# Protesters descend on Ground Zero for anti-mosque demonstration



## Chibibaki (Jun 7, 2010)

> Protesters gathered in lower Manhattan mid-day Sunday to demonstrate against plans to build a mosque near the site of Ground Zero, where the twin towers of the World Trade Center were destroyed by Islamist hijackers on September 11, 2001.
> 
> Protest organizer Pamela Geller, a conservative blogger, and her group, "Stop the Islamicization of America," planned the event because, according to the group's website, "Building the Ground Zero mosque is not an issue of religious freedom, but of resisting an effort to insult the victims of 9/11 and to establish a beachhead for political Islam and Islamic supremacism in New York... Ground Zero is a war memorial, a burial ground. Respect it."
> 
> ...


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Jun 7, 2010)

Are they expecting their protests to actually have an effect?


----------



## Razgriez (Jun 7, 2010)

Well to give it any perspective, this is like building a Japanese Embassy in Pearl Harbor so some people may have a sour feeling about this kind of thing.


----------



## Zhariel (Jun 7, 2010)

Honestly, who didn't see this coming though? We've expected it since news was posted about the mosque.


----------



## Zaru (Jun 7, 2010)

Razgriez said:


> Well to give it any perspective, this is like building a Japanese Embassy in Pearl Harbor so some people may have a sour feeling about this kind of thing.



No, this is like building a jewish synagogue on an area that was bombed by Israel.

Imagine how Hamas would react?


----------



## hadou (Jun 7, 2010)

Out of all places in the US, they decided to build this Mosque in such a meaningful place; ridiculous. They say their intentions to build this Mosque are not to insult anyone, but what the fuck do they expect when the people that carried out the 9/11 attacks practiced the same religion. This is a free country, do whatever the fuck you want, but do not pretend this is not going to make many Americans angry; they can go build the Mosque anywhere they want, but not there; is disrespectful.


----------



## Zaru (Jun 7, 2010)

Wait wait I got another one:

It's like building a Hitler appreciation shrine in front of the wailing wall in israel.


----------



## vivEnergy (Jun 7, 2010)

Actually it would be more like the URSS opening a center for the promotion of communism anywhere in the US.
At least this seems to be where the right and "patriot" america shifted after 9/11, i guess it's not every day someone give an enemy and you gladly accept it.


----------



## fuuki (Jun 7, 2010)

> Mark Williams of the conservative Tea Party Express reportedly said the mosque was for _*"the worship of the terrorists' monkey-god."*_



LMFAO, what the hell?


----------



## BullMoose (Jun 7, 2010)

As much as I hate to say it as an American citizen, those Muslims have a right to build their mosque. 

The location seems to be centrally located in NYC so I don't think the intent was to offend people by being near Ground Zero, but for convienience for those who would attend services there. I'd much rather have it off of Manhattan Island or far away as possible on the island from Ground Zero, but real estate in that area is a bitch.

Still doesn't mean I like it though. What's to stop a anti-US muslim from still getting sastisfaction from the possibility the mosque could open old wounds that were inflicted due to the terrorist attack? I absolutely hate the fact that this is even a possibility.

Just think, we wouldn't even have to discuss this if those radical pieces of shit actually were true believers of Islam. Religion of peace my ass.


----------



## DisgustingIdiot (Jun 7, 2010)

fuuki said:


> LMFAO, what the hell?



I wonder if Mark knows that muslims and christians worship the same god.


----------



## siyrean (Jun 7, 2010)

Wow, so there saying this great plan of there's is actually not helping relations but actually creating a grater strain because the planners behind this couldn't use a smigen of fucking tact and build a few more blocks away? What a fucking shocker!!


----------



## Draffut (Jun 7, 2010)

More power to the protestors.  Don't think it will do much, but as long as they don't resort to violence they have my support.


----------



## BullMoose (Jun 7, 2010)

siyrean said:


> Wow, so there saying this great plan of there's is actually not helping relations but actually creating a grater strain because the planners behind this couldn't use a smigen of fucking tact and build a few more blocks away? What a fucking shocker!!



I get what you mean, but real estate isn't exactly at a premium in NYC. I don't know for sure but I hope this was the only feasable location for this mosque to be built.


----------



## CrazyMoronX (Jun 7, 2010)

Zaru said:


> Wait wait I got another one:
> 
> It's like building a Hitler appreciation shrine in front of the wailing wall in israel.


 Now that'd be something else.


I'm sure something like this would be burnt to the ground in a matter of weeks. Like an abortion clinic built near certain Southern churches.


----------



## Eboue (Jun 7, 2010)

Surprised this hasn't already happened, if it was in England I reckon their would have been violent protests by now. Especially by the English defence league.


----------



## ZeroBlack (Jun 7, 2010)

There's a strip club 2 blocks away from the Ground Zero cite...I don't see these same people complaining.


----------



## Mintaka (Jun 7, 2010)

ZeroBlack said:


> There's a strip club 2 blocks away from the Ground Zero cite...I don't see these same people complaining.


I don't get it.

Who cares if there is, strippers didn't do 9/11.


----------



## ZeroBlack (Jun 7, 2010)

It's the principle of the thing. You'd think these people would complain about scantily clad women "desecrating the sanctity of Ground Zero" but they don't. They're mad about the Mosque because the attackers were Muslim, even though a mosque, like a church, is a place of worship and reverence.


----------



## hadou (Jun 7, 2010)

ZeroBlack said:


> There's a strip club 2 blocks away from the Ground Zero cite...I don't see these same people complaining.



A strip club 2 blocks from Ground Zero versus a Mosque that represents the religion practice by those that perpetrated the 9/11 attacks killing thousands of people? I'm sorry, how old are you? Go touch yourself, ignoramus


----------



## Aokiji (Jun 7, 2010)

Except that the makers of the mosque weren't those that bombed the twin towers.


----------



## Bleach (Jun 7, 2010)

Didn't see that coming...

But I kinda laugh at there protest.......


----------



## vivEnergy (Jun 7, 2010)

That's when you see the death of a culture, when people don't believe in their own rights and give them to people who will turn them into waste.


----------



## Mintaka (Jun 7, 2010)

ZeroBlack said:


> It's the principle of the thing. You'd think these people would complain about scantily clad women "desecrating the sanctity of Ground Zero" but they don't. They're mad about the Mosque because the attackers were Muslim, even though a mosque, like a church, is a place of worship and reverence.


Your a moron.


The religion itself teaches that people who don't practice it need to die.  It's principles lead tot his crap int he first place.


----------



## ZeroBlack (Jun 7, 2010)

hadou said:


> A strip club 2 blocks from Ground Zero versus a Mosque that represents the religion practice by those that perpetrated the 9/11 attacks killing thousands of people? I'm sorry, how old are you? Go touch yourself, ignoramus



A strip club represents women taking off their garments for the lustful satisfaction of customers.
The people that go to the mosque were not the attackers. Totally different people and I unlike you realize that not every Muslim is a damn terrorist. I'm 17, which your comment, are you under 13 by chance?

@ Tokoyami
That's the same with the Bible, and also been used to spread hatred for other people of different religious beliefs. However, my point is that ORDINARY people, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, etc...don't go out of their way to blow shit up.


----------



## Aokiji (Jun 7, 2010)

hadou said:


> A strip club 2 blocks from Ground Zero versus a Mosque that represents the religion practice by those that perpetrated the 9/11 attacks killing thousands of people? I'm sorry, how old are you? Go touch yourself, ignoramus



The religion that actually is OPPOSED to those acts? Not trying to pull a TR00 MUSLIMS rant, but bombing buildings is not one of the tenets of Islam. 

Might as well protest against communism in one of those chinese factories that make Industrial Revolution England look like Socialist heaven.


----------



## Aokiji (Jun 7, 2010)

Tokoyami said:


> Your a moron.
> 
> 
> The religion itself teaches that people who don't practice it need to die.  It's principles lead tot his crap int he first place.



You are a dipshit.


----------



## Bleach (Jun 7, 2010)

Aokiji said:


> You are a dipshit.



Winnaaarrrr        .


----------



## hadou (Jun 7, 2010)

ZeroBlack said:


> A strip club represents women taking off their garments for the lustful satisfaction of customers.
> The people that go to the mosque were not the attackers. Totally different people and I unlike you realize that not every Muslim is a damn terrorist. I'm 17, which your comment, are you under 13 by chance?



They can go build the fucking Mosque anywhere in the country. Have you seen a map and looked at how fucking big the US is? But no, they had to go and decide to build the damn building near Ground Zero. This is America, they have the right to build whatever the hell they want, but they have to think about the reaction this would bring when they decided to build the Mosque in such a sacred place. Come and discuss this topic when you mature a bit.


----------



## Bleach (Jun 7, 2010)

hadou said:


> They can go build the fucking Mosque anywhere in the country. Have you seen a map and looked at how fucking big the US is? But no, they had to go and decide to build the damn building near Ground Zero. This is America, they have the right to build whatever the hell they want, but they have to think about the reaction this would bring when they decided to build the Mosque in such a sacred place. Come and discuss this topic when you mature a bit.



600k+ Muslims in NYC. You know how much space there actually is left in NYC to build anything? 

*NONE*, almost.


----------



## ZeroBlack (Jun 7, 2010)

hadou said:


> They can go build the fucking Mosque anywhere in the country. Have you seen a map and looked at how fucking big the US is? But no, they had to go and decide to build the damn building near Ground Zero. This is America, they have the right to build whatever the hell they want, but they have to think about the reaction this would bring when they decided to build the Mosque in such a sacred place. Come and discuss this topic when you mature a bit.



Ever heard of available land? Just because the U.S. is big, doesn't mean they're are just perfectly free land everywhere. This could have been the available one. So unless you know the story behind the location, you ought to shut up. I'm pretty sure the people building the mosque are not building it in any way to demean the people that died on 9/11 or are in favor of terrorist activity either. Once again, you sound more and more like a child. Come and discuss this topic when your balls drop and you grow up.


----------



## hadou (Jun 7, 2010)

Bleach said:


> 600k+ Muslims in NYC. You know how much space there actually is left in NYC to build anything?
> 
> *NONE*, almost.



And the only available space in the whole city is near Ground Zero? I would give you the "magic" finger if you were in front of me.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Jun 7, 2010)

out of towners need to shut the fuck up and get lost


----------



## Bleach (Jun 7, 2010)

hadou said:


> And the only available space in the whole city is near Ground Zero? I would give you the "magic" finger if you were in front of me.



And I'd break that finger because you don't deserve it.

JK.

but WTC are pretty much in the heart of the city. What better spot to put a place where everyone can come together than the middle?




Ishinoue said:


> Eeh, wrong. The Muslim religion is the ONLY religion that says to kill and terrorize those that don't follow Islam.


Show us all where this is said and provide it in the correct context.



Ishinoue said:


> You guys don't even know what you're talking about.



Being a little hypocritical are we?


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Jun 7, 2010)

Ishinoue said:


> I'm sorry, WHAT?



People from outside of NYC just intruding on local affairs.  It's annoying and they really have no say.  It's not a national issue in the least.  The Fapperwocky has spoken.


----------



## ZeroBlack (Jun 7, 2010)

Ishinoue said:


> Eeh, wrong. The Muslim religion is the ONLY religion that says to kill and terrorize those that don't follow Islam.
> 
> The Bible doesn't tell Christians to go blow people up that aren't following God and Jesus as their savior. If it did that would kinda defeat the whole point of God giving us free will. You know, so we can love him because we love him not because we're forced to.
> 
> You guys don't even know what you're talking about.



Read the Old Testament. 
If you want dirt on the Bible, go there. 
Islam might be the only religion that does that, but guess what, once again, ordinary Muslims don't do such things because they, like Christians, don't follow those lines. Hell if Christians followed every single line of the Bible, they'd know how to properly sells slaves.


----------



## hadou (Jun 7, 2010)

FapperWocky said:


> People from outside of NYC just intruding on local affairs.  It's annoying and they really have no say.  It's not a national issue in the least.  The Fapperwocky has spoken.



First of all, change your avatar, is insulting to all anime fans in the world , and second, don't be a hater, we are all Americans


----------



## Ceria (Jun 7, 2010)

Zaru said:


> No, this is like building a jewish synagogue on an area that was bombed by Israel.
> 
> Imagine how Hamas would react?



this is just acting for trouble, probably thought up by a bleeding heart liberal.


----------



## Aokiji (Jun 7, 2010)

Ishinoue said:


> Eeh, wrong. The Muslim religion is the ONLY religion that says to kill and terrorize those that don't follow Islam.



*Spoiler*: __ 






Islam is one of the more tolerant religions you whore. How about taking some history or reading up on Voltaire?


----------



## Bleach (Jun 7, 2010)

Ishinoue said:


> _*
> Qur’an:9:88* “The Messenger and those who believe with him, strive hard and fight with their wealth and lives in Allah’s Cause.”
> *
> Qur’an:9:5 *“*Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, *take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war.”
> ...



Haha, you didn't use any of those things in context and just copy and pasted the Quran thinking that it would make you look like you know something.

.

Stop being a hypocrite please, in the case of talking big anyway.


----------



## The Pink Ninja (Jun 7, 2010)

It's a fucking a leisure and community centre with a prayer room attached, not a Mosque.


----------



## ZeroBlack (Jun 7, 2010)

Killing at Jericho



    When the people heard the sound of the horns, they shouted as loud as they could. Suddenly, the walls of Jericho collapsed, and the Israelites charged straight into the city from every side and captured it.  They completely destroyed everything in it ? men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep, donkeys ? everything.  

  (Joshua 6:20-21 NLT)

Destruction of Ai



    Then the LORD said to Joshua, "Do not be afraid or discouraged.  Take the entire army and attack Ai, for I have given to you the king of Ai, his people, his city, and his land.  You will destroy them as you destroyed Jericho and its king. But this time you may keep the captured goods and the cattle for yourselves. Set an ambush behind the city."  So Joshua and the army of Israel set out to attack Ai.  Joshua chose thirty thousand fighting men and sent them out at night with these orders: "Hide in ambush close behind the city and be ready for action.  When our main army attacks, the men of Ai will come out to fight as they did before, and we will run away from them.  We will let them chase us until they have all left the city. For they will say, 'The Israelites are running away from us as they did before.'  Then you will jump up from your ambush and take possession of the city, for the LORD your God will give it to you.  Set the city on fire, as the LORD has commanded.  You have your orders."  So they left that night and lay in ambush between Bethel and the west side of Ai.  But Joshua remained among the people in the camp that night.



    Early the next morning Joshua roused his men and started toward Ai, accompanied by the leaders of Israel.  They camped on the north side of Ai, with a valley between them and the city.  That night Joshua sent five thousand men to lie in ambush between Bethel and Ai, on the west side of the city.  So they stationed the main army north of the city and the ambush west of the city.  Joshua himself spent that night in the valley.  When the king of Ai saw the Israelites across the valley, he and all his army hurriedly went out early the next morning and attacked the Israelites at a place overlooking the Jordan Valley.  But he didn't realize there was an ambush behind the city.  Joshua and the Israelite army fled toward the wilderness as though they were badly beaten,  and all the men in the city were called out to chase after them.  In this way, they were lured away from the city.  There was not a man left in Ai or Bethel who did not chase after the Israelites, and the city was left wide open.



    Then the LORD said to Joshua, "Point your spear toward Ai, for I will give you the city."  Joshua did as he was commanded.  As soon as Joshua gave the signal, the men in ambush jumped up and poured into the city.  They quickly captured it and set it on fire.  When the men of Ai looked behind them, smoke from the city was filling the sky, and they had nowhere to go. For the Israelites who had fled in the direction of the wilderness now turned on their pursuers.  When Joshua and the other Israelites saw that the ambush had succeeded and that smoke was rising from the city, they turned and attacked the men of Ai.  Then the Israelites who were inside the city came out and started killing the enemy from the rear. So the men of Ai were caught in a trap, and all of them died. Not a single person survived or escaped.  Only the king of Ai was taken alive and brought to Joshua.



    When the Israelite army finished killing all the men outside the city, they went back and finished off everyone inside.  So the entire population of Ai was wiped out that day ? twelve thousand in all.  For Joshua kept holding out his spear until everyone who had lived in Ai was completely destroyed.  Only the cattle and the treasures of the city were not destroyed, for the Israelites kept these for themselves, as the LORD had commanded Joshua.  So Ai became a permanent mound of ruins, desolate to this very day.  Joshua hung the king of Ai on a tree and left him there until evening. At sunset the Israelites took down the body and threw it in front of the city gate.  They piled a great heap of stones over him that can still be seen today.   (Joshua 8:1-29 NLT)

Human Sacrifice



    The one who has stolen what was set apart for destruction will himself be burned with fire, along with everything he has, for he has broken the covenant of the LORD and has done a horrible thing in Israel.   (Joshua 7:15 NLT)

God Discriminates Against the Handicapped



    Then the LORD said to Moses, "Tell Aaron that in all future generations, his descendants who have physical defects will not qualify to offer food to their God.  No one who has a defect may come near to me, whether he is blind or lame, stunted or deformed, or has a broken foot or hand, or has a humped back or is a dwarf, or has a defective eye, or has oozing sores or scabs on his skin, or has damaged testicles.  Even though he is a descendant of Aaron, his physical defects disqualify him from presenting offerings to the LORD by fire.  Since he has a blemish, he may not offer food to his God.  However, he may eat from the food offered to God, including the holy offerings and the most holy offerings.  Yet because of his physical defect, he must never go behind the inner curtain or come near the altar, for this would desecrate my holy places.  I am the LORD who makes them holy."   (Leviticus 21:16-23 NLT)

Death for Adultery



    If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death.   (Leviticus 20:10 NLT)

Kill Fortunetellers



    A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death.   (Leviticus 20:27 NAB)

Slaves Must Respect Their Masters



    Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed.  If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts.  Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them.  (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)

God Kills Some More



    Then the LORD said to me, "Even if Moses and Samuel stood before me pleading for these people, I wouldn't help them.  Away with them!  Get them out of my sight!  And if they say to you, 'But where can we go?' tell them, 'This is what the LORD says: Those who are destined for death, to death; those who are destined for war, to war; those who are destined for famine, to famine; those who are destined for captivity, to captivity.'  "I will send four kinds of destroyers against them," says the LORD.  "I will send the sword to kill, the dogs to drag away, the vultures to devour, and the wild animals to finish up what is left.  Because of the wicked things Manasseh son of Hezekiah, king of Judah, did in Jerusalem, I will make my people an object of horror to all the kingdoms of the earth.   (Jeremiah 15:1-4 NLT)

 David Kills Everything to Cover-up His Crimes



   And David and his men went up, and made a raid upon the Geshurites, and the Girzites, and the Amalekites; for those `nations' were the inhabitants of the land, who were of old, as thou goest to Shur, even unto the land of Egypt.  And David smote the land, and saved neither man nor woman alive, and took away the sheep, and the oxen, and the asses, and the camels, and the apparel; and he returned, and came to Achish.  And Achish said, Against whom have ye made a raid to-day? And David said, Against the South of Judah, and against the South of the Jerahmeelites, and against the South of the Kenites.  And David saved neither man nor woman alive, to bring them to Gath, saying, Lest they should tell of us, saying, So did David, and so hath been his manner all the while he hath dwelt in the country of the Philistines.     (1 Samuel 27:8-11 ASV)

Murder, rape and pillage of the Midianites



    They attacked Midian just as the LORD had commanded Moses, and they killed all the men.  All five of the Midianite kings ? Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba ? died in the battle.  They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword.  Then the Israelite army captured the Midianite women and children and seized their cattle and flocks and all their wealth as plunder.  They burned all the towns and villages where the Midianites had lived.  After they had gathered the plunder and captives, both people and animals, they brought them all to Moses and Eleazar the priest, and to the whole community of Israel, which was camped on the plains of Moab beside the Jordan River, across from Jericho.



    Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp.  But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle.  "Why have you let all the women live?" he demanded.  "These are the very ones who followed Balaam's advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor.  They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD's people.  Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man.  Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.   (Numbers 31:7-18 NLT)

Sabbath Breakers Will Burn



    But if you do not listen to me and refuse to keep the Sabbath holy, and if on the Sabbath day you bring loads of merchandise through the gates of Jerusalem just as on other days, then I will set fire to these gates. The fire will spread to the palaces, and no one will be able to put out the roaring flames.   (Jeremiah 17:27 NLT)


*Whistles* 
Because the Bible is so perfect. 
Want more?


----------



## Aokiji (Jun 7, 2010)

You know that that is aimed at those faggy meccans, right? 



The Quran is seperated into Meccan and Medinean surahs for a reason. The latter is much less martial considering the founder wasn't surrounded by people that wanted to kill him for founding a religion that rivaled the (then) current religion which was a pilgrimage place and source of income. (ironic, since the current Mecca is pretty much a goldmine as well )

You probably just looked up some islamophobic page which had the quotes ready. 

Not to mention, you're digging your own grave. It's as if you DON'T want muslims to be peaceful.


----------



## Bleach (Jun 7, 2010)

Ishinoue said:


> Of course. You asked where their religion tells them  to kill and hate us and I provided the quotes of the Qur'an that says that.





Bleach said:


> Show us all where this is said and provide it in the correct context.





Bleach said:


> said and provide it in the correct context.





Bleach said:


> in the correct context.





Bleach said:


> correct context.





Bleach said:


> correct context.





Bleach said:


> correct context.





Bleach said:


> correct context.



**




The Pink Ninja said:


> It's a fucking a leisure and community centre with a prayer room attached, not a Mosque.



And I sorta agree with this.


----------



## Coteaz (Jun 7, 2010)

I found something interesting:



> "We feel it would be more appropriate maybe to build a center dedicated to expunging the Quranic texts of the violent ideology that inspired jihad, or perhaps a center to the victims of *hundreds of millions of years* of jihadi wars, land enslavements, cultural annihilations and mass slaughter," Geller said.


Hey guys, I know you're angry but...Islam has only only existed for ~1500 years.


----------



## The Pink Ninja (Jun 7, 2010)

Who cares what the religious texts say? At best it's a rough guide to how a community of believers will act.

I don't care what the Quran says on insulting the prophet Mohammed. I care about what Muslims actual do: Issues fatwas, hunt cartoonists and murder film makers. Also I find it a bad sign that seemingly moderate Muslims seek to either justify these or endorse them.

See: This forum


----------



## Crowe (Jun 7, 2010)

Razgriez said:


> Well to give it any perspective, this is like building a Japanese Embassy in Pearl Harbor so some people may have a sour feeling about this kind of thing.


No. The bombing of Pearl Harbor was backed by Japan. This action was not backed by the Islamic world and was the action of a handful people from a terrorist organization. This itself is an insult.


Zaru said:


> No, this is like building a jewish synagogue on an area that was bombed by Israel.
> 
> Imagine how Hamas would react?


Again. Israel is a nation. This was a terrorist act by a handful of people.



Zaru said:


> Wait wait I got another one:
> 
> It's like building a Hitler appreciation shrine in front of the wailing wall in israel.


...


----------



## ZeroBlack (Jun 7, 2010)

Ishinoue said:


> WHAT IS THE RIGHT CONTEXT? Since providing quotes from the Qur'an isn't enough for you.
> 
> *Guess what, fucktards. The old Testament was over written with the New. Meaning that the old isn't held accountable anymore.*
> 
> The Muslim religion STILL says to do that crap.



Lol
1) Jesus killing his enemies:

"So I will cast her on a bed of suffering, and I will make those who commit adultery with her suffer intensely, unless they repent of her ways.   I will strike her children dead.  Then all the churches will know that I am he who searches hearts and minds, and I will repay each of you according to your deeds.  (From the NIV Bible, Revelation 2:22-23)"  


Brother Karim proved from the Greek text that "children" here is actually literal and means actual children:  Innocent children punished with death in the New Testament!

2) Just read the whole fucking page fucktard


----------



## Almaseti (Jun 7, 2010)

They're not building it on the site itself, right?  Just sort of in the general area?  I don't see what the problem is. On the site itself, sure.  I wouldn't want to see a church there either, it's better to avoid religious connotations when you rebuild after a tragedy, especially one that effected so many people from so many origins. 

But it's just in the general area, and it's not a mosque, it's more like a YMCA, but Muslim.  And it's being built to try to improve relations between Muslims in NYC and their neighbors and "give back" to the community.  It's a REJECTION of what the terrorists who carried out the attack wanted.  They wanted to pit Muslims against non-Muslims and have a holy war.  The people who want to build the center want to live together.  It's a wonderful project, and I hope it goes through.


----------



## Bleach (Jun 7, 2010)

Ishinoue said:


> WHAT IS THE RIGHT CONTEXT? Since providing quotes from the Qur'an isn't enough for you.
> 
> Guess what, fucktards. The old Testament was over written with the New. Meaning that the old isn't held accountable anymore.
> 
> The Muslim religion STILL says to do that crap.



lol. You are making me laugh here.

No, Old Testament was not written over the New Testament . If it was, then the Old Testament wouldn't be here. They are two completely different things. Old Testament is more like a history of before Jesus. And New Testament is after.

You want a definition of context?


----------



## Aokiji (Jun 7, 2010)

The Pink Ninja said:


> Who cares what the religious texts say? At best it's a rough guide to how a community of believers will act.
> 
> I don't care what the Quran says on insulting the prophet Mohammed. I care about what Muslims actual do: Issues fatwas, hunt cartoonists and murder film makers. Also I find it a bad sign that seemingly moderate Muslims seek to either justify these or endorse them.
> 
> See: This forum



Finally someone who has some semblance of brains. Instead of insulting the religion itself, you should target the people that commit the crimes: muslims. I would be much more ok with people going "fuck muslims" than "fuck islam"

Then again, how many of them do it anyway. 



Ishinoue said:


> WHAT IS THE RIGHT CONTEXT? Since providing quotes from the Qur'an isn't enough for you.
> 
> Guess what, fucktards. The old Testament was over written with the New. Meaning that the old isn't held accountable anymore.
> 
> The Muslim religion STILL says to do that crap.



The right context is being targeted at intolerant assholes that were willing to kill people for money.


----------



## Elim Rawne (Jun 7, 2010)

Aokiji said:


> Islam is one of the more tolerant religions *you whore.*



Reaaaal smooth there


----------



## Almaseti (Jun 7, 2010)

Not all Muslims are the same, and marginalizing all of them just makes the lunatic jihadists feel justified.


----------



## The Pink Ninja (Jun 7, 2010)

I meant to say



			
				Aokiji said:
			
		

> Islam is one of the more tolerant religions you whore.



Rank them


----------



## Bleach (Jun 7, 2010)

Once again, it is not on Ground Zero.


----------



## Almaseti (Jun 7, 2010)

Ishinoue said:


> This is true. Not all of the Muslims are like the Extremists. But it's still distasteful to put their Mosque on Ground Zero



It's not a mosque, it's a community center, and it's not on ground zero, it's just near it. Telling them to leave when they're trying to build ties is counterproductive to peace and tolerance.


----------



## Bleach (Jun 7, 2010)

Ishinoue said:


> It's near it, though. That's close enough for me, obviously it's close enough for the 9/11 victims.



And whats the limit to that? Is it being on the same land just as bad?


----------



## Aokiji (Jun 7, 2010)

The Pink Ninja said:


> Rank them





If even Voltaire think muslims are cool for not slaughtering non-muslims for not being one of them, it's pretty much a statement.  Also, Islamic countries were way ahead of Christians countries in the past scientifically. Granted, this is not the case anymore, but I blame Wahabism, Israel and the fact that western countries have become largely secular. But when they weren't, Islamic countries were more tolerant than them.


----------



## BrojoJojo (Jun 7, 2010)

I like how we are arguing that the christian bible does the same thing so we can gloss over the fact that Ishinoue proved their point.

Context doesn't matter. "Wiping out all rivals to Allah" seems pretty black and white, to me.


----------



## Aokiji (Jun 7, 2010)

Ishinoue said:


> It's near it, though. That's close enough for me, obviously it's close enough for the 9/11 victims.
> 
> 
> 
> *Peace and tolerance went out the window* when their religion lead psychos to attack us and kill thousands.



Two wrongs make one right fallacy.



Diceman said:


> Reaaaal smooth there



I never pretended I was. :ho



BrojoJojo said:


> I like how we are arguing that the christian bible does the same thing so we can gloss over the fact that Ishinoue proved their point.
> 
> Context doesn't matter. "Wiping out all rivals to Allah" seems pretty black and white, to me.



Even if later statements promote a more peaceful attitude and there were understandable circumstances to be aggressive?


----------



## The Pink Ninja (Jun 7, 2010)

Aokiji said:


> If even Voltaire think muslims are cool for not slaughtering non-muslims for not being one of them, it's pretty much a statement.



Doesn't mean he was right. Romanticism exists and I doubt he had access to the range of sources we do today.



> Also, Islamic countries were way ahead of Christians countries in the past scientifically. Granted, this is not the case anymore, but I blame Wahabism, Israel and the fact that western countries have become largely secular. But when they weren't, Islamic countries were more tolerant than them.



No doubt. The Golden Age of Islam is very important to Western history. But that doesn't matter now outside of academia.

And what did Israel do?


----------



## Bleach (Jun 7, 2010)

BrojoJojo said:


> I like how we are arguing that the christian bible does the same thing so we can gloss over the fact that Ishinoue proved their point.
> 
> Context doesn't matter. "Wiping out all rivals to Allah" seems pretty black and white, to me.



Thats like saying a country killed 10k people for no reason when in fact they did it to protect the rest of the country/world from whatever apocalyptic thing can kill 10k people and spread fast enough but no one would know about that because no one knows how important context is now.


----------



## Coteaz (Jun 7, 2010)

Aokiji said:


> If even Voltaire think muslims are cool for not slaughtering non-muslims for not being one of them, it's pretty much a statement.  Also, Islamic countries were way ahead of Christians countries in the past scientifically.


You're babbling about centuries-old history that is inapplicable to today's situation.



> Granted, this is not the case anymore, but I blame Wahabism, Israel and the fact that western countries have become largely secular.


Perhaps Islamic countries should follow the trend and become secular. Maybe then the Middle East would stop being a stain on humanity's nether regions and contribute something positive to the world community. Oil doesn't count.


----------



## Aokiji (Jun 7, 2010)

The Pink Ninja said:


> Doesn't mean he was right. Romanticism exists and I doubt he had access to the range of sources we do today.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I said Islamic countries were tolerant compared to, say Christians countries and this is true.

We pretty much know their laws, whic were far less discriminatory of Jews than in Europe. 

Israel punking Palestine is, IMO, the prime reason for world wide radicalism of muslims. Like 80% of world terror would cease to exist right now if the situation was taken back to pre 1945 levels, i.e. no distinction between Jews and Arabs and renaming Israel into Palestine (Israelis being Jewish Palestines). Of course there would be thirst for revenge, but honestly, this is pretty much a sunk cost fallacy.


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Jun 7, 2010)

Aokiji said:


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



Muslim don't tolerate that one of them marry a non muslim. It's one of the problem with this religion. This is why it's difficult to date with a muslim girl....


----------



## Bleach (Jun 7, 2010)

Coteaz said:


> ]
> Perhaps Islamic countries should follow the trend and become secular. Maybe then the Middle East would stop being a stain on humanity's nether regions and contribute something positive to the world community. Oil doesn't count.



You are obviously underestimating oil.


----------



## Coteaz (Jun 7, 2010)

Bleach said:


> You are obviously underestimating oil.


Nations don't need to adhere to barbaric Islamic law codes in order to supply oil.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Jun 7, 2010)

I stopped around the time i heard the word "conservative", but then i read the entire article just for the sake of things 

This really says a lot about the right in which they are so scared and terrorized that they have to persecute an entire sect of people (middle easterners and Muslims alike) in order to feel like they're big men


----------



## Aokiji (Jun 7, 2010)

Le Male said:


> Muslim don't tolerate that one of them marry a non muslim. It's one of the problem with this religion. This is why it's difficult to date with a muslim girl....



They're dicks, since their boys date French girls all the time.

Muslims are intolerant as people, but the religion itself doesn't really match up to that.


----------



## The Pink Ninja (Jun 7, 2010)

The Pink Ninja said:


> No doubt.



WTF are you talking about? There's a great deal of doubt.

Islam did not expand over the world via conversion alone. There was a great deal of fighting and warfare, followed by instituting social systems that made non-Muslims second class citizens giving them an incentive to convert. They also went on the occasional purges Jews, like their European neighbours, and Christians too. The original Sepulchre of Christ was torn down after all. I assume Hindus suffered much the same.

It's also indicative of Islam as a whole being a well calculated system of control to help in Empire building. Christian and Jewish slaves are more valuable than corpses after all.

They were more tolerant but lets not mythologise it. Or forget that what happens now is what truly matters.


----------



## LoboFTW (Jun 7, 2010)

Aokiji said:


> If even Voltaire think muslims are cool for not slaughtering non-muslims for not being one of them, it's pretty much a statement.  Also, Islamic countries were way ahead of Christians countries in the past scientifically. Granted, this is not the case anymore, but I blame Wahabism, Israel and the fact that western countries have become largely secular. But when they weren't, Islamic countries were more tolerant than them.



That is weak. Comparing anything to Dark Age Europe is never good. The fact the Islamic world is not top anymore has nothing to do with Israel, that is just the last resort of an apologist. The Qu'ran was at that time not very outdated, as the rules were still inline with the moral zeitgeist. However, now secularism is the only way forward, religion of any kind only holds back the human race.


----------



## Bleach (Jun 7, 2010)

Coteaz said:


> Nations don't need to adhere to barbaric Islamic law codes in order to supply oil.



What are you talking about? Saudi Arabia and Iran (2 Biggest Oil producers) aren't asking you to convert for the oil.


----------



## Almaseti (Jun 7, 2010)

Ishinoue said:


> Peace and tolerance went out the window when their religion lead psychos to attack us and kill thousands.



You can't punish the moderates for the actions of the radicals.  

The radicals want war, the moderates want peace.  Punish the moderates, and the radicals win. Do you think Osama bin Laden likes the idea of 





> a $100 million, 13-story community center with Islamic, interfaith and secular programming, similar to the 92nd Street Y


?

Of course not.  The center, (NOT A MOSQUE) would be in direct opposition to everything the terrorists want.  It's a _perfect_ rejection of their goals and ideology.  Even being near ground zero would be good, because then there's a reminder of why interfaith communication is necessary, to prevent tragedies like that.  You need to let go of the idea of collective punishment. Islam, as a religion, isn't leaving any time soon, so it's best to work with the people who practice it to make the world better, than try to punish and marginalize them, especially when these ones want to give back to the community.


----------



## Aokiji (Jun 7, 2010)

LoboFTW said:


> That is weak. Comparing anything to Dark Age Europe is never good. The fact the Islamic world is not top anymore has nothing to do with Israel, that is just the last resort of an apologist. The Qu'ran was at that time not very outdated, as the rules were still inline with the moral zeitgeist. However, now secularism is the only way forward, religion of any kind only holds back the human race.



Secularism=/=atheism.

And honestly don't even think of mentioning that piece of shit Zeitgeistmovie.


----------



## Petenshi (Jun 7, 2010)

Islamicization of america?


----------



## Inuhanyou (Jun 7, 2010)

I don't advocated killing all Christians because of what some nutjobs have done in the name of their god, or the name of their devil  

This kind of shit is what turns even a born and raised Catholic like myself off to religion in general, because people take it too fricken seriously. Case in point, these conservative protesters are all religious hacks who refer to Allah as a "monkey god" in secret, its a terrible situation.


----------



## soft cow (Jun 7, 2010)

ppl are crazy.


----------



## Coteaz (Jun 7, 2010)

Bleach said:


> What are you talking about? Saudi Arabia and Iran (2 Biggest Oil producers) aren't asking you to convert for the oil.


What is reading comprehension, class?


			
				Coteaz said:
			
		

> Perhaps Islamic countries should follow the trend and become secular. Maybe then the Middle East would stop being a stain on humanity's nether regions and contribute something positive to the world community. Oil doesn't count.





			
				Bleach said:
			
		

> You are obviously underestimating oil.





			
				Coteaz said:
			
		

> Nations don't need to adhere to barbaric Islamic law codes in order to supply oil.



I stated that secular Middle Eastern countries would actually be able to contribute positively to the world, unlike their current backwards, destitute, dogma-addled forms. They can pump oil no matter what.


----------



## The Pink Ninja (Jun 7, 2010)

Aokiji said:


> Israel punking Palestine is, IMO, the prime reason for world wide radicalism of muslims. Like 80% of world terror would cease to exist right now if the situation was taken back to pre 1945 levels, i.e. no distinction between Jews and Arabs and renaming Israel into Palestine (Israelis being Jewish Palestines). Of course there would be thirst for revenge, but honestly, this is pretty much a sunk cost fallacy.



Is that all? You'd suck if that was true.

It's not by the way. It's a much broader resistance movement to America, Western Liberal values and rage that Islamic civilisation seems to have been left in the dust of history. Not to underestimate the Muslim obsession with Israel/Palestine but it's just an easy excuse. Pretty much everywhere Muslims civilisation butts up against non-Muslim civilisation there is conflict... not to say the Muslims are always at fault.

It doesn't explain Chechnya or Dagestan or Western China or Sri Lanka or pretty much every country on the Africa Christian/Muslim boarder or India and Pakistan ect ect

More importantly it doesn't explain Muslim rage in Western European countries who give the finger to the US and Israel, yet still have the clich? "Behead those who insult Islam" protests and attendant outrages.


----------



## Bleach (Jun 7, 2010)

But when you say that nations dont need to adhere to Islamic law codes to supply oil makes it sound like they won't give oil unless the countries they give it to don't convert to Islam or something.

You are also making it sound like the Middle East has never done anything useful in the world.


----------



## Coteaz (Jun 7, 2010)

Bleach said:


> You are also making it sound like the Middle East has never done anything useful in the world.


What happened a thousand years ago is history. In the present, the Middle East is a disaster zone that shows no signs of catching up to first-world secular nations in technology, standards of living, scientific advancement, etc.


----------



## Bleach (Jun 7, 2010)

Ishinoue said:


> You're right. Not ALL Muslims hate and want to kill us despite their Qur'an telling them too.
> 
> Just this very large crowd of Muslims hate and want to kill us--making it the majority of Muslims that want to kill all, and I quote, and _"fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief [non-Muslims]) and all submit to the religion of Allah alone (in the whole world).”_
> 
> ...



Less than 1% of Muslims are terrorists. I know that is still a huge number but 99% are not. I'd also say about 40% of total Muslim Population do not like the West BUT there is a difference between protesting and burning a flag and actually picking up an AK-47.

I don't get where you get that the majority of Muslims want to kill you. Sounds like your making up shit now.




Coteaz said:


> What happened a thousand years ago is history. In the present, the Middle East is a disaster zone that shows no signs of catching up to first-world secular nations in technology, standards of living, scientific advancement, etc.



U.A.E.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Jun 7, 2010)

Do you actually have a clue as to how many Muslims in the world there actually are Ishinoue 

It is not only disgusting and insulting to attack muslims in such a manner because of your little scared state of mind, it is also erroneous, and that is the problem.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Jun 7, 2010)

less than 1% being terrorist would be a shit ton


----------



## Almaseti (Jun 7, 2010)

Ishinoue said:


> You're right. Not ALL Muslims hate and want to kill us despite their Qur'an telling them too.
> 
> Just this very large crowd of Muslims hate and want to kill us--making it the majority of Muslims that want to kill all, and I quote, and _"fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief [non-Muslims]) and all submit to the religion of Allah alone (in the whole world).”_
> 
> ...



Those are not all Muslims.

Those are not the Muslims that want to build the community center. 

Those are not the Muslims whose families died in 9/11. 

Those are not the Muslims who live in the US alongside people who don't believe what they believe and are happy to live and let live.

Those Muslims have nothing to do with this discussion.  Every religion, every ideology, every group affiliation, can be used as a justification for evil, but that doesn't make it evil in and of itself.  I could link to stuff on the Westboro Baptist Church and claim Christianity shouldn't be tolerated, but that would be short-sighted and bigoted.  But being a Christian, by itself, doesn't make someone good any more than being a Muslim makes someone bad.  

Personally?  I would rather put the power in the hands of peaceful people who want to integrate, rather than the ones that want war.

tl:dr; the people in the video wouldn't like the center either.  All the more reason to build it.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Jun 7, 2010)

Well how many rouge states are there Simpson, how many people are in a state of mind to be sucked into a terrorist state of mind due to propaganda? Our operations don't lend us a bit of a credibility, fairly or unfairly.


----------



## Coteaz (Jun 7, 2010)

Bleach said:


> U.A.E.


Syria
Lebanon
Iran
Iraq
Yemen
Saudi Arabia
Egypt

None of those listed countries can match the secular West in terms of standard of living, personal freedoms, etc. One or two tiny, filthy-rich oil exporters can't make up for the failures of the region as a whole.


----------



## Megaharrison (Jun 7, 2010)

Aokiji said:


> I said Islamic countries were tolerant compared to, say Christians countries and this is true.
> 
> We pretty much know their laws, whic were far less discriminatory of Jews than in Europe.
> 
> Israel punking Palestine is, IMO, the prime reason for world wide radicalism of muslims. Like 80% of world terror would cease to exist right now if the situation was taken back to pre 1945 levels, i.e. no distinction between Jews and Arabs and renaming Israel into Palestine (Israelis being Jewish Palestines). Of course there would be thirst for revenge, but honestly, this is pretty much a sunk cost fallacy.




Are you insane? The primary source of global Islamic terrorism is Afghanistan and Pakistan, 2 countries which have never had anything to do with Israel. Saudi Arabia to a lesser extent, which has rarely interacted with Israel as well. Palestinian and Lebanese terrorism is directed almost entirely at Israel, not the world, the former isn't even "almost" entirely. Islamic terrorism really grew out of the Cold War, particularly Pakistan/Afghanistan/Mujaheddin connection which was unrelated to Israel.

I suggest you read an earlier post I made on why . And since Al Qaeda and its inspired affiliates are currently both the premier terrorist and Islamic terrorist groups in the world, this makes your post incorrect.

Blaming Israel for all the worlds woes is a simple solution, I get it. But it is not the correct one. Unfortunately the issue is much more complex, and requires a harder look at the state of modern Islam and modern Islamic countries.

In any regard it's pretty sad that a thread that had nothing to do with Israel gradually devolved into the same-old Israel whining.



			
				Bleach said:
			
		

> U.A.E.



Where they execute you for being gay. Huzzah!


----------



## Bleach (Jun 7, 2010)

Coteaz said:


> Syria
> Lebanon
> Iran
> Iraq
> ...



You are defining failure as "not giving anything but oil to the world" whereas the definition of fail is different in those countries. They, like every other country in the world, have no obligation to help the world in any manner and just because they don't, you are labeling them as failures.

It's like when Japan wanted to stay isolated even when it started to trade with the outside world. Calling them failures is hardly correct.




Megaharrison said:


> Where they execute you for being gay. Huzzah!



All the crap they have there makes up for that so itsk.


----------



## Almaseti (Jun 7, 2010)

Ishinoue said:


> Are you stupid or something?
> 
> Their Qur'an TELLS them to KILL AND HATE US. If they don't follow their religion they're not true Muslims.
> 
> ...



You are in no position to judge who is a "true" Muslim.  Do you follow every single line in the Bible?  All of them?  Like the ones about not sitting where a menstruating woman has sat, wearing only white, not wearing clothes with muxed fibers, handling snakes, and having as many babies as possible? I read a book a little while ago, about a guy who tried to spend a year living by everything in the Bible.  It was pretty interesting, but I don't think a sane person could reasonably do that all the time if they weren't getting paid for it.


----------



## WT (Jun 7, 2010)

I have nothing much to say. I understand their pain, however, it would be quite sick if oppositions to this mosque are using the tragic 9/11 incident as an excuse to prevent the builiding of this mosque. 

I wouldn't actually mind if the money used to construct this mosque was donated to Palestine or any other suffering nation instead.



Megaharrison said:


> Blaming Israel for all the worlds woes is a simple solution, I get it. But it is not the correct one. Unfortunately the issue is much more complex, and requires a harder look at the state of modern *Muslims* ...



Islam is not to blame. Its the muslims.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Jun 7, 2010)

I'm telling you we shouldn't be showing this idiotic side of the country by proving that portion of the community can't handle moving on after 9/11 and have to resort to their bigotry, its not worth anything


----------



## dreams lie (Jun 7, 2010)

Again, the mosque has every right to be built by ground zero.  I just wish that they could have shown some sensitivity because this is asking for negative press.


----------



## Xyloxi (Jun 7, 2010)

Ishinoue said:


> Who said I attempt it? Stop derailing the topic at hand. This isn't about Christianity. It's about how a Muslim group killed thousands in the name of Islam and are now going to have a Mosque built over the very grave of thousands of innocents.



For Christ sake it is not a Mosque, it's an interfaith community centre. It's to bring religions closer together, not take a dump on the graves of people, some of who were Muslim.



Bleach said:


> All the crap they have there makes up for that so itsk.



I seriously hope you're joking, if not what about the treatment of foreign labourers in the UAE? That's fairly hard to justify.



Ishinoue said:


> You're right. Not ALL Muslims hate and want to kill us despite their Qur'an telling them too.
> 
> Just this very large crowd of Muslims hate and want to kill us--making it the majority of Muslims that want to kill all, and I quote, and _"fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief [non-Muslims]) and all submit to the religion of Allah alone (in the whole world).?_
> 
> ...



You posted a video of religious intolerance, I can do the same but mine is funnier. 

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=euXQbZDwV0w&feature=related[/YOUTUBE]

According to this all Christians must hate homosexuals and want them killed, just because it says so in the Bible?


----------



## T4R0K (Jun 7, 2010)

Shit, all the hate here and stupidity makes me wish that every religious extremist of ANY religion would have his/her fucking holy war, so they'd kill each other.

God, I... I can't even take a side anymore ! Both sides of the problem make me want to kick their asses for being jerks or thoughtless idiots !

OK, I got a solution ! How about, in the name of peace, christians get to have a church build in Saudi Arabia, at least in Riyadh ? If the center is meant to fulfill a role remotely similar to a religious embassy, reciprocity should be respected, right ?

*God*... I'm really going to become an *atheist *if the shit 
piles up...

EDIT : OH LOL !!! Hehehehe ! I think I made a funny !


----------



## Bleach (Jun 7, 2010)

Ishinoue said:


> Stop bringing up Christianity. We're discussing how extreme Muslims killed thousands because the Qur'an told them too.
> 
> By the by, the bible doesn't say to hate Homosexuals we're told to hate the act and pray for them to stop acting on a sin. *We hate the sin not the sinner.* Get your facts straight.
> 
> ...


Yea and pray to 3 different Gods. Or wait, is it one God in 3 different forms? Makes sense.

But here, let me do what you did to me:

Those who bear bad fruit will be cut down and burned "with unquenchable fire." 3:10, 12

1) In Leviticus 25:44-46, the Lord tells the Israelites it’s OK to own slaves, provided they are strangers or heathens.

2) In Samuel 15:2-3, the Lord orders Saul to kill all the Amalekite men, women and infants.

3) In Exodus 15:3, the Bible tells us the Lord is a man of war.

4) In Numbers 31, the Lord tells Moses to kill all the Midianites, sparing only the virgins.

5) In Deuteronomy 13:6-16, the Lord instructs Israel to kill anyone who worships a different god or who worships the Lord differently.

6) In Mark 7:9, Jesus is critical of the Jews for not killing their disobedient children as prescribed by Old Testament law.

7) In Luke 19:22-27, Jesus orders killed anyone who refuses to be ruled by him.

1:31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them


And others.

So basically, in the Bible, God is the one being violent and He will carry out all the punishments.


----------



## Xyloxi (Jun 7, 2010)

Ishinoue said:


> Stop bringing up Christianity. We're discussing how extreme Muslims killed thousands because the Qur'an told them too.
> 
> By the by, the bible doesn't say to hate Homosexuals we're told to hate the act and pray for them to stop acting on a sin. *We hate the sin not the sinner.* Get your facts straight.
> 
> ...



I brought it up as you used the example of some Muslims saying something and justifying it that all Muslims believe it as it's in the Qur'an. I did the same by posting a video of Christians supporting a bill that would put homosexuals to death, do you see my point?

Does a certain book of Leviticus ring a bell?

Both books say some awful things, I am justifying neither, but the thing is times change. I'm friends with a couple of Muslims and they don't believe that non Muslims should be killed, nor does any other Muslim I know. Religion is very different according to where it is, for example Islam in Malaysia or Bosnia is highly different to Wahabbist views in Saudi Arabia.

Why is homosexuality even a sin in the first place? Its not like it hurts anyone.


----------



## Ennoea (Jun 7, 2010)

> Israel punking Palestine is, IMO, the prime reason for world wide radicalism of muslims.



Er wrong, Israel punking Egypt and others in the 6 day war is one of the catalysts that caused a huge wave of anti-Israel sentiment among the youth of the Middle East but doesn't even begin to be the reason for Islamic radicalism. Islamic fundamentalism was bubbling away for a very long time before that. I'd love to go in to this but just go read Looming Tower, it pretty much spells it all out.



> Why is homosexuality even a sin in the first place? Its not like it hurts anyone.



Because Christianity was invented.


----------



## WT (Jun 7, 2010)

T4R0K said:


> *God*... I'm really going to become an *atheist *if the shit
> piles up...



Go become an athiest. No one will care.


----------



## Bleach (Jun 7, 2010)

Ishinoue said:


> WH-AT? *_*



Trinity or w/e that lol stuff is.


----------



## Zabuzalives (Jun 7, 2010)

Aokiji said:


> Islam is one of the more tolerant religions you whore. How about taking some history or reading up on Voltaire?



That you can say this with a straight face....what should be done about apostates again? 


Islam is by far the most intolerant religion currently as far as believers go. 
Look up attitude polls, look the state of freedom and tolerance in their nations.  

And on par or worse as far as intolerance in the holy book compared to OT.  


If you look back at the dark ages they were more tolerant then Christianity yeah...but times have changed. 
And even then, they were intolerant, just not to the extent as the christians.


----------



## Zabuzalives (Jun 7, 2010)

T4R0K said:


> *God*... I'm really going to become an *atheist *if the shit
> piles up...
> 
> EDIT : OH LOL !!! Hehehehe ! I think I made a funny !



nah atheists also make a leap of faith. And can be the other side of the same blind and fanatical coin. 


Become agnostic. much better.


----------



## Xyloxi (Jun 7, 2010)

Zabuzalives said:


> That you can say this with a straight face....what should be done about apostates again?
> 
> 
> Islam is by far the most intolerant religion currently as far as believers go.
> ...



He made a distinct difference between Muslims and Islam, looking at Christianity a lot of Christian nations aren't that free or tolerant either. For example, take a look at somewhere like Uganda I'd pick Turkey over anywhere in Africa any day.




Zabuzalives said:


> nah atheists also make a leap of faith. And can be the other side of the same blind and fanatical coin.
> 
> 
> Become agnostic. much better.



Fanatical atheists are hardly as radical or violent as some religious fanatics, when was the last time someone killed others in the name of atheism?

@ Ishinoue: Why the hell is the Old Testament even in the Bible then? I could go and check my Bible and I'm quite sure I'll find the Old Testament there, so I don't see how you can really refute that.

In practise Islam and Christianity are hardly much better than each other, we just tend to associate Christianity with Europe and North America, which still has some terrible aspects to it e.g. some of the Orthodox church and all those crazy protestants in the Southern States.


----------



## Deimos (Jun 7, 2010)

Ishinoue said:


> But the Qur'an outright says to kill those who are not Muslims until they are all gone or have switched to their religion.
> 
> Do NOT put Christianity on the same level of the Qur'an and how it works.
> 
> ...



Oh my God. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Do you even realize how utterly ridiculous your claim is? Do you seriously believe that Muslims are ordered to kill non-believers? Oh let me guess! You saw somewhere on the web _"... slay them ..." - Qur'an <something>_. The prophet Muhammad (pbuh), being the prime example for Muslims, used to kill every non-believer (even some of his family, because not all of them believed in God!) he saw, right? Oh yeah, I know! My Muslim friends have to go on rampage at college because of the numbers of non-believers there! I just.. can't believe you'd think that there would be over a billion Muslims and new converts every day if the religion was about killing. I don't even want to explain how ignorant you must be if _you_ believe that any of the three monotheistic religions aren't on the same level. Here's my advice to you: before you bash a religion, try to study it seriously! You'd at least be able to bash it constructively. Seriously, the argument you're basing your opinion on is pitiful.

*tl;dr version*
The interpretation of the verse you're most likely referring to is completely screwed up because you're either 1) taking it out of context, or 2) don't have the necessary historical background to understand the context. Alternatively, you may simply suck.


----------



## WT (Jun 7, 2010)

Ishinoue said:


> Lmao, you seriously have no idea what you're talking about.
> 
> Here's where the Qur'an says to kill nonbelievers
> 
> ...



Go quote the 3 preceding verses and the 3 following verses of each of the verses you have mentioned above. We'll see how the meaning changes then.


----------



## Berserk (Jun 7, 2010)

ITT:  Somehow, Israel is found to be the root cause of why, non-secular Islamic nations fail and will continue to fail.

They can build the mosque, but not really helping their own cause by choosing such a controversial location.


----------



## Deimos (Jun 7, 2010)

Ishinoue said:


> Lmao, you seriously have no idea what you're talking about.
> 
> Here's where the Qur'an says to kill nonbelievers
> 
> ...



Perfect! Your argument has now evolved into 1) a hasty response, 2) a more extensive mindless copy-paste section (which, by the way, still completely eludes you as you've simply ignored the very relevant advice I gave you in my previous post) and 3) abusive language.

Do you even expect an answer?


----------



## Shasta McNasty (Jun 7, 2010)

This is exactly what Bin Laden wanted.


----------



## Adonis (Jun 7, 2010)

Zabuzalives said:


> nah atheists also make a leap of faith. And can be the other side of the same blind and fanatical coin.
> 
> 
> Become agnostic. much better.



There's no difference between what's commonly thought of as Atheism and Agnosticism beyond semantics. What's the practical distinction between "I don't believe in God" and "I believe God doesn't exist?" It's splitting hairs.

Not to mention that agnosticism is a epistemological stance that only addresses whether or not God's existence *can be known* rather than a stance on whether or not he does. Talking to an agnostic atheist, here.


----------



## mayumi (Jun 7, 2010)

aah, the AIPAC can't win them all, i see.


----------



## Petenshi (Jun 7, 2010)

Zabuzalives said:


> That you can say this with a straight face....what should be done about apostates again?
> 
> 
> Islam is by far the most intolerant religion currently as far as believers go.
> ...



The polls actually need to be taken with Educated Muslims, like say, those who are in western Countries. Correlation does not prove causation and The reason there are terrorists is not because of Islam but because of Brainwashing and lack of information in heavily concentrated Islamic countries. If there were less developed nations whose prime religion was Christianity, we would see the exact same influx of behavior. 

Instead of attacking Islam, we should be attacking ignorance. Lets start with yours.


----------



## Draffut (Jun 7, 2010)

Bleach said:


> Haha, you didn't use any of those things in context and just copy and pasted the Quran thinking that it would make you look like you know something.
> 
> .
> 
> Stop being a hypocrite please, in the case of talking big anyway.



Your lack of ANY counterpoint is sad.  

If you think the context discounts his arguement, prove it by showing this context.


----------



## Adonis (Jun 7, 2010)

Petenshi said:


> The polls actually need to be taken with Educated Muslims, like say, those who are in western Countries. Correlation does not prove causation and The reason there are terrorists is not because of Islam but because of Brainwashing and lack of information in heavily concentrated Islamic countries. If there were less developed nations whose prime religion was Christianity, we would see the exact same influx of behavior.



I'll actually grant you that "Blame Islam for terrorism" is a facile argument. People forgetting when the face of terrorism were Irish?

Social alienation and political posturing does more to produce gullible young men willing to die for ideology than the promise of 72 virgins ever could. Islam is merely the filter chosen to express their impotent martyr complexes and if not Islam, it would just as easily be Socialism or some other political rhetoric.



> Instead of attacking Islam, we should be attacking ignorance. Lets start with yours.



*back to form*

I'm not seeing the distinction.


----------



## Terra Branford (Jun 7, 2010)

Deimos said:


> **had to shorten, post was tooo long**
> 
> *tl;dr version*
> The interpretation of the verse you're most likely referring to is completely screwed up because you're either 1)* taking it out of context*, or 2) don't have the necessary historical background to understand the context. Alternatively, you may simply suck.



Um...how can she take what they *actually* say....out of context? 

Before you come in and start to post, any of you, you should really read up the Qu'ran and then read the Sura. The fact that you miss them saying they want to destroy kill non-believers, is proof enough that you don't have any idea what you are talking about. 

@Bleach:
How else is she suppose to provide facts to _yo_u? Is she suppose to kidnap a Muslim and make him or her, tell you that's what they want to do?

How else can she provide you facts if she's not allowed to copy and paste? Should she _revise_ what they say? Because if she does that, then her facts aren't very _valid_, now are they?

If this verse from the Qu'ran (parts I do believe, from the Sura.):

*Spoiler*: __ 






> *Kill non-believers*
> *4.89*: They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, *then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper.*



Hmmmm....what does that say?

Wow, I just keep comin' back with `em:


> *Smite the neck and cut fingertips of unbelievers*
> *8.12*: When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore *strike off their heads* and *strike off every fingertip of them.*


Still not violent? Should I go on?



> *Smite the neck of unbelievers
> 47.4:* So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners, and afterwards either set them free as a favor or let them ransom (themselves) until the war terminates. That (shall be so); and if Allah had pleased He would certainly have exacted what is due from them, but that He may try some of you by means of others; and (as for) those who are slain in the way of Allah, He will by no means allow their deeds to perish.


Annnnnnnnnnd:


> *Severe Punishment for non-believers
> 22.19:* These are two adversaries who dispute about their Lord; then (as to) those who disbelieve, for them are cut out garments of fire, boiling water shall be poured over their heads.
> 
> 22.20: With it shall be melted what is in their bellies and (their) skins as well.
> ...


Holy....shit....



> *Severe Punishment for atheists
> 10.4: *To Him is your return, of all (of you); the promise of Allah (made) in truth; surely He begins the creation in the first instance, then He reproduces it, that He may with justice recompense those who believe and do good; and (as for) those who disbelieve, they shall have a drink of hot water and painful punishment because they disbelieved.
> 
> 5.10: And (as for) those who disbelieve and reject our communications, these are the companions of the name.
> ...



Here, this one is verrrry long!

*Spoiler*: __ 





> Punishing non-believers of Hereafter
> 17.10 : And that (as for) those who do not believe in the hereafter, We have prepared for them a painful chastisement.
> 
> Punishing for rejecting faith
> ...











> Yea and pray to 3 different Gods. Or wait, is it one God in 3 different forms? Makes sense.





> Haha, you didn't use any of *those things in context and just copy and pasted the Quran thinking* that it would make you look like you know something.
> 
> Stop being a hypocrite please, in the case of talking big anyway.




Read up on Christianity before you start to post, please.
---->

Comparing Christianity to Muslim religion is `tarded. At least Christians allow the talk of other religions without punishment. At least we don't bomb each other and others. At least we don't threaten the lives of others if they don't devote themselves to God.....well, there are a few strays that a little crazy 



> Muslims *do not allow* scholarly study of religion, scientific research, the facts of history or philosophical debate to challenge Islam. Anything that questions or challenges the dogmas of Islam is "blasphemy", no matter how honest the enquiry. Anyone who wants to study the history of Islam cannot do so whilst living in a Muslim country as a Muslim. You can't point out that early compilations of Qur'anic texts are different to the ones we now have, you cannot point out that multiple verses in the Qur'an directly contradict scientific findings and that other verses get their history wrong: And you certainly can't question the motives of Muhammad nor his army. All of that is blasphemy.



If anyone says something about copin' and pastin', then what hell is the point of this obtuse little argument if we can't provide facts? Shall we make them up? Shall we lie? Shall we bring in fake believers of Qu'ran? Should I buy the Qu'ran, learn the language and then convert it to English for you? 

Should I find videos of Muslims raping women and killing non-believers?

P.S
Was that not enough proof of their violent religion and nature?


----------



## WT (Jun 7, 2010)

@Emma Bradley

Ok, lets sort this out. I'll give you one example and then, I want you to do your own research.

Here's one of the favourites:


> 2:191 And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out,



"This is evidence that Quran instructs every Muslim to kill the unbeliever wherever he finds them, to suggest anything otherwise would be stupid".

However, lets, look at the verse before this:


> 2:190 Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors.



Its become a little more clear. The "them" in 191 is now fully defined. We are talking about "them" who are already fighting against muslims right now, not the unbelievers who are not in war. It is also mentioned that Allah does not love the aggressors. 

Now lets _complete_ 191:


> 2:191 And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, *for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers.*



Stressing that if they attack first, then and only then fight back.

Now lets have a look at 192:



> 2:192 But if they desist, then lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.



This is self explanatory.

Now, 193:


> 2:193 And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrong-doers.



This tells us that we are allowed to end persecution, how violent of us. 

Essentially, these measures advocate counter terrorism not terrorism. 

Now, go do your research on every other violent quote. You will see the same pattern.


----------



## Almaseti (Jun 7, 2010)

Ishinoue said:


> Who said I attempt it? Stop derailing the topic at hand. This isn't about Christianity. It's about how a Muslim group killed thousands in the name of Islam and are now going to have a Mosque built over the very grave of thousands of innocents.



Again:  NOT A MOSQUE.  Interfaith community center.  NOT ON GROUND ZERO.  Near it.  

And for that matter, the people who want to build the COMMUNITY CENTER are not the people who carried out 9/11.

The point I was making is that you can't say that "real" whatevers follow every bit of everything in their holy book.  People interpret the same thing in a million different ways: go check out the Pairing Debate Thread in the HoU if you don't believe me. Just because one reading of it says one thing, doesn't mean that everyone's reading says the same thing, and every practitioner of a religion believes the same thing.

Not all Muslims want to kill everyone who isn't a Muslim.  This is a fact, and all the hatemongering videos in the world won't make it false.  Most of them are reasonable people who should be encouraged to contribute to society, not marginalized and protested at when they try to give back to the community.


----------



## Ceria (Jun 7, 2010)

misleading title is 

i thought they were parachuting into ground zero.


----------



## Terra Branford (Jun 7, 2010)

> Ok, lets sort this out. I'll give you one example and then, I want you to do your own research.


*Sigh*
That was my OWN research. How the hell do you think I got it? lol



> "This is evidence that Quran instructs every Muslim to kill the unbeliever wherever he finds them, to suggest anything otherwise would be stupid".
> 
> However, lets, look at the verse before this:
> Quote:
> ...



That -- I'm gonna call it prayer -- prayer is not saying "fight those who fought you first". They mean fight those who fight the Muslim religion (defy it and not follow the religion), not "fight those who attack you first".

Their religion calls for the death of non-believers, atheists and people who are "partially" believers. They kill people who believe a little bit...wow. 

How can you justify their actions? Just because you mis-understood verse 191 doesn't mean they don't kill off non-believers. Its said in Qu'ran (and int he Sura area of the book) that non-believers must DIE.

Yes, Allah says he doesn't like the violence, but the book then goes on talking about punishing those non-believers in a *Severe* way.

But I guess since 2:191 comes after 2:190, that means the ""slay non-believers" can be taken as more valid, correct?

Half of the Qu'ran tells the Muslims to KILL non-believers. I provided enough facts to proof it. 

That verse tells the Muslims that fighting them if they fight you, is another way of it being okay, to slay non-believers.

But if you are a non-believer, you are charged taxes, assuming you live _pass them KILLING YOU_ for not believing in Allah.



They talk about conquering us (the non-believers) and how justified 9'11 was. They think we had 9'11 coming to us.

If that or anything I pointed out above, does not convince you of their violence, then I don't know what will. 

----
First of all, it is in the radius of Ground Zero. Where victims of 9'11 died. You do know people didn't just die in the Trade Center, right? Pieces of building fell and crushed people, people died from inhaling smoke and various other life-threatening situations.



> Not all Muslims want to kill everyone who isn't a Muslim. This is a fact, and all the hatemongering videos in the world won't make it false. Most of them are reasonable people who should be encouraged to contribute to society, not marginalized and protested at when they try to give back to the community.



The people you are talking about aren't Muslims then, because the Muslim religion calls for the death of non-believers. Read Qu'ran, especially Sura.

P.S
Watch the movie:

Islam: What the west needs to know.

But that kind of proof probably won't convince you either, will it?

EDIT 2:
When watching the above, listen to "Bat Ye'or". She has some things to tell you guys who believe Muslim religion isn't violent.

"The origins are, of course, in the Muslim desire, is to oppress other religions and all other religions, that aren't that one religion, which is Islam."

The Muslims are obliged to obey the order of Allah, and Allah wishes for Non-believers to be suppressed and killed off so their religion (the only religion in their eyes) can dominate over everyone.

Here's a little something from the movie.


> * There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is his Prophet: In the first part, the experts who are interviewed argue that Islamic violence stems from the teachings and examples of Muhammad and that the Qu'ran prescribes and sanctions violence against non-Muslims.
> * The Struggle: In the second part, Walid Shoebat discusses the meaning of Jihad as holy war against the non-Muslim world to bring it under the rule of Islam.
> * Expansion: In the third part, Robert Spencer describes the expansion of Islam through conquest and presents evidence of enslavement and massacres of Christians, Jews, and Zoroastrians by the Muslim invaders.
> * War is Deceit: In the fourth part, Robert Spencer and Serge Trifkovic discuss the Islamic principle of Taqiyya, Islamic dissimulation, which the lecturers argue, enjoins Muslims to deceive non-Muslims in order to advance the cause of Islam.
> ...





> You were told just after 9/11(by Bush, Blair, Rice and many other leaders and politicians of the world) that Muslims are a peaceful people and the actions of a few extremists should not be blamed on Islam
> , but if you look close enough and read through many verses from the Koran
> you will see that its not a peaceful religion at all, in fact it promotes the use of "Jihad" against the non-believers or "infidels" as Christians and Jews are called. It promotes beheading as punishment for those who do not convert to Islam.





> This is a passage taken from the book "The life of Muhammad" which reads.....
> 
> "Sahi Bukhari Volume 5, Book 59, Number 448
> So Allah's Apostle went to them (i.e. Banu Quraiza) (i.e. besieged them). They then surrendered to the Prophet's judgment (unconditionally after 25 days of fierce resistance) but he directed them to Sad (ally) to give his verdict concerning them. Sad said, "I give my judgment that their warriors should be killed, their women and children should be taken as captives, and their properties distributed."
> ...



In Qu'ran, Allah is very clear that they are instructed to invite those non-believers and Christans and Jews, to battle if they refuse to follow the order of Allah. If refused, the Muslims are instructed by Allah to kill those non-believers.

So they are to kill the Kaa Faa Raa, aka, the non-believers.


----------



## Deimos (Jun 7, 2010)

Emma Bradley said:


> *Sigh*
> That was my OWN research. How the hell do you think I got it? lol



I'm pretty sure he meant _research_, not going through a list of verses taken out of context (I trust you understand what I mean by context this time) from a site bashing Islam.



Emma Bradley said:


> That -- I'm gonna call it prayer -- prayer is not saying "fight those who fought you first". They mean fight those who fight the Muslim religion (defy it and not follow the religion), not "fight those who attack you first".



Tell us what it means after properly studying the verse, the context and the historical events surrounding the moment this verse was revealed to the prophet Muhammad (pbuh).



Emma Bradley said:


> Their religion calls for the death of non-believers, atheists and people who are "partially" believers. They kill people who believe a little bit...wow.



Based on what? A list of verses you found on a website calling Muslims terrorists?



Emma Bradley said:


> How can you justify their actions? Just because you mis-understood verse 191 doesn't mean they don't kill off non-believers. Its said in Qu'ran (and int he Sura area of the book) that non-believers must DIE.



In the what?

Justify what actions? I lived for 15 years in KSA and went to a French school with a majority of non-believers. I don't recall any Saudi police busting in and laying waste to my friends.



Emma Bradley said:


> Yes, Allah says he doesn't like the violence, but the book then goes on talking about punishing those non-believers in a *Severe* way.



Allah says He doesn't like men-men violence. He never says anything about god-men violence. This is a widely accepted principle in order enforcement. According to several laws, you, as a civilian, should avoid resorting to violence against your fellow civilians. However, the rulers of the land, as the enforcers of order, retain the right to resort to violence as they deem necessary.



Emma Bradley said:


> Half of the Qu'ran tells the Muslims to KILL non-believers. I provided enough facts to proof it.



You've listed a total of 32 verses (approximately). Given that the number of verses in the Qur'an is over 6,000, you can't really claim that you've provided enough facts to prove that half of it tells Muslims to kill non-believers.



Emma Bradley said:


> That verse tells the Muslims that fighting them if they fight you, is another way of it being okay, to slay non-believers.
> 
> But if you are a non-believer, you are charged taxes, assuming you live _pass them KILLING YOU_ for not believing in Allah.



As a citizen, you must abide by the laws established by the country (or just leave). Aren't you paying taxes now? The tax you're referring to is the non-believers' contribution to the country. Muslims contribute in other ways, such as defending the country when it's under attack.



Emma Bradley said:


> The people you are talking about aren't Muslims then, because the Muslim religion calls for the death of non-believers. Read Qu'ran, especially Sura.



Oh now I get it! You think "Sura" refers to a specific part of the Qur'an. The word is just a transliteration from Arabic and it basically means chapter. Doesn't your "research" inspire respect now?


----------



## Terra Branford (Jun 7, 2010)

> Based on what? A list of verses you found on a website calling Muslims terrorists?


Actually, I got it out of my copy of Qu'ran, understand? I just used many sites to translate it lol 

Here is another I found in Qu'ran's book, the verse is titled "Verse of the sword"


> When the forbidden months are over, kill the non-believers where ever you find them. Allah clearly stated that there will be many who will not follow faith, kill them and bring war.





> Allah says He doesn't like men-men violence. He never says anything about god-men violence. This is a widely accepted principle in order enforcement. According to several laws, you, as a civilian, should avoid resorting to violence against your fellow civilians. However, the rulers of the land, as the enforcers of order, retain the right to resort to violence as they deem necessary.


Then you do not know the Qu'ran like I do. You don't understand Allah, you cannot understand anything pointed out in my posts. You are wasting my time.

That's as best as I could translate, but how can you black out "kill". The Muslim are only _peaceful_ to their Muslim neighbors. 



> You've listed a total of 32 verses (approximately). Given that the number of verses in the Qur'an is over 6,000, you can't really claim that you've provided enough facts to prove that half of it tells Muslims to kill non-believers.


If I could double post, I'd provide them all, but since I can't, I'm trying to point out to you, how violent they are. Allah, their God, tells them to KILL non-believers where ever they can find them. Please, please, please, please, please read the Qu'ran before you start talking. 



> As a citizen, you must abide by the laws established by the country (or just leave). Aren't you paying taxes now? The tax you're referring to is the non-believers' contribution to the country. Muslims contribute in other ways, such as defending the country when it's under attack.


Believers aren't treated like non-believers. Kaa Faa Raa are treated as slaves, as said in Qu'ran, and are forced to pay higher taxes. Again, read Qu'ran. 



> Oh now I get it! You think "Sura" refers to a specific part of the Qur'an. The word is just a transliteration from Arabic and it basically means chapter. Doesn't your "research" inspire respect now?



*How many times did I point out that I don't know what to call sections? s

You really need to learn to pay attention. See, I'm not Muslim, but I do have a copy of Qu'ran, so I wouldn't know what to call certain parts -- chapters.

Plus, didn't I say read that "Sura" part when I was providing verses?*

Please Deimos, go read the Qu'ran before you try and act all cool, because you've already proven to me, you know nothing of Muslim religion. 

*Note: Its nice how you ignore all of the violence of their religion I just provided. 

*I will be editing posts with more verses and proof.


----------



## Arishem (Jun 7, 2010)

Zabuzalives said:


> nah atheists also make a leap of faith. And can be the other side of the same blind and fanatical coin.
> 
> 
> Become agnostic. much better.



If one negative thing can be said about atheism, it's that it makes one claim that can't absolutely be proven: That god or gods don't exist. If only that were the case for religion. Religions make thousands of such claims without evidence. Not only does god exist, but it wants you to do certain things, and there will be metaphysical consequences depending on what you do; the two aren't even remotely comparable. At least the evidence gathered by science shows the lack of an intelligible purpose in the universe's workings. 

That being said, I don't really give a shit about the Mosque, but the investors behind the project must have some really good PR people.


----------



## TSC (Jun 7, 2010)

lol at the drama here. I'd like show how emotionally sensitive and irrational some of these protesters can get from an article in my newspaper. especially the second bold paragraph.





> NEW YORK — Richie Mitzner of Fort Lee revved up his motorcycle and headed for Ground Zero on Sunday to proudly declare himself an "American Infidel."
> Some of the protesters, above, at Ground Zero on Sunday carried placards decrying plans for a mosque two blocks away. At right, Richie Mitzner of Fort Lee boasted of being a 'proud American infidel.'
> 
> Some of the protesters, above, at Ground Zero on Sunday carried placards decrying plans for a mosque two blocks away. At right, Richie Mitzner of Fort Lee boasted of being a 'proud American infidel.'
> ...


----------



## Deimos (Jun 7, 2010)

Emma Bradley said:


> Believers aren't treated like non-believers. Kaa Faa Raa are treated as slaves, as said in Qu'ran, and are forced to pay higher taxes. Again, read Qu'ran.



Did you even read what I wrote? Non-believers pay taxes, Muslims go to war. Non-believers don't have to risk their lives in battle. Instead, they pay taxes. This hardly makes them slaves.



Emma Bradley said:


> *You really need to learn to pay attention. See, I'm not Muslim, but I do have a copy of Qu'ran, so I wouldn't know what to call certain parts -- chapters.*



You have a copy of the Qur'an, why not call chapters by their names?



Emma Bradley said:


> *Plus, didn't I say read that "Sura" part when I was providing verses?*



You wrote: _"Read Qu'ran, especially Sura."_. This clearly implies that "Sura" refers to a specific part in the Qur'an in an unambiguous manner. That's not the case, as what you said just means: Read Qur'an, especially chapter.

I don't think I'm the one looking bad here!


----------



## Terra Branford (Jun 7, 2010)

Also, this is at silly little Deimos.

Do you get to pick and choose which verses of Qu'ran to use? You guys like to point out the "peaceful" verses, but you ignore the 90% of violent verses in Qu'ran?

Do you know that Allah came to non-believers and said "This land belongs to me." and he goes on, or was it his follower who said this? "If you don't follow mine word, I shall expel you from this land, because this world and land, belongs to Allah. You can sell your land and be expelled*I couldn't translate the rest of this lol*" 

Also, Allah tells his followers to deceive non-believers so that one day, so the Qu'ran says, to spring up and bring the word of Allah down on all non-believers.

Allah also said to the Muslims to bring ransom and bloodshed to captured non-believers, so that they get enough bloodshed as they can, out of their situation. 

Allah ordered the Muslims to attack other countries until they submit and obey the order of Allah.

*I'm still translating, but I shall get more up later.


----------



## Terra Branford (Jun 7, 2010)

Deimos, I'm translating and I'm not a master at it, why can't you look up the Qu'ran and stop being so ignorant? 



> You wrote: "Read Qu'ran, especially Sura.". This clearly implies that "Sura" refers to a specific part in the Qur'an in an unambiguous manner. That's not the case, as what you said just means: Read Qur'an, especially chapter.
> 
> I don't think I'm the one looking bad here!



I made a error in my post and forgot the "this" part before the "Sura" 
*I clearly said latter to read the sections I was referring to*. If you can't read right, then don't come into this thread wishing to create spam to increase your post count. 

You have provided nothing to further your point in this debate, you have just posted silliness of an error I made in my sentence.

But yes, I was the one that made a slight error, yet you continue to ignore all my posts. You really have nothing do you? You cann't fight to prove Muslims aren't violent, so you....post _nothing_ that isn't relevant to this subject and would like to point out...I mistranslated and did not know the _perfect_ meaning of "Sura"?



> At one point, a portion of the crowd menacingly surrounded two Egyptian men who were speaking Arabic and were thought to be Muslims.
> 
> "Go home," several shouted from the crowd.
> 
> ...



If I were there, I would have attacked (verbally) the ones insinuating and messing with the Egyptian men. That was wrong of them


----------



## Spirit (Jun 7, 2010)

The Pink Ninja said:


> Who cares what the religious texts say? At best it's a rough guide to how a community of believers will act.
> 
> I don't care what the Quran says on insulting the prophet Mohammed. I care about what Muslims actual do: Issues fatwas, hunt cartoonists and murder film makers. Also I find it a bad sign that seemingly moderate Muslims seek to either justify these or endorse them.
> 
> See: This forum



Wow what happened to you. You made agreeable sense.


----------



## Deimos (Jun 7, 2010)

Emma Bradley said:


> *I'm still translating, but I shall get more up later.



Translating what? The Qur'an? It's been translated times and times already. As a master of the web, it should be easy for you to find an English version somewhere!



Emma Bradley said:


> I made a error in my post and forgot the "this" part before the "Sura"
> *I clearly said latter to read the sections I was referring to*. If you can't read right, then don't come into this thread wishing to create spam to increase your post count.



I think you can tell by my join date and post count that I'm not this type of poster.



Emma Bradley said:


> You have provided nothing to further your point in this debate, you have just posted silliness of an error I made in my sentence.
> 
> But yes, I was the one that made a slight error, yet you continue to ignore all my posts. You really have nothing do you? You cann't fight to prove Muslims aren't violent, so you....post _nothing_ that isn't relevant to this subject and would like to point out...I mistranslated and did not know the _perfect_ meaning of "Sura"?



No. The reason I decided to post in this thread is the amount of sheer ignorance members like you or Ishinoue have displayed. Your attacks towards Islam constitute a misguided behavior resulting from both the Muslims' failure to correctly understand and apply their religion and the abundant erroneous or biased information available on the web.

If you honestly wish to offer people a thoughtful, solidly backed-up and objective assessment of Islam, it's going to take you much more than a few minutes (or hours) of research. If you want my advice, I suggest that you start by reading about the life of the prophet Muhammad (pbuh). You'll understand Islam much more easily through him than through the Qur'an.


----------



## Terra Branford (Jun 7, 2010)

> Translating what? The Qur'an? It's been translated times and times already. As a master of the web, it should be easy for you to find an English version somewhere!


But you are whining like a baby claiming I'm getting what I brought from "Muslim haters". Which is it? To use the web or not to use it! Make up your mind!



> I think you can tell by my join date and post count that I'm not this type of poster.


Obviously you are, still nothing respective to this thread's topic, or to my posts.



> No. The reason I decided to post in this thread is the amount of sheer ignorance members like you or Ishinoue have displayed. Your attacks towards Islam constitute a misguided behavior resulting from both the Muslim's failure to correctly understand and apply their religion and the abundant erroneous or biased information available on the web.
> 
> If you honestly wish to offer people a thoughtful, solidly backed-up and objective assessment of Islam, it's going to take you much more than a few minutes (or hours) of research. If you want my advice, I suggest that you start by reading about the life of the prophet Muhammad (pbuh). You'll understand Islam much more easily through him than through the Qur'an.


Oh snap....did you seriously just tell me to go and read the Life of Muhammad? I know what he has done by reading the Qu'ran, the book of God, to the Muslims.

Please, answer me this right now, have you've read Qu'ran? Have you've read the Islamic laws? Do you even know anything about Muslims? Or their religion?

You have nothing to give to this thread *laughs*


----------



## Mintaka (Jun 7, 2010)

You guys who negged me didn't read my post in the correct context.  You guys are just so ignorant.


----------



## Terra Branford (Jun 7, 2010)

I didn't neg you did I? 'Cause I don't remember readin' your posts. 
*goes to look*


----------



## Deimos (Jun 7, 2010)

Emma Bradley said:


> But you are whining like a baby claiming I'm getting what I brought from "Muslim haters". Which is it? To use the web or not to use it! Make up your mind!



If you get your translation from "Muslim haters", I might indeed not like it. Although the haters are numerous, there are still parts of the web that have the courtesy of remaining neutral. Use your master skills to unveil them!



Emma Bradley said:


> Oh snap....did you seriously just tell me to go and read the Life of Muhammad? I know what he has done by reading the Qu'ran, the book of God, to the Muslims.



You just seem to further display how little you know about the Qur'an with every reply.

Just.. no. You _don't_ know what Muhammad (pbuh) has done by reading the Qur'an. Do you know what Sunnah is? Do you know what Hadith is? I really feel bad for you here. You're making huge mistakes. This is taking a lot from your credibility, as much as I attempt to trust that you're honest.



Emma Bradley said:


> Please, answer me this right now, have you've read Qu'ran? Have you've read the Islamic laws? Do you even know anything about Muslims? Or their religion?



How about a yes?



Emma Bradley said:


> You have nothing to give to this thread *laughs*



If that's what you believe, then at least I have nothing _bad_ to give, like some of the posters here. Just try not to fall in this category.


----------



## Mintaka (Jun 7, 2010)

> If you get your translation from "Muslim haters", I might indeed not  like it. Although the haters are numerous, there are still parts of the  web that have the courtesy of remaining neutral. Use your master skills  to unveil them!


You mean skeptics right?

OH NOES THEY DON'T AGREE WITH YOU!!  OBVIOUSLY THEY MUST BE HATERZ!1111


----------



## Terra Branford (Jun 7, 2010)

> If you get your translation from "Muslim haters", I might indeed not like it. Although the haters are numerous, there are still parts of the web that have the courtesy of remaining neutral. Use your master skills to unveil them!


But you claimed my verses were from Muslim haters, at least remember what you say. lol



> Just.. no. You don't know what Muhammad (pbuh) has done by reading the Qur'an. Do you know what Sunnah is? Do you know what Hadith is? I really feel bad for you here. You're making huge mistakes. This is taking a lot from your credibility, as much as I attempt to trust that you're honest.


I get the basics of it, ya, but Qu'ran tells you want you need to know about their religion. 



> How about a yes?


Recite a verse for me. No, no, prove it to me. And don't use the internet to cheat and find verses. 



> If that's what you believe, then at least I have nothing bad to give, like some of the posters here. Just try not to fall in this category.


Wow, still nothing against what I posted? Come on, you read the Qu'ran, bring something to this.

Otherwise, you are a waste of both my time and space in this thread.


----------



## Deimos (Jun 7, 2010)

Tokoyami said:


> You mean skeptics right?
> 
> OH NOES THEY DON'T AGREE WITH YOU!!  OBVIOUSLY THEY MUST BE HATERZ!1111



I borrowed the term "Muslim haters" from Emma. If you don't want to bother looking back, it just refers to a biased source.



Emma Bradley said:


> But you claimed my verses were from Muslim haters, at least remember what you say. lol



I blamed you for pasting verses without accompanying them with an objective and thorough analysis. I never blamed you regarding the translation itself.



Emma Bradley said:


> Recite a verse for me. No, no, prove it to me. And don't use the internet to cheat and find verses.



If it can make you happy, here I go.

*A`uzu billahi min ash-shaytan ar-rajim;

Allahu as-samad. - Surat Al-Falaq, second verse*

The first line is just an introductory phrase you should say before reciting a random verse from the Qur'an.

Was that okay?



Emma Bradley said:


> Wow, still nothing against what I posted? Come on, you read the Qu'ran, bring something to this.



There is nothing for me to seriously discuss, as you've failed to provide a constructive argument to begin with.


----------



## Mintaka (Jun 7, 2010)

Baised eh?

Care to show us to these baised sources of yours?


----------



## Terra Branford (Jun 7, 2010)

Deimos said:


> I borrowed the term "Muslim haters" from Emma. If you don't want to bother looking back, it just refers to a biased source.



You, if you can even recall, said the verses I was bringing were from "Muslim hating sites".

I took what you said to me, unless you edited your posts 



> Baised eh?
> 
> Care to show us to these baised sources of yours?



Don't even bother, he or she, can't comprehend anything said to him...or her.


----------



## Deimos (Jun 7, 2010)

Tokoyami said:


> Baised eh?
> 
> Care to show us to these baised sources of yours?



They're not mine. They're Emma's. Ask her.



Emma Bradley said:


> You, if you can even recall, said the verses I was bringing were from "Muslim hating sites".
> 
> I took what you said to me, unless you edited your posts



I said "bashing Islam" and "calling Muslims terrorists", both of which are different from "Muslim haters" and are an appropriate description of the likely sources.



Emma Bradley said:


> Don't even bother, he or she, can't comprehend anything said to him...or her.



Oh, that's too bad I guess!

Edit: Oh and my previous post has been updated to take into account Emma's.


----------



## Terra Branford (Jun 7, 2010)

> They're not mine. They're Emma's. Ask her.




You can't read my posts, can you? Are they in another language? Should I translate to another language for you?

I NEVER SAID ANYTHING WAS BIASED! YOU DID! 

Better now?

And no, you didn't say "bashing Islam" and "Calling Muslims terrorists". Unless you edited your post, this is what you said....Oh damn, I just looked at the post, you *did* edit your post *sigh*

Well, I guess I can't prove that anymore lol

But you said my verses were coming from a Muslim hating site, indicating that my facts were biased and then you started crying about it. So I went and got *my copy* of Qu'ran, but you ended up crying about that *too*. 

I guess its safe to say I won against you, since you can't provide anything worth while.


----------



## Deimos (Jun 7, 2010)

Emma Bradley said:


> You can't read my posts, can you? Are they in another language? Should I translate to another language for you?
> 
> I NEVER SAID ANYTHING WAS BIASED! YOU DID!
> 
> Better now?



I never said the contrary. I did claim that your sources were biased. However, they are still yours. I can't show them to Tokoyami because I don't have them. He doesn't really need to ask you though. He can just go back and check your posts. I think it'd be clear to anyone even reasonably honest.



Emma Bradley said:


> And no, you didn't say "bashing Islam" and "Calling Muslims terrorists". Unless you edited your post, this is what you said....Oh damn, I just looked at the post, you *did* edit your post *sigh*
> 
> Well, I guess I can't prove that anymore lol



That's not true. If I had edited my post, you'd be able to see it. It would be written at the bottom.



Emma Bradley said:


> But you said my verses were coming from a Muslim hating site, indicating that my facts were biased and then you started crying about it. So I went and got *my copy* of Qu'ran, but you ended up crying about that *too*.



I have already stated that I never blamed you for the actual translation(s) used. I blamed you for the lack of analysis.



Emma Bradley said:


> I guess its safe to say I won against you, since you can't provide anything worth while.



Indeed you have! I have completely lost interest in this. Congratulations!


----------



## Zabuzalives (Jun 8, 2010)

Xyloxi said:


> He made a distinct difference between Muslims and Islam,



No he did not. 

He was simply selective in picking out the age in which to start comparing. 




Xyloxi said:


> looking at Christianity a lot of Christian nations aren't that free or tolerant either. For example, take a look at somewhere like Uganda I'd pick Turkey over anywhere in Africa any day.



again being selective then, taking the best of islam vs the worst of christianity nationwise. 

Stop your knee jerk political correctness and open your eyes. 



Xyloxi said:


> Fanatical atheists are hardly as radical or violent as some religious fanatics, when was the last time someone killed others in the name of atheism?



first i did not state they were violent. 
But i see them act like jehova's witnesses. 

and try all those atheist communists with their ""religion is poison"". 





Adonis said:


> There's no difference between what's commonly thought of as Atheism and Agnosticism beyond semantics. What's the practical distinction between "I don't believe in God" and "I believe God doesn't exist?" It's splitting hairs.



these semantics are needed to root the ""there is no God"" from the ""its unlikely/i dont believe but accept the possibility"" 

Its of importance because the first apply a leap of faith themselves...and contrary to their claim of being rational and scientific...are acting contrary to scientific principles. 






Petenshi said:


> The polls actually need to be taken with Educated Muslims, like say, those who are in western Countries.



which still show a higher support for terrorism and intolerance. 

you do realize that many radicals are not generally the poorest?  





Petenshi said:


> Correlation does not prove causation



When a holy book is full of rather intolerant views and sayings towards ""unbelievers"" and ""apostates"" your a fucking moron to think it has no effect. 



Petenshi said:


> and The reason there are terrorists is not because of Islam but because of Brainwashing and lack of information in heavily concentrated Islamic countries.



and the believers form and shape a religion. They decide on interpretations and practice. 

as such, a religion can generally become more or less tolerant...depending on its believers interpretations. 



Petenshi said:


> If there were less developed nations whose prime religion was Christianity, we would see the exact same influx of behavior. .



being poor has an influence on the popularity of radicalism but does not explain it alone. 

look at saudi arabia, look at home-grown terrorists. 



Petenshi said:


> Instead of attacking Islam, we should be attacking ignorance. Lets start with yours.



as i have shown in this post...you are the one full of ignorance. 

I can man up and say that ""christianity"" as in general interpretation of christianity was one of the most intolerant religions in the dark ages. 

yet political correctness stops you from having the same objective observation on other religions.....sad. 

How am I attacking Islam, when I view it can go through the same moderisation as general christianity??? Seeing believers shape a religion...


----------



## T4R0K (Jun 8, 2010)

Zabuzalives said:


> nah atheists also make a leap of faith. And can be the other side of the same blind and fanatical coin.
> 
> 
> Become agnostic. much better.


I admit I said that out of annoyance at the debate between both sides that is, gotta admit, tiring... Like saying you're atheist just to piss your religious parents.

And I already feel agnostic, just that ishinoue pissed me off on the same level as some apologists of the other side, and not providing anything constructive. 

In case of a religious world war, as I once said and now repeat, I'd reject both sides, build a wooden house in a remote place, and place a huge minefield around and shoot any trespassee I wouldn't like. 

Yeah, I know it'd be becoming a redneck...


----------



## Stalin (Jun 8, 2010)

I have nothing against the muslims but building a mosque on ground zero is an awkard thing to do and brings up painful memories.


----------



## Xyloxi (Jun 8, 2010)

Zabuzalives said:


> No he did not.
> 
> He was simply selective in picking out the age in which to start comparing.
> 
> ...



My point was Islam and Christianity can be just as bad as each other, I don't particularly like either of them being an agnostic.



> Stop your knee jerk political correctness and open your eyes.



I'm not being politically correct, I couldn't care less about either religion personally. I think a lot of the time they're both quite ridiculous, so I'd hardly say I'm being politically correct there. 





> first i did not state they were violent.
> But i see them act like jehova's witnesses.
> 
> and try all those atheist communists with their ""religion is poison"".



Fair point, people like Richard Dawkins do have that manner of speech, but they make some sense despite being quite rude.

Those people did not kill in the name of atheism, nor where they communists, there is no way you can actually call the Soviet Union under someone like Stalin a communist state. I'm not going any further into that as I'd just be derailing the thread.


----------



## Mintaka (Jun 8, 2010)

> nah atheists also make a leap of faith. And can be the other side of the  same blind and fanatical coin.
> 
> 
> Become agnostic. much better.


I suspect you knew this already but Gnosticism and theism are two different things that are not mutually exclusive.


----------



## DragonJ (Jun 8, 2010)

Zabuzalives said:


> nah atheists also make a leap of faith. And can be the other side of the same blind and fanatical coin.



There is close to (if not exactly) zero credible evidence of the existence of any of the gods claimed by the various religions.

Therefore there is no reason to believe in any of them.

I fail to see this leap of faith.

---

People who don't want to see this "mosque" (protip: it's not a mosque) built because of the Muslim religion are misguided.

The real reason to not build it is because we don't need any more spreading of ignorance in the world.


----------



## WT (Jun 8, 2010)

Emma Bradley said:


> *Sigh*
> That was my OWN research. How the hell do you think I got it? lol



Went to biased sources, became indoctrinated by inhereting their opinons without thought?



> That -- I'm gonna call it prayer -- prayer is not saying "fight those who fought you first". They mean fight those who fight the Muslim religion (defy it and not follow the religion), not "fight those who attack you first".



Even though the verses says otherwise, even though the greatest Islamic tafsirs say otherswise, even though scholars who have studied the Quran in Arabic for 30 odd years say otherwise, you still don't want to believe it? This is just pathetic. Besides, history is a great evidence for this. If muslims wanted to fight and kill unbelievers who had no ties to them anywhere and everywhere, believe me, more damage would have been done. 

These verses are simple. They advocate violence *only if* another party attacks you first, comes to your land, starts killing your innocent people and so on. However, it goes on to state that once these people are dealt with, stop. Allah does not love the aggressors. 

Its like you're just putting your fingers in your ears and singing la la la.  



> Their religion calls for the death of non-believers, atheists and people who are "partially" believers. They kill people who believe a little bit...wow.



In the Quran, its only during a state of war. People who "partially believe", I presume are the hypcrites. Historically, they did cause damage to Islam.



> How can you justify their actions? Just because you mis-understood verse 191 doesn't mean they don't kill off non-believers.



You are the only one who misunderstood these verses. 



> Yes, Allah says he doesn't like the violence, but the book then goes on talking about punishing those non-believers in a *Severe* way.



The Quran was sent as a warning. Naturally a warning will highlight the punishment for those who refuse to believe. Its more of a deterrence. 



> But I guess since 2:191 comes after 2:190, that means the ""slay non-believers" can be taken as more valid, correct?



Elaborate. I don't understand what you are trying to say. 



> Half of the Qu'ran tells the Muslims to KILL non-believers. I provided enough facts to proof it.



Again, only with a special condition. Secondly, its not half of the Quran. Half of the Quran is much longer than what you previously posted. 



> That verse tells the Muslims that fighting them if they fight you, is another way of it being okay, to slay non-believers.



I guess all the American and Israeli etc policies are also there to cause terror. I mean, if they attack those who attack them, then according to your logic, they must be advocating violence right? 



> But if you are a non-believer, you are charged taxes, assuming you live _pass them KILLING YOU_ for not believing in Allah.



 ... "live pass them KILLING YOU". This is just getting hilarous now. You are utterly pathetic and hopeless. If that actually happened, and Muslims did exactly what you say, then I don't see how these tribes would actually manage to survive Muslim attacks since it would be the purpose of Muslims to go out and kill the unbelievers. 




> They talk about conquering us (the non-believers) and how justified 9'11 was. They think we had 9'11 coming to us.



They are not us. They are not representative of all Muslims. Besides, poverty and oppression has also played a major role in terrorism. 



> If that or anything I pointed out above, does not convince you of their violence, then I don't know what will.



By your standards, everyone is violent. I mean anyone who actually defends themself is violent. Wow.

I'm not going to bother with the rest of your post because you have consistently regurgitated the same bullshit over and over again.


----------



## Kage no Yume (Jun 8, 2010)

Aokiji said:


> If even Voltaire think muslims are cool for not slaughtering non-muslims for not being one of them, it's pretty much a statement.




Sudan begs to differ.  

And this wasn't some ancient Crusade, but a frighteningly recent display of genocide.


----------



## Psycho (Jun 8, 2010)

my only comment: ignorant pigs


----------



## Banhammer (Jun 8, 2010)

I have mixed feelings about this. On one hand, they really shouldn't, on another..


> The project calls for a 13-story community center including a mosque, performing art center, gym, swimming pool and other public spaces.



It's an amazing public space.


----------



## maj1n (Jun 8, 2010)

sesshomaru said:
			
		

> Even though the verses says otherwise, even though the greatest Islamic tafsirs say otherswise, even though scholars who have studied the Quran in Arabic for 30 odd years say otherwise, you still don't want to believe it? This is just pathetic. Besides, history is a great evidence for this. If muslims wanted to fight and kill unbelievers who had no ties to them anywhere and everywhere, believe me, more damage would have been done.
> 
> These verses are simple. They advocate violence only if another party attacks you first, comes to your land, starts killing your innocent people and so on. However, it goes on to state that once these people are dealt with, stop. Allah does not love the aggressors.


Which tafsir's have you read? i can readily cite Ibn Kathir and his Tafsir that explains how those verses give a clear order to kill any non-muslim that does not accept Islam or Islamic rule.

But perhaps even scholars disagree with each other, perhaps we should ask *your prophet*

_It has been reported from Sulaiman b. Buraid through his father that when the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) appointed anyone as leader of an army or detachment he would especially exhort him to fear Allah and to be good to the Muslims who were with him. He would say*: Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah*. Make a holy war
...
*If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them.*_
-http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/muslim/019.smt.html#019.4294


Does whoever you cite, overrule Muhammad about Islam?

And believe me, enough damage has been done by the wars by Islam, the WHOLE of the middle-east (you know, a pretty big land-mass), the whole slavery thing, the whole invade Spain thing, the whole Ottoman Empire siding with Germany in one of the big World Wars.

Malaysia, Afghanistan, Pakistan to some extent, Iran, Saudi Arabia.

List goes on really.


----------



## the box (Jun 8, 2010)

Ishinoue said:


> Pretty much these two posts are made of win.



^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".).......


----------



## Aokiji (Jun 8, 2010)

Invading Spain has actually done more good than harm, sniping or not.


----------



## Chibibaki (Jun 8, 2010)

Xyloxi said:


> Those people did not kill in the name of atheism, nor where they communists, there is no way you can actually call the Soviet Union under someone like Stalin a communist state. I'm not going any further into that as I'd just be derailing the thread.



Um, you are aware that on 3 April 1922, Stalin had been named the General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union right? This is just one example. 

The soviet union were professed communists before and after Stalin. Its not like its up for discussion.

Seriously...


----------



## Xyloxi (Jun 8, 2010)

Chibibaki said:


> Um, you are aware that on 3 April 1922, Stalin had been named the General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union right? This is just one example.
> 
> The soviet union were professed communists before and after Stalin. Its not like its up for discussion.
> 
> Seriously...



They were Communist in name only, what sort of equality was there in the soviet union or workers rights? The Soviet Union was a Communist state, but as a matter of fact they were not communist in reality as there is a difference between a Communist state and communism itself.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 8, 2010)

People whining about them having a right. This is America and we have right to protest any fucking thing we want. So I think these people are in the right, this was a stupid tasteless decision and I hope they learn why it was now. They should have thought that this through better.


----------



## Aokiji (Jun 8, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> People whining about them having a right. This is America and we have right to protest any fucking thing we want. So I think these people are in the right, this was a stupid tasteless decision and I hope they learn why it was now. They should have thought that this through better.



Technically, picketing funerals is within people's rights too.


----------



## Elim Rawne (Jun 8, 2010)

Aokiji said:


> Technically, picketing funerals is within people's rights too.



That is legal, too


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 8, 2010)

Aokiji said:


> Technically, picketing funerals is within people's rights too.


What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? 

Look if you want to make an argument, go on and try your luck. But don't waste my time with snide remarks that don't go anywhere.


----------



## Aokiji (Jun 8, 2010)

They go somewhere: you brought the tired adage that it was within their rights so we should stop complaining about it, when in fact, there are many protests that have a scumbaggerish agenda despite being legal.

Your remark that they were exercising their rights was misaimed, if anything.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 8, 2010)

Aokiji said:


> They go somewhere: you brought the tired adage that it was within their rights so we should stop complaining about it, when in fact, there are many protests that have a scumbaggerish agenda despite being legal.
> 
> Your remark that they were exercising their rights was misaimed, if anything.


No you just don't know what good aim is, too much time on the wrong side of a good argument. 

These people are basically perpetrating a slap in the face with their dedication on the ten year anniversary and the location. if you can't see that's in bad taste you need to put down the "Muslims are innocent all the time rose colored glasses"

If they didn't want to make some statement, they would have picked a different day. And they should have anticipated the possibility of the wrong one. What they're doing is in bad taste, so they deserve to be protested for it. End of story.


----------



## Chibibaki (Jun 8, 2010)

Xyloxi said:


> They were Communist in name only, what sort of equality was there in the soviet union or workers rights? The Soviet Union was a Communist state, but as a matter of fact they were not communist in reality as there is a difference between a Communist state and communism itself.



Thats cute. But despite your incredibly nuanced definition of Communism you are wrong. 

Communism is defined as a system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.

No political system is perfect, by your definition there is no such thing as socialism, capitalism, federalism or any form of government because they all fail to meet every tenet of their beliefs. 

The soviet union was communist. The fathers of communism described it as such. Your own personal interpretation is strictly that, your own. It carries no weight in the real world.


----------



## Aokiji (Jun 8, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> No you just don't know what good aim is, too much time on the wrong side of a good argument.
> 
> These people are basically perpetrating a slap in the face with their dedication on the ten year anniversary and the location. if you can't see that's in bad taste you need to put down the "Muslims are innocent all the time rose colored glasses"
> 
> If they didn't want to make some statement, they would have picked a different day. And they should have anticipated the possibility of the wrong one. What they're doing is in bad taste, so they deserve to be protested for it. End of story.



So you conceed that "it was within their rights, so shut up" is a stupid thing to say good.

I can actually understand that they would rather not have a "mosque" near Ground Zero. However, you should also put down your "Americans aren't islamo/xenphobic jackasses" glasses. It isn't even supposed to be ON ground zero and the "organization of Islam" didn't organize the attacks. I bet the larger part of the anger is hatred against the "terrorist towelheads" than mere tact.


----------



## Deleted member 174958 (Jun 8, 2010)

the box said:


> ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".).......


What do you have against Homosexuals, you prejudice dumbfuck?


----------



## Xyloxi (Jun 8, 2010)

Please don't take the box as an example of a typical Muslim, she's a troll and nothing else. She thought that South Africa was a predominantly Islamic country, so what do you actually expect from someone like that?


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 8, 2010)

What makes people think we want to argue from their Holy Book? That's not a source for an argument in a thread like this.


----------



## Xyloxi (Jun 8, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> What makes people think we want to argue from their Holy Book? That's not a source for an argument in a thread like this.



Considering arguing against this, is there anything legally stopping the Muslims from building the community centre?


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 8, 2010)

Xyloxi said:


> Considering arguing against this, is there anything legally stopping the Muslims from building the community centre?


I think people could petition or something, not sure. you can pretty much petition anything these days. 

But my point earlier was that if people want to raise hell and protest, as long as they don't break anything or hurt anyone, who can stop them ?


----------



## Xyloxi (Jun 8, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> I think people could petition or something, not sure. you can pretty much petition anything these days.
> 
> But my point earlier was that if people want to raise hell and protest, as long as they don't break anything or hurt anyone, who can stop them ?



They're allowed to protest of course, as long as it's peaceful protest I think that's perfectly reasonable. The problem is people might take these good intentions to rebuild relations as some kind of Islamic thread, rubbing salt in the wounds essentially.



Ishinoue said:


> All I know is, "the box" claims to be a Muslim. "The box" is the first one to neg me so disgustingly.
> 
> And to be honest, I don't expect much from anybody that tries to say the  Islamic religion is peaceful and doesn't say to kill nonbelievers.



The Box is the kind of person that makes moderate Muslims look bad, in any group the braying idiot always seems to be heard more than the average person.

I care little what the Islamic religion itself says, but how the Muslims act as people. Religious views change, the vast majority of religious people no longer follow their holy book in a literal sense as that would be somewhat stupid.


----------



## Cygnus45 (Jun 8, 2010)

> And to be honest, I don't expect much from anybody that tries to say the Islamic religion is peaceful and doesn't say to kill nonbelievers.



Then your opinion will never change because you'd be closing yours eyes and ears of from the begining.

You've been baaawing about the actions of "terrorists" but the way your acting only exacerbates the situation. Basically, you want Muslims to all be terrorists.

As for the community center, good idea, bad timing and location.



> And if any Muslims truly are trying to change their Qur'an's past writings that say to "terrorize and kill nonbelievers" they'll gain respect from me. But as of right now, their religion says to "terrorize and kill nonbelievers". And this is one of the biggest things in their religion they abide by.
> 
> Until the violent writings in the Qur'an are overwritten by the Muslims wishing to change that hateful way, I still have to say the religion, on its own, is still violent.



You've ignored everyone in this thread who told you that you got the verses from biased, islamaphobic, "research" sites. There are literally hundreds of millions of muslims who will tell you the same thing: that's not what the verses mean. You are NOT supposed to go out of your house with an AK and shoot Joe the Plumber. But why am I bothering, you're already convinced with a picture in your head. The bigot is _you_.



> Of course not all Muslims want to kill us but the vast majority of them do.
> Just like the vast majority of Catholics and Christians see abortions and homosexuality as a sin.



1) That's a stupid comparison fallacy, 2) You're still talking out of your ass and speaking about the "majority" without proof.


----------



## uchia2000 (Jun 8, 2010)

> At one point, a portion of the crowd menacingly surrounded two Egyptian men who were speaking Arabic and were thought to be Muslims.
> 
> "Go home," several shouted from the crowd.
> 
> ...




These protesters need to calm the fuck down before they embarrass themselves any further.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 8, 2010)

Cygnus45 said:


> Then your opinion will never change because you'd be closing yours eyes and ears of from the begining.
> 
> You've been baaawing about the actions of "terrorists" but the way your acting only exacerbates the situation. Basically, you want Muslims to all be terrorists.
> 
> ...


Some people seem to be trying too hard to prove it right. And I don't know how someone talking about you makes you be a terrorist. The fact of the matter is Muslims are the most radical of the major religions. They're easily seen as the one with the thinnest skin and the least regard for anyone else feeling differently. Proof of this is all over the place. If anything Islam makes the situation for itself worse with stunts like this Mosque and their total lack of outspoken critics to their more radical parties.


----------



## Xyloxi (Jun 8, 2010)

Ishinoue said:


> Since you haven't negged me yet, I'll agree with you. The loudest one is always the idiot. So, because you seem to be debating literately, I'll happily ignore anything that person says.



That's for the best and thank you. 




> I can understand that. Really I can. Because not everyone in a religion does exactly what said religion tells them too. That much I'll give you.
> 
> And if any Muslims truly are trying to change their Qur'an's past writings that say to "terrorize and kill nonbelievers" they'll gain respect from me. But as of right now, their religion says to  "terrorize and kill nonbelievers". And this is one of the biggest things in their religion they abide by.



I highly doubt any religious people live strictly as scripture tells them to do, if they did they'd live a highly restricted life.



> Until the violent writings in the Qur'an are overwritten by the Muslims wishing to change that hateful way, I still have to say the religion, on its own, is still violent.
> 
> Of course not all Muslims want to kill us but the vast majority of them do.
> Just like the vast majority of Catholics and Christians see abortions and homosexuality as a sin.



I doubt religious texts themselves will change, that just seems too controversial and unnecessary. Also if it is changed that diminishes the power of it, as if it is changed by humans then it isn't really the word of God any more as the changes comes from human decision. 

Most Muslims wish to kill us? First of all how many Muslims have you met? How comes I am able to walk through an Islamic area of London without getting killed, same for the vast majority of places where Islam is the majority.


----------



## Xyfar (Jun 8, 2010)

Context doesn't matter whenever you go to a religious ceremony and the priests (Or whatever the hierarchy term is in Islam) READ those quotes OUT OF CONTEXT in attempt to brainwash followers. Most religions are guilty of this, so everyone's SPOUTING OF CORRECT CONTEXTOMGLAWLSOIMPORTANT, are just fooling themselves. 

There wouldn't BE terrorist groups like Al-quaeda if what I said above wasn't true.


----------



## Cygnus45 (Jun 8, 2010)

Ishinoue said:


> What the hell are you talking about? I don't want all Muslims to be terrorist.
> 
> The Qur'an, however, does tell its followers to terrorize and kill all nonbelievers. So, if you assuming I'm a bad person because you're accusing me of wanting all Muslims to be terrorist(which, by the way, I don't) you're saying the Qur'an is just as bad.
> 
> ...



1) You have consistently posted "evidence" from the Qur'an to "prove" what all/ or the majority of Muslims believe and stick with said notion despite people telling you for the past 9 pages that the interpretation is wrong. You're being hard-headed.

2) It does NOT tell us to kill all the nonbelievers. I am a Muslim, and we don't believe that you can just pick up any old verse and automatically know what it means. That's bad research. Imams have already commented on them, but somehow the only interpretations you've found have been on Islamaphobic websites. Hmm...

Besides, part of Shariah (Islamic law) is to mandate taxes for Christians and Jews. Why would there be such a law if they were to be forced to convert or die? This is a law practiced and enforced by the original, hardcore Muslims of the past. If anything, they'd be even more lenient now. 



> The fact of the matter is *Muslims are the most radical of the major religions*. They're easily seen as the one with the thinnest skin and the least regard for anyone else feeling differently. Proof of this is all over the place. If anything Islam makes the situation for itself worse with stunts like this Mosque and their total lack of outspoken critics to their more radical parties.



Radical according to whom?

-There are religions that enforce circumcision.
-That tell you to offer your child as a sacrifice.
-That make segregation legal and forcing you to follow strict, dietary patterns that are actually unhealthy (Hinduism).
-That tell you to live in an isolatonist state and shun everyone else as fools and inferiors.

As for the "thinnest skin" comment, what do you think would happen if a nation was invaded, subjegated, and terrorized for years? Part of the reason for their attitude is the treatment they're receiving. They have every right to be sensitive when everyone sees them as a terrorist or just plain weird. And the media only pours oil on the fire.



> There wouldn't BE terrorist groups like Al-quaeda if what I said above wasn't true.



Newsflash: Winnie the Pooh can be misinterpreted to mean "go out and try to befriend a grizzly bear. It won't hurt you,".

I know what you're getting at: Ban all religious books. Not gonna happen this millenium.


----------



## Taco (Jun 8, 2010)

Bleach said:


> Haha, you didn't use any of those things in context and just copy and pasted the Quran thinking that it would make you look like you know something.
> 
> .
> 
> Stop being a hypocrite please, in the case of talking big anyway.



LOL. You asked for proof and you got it, you're in no position to QQ and whine

And these protesters have every right to protest, and with good reason... Of course something like this is gonna spark the rage of hundreds of thousands across the entire nation, because 9/11 affected us as a nation.

And not to sound like a douche, but after 9/11, a lot of Americans' respect for Islam as a religion has gone waaaaay down because of the extremist turds. 

A battle is comin!


----------



## WT (Jun 8, 2010)

maj1n said:


> Which tafsir's have you read? i can readily cite Ibn Kathir and his Tafsir that explains how those verses give a clear order to kill any non-muslim that does not accept Islam or Islamic rule.



Go ahead. Please provide a link as well. 



> _It has been reported from Sulaiman b. Buraid through his father that when the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) appointed anyone as leader of an army or detachment he would especially exhort him to fear Allah and to be good to the Muslims who were with him. He would say*: Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah*. Make a holy war
> ...
> *If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them.*_
> -http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/muslim/019.smt.html#019.4294
> ...



Looking at this hadith from a military perspective, it is extremely advantageous. First of all, you missed out a part stating that "do not break a pledge". This is of extreme importance because most the wars that actually happened during Muhammad's (pubh) time happened after the opposing party broke a pledge (for example, Banu Qurayza). The need to go to war after the opposing party breaks a pledge is obviously necessary. Secondly, the Jiziya itslef was extremely advantageous. This per capita tax was placed on able bodied adult males of military age and affording power, and for a very good reason as well. In return, non-Muslim citizens were permitted to practice their faith, to enjoy a measure of communal autonomy, to be entitled to Muslim state's protection from outside aggression, to be exempted from military service and the Zakat as obligatory upon Muslim citizens (cited from Wikipedia).

This is a great military tactic since it is obvious that during a period of war, if these non muslims were allowed to fight, they could question their loyalty towards the Islamic state and perhaps even attack against it. 



> And believe me, enough damage has been done by the wars by Islam, the WHOLE of the middle-east (you know, a pretty big land-mass), the whole slavery thing, the whole invade Spain thing, the whole Ottoman Empire siding with Germany in one of the big World Wars.
> 
> Malaysia, Afghanistan, Pakistan to some extent, Iran, Saudi Arabia.
> 
> List goes on really.



Which armies went to Malaysia? 

Besides, I don't see this as damage. There were mostly conversions. If you want to know what damage is, I would say the slaughter of every single non muslim that existed in that area.


----------



## Karsh (Jun 8, 2010)

Oh how SURPRISING.


----------



## Xyloxi (Jun 8, 2010)

Ishinoue said:


> Vast majority being the Muslims in their own country. I can't speak for the English, but in my Country, like in New York, Muslims are very loud with their religious views. One went on CNN and even said that he felt 911 was justified and that he hates everyone but Muslims. He said on T.V. that the Qur'an tells him to kill and terrorize all nonbelievers.
> 
> That speaks for itself.



Some Muslims here are quite loud concerning their religious beliefs, but that is in no way the majority of them. Just because one person from a fringe group goes on TV and says something does not speak for the entire religion, it's exactly the same with Jews concerning Zionism and those Ugandan Christians supporting the death penalty for homosexuality. They do not speak for their entire religion, nor does that Muslim on TV.


----------



## Chibibaki (Jun 8, 2010)

Karsh said:


> Oh how SURPRISING.



What is your problem? Its the same exact text. I simply referenced it back to the source so people can see the article for themselves where it was originally published.


----------



## Xyloxi (Jun 8, 2010)

Ishinoue said:


> Sad thing about this world, this kind of generalization happens. It happens with every race on Earth.
> 
> Because KKK members are from the south people call all southerners KKK members or racists. When not all Southerners are. Still, people call the south racist because the majority can be.
> 
> It's this way everywhere.



So can we come to an agreement that it is a small minority of Muslims that want to kill Westerners?


----------



## Outlandish (Jun 8, 2010)

Maj1n do you own the tasfir of Ibn Kathir ? can you show me where you got it from or what site you're citing your info from 

lol well it's their right to protest ridiculous grounds or not. 

Looks like we got some new Islamic experts around these parts straight outta jihad watch i guess 

pretty much what Id said


----------



## WT (Jun 8, 2010)

Ishinoue said:


> No, this is an argument. YOU provide YOUR arguments.



My arguement?

The amount of arguments I have had on this topic is, lets just say, too many to count. I've noticed a consistent trend amongst the people I argue with and I am sure that trend applies to you as well.

You go to biased sources which have cherry picked verses from the Quran, out of context without having looked at the date, location and situtation that verse was revealed in. Then you get brainwashed into thinking they are justified on their own without doing any further research and eventually start propogating them when you gain the confidence to argue with someone.  

This is a massive fallacy. I'm not going to accept that shit argument. If you want to argue at higher level, do more research. Look at tafsirs and visit more unbiased sources.


----------



## Karsh (Jun 8, 2010)

Chibibaki said:


> What is your problem? Its the same exact text. I simply referenced it back to the source so people can see the article for themselves where it was originally published.



There was a thread a few weeks ago in here about the plans authorities were making of this mosque in question. It was predicted that there were gonna be people who were gonna be obviously pissed and lo and behold, now there's a protest.

I was being sarcastic since this protest isn't at all surprising and I quoted your OP simply to answer to the OP, it had nothing to do with the way you did it or what you wrote personally. 

I'm sorry I didn't make myself clear.


----------



## Nick Soapdish (Jun 8, 2010)

There was already a Muslim religious center in the WTC prior to their bombing so this isn't exactly something new. And there were at least 23 Muslim victims of the 9/11 attack at the Twin Towers - approximately the same percentage among the victims as they are among the general population.

This isn't Muslim vs. Christian. Al-Qaeda has killed thousands more Muslims than they have Christians and they've bombed several mosques.


----------



## Nick Soapdish (Jun 8, 2010)

Zabuzalives said:


> That you can say this with a straight face....what should be done about apostates again?
> 
> 
> Islam is by far the most intolerant religion currently as far as believers go.
> ...



Forget the Dark Ages. Go back to the end of the reign of the Ottomans. The Muslims were the most tolerant religion until a significant portion of Muslim lands were acquired by the British and other Westerners. Jews and Christians were much better treated in the Ottoman Empire than Jews or Muslims were in any Christian nation. But they got a bit resentful over the forced colonization in a small part of that area and some are holding a grudge.

It doesn't help that we've kept up our imperialistic  actions. Iranians are still upset about us backing a coup over their elected government back in 1950.



Ishinoue said:


> Vast majority being the Muslims in their own country. I can't speak for the English, but in my Country, like in New York, Muslims are very loud with their religious views. One went on CNN and even said that he felt 911 was justified and that he hates everyone but Muslims. He said on T.V. that the Qur'an tells him to kill and terrorize all nonbelievers.



That's odd.

I don't remember anyone in New York being loud about their religious views, but there are a lot of Americans that are very vocal - the Christians. And unfortunately, the most vocal among them are the most intolerant.


----------



## Xyloxi (Jun 8, 2010)

Ishinoue said:


> I say majority.



There are over a billion Muslims in the world, I doubt the majority of them want to kill Westerners. If they did Islamic countries would be declaring war on the West and Islamic communities all across the world killing Westerners. How many Muslims do you actually know?


----------



## TSC (Jun 8, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> But my point earlier was that if people want to raise hell and protest, as long as they don't break anything or *hurt anyone*, who can stop them ?



Must of miss the article from my newspaper I posted. They were pretty damn close to hurting two Arabs they thought to be a Muslim(which they were really Christians) that warrant the police to come get the two to safety. It give these people an ignorant mindset and let their emotion get the best of them to think that:

A) All Arabs are Muslim
and
B) All Muslims are terrorist or in favor of supporting them.




Personally I don't care about the building being built there, even if I did have someone who died in 9/11. It's just a building and it's not even on ground zero to begin with. Just two block away.


----------



## Chibibaki (Jun 8, 2010)

Ishinoue said:


> I didn't go to any sources. I took that from a Muslim. I didn't paraphrase, all I did was paste what the Qur'an says. Unless, of course, the Qur'an actually doesn't say those things?
> 
> Because if it does, there's still no excuse.



You are quoting things directly so its not up for debate as to its content unless you are speaking to someone who does not know their own scriptures or does not follow them. In light of this you are either debating 

A) An ignorant person
B) A heretic
C) An apostate

Either way, they have disqualified themselves from speaking as a qualified source on the subject matter as to what Muslims believe or the Qur'an says. 

You cant win a debate with an unqualified individual. Nor should you try.


----------



## Outlandish (Jun 8, 2010)

Ishinoue said:


> Two myself. And my mum, Uncle, and Grandparents lived over there for 10 years in the 70s.



Muslim is a country now ?

What country ?


----------



## Outlandish (Jun 8, 2010)

Ishinoue said:


> Nope, they know their religion pretty damn well. They don't believe in the parts about killing nonbelievers, but they know it's there.
> 
> Sorry, but, are you trying to say the parts I took from the Qur'an isn't real or something? *_*
> 
> ...



So why aren't your parents dead ?

by your logic since they are disbelievers they should of been killed.


----------



## Xyloxi (Jun 8, 2010)

Ishinoue said:


> *headdesk*
> Over seas in one of the Muslim countries. *Iran* ایران.



Do these Muslims you know want to kill you? Iran is hardly the best example of Islamic nations anyway, even though that was before the revolution. A better example would be somewhere like Bosnia, Turkey or somewhere in the Far East.


----------



## Chibibaki (Jun 8, 2010)

Ishinoue said:


> Nope, they know their religion pretty damn well. They don't believe in the parts about killing nonbelievers, but they know it's there.



Then they are either apostates or heretics. Either one disqualifies them from speaking with authority on the subject. 

I hold anyone of any religion to the same standard. If you believe something contrary to your doctrines then you arent qualified to speak for it. If you think this is harsh, ask me what I think of Pat Robertson. 



Ishinoue said:


> Sorry, but, are you trying to say the parts I took from the Qur'an isn't real or something? *_*



Quite the contrary. I was backing up your points. You were dealing with the facts of the text and addressing them with people who were by their own statements were unqualified to respond to your points.


----------



## the box (Jun 8, 2010)

> Ishinoue said:
> 
> 
> > What do you have against Homosexuals, you prejudice dumbfuck?
> ...


----------



## the box (Jun 8, 2010)

> Ishinoue said:
> 
> 
> > I say majority.
> ...


----------



## Outlandish (Jun 8, 2010)

Chibibaki said:


> You are quoting things directly so its not up for debate as to its content unless you are speaking to someone who does not know their own scriptures or does not follow them. In light of this you are either debating
> 
> A) An ignorant person
> B) A heretic
> ...



What you have to understand about the Quran is that it came down in revelations to the holy Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) so the ayahs that people are quoting are only exempt in certain circumstances(I'll post links to when they are exempt at the end of the article.)


----------



## Outlandish (Jun 8, 2010)

Ishinoue said:


> For your information, my mum and her family had to be flown out of there in the middle of the night after waking up to explosions outside their living space. The Army had to literally escort them and other Americans out of Iran just because of how violent it was getting. They didn't get to take any of their belongings. They were told to carry necessities, and that was it. My mum couldn't even take her two cats with her because of how sudden it was.
> 
> And here's a twist for ya, my Grandfather had to stay behind(government job)and he almost died *twice*. One was because an Iranian tried blowing up his vehicle and another time when Americans were forced to leave the country by US government.
> 
> So, what were you saying?



So because of Americas meddlings in Iran your parents had to be flown out because of their safety ? 

and if what you are saying is true which is ludicrous (go to your local university and ask any historian if muslims scriptures actively made muslims kill non believers) then why would your parents be allowed into a Muslim country ?

why are there still communities of Jews & Christians still living in Saudi, Pakistan and even India ? all inherently Muslim countries ?


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jun 8, 2010)

Building a mosque there would just be in bad taste. That's as far as I go on that. I don't want to advocate the views of Tea Party morons like Mark Williams, and people like him are just going to taint the protests' cause in the first place.


----------



## the box (Jun 8, 2010)

> Ishinoue said:
> 
> 
> > So because Iran, or any other radical Muslim country is bad you're disqualifying them from the debate because they're bad?
> ...


----------



## Mintaka (Jun 8, 2010)

OBVIOUS TROLL IS OBVIOUS.


*lights the box on fire.*  BUUUUUUUUUUURN!!!


----------



## the box (Jun 8, 2010)

my box is flame proof


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jun 8, 2010)

Did I see some Israel blaming in this thread? Oh well, when in doubt blame the Jews!



Zabuzalives said:


> That you can say this with a straight face....what should be done about apostates again?
> 
> 
> Islam is by far the most intolerant religion currently as far as believers go.
> ...



Agreed. I'm also getting kinda tired of this strangely apologetic attitude when it comes to issues regarding Islam.


----------



## Descent of the Lion (Jun 8, 2010)

Random comment: I wish the natives had protesters when those dang boats arrived.


----------



## the box (Jun 8, 2010)

> Ishinoue said:
> 
> 
> > There you go with the "hating homosexuals" thing. Really, grow up.
> ...


----------



## the box (Jun 8, 2010)

0Fear said:


> Random comment: I wish the natives had protesters when those dang boats arrived.



i know i mean the peaceful Christians were just trying to poison there blankets kill the buffalo and take there lands then forcibly convert blacks and other races to Christianity in the name of merciful Christ i mean thats the great honorable Christian way to do things.


----------



## Xyloxi (Jun 8, 2010)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Building a mosque there would just be in bad taste. That's as far as I go on that. I don't want to advocate the views of Tea Party morons like Mark Williams, and people like him are just going to taint the protests' cause in the first place.



It isn't a mosque, it's a community centre for all faiths.



Seto Kaiba said:


> Did I see some Israel blaming in this thread? Oh well, when in doubt blame the Jews!



Obviously, don't you know how the caf? works? 



Ishinoue said:


> So because Iran, or any other radical Muslim country is bad you're disqualifying them from the debate because they're bad?
> That's the whole point of this debate, though. To discuss how radical the Muslim world is.
> 
> Iran is still a Muslim country and just because it's one of the worse Muslim worlds doesn't mean it can't be used in a debate. In the end, it's still a Muslim country. It just acts like how non-Muslims pin them to act.



It's not the best example to use though, as it does not show an accurate portrayal of Muslims. The more moderate Islamic states are the best example e.g. most of the gulf states and places like Egypt. Iran is a bad example, I don't suppose this was at the time of the revolution out of interest?


----------



## Bleach (Jun 8, 2010)

Ishinoue, are you a Christian? If so, you are extremely ignorant about your own religion.


----------



## TSC (Jun 8, 2010)

Ishinoue said:


> Rape dogs? You're the biggest joke I've ever seen on the internet, man. You do know Bestiality is one of the biggest sins in Christianity, right?



So is killing. It's even in the ten commandment. Yet everyone from Christians to Jews to Muslims etc kill.

point being, just because a religion tells you something isn't going to prevent them from performing the action.


----------



## Zabuzalives (Jun 8, 2010)

Nick Soapdish said:


> Forget the Dark Ages. Go back to the end of the reign of the Ottomans. The Muslims were the most tolerant religion until a significant portion of Muslim lands were acquired by the British and other Westerners.




like with the armenians?




Nick Soapdish said:


> But they got a bit resentful over the forced colonization in a small part of that area and some are holding a grudge.



yeah lets ignore everything and blame the jews.....

I can do that to, all the intolerance in christianity is really because they conquered the Middle east and Byzantinian land. a vast amount of land. 



Nick Soapdish said:


> It doesn't help that we've kept up our imperialistic  actions. Iranians are still upset about us backing a coup over their elected government back in 1950.



cherry picking and apologetic.  

how about pakistan and saudi arabia? 


yeah your examples are some of the influences shaping a religions fundamentalism and radicalism. But it aint a simple blame the west game


----------



## Nick Soapdish (Jun 8, 2010)

Ishinoue said:


> Iran is still a Muslim country and just because it's one of the worse Muslim worlds doesn't mean it can't be used in a debate. In the end, it's still a Muslim country. It just acts like how non-Muslims pin them to act.



It's just not a particularly good example of a Muslim nation. It's very anti-American because the United States helped overthrow a democratically elected government that we were afraid might favor Communism and installed a dictator that stayed in power for nearly 30 years. So a lot of Iranians hold a grudge against Americans.

If you like, we can use Malawi as an example of how Christian nations act - with strong encouragement from Western missionaries.



Ishinoue said:


> All Christianity asks is that we pray to God and ask for forgiveness for any sins. Guess what? After we ask for forgiveness God completely forgets the sin. So we don't have to physically harm ourselves so God will forgive us. That's kinda the whole point in Jesus dying on the cross--so his blood will save us from our Sins.



You're skipping over a lot of what the Bible says. That's ok because I do it, too. I ignore the parts that aren't very Christian IMO. But you're also arguing that everything from the Koran is absolutely representative of Islam and that's not very consistent.


----------



## WT (Jun 8, 2010)

Ishinoue said:


> I didn't go to any sources. I took that from a Muslim. I didn't paraphrase, all I did was paste what the Qur'an says. Unless, of course, the Qur'an actually doesn't say those things?



I want to see your sources. Give me a link. 



> Because if it does, there's still no excuse.



Let me give you a small example what you are doing. Suppose I am a film critic and this is the following review I have given to a film:

"This film is outstanding; in the fact that it is outstandingly shit".

Now you, the film producer, cherry pick the part you like and advertise it to the whole world:

"This film is outstanding"

Do you see how the meaning changes when one ignores the whole context?

This is exactly what you have done with the verses. Although they exist, you have ignored the verses before it and the verses after it. Lets see what a scholar says about this shall we?



> In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.
> 
> All praise and thanks are due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon His Messenger.
> 
> ...


From Islam Online


> Please, give me some PRO Muslim sites with all of this information on it.



Go to Islam Online. If you want a full understanding of the Quran, I suggest Tafsir Ibn Kathir.


----------



## Terra Branford (Jun 8, 2010)

> Went to biased sources, became indoctrinated by *inhereting *their *opinons *without thought?


Wait...the Qu'ran is biased? I took from the Qu'ran, stupid, why don't you read my posts? 
And learn to spell!



> Even though the verses says otherwise, even though the greatest Islamic tafsirs say otherswise, even though scholars who have studied the Quran in Arabic for 30 odd years say otherwise, you still don't want to believe it? This is just pathetic. Besides, history is a great evidence for this. If muslims wanted to fight and kill unbelievers who had no ties to them anywhere and everywhere, believe me, more damage would have been done.
> 
> These verses are simple. They advocate violence only if another party attacks you first, comes to your land, starts killing your innocent people andso on. However, it goes on to state that once these people are dealt with, stop. Allah does not love the aggressors.
> 
> Its like you're just putting your fingers in your ears and singing la la la.


No, but it seems you can't understand the Qu'ran and the Islamic laws that follow the order of Allah. 

You like to live in a world where their religion is peaceful, but do you even know about their Holy "holidays" over there? That only should show you how violent they are!



> In the Quran, its only during a state of war. People who "partially believe", I presume are the hypcrites. Historically, they did cause damage to Islam.


WHAT!

Now I know you have NO idea what you are talking about. The war was caused because non-believers...well, didn't convert and then the Muslims, as directed by Allah, told them to invite the non-believers to war and smite their heads and burn them with boiling water and cut their fingertips off until they convert.



> Elaborate. I don't understand what you are trying to say.


That's because you aren't very smart, are ya?

You gave a "peaceful" verse (which you misunderstood lol)
Since 2:191 came after 2:190 (the "peaceful" verse) it contradicts and cancels out the meaning of verse 2:190 -- the previous verse --and asks its followers to *commit murder in the name of Allah. Understand now?*



> You are the only one who misunderstood these verses.


*sigh*
No, no. You have no idea how to understand the Qu'ran and thought it was a peaceful verse saying "fight those who fought you first". That meant "Fight those who fought you (THE MUSLIM RELIGION!) first".

The verse was telling its followers to fight the non-believers because they are FIGHTING against Allah and his word. Duuuurrrrrrr!



> The Quran was sent as a warning. Naturally a warning will highlight the punishment for those who refuse to believe. Its more of a deterrence.




Its still violent, is it now? Or, will you say "Their peacefuuulllll!"




> Again, only with a special condition. Secondly, its not half of the Quran. Half of the Quran is much longer than what you previously posted.


Uuuuummmmmmmmmmm.....I never mentioned the length of the Qu'ran, silly billy. I know how much it has -- 6,000 verses. You should read the verse about the sword, that one holds loads of violence for ya. 



> I guess all the American and Israeli etc policies are also there to cause terror. I mean, if they attack


No you ignorant person you, you misunderstood, yet _again_. 

The Muslims are told by Allah to kill non-believers, even if they *aren't* in war. The Muslims are told to *attack them* if they *refuse* to *convert* and *devote* themselves to *Allah and his order.* 

My point, your silly little brain asks? Well:


> That verse tells the Muslims that fighting them if they fight you, is another way of it being okay, to slay non-believers.


[MEANING:]
Allah *supports violence* in *his name to non-believers* if they *refuse* to *devote themselves*. That verse tells them that murdering non-believers (which they ALL do) is okay, since it falls under the shadow of Allah's word. 

Policies and murderous religion are completely different, please try to understand that. 

I agree though, policies are made to create terror -- not murder. Trying to say Muslim religion is a policy, is `tarded.



> ... "live pass them KILLING YOU". This is just getting hilarous now. You are utterly pathetic and hopeless. If that actually happened, and Muslims did exactly what you say, then I don't see how these tribes would actually manage to survive Muslim attacks since it would be the purpose of Muslims to go out and kill the unbelievers.


I'm sorry, and here I thought you read the Qu'ran.

The Qu'ran tells the Muslims to lie and deceive non-believers until they are greater in numbers and only then, will they raid the homes of non-believers and force to them to convert. If they refuse, well then, off with their head!

Also, saying my proof is pathetic shows how little you know. If you took the time to read the Qu'ran (or have grandparents and parents who lived there) then you know at least a little about this subject you wish to partake in.



> They are not us. They are not representative of all Muslims. Besides, poverty and oppression has also played a major role in terrorism.


Again.....*sigh*
*
If there are Muslims who don't wish for violence, then they are NOT Muslim. The Muslim religion calls for the DEATH of Kaa Faa Raa*.



> By your standards, everyone is violent. I mean anyone who actually defends *themself* is violent. Wow.
> 
> *I'm not going to bother with the rest of your post because you have consistently regurgitated the same bullshit over and over again.*


(It would be "Themselves" not "themself")

Ahaha....where did you see that? *laughs*
They can't freakin' defend themselves if they are the ones who *started* to ATTACK the *non-believers*. Which part of this aren't you understanding? The whole thing? o.O

Oh....nothing else to say, eh? Can't come up with petty little lies to tell yourself about the Muslim religion? Hm?

Can't you provide anything in the Qu'ran that says NOT to kill non-believers? Hm? Hm?
I doubt you can, because there has to be somewhere in that puny little brain of yours, that knows what I'm saying is right. 

The Qu'ran tells them to murder in the name of Allah....how can that not prove it to you? 



> Ishinoue, are you a Christian? If so, you are extremely ignorant about your own religion.



You *don't know anything* about Christianity, do you?



> hey the klan are "your people" fellow "christians" if you can say the majority of muslims are killers and want you dead i can say christian rape dogs and kill black people


Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat?

What the hell? First of all, even if you wanted to say that, the Bible is against human-animal love and says to "Love thy neighbor". I love mine neighbor and they murder my animals and egg my house. Skin color, orientation....nothing makes me hate people...well, unless they rape and murder. 
People are so ignorant nowadays when it comes to debating. 



> OBVIOUS TROLL IS OBVIOUS.
> *lights the box on fire.* BUUUUUUUUUUURN!!!


Thanks for giving nothing to the thread and creating spam. Reported. 



> So because of Americas meddlings in Iran your parents had to be flown out because of their safety ?
> and if what you are saying is true which is ludicrous (go to your local university and ask any historian if muslims scriptures actively made muslims kill non believers) then why would your parents be allowed into a Muslim country ?
> why are there still communities of Jews & Christians still living in Saudi, Pakistan and even India ? all inherently Muslim countries ?


If you were there, you'd shit your pants and wish to be faaaaaaaaaaaar away from Muslims. 
But see, you can't see the harm the Muslims do because well....you have no idea what you are talking about. 



> if the majority of the billions of muslims wanted you dead it wouldent be a small war i assure you. only 20% of muslims them selves are arab. most are black or indian


lol
You are so wrong! I wish I could take you over there and have you say you aren't a Muslim to their face and see what happens.

Public stoning death, boiling hot water, heads being chopped off, fingertips...or wait, I'm forgetting that if they have mercy somewhere in their wicked hearts, they'll make you their slave. 

*sigh*

I shall post again...if I get back on, but until then, I will see this thread later...or not lol


----------



## hadou (Jun 8, 2010)

All religions have a dark history, but I do not know what it is about Islam that its followers have tendencies to do terrorist acts. They blow shit up, including themselves, they kill, they have thoughts that go back to hundreds of years ago. They say that only 1% of all Muslims in the world have radical views, but shit, that's more than enough. These fuckers have no respect for human life.
Those born in the US, Muslims that have enjoyed all our freedoms, and suddenly they decide to fuck this country and attempt terrorist attacks. I say fuck them, deport their terrorist ass to the Middle East. And building a Mosque near Ground Zero? Fucking disrespectful.


----------



## WT (Jun 8, 2010)

Ishinoue said:


> *Sesshomaru  *, THE QUR'AN STILL SAYS TO KILL AND TERRORIZE NONBELIEVERS.



Refusing to believe after evidence is provided? How did I know. 




Emma Bradley said:


> Wait...the Qu'ran is biased? I took from the Qu'ran, stupid, why don't you read my posts?
> And learn to spell!



This is a very weak argument. Although those verses were originally from the Quran, you went to external sources to get them. Secondly, you engaged in a gross cherry picking fallacy, wanting to select verses suited to the propoganda you wish to propogate. Thirdly, you are know engaging in adhominems by insulting your opponent. It really shows your worth. 



> No, but it seems you can't understand the Qu'ran and the Islamic laws that follow the order of Allah.



Admittingly I don't know much about Islam, but I do know one thing. I know far more than you do and I know for a fact that I am correct. 


> You like to live in a world where their religion is peaceful, but do you even know about their Holy "holidays" over there? That only should show you how violent they are!



Islam is a peaceful religion however, I acknowledge that many Muslims across the globe are barabaric. Those holidays you mention, I presume, you are talking about Shia'ites who engage in flaggelation. They are a different sect only constituting to roughly 10% of Islam. Even within the Shia'ite sect many great scholars see this as an unlawful practice.  



> WHAT!
> 
> Now I know you have NO idea what you are talking about. The war was caused because non-believers...well, didn't convert and then the Muslims, as directed by Allah, told them to invite the non-believers to war and smite their heads and burn them with boiling water and cut their fingertips off until they convert.



This is getting pathetic. I am saying one thing, and you are replying with another. You are quite unclear when you argue and therefore I have to assume a lot of things. I assumed you were talking about hypocrites and proceeded to say that they did cause a lot of damage to Islam. Let me give one example: 



> At the end of the night and just before it was daybreak, the Prophet [pbuh] moved and when he got to Ash-Shawt he observed the dawn prayer. There he was close enough to the enemy that they could see one another. It was there that ?Abdullah bin Ubai ? the hypocrite ? rebelled against the Muslims. One-third of the army withdrew with him ? that is to say three hundred fighters. He said, "We do not know why we shall kill ourselves." He claimed that his withdrawal was no more than showing protest against the Messenger of All?h [pbuh] who had already refused his opinion and accepted that of the others.
> 
> Undoubtedly that was not the real cause of his detachment. If it had been the refusal of his opinion ? as the hypocrite claimed ? there would have no sense whatsoever for his joining the Prophetic army. If it had been so, he would have refused to go out with the army from the very beginning of the march. As a matter of fact the real purpose of this rebellion, withdrawal and detachment ? at this delicate and awkward position and time ? was to produce bewilderment, confusion of mind, and disorder in the Muslims army who were within the sight and hear range of the enemy who were also looking forward to seeing more and more dissension on the side of the Muslims, like themselves. They also aimed at breaking the high morale of the believers. That would accelerate ? in their opinion ? the breakdown and consequently the death of Muhammad, his faithful Companions and Islam as a whole. The way would then be clear for the reclaim of presidency, which that hypocrite had lost on the advent of Islam into Madinah.
> 
> ...





> That's because you aren't very smart, are ya?
> 
> You gave a "peaceful" verse (which you misunderstood lol)
> Since 2:191 came after 2:190 (the "peaceful" verse) it contradicts and cancels out the meaning of verse 2:190 -- the previous verse --and asks its followers to *commit murder in the name of Allah. Understand now?*



Honestly? Is that what you really think?!?!?! Gosh, I had no idea how much little you know. Whats worse is your interpretation skills. This interpretation is completely wrong.  



> Uuuuummmmmmmmmmm.....I never mentioned the length of the Qu'ran, silly billy. I know how much it has -- 6,000 verses. You should read the verse about the sword, that one holds loads of violence for ya.



Yes you did. You said half of the Quran was violent. 



> No you ignorant person you, you misunderstood, yet _again_.
> 
> The Muslims are told by Allah to kill non-believers, even if they *aren't* in war. The Muslims are told to *attack them* if they *refuse* to *convert* and *devote* themselves to *Allah and his order.*



Give *the whole* evidence for that. 

I'm not going to even bother with the rest of your post. Its complete rubbish.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jun 8, 2010)

Citing religious texts emphasizing a literal action of violence against non-believers? CLEARLY YOU ARE TAKING THEM OUT OF CONTEXT! Here, let me point you to this scholar whose job is to basically put a positive spin on the whole thing!


----------



## Bleach (Jun 8, 2010)

Ishinoue said:


> Dude, prepare to be negged like crazy. Not from me, but from the others here.



Because he is talking bad about terrorists?

You must be thinking that everyone that isn't ranting like him against terrorists is  pro-terrorist, right?

And you seem to ignore parts that you can't rebuttal and just say something like *head desk* or completely side track away from what they are saying anyway.


----------



## WT (Jun 8, 2010)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Citing religious texts emphasizing a literal action of violence against non-believers? CLEARLY YOU ARE TAKING THEM OUT OF CONTEXT! Here, let me point you to this scholar whose job is to basically put a positive spin on the whole thing!



Blatent hypocrisy since those against Islam are clearly going to sources which put a "negative spin" on the whole thing!


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jun 8, 2010)

Sesshomaru said:


> Blatent hypocrisy since those against Islam are clearly going to sources which put a "negative spin" on the whole thing!



Oh, the actual books themselves? So will you soon be revealing your abandonment of the Islamic faith?


----------



## WT (Jun 8, 2010)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Oh, the actual books themselves? So will you soon be revealing your abandonment of the Islamic faith?



Don't pretend you haven't heard of  websites


----------



## Bleach (Jun 8, 2010)

Ishinoue said:


> What didn't I answer? Can you explain why, if the Qur'an doesn't say to kill nonbelievers like you're claiming, those quotes in the Qur'an say to terrorize and kill nonbelievers? If the Qur'an doesn't want nonbelievers to be terrorized or killed, why are they put in the Qur'an over and over again?
> 
> Forgive me for not wanting to stomach through pages of Muslim Qur'an quoting. It kinda turns meh stomach.



I'm not going back through X amt of pages just to find where you fail, it would be too great of a number anyway .

But, once again, like for every single time you say something, you take it out of context


----------



## WT (Jun 8, 2010)

Ishinoue said:


> I've had it with  these premature idiots, such as yourself, coming in here and claiming something DESPITE THE FRICKIN' QUR'AN SAYING THEY DO IT!
> 
> Are you that frickin' stupid, girl? It doesn't take much common sense to look at quotes from the Qur'an and understanding what it means when it says *"TERRORIZE AND KILL ALL NONBELIEVERS UNTIL THEY TURN TO ALLAH"*
> 
> ...



Do yourself a favor and keep your trap shut. The more you post, the more of a fool you make of yourself.


----------



## Bleach (Jun 8, 2010)

Sesshomaru said:


> Do yourself a favor and keep your trap shut. The more you post, the more of a fool you make of yourself.





This thread has officially derailed. Half the thread should be moved to the Islam Debate thread.


----------



## hadou (Jun 8, 2010)

Sesshomaru said:


> Do yourself a favor and keep your trap shut. The more you post, the more of a fool you make of yourself.



Learn tolerance. You many not agree with what he says, but do not be disrespectful. For everyone, there is no need to insult; discuss freely, this is a forum solely for that.


----------



## Bleach (Jun 8, 2010)

hadou said:


> Learn tolerance. You many not agree with what he says, but do not be disrespectful. For everyone, there is no need to insult; discuss freely, this is a forum solely for that.



You know she did the same thing right?

Not trying to play the "s/he did it first" game but just saying..


----------



## Bleach (Jun 8, 2010)

Ishinoue said:


> You do realize that all tolerance went out the window when you kept saying "fail" right? xD



Kept saying "fail"?

I said it once in the right *context*.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 8, 2010)

Sesshomaru said:


> Do yourself a favor and keep your trap shut. The more you post, the more of a fool you make of yourself.


Maybe we should take our own advice?


----------



## WT (Jun 8, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Maybe we should take our own advice?



A failed attempt at being witty.


----------



## Bleach (Jun 8, 2010)

Ishinoue said:


> New word, have we?



Funny, thats what I've been doing at all your posts


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 8, 2010)

Sesshomaru said:


> A failed attempt at being witty.


No not trying to be witty, you made a thread about blaming a woman for someone else killing her children, do you think you can really talk about how anyone else looks or a lack of wit? 

Now you're in this thread thinking you're arguing by taking shots at someone else and posting no points? That's not arguing. You can't just flame and post no points when you think that its just okay. 

I mean this thread is showing more and more how far too many of the Muslim posters resort to scripture arguments and outlandish claims and even threats when faced with the slightest bit of challenge. You want people to accept and not think you do this, and then you turn around and attack the person and make rude comments at them, thus reinforcing  their view of your religion. 

Good going.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 8, 2010)

I mean I can dig up posts where people have said some pretty wrong stuff like how they would kill in defense of small tenants of Islam and then turned around and wondered why people were acting like something was wrong with them. 

People come in this thread acting like protesting this is the same as protesting a funeral or like people are just without a reason in protesting this mosque. Its not because people naturally hate Muslims. Unlike some people, we don't hold 1500 year old grudges. 

The problem is that certain Muslims have antagonized people here and the rest of the Muslim community has either sat idly by, cheered them on and those few who speak out are demonized by people in all the other groups of Muslims.


----------



## Bleach (Jun 8, 2010)

Or maybe its just a human being emotion of being annoyed by a bunch of people who don't get the point of a post and completely misunderstand it. 

Those GIFs say a lot about you Ishinoue...

Now your not even contributing to your purpose but just posting retarded GIFs... Doing exactly what CTK just said about Muslims except showing your idiocy out more openly. Yes I called her/him an idiot, sue me.


----------



## the box (Jun 8, 2010)

> Ishinoue said:
> 
> 
> > You using a derogatory name such as "fagots" proves that you hate and disrespect gays.
> ...


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 8, 2010)

Huffington Post is not news, that's a blog.


----------



## Bleach (Jun 8, 2010)

Ishinoue said:


> What do you expect? I've given all my arguments. I provided the violent parts of the Qur'an, you ignored them and continue to say they don't mean a thing or that I took a direct quote out of context(which is absurd).
> 
> What else can I do to prove my point that the Qur'an/Islam is a violent following? I mean, I've posted quotes that say to terrorize and kill all nonbelievers. What else can I do to prove my point? Logically, I've already proven my point that it, as a religion, is very violent.
> *You* however, have not given YOUR reasons as to why Islam is peaceful other than your biased views.





And until you even start understanding what you are talking about, it would be impossible for me to argue with you since you would just keep saying "*BUT ITS RIGHT THERE OMGAWD*"


----------



## the box (Jun 8, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Huffington Post is not news, that's a blog.



fine here


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 8, 2010)

the box said:


> fine here


I don't care to read it. But if you want anyone to take you seriously, then you can't post from there. 

And I don't know what a small scale terrorist attack has to do with any of this. It pales in comparison to the 9/11 attacks and if you're comparing the two you need to try your best to see how insensitive and silly that is. It's like me comparing someone losing a hand to a fire cracker accident to someone accidentally bombing a town off the map.


----------



## maj1n (Jun 8, 2010)

sesshomaru said:
			
		

> Looking at this hadith from a military perspective, it is extremely advantageous. First of all, you missed out a part stating that "do not break a pledge". This is of extreme importance because most the wars that actually happened during Muhammad's (pubh) time happened after the opposing party broke a pledge (for example, Banu Qurayza). The need to go to war after the opposing party breaks a pledge is obviously necessary.


I'm not looking at it at a military perspective, but a humanitarian one.

No it isn't right to wage war against non-muslims if they don't have a pledge with you.

Is it ok to wage war against people whom you don't have a treaty with? can America wage war against say, New Zealand?




			
				sesshomaru said:
			
		

> Secondly, the Jiziya itslef was extremely advantageous. This per capita tax was placed on able bodied adult males of military age and affording power, and for a very good reason as well. In return, non-Muslim citizens were permitted to practice their faith, to enjoy a measure of communal autonomy, to be entitled to Muslim state's protection from outside aggression, to be exempted from military service and the Zakat as obligatory upon Muslim citizens (*cited from Wikipedia*).


Taken from* wikipedia
*
It was, of course, evident that th*e tax represented a discrimination and was intended, according to the Koran's own words, to emphasize the inferior status of the non-believers.* It seemed, however, that from the economic point of view, it did not constitute a heavy imposition, since it was on a sliding scale, approximately one, two, and four dinars, and thus adjusted to the financial capacity of the taxpayer. This impression proved to be entirely fallacious, for it did not take into consideration the immense extent of poverty and privation experienced by the masses, and in particular their way of living from hand to mouth, their persistent lack of cash, which turned the "season of the tax" into one of horror, dread, and misery. The provisions of ancient Islamic law which exempted the indigent, the invalids and the old, were no longer observed in the Geniza period and had been discarded by the Shāfi‘ī School of Law, which prevailed in Egypt, also in theory
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jizya#Criticism



			
				outlandish said:
			
		

> Maj1n do you own the tasfir of Ibn Kathir ? can you show me where you got it from or what site you're citing your info from


Yes i own it, how do i show it to you if i own it?

I can directly quote it like so.



> This Surah is called Al-Fatihah, that is, the Opener of the Book, the Surah with which prayers are begun. It is also called, Umm Al-Kitab (the Mother of the Book), according to the majority of the scholars. In an authentic Hadith recorded by At-Tirmidhi, who graded it Sahih, Abu Hurayrah said that the Messenger of Allah said,
> 
> 
> «الْحَمْدُ للهِ رَبَ الْعَالَمِينَ أُمُّ الْقُرْآنِ وَأُمُّ الْكِتَابِ وَالسَّبْعُ الْمَثَانِي وَالْقُرْآنُ الْعَظِيمُ»
> ...





			
				Sesshomaru said:
			
		

> This is exactly what you have done with the verses. Although they exist, you have ignored the verses before it and the verses after it. Lets see what a scholar says about this shall we?


Your scholar is cherry picking verses without context, when you provide context, you need to provide EVIDENCE for that context, your supposed scholar is simply saying 'muslims did this in self-defense' how is that more authoritative then saying 'it says to kill all non-muslims'?

But here is a tafsir on that.



> *Tafsir Ibn Kathir*
> Allah said,
> 
> 
> ...


As is clearly stated, the reason to fight them was purely their disbelief.


Now i've got right in front of me, the tafsir on the whole of Surah 9, and it most definitely does say to kill all non-muslims (except people of the book they have to accept Islam/Islamic rule, or they will be killed).

If you want me to, i can post it.


----------



## the box (Jun 8, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> I don't care to read it. But if you want anyone to take you seriously, then you can't post from there.
> 
> And I don't know what a small scale terrorist attack has to do with any of this. It pales in comparison to the 9/11 attacks and if you're comparing the two you need to try your best to see how insensitive and silly that is. It's like me comparing someone losing a hand to a fire cracker accident to someone accidentally bombing a town off the map.



you want a  comparison of Muslim killings to Christian killings? ohh this should be good 

you forget 300 muslims lost there lives in 9/11 so to say we arnt effected is incredibly stupid.

i mean lets look at christians


-crusades killing innocents in the name a jesus
-killed native americans
-killed aztecs spared the few that converted 
-enslaved all who wernt white
-took away and striped the religion of people that they conquered
-whitch hunts
-killed MLK
-corrupted iran installing a crazed dictator
-the holocaust many Christians were nazis and troops 
-dropped the atomic bomb
-invented nukes the worst weapon in history
- the KKK
-pedo preachers ewww
-current iraq and afganistan war in which total casualties surpass 1 million  



bring on the muslims


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 8, 2010)

the box said:


> -crusades killing innocents in the name a jesus
> -killed native americans
> -killed aztecs spared the few that converted
> -enslaved all who wernt white
> ...



You can't even put all of those on Christians. The crusades were started to take back lands the Muslims stole, Christians didn't kill MLK, he was Christian preacher. Christians didn't drop the A bomb. This argument isn't even making sense and the not making sense thing is all your part. The Afghanistan war was caused by Muslim terrorists. Christian scientists invented nukes? Where are you getting this from? 

You don't know the difference between Christian and American and white people it seems. That just makes everything you're arguing all the worse. But thanks for the help, even though I was pretty much fighting a downhill battle in a rocket sled, you made it that much easier with this last post.


----------



## Eboue (Jun 8, 2010)

Your being stupid. I admit that  Christians over all have killed more, but surely the important part is doing it in the name of the said religion. If I was a Christian and I went and shot someone i would not say that Christians were responsible for the crime would i.

Admittedly even after this Christians have probably killed more than Muslims. The crusades and the amount of people massacred during the medieval period would probably do it. Im thinking of the slaughter of the cathars, burning witches, Reconquista in Spain and the way the varying types of Christian have slaughtered each other.

Who did the muslims steal the land of cardboard tube knight?


----------



## WT (Jun 8, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> No not trying to be witty, you made a thread about blaming a woman for someone else killing her children, do you think you can really talk about how anyone else looks or a lack of wit?



If only it was that simple, but it isn't. 



> Now you're in this thread thinking you're arguing by taking shots at someone else and posting no points? That's not arguing. You can't just flame and post no points when you think that its just okay.



Go browse through this thread properly. I made valid attemt to refute their arguments, however, they simply replied with the same things over and over and over and over again even having been proved wrong. 



> I mean this thread is showing more and more how far too many of the Muslim posters resort to scripture arguments and outlandish claims and even threats when faced with the slightest bit of challenge.


Scripture arguments, outlandish claims, threats? Can you elaborate on this please. 



> You want people to accept and not think you do this, and then you turn around and attack the person and make rude comments at them, thus reinforcing  their view of your religion.
> 
> Good going.



Please show me. 



Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> I mean I can dig up posts where people have said some pretty wrong stuff like how they would kill in defense of small tenants of Islam and then turned around and wondered why people were acting like something was wrong with them.



Dig them up. I want to see them as well. I honestly do believe they exist, just want to have a look. 



> People come in this thread acting like protesting this is the same as protesting a funeral or like people are just without a reason in protesting this mosque. Its not because people naturally hate Muslims. Unlike some people, we don't hold 1500 year old grudges.



I really don't have a clue what you just said. 



> The problem is that certain Muslims have antagonized people here and the rest of the Muslim community has either sat idly by, cheered them on and those few who speak out are demonized by people in all the other groups of Muslims.



We don't mind criticism, honestly. Its just then when they criticise and we respond by our own valid arguments, they seem to respond with fallacies and provoke us. My signiture is an example of this.


----------



## Terra Branford (Jun 8, 2010)

@Sessidontcare:

I realize you must having a serious reading problem, but I just can't stop thinking how dumb you are.

MY POINTS CAME FROM THE QU'RAN! IT CANNOT BE BIASED! 
I got it from a FUCKING copy of Qu'ran!

I did not get it from a ONLINE SOURCE!!!!!! I got it from their "Bible". Do understand now, the words I have said to you?

I am using a Nintendo Wii, so my reply isn't at its finest for the Wii can't quote or open up different tabs. 

I will edit as soon as I can.


----------



## DremolitoX (Jun 8, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Christians didn't drop the A bomb. This argument isn't even making sense and the not making sense thing is all your part. The Afghanistan war was caused by Muslim terrorists. Christian scientists invented nukes? Where are you getting this from?



Wtf man? How dare you try and deny that Japan was bombed in the name of Jesus?


----------



## Bleach (Jun 8, 2010)

Ishinoue said:


> That Scripture is Old  Testament, and as you know once Jesus came and paid the ultimate and ONLY price for our sins, there was no more reasons to adhere. This is fact according to the New Testament. Jesus blood pays for all sins. Do you recall the story of Jesus being brought a Prostitute  by the Pharisees who told him to find her guilty according to Law ( Old Testament ). His response to them was two fold.. one... *let he who is innocent of sin cast the first stone and two... he asked the women if she was sorry, told her she was forgiven and he told her to go and sin no more. PERIOD. *
> 
> Jesus instructs us to forgive, "seven times seventy times", to heap blessings upon the heads of our enemies, not to judge lest ye be judged by the same standards, to give mercy to all, forgive ALL. He who knows God knows love for GOD IS LOVE. Justice is Gods to have, not ours to take.




"I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword" (Gospel of Matthew 10:34)

I saw this and also saw that most Christians take it as a metaphor. Same with everything else that they don't agree with including most of Leviticus. Makes me laugh.

Ugh maj1n is here..... Thread is gone now.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 8, 2010)

I'm not rooting around the threads to find all that stuff, look over the image of Mohammad threads. There's plenty of stuff in there to be ashamed of not as a Muslim but just as a human being. The fact anyone is willing to kill over drawings of anything is just sickening.


----------



## the box (Jun 8, 2010)

> Ishinoue said:
> 
> 
> > Huffington Post isn't news, man *_*
> ...


----------



## hadou (Jun 8, 2010)

maj1n said:


> I'm not looking at it at a military perspective, but a humanitarian one.
> 
> No it isn't right to wage war against non-muslims if they don't have a pledge with you.
> 
> ...



Is kind of cruel that this religion commands followers to kill people that chose not to believe in Islam. But if we take this to a new level, is it fair or unfair to say that those that decide nowadays to kill others that do not believe in Islam to be true followers of the religion, and those that do not commit such acts can not be considered true followers? To put it more bluntly: are the terrorist that commit acts in the name of Allah the true followers of the religion, and those that do not are not true followers?


----------



## WT (Jun 8, 2010)

Majin, can you provide a link for the tafsir please. 

Thanks.


----------



## the box (Jun 8, 2010)

> Cardboard Tube Knight said:
> 
> 
> > You can't even put all of those on Christians. The crusades were started to take back lands the Muslims stole,
> ...


----------



## Bleach (Jun 8, 2010)

Ishinoue said:


> You do realize that the Qur'an says to kill nonbelievers right?



Wow -.-. There you go again... I guess this is how all Christians argue. By completely ignoring everything other people say. You are really starting to get on my nerves...

BTW, God has no son.

and what I quoted WAS from the New Testament which you once again, ignored.


----------



## the box (Jun 8, 2010)

hadou said:


> Is kind of cruel that this religion commands followers to kill people that chose not to believe in Islam. But if we take this to a new level, is it fair or unfair to say that those that decide nowadays to kill others that do not believe in Islam to be true followers of the religion, and those that do not commit such acts can not be considered true followers? To put it more bluntly: are the terrorist that commit acts in the name of Allah the true followers of the religion, and those that do not are not true followers?



sigh...........



> Judges 21:10-24 NLT)
> 
> *So they sent twelve thousand warriors to Jabesh-gilead with orders to kill everyone there, including women and children. * "This is what you are to do," they said. "*Completely destroy all the males and every woman who is not a virgin." * Among the residents of Jabesh-gilead they found four hundred young virgins who had never slept with a man, and they brought them to the camp at Shiloh in the land of Canaan.
> 
> ...



(Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT)



> *If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, *he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father.  Then *he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.*




HAHAHAHAHAA are you properly following your religion ?


----------



## maj1n (Jun 8, 2010)

hadou said:


> Is kind of cruel that this religion commands followers to kill people that chose not to believe in Islam. But if we take this to a new level, is it fair or unfair to say that those that decide nowadays to kill others that do not believe in Islam to be true followers of the religion, and those that do not commit such acts can not be considered true followers? To put it more bluntly: are the terrorist that commit acts in the name of Allah the true followers of the religion, and those that do not are not true followers?


According to Islam, if you reject, in any fashion, a commandment from God (so basically whatever the religion says really), that is equivalent to being an apostate (being an ex-Muslim), and the rulings for Islam is to kill ex-Muslims.

 Narrated Ikrima:
Ali burnt some people and this news reached Ibn 'Abbas, who said, "Had I been in his place I would not have burnt them, as the Prophet said, 'Don't punish (anybody) with Allah's Punishment.' No doubt, I would have killed them, for the Prophet said, 'If somebody* (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.' *
-http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/bukhari/052.sbt.html#004.052.260

So according to the religion, if a Muslim knowingly rejects the evil parts of Islam, he is in fact committing a great evil act against God and needs to be killed.

Does it make sense? not really, but thats the religion for you, so basically Sesshomaru and co. would be apostates according to Islam and need to be killed by their own religion.



			
				Sesshomaru said:
			
		

> Majin, can you provide a link for the tafsir please.
> 
> Thanks.


Here's an online website dedicated to it.



Note that it has (iirc) the abridged version, so its not as complete as mine, but it has the same stuff i quoted.



> *
> The Order to fight People of the Scriptures until They give the Jizyah
> *
> Allah said,
> ...


If you want  interesting reading material, it was Allah who ordered treaties to be broken in surah  9.



> *Existing Peace Treaties remained valid until the End of Their Term*
> *
> This is an exception regulating the longest extent of time for those who have a general treaty - with out time mentioned - to four months. They would have four months to travel the lands in search of sanctuary for themselves wherever they wish.* Those whose treaty mentioned a specifec limited term, then the longest it would extend was to the point of its agreed upon termination date. Hadiths in this regard preceeded. So anyone who had a treaty with Allah's Messenger , it lasted until its specific termination date. However, those in this category were required to refrain from breaking the terms of the agreement with Muslims and from helping non-Muslims against Muslims. This is the type whose peace agreement with Muslims was carried out to its end. Allah encouraged honoring such peace treaties, saying,
> 
> ...



Do you realize that according to Tafsirs on Surah 9, all indefinite treaties (treaties of peace that last practically forever) were terminated in 4 months, and that Allah said Muslims can kill everyone after 4 months?

Do you realize that it is your God who broke all treaties?


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 8, 2010)

I'm bowing out of this, some of the people here aren't even arguing in a known reality.


----------



## the box (Jun 8, 2010)

> Ishinoue said:
> 
> 
> > Yes. Allah leads Muslims to kill and terrorize nonbelievers just because they don't believe and then he rewards them by sending them to their "heaven"
> ...


----------



## the box (Jun 8, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> I'm bowing out of this, some of the people here aren't even arguing in a known reality.



better run


----------



## Terra Branford (Jun 8, 2010)

Aw! I'm now on a PC, but I might be kicked off. Anyway:



> This is a very weak argument. Although those verses were originally from the Quran, you went to external sources to get them. Secondly, you engaged in a gross cherry picking fallacy, wanting to select verses suited to the propoganda you wish to propogate. Thirdly, you are know engaging in adhominems by insulting your opponent. It really shows your worth.


Read above, dumb-dumb.


> Admittingly I don't know much about Islam, but I do know one thing. I know far more than you do and I know for a fact that I am correct.


No, no you don't. I'm sitting here translating the freakin' book's verses and you can't even admit how VIOLENT the Muslims are. Sorry you can't face the *truth. 


> Islam is a peaceful religion however, I acknowledge that many Muslims across the globe are barabaric. *Those holidays you mention, I presume, you are talking about Shia'ites who engage in flaggelation*. They are a different sect only constituting to roughly 10% of Islam. Even within the Shia'ite sect many great scholars see this as an unlawful practice.


Wow? What kind of religion are you talkin' `bout? Cause that ain't no Muslim religion, oh no, no, no. 



> *Those holidays you mention, I presume, you are talking about Shia'ites who engage in flaggelation*.


*Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh wrong*.

The Muslims must follow Islamic laws and the word of Allah. The fact that you don't know that they HAVE TO follow it, shows you have nothing to offer, nor know anything.

The Qu'ran clearly states to kill the Kaa Faa Raa -- the non-believers. Sorry you can't comprehend that, sir.



> This is getting pathetic. I am saying one thing, and you are replying with another. You are quite unclear when you argue and therefore I have to assume a lot of things. I assumed you were talking about hypocrites and proceeded to say that they did cause a lot of damage to Islam. Let me give one example:


Pathetic? Look dude, if you can't bring anything worth while, then leave. This ain't the place for children. 



> Honestly? Is that what you really think?!?!?! Gosh, I had no idea how much little you know. Whats worse is your interpretation skills. This interpretation is completely wrong.


Well, was I wrong? I had to define a already defined verse for ya. What's that say about your intelligence?  



> Yes you did. You said half of the Quran was violent.


Yes, but I never mentioned the certain length of the book, just that half of it is violent and calls for the murder of non-believers.

*If you are a Muslim, I feel sorry for you. Because a non-Muslim knows more than a Muslim. *



> Give the whole evidence for that.
> 
> I'm not going to even bother with the rest of your post. Its complete rubbish.


You're very ignorant. I have brought the WHOLE EVIDENCE to the table, you neglect to face is because...well, you know, you can't follow anything said to you.

Qu'ran calls for murder. Please, don't waste my time like this, I hate debating with `tarded people. 



> Blatent hypocrisy since those against Islam are clearly going to sources which put a "*negative spin*" on the whole thing!


*
As I said above, person I don't care about, I'm getting what I'm getting from my COPY of Qu'ran! COPY! NO INTERNET! *



> Don't pretend you haven't heard of these websites


I've never heard of them, stop spinnin' `round the subject and explain to us, O mighty one, why the Qu'ran calls for the death of people, non-believers.

Unless you can't explain it away? Well, nothing can really explain away how disgusting Islamic religion is. 



> I'm not going back through X amt of pages just to find where you fail, it would be too great of a number anyway .


Then get the hell out. The whole point of this debacle, is to try and win and prove a point. If you are too goddamn lazy to get evidence or something to back you up....then why the hell are you here?



> Do yourself a favor and keep your trap shut. The more you post, the more of a fool you make of yourself.


I agree with Ishi, put the whole thing in your sig, please. 
Or wait...if I say that, will I be stoned in the streets of Muslim territory?



> You know she did the same thing right?
> 
> Not trying to play the "s/he did it first" game but just saying..







> A failed attempt at being witty.






> Those GIFs say a lot about you Ishinoue...


I think they add class. Better than some fool trying to act as if they know Christianity and spit rubbish out their pieholes and claim their know the Bible. 

Wait....is another person here translating the Qu'ran like I am? Thank god, someone who can't claim its biased views.


----------



## the box (Jun 8, 2010)

Emma Bradley said:


> Aw! I'm now on a PC, but I might be kicked off. Anyway:
> 
> 
> Read above, dumb-dumb.
> ...



Tl;DR i just want to know that your not saying anything


----------



## ZeroBlack (Jun 8, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> You can't even put all of those on Christians. *The crusades were started to take back lands the Muslims stole*, Christians didn't kill MLK, he was Christian preacher. Christians didn't drop the A bomb. This argument isn't even making sense and the not making sense thing is all your part. The Afghanistan war was caused by Muslim terrorists. Christian scientists invented nukes? Where are you getting this from?
> 
> *You don't know the difference between Christian and American and white people it seems.* That just makes everything you're arguing all the worse. But thanks for the help, even though I was pretty much fighting a downhill battle in a rocket sled, you made it that much easier with this last post.



Lol, Islam had spread around the area and the Christians feared another religion being dominant in their "holy land."

You had a point there except most American whites are predominantly Christian. Remember the term WASPS?


----------



## Bleach (Jun 8, 2010)

Ishinoue said:


> Give me proof that the Qur'an doesn't say to terrorize and kill nonbelievers. Right now. You claim you've provided proof where the Qur'an doesn't say that, now provide a citation now.
> 
> Just wondering, which New Testament quote did you provide, again?



Now you are making stuff up. I said you did not use it in the correct context and you are constantly ignoring that. 

What you have been saying is kinda, no wait, exactly like this:

Imagine a court. Someone is accused of murder without evidence. He is accused by the family automatically because he never liked the. He is tried and found guilty without the accusers taking a look at everything else surrounding the murder.


That is what you are doing. If you don't understand this, God (notice not plural) help you.


----------



## the box (Jun 8, 2010)

Ishinoue said:


> Give me proof that the Qur'an doesn't say to terrorize and kill nonbelievers. Right now. You claim you've provided proof where the Qur'an doesn't say that, now provide a citation now.
> 
> Just wondering, which New Testament quote did you provide, again?



The Quran lay down many restrictions when fighting their enemies.
The Muslims are not allowed to attack non combatants, destroy civil infrastructure with no military importance.
CHAPTER 9 QURAN
1. A (declaration) of immunity from God and His Messenger, to those of the Pagans with whom ye have contracted mutual alliances:- 
2. Go ye, then, for four months, backwards and forwards, (as ye will), throughout the land, but know ye that ye cannot frustrate God (by your falsehood) but that God will cover with shame those who reject Him. 
3. And an announcement from God and His Messenger, to the people (assembled) on the day of the Great Pilgrimage,- that God and His Messenger dissolve (treaty) obligations with the Pagans. If then, ye repent, it were best for you; but if ye turn away, know ye that ye cannot frustrate God. And proclaim a grievous penalty to those who reject Faith. 
4. (But the treaties are) not dissolved with those Pagans with whom ye have entered into alliance and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor aided any one against you. So fulfil your engagements with them to the end of their term: for God loveth the righteous. 
5. But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. 
6. If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of God. and then escort him to where he can be secure. That is because they are men without knowledge. 
7. How can there be a league, before God and His Messenger, with the Pagans, except those with whom ye made a treaty near the sacred Mosque? As long as these stand true to you, stand ye true to them: for God doth love the righteous. 
8. How (can there be such a league), seeing that if they get an advantage over you, they respect not in you the ties either of kinship or of covenant? With (fair words from) their mouths they entice you, but their hearts are averse from you; and most of them are rebellious and wicked. 
9. The Signs of God have they sold for a miserable price, and (many) have they hindered from His way: evil indeed are the deeds they have done. 
10. In a Believer they respect not the ties either of kinship or of covenant! It is they who have transgressed all bounds. 
11. But (even so), if they repent, establish regular prayers, and practise regular charity,- they are your brethren in Faith: (thus) do We explain the Signs in detail, for those who understand. 
12. But if they violate their oaths after their covenant, and taunt you for your Faith,- fight ye the chiefs of Unfaith: for their oaths are nothing to them: that thus they may be restrained. 
13. Will ye not fight people who violated their oaths, plotted to expel the Messenger, and took the aggressive by being the first (to assault) you? Do ye fear them? Nay, it is God Whom ye should more justly fear, if ye believe! 
14. Fight them, and God will punish them by your hands, cover them with shame, help you (to victory) over them, heal the breasts of Believers, 
15. And still the indignation of their hearts. For God will turn (in mercy) to whom He will; and God is All-Knowing, All-Wise. 
16. Or think ye that ye shall be abandoned, as though God did not know those among you who strive with might and main, and take none for friends and protectors except God, His Messenger, and the (community of) Believers? But God is well- acquainted with (all) that ye do. 
17. It is not for such as join gods with God, to visit or maintain the mosques of God while they witness against their own souls to infidelity. The works of such bear no fruit: In Fire shall they dwell. 
18. The mosques of God shall be visited and maintained by such as believe in God and the Last Day, establish regular prayers, and practise regular charity, and fear none (at all) except God. It is they who are expected to be on true guidance. 
19. Do ye make the giving of drink to pilgrims, or the maintenance of the Sacred Mosque, equal to (the pious service of) those who believe in God and the Last Day, and strive with might and main in the cause of God. They are not comparable in the sight of God. and God guides not those who do wrong. 
20. Those who believe, and suffer exile and strive with might and main, in God.s cause, with their goods and their persons, have the highest rank in the sight of God. they are the people who will achieve (salvation). 
21. Their Lord doth give them glad tidings of a Mercy from Himself, of His good pleasure, and of gardens for them, wherein are delights that endure: 
22. They will dwell therein for ever. Verily in God.s presence is a reward, the greatest (of all). 
23. O ye who believe! take not for protectors your fathers and your brothers if they love infidelity above Faith: if any of you do so, they do wrong. 
24. Say: If it be that your fathers, your sons, your brothers, your mates, or your kindred; the wealth that ye have gained; the commerce in which ye fear a decline: or the dwellings in which ye delight - are dearer to you than God, or His Messenger, or the striving in His cause;- then wait until God brings about His decision: and God guides not the rebellious. 
25. Assuredly God did help you in many battle-fields and on the day of Hunain: Behold! your great numbers elated you, but they availed you naught: the land, for all that it is wide, did constrain you, and ye turned back in retreat. 
26. But God did pour His calm on the Messenger and on the Believers, and sent down forces which ye saw not: He punished the Unbelievers; thus doth He reward those without Faith. 
27. Again will God, after this, turn (in mercy) to whom He will: for God is Oft- forgiving, Most Merciful. 
28. O ye who believe! Truly the Pagans are unclean; so let them not, after this year of theirs, approach the Sacred Mosque. And if ye fear poverty, soon will God enrich you, if He wills, out of His bounty, for God is All-knowing, All-wise. 
29. Fight those who believe not in God nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by God and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. 
30. The Jews call 'Uzair a son of God, and the Christians call Christ the son of God. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. God.s curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth! 
31. They take their priests and their anchorites to be their lords in derogation of God, and (they take as their Lord) Christ the son of Mary; yet they were commanded to worship but One God. there is no god but He. Praise and glory to Him: (Far is He) from having the partners they associate (with Him). 
32. Fain would they extinguish God.s light with their mouths, but God will not allow but that His light should be perfected, even though the Unbelievers may detest (it). 
33. It is He Who hath sent His Messenger with guidance and the Religion of Truth, to proclaim it over all religion, even though the Pagans may detest (it). 
34. O ye who believe! there are indeed many among the priests and anchorites, who in Falsehood devour the substance of men and hinder (them) from the way of God. And there are those who bury gold and silver and spend it not in the way of God. announce unto them a most grievous penalty- 
35. On the Day when heat will be produced out of that (wealth) in the fire of Hell, and with it will be branded their foreheads, their flanks, and their backs, their flanks, and their backs.- "This is the (treasure) which ye buried for yourselves: taste ye, then, the (treasures) ye buried!" 
36. The number of months in the sight of God is twelve (in a year)- so ordained by Him the day He created the heavens and the earth; of them four are sacred: that is the straight usage. So wrong not yourselves therein, and fight the Pagans all together as they fight you all together. But know that God is with those who restrain themselves. 
37. Verily the transposing (of a prohibited month) is an addition to Unbelief: the Unbelievers are led to wrong thereby: for they make it lawful one year, and forbidden another year, in order to adjust the number of months forbidden by God and make such forbidden ones lawful. The evil of their course seems pleasing to them. But God guideth not those who reject Faith. 
38. O ye who believe! what is the matter with you, that, when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of God, ye cling heavily to the earth? Do ye prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the Hereafter. 

now will you SHUT THE HELL UP? stop spewing crap its starting to fill my eyes.


----------



## WT (Jun 8, 2010)

maj1n said:


> According to Islam, if you reject, in any fashion, a commandment from God (so basically whatever the religion says really), that is equivalent to being an apostate (being an ex-Muslim), and the rulings for Islam is to kill ex-Muslims.
> 
> Does it make sense? not really, but thats the religion for you, so basically Sesshomaru and co. would be apostates according to Islam and need to be killed by their own religion.



Proof? And which "evil" parts did I reject?





> If you want  interesting reading material, it was Allah who ordered treaties to be broken in surah  9.


The tafsir clearly states that fight until Jizya is established. However, that was clearly a one off situation. It was a fight against the Roman empire and note, not against their women and children, but against their armies.  The debate in this thread is the continous order for Muslims to fight against the unbelievers until all of them are dead which is obviously untrue. This part of the tafsir is just explaining one historical event.   




> Do you realize that according to Tafsirs on Surah 9, all indefinite treaties (treaties of peace that last practically forever) were terminated in 4 months, and that Allah said Muslims can kill everyone after 4 months?
> 
> Do you realize that it is your God who broke all treaties?



No treaties were broken. As stated within the Tafsirs, Allah states (to the nearest meaning) he loves those who keep promises. The religous month treaty was established pre Islam and it wasn't even broken. Treaties only expired.

Edit: 4 Months was given as a maximum time a treaty can last. I see this as fair. The non muslims at the time must have known this.



Ishinoue said:


> *My loving mum is takin' over this one;*



As her loving mother and a loving person, do you approve of your daughter telling me to "Go fuck yourself" ?


----------



## the box (Jun 8, 2010)

> Ishinoue said:
> 
> 
> > *I am her mom, and I am the person who most closely studies the bible each day in this house, and I am the one who has been quoting the scriptures in the last few replies through her.*
> ...


----------



## Bleach (Jun 8, 2010)

Ishinoue said:


> *My loving mum is takin' over this one;*
> 
> I am her mom, and I am the person who most closely studies the bible each day in this house, and I am the one who has been quoting the scriptures in the last few replies through her.
> First= Are you a Christian? Do you know what being a Christian means? The name literally means "follower of Christ" , Christ means Annointed One. Christ is the WORD, which was was God in the Beginning, He is the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End. Now......
> ...





This is not a preaching thread.


----------



## WT (Jun 8, 2010)

the box said:


> no wonder they are so backward and crazy. also jhon 1:1 was in a dream jhon had about christ. not the words of CHRIST himself therefor you worship the words of jhon not christ
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I know I am no moderator, but please when talking to someone's mother, Box, please try to be civil.


----------



## the box (Jun 8, 2010)

Sesshomaru said:


> I know I am no moderator, but please when talking to someone's mother, Box, please try to be civil.



im sorry im feeling FLAMMY! sorry maam im about to be a mom my self it must be the mood swings


----------



## Terra Branford (Jun 8, 2010)

> - the KKK



The KKK? You count the people who are crazy....as Christians? Not all of the KKK members were Christians, dur. As I've said before, there are a few crazy Christians who are well, are crazy. But since they don't follow the Bible and murder an' all that, I don't see them as Christians, really. 



> -killed aztecs spared the few that converted


What? 



> -crusades killing innocents in the name a jesus


? 



> -killed native americans


Spaniards, French....British and well, that's all. Please learn history before you open your mouth.

The Americans killed some Native Americans, yes, when the British promised land, but the majority of Native American murders, were done by French, Spaniards and other people. NOT CHRISTIANS! 



> -enslaved all who wernt white


Wrong again. The Bible says "Love thy neighbor" someone just went freakin' crazy and made them slaves.

But you do know long before African Americans were slaves, women of the white skin and children and men of white skin and other colours, were slaves? They were slaves longer than the African Americans.

Not sayin' African American slaves have nothing to say about it, just sayin' ya know? 



> -took away and striped the religion of people that they conquered


Nope.

The countries converted from one religion to another due to the country's ruler, who made decisions.  



> -whitch hunts
> [/






> -killed MLK
> -corrupted iran installing a crazed dictator
> -the holocaust many Christians were nazis and troops
> -dropped the atomic bomb
> ...



What the hell?

Christians didn't drop the bomb...and wait, what about installing a crazy dictator?

And no, the Nazis weren't Christians....Well, you do know people were forced to be Nazi, right? Hitler was one of those crazies I mentioned 

Wait....Christians are responsible for the Iraq war?


I don't know about you, but the person that holds responsibility has yet to be seen. I don't know how you know who started the war.....did you do it?



> Tl;DR i just want to know that your not saying anything


What? You have to ignore posts because you can't defend the most violent religion in the world?

What's up with people wastin' my time like this? You debaters here suck.



> This is not a preaching thread.


....Wow, you aren't smart, are ya?

You (all the `tarded people who did, of course) are the ones who brought Christianity into this. Now you don't want to hear it? Because we are proving what you are saying about the Bible....is wrong? Can't except defeat? 

Make up your goddamn mind. To bring Christians into this, or not to?



Go cry to you mamma about your disgraceful debating skills. 

@the box:
I laughed so hard at your posts...I fell off my chair and hurt my elbow. Now my arm hurts.

Oh well, was defiantly worth the great laugh! 
Thanks for purposely sounding ignorant...or, I hope you were trying to.


----------



## WT (Jun 8, 2010)

the box said:


> im sorry im feeling FLAMMY! sorry maam im about to be a mom my self it must be the mood swings



Congratulations  ... Thats awesome news


----------



## Bleach (Jun 8, 2010)

Sesshomaru said:


> First of all, I'm not a maam ...
> 
> but ...
> 
> Congratulations  ... Thats awesome news



I think he was talking to Inishoue's mom when he said "maam"


----------



## WT (Jun 8, 2010)

Bleach said:


> I think he was talking to Inishoue's mom when he said "maam"



I clocked on ...

A little too late.


----------



## the box (Jun 8, 2010)

> Emma Bradley said:
> 
> 
> > The KKK? You count the people who are crazy....as Christians? Not all of the KKK members were Christians, dur. As I've said before, there are a few crazy Christians who are well, are crazy. But since they don't follow the Bible and murder an' all that, I don't see them as Christians, really.
> ...


----------



## WT (Jun 8, 2010)

Ishinoue said:


> What ever, I've got to go eat some dinner now. I'll get back to you all tomorrow.
> 
> I send out peace to all. Despite the religion you follow.



And peace to you to ... It was fun :33


----------



## the box (Jun 8, 2010)

the trolling over


----------



## DremolitoX (Jun 8, 2010)

You suck at trolling btw.


----------



## ZeroBlack (Jun 8, 2010)

Having her mom to debate for her...
smh


----------



## the box (Jun 8, 2010)

DremolitoX said:


> You suck at trolling btw.



you try it then ( YOU GONNA GET BANNED  )


----------



## maj1n (Jun 9, 2010)

Sesshomaru said:


> Proof? And which "evil" parts did I reject?


Jihad, and especially what the Quran means.

It does not matter that you believe it meant it that way, what matters is your interpretation is different to all the evidence of what it actually says.

In other words, to say, Islam and Muhammad, you willingly follow a corrupted form of Islam, and under sharia law, and the words of Muhammad via Hadith your punishable with death.



			
				Sesshomaru said:
			
		

> The tafsir clearly states that fight until Jizya is established. However, that was clearly a one off situation. It was a fight against the Roman empire and note, not against their women and children, but against their armies.  The debate in this thread is the continous order for Muslims to fight against the unbelievers until all of them are dead which is obviously untrue. This part of the tafsir is just explaining one historical event.


Perhaps some correction is needed then, Islam mandates to kill anyone rejecting islam and not submitting themselves to islam rule except women and children, to whom islam says it is correct of muslims to *enslave*



			
				Sesshomaru said:
			
		

> No treaties were broken. As stated within the Tafsirs, Allah states (to the nearest meaning) he loves those who keep promises. The religous month treaty was established pre Islam and it wasn't even broken. Treaties only expired.
> 
> Edit: 4 Months was given as a maximum time a treaty can last. I see this as fair. The non muslims at the time must have known this.


Treaties were broken, let us see the tafsir again.



> This is an exception regulating the longest extent of time *for those who have a general treaty - with out time mentioned - to four months. They would have four months to travel the lands in search of sanctuary for themselves wherever they wish. *Those whose treaty mentioned a specifec limited term, then the longest it would extend was to the point of its agreed upon termination date. Hadiths in this regard preceeded. So anyone who had a treaty with Allah's Messenger , it lasted until its specific termination date. However, those in this category were required to refrain from breaking the terms of the agreement with Muslims and from helping non-Muslims against Muslims. This is the type whose peace agreement with Muslims was carried out to its end. Allah encouraged honoring such peace treaties, saying,
> 
> [إِنَّ اللَّهَ يُحِبُّ الْمُتَّقِينَ]
> 
> ...



1. There were general 'indefinite' treaties of peace
2. By Allahs command they were only 4 months now
3. Kill them after the 4 months


It is not even possible to interpret it the way you did from a simple reading, do you now understand what i mean by corrupting Islam? you wish to interpret Islam to fit your morality, you do not interpret Islam as it should be, on its own.

Breaking treaties just so you have an excuse to kill people is bad enough (which Muhamamd did and according toy our religion, by Allahs orders)

But it is also bad to say one can kill people if you DONT have a treaty with them, as if not having a treaty with someone gives you license to kill them.

edit: this is interesting reading material, what does 'attack' mean in the Quran? its actually quite ambigous, here's a nice tafsir explanation of Surah 9 attack.




> *Tafsir Ibn Kathir*
> *and attack your religion...) with disapproval and criticism*, it is because of this that one who curses the Messenger, peace be upon him, or *attacks the religion of Islam by way of criticism and disapproval, they are to be fought*. This is why Allah said afterwards,
> -http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=9&tid=20812


----------



## Onomatopoeia (Jun 9, 2010)

They shouldn't build a Mosque at Ground Zero. They should build a strip club.


----------



## SxR (Jun 9, 2010)

I would love to join these guys


----------



## TSC (Jun 9, 2010)

wow lol so much religious drama. I'm not going get into the bible/Qu'ran argument but I have to correct these points, thanks to my history geekness.






Ishinoue said:


> Spain, Africa, India, Jerusalem...



Africa(ingenious tribal), india(hindu) and jerusalem(jews) weren't even christian's begin with. On contrary, "Christian" or white people took over Africa and India by colonization and most likely converted the people there.


The crusades happen for two main reason: Fear of Muslim expansion and put a stop to it, and reclaim Jersualem as their own.





Emma Bradley said:


> What?



It is true. The king and queen of Spain sent Cortez and his men over to Mexico where Aztecs resided and brutally massacre them. Many of his men were formerly people of Spanish inquisition and their for were able to carry out executions thanks to their well train experience during the inquisition days.



Emma Bradley said:


> ?


What else could it be? One of main goals and sole reason for the crusades was to conquer Jerusalem- the holy site of much of Jesus' actions.



Emma Bradley said:


> Spaniards, French....British and well, that's all. Please learn history before you open your mouth.
> 
> The Americans killed some Native Americans, yes, when the British promised land, but the majority of Native American murders, were done by French, Spaniards and other people. NOT CHRISTIANS!


  Spaniards, french, British were all dominantly Christians.....

and side note, French did least killing of native Americans. They actually had good relationship with them due to fur trade etc. Also French and Indian war was french and Indians against the British.






Onomatopoeia said:


> They shouldn't build a Mosque at Ground Zero. They should build a strip club.





but actually there one near there already, but more doesn't hurt


----------



## blueblip (Jun 9, 2010)

I would like to say that Islam is nothing more than the largest minority in India. 70-75% of the Indian population is Hindu. Islam makes like ~20%. Dunno where people are getting the India is an Islamic country thing from.

Otherwise, carry on. This is an amusing thread.


----------



## maj1n (Jun 9, 2010)

TSC said:
			
		

> The crusades happen for two main reason: Fear of Muslim expansion and put a stop to it, and reclaim Jersualem as their own.


Crusades started when Muslim turks invaded Anatolia of old Byzantine, the then Emperor sent a call to help from the Pope, whom answered it.


----------



## Zabuzalives (Jun 9, 2010)

egghhh even in the context of a war situation or the past...then it is still violent. 

""if they fight you cut off their head"" 

""if they hit you, turn the other cheek"" 

""any form of violence is bad for your karma"" 


never mind the straight out intolerance against disbelievers and apostates. And the treatment of others of the book as second hand citizens. 

Also lets not forget ""context"" is open to interpretation. Having such verses means a greater % for it to be abused or misread in a very violent and intolerant way.... 

Hell, how do you even know your ""context/interpretation"" is correct??




it was not one of the most tolerant religions in the past (though christianity was worse through certain ages), and it CERTAINLY is not one of the most tolerant religions now...in fact it is one of the most intolerant now.


----------



## pikachuwei (Jun 9, 2010)

religion is for losers 

*runs away*


----------



## WT (Jun 9, 2010)

maj1n said:


> Jihad, and especially what the Quran means.
> 
> It does not matter that you believe it meant it that way, what matters is your interpretation is different to all the evidence of what it actually says.



Yes, I do believe it the way it is supposed to be believed. However, it is also important to realise the time and place where those verses were revealed. Some verses are speaking about certain incidences and then you have others such as Surah Al Kafiroon (#109) which speak about others. There are many places in the Quran where Allah encourages Muslims to ignore the unbelievers as well. You can't simply just cherry pick a certain verse and apply it to the whole picture. Some are stories, others are not.  

Secondly, I want the hadith where it states that Muslims become renegade if they reject a part of the Quran or Hadith. 



> Perhaps some correction is needed then, Islam mandates to kill anyone rejecting islam and not submitting themselves to islam rule except women and children, to whom islam says it is correct of muslims to *enslave*



These were stories or events. There are other places in the Quran which tell us to ignore the unbelievers and where Allah mentions consistently that he loves those who do not aggress. Most of the violent verses exist for counter attack reasons. That is extremely reasonable in a military perspective. Muslims are not like the Christians where if someone slaps us, we turn the other cheek. We will slap them back. 



> Treaties were broken, let us see the tafsir again.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Lets look at a previous part of the tafsir which explains this in a little more detail shall we?



> (So long as they are true to you, stand you true to them.), if they keep the terms of the treaties you conducted with them, including peace between you and them for ten years,
> 
> [فَاسْتَقِيمُواْ لَهُمْ إِنَّ اللَّهَ يُحِبُّ الْمُتَّقِينَ]
> 
> (then stand you true to them. Verily, Allah loves those who have Taqwa.) The Messenger of Allah and the Muslims preserved the terms of the treaty with the people of Makkah from the month of Dhul-Qa`dah in the sixth year [of Hijrah], until the Quraysh broke it and helped their allies, Banu Bakr, against Khuza`ah, the allies of Allah's Messenger . Aided by the Quraysh, Banu Bakr killed some of Bani Khuza`ah in the Sacred Area! The Messenger of Allah led an invasion army in the month of Ramadan, of the eighth year, and Allah opened the Sacred Area for him to rule over them, all thanks are due to Allah. The Messenger of Allah freed the Quraysh who embraced Islam after they were overpowered and defeated. These numbered around two thousands, and they were refered to by the name `Tulaqa' afterwards. Those among them who remained in disbelief and ran away from Allah's Messenger were sent promises of safe refuge for four months, during which they were allowed to move about freely. They included Safwan bin Umayyah, `Ikrimah bin Abi Jahl and many others. Allah later on guided them to Islam, and they became excellent believers. Surely, Allah is worthy of all praise for all His actions and decrees.



So here's what actually happened. Muslims and Quraish had a treaty which was supposed to last for 10 years. However, in the 6th year, Quraish broke the treaty (in the religious months!!) therefore Muslims attacked. Most of the unbelievers became extremely pious Muslims and others ran away. As to those who ran away, the Muslims showed them extreme mercy by allowing them to flee for 4 Months after which their time would expire. 

I hope this has been clarified. 



> edit: this is interesting reading material, what does 'attack' mean in the Quran? its actually quite ambigous, here's a nice tafsir explanation of Surah 9 attack.



Again this is an isolated event in time. There are other verses of the Quran which state that if you meet someone ignorant, say peace and walk off in humility.


----------



## Banhammer (Jun 9, 2010)

I like it how if they're not burrying themselves in clothes and towels and escorted by a man in the street that has obligatory to be her husband or family then they're "ignorant". To say the least. That's not a demeaning religion at all


----------



## the box (Jun 9, 2010)

> Zabuzalives said:
> 
> 
> > egghhh even in the context of a war situation or the past...then it is still violent.
> ...


----------



## the box (Jun 9, 2010)

Banhammer said:


> I like it how if they're not burrying themselves in clothes and towels and escorted by a man in the street that has obligatory to be her husband or family then they're "ignorant". To say the least. That's not a demeaning religion at all



im not from sauidi arabia therefor my husband has never told me where to go or asked me to obey his command. you are a fool


----------



## Zabuzalives (Jun 9, 2010)

the box said:


> sounds like the christians who went around killing kids and burning down mosque saying "god weild it JESUS SAVES!!"



shit comparison.

quote from the bible.


I was explaining that even if you take the quran texts in ""context"" they are still violent responses.



the box said:


> yep ALL muslims are like that yep / sarcasm



was talking about intolerant quran text. i suggest you read more carefully. 



the box said:


> if you wish to understand it that was by reading one verse and closing the book then yes your ignorant because its a very peaceful message



try to understand simpleton.

violent responses STAY violent even ""in context of defending the faith"" 

""kill them"" is a more violent response then ""turn the other cheek"" 

And with such violent actions in text...there is also a GREATER threat of people ABUSING the text...or MISinterpreting it. 


Then there are texts who are simply intolerant or violent IN context. 




the box said:


> because iv read the entire thing and it clarifys along the way



so did the terrorists, the taliban, the saudis and those in radical madrassas. 

and they think your interpretation is wrong. 

believers shape the religion. Your peers make it a less tolerant religion. 


   [/QUOTE]

and that is DWARFED by the level of intolerance seen in Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan. Hell I can link to Indonesia where christian schoolgirls were beheaded. 

even ""moderate"" Turkey has its share of attacks and even MURDERS on christians...when the christian minority is incredibly small and more integrated.

just imagine what would happen if millions and millions of christians would migrate to there and cause problems with integration. 

Oh wait we can tell from history. Angry Mobs murdering whole families...like they did when the jews started migration towards muslim dominated lands. 



anything else???


----------



## Nick Soapdish (Jun 9, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> The problem is that certain Muslims have antagonized people here and the rest of the Muslim community has either sat idly by, cheered them on and those few who speak out are demonized by people in all the other groups of Muslims.



The vast majority of Muslims have spoken against it. After 9/11, there was footage all over the world of Muslims showing their sympathy for the terrorism that we suffered. But the guys that were bombing get better press and a lot of that sympathy melted away in the lead-up to the war in Iraq.



Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> You can't even put all of those on Christians. The crusades were started to take back lands the Muslims stole, Christians didn't kill MLK, he was Christian preacher. Christians didn't drop the A bomb. This argument isn't even making sense and the not making sense thing is all your part. The Afghanistan war was caused by Muslim terrorists. Christian scientists invented nukes? Where are you getting this from?



When did the British, French and other European states own the land around Jerusalem exactly? The European kings did restore the lands to Christian rule, but not giving them back to the Byzantine Emperor. One of the Crusades actually attacked Constantinople.

I agree that there isn't any point in specific examples of whom invented what or killed what, particularly when it isn't done for religious reasons. It's just an example of a single person so it's like saying that Phelps represents Christians.



Emma Bradley said:


> The KKK? You count the people who are crazy....as Christians? Not all of the KKK members were Christians, dur. As I've said before, there are a few crazy Christians who are well, are crazy. But since they don't follow the Bible and murder an' all that, I don't see them as Christians, really.



Ok, they claim to be Christian and use verses from the Bible to back up their beliefs - but they aren't _really_ Christian. What's the difference between them and Al-Qaeda exactly? Both are mangling their religious texts by picking select passages to justify violence while ignoring others.



Emma Bradley said:


> Spaniards, French....British and well, that's all. Please learn history before you open your mouth.
> 
> The Americans killed some Native Americans, yes, when the British promised land, but the majority of Native American murders, were done by French, Spaniards and other people. NOT CHRISTIANS!



Already mentioned, but French, Spaniards and "other people" were all Christian. The Spanish marched into a new region, ordered the natives to convert to Christianity or be killed (in Spanish) and then killed them. The French had much better relationships with the Native Americans than the British colonists (and then later, the Americans). America continued exterminating Native Americans through 1890 and even after that, they kicked them out of reservations when we decided that the land was worth having - like Oklahoma.



Emma Bradley said:


> And no, the Nazis weren't Christians....Well, you do know people were forced to be Nazi, right? Hitler was one of those crazies I mentioned



Most of the Nazis were Christians although some of the higher ups had some sorta weird mystic thing going. And no, you didn't have to be a Nazi - unless you wanted to advance your career.



Emma Bradley said:


> Wait....Christians are responsible for the Iraq war?
> 
> 
> I don't know about you, but the person that holds responsibility has yet to be seen. I don't know how you know who started the war.....did you do it?



We invaded and it was an unnecessary war that has made it much more difficult to win a war that *was* provoked by Muslims. Yes, we also invaded Afghanistan, but I think we had ample reason.



Zabuzalives said:


> and that is DWARFED by the level of intolerance seen in Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan. Hell I can link to Indonesia where christian schoolgirls were beheaded.
> 
> even ""moderate"" Turkey has its share of attacks and even MURDERS on christians...when the christian minority is incredibly small and more integrated.
> 
> ...



And yet, here in America, we just had attacks on Christians simply because they were suspected of being Muslims.

The Jews began returning back to Palestine in the 1880s - although there had been Jews living there all along quite happily under Muslim rule. Tensions began in the early 1920s after Britain admitted (accidentally) that they were planning on setting up a Jewish state. There were a couple riots, but you're exaggerating the violence and ignoring that more Muslims died in the riots.

There have been similar problems in American history when significant numbers of immigrants came - first when we came as colonists and then with later immigrant groups like the Irish. It's not always a smooth process when a large number of "different" people suddenly start moving in the neighborhood.


----------



## Nick Soapdish (Jun 9, 2010)

Ishinoue said:


> Where? Proof please.
> 
> Because I saw them cheering it on.
> 
> ...



Like I said, that was the sexy footage. There were Palestinians that were cheering it and they got tons of footage. The Palestinian National Authority didn't and they acted angry about a few kids smearing the beliefs of real Palestinians. The 60,000 that gathered in a stadium for a prayer vigil in Iran didn't. And to be fair, watching people pray is boring.

Here's a  from individual leaders speaking up. Keep in mind that Islam doesn't have a central leader like the Pope.

Here's a  by nation.


----------



## Petenshi (Jun 9, 2010)

> Zabuzalives said:
> 
> 
> > which still show a higher support for terrorism and intolerance.
> ...


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jun 9, 2010)

Oh, God...


----------



## Zabuzalives (Jun 9, 2010)

Nick Soapdish said:


> And yet, here in America, we just had attacks on Christians simply because they were suspected of being Muslims.



how many dead?


you want to play a numbersgame instead of making excuses? 

how much rights and freedom do non-believers have in saudi arabia? 
Lets make a whole list of countries and compare. 

for i am comparing intolerance and violence within groups...not claiming christianity does not has its share of violence and intolerance. 


your whole remark was utter useless..i could have copied what you quotes as reply. 




Nick Soapdish said:


> It's not always a smooth process when a large number of "different" people suddenly start moving in the neighborhood.



exactly my point...so you would expect more intolerance and violence in countries facing mass immigration of muslims...yet these countries are in general more tolerant and less violent towards these minorities then the almost non-existant minorities in the muslim nations.


----------



## Zabuzalives (Jun 9, 2010)

Petenshi said:


> Really? Can you back that up with some facts? I don't see Muslims in america, or Britian, or any of Europe being as Terroristic as you say.



how terroristic do i say they are??? 

yeah shut you up huh??? 


Also i already posted polls for you in the cartoon debate thread gj ignoring it. They are also in my signature. Do some of your own knowledge finding...you need it. 

Seeing the utter trash level of your post im not gonna waste my time educating you. your too much of a slow student for my patience. . 



Petenshi said:


> It doesn't matter. You are saying that Islam is a terrorist religion, and therefore everyone who is a Muslim must follow all of its decrees.




strawman nr 1. 

I said:  ""and the believers form and shape a religion. They decide on interpretations and practice. 

as such, a religion can generally become more or less tolerant...depending on its believers interpretations."" 

even admitting christianity was more intolerant in the dark ages. 



Petenshi said:


> Smart Educated people can realize that they can still call themselves a Muslim and not follow everything that is in there. You are judging people who you do not know at all based that they are a Muslim.



strawman nr 2. 



Petenshi said:


> The word is just a label, it has no intrinsic meaning. Christians don't have to abide by the bible 100% either, most don't in fact.



which shows my point.....



Petenshi said:


> There are Terrorists who happen to be Muslims and then there are Muslims. Get off your Judgmental high horse. Even if 99% of all Muslims were actually terrorist it wouldn't give you the right to judge that 1% who is not.



but I am not judging.

do these terrorists just ""happen"" to be muslims?? 

answer me this...does a holy book texts have ABSOLUTELY NO effect or influence on someones views or actions?? 

If 99% of all muslims are terrorist..that leads to a religion that is IN GENERAL quite intolerant/violent in practice and interpretation. with the 1% being the exceptions. 

religion is shaped by its believers. 



Petenshi said:


> You can't judge people based on a label. You don't know anything about them.



see above. 

you really need to get over this knee jerk BAAWWW response everytime someone gives a little critiscism on Islam. 




Petenshi said:


> Its not just being poor, it is being pulled away from critical thinking and full education. Just because someone goes through schooling, doesn't mean they are taught they are allowed to think whatever they want.



leading to??? intolerant views in practice. 




Petenshi said:


> You haven't shown anything other than you want to judge a person without knowing anything about them. "Hmmm, are you black? Well, more black people are in jail so you must be a criminal!" Sound logic there buddy.



strawman nr 3. 

quote me dipshit. 




Petenshi said:


> Right, but I am not going to judge every Christian living TODAY based on what there bible says, only one what each one does.



which is part of what i do...pay attention. 

judge on what each one does...so if a religion has a higher % of believers with intolerant and violent views they justify with the religion...claiming the religion is ""one of the most tolerant"" is a bit flawed. Especially when the holy scripture itself has a fair share of violent and intolerant texts 



Petenshi said:


> I can criticize the bible, but I can't assume those who think it is a holy book follow 100% of all its tenets as if I am a psychic.



quote me on that. your DELUDED. 



Petenshi said:


> Yes, but you act like Christianity and Islam are in the exact same circumstance.



DELUDED

quote me on that. 




Petenshi said:


> They aren't. Its like comparing Test Exam scores between a Rich and a Poor kid, and then claiming the poor kid is just dumb and stupid and doesn't want to work hard when his exam grade is lower.



sigh...

lets say we look at KNOWLEDGE. (instead of Tolerance) 

We have a rich kid (christian) and a poor kid (muslim) 
the rich kid got better education and when we COMPARE them...he has more KNOWLEDGE. 

So if i say the rich kid has more knowledge then the poor kid at the time of testing. (christianity is more tolerant then islamic world at this point in time.) 

then I am factually correct. 

In comes Petenshi. 

But he is poor! dont judge him!! 

I am not...i am stating a fact without judging the person or ignoring the 
circumstances having influence.

Petenshi: .....dont judge...poor....derp.


----------



## Bleach (Jun 9, 2010)

Ishinoue said:


> Islamic leaders can't be counted in this. They HAVE to have a nicer opinion about things like that.
> 
> I want to see proof that the citizens weren't cheering it on. Because for four weeks straight American news stations broadcasted tons of footage of Muslims over seas cheering the attacks on.
> 
> No one can take those memories of seeing groups of Muslims cheering for the deaths of innocents.



American news stations?

Are you kidding me


----------



## Tleilaxu (Jun 9, 2010)

Are you denying the truth that there were Muslims cheering in the streets after the 9/11 attacks?

[YOUTUBE]KrM0dAFsZ8k[/YOUTUBE]

[YOUTUBE]q-9JpRytCx0[/YOUTUBE]

Also doubting the credibility of the American News stations with the exception of Fox is laughable. Then again Fox was a lot more moderate and credible back then.


----------



## Bleach (Jun 10, 2010)

Where did I say that I denied anything?

But a sample of a population, does not describe the entire population.


----------



## Tleilaxu (Jun 10, 2010)

Except a majority of the population aproves of this(terrorism and violence) If this were not the case there would not be so many issues with Muslims and the western world.


----------



## Cygnus45 (Jun 10, 2010)

Ishinoue said:


> Where? Proof please.
> 
> Because I saw them cheering it on.
> 
> ...



A bible-thumping moron who gets her information from biased sources (i.e 10 minutes on google), is going to state how 1 billion people are "supposed" to be following their religion and then has the audacity to act irate when no one takes her arguements seriously?



> Except a majority of the population aproves of this(terrorism and violence) If this were not the case there would not be so many issues with Muslims and the western world.



Wow, you just took the ball and ran with it.

That's got to be the most moronic conclusion you could reach. In case you didn't notice, speaking out against the government can get you in trouble. And many Muslims live in countries where they simply don't have a voice due to limits in technology.


----------



## Tleilaxu (Jun 10, 2010)

Guns are everywhere over there they can use them to do something about it... And the ones that immigrate to western countries are very extreme, its there we see the protests, "behead those who insult Islam" And what not.

I have not seen many examples where Miuslims are attempting to moderate themselves and become more rational/less violent. The only Examples I can think of are in the USA and those are also a minority.

You cannot deny that there is a huge problem between the followers of Islam and the Western world and the fact one side is much more irrational and intolerant than the other.


----------



## Psycho (Jun 10, 2010)

Tleilaxu said:


> Except a majority of the population aproves of this(terrorism and violence) If this were not the case there would not be so many issues with Muslims and the western world.



a minority of muslims live in the middle east, even if all middle eastern muslims approved of the attack, the majority are still in southeast asia and africa


----------



## DisgustingIdiot (Jun 10, 2010)

What do these people have in common?



> Samad Afridi
> Ashraf Ahmad
> Shabbir Ahmad (45 years old; Windows on the World; leaves wife and 3 children)
> Umar Ahmad
> ...



Regardless Islam didn't commit 9/11, some batshit insane muslims did. There is a distinction.


----------



## Tleilaxu (Jun 10, 2010)

> a minority of muslims live in the middle east, even if all middle eastern muslims approved of the attack, the majority are still in southeast asia and africa



Considering the ones in Southeast Asia dont make headlines that often I suppose one can assume that they are either well behaved or more concerned about their daily lives, either way is fine. As long as they leave us in peace.



> Regardless Islam didn't commit 9/11, some batshit insane muslims did. There is a distinction.



Islam inspired attacks against the west and continues to do so. I have not seen other religions in the present day that inspire people to violently attack other nations, on the scale of 9/11. I can also say we are currently not fighting the war on terror against atheists, Jews or Christians, ect ect. Dont you find that odd at all? That the most dangerous groups we have to deal with are Islamic, that should show something is not quite right at this time.


----------



## Psycho (Jun 10, 2010)

Tleilaxu said:


> Considering the ones in Southeast Asia dont make headlines that often I suppose one can assume that they are either well behaved or more concerned about their daily lives, either way is fine. As long as they leave us in peace.



so don't generalize, islam didn't celebrate 9/11, some morons in the middle east did


----------



## DisgustingIdiot (Jun 10, 2010)

Tleilaxu said:


> Islam inspired attacks against the west and continues to do so. I have not seen other religions in the present day that inspire people to violently attack other nations, on the scale of 9/11. I can also say we are currently not fighting the war on terror against atheists, Jews or Christians, ect ect. Dont you find that odd at all? That the most dangerous groups we have to deal with are Islamic, that should show something is not quite right at this time.



 You could interpret any of the Abrahamic religions to be either a religion of peace or a religion of violence. I could go and find examples from the scripture but clearly looking through history you'll find examples of some Christians interpreting the Bible to say that burning "witches" is good and more than a few Jews have taken part in stoning people to death because that's what the Torah said they should do. 

 More recently however western civilization has moved on and with it the people who started to interpret their scripture in a way which fits with what they already believe. This hasn't happened in places like Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan which is why they're still interpreting the Koran in a way which could only be described as barbaric while Muslims on this site seem to be interpreting the Koran in a way which is more consistent with western ideals.

 I guarantee you the vast majority of Muslims living near Ground Zero interpret Islam as a religion of peace and I'm sure the same could be said of the majority of Muslim victims in the bombings.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jun 10, 2010)

> More recently however western civilization has moved on and with it the people who started to interpret their scripture in a way which fits with what they already believe. This hasn't happened in places like Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan which is why they're still interpreting the Koran in a way which could only be described as barbaric *while Muslims on this site seem to be interpreting the Koran in a way which is more consistent with western ideals.*



Depends on the issue.


----------



## DisgustingIdiot (Jun 10, 2010)

Well I don't think on the whole they're any worse than some of the Christians here when it comes to certain issues.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jun 10, 2010)

Rob` said:


> Well I don't think on the whole they're any worse than some of the Christians here when it comes to certain issues.



An hour ago I would have agreed with you.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 10, 2010)

Rob` said:


> Well I don't think on the whole they're any worse than some of the Christians here when it comes to certain issues.


Bullshit. When was the last time Christians caused this much mayhem on a world wide scale. I'll give you a clue. 

It was probably sometime before the fucking reformation.

Truth of the matter is if one Christian idiot blows up an abortion clinic every other "liberal  commentator" on this site is blaming Christianity. 

A trend of Muslims creating mayhem and destruction in multiple countries and threatening to do more and suddenly its a small problem, its not the whole group, its just an isolated incident. 

Get your story straight and wipe the egg off your face, the double talk when it comes to Christianity and Islam are ridiculous.


----------



## DisgustingIdiot (Jun 10, 2010)

Ignores my argument and then accuses me of a double standard which I don't recall being personally guilty of.

Well done.

If I have ever blamed Christianity directly for anything then at the time I would also have blamed Islam directly for 9/11. My view on the matter has changed in the last few years and that isn't a double standard.

I don't blame Christianity for the abhorent things certain Christians have done in it's name nor do I blame Islam for the abhorent things certain Muslims have done in it's name.


----------



## Herekic (Jun 10, 2010)

Fun fact: Cordoba is the name of the first spanish city conquered by muslims in their invasion of spain.


they built a big mosque there to commemorate their conquest of a western culture.

in fact, building mosques on sites of victory and conquest is a tradition for muslim rulers.



One of the groups trying to build this place is called the cordoba initiative. 



Take from that what you will


----------



## Petenshi (Jun 10, 2010)

> Zabuzalives said:
> 
> 
> > how terroristic do i say they are???
> ...


----------



## Almaseti (Jun 10, 2010)

It's not any religion specifically, it's religious extremism that drives people to do awful things in the name of their god.  

(Which is why the interfaith community center (not mosque) near (not on) ground zero is a good idea.)


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 10, 2010)

Rob` said:


> Ignores my argument and then accuses me of a double standard which I don't recall being personally guilty of.
> 
> Well done.


Didn't ignore your argument. The part where I said its a trend addresses that. It's far too common to not have some blame fall on Islam. It's not everyone, it never is in a group but its too many to just be coincidence.


----------



## DisgustingIdiot (Jun 10, 2010)

Did you miss the part when I talked about western civilization moving on and Christianity and Judaism following while that hasn't happened in the Middle East? In essence did you just miss my argument?


----------



## Almaseti (Jun 10, 2010)

Herekic said:


> Fun fact: Cordoba is the name of the first spanish city conquered by muslims in their invasion of spain.
> 
> 
> they built a big mosque there to commemorate their conquest of a western culture.
> ...



It's not a mosque, and it's two blocks away from ground zero. It's going to be across the street from a church.


----------



## Herekic (Jun 10, 2010)

> It's not a mosque, and it's two blocks away from ground zero. It's going to be across the street from a church.



I don't remember claiming it was.


again, "fun fact"


----------



## Psycho (Jun 10, 2010)

Herekic said:


> Fun fact: Cordoba is the name of the first spanish city conquered by muslims in their invasion of spain.
> 
> 
> they built a big mosque there to commemorate their conquest of a western culture.
> ...



you are over rationalizing


----------



## Al-Razi (Jun 10, 2010)

Ishinoue said:


> _*
> Qur?an:9:88* ?The Messenger and those who believe with him, strive hard and fight with their wealth and lives in Allah?s Cause.?
> *
> Qur?an:9:5 *?*Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, *take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war.?
> ...



LOL Ive never Seen a chapter called Ishaq in the Qur'an. Why make up fake verses?


----------



## maj1n (Jun 10, 2010)

Sesshomaru said:


> Yes, I do believe it the way it is supposed to be believed. However, it is also important to realise the time and place where those verses were revealed. Some verses are speaking about certain incidences and then you have others such as Surah Al Kafiroon (#109) which speak about others. There are many places in the Quran where Allah encourages Muslims to ignore the unbelievers as well. You can't simply just cherry pick a certain verse and apply it to the whole picture. Some are stories, others are not.


I don't, i always provide evidence for my interpretations.



			
				Sesshomaru said:
			
		

> These were stories or events. There are other places in the Quran which tell us to ignore the unbelievers and where Allah mentions consistently that he loves those who do not aggress. Most of the violent verses exist for counter attack reasons. That is extremely reasonable in a military perspective. Muslims are not like the Christians where if someone slaps us, we turn the other cheek. We will slap them back.


I don't care what happens in other events, it is ordained that it is acceptable to enslave women and children, this is both in Quran and hadith.

I don't care if Muslims left person A alone, that means nothing to when person B is enslaved.



			
				Sesshomaru said:
			
		

> Lets look at a previous part of the tafsir which explains this in a little more detail shall we?
> 
> So here's what actually happened. Muslims and Quraish had a treaty which was supposed to last for 10 years. However, in the 6th year, Quraish broke the treaty (in the religious months!!) therefore Muslims attacked. Most of the unbelievers became extremely pious Muslims and others ran away. As to those who ran away, the Muslims showed them extreme mercy by allowing them to flee for 4 Months after which their time would expire.
> 
> I hope this has been clarified.


Sure lets look at it.
*
Surah 9-1*
*Tafsir Ibn Kathir*
_This is an exception regulating the longest extent of time for* those who have a general treaty - with out time mentioned - to four months*. They would have four months to travel the lands in search of sanctuary for themselves wherever they wish. *Those whose treaty mentioned a specifec limited term,* then the longest it would extend was to the point of its agreed upon termination date. Hadiths in this regard preceeded. So anyone who had a treaty with Allah's Messenger , it lasted until its specific termination date. However, those in this category were required to refrain from breaking the terms of the agreement with Muslims and from helping non-Muslims against Muslims. This is the type whose peace agreement with Muslims was carried out to its end. Allah encouraged honoring such peace treaties, saying,
...
*(So when the Sacred Months have passed...), meaning, `Upon the end of the four months during which We prohibited you from fighting the idolators, and which is the grace period We gave them, then fight and kill the idolators* wherever you may find them.' Allah's statement next,
_


I want you to take a really close look at the bolded *surah 9-1
*, that is the very beginning, your citation is not 'before' mine to explain it, it is alot after., ive got the Tafsir opened up in front of me now, and you are wrong, perhaps you need to read the Tafsir before challenging my knowledge of it, as ive had years of experience with it.

Finally, take another look, the treaty with the Quraish was *1* treaty, the Quran mentions breaking every treaty, to every pagan tribe, everywhere.




Finally, heres a totally explicit tafsir for you.

* Ibn Kathir*
_(I have been commanded to fight the people until they testify that there is no deity worthy of worship except Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, establish the prayer and pay the Zakah.) This honorable Ayah (9:5) was called* the Ayah of the Sword*, about which Ad-Dahhak bin Muzahim said,* "It abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolator, every treaty, and every term.''* Al-`Awfi said that Ibn `Abbas commented: "No idolator had any more treaty or promise of safety ever since Surah Bara'ah was revealed. The four months, in addition to, all peace treaties conducted before Bara'ah was revealed and announced had ended by the tenth of the month of Rabi` Al-Akhir.''
_



It isn't the Quraish, its literally everyone, your God and Muhammad broke every treaty and pledge with everyone, just to war and conquer them.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 10, 2010)

Rob` said:


> Did you miss the part when I talked about western civilization moving on and Christianity and Judaism following while that hasn't happened in the Middle East? In essence did you just miss my argument?


I did miss that, but I agree. 

But this thread is a cluster fuck.


----------



## Zabuzalives (Jun 10, 2010)

Petenshi said:


> Were the polls of every single Muslim in the World? No. So your point holds no merit. We obviously know that there are Muslim terrorists.



Thats how scientific estimations and surveys work. 

You try to poll attitudes at random from a certain group, by doing this you get a reliable overview. The more you poll at random the greater the statistical power of the survey. 

If you have a 100 people, and 10 think ""a"" and 90 think ""b"".

the chance when asking 10 of that group at random to get a majority ""a"" is very very very small. 

concluding: you do not have to ask every fucking member of the group his opinion to get a reliable estimation. Your basically claiming a cornerstone of scientific research and statistical method is ""wrong"" 



Petenshi said:


> Secondly, do you even read your own sources?
> 
> 
> 
> The conclusion of this document where a poll was enclosed that you brought is arguing against your position lol.



quoting my own link which I ofcourse read: 

The exploratory empirical study of radical Islamists discussed above suggests that the secular democracies in the West are facing an ideological foe with *  significant appeal * among Muslims who are *  well-educated, economically successful and highly familiar with western ideas of freedom and
democracy. *


and what did i say about % found in western muslims or in wealthy muslim nations?? 

so it validates my opinion...your confused again. 



Petenshi said:


> It makes a good note to separate radical Muslims and Moderate ones, which you fail to do in every single one of your posts.



bullshit. 



Petenshi said:


> And as for showing you where you said all the things you are saying I am strawmanning about here we go!



""I can man up and say that ""christianity"" as * in general interpretation*  of christianity was one of the most intolerant religions in the dark ages. 

yet political correctness stops you from having the *same * objective observation on other religions.....sad. ""


so clearly I went on to explain that it is about the average interpretation. the general/average level of tolerance within the group of believers. 

my point is not claiming ALL believers are terrorist or intolerant.  
For fuck sake i show polls where terrorist support is a minority..i had a debate with you with me showing that it is indeed a minority. 

Do i have to spell everything out?? 



Petenshi said:


> You referred to everyone who is Islamic and Muslim by saying believers. You didn't make any exceptions. What does this mean? It means that you called everyone Islamic Intolerant. Try getting out of that one.



eghh learn to read between the lines?

did i say ""they were * ALL* intolerant"" ""ALL muslims/believers are intolerant""????????
no i did not...meaning I could have meant several things with that line. 

Its on average/general, as should have been clear from my later posts. 
Its pretty self-explanatory. especially seeing how i ask to LOOK UP POLLS in the SAME POST and those polls CLEARLY show different interpretations. 


Xyloxi, Seto Kaiba, and Nick Soapdish did grasp the correct meaning. You did not..... 

Yeah you CAN interpret it as me claiming all muslims are intolerant. Next time ill be more precise in my wording seeing how some people need everything spelled out for them. 




Petenshi said:


> Right, and I showed you above that you grouped everyone into one category when that is just not the case.



see above. the message was about the average/general interpretation. 

that you not picked up on that the very same post or in later of my posts is just nitpicking.   



Petenshi said:


> Once again, not a strawman. You clearly aimed what you were saying towards all of Islam, referring to THEY and BELIEVERS. Hey, its an easy thing to do. I probably do it all the time, the fact is it isn't a strawman.



my aim was not to generalize. 

But it gets tiring to add ""on average"" ""on general"" each and every time. 
after doing that for hundreds of posts you start to think people get the message without spelling everything out for them, especially when this can be easily concluded from follow up posts or a little independant thought. 




Petenshi said:


> How?



It gives an image of the LEVEL of intolerant and violent interpretations and the level of occurance..within the believer group. The % of intolerance and violence within the group. 




Petenshi said:


> I concede that a holy book has an effect on people. However, that does not give you the right to assume that because someone reads that holy book they have a higher chance to be terrorists



not just reading a book, in combination with being told it is holy etc. 

the assumption would then be correct. 

Reading a book which can easily justify intolerance and terrorism affects the chances. 




Petenshi said:


> and we should treat them as such. That is what you are implying, at least with the first part about them having a higher chance to be terrorists.



see above. Your assumption on what my ""aim"" is and what I ""imply"" is incorrect. 



Petenshi said:


> I just don't want our country to become like that law you so heavily heralded in Arizona, where people are judged for other peoples actions.



ehmm how is asking everyone for their ID when they want to have state benefits, or checking ID when being arrested ""judging""???

you are CHECKING as a general rule...not ""judging""



Petenshi said:


> Right, what I want you to show me, to prove your point is a large number of Muslim Children who were raised in the US who without any outside influence Became terrorists.



no one lives in a vacuum....

and what is with all the terrorist talk?? my point is about intolerant and violent interpretations. Which is much broader



Petenshi said:


> I did, you are clearly making this implication when you reference percentages, which you do in many of your posts. Percentages group everything together, this group of Muslims, or this group of Christians Etc. The problem with this is, you are making a connection on what Muslim and Christian mean. Lets say I tell you I am a Christian. What values can you say you 100% absolutely know about me?



I am comparing groups based on % of intolerant religious interpretations within their respective believer groups. 

to conclude if a religion is ""in general/on average"" more tolerant or not. 



Petenshi said:


> Exactly my point, you are judging everyone in the Group of Islam because a sub group which promotes Terrorism is larger than the other sub group that does not. This is unfair and biased against the other group.



im not judging the other group. 

but both groups make up the religion. and with a large intolerant group, that religion is on average more intolerant then lets say Buddhism. 



Petenshi said:


> Or that Muslim means being everything that is contained in the religious text, since that is our only reference to what a Muslim is if you use it in that manner.



a muslim=everything contained in the holy text according to you?? 


Oh, you mean this one?



Petenshi said:


> In this post, you directly compare Islam and Christianity as if both religions exist in the same circumstance, which they don't.



I compare their %. which is fine...

I make no statement claiming their circumstances are exactly the same. 



Petenshi said:


> Right,



yep...and i can also do this to conclude that ""on average/in general"" poor kids have less knowledge. 

so basically you agree with me now...ok then. 



Petenshi said:


> And yes, I quoted you a million times stating the exact places where you grouped Muslims and people who follow Islam into one category.



only because you cannot read between the lines.

I was vague in my point. true...but come on. This just shows how defensive you are about this issue. jumping to conclusions.


----------



## Bleach (Jun 10, 2010)

Herekic said:


> Fun fact: Cordoba is the name of the first spanish city conquered by muslims in their invasion of spain.
> 
> 
> they built a big mosque there to commemorate their conquest of a western culture.
> ...



and ES is a ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".).


----------



## Bleach (Jun 10, 2010)

Tleilaxu said:


> Except a majority of the population aproves of this(terrorism and violence) If this were not the case there would not be so many issues with Muslims and the western world.



No. Not a majority. Not at all.

Oops Double Post. O well.





Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Bullshit. When was the last time Christians caused this much mayhem on a world wide scale. I'll give you a clue.
> 
> It was probably sometime before the fucking reformation.



Witch Hunts.

Holocaust.


----------



## Elim Rawne (Jun 11, 2010)

Bleach said:


> and ES is a ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".).



What does him being a fudgepacker relate to the truth value of his statements ?


----------



## Bleach (Jun 11, 2010)

Diceman said:


> What does him being a fudgepacker relate to the truth value of his statements ?



I never said it had anything to do with the truth value of his statements. I just stated his sexual preference.


----------



## Elim Rawne (Jun 11, 2010)

Bleach said:


> I never said it had anything to do with the truth value of his statements. I just stated his sexual preference.



You were derogatory about it. I guess we can ignore Mohammedanism then.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 11, 2010)

Bleach said:


> No. Not a majority. Not at all.
> 
> Oops Double Post. O well.
> 
> ...



Christians caused the holocaust? 

And the Witch hunts took place in the country the people were from. Guess again.


----------



## Mintaka (Jun 11, 2010)

Herekic said:


> Fun fact: Cordoba is the name of the first spanish city conquered by muslims in their invasion of spain.
> 
> 
> they built a big mosque there to commemorate their conquest of a western culture.
> ...


Sick isn't it?

I like how they claim this is for good and yet would do something stupid like this.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 11, 2010)

Tokoyami said:


> Sick isn't it?
> 
> I like how they claim this is for good and yet would do something stupid like this.


And people act like its all "Awe, innocent Mulsims".


----------



## Tleilaxu (Jun 11, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> And people act like its all "Awe, innocent Mulsims".



Pretty much this.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 11, 2010)

Liberals like to coddle them like they don't know what they're doing. If a Christian Church walks on some of that stupid "do not walk on me" grass. There would be a twenty page thread in here cursing their name and beliefs. 

Every time the Pope says something there's a thread here bitching about it. The the same people bitching come in here and throw up a bullshit defense of Extremist Muslims and anything stupid that they do.


----------



## AndrewRogue (Jun 11, 2010)

There should be more protests by now. You wouldn't want someone shitting in a cemetery now do you?Or anywhere close to it. It's the same shit.


----------



## Tleilaxu (Jun 11, 2010)

Though to be fair the pope does say some pretty stupid shit


----------



## Elim Rawne (Jun 11, 2010)

Tleilaxu said:


> Though to be fair the pope does say some pretty stupid shit



Yeah, you really shouldn't call people on that


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 11, 2010)

Tleilaxu said:


> Though to be fair the pope does say some pretty stupid shit


Yeah but until he starts physcially going and flying planes into Abortion clinics or ordering that someone else does, I think I will keep him on the not a threat list and concentrate on the problem.


----------



## Tleilaxu (Jun 11, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Yeah but until he starts physcially going and flying planes into Abortion clinics or ordering that someone else does, I think I will keep him on the not a threat list and concentrate on the problem.



Agreed.


----------



## Xyloxi (Jun 11, 2010)

AndrewRogue said:


> There should be more protests by now. You wouldn't want someone shitting in a cemetery now do you?Or anywhere close to it. It's the same shit.



So building an interfaith community centre a couple of blocks away from Ground Zero is the same as shitting in a cemetery?


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 11, 2010)

Did you miss this whole bit? 



> Fun fact: Cordoba is the name of the first spanish city conquered by  muslims in their invasion of spain.
> 
> 
> they built a big mosque there to commemorate their conquest of a western  culture.
> ...



Doesn't that seem kind of deliberate to you?


----------



## Xyloxi (Jun 11, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Did you miss this whole bit?
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't that seem kind of deliberate to you?



That's hardly the best way of presenting  a message of rebuilding ties between the two cultures. Seriously, what moron thought that'd be the best name for it? I think this was a good idea, but it was horribly executed.


----------



## WT (Jun 11, 2010)

maj1n said:


> I don't care what happens in other events, it is ordained that it is acceptable to enslave women and children, this is both in Quran and hadith.
> 
> I don't care if Muslims left person A alone, that means nothing to when person B is enslaved.



Why not also tell us the virtues of freeing someone from slavery? The law of God has always been simple: Prophets by definition were sent to the most barbarian people. This has happened over and over again. This is what happenes:

1) barbarian People
2) Prophets come to rectify them
3) Everything is fine for a short period of time
4) People became barbarians again (go to 2)

In Muhammad's (pbuh) time, slavery existed. There were measures of countering this. The main one was how their were treated under Islam. 



> Sure lets look at it.
> *
> Surah 9-1*
> *Tafsir Ibn Kathir*
> ...



Maj1n, before we proceed, can you provide a link specifically to the page where the tafsir was taken from. I want to read the whole thing. 

Thanks


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 11, 2010)

Why are you guys arguing on the koran in here. Unless it has something to say about poorly thought out decisions I'd think you should take that to the Islam debate thread.


----------



## Zaru (Jun 11, 2010)

Bleach said:


> Witch Hunts.


Witches are not related to christianity but to non-christian superstition

They still happen in some islamic countries... does that mean it's related?


Bleach said:


> Holocaust.


Done by people who wanted religion to gtfo. Would be happily repeated by some current muslim nations.


----------



## the box (Jun 11, 2010)

> Zaru said:
> 
> 
> > Witches are not related to christianity but to non-christian superstition
> ...


----------



## Zabuzalives (Jun 11, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Liberals like to coddle them like they don't know what they're doing. If a Christian Church walks on some of that stupid "do not walk on me" grass. There would be a twenty page thread in here cursing their name and beliefs.



the fun part is that Islam is far more tolerant to ""people of the book"" then those liberal ""disbelievers"".

I almost would LIKE to leave these fucks into a country quickly turning into Saudi Arabia if not for the fact I would have to live there as well.


----------



## the box (Jun 11, 2010)

Zabuzalives said:


> the fun part is that Islam is far more tolerant to ""people of the book"" then those liberal ""disbelievers"".
> 
> I almost would LIKE to leave these fucks into a country quickly turning into Saudi Arabia if not for the fact I would have to live there as well.



what about black muslims in america there are more of us then there are arabs, also the amount of white muslims in eroupe is astonishing your comment about saudi arabia is so ignorant


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 11, 2010)

the box said:


> what about black muslims in america there are more of us then there are arabs, also the amount of white muslims in eroupe is astonishing your comment about saudi arabia is so ignorant


Do you mean the Nation of Islam or actual Muslims?


----------



## the box (Jun 11, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Do you mean the Nation of Islam or actual Muslims?



either my family dosent have anyone from the nation they converted to islam in the 60s. i was raised with out teaching and i wasent brought up a muslim i am a convert i did so when i was very young im black and born and raised in dietroit. 

deportation? fucking deport me where? mexico? iran? america is my home ill be dead before im kicked out for my religion the day that happens is the day the constitution means jack shit. freedom of speech and religion are here for a reason. dont like it good for you in the mean time die and get the fuck over it


----------



## Zaru (Jun 11, 2010)

the box said:
			
		

> yes it was the selem which trials had a court sstem based on the christian religion


Religion is abused for bullshit all the time. See: Terrorism
If you're saying religion is the sole reason for witch hunts then you're admitting religion is the sole reason for 9/11. Meaning Islam is at fault.


			
				the box said:
			
		

> where are you getting these facts


Witch hunts still happen in 

Surely, islam must thus be related to witch hunts 


			
				the box said:
			
		

> no it wasent it was done by crazed catholics and right wing hitler tactics to make the germans view jews as "christ killers" so yeah caused by christians



Christians and Muslims alike had a long-running dislike of jews long before something like national socialism even came up, which resulted in the widespread anti-jew sentiment all over europe (even in the occupied eastern areas, where accomplices/volunteers among the locals were easily found)
It became part of the nature of the people, christianity aside. Jews were resented.

Jews were killed and hunted in many areas of the world, not just by christians, many times and long before the 20th century. Muhammad himself killed many of them when they didn't want to convert. Jew hate is still omnipresent in arabian countries and surrounding areas (Israel isn't helping with that, now is it)

What's different in Nazi Germany was the SCALE, fueled by one crazy man. Muslims would have done just the same if they got away with it, so bringing up christian influence on tragic events of history is futile.


----------



## Zabuzalives (Jun 11, 2010)

the box said:


> what about black muslims in america there are more of us then there are arabs, also the amount of white muslims in eroupe is astonishing your comment about saudi arabia is so ignorant



I am talking about liberals cuddling fundamentalists muslims, some of who, if they got their way...would have the country turn into something like Saudi Arabia. 


I am not claiming all muslims are saudi arabs, dont be moronic.





the box said:


> no it wasent it was done by crazed catholics and right wing hitler tactics to make the germans view jews as "christ killers" so yeah caused by christians



the purpetrators were mostly christian...but inspired by christianity? only in part. 


the nazis planned much of their meetings over christian holidays to decrease the hold of the church. 




""This 'Stab in the Back' theory would become hugely popular among many Germans who found it impossible to swallow defeat. During the war, Adolf Hitler became obsessed with this idea, especially laying blame on Jews and Marxists in Germany for undermining the war effort""



read the statements. most of them are based on jews poisoning/weakening Germany, creating Bolsjewism, to keep the reich strong. etc. 



So christianity at the time did boost anti-semitism and help justify ""fighting"" the jews somewhat, (though it also caused christians to oppose nazism) but most of the anti-semitism and justification had to do with conspiracy theories, nationalism, and for the reich.


----------



## the box (Jun 11, 2010)

> Zaru said:
> 
> 
> > Religion is abused for bullshit all the time. See: Terrorism
> ...


----------



## Verdius (Jun 11, 2010)

After actually taking the time to make my way through and read this whole thread, I only have this to say...



CONGRATULATIONS! This is officially the worst thread on the internet!


----------



## colours (Jun 11, 2010)

people hating people hating people


----------



## Bleach (Jun 11, 2010)

Verdius said:


> After actually taking the time to make my way through and read this whole thread, I only have this to say...
> 
> 
> 
> CONGRATULATIONS! This is officially the worst thread on the internet!



It was a good thread until certain people came into it..

I'm just surprised it's not closed yet 




Zaru said:


> Witches are not related to christianity but to non-christian superstition



Witch hunts weren't limited to "non-christian" superstition. 

Protestants vs Lutherans in why Witch Hunts were happening. Each blamed each other.



Zaru said:


> Done by people who wanted religion to gtfo. Would be happily repeated by some current muslim nations.



?

Jews have been accused of the problems in Europe for a while (before holocaust) and accused of "Blood Libel". Nazi used Christian symbols to help with propoganda and if they wanted religion to gtfo then why would they have only persecuted the Jews. Unless your gonna use a lame argument like "bcz if they persecture christians then they has no armies!"

No. Nazi's instead made there own form of Christianity that went for their views and this religion was accepted by most of german christians.


----------



## Petenshi (Jun 11, 2010)

Zabuzalives said:


> Thats how scientific estimations and surveys work.
> 
> You try to poll attitudes at random from a certain group, by doing this you get a reliable overview. The more you poll at random the greater the statistical power of the survey.
> 
> ...




I think you are missing my point, so I am going to start over here. I am saying they way you speak about the issue is how intolerance and stereotypes start, these types of things that you are bringing up continue to 'punish' people who haven't done anything. I am not arguing about Muslims or Islam who are obviously intolerant, even though I feel the fact they are terrorists is because of their circumstance.

What I want to point out, is that not all Muslims are intolerant, which I am sure you know. The point is though, when you bring percentages and label groups like you have done i.e "60% of Muslims are intolerant." it creates a bad atmosphere for the Muslims who aren't intolerant. That poll is interpreted by society in general that they need to treat Muslims as if they were in that 60% just because they could be. 

This is exactly what is happening in our country. We hear on the news everyday about countless intolerant and terrorist acts committed by Muslims in the Middle east, and the same percentages you are behind, and Etc that when we meet a Muslim who isn't intolerant in the Streets why wouldn't we treat them as such as well? This is why you can't generalize, because it effects actual people who aren't that way. Saying Muslims is much different than saying Radical Muslims. There has to be some way for us to disassociate Muslims in the US or other western societies who are clearly not Radical, from the ones in the Middle East who are. 

Now, what would you have the Moderate Muslims do?  Go after the Radicals?  Make a new religion? Hide? All of those are much more difficult things than simply taking a new approach to your arguments and opposition of Radical Islam.

This all brings me to a question I would like to ask you: What is your goal is bringing up these percentages or arguing that Islam is intolerant? Any intelligent person knows there are a lot of terrorist and intolerant Muslims in the middle east. Its not like you are arguing things we don't already know. This stands to reason that you have something else. What is it?


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 11, 2010)

the box said:


> either my family dosent have anyone from the nation they converted to islam in the 60s. i was raised with out teaching and i wasent brought up a muslim i am a convert i did so when i was very young im black and born and raised in dietroit.
> 
> deportation? fucking deport me where? mexico? iran? america is my home ill be dead before im kicked out for my religion the day that happens is the day the constitution means jack shit. freedom of speech and religion are here for a reason. dont like it good for you in the mean time die and get the fuck over it



Freedom to protest is also here for a reason and building a Mosque near the site where some people who used your religion as a jump off point to kill 3,000 people and then naming said Mosque after the first conquered city that the Muslims took in Spain (where they also built a Mosque) is a pretty protest worthy offense. 

If you don't want people to hate your religion it needs to start with people in it not being so rigidly devoted to symbolically being ass holes  while claiming their totally harmless. 

You just give more fuel to people like Glenn Beck with stuff like this and frankly he would be right in this case. This seems totally symbolic.


----------



## the box (Jun 11, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Freedom to protest is also here for a reason and building a Mosque near the site where some people who used your religion as a jump off point to kill 3,000 people and then naming said Mosque after the first conquered city that the Muslims took in Spain (where they also built a Mosque) is a pretty protest worthy offense.
> 
> If you don't want people to hate your religion it needs to start with people in it not being so rigidly devoted to symbolically being ass holes  while claiming their totally harmless.
> 
> You just give more fuel to people like Glenn Beck with stuff like this and frankly he would be right in this case. This seems totally symbolic.



yeahh all this bullshit you posted might mean something if 300 muslims did not die in 9/11 in which they did. i dont care how much people hate it. there will be more muslims than anyother people on earth  by 2025 we are already the largest denomination. and if you dont count the catholics as christians then we are more numerous than them to. you hating us dosent change a thing we dont need to kill people to make a point. the muslim main stream honestly dosent give two shits about weather you hate them or not. the crazy muslims do not represent us if you cant get it throught your skulls then you are fools


----------



## Tleilaxu (Jun 12, 2010)

Then if your the majority why not do something about the minority thats causing issues? That would certainly help Islams PR issues if they would actively start attacking and marginalizing the more extremist groups.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 12, 2010)

the box said:


> yeahh all this bullshit you posted might mean something if 300 muslims did not die in 9/11 in which they did. i dont care how much people hate it. there will be more muslims than anyother people on earth  by 2025 we are already the largest denomination. and if you dont count the catholics as christians then we are more numerous than them to. you hating us dosent change a thing we dont need to kill people to make a point. the muslim main stream honestly dosent give two shits about weather you hate them or not. the crazy muslims do not represent us if you cant get it throught your skulls then you are fools


Why does that matter? Terrorists kill other Muslims all of the time, sometimes even hiding behind their families and kids. Why would this even be an argument?


----------



## the box (Jun 12, 2010)

Tleilaxu said:


> Then if your the majority why not do something about the minority thats causing issues? That would certainly help Islams PR issues if they would actively start attacking and marginalizing the more extremist groups.



why the hell would i apologize for other peoples crimes. i havent killed anyone so im not apologizing for shit.im not going to attack al queda and others because frankly i didnt do 9/11 so im not going to apologize. this isnt like white man guilt, where he apologizes to blacks for slavery that the current whiteman isnt responsible for


----------



## maj1n (Jun 12, 2010)

the box said:


> why the hell would i apologize for other peoples crimes. i havent killed anyone so im not apologizing for shit.im not going to attack al queda and others because frankly i didnt do 9/11 so im not going to apologize. this isnt like white man guilt, where he apologizes to blacks for slavery that the current whiteman isnt responsible for


If a Muslim tries, in any fashion, to spread the religion, i consider them part of the ' Islamic community' and should do something about the problems caused by said religion.


----------



## Tleilaxu (Jun 12, 2010)

the box said:


> why the hell would i apologize for other peoples crimes. i havent killed anyone so im not apologizing for shit.im not going to attack al queda and others because frankly i didnt do 9/11 so im not going to apologize. this isnt like white man guilt, where he apologizes to blacks for slavery that the current whiteman isnt responsible for



Then your part of the problem, by refusing to deal with these extremists you tacitly approve of their actions even though you "condemn" the said action they perpetrate, but if no one is willing to take action to remove these extremists then it shows that they approve of the extremists and their actions.

Im not saying YOU personally have to deal with the extremists but the followers of Islam as a whole must get their act together about this issue or Islam will still continue to be seen as a religion of violence and intolerance. "The silent majority approves the vocal minority." In short by doing nothing serious about the extremists they approve of the attacks like 9/11 the Bali nightclub bombing ect ect.


----------



## Eros (Jun 12, 2010)

I say, "Stop the hate." It won't do any good. I am not a fan of organized religion at all, but I do believe in freedom of religion. Build the place of worship wherever you desire.


----------



## Baax (Jun 12, 2010)

Tleilaxu said:


> Then your part of the problem, by refusing to deal with these extremists you tacitly approve of their actions even though you "condemn" the said action they perpetrate, but if no one is willing to take action to remove these extremists then it shows that they approve of the extremists and their actions.
> 
> Im not saying YOU personally have to deal with the extremists but the followers of Islam as a whole must get their act together about this issue or Islam will still continue to be seen as a religion of violence and intolerance. "The silent majority approves the vocal minority." In short by doing nothing serious about the extremists they approve of the attacks like 9/11 the Bali nightclub bombing ect ect.


So African Americans who do not do anything about Darfur "tacitly approve" of whats going on there? interesting.


----------



## Tleilaxu (Jun 12, 2010)

Baax said:


> So African Americans who do not do anything about Darfur "tacitly approve" of whats going on there? interesting.



Fail troll is fail.

Religion and race are two very different things.


----------



## Zabuzalives (Jun 12, 2010)

the box said:


> i dont care how much people hate it. there will be more muslims than anyother people on earth  by 2025 we are already the largest denomination. and if you dont count the catholics as christians then we are more numerous than them to. you hating us dosent change a thing we dont need to kill people to make a point. the muslim main stream honestly dosent give two shits about weather you hate them or not.



ehm if the rest of the world seriously starts to ""hate muslims""..then you wont stay the largest denomination for long.


----------



## WT (Jun 12, 2010)

Zabuzalives said:


> ehm if the rest of the world seriously starts to ""hate muslims""..then you wont stay the largest denomination for long.



Why? .......


----------



## Terra Branford (Jun 12, 2010)

Zaru said:


> Religion is abused for bullshit all the time. See: Terrorism
> If you're saying religion is the sole reason for witch hunts then you're admitting religion is the sole reason for 9/11. Meaning Islam is at fault.



I just wanted to post to say:

"Hur, you got `em there".

I can't wait to read other comments. 

*Also, there were and are, people who hunt witches and they don't even belong to a religion.


----------



## Miss Fortune (Jun 12, 2010)

I love how we're against all religions but our own.

What's so wrong with allowing another religion into a country that was originally supposed to be a place where every single religion and race combines to create a place where there's no such thing as racism or sexism.

Actually this is pretty much bullshit. This country is a place for racism and sexists and also discrimination. What do you expect? We're America.


----------

