Islam - What's your view on it?

[JediRage]

Since the topic of censorship is up,

'Favela' map removed from rotation in Modern Warfare 2 (2012)

LittleBigPlanet delayed (2008)

 

[Flaco13]

In not so many words, yes. Because the religious man is not only not forced to view it, but he's also allowed to express his opinion on it. It would be hypocritical to say the religious man has a right to express that he is offended (which he does) and that the artist doesn't have the right to express his. As was already pointed out, you don't have the right to not be offended.


What the religious man is not allowed to do, and what you are advocating under the guise of "fairness," is to dictate to the person drawing the picture what that person is and isn't allowed to draw. And since the Mohammed comic was posted and all of the death threats and craziness happened, that has been the reality of the situation in the West now. You can't even show a picture of Mohammed to satire the original comic without being censored because people are so afraid of what people from a different culture outside the audience for the comic will do when they find it.


I doubt that we will see a resurgence of a Nazi party as a serious source of power in Germany in our lifetimes. And keeping it hidden away only makes it more alluring.


Not democratic ones, no. Not without it becoming a huge issue when they try.

Hold on there, I didn't say the drawer shouldn't be allowed to draw it, I said he shouldn't do it out of respect. Please don't twist my words like that.

It has been pointed out that: "It doesn't have to be coupled with obscenity." why not? Because it oversteped a boarder, with this sentence the poster pretty much admitted how right I am, just that he didn't see that his boarder started exactly there while mine, from a believing persons view, starts somewhat earlier.

And death threads and all the stupid reactions I did never justify.

 

[Encyclopedia]

Hold on there, I didn't say the drawer shouldn't be allowed to draw it, I said he shouldn't do it out of respect. Please don't twist my words like that.

It has been pointed out that: "It doesn't have to be coupled with obscenity." why not? Because it oversteped a boarder, with this sentence the poster pretty much admitted how right I am, just that he didn't see that his boarder started exactly there while mine, from a believing persons view, starts somewhat earlier.

And death threads and all the stupid reactions I did never justify.

I'm not sure you can read this as you said you would ignore me but...


I reffered to the fact that drawing Mohammad is forbidden, regardless of how. It doesn't have to be in a disrespectful way to be forbidden. Maybe I expressed myself unclearly on that point.

My point was that anyone outside islam can draw Mohammad if they wish. Muslims don't have the right to dictate that. Religious laws only apply to the people of said religion.

Any idea or belief must be allowed to be rediculed. Especially ideas and belief with power.

This is principle. It doesn't necessarily mean that I do and think it's a positive thing to poke fun at other people's beliefs.

 

[TheCracker]

Hold on there, I didn't say the drawer shouldn't be allowed to draw it, I said he shouldn't do it out of respect.

I reffered to the fact that drawing Mohammad is forbidden, regardless of how. It doesn't have to be in a disrespectful way to be forbidden. Maybe I expressed myself unclearly on that point.

My point was that anyone outside islam can draw Mohammad if they wish. Muslims don't have the right to dictate that. Religious laws only apply to the people of said religion.

👍

It's forbidden for Christians to eat shell fish. You don't see fundamentalist Christians rioting when Muslims eat crab. Respect has no bearing on the issue.

 

[homeforsummer]

It's forbidden for Christians to eat shell fish.

I could never really be Christian. I enjoy moules marinière too much.

 

[BobK]

Ah, ok.
Your not a religious person so your free to draw a picture of a prophet and pee on it taping it with a camera, while the religious men have to shut up and watch because respect is irrelevant.

No, the religious men do not have to shut up. They are perfectly free to express their opinions about it, so long as this "expression" does not include killing people or offering rewards for same. Likewise they they do not have to watch it; they can ignore it if they so choose.

People not of your religion are not bound by your religion's rules, no more than you are bound by any other religion's rules.

 

[sumbrownkid]

👍

It's forbidden for Christians to eat shell fish. You don't see fundamentalist Christians rioting when Muslims eat crab. Respect has no bearing on the issue.

There's a difference between depicting a divine figure that many hold to be of utmost importance and eating so-so quality crab bro.

The issue of iconoclasm in Islam stemmed from the Prophet's desire not to be casted into idols or paintings, or any other form or medium that can potentially lead to worshippers to worship the image, instead of the actual message and God. That, and he didn't want his traits to be distorted.

Such as the blue-eyed and blond haired Jesus in some Churches.

He lived during a time when idols were given statuses that logically did not make sense to him.

That said, and repeating earlier remarks about this, The Prophet himself has been depicted before in imagery and in imagination in history. So this issue isn't anything new. He probably would not care much for the "Draw Muhammad" day or whatever. As for the legality of this censorship; the laws of Islam cannot apply to non-Muslims, unless the non-muslims themselves agree to abide by the laws provided by Islam.

What's relatively new is the sudden swift reaction to anger and vengeance in Muslims that feel wronged by such action.

Before, we were content in just ignoring it and going about our ways, but now the game has changed. Or is it just a convenient excuse for Muslims to demonize the "enemy"? Imagine if Dante's Inferno were to be written in modern contexts, and the canto with the Prophet is still in it, would the reactions be more violent than what it was in the 1300s? In fairness, the Crusades were more or less still going on at the time, but at least the populace back then still acknowledged each other's contributions to society in general.

 

[Flaco13]

👍

It's forbidden for Christians to eat shell fish. You don't see fundamentalist Christians rioting when Muslims eat crab. Respect has no bearing on the issue.

It's not forbidden for christians to eat shell fish, where did you get that information?

I guess you are either refering to a certain group of christians (one that doesn't accept the council of Nicea/edit: Nicine), wich means you generalized christianity. Or you mean judaism.

Only christian sect i know that doesn't live after the first council would be 7th day adventists, I agree with many things they say and do, if they wouldn't forbid alcohol and tobacco I would be interested in joining them. My lifestyle doesn't fit in there tho, I love me beers and a good smoke,very worldly plessure i know But I'm pretty sure the adventists do not eat shell fish.

 

[dylansan]

It's forbidden for any Christians that follow the Old Testament. Whether they actually follow it is up to them, but it's still forbidden.

 

[Azuremen]

It's forbidden for any Christians that follow the Old Testament. Whether they actually follow it is up to them, but it's still forbidden.

I find Christians following the Old Testament mildly hilarious, as it was kind of shelved after Christ came around.

 

[cphbullet]

Its been a while since i posted on this thread but i just saw something in the news that yet again angered me about islam (never seems to be anything that gives me positive feelings towards it).

It's probably fair to say im ignorant about certain things, in some cases 'the definition of' which is why its easy for me to spot that islam is truely an ignorant religion.
In the report it was mentioned that theres an issue involving muslim football players and how certain sponsorships on the teams' shirts conflict with islamic rules. It then went on to a quick response from a sheik regarding the situation saying 'hopefully there will be negotiations, there was a situation previous to this in which it was negotiated that the player wouldn't have to show the sponsor'.

I have to ask how the 🤬 is that a negotiation! Thats islam getting its way, a negotion would be the sponsor doesn't have to be worn and the muslim players can eat pork if they wish etc.

Another thing that grated me about this was i recently watched a rubbish BBC documentary about how muslim and indian players never make big league teams undoubtedly yes part of it was racism but it went on to show a bunch of indians moan about how it was unfair and that it was purely racism and nothing else but thats such 🤬, i can guarantee that none of the players mentioned in the report raised the issue themselves knowing full well that it could ruin their future career and that no doubt some old ignorant sheik pointed it out. So why should they be allowed to join bigger teams if they refuse to go along with rules that have never caused problems with anyone else.

Anyway thats my rant/two cents on the issue, just thought i'd mention it to see if anyone else thoght anything of it.

 

[Azuremen]

It's probably fair to say im ignorant about certain things, in some cases 'the definition of' which is why its easy for me to spot that islam is truely an ignorant religion.

Never mind the rest of your post, just this bit alone is quite telling. How you feel that being ignorant validates your claims as to what qualifies as ignorant is just beyond me.

 

[Flaco13]

It's forbidden for any Christians that follow the Old Testament. Whether they actually follow it is up to them, but it's still forbidden.

That is what I was saying.

Christians following Old Testament=Christians not agreeing to the council of Nicine

Christians following New Testament =Christians agreeing to the council of Nicine

Council of Nicea was where the church claimed certain things from the OT to no longer beeing relevant for christians.

The example of the shellfish: Jesus sat to eat with some folks and some phariseans where watching them, seeing they ate with dirty hands(in jewish law it isn't koscher) so they asked Jesus: Y U NO WASH HANDS? and he said: dude, it's not about what gets into you that will get you closer to salvation but what comes out of your mouth! i.e. speaking truth is good telling lies isn't.(not a bible quote, obviously )

So in Nicine they decided christians can eat what they want according to what Jesus said that nothing is unclean.

 

[niky]

There are many Christian sects who actively oppose many of the traditions established by the Catholic Church, for a variety of reasons.

There are even those who do not believe in Christ's divinity, but still follow his teachings, anyway.

And then there are those hardcore Catholics who, despite the Nicene Creed, maintain that artificial contraception for the purpose of contraception is sinful because some man in Olden Testament times used coitus interruptus when asked to knock up his dead brother's wife, as per Jewish law.

Why the Church still condemns coitus interruptus yet doesn't force us all to bang our dead sibling's widows is beyond me.

 

[Flaco13]

There are many Christian sects who actively oppose many of the traditions established by the Catholic Church, for a variety of reasons.

There are even those who do not believe in Christ's divinity, but still follow his teachings, anyway.

And then there are those hardcore Catholics who, despite the Nicene Creed, maintain that artificial contraception for the purpose of contraception is sinful because some man in Olden Testament times used coitus interruptus when asked to knock up his dead brother's wife, as per Jewish law.

Why the Church still condemns coitus interruptus yet doesn't force us all to bang our dead sibling's widows is beyond me.

It's called Nicene? Man I was starting to wonder if anybody would understand me... lol

I don't agree entirely with what you are saying. Nicine Creed is accepted throughout evangelist sects its not just a catholic thing.

Those who do not believe in christ's devinity are Jehovas Witnesses, and only those if you know another sect please tell me.
Or did you mean trinity?
Those hardcore catholics you mentioned condemn artificial contraception because of St. Pauls writings in Romans and Corinthians, New Testament! But I agree with you, catholic church should let go of stupid old ideas like that. You can easily interpret Paul's stuff differently, plus he wrote this himself not prophetic. So this is nothing but his opinion. Not like when St. John wrote his book of Revelations wich is much more significant IMO.
btw we are posting in the wrong thread this one is about Islam

 

[Public'sTwin]

Care to elaborate? This looked somewhat out of place

Sure, and let's recap:

http://tribune.com.pk/story/449070/...-malala-yousufzai-injured-in-firing-incident/

Again a horrid example of what Islam extermists manage to cause.

By now we're all pretty aware of what "Islam extermists manage to cause". "Horrid examples" are pretty much de rigueur of this thread, along with everyone's confessions that no, they know "not all" Muslims are like that, or B), the behaviour of some of these crowds' lashings out is still not acceptable in the face of such—by our standards—mild provocations. Case in point:

Taliban. The most Extreme of Extremists, not representative of most muslims or islamic people.

I did not use the Taliban cowards to represent every Muslim though.

No, you didn't, that's true. But then there's this:

But posting it in a thread about Islam in general coupled with how some of your previous comments have been interpreted, did make it seem that way. Apologies if I mis-understood Carb .

This is the kicker.

Think of the media every time they dwell on and report about massacres, shootings, bombings, highway-side suicide-by-cop incidents, etc: what is happening? They may only be making "neutral" reference to the act, ie presenting it, describing, opining very little on it. But the cumulus of this behaviour is a form of negative celebration, in the sense that "negative" means other topics and forms of coverage and information-presentation are negated, overlooked, not covered. "Negative space" is space which is not occupied by something; in this case (broadly speaking), that negative space is the discourse which attempts to understand where extremist Islam is generated, what can be done to mitigate it, etc.

So where your text—the content of your act of posting on a web forum—does not 'use extremist Islam to depict every muslim', the cumulus of your actions (posts on a web forum), in effect, does, by not reflecting the actual existent diversity of Islamic culture.

(Also, I was extrapolating from this comment:

[...] coupled with how some of your previous comments have been interpreted, did make it seem that way[...]

)

 

[Joel]

I could never really be Christian. I enjoy moules marinière too much.

I had steamed mussels for lunch today. Guess I'm off to hell.


As for the topic of the thread, Public's Twin's post above basically touches on everything I would have said in a far more eloquently worded way than I could ever manage. The coverage of Islam in the western media is almost exclusively (and ridiculously) negative. Of course, the newscasts don't say that all muslims are violent, but the bombardment of violent images and stories create that perception; when we're never shown a positive story in response, it becomes an even more powerful message.

 

[Scaff]

That is what I was saying.

Christians following Old Testament=Christians not agreeing to the council of Nicine

Christians following New Testament =Christians agreeing to the council of Nicine

Council of Nicea was where the church claimed certain things from the OT to no longer beeing relevant for christians.

Sorry but that's not correct, its a common misconception to state that the either the first or second council of Nicea set biblical canon, it was neither the aim of the councils (which was the exact nature of Christ's divinity) or any part of its outcome.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea#Misconceptions

It did set new canons, but none of them had anything to do with the OT or what you could eat:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea#Promulgation_of_canon_law

The example of the shellfish: Jesus sat to eat with some folks and some phariseans where watching them, seeing they ate with dirty hands(in jewish law it isn't koscher) so they asked Jesus: Y U NO WASH HANDS? and he said: dude, it's not about what gets into you that will get you closer to salvation but what comes out of your mouth! i.e. speaking truth is good telling lies isn't.(not a bible quote, obviously )

So in Nicine they decided christians can eat what they want according to what Jesus said that nothing is unclean.

The Biblical Canon was established over a long period of time and ratified at a much later period, and of all of the councils held to discuss biblical canon not a single one of them invalidated Leviticus at all. The very fact that it still remains a part of the OT shows it is considered canon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Develo..._canon#Development_of_the_Old_Testament_canon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_Old_Testament_canon


Now at an even later stage (16th Century) the Anglican church did state that the law of Moses no longer applied, however the Catholic church has not made such a specific statement at all.

It does however cause quite a few issues in that regard as a large number of Anglican's are quite happy to cite Leviticus when it comes to condemning homosexuality and why same-sex marriage is wrong, seemingly forgetting that they then should be doing the same for tattoos, wearing linen/cotton blends, etc.

The only 'fact' that exists in regard to this is that a clear difference exists between the two largest Christian sects (Catholic and Anglican) and even within those sects no clear agreement exists.

 

[niky]

It's called Nicene? Man I was starting to wonder if anybody would understand me... lol

I don't agree entirely with what you are saying. Nicine Creed is accepted throughout evangelist sects its not just a catholic thing.

Those who do not believe in christ's devinity are Jehovas Witnesses, and only those if you know another sect please tell me.
Or did you mean trinity?
Those hardcore catholics you mentioned condemn artificial contraception because of St. Pauls writings in Romans and Corinthians, New Testament! But I agree with you, catholic church should let go of stupid old ideas like that. You can easily interpret Paul's stuff differently, plus he wrote this himself not prophetic. So this is nothing but his opinion. Not like when St. John wrote his book of Revelations wich is much more significant IMO.
btw we are posting in the wrong thread this one is about Islam

The original council was a council of all the Bishops at the time. I don't quite recall if the Gnostic sects had been wiped out or marginalized out by then, though.

Not all Christianity agrees with the status quo. As you can see, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, the INC cult (Philippines) and various others deny his divinity but not his teachings. So... not Christian... but what, then?

-

Various sects of (real) Christianity broke away from the Catholic Church due to disagreements over dogma and theology. There are Protestants who believe in the divinity of Christ but do not necessarily embrace the Nicene Creed, while others have openly protested even some of its basic tenets.

-

The one saving grace of Modern Christianity is its flexibility. As rigidly inflexible as the Catholic Church is, there are different flavors and stripes of Christianity for everyone, and even the unbending, unyielding and often fundamentalist Catholic Church... yes... those hardcore Catholics happen to be in power at the Vatican... has learned that adapting to the times helps ensure the survival of your religion.

-

Islam is not quite as multi-colored as Christianity, but neither is it a monolithic creature with nothing but hate for the rest of the world. Most Muslims are just like your typical Christian. Wake up in the morning, brush your teeth, say your prayers, go to work, come home, go to sleep.

Just as neither you nor I would go about stoning gay people in the streets or condemning homosexuals on TV, neither does the common Muslim call for death to all Americans when someone runs a political cartoon.

The problem with the religion is the extremists. And extremism catches hold under the very worst of conditions. Poverty, strife, war, inequity... all of which are present in varying degrees in the Middle East.

The cultural revolutions and political revolutions that modernized America and Europe over the past few centuries have largely passed the region by. Democracy? Equality? Social Justice? Tough luck.

The scary thing is... it is in the midst of such turmoil that dangerous ideas and movements can take hold. Look up the history of the "Nazi" party for one example of how dangerous ideaology can take roots in the darkest of places.

 

[Azuremen]

Not all Christianity agrees with the status quo. As you can see, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, the INC cult (Philippines) and various others deny his divinity but not his teachings. So... not Christian... but what, then?

Last I checked, Mormon's are Christian, as they do believe in Christ the Savior and Son of God.

 

[cphbullet]

Never mind the rest of your post, just this bit alone is quite telling. How you feel that being ignorant validates your claims as to what qualifies as ignorant is just beyond me.

Takes one to know one?

Stupid is as stupid does?

I'll try and find more if you'd like?

 

[Scaff]

Its been a while since i posted on this thread but i just saw something in the news that yet again angered me about islam (never seems to be anything that gives me positive feelings towards it).

Maybe you shouldn't treat news outlets as an unbiased source of informtion.

It's probably fair to say im ignorant about certain things, in some cases 'the definition of' which is why its easy for me to spot that islam is truely an ignorant religion.
In the report it was mentioned that theres an issue involving muslim football players and how certain sponsorships on the teams' shirts conflict with islamic rules. It then went on to a quick response from a sheik regarding the situation saying 'hopefully there will be negotiations, there was a situation previous to this in which it was negotiated that the player wouldn't have to show the sponsor'.

So a situation in which Muslims aimed to resolve a situation via discussion and compromise is a negative?

I have to ask how the 🤬 is that a negotiation! Thats islam getting its way, a negotion would be the sponsor doesn't have to be worn and the muslim players can eat pork if they wish etc.

No that's simply a ludicrous statement on your part.

Another thing that grated me about this was i recently watched a rubbish BBC documentary about how muslim and indian players never make big league teams undoubtedly yes part of it was racism but it went on to show a bunch of indians moan about how it was unfair and that it was purely racism and nothing else but thats such 🤬,

You are aware that the majority of Indian's (80%+) are not Muslim?

i can guarantee that none of the players mentioned in the report raised the issue themselves knowing full well that it could ruin their future career and that no doubt some old ignorant sheik pointed it out. So why should they be allowed to join bigger teams if they refuse to go along with rules that have never caused problems with anyone else.

How can you guarantee this?

Do you have a source to corroberate it?

Anyway thats my rant/two cents on the issue, just thought i'd mention it to see if anyone else thoght anything of it.

I hope not as it pretty much smacks of ignorance and intolerance wrapped up in a single package.

Takes one to know one?

Stupid is as stupid does?

I'll try and find more if you'd like?

I would much rather you posted in a rational and intelligent manner that attempting to simply find flame bait.

 

[JediRage]

Sure, and let's recap:


By now we're all pretty aware of what "Islam extermists manage to cause". "Horrid examples" are pretty much de rigueur of this thread, along with everyone's confessions that no, they know "not all" Muslims are like that, or B), the behaviour of some of these crowds' lashings out is still not acceptable in the face of such—by our standards—mild provocations. Case in point:


No, you didn't, that's true. But then there's this:


This is the kicker.

Think of the media every time they dwell on and report about massacres, shootings, bombings, highway-side suicide-by-cop incidents, etc: what is happening? They may only be making "neutral" reference to the act, ie presenting it, describing, opining very little on it. But the cumulus of this behaviour is a form of negative celebration, in the sense that "negative" means other topics and forms of coverage and information-presentation are negated, overlooked, not covered. "Negative space" is space which is not occupied by something; in this case (broadly speaking), that negative space is the discourse which attempts to understand where extremist Islam is generated, what can be done to mitigate it, etc.

So where your text—the content of your act of posting on a web forum—does not 'use extremist Islam to depict every muslim', the cumulus of your actions (posts on a web forum), in effect, does, by not reflecting the actual existent diversity of Islamic culture.

(Also, I was extrapolating from this comment

I had steamed mussels for lunch today. Guess I'm off to hell.


As for the topic of the thread, Public's Twin's post above basically touches on everything I would have said in a far more eloquently worded way than I could ever manage. The coverage of Islam in the western media is almost exclusively (and ridiculously) negative. Of course, the newscasts don't say that all muslims are violent, but the bombardment of violent images and stories create that perception; when we're never shown a positive story in response, it becomes an even more powerful message.

I don't think living like an ostrich is advisable, not least for the 'majority peaceful' muslims who have their religion hijacked by a lot of extremist elements. sumbrownkid understands that, I'm sure a lot of other muslims do too. Hiding the problem and making excuses for it is not the solution at all, but whatever, do what you like.

Just don't complain when people object to objectionable behaviour. It's funny, because when people do, they're immediately branded as right-wing nutjobs, as this thread is testament to that. By not allowing discussion, you are making people harden their stances even more. Carbonox started the thread a little aggressively, but he gets panned for reporting something Islam related in the Islam thread even though he qualified his statement by saying it is not representative of all muslims. He is, it seems, stuck with that tag. Are you so insecure that people will think extremist radical terrorists represent all muslims? One shouldn't even have to qualify news reporting by saying that sentence over and over again. I don't know how many times I've had to say in this thread that I'm not attacking Islam or muslims, but yet, people just like to think they're under attack (or try to defend people they think are under attack).

We aren't playing politics here, where one non-PC utterance makes a person untouchable. He learned his lesson but if you continue to tie that millstone around his neck and just categorically ignore what he said, then that makes you just like the right-wing nutjobs of muslim countries.

 

[Scaff]

I don't think living like an ostrich is advisable, not least for the 'majority peaceful' muslims who have their religion hijacked by a lot of extremist elements. sumbrownkid understands that, I'm sure a lot of other muslims do too. Hiding the problem and making excuses for it is not the solution at all, but whatever, do what you like.

Just don't complain when people object to objectionable behaviour. It's funny, because when people do, they're immediately branded as right-wing nutjobs, as this thread is testament to that. By not allowing discussion, you are making people harden their stances even more. Carbonox started the thread a little aggressively, but he gets panned for reporting something Islam related in the Islam thread even though he qualified his statement by saying it is not representative of all muslims. He is, it seems, stuck with that tag. Are you so insecure that people will think extremist radical terrorists represent all muslims? One shouldn't even have to qualify news reporting by saying that sentence over and over again. I don't know how many times I've had to say in this thread that I'm not attacking Islam or muslims, but yet, people just like to think they're under attack (or try to defend people they think are under attack).

We aren't playing politics here, where one non-PC utterance makes a person untouchable. He learned his lesson but if you continue to tie that millstone around his neck and just categorically ignore what he said, then that makes you just like the right-wing nutjobs of muslim countries.

While I agree with the sentiment you are making, in the case of Carbonix I think you would do well to review his comments in this thread and others before stating that he made 'one non-PC utterance'. His first few posts in this thread contained:

Hate group.

Anyone who finds decent arguments against at least most of these will get lots of high fives...

20 FACTS ABOUT ISLAM EVERY INFIDEL SHOULD KNOW


Islam …

1) Is a mind-control and information-control cult founded by a murderer, torturer, brigand, rapist and pedophile called Mohammed. The mind-control and information-control aspects require that all criticism be silenced.

2) Is Mohammed’s personality cult. Has no foundations other than Mo’s murderous rantings (Koran and Hadith). The Koran consists of two conflicting parts – Meccan and Medinan (peaceful and violent respectively). The Medinan stuff supersedes (‘abrogates’) the Meccan stuff. Muslims act Medinan, but quote Meccan verses to the gullible infidels.

3) Claims to worship the same God as Christians and Jews, but in fact worships Allah – a demonic channelling through Mohammed’s psychopathic ego. The Death Cult mixes garbled versions of Christian and Jewish scriptures with pagan practices such as moon and meteorite-worship, and cut-throat blood sacrifice of animals and non-believers.

4) Has no rational, philosophical nor theological basis, and the whole belief-system is contradicted by science, philosophy, commonsense, human decency and internal inconsistency.

5) Cannot withstand rational criticism. Can only spread and maintain itself by ignorance, illiteracy, war, terrorism, and intimidation. Islam has bloody borders and cannot co-exist peacefully with other belief systems. Winston Churchill said that Islam in a man is as dangerous as hydrophobia (rabies) in a dog.

6) Has a superstitious dread of images of pigs, crosses, Buddhas, Saint George (and his flag) and of course Motoons.

7) Regards Islamic women as semihuman. Wife-beating, incest and child abuse (including mufa’khathat or ‘thighing’ – the ritual abuse of infants) are encouraged.

8) Regards all unbelievers (Kaffirs, Kuffar, Kufrs, Kafirs) as ritually unclean subhumans to be killed, subjugated, enslaved, exploited or parasitised. Kafirs are described by the Arabic word ‘najis’ – literally ‘filth’. That’s why Muslim hatred of Kafirs is intrinsic to their ‘religion’. A Kafir doesn’t need to DO anything to offend a Muslim, his very existence is enough of an affront.

9) The ethical system applies only to Muslims. Allah encourages rape, pillage, extortion and enslavement of non-Muslims. Morality does not extend beyond the global gang (ummah). Muslim ethics are the ethics of the Mafia.

10) Allah’s followers are motivated by hatred, greed and lust. There is no love, mercy or compassion. Allah is vindictive, unpredictable, capricious and devious – “Allah leads astray whom he pleases”.

11) The only religion NOT founded on The Golden Rule. Morality is based on Mohammed’s example. If Mohammed did it then it’s OK for all Muslims. Hence the encouragement of rape, pillage, subjugation and murder of non-believers and the institutionalised pedophilia prevalent throughout Muslim society (justified by Mohammed’s activities with Ayesha, his child sex-slave – see and listen to http://islamcomicbook.com/lyrics1.htm).

12) All human relations are defined by Dominance/Subjugation. Muslims have schizoid inferiority/superiority complexes. (A well-balanced Muslim is one with a chip on each shoulder). They respect strength but despise compromise as weakness. Appeasement invites more aggression. The only political system which has been strong enough to subjugate Islam is Stalinism.

13) Polygamy ensures alpha-males get extra women, leading to a shortage of women for the betas. Beta-males must either jerk off (a sin leading to hell), or form dog-packs and rape or capture kafir women as booty in a razzia, or else self-destruct in the presence of infidels then they can screw 72 mythical virgins in Allah’s bordello in the sky (see and listen to http://islamcomicbook.com/lyrics3.htm. Beta-males are often encouraged by their relatives to become suicide bombers because of the belief that such murderous ‘martyrs’ will be able to intercede with Allah to take 70 of their relatives to paradise with them.

14) Lying and deception of infidels (taqiyya) is encouraged. This may take many forms, including outright lies, feigned moderation, and condemnation of terrorist attacks to the Kaffir while rejoicing with fellow Muslims. All Muslims need to regard themselves as victims of some group of Kafirs so they can harbor grudges against them and against Kafirs in general. Individuals may appear law-abiding and reasonable, but they are part of a totalitarian movement, and must be considered potential killers who can flip in an instant (SJS -’Sudden Jihad Syndrome’).

15) Muslims are forbidden to befriend Kaffirs except for purposes of deceit or where conversion may be possible.

16) The Koran is Allah’s final word and cannot be changed or challenged. To do so is punishable by death. Consequently, the Death Cult can never change or be reformed. The instructions to murder and rape infidels are just as valid now as the day they were written. Since Islam cannot be modernised, the Muslims are attempting to Islamise modernity. This requires spreading Islam in the West and simultaneously preventing any criticism of the cult by intimidation and PC legislation to curtail freedom of expression.

17) Treaties and agreements with Kaffirs are made to be broken (Hudna). The word of a Muslim to a Kafir counts for nothing in the eyes of Allah. Allah is The Father Of Lies.

18) The world is divided between Dar-al-Islam and Dar-al-Harb (the domain of war, the Kufr lands). Muslims living in Dar-al-Harb must work to disrupt their host nations until these can be brought into Dar-al-Islam.

19) Muslims have no obligation to their host nations and in fact are encouraged to parasitise them. Welfare fraud, identity theft, forgery etc are endemic in Western Muslim populations, and serious crime against Kaffirs is regarded as normal and justified. Extortion rackets against Kafirs are mandated by the Koran (‘jizya’ is the Arabic term for ‘protection money’ payable by Jews and Christians to Muslims).

20) The attack on the host nation isn’t just against its religion and economy, but is aimed at its very cultural identity. Islam is a complete system, including a culture, which Muslims regard as superior (despite all evidence to the contrary) to other cultures. Muslims are therefore required to destroy the symbols of ‘Jahiliya’ (sometimes sp. Jahiliyya) – non-Muslim culture. In the East this has included destruction of Hindu temples and Christian churches and replacement with mosques, and destruction of Buddhist artwork and universities and replacement with heaps of rubble. This process of cultural replacement is now beginning in the West.

EDIT: Source: http://keeptonyblairforpm.wordpress....l-should-know/

Assigning the same status to two billion people as the Westbro Baptist church have and then quoting far right propaganda will rather unsurprisingly make others a little wary of what he posts.

I for one welcome the seeming moderation of his posts and what seems to be a willingness to start looking at other views, however that doesn't stop me being cautious.

 

[aadil717]

Takes one to know one?

Stupid is as stupid does?

I'll try and find more if you'd like?

I presume your earlier statement was about alcoholic beverage sponsors.
I'll try and shine some light on it; but you might not care or choose not to understand.
As many people know, alcohol is forbidden in Islam (yes, some Muslims do drink it - but they're probably not that religious and don't really represent Islam that much).
Now think about the sponsor - it's displayed on the shirt, and therefore the player/team is endorsing the alcohol.
Some Muslims would find this morally wrong endorsing something which is forbidden in their religion.
It makes sense on a personal level to the person involved but maybe not to you.

Eg: Imagine a GM guy (who hates ford) gets made to wear Ford on his clothes by his company. You'd feel uneasy about it if it was personal and you would negotiate to something perhaps not really advertising it. I don't think it's a moral thing but it certainly reflects the personal argument.

Edit: In terms of negotiation, if there is a negotiation for not wearing the sponsor then I don't see what harm it's doing - other than money for the company. My other option would be just hope for a transfer next season and just avoid involving yourself in things that oppose you on a personal level - but then again you can't avoid everything.

 

[SalmanBH]

As a Muslim that has been taught in a British School with people from over 59 other nationalities, I have learnt that it is better to just deal with our differences instead of having a quarrel due to the my beliefs being different to theirs'. If I find anything offensive towards my country or religion, of course I would feel offended, but the best route to take is to ignore it and enjoy the good times in life.

Yes, I do not eat pork. Yes, I do not drink alcohol. Yes, I do not participate in sexual activities mainly because I am not married. Yes, my religion might be radical and extreme in your view, but these are all points irrelevant to who I am as a human being. Never judge a book by it's cover.

As for the video made against the Prophet Muhammad, well, I think it was basically a petrol station with a huge leakage of petrol, waiting for a lit matchstick to be thrown into it. Radicals exist, but so do moderate Muslims. I personally hate the fact that that minuscule group of crazies went along and killed the US Ambassador, as he had nothing to do with the making of the video.

Some Sheikh's and Imam's like to take advantage of their religious position and help light that matchstick. In my neighbourhood, they tend to switch Sheikh's every now and then. One is a considerate, blind man who guides us to what we should be doing with our lives, and what we shouldn't be doing. For example, last week, he was talking about how we shouldn't be using today's new technologies for evil like spreading rumours and pictures that shouldn't be spread. He also talked about the importance of giving charity, even giving a dollar to a homeless person on the street would greatly favour you on Judgement Day.

While the other Sheikh tends to take advantage of the fact that most, if not all the people who attend the Masjid (Mosque) are followers of the Sunni Sect. He starts off by telling a story of what has happened to the Prophet, however he twists it in order to indirectly say that we should be killing the infidels. He also loves dissing the Shia Sect, and most of the time, his lectures/speeches are about politics.

What I'm trying to say here is that there are both good and bad people in our world. Stick to the good people, make the bad good, and have a nice day.

 

[Flaco13]

Sorry but that's not correct, its a common misconception to state that the either the first or second council of Nicea set biblical canon, it was neither the aim of the councils (which was the exact nature of Christ's divinity) or any part of its outcome.


It did set new canons, but none of them had anything to do with the OT or what you could eat:

Replacing the Sabbath with the Sunday as 7th day of the week has nothing to do with the OT?

The Biblical Canon was established over a long period of time and ratified at a much later period, and of all of the councils held to discuss biblical canon not a single one of them invalidated Leviticus at all. The very fact that it still remains a part of the OT shows it is considered canon.

I agree, it was established over long a time. The complexity of the council is immense, but several times it pointed out the importance of St. Pauls books.

"This is an important lesson for us today. ...For the old system dealt only with certain rituals-what food to eat and drink, rules for washing themselves, and rules about this and that. The people had to keep these rules to tide them over until Christ came with God's new and better way" (Hebrews 9:9 - 10)

Leviticus was a guidebook for the jewish people in ancient Israel.

I am calling myself a christian, my main source is the bible, I never went to church(I love going into churches but not during a mass, not when there are other people) and listened to somebody telling me what to believe and to do. I studied the bible myself. Long before I even heard about the differences between the sects or better said I didn't even know christianity was split. Now I know and it seems logical that many people interpret(ed) the words differently.
None of the monotheistic faiths managed to stay as one comunity and not to split into sects. And none of them managed to avoid infiltration.
From my own understanding I found the most important things in the NT are the words coming from Jesus himself, not what some Bishops, influenced by powerful leaders, agreed or dissagreed on like in the councils. Although I can't say I'm totally unbiased because you can always be influenced by someone or 'something'.

I believe in the trinity; I consider praying to a Saint, or Angel as beeing idolatrous.
I do not believe in any holyness of a Sunday, the 7th day, to me, can only be the Sabbath, starting Friday at dawn and ends with Saturday at dawn, Sunday is then the 1st day of the week.
I don't believe in everything from the books of St. Paul, he was once influenced by evil forces, maybe he was still when he wrote his books? I don't agree with some of his writings f.e. Romans 13,1-5
Same bad feelings I have about Surah 53:19 in the Qur'an. To be back on topic, but I don't want to further discuss the 'influenced by something' parts regarding these important people, out of consideration for the believers and to not start a fight.

The original council was a council of all the Bishops at the time. I don't quite recall if the Gnostic sects had been wiped out or marginalized out by then, though.

Not all Christianity agrees with the status quo. As you can see, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, the INC cult (Philippines) and various others deny his divinity but not his teachings. So... not Christian... but what, then?

-

Various sects of (real) Christianity broke away from the Catholic Church due to disagreements over dogma and theology. There are Protestants who believe in the divinity of Christ but do not necessarily embrace the Nicene Creed, while others have openly protested even some of its basic tenets.

-


Islam is not quite as multi-colored as Christianity, but neither is it a monolithic creature with nothing but hate for the rest of the world. Most Muslims are just like your typical Christian. Wake up in the morning, brush your teeth, say your prayers, go to work, come home, go to sleep.

Just as neither you nor I would go about stoning gay people in the streets or condemning homosexuals on TV, neither does the common Muslim call for death to all Americans when someone runs a political cartoon.

The problem with the religion is the extremists. And extremism catches hold under the very worst of conditions. Poverty, strife, war, inequity... all of which are present in varying degrees in the Middle East.

The cultural revolutions and political revolutions that modernized America and Europe over the past few centuries have largely passed the region by. Democracy? Equality? Social Justice? Tough luck.

The scary thing is... it is in the midst of such turmoil that dangerous ideas and movements can take hold. Look up the history of the "Nazi" party for one example of how dangerous ideaology can take roots in the darkest of places.

I've not much to say but: 👍👍👍

As a Muslim that has been taught in a British School with people from over 59 other nationalities, I have learnt that it is better to just deal with our differences instead of having a quarrel due to the my beliefs being different to theirs'. If I find anything offensive towards my country or religion, of course I would feel offended, but the best route to take is to ignore it and enjoy the good times in life.

Yes, I do not eat pork. Yes, I do not drink alcohol. Yes, I do not participate in sexual activities mainly because I am not married. Yes, my religion might be radical and extreme in your view, but these are all points irrelevant to who I am as a human being. Never judge a book by it's cover.

As for the video made against the Prophet Muhammad, well, I think it was basically a petrol station with a huge leakage of petrol, waiting for a lit matchstick to be thrown into it. Radicals exist, but so do moderate Muslims. I personally hate the fact that that minuscule group of crazies went along and killed the US Ambassador, as he had nothing to do with the making of the video.

Some Sheikh's and Imam's like to take advantage of their religious position and help light that matchstick. In my neighbourhood, they tend to switch Sheikh's every now and then. One is a considerate, blind man who guides us to what we should be doing with our lives, and what we shouldn't be doing. For example, last week, he was talking about how we shouldn't be using today's new technologies for evil like spreading rumours and pictures that shouldn't be spread. He also talked about the importance of giving charity, even giving a dollar to a homeless person on the street would greatly favour you on Judgement Day.

While the other Sheikh tends to take advantage of the fact that most, if not all the people who attend the Masjid (Mosque) are followers of the Sunni Sect. He starts off by telling a story of what has happened to the Prophet, however he twists it in order to indirectly say that we should be killing the infidels. He also loves dissing the Shia Sect, and most of the time, his lectures/speeches are about politics.

What I'm trying to say here is that there are both good and bad people in our world. Stick to the good people, make the bad good, and have a nice day.

^^^ THIS!!!! Very good post man!

edit: oh not again, wrong button... sorry for doublepost

 

[Scaff]

Replacing the Sabbath with the Sunday as 7th day of the week has nothing to do with the OT?

An oversight on my part which doesn't change the point I was making one bit. That the council did not invalidate Lev. at all, which was what you stated.

I agree, it was established over long a time. The complexity of the council is immense, but several times it pointed out the importance of St. Pauls books.

"This is an important lesson for us today. ...For the old system dealt only with certain rituals-what food to eat and drink, rules for washing themselves, and rules about this and that. The people had to keep these rules to tide them over until Christ came with God's new and better way" (Hebrews 9:9 - 10)

Leviticus was a guidebook for the jewish people in ancient Israel.

That may well be something you want to point out to Christianity as a whole then, as they seem quite happy to selectively drag it up when ever it suits.

Pretty much the whole of Lev. is nonsense, yet all sects and levels of the Christian church are quite happy to drag it up as 'evidence' of how much God hate homosexuals. So I'm quite happy to make a deal on the subject, stop the church using it to decry homosexuality (by which I mean I would expect to see a total acceptance of homosexuality by all parts of the church) and I will stop mentioning the other parts.

The church seems to thing parts of it are good enough when they want to, as such they should be willing and accepting of the entire thing; as the only other way it can be viewed is that they know better than God which bits are applicable and which are not (which does raise the issue of contradiction within the bible - but that's for another thread).

 

[Flaco13]

An oversight on my part which doesn't change the point I was making one bit. That the council did not invalidate Lev. at all, which was what you stated.




That may well be something you want to point out to Christianity as a whole then, as they seem quite happy to selectively drag it up when ever it suits.

Pretty much the whole of Lev. is nonsense, yet all sects and levels of the Christian church are quite happy to drag it up as 'evidence' of how much God hate homosexuals. So I'm quite happy to make a deal on the subject, stop the church using it to decry homosexuality (by which I mean I would expect to see a total acceptance of homosexuality by all parts of the church) and I will stop mentioning the other parts.

The church seems to thing parts of it are good enough when they want to, as such they should be willing and accepting of the entire thing; as the only other way it can be viewed is that they know better than God which bits are applicable and which are not (which does raise the issue of contradiction within the bible - but that's for another thread).

I can only speak for myself but I personally have nothing against homosexual people and I don't like how so called 'believing' people quote the part of Lev. where it says God hates it when two of the same gender have sex, only to point out their own hate towards them.
Because, and its so simple IMO, if they where truly believing they should know it is up to God to judge them???

I agree Church needs to change drastically. But it shouldn't be forced by whatever kind of other authority, but from itself. i.e. change should come from within.

sorry for bad english if it is the case

 

[kk20]

Because, and its so simple IMO, if they where truly believing they should know it is up to God to judge them???

I

👍 I had the same debate with my friend. Allah is the one to judge, not muslims.