different religion. I'm not surprised Seto Kaiba is banned, it speaks volumes about what he really thinks and won't come outright and say. It's not rational to blame Islam for every single thing in the Middle East. There is literally no logic in such a narrow-minded view on religions. It's one thing to say Islam is being manipulated in the Middle East and therefore a sick and twisted version of Islam is to blame for the violence that preys on the conflict, lack of food, and fear of normal Muslims and it's another thing to just say "Islam is to blame for everything." I wouldn't disagree if someone posted "radical Islam" is to blame. You can say "radical Islam" is to blame a dozen times and I wouldn't disagree.


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Mar 3, 2016)

that's an emotional argument though, like i said there are passages in the quran - which muslims believe is the word of god - that condone slavery, sex slavery, domestic violence, sacrifices, homophobia, sexism, religious intolerance, pretty much the antithesis to western civilization 

you can feel free to stand in defense of a barbaric belief system on behalf of its "moderate" subscribers, that's your decision, but the fact of the matter is regardless of what muslims "do" the root texts in which the religion is derived off of contain hideous messages that either catalyze or promote things that muslims are doing to this very day, and criticizing islam because of it is absolutely valid


----------



## FLORIDA MAN (Mar 3, 2016)

> Point is, religion sucks but I tolerate it. I'm not going to condemn an entire religion because of extremists and radicals like that pastor at my uncle's funeral.



thats a shame 
it is because of the passivity of intellectuals who leave these charlatans to their own devices so they get to wickedly warp these doctrines to fit their nefarious narratives


----------



## WT (Mar 3, 2016)

@afgpride, its not just religion which can influence the mentally ill, violence of all kind can, in films, video games and the like


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Mar 3, 2016)

that's true, good thing films, video games and the like are treated as fiction and not reality ordained by a supreme being you should revolve your life around


----------



## NeoDestiny (Mar 3, 2016)

afgpride said:


> that's an emotional argument though, like i said there are passages in the quran - which muslims believe is the word of god - that condone slavery, sex slavery, domestic violence, sacrifices, homophobia, sexism, religious intolerance, pretty much the antithesis to western civilization
> 
> you can feel free to stand in defense of a barbaric belief system on behalf of its "moderate" subscribers, that's your decision, but the fact of the matter is regardless of what muslims "do" the root texts in which the religion is derived off of contain hideous messages that either catalyze or promote things that muslims are doing to this very day, and criticizing islam because of it is absolutely valid




I think you completely missed the point of my post, which is fine. Do what you gotta do, man. It's pointless regurgitating what I just said a million times. It's like talking to someone who hates Jews, blacks, women, gays, Latinos, Asians, etc.


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Mar 3, 2016)

NeoDestiny said:


> I think you completely missed the point of my post, which is fine. Do what you gotta do, man. It's pointless regurgitating what I just said a million times. It's like talking to someone who hates Jews, blacks, women, gays, Latinos, Asians, etc.



I didn't miss the point of your post, the point of your post just didn't tackle the issue at hand.  I don't care about your "the majority of people aren't murderous freaks!" apologetics.  That isn't the point and was never the point.

Who do you think would be in the right in an argument over whether sex slaves are Islamic or not? An ISIS member that has one and is in the minority, or a #realMuslim that doesn't and is in the majority?

Spoiler: the one that uses the Quran as their evidence since, you know, it's the fucking word of God: 

"Prophet, We have made lawful for you your wives whom you have given their dowry, *slave girls whom God has given to you as gifts*, the daughters of your uncles and aunts, both paternal and maternal, who have migrated with you. The believing woman, who has offered herself to the Prophet and whom the Prophet may want to marry, will be specially for him, not for other believers. We knew what to make obligatory for them concerning their wives *and slave girls* so that you would face no hardship (because we have given distinction to you over the believers). God is All-forgiving and All-merciful."

- 33:50 

So how exactly isn't this a valid point criticism for Islam? Are you seriously going to pull the "people interpret things differently" card and pretend to be intellectually honest here? What is there to interpret?


You're not the only one here with an Islamic background; I'm Afghan and grew up Muslim.  How about you stop bending over backwards to validate your lack of intellectual integrity by calling others racist and reassess your position instead.


----------



## NeoDestiny (Mar 3, 2016)

afgpride said:


> I didn't miss the point of your post, the point of your post just didn't tackle the issue at hand.  I don't care about your "the majority of people aren't murderous freaks!" apologetics.  That isn't the point and was never the point.
> 
> Who do you think would be in the right in an argument over whether sex slaves are Islamic or not? An ISIS member that has one and is in the minority, or a #realMuslim that doesn't and is in the majority?
> 
> ...




You have issues. I'm just adding to you my ignore list, bye.


----------



## FLORIDA MAN (Mar 3, 2016)

He's 100% right, though.


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Mar 3, 2016)

Don't validate her obvious ruptured anus retreat by making my correctness something to be argued instead of simply observed with a functional brain


----------



## NeoDestiny (Mar 3, 2016)

WAD said:


> He's 100% right, though.




I know he doesn't digest everything I post word for word. It's pointless talking to someone who is cherry picking text from the Quran at this point. I already said I could do the same with the Bible. I've done it before. It gets really boring just posting a dozen verses from religious texts. It's a classic and easy way to dismantle a religion. Congratulations. You just learned how to break apart the concept of faith in an actual debate with a religious person. 

I could spend all day just picking apart religious text like he does. It doesn't change the reality that majority of the Muslim population or any religious population is peaceful. It's such a narrow minded view of Islam. 

You'll never agree with me, and you'll continue to say he is "100% right." You without a doubt sound like someone who says "I just hate X people and not X people." It doesn't make you any less of a racist or a bigot if you tolerate other cultures and people as opposed to the ones you don't tolerate. I've met people like you guys who genuinely believe they are in the "right" as long as they don't hate too many different groups of people.


----------



## FLORIDA MAN (Mar 3, 2016)

Define 'tolerate'.


----------



## WT (Mar 3, 2016)

afgpride said:


> that's true, good thing films, video games and the like are treated as fiction and not reality ordained by a supreme being you should revolve your life around



Non sequitur.

The part about fiction vs fact is irrelevant in the wider discussion about what influences mental people. 

When looking at ISIS as an example, you can't look at religion in isolation but should look at religion and politics together


----------



## WT (Mar 3, 2016)

Threads about Islam invariably turn into discussions about slavery, violence and pedophillia, which all have been discussed ad nauseam


----------



## NeoDestiny (Mar 3, 2016)

WAD said:


> Define 'tolerate'.




You tell me.  

afgpride is just a Muslim boy who came from Afghanistan and is salty the region he came from is a shatterbelt, he is mad he was indoctrinated into Islam, he wants to be a rebel and defy what he grew up as (and I respect that) but he has some type of vendetta against Islam. He just made that ridiculously obvious.  

I too come from a country like afgpride that is predominantly Muslim the only difference between me and him is I was put into a concentration camp with my mother and grandma during a genocide committed by Orthodox Christian Serbians. My father was put into a separate camp for men and tortured by Orthodox Christian Serbians. I've already said it before and I'll say it a million times more. Things like Srebrenica and the Bosnian genocide did happen, stop forgetting this shit like it was hundreds of years ago. It happened in the 90s and I am still alive. 

You're going to claim "oh but that's a personal argument" and obviously personal experience factors into how well people can argue on certain subjects. I don't know anything about you WAD, as a person. I've shared my personal history and experience several times. 5 million Muslims lived peacefully in Yugoslavia before the war and the genocide. Millions of Muslims still live peacefully to this day in places around the world besides the shatterbelt region of the Middle East. Seriously, can we stop acting like the Middle East is the poster child for Islam? What about all the Muslims that live in the U.S., Austria, Australia, Turkey, China, Russia, France, United Kingdom, etc. Islam does not revolve around the Middle East. 

Unlike afgpride, I was not indoctrinated into Islam. I go back to Bosnia from time to time and obviously interact with Muslims that live there so I don't have some unbearable hatred for Islam that stems from mommy and daddy issues like afgpride.


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Mar 3, 2016)

NeoDestiny said:


> I know he doesn't digest everything I post word for word. It's pointless talking to someone who is cherry picking text from the Quran at this point. I already said I could do the same with the Bible. I've done it before. It gets really boring just posting a dozen verses from religious texts. It's a classic and easy way to dismantle a religion. Congratulations. You just learned how to break apart the concept of faith in an actual debate with a religious person.
> 
> I could spend all day just picking apart religious text like he does. It doesn't change the reality that majority of the Muslim population or any religious population is peaceful. It's such a narrow minded view of Islam.
> 
> You'll never agree with me, and you'll continue to say he is "100% right." You without a doubt sound like someone who says "I just hate X people and not X people." It doesn't make you any less of a racist or a bigot if you tolerate other cultures and people as opposed to the ones you don't tolerate. I've met people like you guys who genuinely believe they are in the "right" as long as they don't hate too many different groups of people.


Translation: I'm a cognitively dissonant coward that's too caught up in bleeding heart spiel to accept valid Islamic criticism rooted in the alleged literal word of God. 

"Narrow-minded view of Islam" my ass.  Keep granting immunity to a hateful, violent ideology because people you know don't practice what it preaches.



WT said:


> Non sequitur.
> 
> The part about fiction vs fact is irrelevant in the wider discussion about what influences mental people.
> 
> When looking at ISIS as an example, you can't look at religion in isolation but should look at religion and politics together


Politics is just as important as religion in cases like ISIS, but that doesn't mean religious influence is nullified by political influence.  Both feed off one another. 

And I don't see many mental people saying video games or films are the reason they killed someone.  Religion on the other hand?


----------



## FLORIDA MAN (Mar 3, 2016)

No ones denying there's plenty of peaceful practitioners of Islam, though.

But how faithful are they that is redirected as the term 'moderation'.

If I selectively follow some laws, and break others at my own leisure, am am I a good citizen?

My sympathies for your history, sorry you had it so rough. But I digress; what do you consider to be the contemporary definition of 'tolerate'?


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Mar 3, 2016)

NeoDestiny said:


> You tell me.
> 
> afgpride is just a Muslim boy who came from Afghanistan and is salty the region he came from is a shatterbelt, he is mad he was indoctrinated into Islam, he wants to be a rebel and defy what he grew up as (and I respect that) but he has some type of vendetta against Islam. He just made that ridiculously obvious.
> 
> ...



Actually I wasn't indoctrinated at all, but congrats on making yourself look like even more of an idiot by making a random, off-the-wall personal attack out of desperation that isn't even correct.  

Jesus you're pathetic.


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Mar 3, 2016)

nice fabricated sob story btw


----------



## Bringer (Mar 3, 2016)

WAD said:


> No ones denying there's plenty of peaceful practitioners of Islam, though.
> 
> But how faithful are they that is redirected as the term 'moderation'.
> 
> ...




Why is it when people point at regular Muslim's living in America everyone immediately says "OH, but they aren't following the religion correctly. But ISIS, they are following it to the T!"


----------



## FLORIDA MAN (Mar 3, 2016)

Because...religious extremists follow their religion _extremely_ strictly?

The bing bong circulates.


----------



## Bringer (Mar 3, 2016)

Did... You just say ISIS follows Islam strictly  



> 1- It is forbidden in Islam to issue fatwas without all the necessary learning requirements. Even
> then fatwas must follow Islamic legal theory as defined in the Classical texts. It is also
> forbidden to cite a portion of a verse from the Qur’an—or part of a verse—to derive a ruling
> without looking at everything that the Qur’an and Hadith teach related to that matter. In other
> ...




"Strictly"


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Mar 3, 2016)

BringerOfChaos said:


> Did... You just say ISIS follows Islam strictly
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This is a commendable attempt at reconciling Islam with basic civility, but in the scope of what is "Islamic", a lot of these are ass-pulls that either interpret vague passages over-zealously or outright neglect clear passages in favor of vaguer ones.

That's not to say ISIS follows Islam to a tee, but certain practices they engage in that are considered "unIslamic" are in fact validated by clear Quranic passages and/or Ahadith.


----------



## Mael (Mar 3, 2016)

The followers of ISIS are still Muslim, like it or not.

You made your bed, Sunni Islam.  Now sleep in it.


----------



## Bringer (Mar 3, 2016)

*@Afg*

So what makes you more knowledgeable than all of the 126 people who signed the lettertobaghdadi? 



Shit, what makes you more knowledgeable then the first ten signatures.


*@Mael*

You can be Muslim and do unislamic things


----------



## hammer (Mar 3, 2016)

all I get from this thread is

>defends muslims 

>also trump supporter


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Mar 3, 2016)

BringerOfChaos said:


> *@Afg*
> 
> So what makes you more knowledgeable than all of the 126 people who signed the lettertobaghdadi?
> 
> ...



i don't know what's funnier; the fact that you think all the signatories to this document by these "knowledgeable people" are thorough scholarly evaluations of every single statement that decided it just so happens to be factually correct, rather than simply pleas to isis to tone it down while taking an islamic high ground; or the fact that you think your appeal to authority is an actual argument


----------



## Bringer (Mar 3, 2016)

"The argument from authority (Latin: argumentum ad verecundiam) also appeal to authority, is a common argument form which can be fallacious, such as when an authority is cited on a topic *outside their area of expertise*, when the *authority cited is not a true expert*"

Nope.

So again, what makes you more credible than these people?


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Mar 3, 2016)

what a spectacular defense, if someone disagrees with the factual legitimacy of a politically charged document, they have to prove they're more credible than all the people that signed it 

if they don't whip out their credentials from shlamalakadingdong university of al-quran karim bin mashallah, repeat your question and collect your gold star from the saudi prince in attendance


----------



## Bringer (Mar 3, 2016)

Well there's no point having a discussion with people who don't know what they are talking about. You literally pulled out the story of Abraham as evidence that Islam(and by proxy all Abrahamic religions)  can condone child sacrifice. You have no credibility after doing that.

In the end, Islam can be interpreted anyway. It's just weird when ISIS interprets Islam, you're all like "certain practices they engage in that are considered "unIslamic" are in fact validated by clear Quranic passages and/or Ahadith"

While when other people have more tolerant interpretations you're all like "a lot of these are ass-pulls that either interpret vague passages over-zealously or outright neglect clear passages in favor of vaguer ones"

Your bias against Islam is pretty clear.


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Mar 3, 2016)

BringerOfChaos said:


> Well there's no point having a discussion with people who don't know what they are talking about. You literally pulled out the story of Abraham as evidence that Islam(and by proxy all Abrahamic religions)  can condone child sacrifice. You have no credibility after doing that.
> 
> In the end, Islam can be interpreted anyway. It's just weird when ISIS interprets Islam, you're all like "certain practices they engage in that are considered "unIslamic" are in fact validated by clear Quranic passages and/or Ahadith"
> 
> ...


I didn't say Abrahamic religions explicitly condone child sacrifice as a "thing", I pointed out that they effectively validate a scenario in which someone "talks" to God in their mind, God tells them to murder his own child because he said so, and him being willing to do it was considered commendable.  A mentally ill person that hallucinates thinking they're talking to God and God is telling them to murder an innocent child is mirroring a scenario that is celebrated by religious texts.  The dangerous negligence isn't in promoting child sacrifice, but in glorifying the willingness to murder your own child if God says so.  If someone truly believes they're talking to God, and that such an act is just if God is telling you to do it, then that's a blatant catalysis that's worthy of criticism. 

And that's because I'm not talking to an ISIS member, I'm talking to apologists like you that think the simple act of being moderate somehow magically transforms the literal word of God into conveniently aligning with 21st century values.  I specifically said the tolerant interpretations were commendable for their intent, just that a lot of their outright statements of what "Islam forbids" are ass-pulls.  


This "Islam can be interpreted in multiple ways" excuse is just a sad deflection of the blatant outdated ideas spewed across Islamic texts.  I'm not sorry if you're offended that I'm not simply "letting go" of literal utterances by God condoning sex slavery or sexism because someone is trying their hardest to interpret them in the best way possible (or ignoring them like they don't exist).  Get over it.


----------



## NeoDestiny (Mar 3, 2016)

hammer said:


> all I get from this thread is
> 
> >defends muslims
> 
> >also trump supporter




Trump is going "bomb the shit out of ISIS." I have no problem with his aggressive stance on radical Islam. He wants to build safe zones in the Middle East, fine with me. He doesn't want to accept undocumented refugees from the Middle East, fine with me. It's dangerous to accept undocumented refugees from anywhere. 

You know contrary to popular belief. Trump's stance on national security is beneficial to Muslims. If ISIS is contained and neutralized we'll hear a lot less nonsense from bigots. If the Middle East is stabilized, bigots wouldn't have anything to point their finger at anymore and say "bla bla look over there, Islam is violent." 

I don't want to vote for a candidate like Obama, who half-asses and undermines Western influence in the Middle East. The U.S. practically created ISIS, and there is a ton of leaked evidence out there that proves this. It is old news that the U.S. created ISIS and the withdrawal from Iraq just turned Iraq into a training ground for ISIS. I am completely for Trump because he wants the U.S. to have a good relationship with Russia and he wants to put an end to ISIS.


----------



## Fruits Basket Fan (Mar 3, 2016)

The woman is a monster!


----------



## Son of Goku (Mar 4, 2016)

Rain said:


> Yet if these polls were conducted 40 years ago,results would've been very different. This alone tells us that religion, in and of itself isn't what enables these people to become jihadists. Instead, there are much more complex socio economic factors here at work, religion is merely an instrument of articulating this socio economic misery.
> 
> More popular secular alternative did exist, and West considered it a threat to their interests, so they enabled Saudi Arabia to spread Wahhabism and drown progressive movements. With the traumatic (in economic and cultural sense) start of globalization and fall of the Soviet Union and it's allies in the region, Islamist groups became stronger than ever and filled the vacuum by addressing people's immediate needs, to a certain level, through setting up various social services be it education or medical help, helping unemployed and so on, all with religious tones combined with the rethoric of cultural clash with the Western decadence and so on.
> 
> The point is that religion is never sufficient unto itself, there must exist some ACTUAL, tangible social misery which religion seeks to alleviate.



Top notch analysis.


----------



## WT (Mar 4, 2016)

So the basic premise of Afgprides argument is that a mentally ill person can be influenced over any random passage of the Quran therefore the Quran is evil and Islam is wrong.

This argument has hit a new level of retardation (no pun intended). A mentally ill person is mentally ill ... full stop.

How many mental institutions have you been to? I can bet the number of mental patients who have committed a crime not related to religion is more than the contrary. My friend (works in psycho ward) talks about it all the time...


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Mar 4, 2016)

WT said:


> So the basic premise of Afgprides argument is that a mentally ill person can be influenced over any random passage of the Quran therefore the Quran is evil and Islam is wrong.
> 
> This argument has hit a new level of retardation (no pun intended). A mentally ill person is mentally ill ... full stop.
> 
> How many mental institutions have you been to? I can bet the number of mental patients who have committed a crime not related to religion is more than the contrary. My friend (works in psycho ward) talks about it all the time...



i'd respond seriously but your reading comprehension is hilarious 

"therefore the quran is evil and islam is wrong" ...the fuck, do you have some sort of spastic defense mechanism over any scintilla of criticism toward your religion?


----------



## A Optimistic (Mar 4, 2016)

Disgusting, no reason to kill a child, ever.


----------



## A Optimistic (Mar 4, 2016)

Also, that woman should be executed.


----------



## Prince Vegeta (Mar 4, 2016)

Abraham's case was literally an exception. God just wanted to test how far Abraham would go for him and see how strong Abraham's faith was in God. What god expects from a prophet doesn't mean god expects the same thing from an ordinary person hence he didn't tell some random man or woman to go sacrifice their child. obviously god knew Abraham would do it and god also knew that Abraham would end up sacrificing a sheep instead.

if god had asked some random father to sacrifice his son that father would just refuse and say that every religion forbids killing let alone your own child. so if this story of Abraham motivated her to do this which probably didn't. then why didn't the part of the quran where it says killing one human being is the same as killing all man kind? motivate her enough to not kill that child?


----------



## WT (Mar 4, 2016)

afgpride said:


> i'd respond seriously but your reading comprehension is hilarious
> 
> "therefore the quran is evil and islam is wrong" ...the fuck, do you have some sort of spastic defense mechanism over any scintilla of criticism toward your religion?



Your posts (not just this one) are riddled with ad hominems.

Its cute


----------



## NeoDestiny (Mar 4, 2016)

WT said:


> Your posts (not just this one) are riddled with ad hominems.
> 
> Its cute




It usually always boils down to personal attacks when someone who is hostile can't convince their opponent that is Islam is pure evil.


----------



## Mael (Mar 4, 2016)

Islam ain't pure evil, but no Abrahamic religion is peaceful...not a one.


----------



## NeoDestiny (Mar 4, 2016)

Mael said:


> Islam ain't pure evil, but no Abrahamic religion is peaceful...not a one.




I completely agree to an extent because now you're talking about Abrahamic religions and not singling out Islam... Abrahamic religions are easily manipulated and susceptible to violence and conflict because of the way their text is written. The fact is all of these religions are and can be practiced peacefully by the majority of their adherents. This is irrefutable. If someone wants to point to radical extremists and say "look that religion is pure evil and violent" that's an entirely different claim than just saying "Abrahamic religions are easily manipulated and susceptible to violence and conflict." 

The fact is these religions are completely open to interpretation and always will be. The argument "Islam is evil" is just never going to hold up against people that practice Islam peacefully because they are living proof that their religion can be practiced peacefully. With that being I still do not practice a religion personally because I don't like how all religious text is interpreted differently around the world.


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Mar 4, 2016)

WT said:


> Your posts (not just this one) are riddled with ad hominems.
> 
> Its cute


not as cute as your freudian slip 

try to hide your bias better



NeoDestiny said:


> It usually always boils down to personal attacks when someone who is hostile can't convince their opponent that is Islam is pure evil.


*cough*



NeoDestiny said:


> Do what you gotta do, man. It's pointless regurgitating what I just said a million times. It's like talking to someone who hates Jews, blacks, women, gays, Latinos, Asians, etc.





NeoDestiny said:


> You have issues. I'm just adding to you my ignore list, bye.





NeoDestiny said:


> You'll never agree with me, and you'll continue to say he is "100% right." You without a doubt sound like someone who says "I just hate X people and not X people." It doesn't make you any less of a racist or a bigot if you tolerate other cultures and people as opposed to the ones you don't tolerate. I've met people like you guys who genuinely believe they are in the "right" as long as they don't hate too many different groups of people.



this one's my favorite, keep in mind she knows everything about me based on 2 posts in this thread:


NeoDestiny said:


> You tell me.
> 
> afgpride is just a Muslim boy who came from Afghanistan and is salty the region he came from is a shatterbelt, he is mad he was indoctrinated into Islam, he wants to be a rebel and defy what he grew up as (and I respect that) but he has some type of vendetta against Islam. He just made that ridiculously obvious.
> 
> ...



here's a list of strong, non-ad hominem arguments in this thread, complete with white tiger's stamp of approval 

neodestiny is a beacon of non-hypocrisy, crushing her opponents with flawless, non emotionally charged logic whenever her world view is challenged 


can i get an amen?


----------



## WT (Mar 4, 2016)

I didn't read her posts but yeah, this thread, as expected has devolved into primitive personal attacks.

But hey, its been fun for you. You managed to piss alot of people off with your dupe.


----------



## Son of Goku (Mar 4, 2016)

WAD said:


> No ones denying there's plenty of peaceful practitioners of Islam, though.
> 
> But how faithful are they that is redirected as the term 'moderation'.
> 
> *If I selectively follow some laws, and break others at my own leisure, am am I a good citizen?*



I think here lies the crux of the matter and what confuses so many critics:

Islam isn't some cohesive set of laws that are easy to understand and leave little to no room for interpretation and there simply is no authority that can settle disputes about certain rules and is backed by a system to enforce those decisions. There is a reason why there is so much debate and disagreement amongst musllims and their scholars on a fundamental level to this day, with no end in sight. So don't compare Islam to a judiciary of a country.


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Mar 4, 2016)

WT said:


> I didn't read her posts but yeah, this thread, as expected has devolved into primitive personal attacks.
> 
> But hey, its been fun for you. You managed to piss alot of people off with your dupe.



i have a dupe now?  

i'd assume you're joking but i wouldn't put it past you, you're pretty desperate


----------



## Son of Goku (Mar 4, 2016)

afgpride said:


> i'd respond seriously but your reading comprehension is hilarious
> 
> "therefore the quran is evil and islam is wrong" ...the fuck, do you have some sort of spastic defense mechanism over *any scintilla of criticism* toward your religion?




Page 9:


afgpride said:


> "Narrow-minded view of Islam" my ass.  Keep granting immunity to *a hateful, violent ideology* because people you know don't practice what it preaches.



'any scintilla of criticism'? Uh-huh...


----------



## Lucaniel (Mar 4, 2016)

> Unlike afgpride, I was not indoctrinated into Islam. I go back to Bosnia from time to time and obviously interact with Muslims that live there so I don't have some unbearable hatred for Islam that stems from mommy and daddy issues like afgpride.



isn't this the one who's a trump supporter

clearly you do have an unbearable hatred for islam

i guess it just comes from somewhere else


----------



## αce (Mar 4, 2016)

this entire thread is people arguing over their terribly shallow knowledge of religion
but its entertaining


----------



## NeoDestiny (Mar 4, 2016)

Lucaniel said:


> isn't this the one who's a trump supporter
> 
> clearly you do have an unbearable hatred for islam
> 
> i guess it just comes from somewhere else





NeoDestiny said:


> Trump is going "bomb the shit out of ISIS." I have no problem with his aggressive stance on radical Islam. He wants to build safe zones in the Middle East, fine with me. He doesn't want to accept undocumented refugees from the Middle East, fine with me. It's dangerous to accept undocumented refugees from anywhere.
> 
> You know contrary to popular belief. Trump's stance on national security is beneficial to Muslims. If ISIS is contained and neutralized we'll hear a lot less nonsense from bigots. If the Middle East is stabilized, bigots wouldn't have anything to point their finger at anymore and say "bla bla look over there, Islam is violent."
> 
> I don't want to vote for a candidate like Obama, who half-asses and undermines Western influence in the Middle East. The U.S. practically created ISIS, and there is a ton of leaked evidence out there that proves this. It is old news that the U.S. created ISIS and the withdrawal from Iraq just turned Iraq into a training ground for ISIS. I am completely for Trump because he wants the U.S. to have a good relationship with Russia and he wants to put an end to ISIS.



Warmongers like Hillary and Obama haven't accomplished anything in the Middle East. Their foreign policy is pathetic and the fact that Hillary wants to take out Bashar al-Assad is hilarious. Assad's regime is the only reason ISIS hasn't conquered Syria. Trump is the only candidate who is willing to admit that toppling dictators and melting down countries in the Middle East isn't a logical strategy anymore. He is the only candidate that admits going into Iraq and taking out Saddam was a mistake, he admits that taking out Gaddafi was a mistake, and like I said he does not want to take out Assad. 

ISIS should be the top priority in the Middle East. If Russia is willing to help us deal with ISIS, we should work with them. Putin has expressed respect for Trump and vice versa. I believe that with Trump the Middle East can finally be stabilized and we can focus on more important issues in the East Asia realm with China.



αce said:


> this entire thread is people arguing over their terribly shallow knowledge of religion
> but its entertaining



It's mostly just a thread where Muslim haters can gather together and sing "Kumbaya My Lord."

The only point me and a few others have made is religious text is open to interpretation similar to how the U.S. constitution is still to this day open to interpretation. Slavery appeared in the U.S. Constitution and it wasn't a controversial public issue for a very long time. You could easily argue the U.S. is inherently evil for allowing slavery to begin with. It would just be pointless because times change and so does the way certain text is interpreted. The Quran wouldn't be the only piece of text in the world that can be twisted and manipulated. The Bible has been twisted and Christianity can easily be seen as evil, it's not hard to cite people killing, hating, and hurting others all in the name of God.

People like afgpride and Seto look at the Quran through the eyes of ISIS and call it a day. Historic and sacred text is almost always open to interpretation. Some people spend their entire life with a Ph.D and career studying and interpreting historic documents like the U.S. constitution and religious texts such as the Bible or the Quran. It's just hilarious to see someone google a few verses from the Quran and say "Islam is violent and evil."


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Mar 4, 2016)

Son of Goku said:


> Page 9:
> 
> 
> 'any scintilla of criticism'? Uh-huh...





			
				afgpride said:
			
		

> "Narrow-minded view of Islam" my ass.  Keep granting immunity to *a hateful, violent ideology* because people you know don't practice what it preaches.





			
				WT said:
			
		

> So the basic premise of Afgprides argument is that a mentally ill person  can be influenced over any random passage of the Quran therefore the  Quran is evil and Islam is wrong.



nevermind that these two quotes were in different contexts and in different exchanges, how does the former validate the latter?


----------



## Capt. Autismo (Mar 4, 2016)

God, that sounds like a fucking nightmare.


----------



## WT (Mar 5, 2016)

afgpride said:


> i have a dupe now?
> 
> i'd assume you're joking but i wouldn't put it past you, you're pretty desperate



Didn't you make a thread about Khalesi being your dupe?

Always thought she was. Irregardless of being true or not, you guys seem to clinch onto the idea that one of the reasons Islam is ebil is because mental people can use it to kill people.

I think you're more desperate than I am when it comes to Islam. Constantly lashing out and then displaying a spastic defense and adhominem riddled mechanism when opposed is a classic behaviour exhibited by a closet muslim. Its good that your venting though, it'll keep you sane


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Mar 5, 2016)

WT said:


> Didn't you make a thread about Khalesi being your dupe?
> 
> Always thought she was. Irregardless of being true or not, you guys seem to clinch onto the idea that one of the reasons Islam is ebil is because mental people can use it to kill people.
> 
> I think you're more desperate than I am when it comes to Islam. Constantly lashing out and then displaying a spastic defense and adhominem riddled mechanism when opposed is a classic behaviour exhibited by a closet muslim. Its good that your venting though, it'll keep you sane



oh, yeah khaleesi is my dupe 

you're also completely right about everything here

islam doesn't have anything bad in its scripture, it's a religion of peace, people just misinterpret certain things to suit their own agenda 

i was muslim all along, just in denial about it

thanks for exposing me, i feel like a weight has been lifted off my shoulders alhamdulillah


----------



## NeoDestiny (Mar 5, 2016)

WT said:


> Didn't you make a thread about Khalesi being your dupe?
> 
> Always thought she was. Irregardless of being true or not, you guys seem to clinch onto the idea that one of the reasons Islam is ebil is because mental people can use it to kill people.
> 
> I think you're more desperate than I am when it comes to Islam. Constantly lashing out and then displaying a spastic defense and adhominem riddled mechanism when opposed is a classic behaviour exhibited by a closet muslim. Its good that your venting though, it'll keep you sane




Typically kids who are indoctrinated have a lot of issues later on in life like trying to be a rebel but take it even further and begin to hate themselves and others. I honestly believe religious indoctrination is child abuse but that's a totally different discussion.


----------



## WT (Mar 5, 2016)

Is that you Afgpride?

This is hilarious


----------



## Prince Vegeta (Mar 5, 2016)

soapbox123456 said:


> It's not rocket science. Islam is violent. Muslims are killers and terrorists. Turn on your TV and watch the news retarded sand ^ (use bro). Neo is an Arab cunt who needs to get fucked, WT is autistic, Son of goku stop being a pussy wtf? Prince vegeta ur a Muslim lover kill urself. This forum needs to get cleaned. Ban these fucking jihadists lol



[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIUANJpDvX0[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Finalbeta (Mar 5, 2016)

I'm done with these religions


----------



## Jake CENA (Mar 5, 2016)

and the apologists say that the woman is crazy. okay then


----------



## TehDarkDarkOfPerdition (Mar 5, 2016)

This must be all the Memes rage these days for the Religion of Peace.

Get a sense of humor first.


----------



## Deleted member 222538 (Mar 5, 2016)

TerminaTHOR said:


> and the apologists say that the woman is crazy. okay then



I see Neodestiny going the same way of this woman. Her mental capacity seems pretty similar(non-existent).


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Mar 5, 2016)

The woman is crazy, that doesn't exclude religious motivation though. Religion typically provides person a basis to do crazy or heinous shit. In which case, the woman clearly invoked her religion to do crazy and heinous shit.


----------



## NeoDestiny (Mar 5, 2016)

Seto Kaiba said:


> The woman is crazy, that doesn't exclude religious motivation though. *Religion* typically provides person a basis to do crazy or heinous shit. In which case, the woman clearly invoked her religion to do crazy and heinous shit.




I agree with this statement and this statement alone. I'll leave the discussion at that, for me.


----------



## Beatrice The Endless Witch (Mar 5, 2016)

That woman was crazy, plain and simple. I wont go into religion here.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Mar 5, 2016)

NeoDestiny said:


> I agree with this statement and this statement alone. I'll leave the discussion at that, for me.



Well...Islam is a religion, so why so adamantly deny its detrimental influence?


----------



## FLORIDA MAN (Mar 5, 2016)

That's what's been puzzling me about NeoDestiny.

>criticize Islam
>15 paragraph post about how you're an islamaphobe, probably Christian, riddled with ad hominems and a bigot

>criticize all religion
>"yes I couldn't agree more!"

???


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Mar 5, 2016)

Now that I think about it, didn't Neo a few days ago say how they were "leaving" or some shit, because of how "Neo-Nazi" and "White Supremacist" this forum is?

The crap you still doing here, then, Neo?


----------



## WT (Mar 5, 2016)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Well...Islam is a religion, so why so adamantly deny its detrimental influence?



It probably has more to do with the fact that some posters have reached conclusions that Islam explicitly condones the act of beheading children, based on the actions of a mentally ill practitioner when in reality, a mentally ill person can be influenced by anything.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Mar 5, 2016)

Prince Vegeta said:


> Abraham's case was literally an exception. God just wanted to test how far Abraham would go for him and see how strong Abraham's faith was in God. What god expects from a prophet doesn't mean god expects the same thing from an ordinary person hence he didn't tell some random man or woman to go sacrifice their child. obviously god knew Abraham would do it and god also knew that Abraham would end up sacrificing a sheep instead.
> 
> if god had asked some random father to sacrifice his son that father would just refuse and say that every religion forbids killing let alone your own child. so if this story of Abraham motivated her to do this which probably didn't. then why didn't the part of the quran where it says killing one human being is the same as killing all man kind? motivate her enough to not kill that child?



If the OT truly is canonical to Islam, then there exists Jephthah as well. A story in which the character had to sacrifice his daughter. There was no angel to intervene then.

A twisted test of faith from an omniscient being either way, no? 

Furthermore, the Quaran calls for the subjugation, and failing that, death of nonbelievers. It is composed of texts riddled with contradictions and idealizing traits and behaviors that are simply incompatible modern concepts of society.


----------



## NeoDestiny (Mar 5, 2016)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Well...Islam is a religion, so why so adamantly deny its detrimental influence?





NeoDestiny said:


> I completely agree to an extent because now you're talking about Abrahamic religions and not singling out Islam... Abrahamic religions are easily manipulated and susceptible to violence and conflict because of the way their text is written. The fact is all of these religions are and can be practiced peacefully by the majority of their adherents. This is irrefutable. If someone wants to point to radical extremists and say "look that religion is pure evil and violent" that's an entirely different claim than just saying "Abrahamic religions are easily manipulated and susceptible to violence and conflict."
> 
> The fact is these religions are completely open to interpretation and always will be. The argument "Islam is evil" is just never going to hold up against people that practice Islam peacefully because they are living proof that their religion can be practiced peacefully. With that being I still do not practice a religion personally because I don't like how all religious text is interpreted differently around the world.





Seto Kaiba said:


> The woman is crazy, that doesn't exclude religious motivation though. *Religion* typically provides person a basis to do crazy or heinous shit. In which case, the woman clearly invoked her *religion* to do crazy and heinous shit.



This post coincides with my earlier post. If you want to argue that religion in general is easily manipulated and susceptible to violence and conflict, you know my position. If you want single out Islam, you know my position on that as well. 

I'm not a huge fan of religion but I'm also not adamantly against it. I acknowledge that the vast majority of people practice religion peacefully, there is a great number of intelligent people who practice religion. I am not a cynical person. I'm not going to tell people "you're religion is violent, corrupt, easily manipulated, and perverted" if that is simply not the case for the majority of the population. I refuse to attack people who peacefully practice religion and believe in God. 

I used to be a far more aggressive atheist and push buttons with religious people but I just grew out of it because it's not worth it. Religion can be both positive and negative but it is more often than not positive. The fact of the matter is religion is open to interpretation. If it wasn't, there wouldn't be such a huge chasm between moderates and radicals. 

I understand where some of you are coming from but when you only attack Islam- it's still just your interpretation of the text. If you want to acknowledge that Islam and other religions are susceptible to violence and conflict because they can be interpreted by radicals and hateful people and used for malicious reasons, that is a far more reasonable position. In fact it is a concern many moderate religious people share. If religious text was so easy to interpret there wouldn't be religious studies, there wouldn't be doctorates in religion and theology. I just feel like pulling a few verses and analyzing them undermines theology and how complex these religions actually are. 

If you want to single out Islam and define the religion as pure evil and violence, I'm done arguing about that. It's the same as arguing about the existence of God with a religious person. You have a negative interpretation of the religious text where the reader will believe he or she should commit acts of violence and hate but it is not the only interpretation and it is not the most commonly practiced. The most popular religions in the world are practiced peacefully with moderation. 

So back to the one statement I agree with you about. 



Seto Kaiba said:


> The woman is crazy, that doesn't exclude religious motivation though. *Religion* typically provides person a basis to do crazy or heinous shit. In which case, the woman clearly invoked her *religion* to do crazy and heinous shit.



Do I believe the woman is mentally insane? Yes. 

Do I believe she could have interpreted the Quran with a sick and twisted perspective? Yes. 

Do all religions provide wicked and sick people justification for violence, hatred, racism, and perversion? Yes, they do.

Do I condemn religion? No.

Do I believe religion is inherently evil? No, religion is completely open to interpretation. The rational answer to whether or not a religion is violent and evil should be "it is based on interpretation." If the vast majority of adherents can practice their faith peacefully, they should just be left alone.

----

*Personal experience read if interested or just ignore because I'm just venting here:
*

If I was that cynical about humanity in general I would probably be like Matthew McConaughey in True Detective. Don't get me wrong, I've had days before where I believe religion is a cancer, humanity is doomed, and the world would maybe be a better place if we all just exterminated each other and let the other species on this planet live their lives peacefully and naturally. 


*Spoiler*: __ 



[YOUTUBE]A8x73UW8Hjk[/YOUTUBE]




Anyway...

I graduated with an associate's degree a year in a half ago at a community college, got lucky enough to get hired on in a police department in a city because I several languages, and experienced dealing with the most fucked up people on a daily basis. I literally felt like McConaughey after a shift. I couldn't handle the stress anymore. Some of the experiences were beyond fucked up. 

I quit like a little girl because I felt I couldn't handle it and did not want to be cynical for the rest of my life. It didn't help that everyone in the my district hated cops but I suppose that is what happens when a small minority of racist cops with anger issues ruin the job for the rest of us. You become jaded with the people you work with because they are all criminals even though they make up a small percentage of the city's population even some of the normal people hate your guts. 

I view the relationship between Islam and the media in a similar way to my personal experience. If you only hear about radical Islam you will have a very negative outlook on Islam. If you only hear about bad cops you have a negative outlook on cops and that job seriously sucks now. 

I brought up child molestation before for a reason- it is the worst call but they prefer a female officer answer those until a detective arrives to take over. I'm not just bringing it up because I felt like cherry picking something on the news that makes Christians look bad but there is a few times I answered a call and what a surprise... it's a white family that is very religious. I never asked if their Christian or Catholic obviously but it's one or other other when you walk into the house and the first thing you notice is that giant cross in their living room. You can imagine how I became cynical about Christianity. Of course, I have friends and family that are adherents of that faith so I'm not going to run around saying they are all fucked up. I was extremely cynical about a lot of stuff but after moving out of the city and quitting that career. I just learned how terrible it is to be a cop right now, I have a lot of good friends who are cops who are just feeling a lot of pressure now and doubting themselves in some situations. I had one friend who got shot a month ago because he was afraid to pull the trigger all because he feels guilty now about every situation he is in. I was the same way and I knew I would totally freeze up if I got into a shootout because I was afraid I would be on the news and in a court room. 

Extreme generalization gets people hurt. It hurts everyone. I take it personally when a group of people are targeted. Claims like "Islam is violent and evil" are just as extreme and distasteful as the BLM protesters telling people to kill cops, it makes all BLM protesters look terrible. 



Zemir Begic was beaten to death with a hammers because he was Muslim. I'm honestly done arguing about it. People get hurt because of hatred like that. If you want call bullshit on my personal experiences, go for it. I know someone called bullshit on me being in a concentration camp with my mom, let me send you a selfie me and my mom took? Like, seriously.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Mar 5, 2016)

afgpride said:


> here's a list of strong, non-ad hominem arguments in this thread, complete with white tiger's stamp of approval
> 
> neodestiny is a beacon of non-hypocrisy, crushing her opponents with flawless, non emotionally charged logic whenever her world view is challenged
> 
> ...



And here I thought her accusing me of being a bible-thumper was ridiculous. What the fuck was that even?


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Mar 5, 2016)

NeoDestiny said:


> This post coincides with my earlier post. If you want to argue that religion in general is easily manipulated and susceptible to violence and conflict, you know my position. If you want single out Islam, you know my position on that as well.



Islam is at the core of the matter. So it is Islam that is discussed.

The issue with you is you are a person that lacks nuance, and projects that lack of nuance onto others. 

We're criticizing Islam in particular because the religion at the center of the individual's motivations is that religion. 

When a mom killed her children because she thought the end times was near when a crazed pastor went on about it, people criticized Christianity then. Because Christianity was at the core of her motivations and how she was taught it and processsed it influenced her actions.



> I'm not a huge fan of religion but I'm also not adamantly against it. I acknowledge that the vast majority of people practice religion peacefully, there is a great number of intelligent people who practice religion. I am not a cynical person. I'm not going to tell people "you're religion is violent, corrupt, easily manipulated, and perverted" if that is simply not the case for the majority of the population. I refuse to attack people who peacefully practice religion and believe in God.



A critique of a religion is not condemnation of all people that practice it.



> I used to be a far more aggressive atheist and push buttons with religious people but I just grew out of it because it's not worth it. Religion can be both positive and negative but it is more often than not positive. The fact of the matter is religion is open to interpretation. If it wasn't, there wouldn't be such a huge chasm between moderates and radicals.



Religion being open to interpretation, and the very nature of it is what invites violence and radicalism. Right now, it's Islam that expresses the worst of those negative aspects. 



> I understand where some of you are coming from but when you only attack Islam- it's still just your interpretation of the text. If you want to acknowledge that Islam and other religions are susceptible to violence and conflict because they can be interpreted by radicals and hateful people and used for malicious reasons, that is a far more reasonable position. In fact it is a concern many moderate religious people share. If religious text was so easy to interpret there wouldn't be religious studies, there wouldn't be doctorates in religion and theology. I just feel like pulling a few verses and analyzing them undermines theology and how complex these religions actually are.



This is a failure, an abject failure, of the god they believe in then. A being that failed to make his supposed 'messages' clear enough to have a unaninamous intepretation of. So not only are there three religions that follow this same god in differing ways, among each are countless sects that have variances in their interpretations of the holy texts rooted from the original Jewish books. 

The fact of the matter is however is that all three, and that includes Islam, preach unambiguously violence against the critic, the heretic, and the unbeliever. It preaches subjugation of those who do not abide by the teachings, and death for those who resist them. 



> *If you want to single out Islam and define the religion as pure evil and violence, I'm done arguing about that.* It's the same as arguing about the existence of God with a religious person. You have a negative interpretation of the religious text where the reader will believe he or she should commit acts of violence and hate but it is not the only interpretation and it is not the most commonly practiced. The most popular religions in the world are practiced peacefully with moderation.



No one said this. This is purely your emotional reaction making you refuse to see what people are actually stating.

However the truth is that Islam contains passages that preach, glorify, and command violence and subjugation. It allows those that wish to emulate their prophet do so in ways we know are heinous now because they're not a case of glorified legend. 



> So back to the one statement I agree with you about.
> 
> Do I believe the woman is mentally insane? Yes.
> 
> ...



You say all this but react with such vitriol when someone criticized Islam. It's strange how you concede to the point I was making to begin with, and then call me and afgpride bigots for establishing that point.

Understand the simple thing that when people lambast Islam, it is not doing so with some exception given to others. The truth is that Islamic fundamentalism is at the root of international concerns right now. As the most significant global terrorist networks are Islamist terror groups.

----



> *Personal experience read if interested or just ignore because I'm just venting here:
> *
> 
> If I was that cynical about humanity in general I would probably be like Matthew McConaughey in True Detective. Don't get me wrong, I've had days before where I believe religion is a cancer, humanity is doomed, and the world would maybe be a better place if we all just exterminated each other and let the other species on this planet live their lives peacefully and naturally.
> ...



Now, you cannot expect me to have sympathy for any of this considering how you have targeted people? Can you? 

You went after me with a kneejerk, baseless accusation and simply due to the fact that I criticized Islam and stated it was rooted in barbarism and violence. Which is factually true, that is how it came to be. 

Ultimately I get the impression of one projecting their own faults on to other people. You clearly have hangups over Christians and those you perceive as such, particularly when the issue of Islam comes to the surface. The fact that you attempted to characterize myself as simply a bible-thumper, and afgpride as a person with parental issues as a way to dismiss what we were saying about Islam only speaks to how much you are subject to the faults you complain about seeing in others.



> url]http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/fatal-hammer-attack-shakes-little-bosnia/article_6c8734f7-7a47-5930-81a3-dc4fa49ad3dc.html[/url]
> 
> Zemir Begic was beaten to death with a hammers because he was Muslim. I'm honestly done arguing about it. People get hurt because of hatred like that. If you want call bullshit on my personal experiences, go for it. I know someone called bullshit on me being in a concentration camp with my mom, let me send you a selfie me and my took? Like, seriously.



Yes, and Theo Van Gogh was murdered for criticizing Islam, as have so many others in the past 15-20 years.


----------



## Mongoosee (Mar 5, 2016)

*Spoiler*: __ 





NeoDestiny said:


> This post coincides with my earlier post. If you want to argue that religion in general is easily manipulated and susceptible to violence and conflict, you know my position. If you want single out Islam, you know my position on that as well.
> 
> I'm not a huge fan of religion but I'm also not adamantly against it. I acknowledge that the vast majority of people practice religion peacefully, there is a great number of intelligent people who practice religion. I am not a cynical person. I'm not going to tell people "you're religion is violent, corrupt, easily manipulated, and perverted" if that is simply not the case for the majority of the population. I refuse to attack people who peacefully practice religion and believe in God.
> 
> ...







I've hardly bothered to read out most of anything you've written, but what I've gleaned from what little I have is that you continuously fall back on 'past experiences' or 'current beliefs' to vindicate your stance.

No, you aren't, nor have ever been a cop. You're a pathological liar. You have no education to speak of. You take advantage of the fact no one is likely to call on you to present your credentials. Your stance is personally motivated. You're of an islamic background. Well that's great for you, but frankly I don't give a shit about where you were or weren't raised, or how oppressed your family is back home.

I'm not going to address your points, because they all come from a liar. I'd just like to say you probably migrated forums because people started to catch onto your bullshit, and figured an anime forum would be a prime target for your lies. Well anime forum or not, I won't tolerate your shit. I don't know how much you're getting paid to disseminate this islamic propaganda, but you can shove it.


----------



## WT (Mar 6, 2016)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Furthermore, the Quaran calls for the subjugation, and failing that, death of nonbelievers. It is composed of texts riddled with contradictions and idealizing traits and behaviors that are simply incompatible modern concepts of society.



The arabic language, especially Quranic arabic is complex. There are various types of "non believers" from the severe to the harmless. The contradictions that seemingly appear are the result of your simplistic knowledge of the religion, the language and the Quran.

To critique a book without taking account of the original language, context and background knowledge is one of the most biased and unjust forms of criticism to the point that any seemingly logical assertions you make should be discarded and thrown out of the window. Any literary or anthropologist would agree with this

In the exact same way, Muslims are encouraged to seek out a scholar in order to understand the meaning of the Quran.


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Mar 6, 2016)

Assalamu alaikum.

Alhamdulillah, brother WT is correct.  Any criticism on what the Quran says or preaches can only be valid with mastery of the Arabic language, full knowledge of the history of Islam, Hafiz-level knowledge of the Quran and Ahadith, a phD in Islamic studies, and proof that you are a Muslim and aren't biased against  Islam.

If you want to convert to the religion and be a practitioner on the other hand, that comes free of charge.  Contact me for more details.

mustafabiniqbal@islamicdefenseforce.sa


----------



## Eki (Mar 6, 2016)

10/10 essays.


----------



## Jake CENA (Mar 6, 2016)

Its so convenient that people can easily dismiss that the woman is just insane and state that she is not muslim.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Mar 6, 2016)

> The arabic language, especially Quranic arabic is complex. There are various types of "non believers" from the severe to the harmless. The contradictions that seemingly appear are the result of your simplistic knowledge of the religion, the language and the Quran.
> 
> To critique a book without taking account of the original language, context and background knowledge is one of the most biased and unjust forms of criticism to the point that any seemingly logical assertions you make should be discarded and thrown out of the window. Any literary or anthropologist would agree with this
> 
> In the exact same way, Muslims are encouraged to seek out a scholar in order to understand the meaning of the Quran.



I did take that into account, and I gain my knowledge of those that are fluent in both Arabic and English. Honestly, what you just presented is a pathetic excuse. A series of arbitrary goalposts that you set up as a means to dismiss any inconvenient truths or criticisms of the religion. Everything you stated only says that no one should be following Islam to begin with. It's a self-defeating argument and you don't even realize it. 

But please, do to tell me the complexities of translations of calls to kill and subjugate nonbelievers, taking slaves, and a justification for hedonism, but only for the prophet of course!

You're basically saying things no different than any other apologist, and it's particularly laughable that you suggest that one refer to someone with massive confirmation bias, with every reason to twist anything to a positive or claim criticisms are taken "out of context" on the matter.


----------



## Elicit94 (Mar 6, 2016)

*Cold War, Mental Hospital, December 21 2012, MY OWN WILL OF FIRE.*

Sword of Free Will



Ladies and Gentleman, God Speaking here.

I'm here to entrust you all my own will of fire. You are all hereby announced to become Light Workers. This is a culmination of the pain and suffering I had to go through, and my own...will of fire. Let it burn within your hearts. 


[youtube]E4DwisXtig4[/youtube]

[YOUTUBE]tuRb0w2Go7U[/YOUTUBE]

Always remember, FIGHT FOR WHAT'S RIGHT!!! YOU MUST DESTROY EVIL WITH FIRE IN YOUR HEARTS. RESURRECT THE EARTH FROM ITS DARKNESS!!!!!!!!!

[YOUTUBE]Te29VTHT_n4[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Yachiru (Mar 6, 2016)

Since this happened in Russia, I suppose she will receive no mercy. How depraved does someone have to be to behead a baby?


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Mar 6, 2016)

elicit what the fuck


----------



## Elicit94 (Mar 6, 2016)

Yachiru said:


> Since this happened in Russia, I suppose she will receive no mercy. How depraved does someone have to be to behead a baby?


Seems like Satan's control of guilt...


----------



## Elicit94 (Mar 6, 2016)

Hallucinations and Delusional thoughts derived from the inability to cope with the idea of her breathen having learning difficulties. What is the idea that comes to mind when Muslims think of Mental Illness?

A breathen is like a mother giving life to their own birth child... to have them breathe. At least that's my idea of the word's meaning.

Oh the Asriel Dreamer... who were you exactly? 

[youtube]ilmX2IwAAw8[/youtube]


----------



## Jagger (Mar 6, 2016)

what did I just walk into


----------



## Elicit94 (Mar 6, 2016)

...?


----------



## Distracted (Mar 6, 2016)

I'm just going to say that elicit made a hell of an attempt to troll there and it kind of fell flat.


----------



## Son of Goku (Mar 7, 2016)

^ Well if his trolling is meant to confuse people, he definetely succeeded...


----------



## stream (Mar 7, 2016)

Interesting related Op-Ed in the NYT. This is not really about the story, but more about censorship of the story in Russian media.


> *The Case of the Woman With the Severed Child's Head*
> 
> 
> If you took every nightmare anyone ever had, multiplied it by every propaganda trope ever invented and made it into a horror movie, you would end up with something like what happened in Moscow last week.
> ...


If the rumors is true, looks like the Kremlin does not want to have this played as a terrorist story. Even _Russia_ is worried about xenophobic  social trouble!


----------



## Cax (Mar 9, 2016)

man you ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".) need to shut the fuck up
i dont give a darn about cunts and their boners from being politically correct
'anti islam circle jerk' rofl stfu this bitch is just another prime example of muslims being fucked up in this day and age
they're not all fucked up but they give a darn load more examples of being so compared to any other religion or society or what the fuck ever
allahu akbar, decapped child
fuck me


----------



## WT (Mar 9, 2016)

Seto Kaiba said:


> I did take that into account, and I gain my knowledge of those that are fluent in both Arabic and English.



From historical arguments, that doesn't appear to be the case. It seems more like that you read a translated passage and draw conclusions based on what you think those means without taking context into consideration. 

[/QUOTE]

 Honestly, what you just presented is a pathetic excuse. A series of arbitrary goalposts [/QUOTE]

I'll stop you there. The "goalposts" although arbitrary, follow anthropological guidelines therefore are backed to a certain extent. Any sane or logical person would agree that languages, cultures and history must be properly understood before making conclusions. For example, when drawing conclusion on Quranic verses, not only do you have to take into account the language, but also the time at which they were revealed, the geographical location Muhammad was at when they were revealed and more importantly, what he was doing.

A lot of the "violent verses" act as instructions because they were revealed during periods of war with clear instructions for Muhammad to defend himself.     



> that you set up as a means to dismiss any inconvenient truths or criticisms of the religion.



I guess the most fundamental question that I pose to you is that have you even read the entire Quran, forget Arabic, have you read it in English? Do you even know how certain verses and events are linked together? Or do you just go to google and type in "violent verses of the Quran", "how Muhammad was a p*d*p****" etc when it suits you?

Admittingly, although I've read it in Arabic several times, I haven't read the entire Quran in English, its something I'd like to accomplish with the guidance of Tafseers. 



That's a good starting point. I'd infinitely respect you alot more if you managed to read that and then cross reference what you've read there to the typical google searches made about the Quran



> Everything you stated only says that no one should be following Islam to begin with. It's a self-defeating argument and you don't even realize it.



I don't see how that's true. The entire concept of Islam was based on Muhammad's teachings. You could imagine that teachings were passed down from a master to a student. This occurred for generations. Ultimately this created four schools of thoughts, the hanafi, the maliki, the shafi and the humbli schools. They're effectively different syllabuses for the same degree, although there are variations in certain aspects, they're all deemed to be true (much like how you become a doctor having studied from different universities). The Islam that was initially introduced was incredibly broad. These 4 scholars streamlined it. Anyway, institutions exist for each of these 4 schools of thought, all of which have a direct link with the teachings prescribed by the prophet. 

In recent times, the salafist and the wahabi movements began. Rather unsurprisingly, the fundamental principle of Salafism and Wahabism is that they denounce the four schools of thought and believe that rather than being taught Islam by a master who ultimately "graduated" from acceptable institutions (they spend seven years roughly learning Islam), its better to infer your own logic and conclusion on what you read in the Quran and Hadith. They've consequently taken a far harsher approach given their lack of historical knowledge and have not interwoven the actual practices of Muhammad with the teachings in the Quran. You could say that its akin to believing you're able to drive a car by passing the theory test only.     



> But please, do to tell me the complexities of translations of calls to kill and subjugate nonbelievers, taking slaves, and a justification for hedonism, but only for the prophet of course!



These are all individually massive debates by themselves and I'm not the person to talk to about these. If you're really interested in the fair picture (I doubt that you are), I'd recommend you start with the link I've sent


----------



## armorknight (Mar 9, 2016)

It should be obvious that Islam promotes violence considering it's centered on a person who is essentially a barbaric warlord. It wouldn't be any different if you made a religion centered on Genghis Khan, Caesar, Oda Nobunaga, etc. Islam is simplytotalitarianism cloaked in religious garb, and it's largely about pretending to be peaceful until you have the power to conquer.

The main reason why Muslims were able to create materially great civilizations in the past is due to their slave trade which has existed throughout most of Islam's history.


----------



## OutlawJohn (Mar 10, 2016)

Lol, news article about woman who is clearly criminally insane turns into a discussion on the morals of Islam.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Mar 10, 2016)

Aren't a lot of terrorists criminally insane too?


----------



## stream (Mar 10, 2016)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Aren't a lot of terrorists criminally insane too?



Precisely! The point being, if a terrorist is both criminally insane and Muslim, should we deduce that they are a terrorist because they are criminally insane, or because they are Muslim?

But I'm not interested in discussing it, really  I think we had the same discussion many times already.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Mar 10, 2016)

Because the religion enables them to take abhorrent actions. "Because they are Muslim" is a dishonest way to phrase the question. It's not because they are Muslim, it's because Islam has a set of doctrines and demands that call for abhorrent actions, which many take literally be they criminally insane or just indoctrinated.


----------



## WT (Mar 10, 2016)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Because the religion enables them to take abhorrent actions. "Because they are Muslim" is a dishonest way to phrase the question. It's not because they are Muslim, it's because Islam has a set of doctrines and demands that call for abhorrent actions, which many take literally be they criminally insane or just indoctrinated.



"Blame Islam for the actions of the Muslim"

I take it you jump on the same sort of bandwagon as "blame the gun for the action of the killer"?


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Mar 11, 2016)

> From historical arguments, that doesn't appear to be the case. It seems more like that you read a translated passage and draw conclusions based on what you think those means without taking context into consideration.



Christian or Muslim, the arguments are so similar. "Context!" you all cry. "You're taking it all out of context!". There is very little leeway for nuance with explicit calls for violence and subjugation of nonbelivers for example. Or Mohammed's taking of slaves and a child bride. Many things which Islamic terrorist groups are trying to emulate. 



> A lot of the "violent verses" act as instructions because they were revealed during periods of war with clear instructions for Muhammad to defend himself.



This is where the deception comes in though! What constitutes as "defense" according to the religious texts and to Mohammed was very different from how a common individual would recognize it. As again, rejecting his claims of divine inspiration and prophet status, and in turn Islam was seen as "offensive action" that warranted retaliation.



> I guess the most fundamental question that I pose to you is that have you even read the entire Quran, forget Arabic, have you read it in English? Do you even know how certain verses and events are linked together? Or do you just go to google and type in "violent verses of the Quran", "how Muhammad was a p*d*p****" etc when it suits you?



I've tried to read as much as I can. A method I employed no differently when scrutinizing Christianity. While I have yet to read the Quaran in its absolute entirety, I did try to gleam context from passages before citing them. Going as far back as necessary to gain the full story on them. Things like the matters of Aisha being indefensible regardless of that context however, or taking slaves.



> Admittingly, although I've read it in Arabic several times, I haven't read the entire Quran in English, its something I'd like to accomplish with the guidance of Tafseers.



I do not rely on those with every reason to sugarcoat to teach me on the matter. 



> That's a good starting point. I'd infinitely respect you alot more if you managed to read that and then cross reference what you've read there to the typical google searches made about the Quran



I already know enough that I do not like the religion, just as I do not like the passages in the Bible. As many of their teachings and demands are abhorrent and incompatible with the modern model of western civilization.



> I'll stop you there. The "goalposts" although arbitrary, follow anthropological guidelines therefore are backed to a certain extent. Any sane or logical person would agree that languages, cultures and history must be properly understood before making conclusions. For example, when drawing conclusion on Quranic verses, not only do you have to take into account the language, but also the time at which they were revealed, the geographical location Muhammad was at when they were revealed and more importantly, what he was doing.



Mohammed by your religion's claims is a man of God, the model of a man, and the last to be truly closest to godliness. So his actions and his morals should stand the test of time, as it is also claimed by all Abrahamic religions that God's morality is perfect and unchanging. The source of which he is supposed to gain his knowledge and moral perspective from.

I do take into account all those factors, and with those considered, Mohammed was not some divine prophet but merely a warlord of his time. A successful one yes, but one whose views, actions, and outlooks are incompatible with modern society. 

Furthermore, what I find that those of your stance often mean by "understanding" is indulging in the same faith-based conclusions as yourselves.



> I don't see how that's true. The entire concept of Islam was based on Muhammad's teachings.



Again, many of which are abhorrent, would be criminal, and are generally incompatible with functioning in a modern society. Yet the consequences of following those to the letter, particular emulating his campaigns are the major terrorist groups you see today. They were not terribly complicated. Followers over time tried to make them so in order to have them seem compatible with the societies of the time.



> You could imagine that teachings were passed down from a master to a student. This occurred for generations. Ultimately this created four schools of thoughts, the hanafi, the maliki, the shafi and the humbli schools. They're effectively different syllabuses for the same degree, although there are variations in certain aspects, they're all deemed to be true (much like how you become a doctor having studied from different universities). The Islam that was initially introduced was incredibly broad. These 4 scholars streamlined it. Anyway, institutions exist for each of these 4 schools of thought, all of which have a direct link with the teachings prescribed by the prophet.



Again, if all this is necessary to gleam relevant understanding of the religion then it seems like virtually no one should be Muslim then.



> In recent times, the salafist and the wahabi movements began. Rather unsurprisingly, the fundamental principle of Salafism and Wahabism is that they denounce the four schools of thought and believe that rather than being taught Islam by a master who ultimately "graduated" from acceptable institutions (they spend seven years roughly learning Islam), its better to infer your own logic and conclusion on what you read in the Quran and Hadith.



Yet that is what those teachers are doing too. They are taking instruction from those that took it upon themselves to present the texts in a way they found most favorable to their needs and interests. Wahabism is hardly any different in that regard, the major divergence is the path to extremism. I know that in Wahabism, they too have instructors who basically tell their preferred versions of Mohammed's teachings and other matters of Islam in accordance to their own needs and interests. What makes them noteworthy is how literally they interpret it. 



> They've consequently taken a far harsher approach given their lack of historical knowledge and have not interwoven the actual practices of Muhammad with the teachings in the Quran. You could say that its akin to believing you're able to drive a car by passing the theory test only.



Once again, it sounds like Islam is something that doesn't need to be followed by so many people then under this logic.


----------



## Ichi Sagato (Mar 12, 2016)

The women is obviously spitting at pigeons tier crazy. Exposure to intense media attention focused on recent Islamic terrorism had likely moved her copycat ISIS killing.



			
				Seto Kaiba said:
			
		

> I've tried to read as much as I can. A method I employed no differently when scrutinizing Christianity. While I have yet to read the Quaran in its
> 
> blah blah blah



Can you sound less like a phony intellectual dweeb and just admit you know jack shit about Islamic teachings? You _employed a method to scrutinize_ their religion? Such a deeply serious thinker we have here. Are you sure you're not just rationalizing a _muslims are evil!_ reflex in your Islamoparanoia safe-space?


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Mar 12, 2016)

Ichi Sagato said:


> The women is obviously spitting at pigeons tier crazy. Exposure to intense media attention focused on recent Islamic terrorism had likely moved her copycat ISIS killing.
> 
> Can you sound less like a phony intellectual dweeb and just admit you know jack shit about Islamic teachings? You _employed a method to scrutinize_ their religion? Such a deeply serious thinker we have here. Are you sure you're not just rationalizing a _muslims are evil!_ reflex in your Islamoparanoia safe-space?



I don't think Muslims are all evil, it's just that the religion, much like Christianity, has demands and practices that are incompatible with functioning in a modern society. Additionally, Mohammed, a man that is set as the model in the religion, is one that is also incompatible with a modern society. The terrorism you see is a matter of consequence of taking those demands literally and seeking to emulate Mohammed and his conquests.

It's almost as if you didn't read that response at all. Just more that blind anger. Well, just chill out Ben Affleck, and actually try to comprehend the difference between anti-Muslim bigotry and criticism of the religion.


----------



## Bringer (Mar 12, 2016)

Seto Kaiba said:


> I don't think Muslims are all evil, it's just that the religion, much like Christianity, has demands and practices that are incompatible with functioning in a modern society. Additionally, Mohammed, a man that is set as the model in the religion, is one that is also incompatible with a modern society. The terrorism you see is a matter of consequence of taking those demands literally and seeking to emulate Mohammed and his conquests.
> 
> It's almost as if you didn't read that response at all. Just more that blind anger. Well, just chill out Ben Affleck, and actually try to comprehend the difference between anti-Muslim bigotry and criticism of the religion.



The thing is you seem to be implying there is any basis in Islam for decapitating a 2 year old. Saying Islam is incompatible with modern day morals is one thing, but attributing actions of people to Islam that has no basis in Islam is another thing.


----------



## Ichi Sagato (Mar 12, 2016)

Has acne grease leaked into your circuitry again? Ramping up the rhetoric on muslims and claiming their religion uniquely has no place in society isn't innocent religious criticism. Islamic Terror is politically motivated. Mohamed was a head of state and according to western nationalism, war isn't murder.

But I'm sure you're eager to elucidate us on the evils of Islam; having employed methods to scrutinize the religion and such. This is your chance to impress us with your english translation quran quotes from shariatakeover.com


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Mar 12, 2016)

BringerOfChaos said:


> The thing is you seem to be implying there is any basis in Islam for decapitating a 2 year old. Saying Islam is incompatible with modern day morals is one thing, but attributing actions of people to Islam that has no basis in Islam is another thing.



I'm saying it is a strong motivator for violence, particularly when those motives are claimed to be at least, under divine mandate. 



Ichi Sagato said:


> Has acne grease leaked into your circuitry again? Ramping up the rhetoric on muslims and claiming their religion uniquely has no place in society isn't innocent religious criticism. Islamic Terror is politically motivated. Mohamed was a head of state and according to western nationalism, war isn't murder.
> 
> But I'm sure you're eager to elucidate us on the evils of Islam; having employed methods to scrutinize the religion and such. This is your chance to impress us with your english translation quran quotes from shariatakeover.com



I CLEARLY all throughout this thread no less, have stated repeatedly that Islam is not alone in that like all Abrahamic religions, it has demands that are just not compatible with functioning in a modern society. How is that claiming that they uniquely have no place in society? Religious people can function in society, they just have to ignore those violent creeds and selectively interpret their texts as they always have. That is what separates a moderate from an extremist. 

Islamic terrorism is as much political as it is religious fervor, and it is the refusal of people to acknowledge the latter that only sees its perpetuation. It is refusal of the latter that has allowed it to become as bad as it has in the religion of Islam in particular. Blaming external factors while continuously refusing the much needed introspect and reform into the societies that most often produce extremists. 

As I stated before, things like the demands to subjugate "people of the book" (Jews and Christians), or kill those of other religions if they do not convert, and to kill those that resist conversion in general are explicit calls that you see these terrorist groups taking literally. What was considered offensive action in Islam, one that warranted retaliation was far different than a standard concept of self-defense. Such as refusal to recognize Islam and Mohammed as the prophet of the Abrahmic god. I don't expect those of the faith to fully face these things, but for all the creeds of peace and brotherhood, and to drill this into your head, no different from the Bible are demands of violence and subjugation. Mohammed himself is a man who gained power through such means, and you will have those who seek to emulate him.

This is more of that blind anger again. You're just doing what NeoDestiny did, and not even reading responses just reacting defensively to them. I will say I've noticed something particularly unique among Muslims and those apologists and that is a highly vitriolic reaction to any kind of criticism toward the religion. Something I don't really see when criticizing Christianity.


----------



## Sferr (Mar 12, 2016)

WT said:


> "Blame Islam for the actions of the Muslim"
> 
> I take it you jump on the same sort of bandwagon as "blame the gun for the action of the killer"?



I can blame this "gun" if it indoctrinates and brainwashes people into doing criminal things. An ideology can make (and pretty fast) millions and millions of people to believe in terrible things and to have abhorrent ideas about what's right and what's wrong. Germans had proved it.


----------



## Bringer (Mar 12, 2016)

Seto Kaiba said:


> I'm saying it is a strong motivator for violence, particularly when those motives are claimed to be at least, under divine mandate.



Because she's batshit crazy, dude. Religion can't be the motivator when nothing in the religion(or probably any religion) allows decapitating a child. Anyone this bat shit would've done something dangerous and crazy with or without religion. 

And from the article



> 'I heard her yelling 'Allah Akbar' at least three times. And hitting herself on her chest.
> 'She was yelling something in her language. She ran to a cafe and started shouting: 'It's all you! All you!'
> *According to local reports, she later told police she killed the girl because of her own husband's infidelity.* Investigators immediately ordered a psychiatric test of the woman in a bid to understand her motives.



Again, bat shit crazy.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Mar 12, 2016)

BringerOfChaos said:


> Because she's batshit crazy, dude. Religion can't be the motivator when nothing in the religion(or probably any religion) allows decapitating a child. Anyone this bat shit would've done something dangerous and crazy with or without religion.
> 
> And from the article
> 
> ...



A lot who commit murder in the name of religion tend to be batshit crazy, that does not change the contribution religion had to such mindsets. There is nothing that says to decapitate a kid, but why that happens can be up to question...



> 'I hate democracy. I am a terrorist. I want you dead.
> 
> 'You have become so hardened, you have eliminated so many of us. Look I am a suicide bomber, I will die, doomsday will come in a second.'



The religious motives cannot be ignored as a contributing factor here.


----------



## Chainwave (Mar 12, 2016)

14 Pages about a mentally ill woman?

Go outside you assholes, find a mentally ill person, hear them out, realize how and why their actions and thoughts should not represent anything.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Mar 12, 2016)

14 pages over the course of 2 weeks. Try to read sometime.


----------



## Son of Goku (Mar 13, 2016)

Seto Kaiba said:


> The religious motives cannot be ignored as a contributing factor here.



Ok, sure. BUT what is a factor worth by itself when it's basically interchangeable? Not much? Nothing at all? 

I could start writing a fanfic today around the three Abrahamic religions. It'd be great, I'd even throw in a little Dragonball in there. And if I'm "lucky" enough a thousand years from now a billion and some people will follow the glorious 'Religion of SoG'. And guess what? Provided humanity and the world they live in is pretty much the same as today, people will still kill and wage war, also in the name of SoG. And people like you will still blame that particular religion, i.e. me for it. 

But the bottom line here is: People don't need one particular religion or idealogy to do bad things. Of course different religions and idealogies will have different effects. But frankly, it's basically not much more than 'cosemetics', e.g. chopping of heads or death at the stake or something. It's the other (REALLY) contributing factors (->socio-economical) that make real differences.


----------



## Ichi Sagato (Mar 13, 2016)

Terrorists are politically motivated and the religious pretenses behind terrorist rhetoric is a routine that's mimicked by belligerents because it is an established and successful rhetorical justification for violence. I'm willing to bet that if you removed Islam from the equation, the attacks would continue and the Middle Eastern region would remain unstable. Violence would continue and the terrorists would unconsciously grasp the next ideological rallying cry led by the path of least resistance and complete with built-in recurring motifs and media disseminated instructions on how to to carry out the approved modus operandi. 

The unconscious group behavior is not unlike grassroots movements. The phenomenon is catalyzed by sympathetic instances of shocking violence and then fueled by intense media attention. Islamic terrorism looks like a collective, coherent ideology due to emergent group copycat behavior. Another way to describe it is to say that Islamic Terrorism has the semblance of religious fanaticism, but appearance and objective motivation have different cause and effect.

@Seto Kaiba You're just trying really hard to use le fallacies you learned about Islam, but its totally not working; your brain just isn't tall enough to ride this ride.


----------



## God (Mar 13, 2016)

Lol at Islam being the culprit behind the problems of its followers. The Christians accepted violence and war to spread their religion across the world. The crusades, the conquests of South America and during the Atlantic slave trade. The difference between that and Islam? Western society progressed and let go of violent tendencies. The Middle-East hasn't seen as many prominent progressive movements, and thus remains in a backwards state. It's hardly the fault of Islam, and to blame the religion for it is beyond retarded.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Mar 13, 2016)

Son of Goku said:


> Ok, sure. BUT what is a factor worth by itself when it's basically interchangeable? Not much? Nothing at all?
> 
> I could start writing a fanfic today around the three Abrahamic religions. It'd be great, I'd even throw in a little Dragonball in there. And if I'm "lucky" enough a thousand years from now a billion and some people will follow the glorious 'Religion of SoG'. And guess what? Provided humanity and the world they live in is pretty much the same as today, people will still kill and wage war, also in the name of SoG. And people like you will still blame that particular religion, i.e. me for it.



Yes, and such blame will be valid if the religion explicitly calls for violence as Islam does. 



> But the bottom line here is: People don't need one particular religion or idealogy to do bad things. Of course different religions and idealogies will have different effects. But frankly, it's basically not much more than 'cosemetics', e.g. chopping of heads or death at the stake or something. It's the other (REALLY) contributing factors (->socio-economical) that make real differences.



No, and I never said they did. The fact remains however is that religion is used and an enormous enabler in getting people to do horrible things. A lot of things people would not normally do are otherwise galvanized by demands and mandates they feel have a divine inspiration to them. The concept of god has always been a huge motivating factor to get people to do things, sometimes of an atrocious nature. Islam is no different.



Ichi Sagato said:


> Terrorists are politically motivated and the religious pretenses behind terrorist rhetoric is a routine that's mimicked by belligerents because it is an established and successful rhetorical justification for violence.



They are politically motivated, but again, this is not mutually exclusive to religious motivation. With this, you are ignoring exactly why using religion is so successful for them to justify violence and indoctrinate individuals into an extremist mindset. 



> I'm willing to bet that if you removed Islam from the equation, the attacks would continue and the Middle Eastern region would remain unstable. Violence would continue and the terrorists would unconsciously grasp the next ideological rallying cry led by the path of least resistance and complete with built-in recurring motifs and media disseminated instructions on how to to carry out the approved modus operandi.



Well it depends. Would the new ideology call for violence? Would it make explicit demands to subjugate and/or kill nonbelievers and those that resist conversion? If not, you may not have much a point to make here. You are actively avoiding that Islam does have such demands and this is what these people are choosing to pay attention to and follow. 



> The unconscious group behavior is not unlike grassroots movements. The phenomenon is catalyzed by sympathetic instances of shocking violence and then fueled by intense media attention. Islamic terrorism looks like a collective, coherent ideology due to emergent group copycat behavior. Another way to describe it is to say that Islamic Terrorism has the semblance of religious fanaticism, but appearance and objective motivation have different cause and effect.



What has fueled Islamic terrorism has existed for centuries. It's the means to carry it out which have changed. 



> @Seto Kaiba You're just trying really hard to use le fallacies you learned about Islam, but its totally not working; your brain just isn't tall enough to ride this ride.



You've not addressed a single thing. As a matter of fact, none that have taken your position have.

Time and agian, you completely try to avoid the factor the religion of Islam has in these incidents. There is a reason that the global terrorist networks are dominated by Islamic groups. A very ugly truth that it is clear many of you would rather avoid.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Mar 13, 2016)

Cubey said:


> Lol at Islam being the culprit behind the problems of its followers. The Christians accepted violence and war to spread their religion across the world. The crusades, the conquests of South America and during the Atlantic slave trade. The difference between that and Islam? Western society progressed and let go of violent tendencies. The Middle-East hasn't seen as many prominent progressive movements, and thus remains in a backwards state. It's hardly the fault of Islam, and to blame the religion for it is beyond retarded.



Christians at the time did so because the Bible commanded to so. What happened is people began ignoring what were demands and practices in the books that were incompatible with the development of societies at the time. People began, as they have for generations, to selectively interpret the Bible and pick what is most compatible with their society at the time and what they were most interested in focusing on. With Islam it is no different. The difference is that the secular movements, Protestantism, and scientific pursuits in Europe saw diminishing power and authority of the Catholic church. Meanwhile in places like the Middle East most notably, you saw the reverse. Where such pursuits which were started in that part of the world, and revolutionized by it saw the rise of regressive religious leaders.

The terrorists choose to zero in on the demands of violence and subjugation, and the conquests of Mohammed as something to be emulated. Hence you see what happens when you follow such demands, you have a group that is incompatible with how society functions today. Not even that, a lot of the backwards practices are bolstered by Sharia, interpretation of Islamic religious texts into law, and this has perpetuated a cycle for centuries that has led to the current circumstances. So you can very much blame Islam here.


----------



## God (Mar 13, 2016)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Christians at the time did so because the Bible commanded to so. What happened is people began ignoring what were demands and practices in the books that were incompatible with the development of societies at the time. People began, as they have for generations, to selectively interpret the Bible and pick what is most compatible with their society at the time and what they were most interested in focusing on. With Islam it is no different. The difference is that the secular movements, Protestantism, and scientific pursuits in Europe saw diminishing power and authority of the Catholic church. Meanwhile in places like the Middle East most notably, you saw the reverse. Where such pursuits which were started in that part of the world, and revolutionized by it saw the rise of regressive religious leaders.
> 
> The terrorists choose to zero in on the demands of violence and subjugation, and the conquests of Mohammed as something to be emulated. Hence you see what happens when you follow such demands, you have a group that is incompatible with how society functions today. Not even that, a lot of the backwards practices are bolstered by Sharia, interpretation of Islamic religious texts into law, and this has perpetuated a cycle for centuries that has led to the current circumstances. So you can very much blame Islam here.



Everything you pointed out is a societal problem, not a problem inherent in Islam itself. You clearly know nothing about the religion and it shows. Read the book first.


----------



## Son of Goku (Mar 13, 2016)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Yes, and such blame will be valid if the religion explicitly calls for violence as Islam does.


B-But the "Religion of SoG" is a peaceful one. It only allows violence to be used in the appropiate context, like self-defence or to implement justice. How can I be blamed if people don't abide by my rules?




> No, and I never said they did. The fact remains however is that religion is used and an enormous enabler in getting people to do horrible things. *A lot of things people would not normally do* are otherwise galvanized by demands and mandates they feel have a divine inspiration to them. The concept of god has always been a huge motivating factor to get people to do things, sometimes of an atrocious nature. Islam is no different.



Yeah but the kicker is that Religion/Idealogy is something people normally "do" (i.e. follow). As are violence and war in socio-economically less favourable circumstances. Unless the socio-economical circumstances change for the better that won't change.

I mean hell, even peace loving Buddhist monks can become violent murdering mobs as we've last seen in Myanmar.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Mar 13, 2016)

Cubey said:


> Everything you pointed out is a societal problem, not a problem inherent in Islam itself. You clearly know nothing about the religion and it shows. Read the book first.



I've read it, you're only being defensive.

Saying something is a 'societal problem' is vague. As a lot of problems have differing root causes or motivations. Even similar actions can stem from completely different set of motivations. With terorrism it stems from using the violent passages in Islamic texts, and Mohammed's campaigns as a source of inspiration and emulation.

The fact that many of you refuse to acknowledge at least the possibility that Islam could be a contributing factor here is exactly why Islam will struggle in reformation. If you are not willing to face these issues that the faith in particular are dealing with compared to others, then nothing will be done because the blame will always be shifted to something else.



Son of Goku said:


> B-But the "Religion of SoG" is a peaceful one. It only allows violence to be used in the appropiate context, like self-defence or to implement justice. How can I be blamed if people don't abide by my rules?



Well, if your idea of self-defense is one that includes the idea that resistance to your claimed divine mandates is offensive action, then you can be blamed. You are offering a definition of self-defense that is convenient to yourself, and would allow you and followers to enact campaigns under what you deem "self-defense", while in reality taking purely offensive action.



> Yeah but the kicker is that Religion/Idealogy is something people normally "do" (i.e. follow). As are violence and war in socio-economically less favourable circumstances. Unless the socio-economical circumstances change for the better that won't change.



You're trying to pretend like the two are independent of each other, or that one factor does not contribute the state of the other. This is simply not true. Look at the most regressive areas of the world and you will see extreme religiosity in them. One of which only contributes to a cycle of regressive practices, and even extremism. With Islam this is no different in places of the Middle East and North Africa most notably.



> I mean hell, even peace loving Buddhist monks can become violent murdering mobs as we've last seen in Myanmar.



Yes, but not all religions come equal in this violence clearly enough. It is undeniable that Islam struggles the most with this matter.


----------



## Vivo Diez (Mar 13, 2016)

Seto Kaiba said:


> With terorrism it stems from using the violent passages in Islamic texts, and Mohammed's campaigns as a source of inspiration and emulation.



You think that's a more contributing factor than war and poverty?


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Mar 13, 2016)

Vivo Diez said:


> You think that's a more contributing factor than war and poverty?



War and poverty only go so far. It does not at all give anything to explain the fanatical global terrorism that is going on. Especially from those far removed from it. OBL and his commanders, Al-Awaki, the Paris attackers, the individuals who attacked the WTCs, a lot of these people weren't impoverished at all. Some even living in the west, at least for a time.


----------



## Sferr (Mar 13, 2016)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Christians at the time did so because the Bible commanded to so. What happened is people began ignoring what were demands and practices in the books that were incompatible with the development of societies at the time. People began, as they have for generations, to selectively interpret the Bible and pick what is most compatible with their society at the time and what they were most interested in focusing on. With Islam it is no different. The difference is that the secular movements, Protestantism, and scientific pursuits in Europe saw diminishing power and authority of the Catholic church. Meanwhile in places like the Middle East most notably, you saw the reverse. Where such pursuits which were started in that part of the world, and revolutionized by it saw the rise of regressive religious leaders.



Christians did so exactly because religious leaders had commanded them to do it, not the Bible which speaks nothing about crusades, popes, inquisitions, indulgence etc. Many of the religious wars were really started by people to achieve their political goals. 

And protestantism, or reformation was not some anti-religious humane movement, on the contrary, it was itself a fundamentalist Christian movement whos basic idea was 'Catholic church has gone far from real Christianity, so we are returning to the '_true_' Christianity, as it is shown in the Bible'. What we see today in Muslim world is something similar, with bunch of religious leaders appearing that promote'_true_' Islam, back to the roots.


----------



## Chainwave (Mar 13, 2016)

For a lot Muslim countries their biggest problem is their own governments. They are either corrupt or ineffectual. Violent and fanatical ideals are not unique to Islam, but generally the government cracks down on the perpetrators.

To think, if men like Shoko Asahara, and his Buddhist sect were not so quickly dealt with, how far would they have gotten?


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Mar 13, 2016)

Son of Goku said:


> Ok, sure. BUT what is a factor worth by itself when it's basically interchangeable? Not much? Nothing at all?
> 
> I could start writing a fanfic today around the three Abrahamic religions. It'd be great, I'd even throw in a little Dragonball in there. And if I'm "lucky" enough a thousand years from now a billion and some people will follow the glorious 'Religion of SoG'. And guess what? Provided humanity and the world they live in is pretty much the same as today, people will still kill and wage war, also in the name of SoG. And people like you will still blame that particular religion, i.e. me for it.
> 
> But the bottom line here is: People don't need one particular religion or idealogy to do bad things. Of course different religions and idealogies will have different effects. But frankly, it's basically not much more than 'cosemetics', e.g. chopping of heads or death at the stake or something. It's the other (REALLY) contributing factors (->socio-economical) that make real differences.



if you claim to be a prophet and that your fanfic is the timeless word of god, decorate your "word of god" with validations of conquest, utter hate toward non-abrahamic religions, prescriptions for domestic violence, endorsements of sexism, nods toward general slavery, sex slavery, and an assortment of other harmful ideas, and manage to do all of this while spearheading conquest in the real world to provide historical context, then yes the fanfiction you created shouldn't be exempt from criticism when some superstitious bloke generations down the line gobbles up your nonsense and doesn't cherrypick it as much as his moderate counterparts


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Mar 14, 2016)

Sferr said:


> Christians did so exactly because religious leaders had commanded them to do it, not the Bible which speaks nothing about crusades, popes, inquisitions, indulgence etc. Many of the religious wars were really started by people to achieve their political goals.



The denial like this is the same I'm criticizing in Islam. You intentionally avoid the fact that the Bible does endorse conquest as well, and conversion under threat of death. The papacy and indulgences are not explicitly in the Bible, but they are products of the religion designed to perpetuate religious authority. 



> And protestantism, or reformation was not some anti-religious humane movement, on the contrary, it was itself a fundamentalist Christian movement whos basic idea was 'Catholic church has gone far from real Christianity, so we are returning to the '_true_' Christianity, as it is shown in the Bible'. What we see today in Muslim world is something similar, with bunch of religious leaders appearing that promote'_true_' Islam, back to the roots.



My point was on the matter of reducing the power of the Catholic Church, not that Protestantism was anti-religious. 



Chainwave said:


> For a lot Muslim countries their biggest problem is their own governments. They are either corrupt or ineffectual. Violent and fanatical ideals are not unique to Islam, but generally the government cracks down on the perpetrators.
> 
> To think, if men like Shoko Asahara, and his Buddhist sect were not so quickly dealt with, how far would they have gotten?



Why are they corrupt? What motivates their corruption? What basis do they use to facilate their corrupt practices? There is of course money, but I feel this is really ignoring the religious motives here. Furthermore, it does not take into account the views of the people under the governments.


----------



## Zenith (Mar 14, 2016)

Islam the religion of piece


of heads


----------



## Sferr (Mar 14, 2016)

Seto Kaiba said:


> The denial like this is the same I'm criticizing in Islam. You intentionally avoid the fact that the Bible does endorse conquest as well, and conversion under threat of death. The papacy and indulgences are not explicitly in the Bible, but they are products of the religion designed to perpetuate religious authority.



I don't intentionally avoid anything. I know that Bible is pretty big about being spread, but where does it tell that people should be conquered and converted under threat of death? I am serious, can you provide any examples? Bible is full of passages that a person has to become a Christian to be saved from his sins and stuff similar to that but I don't know about any examples of where it says that people should be converted or killed.

Papacy and indulgences are inventions of the Rome, indulgence is an example of a blatant corruption within the Church. 




Seto Kaiba said:


> My point was on the matter of reducing the power of the Catholic Church, not that Protestantism was anti-religious.



What you did was compare Islam and Christianity by equating Christianity with a Catholic Church which is wrong. Catholic Church had invented a lot of stuff and at some point in time turned into a completely corrupt, power-hungry organisation and yes, a lot of stuff the Church did was comparable to the modern day Islamic terrorism. But the Catholic Church (especially the one from the Middle Ages) and the Christianity in the Bible are two completely different things and this difference was what created Reformation in the first place. And this is why it is harder for Islam to have a 'Reformation' stage that Christianity had, since lots of atrocious things that Catholic Church had made up is actually present in Quran itself. In reality, the current Islamic terrorism might actually already be its 'Reformation', or 'back to the roots' movement.


----------



## Lucaniel (Mar 14, 2016)




----------



## Seto Kaiba (Mar 14, 2016)

Sferr said:


> I don't intentionally avoid anything. I know that Bible is pretty big about being spread, but where does it tell that people should be conquered and converted under threat of death? I am serious, can you provide any examples? Bible is full of passages that a person has to become a Christian to be saved from his sins and stuff similar to that but I don't know about any examples of where it says that people should be converted or killed.



_Whoever sacrifices to any god other than the Lord must be destroyed._ *- Exodus 22:20*

_If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a sign or wonder, and if the sign or wonder spoken of takes place, and the prophet says, Let us follow other gods (gods you have not known) and let us worship them, you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The Lord your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul. It is the Lord your God you must follow, and him you must revere. Keep his commands and obey him; serve him and hold fast to him. 

That prophet or dreamer must be put to death for inciting rebellion against the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt and redeemed you from the land of slavery. That prophet or dreamer tried to turn you from the way the Lord your God commanded you to follow. You must purge the evil from among you.

If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, �Let us go and worship other gods� (gods that neither you nor your ancestors have known, gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), do not yield to them or listen to them. Show them no pity. 

Do not spare them or shield them. You must certainly put them to death. Your hand must be the first in putting them to death, and then the hands of all the people. 

Stone them to death, because they tried to turn you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. 

Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and no one among you will do such an evil thing again.

If you hear it said about one of the towns the Lord your God is giving you to live in that troublemakers have arisen among you and have led the people of their town astray, saying, �Let us go and worship other gods� (gods you have not known), then you must inquire, probe and investigate it thoroughly. And if it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done among you, you must certainly put to the sword all who live in that town. You must destroy it completely, both its people and its livestock. 

You are to gather all the plunder of the town into the middle of the public square and completely burn the town and all its plunder as a whole burnt offering to the Lord your God. That town is to remain a ruin forever, never to be rebuilt, 

and none of the condemned things are to be found in your hands. Then the Lord will turn from his fierce anger, will show you mercy, and will have compassion on you. He will increase your numbers, as he promised on oath to your ancestors�because you obey the Lord your God by keeping all his commands that I am giving you today and doing what is right in his eyes._ 

*- Deuteronomy 22:1-18*



> Papacy and indulgences are inventions of the Rome, indulgence is an example of a blatant corruption within the Church.



I don't disagree on that. However they are devices, like how is the case with religion at large today made to upkeep the authority of religious figures and the legitimacy of the religion among the people. No one follows these religions anymore, they just believe in some basic concepts. Those that try to follow it literally you see are those like terrorists, Christian and Muslim, as what those texts command are not often compatible with modern society. 

The Bible for example talks of paying sheckles of silver to compensate a father for raping his daughter. Or even marrying her, something that would be abhorrent in western society needless to say.



> What you did was compare Islam and Christianity by equating Christianity with a Catholic Church which is wrong. Catholic Church had invented a lot of stuff and at some point in time turned into a completely corrupt, power-hungry organisation and yes, a lot of stuff the Church did was comparable to the modern day Islamic terrorism.



No I brought up the Catholic Church because it was before the rise of major sects that deviated from its authority, ruled over much of Europe effectively making the nations theocratic. Although not all were explicitly so.



> But the Catholic Church (especially the one from the Middle Ages) and the Christianity in the Bible are two completely different things and this difference was what created Reformation in the first place. And this is why it is harder for Islam to have a 'Reformation' stage that Christianity had, since lots of atrocious things that Catholic Church had made up is actually present in Quran itself. In reality, the current Islamic terrorism might actually already be its 'Reformation', or 'back to the roots' movement.



Christianity today at large and the Bible are two completely different things. 

For all the Abrahmic religions what makes a moderate and extremist as well is  that one selectively picks and chooses what they wish to recognize in their religion's texts and those that they do not. Which is inevitable really, as both are wrought with contradictions. What separates the extremist and the moderate is how closely both actually observe the demands the religions make of its followers, and the latter's apprehension to violence or endorsement of the socially regressive practices the texts endorse.


----------



## Sferr (Mar 15, 2016)

I believe those quotes are from a parable (a story) that Jesus was telling. 




Seto Kaiba said:


> Many quotes



I thought you would give quotes from OT. Christians had never in their entire history followed OT apart from some staff that Paul had commissioned like 10 commandments. You may say that they ignored OT staff out of human decency, but that's also factually wrong. OT laws and orders were ignored because the Bible in NT says that they should be ignored as Christ's sacrifice cancelled all those laws. It's a fundamental basis of Christianity and the reason why Christianity is not simply Judaism. If these passages in the Bible wouldn't be there, I am pretty sure even now Christians wouldn't be that different from Muslims as I don't believe that people from Middle East are inherently more violent or stupid than Europeans.  



Seto Kaiba said:


> I don't disagree on that. However they are devices, like how is the case with religion at large today made to upkeep the authority of religious figures and the legitimacy of the religion among the people.



That, I agree with. What I disagree with is you equating the importance of NT and OT for Christians, hence equating Islam and Christianity, hence coming to a conclusion that ultimately the reason why you see Islamic terrorism and not Christian terrorism today is simply because Christians ignore much of the Bible today and Muslims don't ignore much of Quran. I don't believe that's where the cause lies.

I mean, sure today Christians _do_ ignore lots of stuff that's in the Bible and in general your average Christian is not even really religious. But why did that happen? Why Christian countries went away from the religion the way they did while the Muslim countries didn't? My opinion is that the cause lies in their respective books. First of all, NT (which is what matters for Christians) is not even close to being as controlling as Quran is. Much of the controlling and authoritarian politics in Christianity were created by the Churches and religious leaders, while in Quran all that stuff is written and commanded by Quran itself. (As Muhammad was himself an authoritarian leader and politician unlike Jesus). And hence European people, even if they were extremely religious, could fight against the power of the Church because they could see them as frauds who were not relaying them the true wishes of God (it's no coincidence that one of the starting points of Reformation was Martin Luther translating the Bible from Latin as before people couldn't even read their holy book). It's harder for Muslims to fight that because in their case they would have to go against Quran which they consider as a word of God.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Mar 15, 2016)

Sferr said:


> I thought you would give quotes from OT. Christians had never in their entire history followed OT apart from some staff that Paul had commissioned like 10 commandments. You may say that they ignored OT staff out of human decency, but that's also factually wrong. OT laws and orders were ignored because the Bible in NT says that they should be ignored as Christ's sacrifice cancelled all those laws. It's a fundamental basis of Christianity and the reason why Christianity is not simply Judaism. If these passages in the Bible wouldn't be there, I am pretty sure even now Christians wouldn't be that different from Muslims as I don't believe that people from Middle East are inherently more violent or stupid than Europeans



Christians do follow the OT. It is canonical to their religion. They observe the 10 commandments. Many sects derive their condemnation of homosexuality from the OT, the basis of creationism as well is derived from observance of the OT. So to say that Christians do not follow it is factually untrue. What they do is pick and choose at their convenience what to observe and what not to observe. So while you'll have your anti-gay sermons, you won't see them actively trying to murder them or explicitly calling for such. At least not in the west, because that will get you arrested. 

Also, you are wrong on what Jesus stated. He did not state that all laws in the OT were cancelled. Sacrifice was unnecessary as he gave the ultimate sacrifice, himself. That aside only the observance of Kosher was really cancelled, everything else he intended for his faithful to observe. Such as resting on the sabbath day, observance of traditional jewish holidays and rituals, and the laws God delivered to Jews in how to conduct their society. Christians were meant to be the successors to the chosen people, meant to carry on God's will.



> That, I agree with. What I disagree with is you equating the importance of NT and OT for Christians, hence equating Islam and Christianity, hence coming to a conclusion that ultimately the reason why you see Islamic terrorism and not Christian terrorism today is simply because Christians ignore much of the Bible today and Muslims don't ignore much of Quran. I don't believe that's where the cause lies.



They are both pretty violent, it's just that we had a detachment from fundamentalist observation of the religion whereas they did not. Or rather, they did and that all went backwards...Christians do observe the OT, to their convenience. Neither individuals of the religions are consisent in their observations however. 


> I mean, sure today Christians _do_ ignore lots of stuff that's in the Bible and in general your average Christian is not even really religious. But why did that happen? Why Christian countries went away from the religion the way they did while the Muslim countries didn't? My opinion is that the cause lies in their respective books. First of all, NT (which is what matters for Christians) is not even close to being as controlling as Quran is. Much of the controlling and authoritarian politics in Christianity were created by the Churches and religious leaders, while in Quran all that stuff is written and commanded by Quran itself. (As Muhammad was himself an authoritarian leader and politician unlike Jesus). And hence European people, even if they were extremely religious, could fight against the power of the Church because they could see them as frauds who were not relaying them the true wishes of God (it's no coincidence that one of the starting points of Reformation was Martin Luther translating the Bible from Latin as before people couldn't even read their holy book). It's harder for Muslims to fight that because in their case they would have to go against Quran which they consider as a word of God.



While I agree there are fundamental differences between Jesus' story, and that of Mohammed's, consider what you just admitted to. Most Christians do not really observe the religion on a consistent level. Ultimately, for many at least, it is just a means to lord some kind of self-righteousness. Particularly over other groups. While Christ was not the warlord Mohammed was, he was still an incarnation and the son of God. A deity who does indeed preach violence and conquest, and an idea of superiority of "his people" over that of others. In turn, a divine mandate to subjugate or wipe out dissenters and unbelievers. Something which many Christians have freely embraced for over a thousand years.


----------



## Chainwave (Mar 15, 2016)

You people..



Seto Kaiba said:


> Christians at the time did so because the Bible commanded to so. What happened is people began ignoring what were demands and practices in the books that were incompatible with the development of societies at the time. People began, as they have for generations, to selectively interpret the Bible and pick what is most compatible with their society at the time and what they were most interested in focusing on. With Islam it is no different. The difference is that the secular movements, Protestantism, and scientific pursuits in Europe saw diminishing power and authority of the Catholic church. Meanwhile in places like the Middle East most notably, you saw the reverse. Where such pursuits which were started in that part of the world, and revolutionized by it saw the rise of regressive religious leaders.
> 
> The terrorists choose to zero in on the demands of violence and subjugation, and the conquests of Mohammed as something to be emulated. Hence you see what happens when you follow such demands, you have a group that is incompatible with how society functions today. Not even that, a lot of the backwards practices are bolstered by Sharia, interpretation of Islamic religious texts into law, and this has perpetuated a cycle for centuries that has led to the current circumstances. So you can very much blame Islam here.



Christians went to war and conquered because it was seen as a totally normal thing to do. It was seen as a totally great thing to do, until WW1, when machine guns killed the ideal. The people didn't need much encouragement, ever, to go to war, because xenophobia is a thing. 

They all fought, the Christian countries, the Muslim countries, The West reformed itself because it won more loot in the end, colonies, resources, knowledge. The Middle East was conquered and partitioned, then, during the cold war, both the Soviets and Americans screwed it up even more. You, Seto, being a natural xenophobe, have once again equated Islam with terrorism, even when successful Islamic countries exist. 

Terrorism grows out of resentment. They blow themselves up to kill innocents, women and children. There is no example of Mohammed, that exalts such action, the Sharia, which you love to bring up, forbids both suicide, and indiscriminate killing of such manner.



Sferr said:


> I believe those quotes are from a parable (a story) that Jesus was telling.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Let's see, I think it was Paul the Apostle, that wrote in his acts, that converts into Christianity have no obligation to follow the laws of the Old Testament, or maybe it was just circumcision, I forgot. Anyway, the Westerners had much more of a reason for rebelling against the Church. It wasn't because they were more liberal-minded, it was because the doctrine of the church became hideously, transparently, corrupt. The indulgences, the Limbo doctrine, fun stuff. 

Islam had it's own age of free-thinkers, but there's a number of reasons for why it didn't last, one being the Mongols.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Mar 16, 2016)

Chainwave said:


> You people..
> 
> 
> 
> Christians went to war and conquered because it was seen as a totally normal thing to do. It was seen as a totally great thing to do, until WW1, when machine guns killed the ideal. The people didn't need much encouragement, ever, to go to war, because xenophobia is a thing.



You are actively trying to dodge the fact that Christianity was used as a strong basis for such conquests. Especially the Crusades. You're doing no differently than what a lot of Muslims do when it comes to matters of Islamic terrorism. It's disingenuous.



> They all fought, the Christian countries, the Muslim countries, The West reformed itself because it won more loot in the end, colonies, resources, knowledge. The Middle East was conquered and partitioned, then, during the cold war, both the Soviets and Americans screwed it up even more. You, Seto, being a natural xenophobe, have once again equated Islam with terrorism, even when successful Islamic countries exist.



Hahaha.

God, another illiterate fool.

Even after repeatedly stating that what I dislike is the practices and ideas Islam itself puts forth, and that the only Muslims I hate are those that would kill others over the faith, people like you still jump the gun in your complete ignorance.

Furthermore, you completely ignoring the fact that centuries before such events occurred, the Middle East saw itself rolling back due to a rise in Islamic fundamentalism, which Europe in time filled the void in when what was started in the Middle East was brought over to that continent. 

What you also ignore is that foreign intervention does not at all account for the socially regressive practices in many Islamic countries. Something which put them pretty low on the human rights scale. This is not terrorism, but it is the attitudes prevailing that allow such practices to go on that eventually gives rise to it. The concept of Wahabism, is a centuries old one. Islamism, is over a century old at the least. All these specific ideologies that promote fundamentalism and extremism have been around for a very long time. What has changed is the means to enforce. 



> Terrorism grows out of resentment. They blow themselves up to kill innocents, women and children. There is no example of Mohammed, that exalts such action, the Sharia, which you love to bring up, forbids both suicide, and indiscriminate killing of such manner.



Simplistic take. Terrorism grows out of a number of factors, and with Islamic terorrists it most notably grows from a desire of conquest. See, it depends on how it is looked upon. For example, death in battle is looked upon as an honorable end. It is suicide, but what terrorists interpret such actions are as deaths in battle. That it is in the name of God and the prophet, therefore they will be honoered in heaven. 

It's not really strange. Christianity and Judaism purport similar ideas. That this life is not the one that matters, it's the next. What you see with Islamic terrorists is this taken to its extremes. They, as the Quaran does endorse it in a way, look upon it as their duty to either subjugate or kill those that would not convert to Islam and practice it in the ideal way. Even if it means their own lives. 



> Let's see, I think it was Paul the Apostle, that wrote in his acts, that converts into Christianity have no obligation to follow the laws of the Old Testament, or maybe it was just circumcision, I forgot. Anyway, the Westerners had much more of a reason for rebelling against the Church. It wasn't because they were more liberal-minded, it was because the doctrine of the church became hideously, transparently, corrupt. The indulgences, the Limbo doctrine, fun stuff.



Well, that is why I cited the rise of Protestantism as what contributed to the decline of the Catholic Church. That undermining of what was a power that essentially ruled Europe for a time is what ultimately allowed dissent of all forms to grow and eventually lead to developments that themselves would lead to secular values in western society. 



> Islam had it's own age of free-thinkers, but there's a number of reasons for why it didn't last, one being the Mongols.



Yes, something which I alluded to before if you read my response. Yet it was not just that, it was a rise in anti-intellectual, fundamentalist Islam as well that demonized the maths, arts, and sciences.


----------



## Sferr (Mar 16, 2016)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Christians do follow the OT.


Now, they consider it as a completely legit history book, something that came before NT with some stuff like 10 commandments being cared over.



Seto Kaiba said:


> They observe the 10 commandments.


Because NT tells them they should.



Seto Kaiba said:


> Many sects derive their condemnation of homosexuality from the OT, the basis of creationism as well is derived from observance of the OT.


Again, Christians don't follow the _laws_ from OT, except for some, confirmed in NT. That doesn't mean that they ignore OT, it's just for them OT tells a story of what was happening before Christ came. So they do believe in creationism because OT tells that it happened, many of Christians don't like gays because OT shows that God doesn't like gays. That's a completely different thing from following it's_ laws_, which you and many other people for some reason can't grasp. Seriously, just google all of it. Christianity has lots of stuff from NT that are backwards and can be argued against. Use them, don't use OT laws as arguments against Christianity because you are just coming of as ignorant about the subject. 



Seto Kaiba said:


> Also, you are wrong on what Jesus stated. He did not state that all laws in the OT were cancelled. Sacrifice was unnecessary as he gave the ultimate sacrifice, himself.


No, he did not state that out right, Paul did and it _is_ in the Bible. But Jesus was cancelling OT laws left and right. His famous "turn another cheek" is such example, another example is him abolishing stoning of women for adultery.



Seto Kaiba said:


> Such as resting on the sabbath day, observance of traditional jewish holidays and rituals


Well, of course. Jesus was a Jew, he was not inventing new religion, he was reforming Judaism. It's just in practice it turned out that he did found a new religion.




Chainwave said:


> Let's see, I think it was Paul the Apostle, that wrote in his acts, that converts into Christianity have no obligation to follow the laws of the Old Testament, or maybe it was just circumcision, I forgot. Anyway, the Westerners had much more of a reason for rebelling against the Church. It wasn't because they were more liberal-minded, it was because the doctrine of the church became hideously, transparently, corrupt. The indulgences, the Limbo doctrine, fun stuff.



It was the whole laws of OT that Paul wrote about. And yes, people who rebelled against the Church were no less religious than those who didn't.


----------



## Lucaniel (Mar 16, 2016)

Sferr said:


> I believe those quotes are from a parable (a story) that Jesus was telling.


is that a refutation or a confirmation?


----------



## Elicit94 (Mar 16, 2016)

Seriously though, this is just fucking pure insanity. I don't even need to read the posts to come to any conclusion about life.


----------



## Sferr (Mar 17, 2016)

Lucaniel said:


> is that a refutation or a confirmation?



It's a quote from a parable, not a command.


----------

