Islam - What's your view on it?

  • Thread starter SalmanBH
  • 5,688 comments
  • 237,025 views
I am quite confident we can do just fine. The vast majority of muslims may be offended by blasphemous satire of their religion, but so are christians and jews (and I remember a Soka Gakkai friend being quite pissed at a humorous vignette published by an Italian newspaper about her faith, for that matter). And if we want to move away from religion a bit - we can do that, after all, we're not specifically talking about Islam at this point, are we? - do you have any idea what kind of ******** I have to put up with as a communist?

But the point is, we're all grown ups who don't make a big deal of being offended once in a while. Hell, sometimes we may even get a good laugh out of something that offends our religious or political or cultural sensibilities. Or someone's mockery could turn into food for thought. But what's more important, we understand that what's sacred for us may not be as sacred for someone else - we wish they could see things that way, but we accept the fact that they may hold a different view of the world.

Extremists don't do that, extremists think in absolutes and for them anybody who can't see how right they are is a nuisance or a pest - but extremists are so insignificant in their numbers, they shouldn't even be taken into consideration when discussing where the limits of freedom of speech are.



The same way I blaspheme against my christian parents, friends, and neighbors. As a matter of fact, the muslim friends I have aren't any more or less tolerant of it. You make it sound like all muslims carry around a scimitar and are ready to chop your head if you make as much as a joke about good ol' Allah Snackbar.
And we point and laugh at them as they picket outside some building demanding compensation for their hurt feelings... Until someone gets mad enough to eventually take a life. How many Christians or Jews have gone beyond the breaking point?

Btw, it's Allan's Snackbar. :sly:
 
And we point and laugh at them as they picket outside some building demanding compensation for their hurt feelings... Until someone gets mad enough to eventually take a life. How many Christians or Jews have gone beyond the breaking point?

Btw, it's Allan's Snackbar. :sly:
What at taking perceived offence to the point of reacting with violence that has resulted in death?

Plenty.

Do you forget the Christian who took such offence at the concept of Multiculturalism that he committed Europe's single biggest terrorist attack?

What about the Jews who carry out 'price-tag' attacks in Israel?

What about the existence that Abortion clinics cause in the US that has lead to 1 in 5 being attacks, with regular and repeated bombings, assaults and murders?

So yes some Muslims do take offence at a cartoon depiction and carry out violent attacks based on it, but the concept of taking offence and then carryout violent attacks exists in a minority in all religions. They just have different factors than drive it.

Now I'm quite sure you will want to cherry pick and state that only Muslims get wound up by images of Islamic prophets, and that is true (and if you don't understand why that is and wish to cherry pick based on that its a bit of a concern), note that hasn't stopped the leader of at least one Catholic group stating that CE deserved it because they had done the same for Christianity. Nor has it stopped the Pope effectively condoning violence as a react to religious offence.

As such you have to ignore a rather large number of events to claim that minorities in other faiths don't react with violence (that does result in death) based on a perception of insult and offence (well either than or cherry pick based on a single factor and even then it doesn't stop some in other faiths condoning it).
 
Google translate is bad but this news is even worse.

Killed for watching a football game on TV. It's happened in Mosul, a city in northern Iraq, where thirteen Iraqis boys were "executed" by jihadist militias of the Islamic State (Isis) because they watched on television a football match between the national Iraqi and Jordanian valid for Asian Cup last week.

Was reported today is the official Jordanian news agency "Petra", according to which the men of the Caliph Abu Bakr al Baghdadi who control the city, led the young victims to the city stadium "before being shot in front of a crowd of tens of people. "According to witnesses quoted by the jihadists through the speakers explained that it is "a message for anyone who disregards the laws of the Islamic state."

According to news sources quoted by Al Arabiya television that raises the news, the bodies of young people "have remained in the ground for a long time, because the families of the victims have not gone to retrieve them for fear of being killed" by the terrorist organization. For men of the black Caliphate in fact football "is a custom that comes from the West," sworn enemy by Islamists Isis, as the online site of Al Arabiya.

https://it.notizie.yahoo.com/iraq-isis-uccide-13-ragazzi-mosul-guardavano-partita-145614586.html
Killed because watching a football match? Seriously?

Islam the Religion of peace.
 
^That should be posted in the Islamic State thread, I think.

@Scaff Is multiculturalism an offense based in Christianity? What you are saying is like the United States of America is the biggest Christian terrorist state because they are a warmongering country which happens to be majority Christian (and that was an argument I've heard someone made before :crazy:).

Not too sure about price tag attacks but I think that's religious discrimination. It's the same as antisemitism, PEGIDA, etc.

The only (vaguely) comparable one is the attacks on abortion clinics because it has somewhat of a basis in Christianity.

Yet again you're equating violence committed by religious people (which of course all people do, religious or not) and violence committed in the name of religion.

I don't "cherry pick", or maybe it may seem to you that I do, but I have a list of severity the problems that religion causes.
1. Freedom of religion, freedom of speech, etc. you know basic human rights.
2. Women rights, LGBT rights, abortion, etc. (because how do you possible solve these when No.1 is not achieved)
3. ...................

Islam is the one causing most problems in category No.1
 
Holocaust denial is illegal in sixteen European countries, and is punishable by fines or imprisonment. To deny that the Holocaust took place, or to deny that it was as extensive as historical figures show, is considered extremely offensive to the Jewish community. Perhaps it is not blasphemy in the strictest sense, but it is nevertheless a provision granted to the community.

Depictions of the Prophet are perhaps not as serious as denying the systematic genocide of six million people.
If you have some common sense you would stop here. And you wouldn't use the "perhaps" word at all.
but everything falls under the banner of freedom of speech.
The rest of your post falls under the banner of freedom of censorship.
^That should be posted in the Islamic State thread, I think.
It is perfectly on topic since this thread is about Islam and guess what islamic state like it or not is part of Islam.
 
Last edited:
@Scaff Is multiculturalism an offense based in Christianity?
I have no idea at all what you are saying with this?



What you are saying is like the United States of America is the biggest Christian terrorist state because they are a warmongering country which happens to be majority Christian (and that was an argument I've heard someone made before :crazy:).
That's not what I am saying at all, nor have I even even come close to saying that. You may have heard others making that claim, but you have not heard me making it so don't infer that you have.

Not too sure about price tag attacks but I think that's religious discrimination. It's the same as antisemitism, PEGIDA, etc.
Those I would both class as religiously motivated.


The only (vaguely) comparable one is the attacks on abortion clinics because it has somewhat of a basis in Christianity.
Somewhat of a basis in Christianity? I don't think when you look at the people involved, the justification they use that 'somewhat' comes into it at all. The most prominent action group being called 'The Army of God' is something of a clue.

Yet again you're equating violence committed by religious people (which of course all people do, religious or not) and violence committed in the name of religion.
Utter nonsense. That's exactly what I have stated I am not doing, however I'm not doing it for all religions, you are happy to make that distinction for all religions bar one. You do it again in a few paragraphs.


I don't "cherry pick", or maybe it may seem to you that I do, but I have a list of severity the problems that religion causes.
1. Freedom of religion, freedom of speech, etc. you know basic human rights.
2. Women rights, LGBT rights, abortion, etc. (because how do you possible solve these when No.1 is not achieved)
3. ...................

Islam is the one causing most problems in category No.1
And there you go.

You have just done what you have spent the entire post complaining about.
 
I have no idea at all what you are saying with this?
It was in response to your example of Breivik. Does his actions have any basis in Christianity?

That's not what I am saying at all, nor have I even even come close to saying that. You may have heard others making that claim, but you have not heard me making it so don't infer that you have.
Your example of him made it seem to me that you might've as well said this.

Those I would both class as religiously motivated.
People fight among religions and within religions all the time. I don't give a **** about people stupid enough to believe in things that doesn't exist, let them fight. I only care when it threatens No.1 and No.2 that I've listed.

Somewhat of a basis in Christianity? I don't think when you look at the people involved, the justification they use that 'somewhat' comes into it at all. The most prominent action group being called 'The Army of God' is something of a clue.
Not too familiar with Christianity. I know they do not like abortion because to them it is an act of taking a life. Does it have any solid basis in scripture?

Utter nonsense. That's exactly what I have stated I am not doing, however I'm not doing it for all religions, you are happy to make that distinction for all religions bar one. You do it again in a few paragraphs.

And there you go.

You have just done what you have spent the entire post complaining about.
??? Do you think lack of freedom of religion is even on the same level as anti-abortion?
 
That's the point I was trying to make - that women wearing robes over their head is not unheard of in a variety of faith. But where it's seen as a sign of devotion in the likes of Catholicism, Christianity and Judaism, it's interpreted as oppression in Islam (and if ever a Muslim woman tells you she wears her headscarf as a sign of devotion, she's obviously lying because she was forced to wear it by an oppressive male but does not want to incur his wrath by admitting the "truth").

I've mentioned this a number of times in the past and its almost certain that within all faiths some will wear it because they want to and some will wear it because they feel forced to. We need to protect the rights of both groups to chose the actions they wish to take, be it to wear it or to not be forced to wear it. Not an easy or simple thing to achieve, but it is the right one.

Multiculturalism doesn't mean capitulating to one group, it means accepting the actions and beliefs of a group if those actions do no harm to others and do not impeded the rights of others.

As such accepting the whole of Sharia law would not be multiculturalism, but allowing those aspects of it that relate to (for example) financial and civil activities, and in which all parties agree would be multicultural (as the UK does for Islamic, Jewish and Orthodox Christian laws).

The French ban on head coverings was upheld by the European Court of Human Rights. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/01/france-burqa-ban-upheld-human-rights-court

A certain "idea of living together" is said to be the basis of the decision. Perhaps this idea may be tantamount to multiculturalism?
 
It was in response to your example of Breivik. Does his actions have any basis in Christianity?
Given that he mention Christianity numerous times in his manifesto and referred to himself as a Templar (as in the Christian crusaders) I would say it more than strongly pointed in that direction.


I
Your example of him made it seem to me that you might've as well said this.
So from one example (who mentioned it himself) you took it to mean that I think all Christians can then be considered terrorists despite that being exactly what I have been stating is not my view in regard to any religion?

I
People fight among religions and within religions all the time. I don't give a **** about people stupid enough to believe in things that doesn't exist, let them fight. I only care when it threatens No.1 and No.2 that I've listed.
Even when totally inocent people are involved as a byproduct?

Do you think that every Muslim in Syria/Iraq right now wants to be involved in it and supports the violence?



I
Not too familiar with Christianity. I know they do not like abortion because to them it is an act of taking a life. Does it have any solid basis in scripture?
In my opinion nothing has a solid base in a work of fiction and if someone what to use that as a basis for how they live there own lives I don't have an issue with it at all. However when they use it to deny the rights (any rights) of others then its a problem.

However in regard to the attacks on clinics in the US and other countries, they are almost without exception religiously based, using various verses from the Old Testament to justify it. Ironically many of them have claimed that its 'Thou shall not murder' from the ten commandments they use to justify the murder of doctors, nurses and other staff. They murder 'babies' so killing them is justified in Gods eyes (now how much like Muslim fundamentalists does that sound).

As I have repeatedly said in this and many threads I have no issue with someone believing in any religion, but the moment that they use that belief to impact on the rights of any other person then its an issue.


I
??? Do you think lack of freedom of religion is even on the same level as anti-abortion?
What?

I have no idea at all why you are even asking this and what is has to do with the topic at hand?
 
Just found a new article (interview) on how the Regensburg question relates to current and recent events.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/396600/rereading-regensburg-interview

The juicy parts are on page 2. It's what I was trying to express in the Charlie Hebdo thread, but this puts it a little better.

LOPEZ: Why is Pope Benedict’s Regensburg lecture as relevant as ever after the Paris attacks?



GREGG: Benedict’s lecture is ever relevant because one of its central arguments is that a religion’s understanding of God’s nature has immense implications for its capacity to live peacefully with those who do not share the same faith or, for that matter, have no religious faith. A religion that regards God as sheer Will, operating above and beyond reason, cannot ultimately object to the notion that such a God may command its adherents to do unreasonable things. For if God is ultimately unreasonable and the Creator of the universe, then so too are the people created in His image. Hence, if such an unreasonable God commands equally unreasonable humans to do something utterly irrational — such as slaughter cartoonists, fly planes into buildings, axe to death Jews praying peacefully in a synagogue, behead Christian children in the Middle East, kill Nigerian as Boko Haram has done, the list is endless — not only can we not object on grounds that such actions are unreasonable and intrinsically evil, but we must simply submit to the irrational Deity’s desire for blood. In other words, whether we like it or not, there is a theological and religious dimension to what happened in Paris — and what is happening in Syria and Iraq, what occurred on 9/11, and what Islamic jihadists keep doing all around the world — and we ignore this at our own peril. That’s another reason why it is so embarrassing and self-defeating for people like President Obama, President Hollande, and Prime Minister David Cameron to go on repeating, mantra-like, that Islamic jihadism has nothing to do with Islam. Of course it has something to do with Islam. That’s why it’s called Islamic jihadism.


LOPEZ: Why was Regensburg so controversial at the time?

GREGG: It was controversial because in one relatively short address (one that I think will be remembered as one of the 21st century’s most important talks), Pope Benedict managed to upset a number of groups. First, by highlighting the central theological issue — Is the Islamic understanding of God that He is primarily or purely Voluntas? — that must be addressed if Islamic jihadism is to be countered, he annoyed not just some Muslims but also those liberal Westerners who want to treat Islamic jihadism as if theology and religion have nothing to do with it. Many professional interfaith dialoguers also didn’t like the Regensburg address because it highlighted just how much of their discussion was utterly peripheral to the main game and consisted in many instances of happy talk that avoided any serious conversation about the real differences that exist between many religions. It also annoyed those who believe that all religions are ultimately the same and of equal worth. That’s obviously not true, but saying such things in a relativistic world that is increasingly “uncomfortable” with reasoned argument (let alone logic) and more at ease with feelings talk is bound to make you plenty of enemies today.
 
I think Canada, Australia or New Zealand would be sensible choices. As far as I know, those countries don't throw as much money away for worldhugging purposes as European countries do, and mostly accept educated immigrants anyway. (Better get me some decent education soon enough, just in case) Besides, by settling into a small enough town, I wouldn't have to worry about finding myself in a ghetto dominated by the primitive, unpredictable 3rd world gangs.

Speaking for Australia, I feel that we're well positioned for the wave of people from predominantly Muslim countries to find their place, due to the people that we already had here. The Lebanese for example straddle that position between the Mediterranean and the Middle East and have largely found their place. I've found that a lot of Middle Eastern people coming in have veered towards adopting a Greek/Lebanese cultural position.

In contrast, I find that people from Sudan are struggling more with settling in, perhaps in part because there's no equivalent cultural bridge. Makes me wonder about how the countries without a "Muslim bridge" will fare, segregation wise.
 
If you have some common sense you would stop here.
You do realise that your position is sheer hypocrisy, right? You're effectively saying that it's okay to do one thing that is considered blasphemous, but it's not okay to do another thing that is blasphemous because of the scale involved. You argue for freedom of speech, but the idea of denying the Holocaust is unthinkable.

Muslims consider depictions of the Prophet to be blasphemous because of the idea that they should not worship idols. In many ways, he represents all of Islam, but is really the means through which God communicates with humanity. But because they do not worship idols, there are no historical representations of him. There are a few vague descriptions of him, they do not give any detail beyond his stature and hair colour. For someone to draw a picture and say "this is the Prophet" is to essentially say "this picture represents everything you believe in", which is upsetting enough for the Islamic community as is. But when it is drawn as satire - which, at its heart, is humour - by someone with only a limited understanding of the concept, you can start to see why it leads to anger, because it starts to undermine the religion as a time when we claim to be living in an age of equality and multiculturalism. Especially when the next cartoon shows a depiction of the Prophet claiming that they have been forgiven, seeing as how the Prophet represents all of Islam, and the cartoon is being produced by someone who is not in a position to speak on behalf of close to a billion people.

That's where the West is getting it wrong. We argue that it's freedom of speech, that it's freedom of expression. We acknowledge that the Muslim world has a right to be upset. But there is no appreciation of what this "freedom of speech" actually means. We don't understand it. We can't understand it. But we do it anyway. We didn't see six million people get exterminated, and we can only witness the loss that the Jews experienced. But we don't go around claiming that it didn't happen. On the other hand, we haven't seen close to a billion people feel as though their faith has been undermined and insulted on the most personal level, but we freely defend the people who do it.

The people killed in the Charlie Hebdo attack might have been exercising their freedom of speech. And they certainly did not deserve to die for it. But that does not change that they were morally wrong. If morality is what guides us on right and wrong in the absence of the rule of law, then I don't see how you can justify insulting close to a billion people for the sake of a joke at their expense.
 
Morals are opinionated, where as Murder is Murder.

Im sure in the Nazi era Nazi Supporters thought the existence of jews in their country was also "Morally wrong", it doesn't justify the events afterwards, and exact same applies here.
 
I didn't say that it did. But if being morally wrong does not justify the violent protests, then the violent protests do not make Charlie Hebdo morally right or even morally neutral. Essentially, both parties are in the wrong. They are wrong for different reasons, and you may argue that they are wrong to different extents - but being in the wrong is being in the wrong; being less in the wrong than someone else does not automatically make you right.

Exercising a right does not meant that you are absolutely morally right. You can exercise your rights and still be in the wrong - and when you are, "I was exercising my rights" does not absolve you or exonerate you. That's why we need to exercise our rights responsibly.
 
I didn't say that it did. But if being morally wrong does not justify the violent protests, then the violent protests do not make Charlie Hebdo morally right or even morally neutral. Essentially, both parties are in the wrong. They are wrong for different reasons, and you may argue that they are wrong to different extents - but being in the wrong is being in the wrong; being less in the wrong than someone else does not automatically make you right.

Exercising a right does not meant that you are absolutely morally right. You can exercise your rights and still be in the wrong - and when you are, "I was exercising my rights" does not absolve you or exonerate you. That's why we need to exercise our rights responsibly.
I'm sorry but did you claim a picture to be just as morally wrong as Murder.

At the end of the day, the picture didn't kill anyone.

The people opposing it did.

The law clearly dictates what is "more" wrong, and in this case it doesn't take a genius to figure it out.
 
You're effectively saying that it's okay to do one thing that is considered blasphemous, but it's not okay to do another thing that is blasphemous because of the scale involved.
Yes.

And there's no need to discuss further on the matter if you can't realize that denying the murder of 6 million of Jews is radically (using a word you may like) different than creating a couple of silly cartoons no matter the subject.

Some muslims go mad for a couple of cartoons? Organizes a civil protest instead of a terrorist attack.
It's really that easy and your attempt to go philosophical is disrespectful of human rights.
 
And there's no need to discuss further on the matter if you can't realize that denying the murder of 6 million of Jews is radically (using a word you may like) different than creating a couple of silly cartoons no matter the subject.
I never said that they were the same - only that both were morally wrong. And while the extent to which they are wrong may be different, one being more wrong than the other does not make the other right, or even excusable.

And therein lies the problem with your argument - you're assuming that if you are exercising your rights, then you're in the moral right.

Some muslims go mad for a couple of cartoons? Organizes a civil protest instead of a terrorist attack.
Which is exactly what they did. Some organised a terrorist attack, but the vast majority organised protests around the world. I see you neglected to address that.

It's really that easy and your attempt to go philosophical is disrespectful of human rights.
And which rights would they be, exactly?
 
“Other religions kill, too.”

The Muslim Game:

Bringing other religions down to the level of Islam is one of the most popular strategies of Muslim apologists when confronted with the spectacle of Islamic violence. Remember Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber? How about Anders Breivik, the Norwegian killer? Why pick on Islam if other religions have the same problems?

The Truth:

Because they don’t.

Regardless of what his birth certificate may or may not have said, Timothy McVeigh was not a religious man (in fact, he stated explicitly that he was agnostic and that "science" was his religion). At no time did he credit his deeds to religion, quote Bible verses, or claim that he killed for Jesus. His motives are very well documented through interviews and research. God is never mentioned.

The so-called “members of other faiths” alluded to by Muslims are nearly always just nominal members who have no active involvement. They are neither inspired by, nor do they credit religion as Muslim terrorists do - and this is what makes it a very different matter.

Islam is associated with Islamic terrorism because that is the association that the terrorists themselves choose to make.

Muslims who compare crime committed by people who happen to be nominal members of other religions to religious terror committed explicitly in the name of Islam are comparing apples to oranges.

Yes, some of the abortion clinic bombers were religious (as Muslims enjoy pointing out), but consider the scope of the problem. There have been six deadly attacks over a 36 year period in the U.S. Eight people died. This is an average of one death every 4.5 years.

By contrast, Islamic terrorists staged nearly ten thousand deadly attacks in just the six years following September 11th, 2001. If one goes back to 1971, when Muslim armies in Bangladesh began the mass slaughter of Hindus, through the years of Jihad in the Sudan, Kashmir and Algeria, and the present-day Sunni-Shia violence in Iraq, the number of innocents killed in the name of Islam probablyexceeds five millionover this same period.

Anders Breivik, who murdered 77 innocents in a lone rampage on July 22nd, 2011, was originally misidentified as a "Christian fundamentalist" by the police. In fact, the killings were later determined to be politically motivated. He also left behind a detailed 1500 page manifesto in which he stated that he is not religious, does not know if God exists, and prefers a secular state to a theocracy. Needless to say, he does not quote any Bible verses in support of his killing spree, nor did he shout "praise the Lord" as he picked people off.

In the last ten years, there have been perhaps a dozen or so religiously-inspired killings by people of all other faiths combined. No other religion produces the killing sprees that Islam does nearly every day of the year. Neither do they have verses in their holy texts that arguably support it. Nor do they have large groups across the globe dedicated to the mass murder of people who worship a different god, as the broader community of believers struggles with ambivalence and tolerance for a radical clergy that supports the terror.

Muslims may like to pretend that other religions are just as subject to "misinterpretation" as is their “perfect” one, but the reality speaks of something far worse.

I never said that they were the same - only that both were morally wrong. And while the extent to which they are wrong may be different, one being more wrong than the other does not make the other right, or even excusable.
Yes it is excusable.
As far as I'm aware there shouldn't be sharia laws in west countries... yet.

Which is exactly what they did.
No they didn't. As you said "Some organised a terrorist attack" this people still counts as muslims, like it or not.
 
Last edited:
Yes, some of the abortion clinic bombers were religious (as Muslims enjoy pointing out), but consider the scope of the problem. There have been six deadly attacks over a 36 year period in the U.S. Eight people died. This is an average of one death every 4.5 years.
And how many attacks have occurred in total? What is the frequency of harassment both physical and verbal?

1 in 5 clinics in the states have been subject to attacks of varying degrees, the author attempts to downplay this by only focusing on attacks that cause death.

As such I find it odd that the author (who you do not cite and should) seems to think that a certain level of violence is OK, so what exactly is that level? How many have to die within a 36 year period before its an issue?


By contrast, Islamic terrorists staged nearly ten thousand deadly attacks in just the six years following September 11th, 2001. If one goes back to 1971, when Muslim armies in Bangladesh began the mass slaughter of Hindus, through the years of Jihad in the Sudan, Kashmir and Algeria, and the present-day Sunni-Shia violence in Iraq, the number of innocents killed in the name of Islam probablyexceeds five millionover this same period.
So the author compares every event of Muslim violence with one specific type of violence from one faith?

A biased comparison is I have ever seen one. what about the LRA, the Irish troubles, the Christian militias in the Lebanon, the violence throughout Asia that is from other faiths aimed at Muslims (particularly in India and Buddhist dominated countries) or the 'price-tag' attacks in the settlement areas of Israel?

All of which has been utterly ignored (and its more than possible to keep going with this).


Anders Breivik, who murdered 77 innocents in a lone rampage on July 22nd, 2011, was originally misidentified as a "Christian fundamentalist" by the police. In fact, the killings were later determined to be politically motivated. He also left behind a detailed 1500 page manifesto in which he stated that he is not religious, does not know if God exists, and prefers a secular state to a theocracy. Needless to say, he does not quote any Bible verses in support of his killing spree, nor did he shout "praise the Lord" as he picked people off.
He described himself as 100% Christian in his manifesto, he was critical of the Catholic church, but wanted a European unified church and stated that he planned to pray to God seeking for his help during his attacks.

His relationship with the mainstream church was confused and at odds with what most Christians would recognize as christian, but to state he was not religious is simply incorrect.

Oh and unlike the author I will bother with sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik#Christianity
http://www.timesunion.com/news/article/Is-Anders-Breivik-a-Christian-terrorist-1624540.php
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...orway-killings-Breiviks-plan-for-the-day.html



In the last ten years, there have been perhaps a dozen or so religiously-inspired killings by people of all other faiths combined.
The LRA alone show that comment for the nonsense it is.



No other religion produces the killing sprees that Islam does nearly every day of the year.
Ergo no problem exists with other religions and we should ignore it (and yes that is exactly what the author is saying - as I finish my post with).

Tell me what level do other faiths have to carry out before it occurs?



Neither do they have verses in their holy texts that arguably support it.
Someone needs to re-read the Torah and Bible as a starting point

Go on - at least provide a source for this clearly inaccurate and blatantly biased piece.



Because they don’t.
One would have to be either stupid or utterly ignorant to state that other religions do not have a problem with violence.
 
Last edited:
there you have your peacefull muslims

[Removed due to top-level expletives in the video thumbnail - repost as a link, flagged as NSFW and be more careful next time]

 
Last edited by a moderator:
So a Muslim group in the US called “Stand With the Prophet Against Terror and Hate,” hold a conference in Texas to discuss what many claim Muslims don't (including a number in this thread), i.e. anti-extremism; and a group hold a protest against them claiming (and I quote) “We’re here to stand up for the American way of life from a faction of people who are trying to destroy us.”

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/01/...ut-on-by-texas-muslims-you-are-not-americans/

Now they have a right to protest the event, but way to miss the point completely if this is what it seems to be.
 
Alot of stupidity going on here, no not all Muslims are terrorists and the Vast Vast Majority are normal people with a religion.

But you can not deny there are plenty of Groups that are becoming sympathetic to the cause(extremist terrorism) and this is what the Anti-Terror Authorities should be keeping a close eye on, the group in the video above is a Prime example.

What we shouldn't be doing though is grouping all Muslims in the same group as these ones, they are extremists and just like all extremists they tend to have a couple of leaders that try to scew a sensitive subject(religious Faith)into their own agenda.

It's just like in America where they have all these Christian Cults where it usually involves a Leader who houses everyone and uses the Bible for his or her agenda and making it sound like the word from gospel, ofcourse most are not doing terrorism related things but the principal is the same.
 
So a Muslim group in the US called “Stand With the Prophet Against Terror and Hate,” hold a conference in Texas to discuss what many claim Muslims don't (including a number in this thread), i.e. anti-extremism; and a group hold a protest against them claiming (and I quote) “We’re here to stand up for the American way of life from a faction of people who are trying to destroy us.”

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/01/...ut-on-by-texas-muslims-you-are-not-americans/

Now they have a right to protest the event, but way to miss the point completely if this is what it seems to be.
Your Talking about Texans here, the word Backward was invented there(now im not claiming all are stupid but you got to admit its a very large percentage).
 
Back