Peaceful Religion of Islam? Not.

[HenryReardon]

:

Does it matter if it's organized or not? Armed violence happens everywhere. Implying the Muslims have monopolized that arena is factually erroneous and intellectually lazy.

?

You might find the interactive map of the globe in this link of interest, assuming of course that your mind hasn't snapped shut:

http://chromatism.net/bloodyborders/

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

You might find the interactive map of the globe in this link of interest, assuming of course that your mind hasn't snapped shut:

http://chromatism.net/bloodyborders/

That map shows Islamic terrorist activity, not murder in general. There's no context. You are aware that terrorism and murder are the same thing right? The OK city bomber was a terrorist, slave owners were terrorists, why is that word all of a sudden Muslim-exclusive? Murder isn't.

 

[Kulindahr]

Kul since we all know that in the past christians have slaughtered their enemies (mostly other christians oddly enough) does it really matter that its not in their book while it may be in the Koran?

Whats the important point here that the book allows it or that the act was done and done in the name of God?

Christianity is about 650 yrs older than Islam and 650 yrs ago christians had yet to even start on killing those they considered infidels.

Maybe islam just needs time to mature.

So long as there are verses in the Quran advising the slaughter of enemies, it can't "mature" away from violence -- which is precisely the point about the Bible. It does matter what's in their Book as opposed to the other, because that's the basic mandate. Christians took a while, but finally figured out that God commanded them to live in peace, not war, which is what maturing amounted to: getting the message. But a "mature" Islam will still have orders to kill and slaughter enemies.

 

[Kulindahr]

Oh my god. You should know by now that Chance is hopeless and will use any excuse to post his bigotry under thinly veiled guises. Which is also what others are doing in this thread. Fanghetto, EwanSF, Madonna and Drewsuf are absolutely correct. And thank god for posters like them or visiting this board would have made me put my head in a vice a long time ago.

The Islamophobia on this board is pretty rampant and disgusting (although sadly very reflective of Western society).

Drewsuf is "right"?

Didn't you read this:

Drewsuf, that story is crap from the first sentence: the superiority of any race whatsoever is not a Christian belief.

That the article says so identifies it as a piece of propaganda designed to arouse enmity, if not hatred.

Note that the CNN article is from an actual news source, and it mentions nothing of the "Christian fundamentalist" or "Aryan" accusations.

That tells me those items were fabricated for the purpose of being inflammatory.

He's referencing an article which lies about who the people were, in order to smear Christians.

 

[Kulindahr]

Then you posted what you posted, something about Christian Terrorists.

Explain the reason you did that?

Actually he didn't. If you check other news sources, you'll find no mention of Christianity. That was a lie put into the article by Muslims (look at the source!) to inflame passions against Christians, or to use the fallacy of "my enemy is bad so I can do it too".

 

[Kulindahr]

I was merely pointing out...as many other have done here...that violence is not the sole property of one particular belief system. Millions have been killed wrongly in the "name of Jesus."

If we're talking about Christianity and Islam, violence is in fact "the sole property of one particular belief system": the belief system of Christianity does not teach violence, but peace, while the belief system of Islam commands the slaughter of enemies.

One does not examine a belief system by the errors of its followers, but by what their system actually teaches. Christians engaging in violence did so contrary to Jesus' teachings; Muslims engaging in violence are following the commands of their terrorist Prophet.

 

[Kulindahr]

This continues the time-honored tradition of exaggerations, ignorance, and fear-mongering esp. related to non-Americans, the most peaceful people of all times. Other countries should take note and follow our example, the last few centuries of America have been exceptionally quiet and bloodless.

Our example is peaceful because the Christian majority doesn't have a holy book that commands murder and slaughter in the name of God -- Islam does.

Nope. Wrong by all accounts. There is nothing wrong with discussing terrorism, but denying the xenophobic aspect is completely disingenuous. Islam is ONLY discussed from one perspective. If you're going to discuss terrorism, fine, but look at your thread title and tell me this isn't about typecasting.

I'd say that Islam is only discussed from "one perspective" because the Western liberal elites want to be lovey-dovey to a religion with violence at its core. Mohamed was a terrorist, liar, and thief; those things are either commanded or tolerated in the Quran. When the overwhelming image of the religion is a lie, some people get rather loud about the truth.

We however, don’t help the issue by behaving like bigoted idiots up on our high horses condemning in the name of Christ. Those of you who are Christians have an obligation to Christ to treat everyone with kindness and charity anyway. Those of us who aren’t are better served by not acting like the bigoted demon stereotype the Islamic fanatics use to recruit new followers.

Those of us who are Christians have an obligation to face the truth, and that means their holy book, not their followers. That holy book revels in violence, and commands slaughter. It is racist against the Jews, demanding that they be hunted down and killed, even the children.

 

[Kulindahr]

Do you have an OUNCE of proof to that claim? Statistics? I provided a FACT, that 70+% of the world's multiple killers are white. Your rebuttal is a generalizing statement with absolutely no meat?

I think you're comparing apples and orangutans: you're talking about murders, he's talking about terrorism.

OK, answer this simple question (since everyone else is avoiding it): are you equally "concerned" that almost all violent crimes are committed by men? How about the fact that almost all serial killers are white men? What should we do about that?

Look to see if they have a holy book commanding them to do it.

A better parallel would be asking if people who lay the blame for terrorism and violence in the middle east on Islam as a whole, condemn all Christianity for the obscenities inflicted by Fred Phelps.

That's not parallel at all: you're comparing an aberration in one religion with a core belief in another.

Here's the relevance: it operates under the same premise you are using. If Muslim extremists who commit violent acts say something essential about Muslims in general or Islam, then how is it that men who commit the majority of violent crimes, and white men who commit most serial murders -- how come that doesn't say something essential about men and white men respectively?

Because "men and white men" don't have a holy book commanding them to slaughter people, and they aren't part of a movement dedicated to genocide and death to everyone that isn't one of them.

That map shows Islamic terrorist activity, not murder in general. There's no context. You are aware that terrorism and murder are the same thing right? The OK city bomber was a terrorist, slave owners were terrorists, why is that word all of a sudden Muslim-exclusive? Murder isn't.

Ha -- you just sunk your own recent argument (see above).

"Slave owners were terrorists"?

If that's true, so was my mother.

 

[Kulindahr]

And of course, we have Kulindahr, who posts in all these kinds of threads. LOL. Thanks for more or less proving my point dude. And again, I think you guys should just have one giant thread where you can bash Muslims and Islam till your bitter hearts' content.

Also, isn't it possible that many Muslims can just choose not to abide by the violent parts of their religious text? You know, the way intelligent Christians choose not to believe that the Earth is as old as the Bible claims, or not to care about any of the other literal readings that are now considered outdated? Not every person of faith has to endorse an originalist interpretation/adherence, and there's no reason why the many Muslims who don't commit acts of violence should have their entire faith maligned. People pick and choose parts of religious texts that they agree/disagree with all the time. And not just Muslims.

I have no desire to bash Muslims. I do have a desire to point out the truth about that religion, which is that it is inherently violent: killing unbelievers is a command, given by the murdering, terrorist Prophet.

You're showing some serious ignorance in that second paragraph: The Bible makes no claims about the age of the earth; that silliness began with a bishop back when who had too much time on his hands, didn't understand Hebrew chronology, didn't understand Hebrew literature, and probably didn't even read Hebrew. Those "literal readings" you mention are themselves an abuse of the text, not a reading of it -- an abuse arising out of ignorance.

Picking and choosing is wrong; you might as well just make up your own system, because that's what you're doing anyway, and just being deceitful about it.


As for where I post, I post in just about every kind of thread there is in this forum, so your attempt at pinning anything on me fails -- I post in "bash Bush" threads, in "Bash Obama" threads, in "Praise Obama!" threads, in "Republicans are corrupt" threads, in "Democrats are corrupt" threads, in ... well, I tend to post in almost anything that appears on the first page of the forum.

 

[Kulindahr]

Also it's not true to claim that the Bible is entirely peaceful. There's rape and slavery in the Bible. Most Christians just choose -- wisely -- to not adhere to that kind of violence (and it is violence). Just as many Muslims make a similar choice.

Why do you participate in the same kind of interpretation that Fred Phelps does? It's idiocy when he does it, and idiocy when you do it.

Jesus doesn't command violence. He commands loving your enemies, and praying for those who do evil to you. He commands loving everyone as you love yourself. He commands treating others in the fashion you would like to be treated.

Now, show me the violence in there. Don't play the pretend-ignorance game of turning to the Old Testament, either, because that's just what it is: Old.

 

[Kulindahr]

Oh? You think slavery was a walk in the park for slaves?

So you agree my mom was a terrorist.

Huh.

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

There are several bible verses detailing the "process" of acquiring slaves and the guidelines for human ownership, there is also a verse saying it's okay to beat your slave as long as they remain alive for a day or two.

"And if a man beats his male or female servant with a rod, so that he dies under his hand, he shall surely be avenged. Notwithstanding, if he remains alive a day or two, he shall not be avenged; for he is his property."

 

[EwanSF]

Kuindahr, I'm very dubious of anything you post on this subject, being as you're a god-botherer yourself. You have an automatic predisposition to promote your particular brand of imaginary friend as the superior.

And the claim that christianity preaches peace is an outright lie. Maybe your interpretation, but that interpretation is at the expense of the catalogue of depravity that has been used to sanction some of the most disgusting episodes in human history.

 

[EwanSF]

Back on topic; Pakistan has terrible problems with violence against women. Osho (formerly the Baghwan) said that the national sport there was throwing acid in women's faces. The Taliban are in Pakistan and most people there are muslims. Anything that is in the Koran isn't nearly sufficient to protect women's rights at the level of modern standards and any immigrant from Pakistan might be expected to treat their wife worse than most of our people treat their pets.

We've had to open runaway homes from muslim women to run away from their abusive spouses. (Also for young women who perpetrate the worst kind of offense against their parents: to be like a Dutch girl).

So what am I saying? It is likely that the background of Muzzammil Hassan didn't provide him with the same conditioning against decapitating his wife that the average American would have.

To put it in dr. Phil terms; the Pakistani community owns this evil. It just won't do to wipe it of the table by saying other people have problems too.

To everyone in this thread who accuses the OP of racism or anti-religious prejudice; wiping the problem of islamic mysogeny (or any other muslim problem) under the table isn't going to do the US any good.
Sooner or later the reality of the situation will catch up with you, and I wager that by that time you'll be asking for much harsher measures yourself. It happened to us in the Netherlands, and it will happen to you in the US.

Unless of course you cut through all the unwholesome sanctimonious pseudo-respect and see things the way they really are.

You've clearly not been paying attention, willfully or otherwise. No one is condoning the backward behaviour that a lot of muslims inflict upon eachother, thier families, people of other creeds etc. etc. 'Kay? That sunk in? 'Kay.

What is truely pissing on our cornflakes is this continued facade of using "genuine criticism" of islam, as a vehicle to attack all muslims, essentialy. Not long ago, I saw Reardon reffering to Dutch muslims as "invaders," (which is a fuckin' joke comin' from a yank to be perfectly honest, nation of imigrants, or in the case of a lot of the white folk, actual invaders,) and that's just one of the dozens of banal, moronic generalisations and slurs that I've witnessed in the last couple of weeks or so, disigned to vilify and dehumanise a whole group of people, because of your frankly backward fucking prejudice.

That cleared up for ye alright, hen?

 

[TX-Beau]

That's not parallel at all: you're comparing an aberration in one religion with a core belief in another.

Only if you're a Christian, the bible does say that if a man lie with a man...

You just don't choose to abide by that because you're a christian and gay. But it's right there, condemnation in your holy book. Along with a host of other stupidities that are thousands of years irrelevant.

Down thread you said you Christians had an obligation to face the truth. You also have an obligation to live a Christ like life - if you think you don't, what point is there in the entire business; and I'm certain that if Christ was who he's supposed to be, he wouldn't appreciate the way most Christians jump on the condemnation wagon so swiftly.

 

[TX-Beau]

This conversation always annoys me. It's impossible to discuss Islam without having to run interference with the Rabid Christians and the Idiots (you know which you are.) It always forces me onto the defense for fairness' sake.

Just once I'd like to discuss the subject and be able to give an honest opinion without having to worry that I'm gonna be lumped in with the haters, or an apologist for the most fanatic wing of an entire religion I don't even practice.

If you got all your information about Muslims from the west and some Christian Church, why on earth would you think it's accurate, and any actual Muslim source on Islam just lies?

Perhaps is possible to consider that most Muslims don't even live in the Middle East, are bombing no one, and aren't Arabs. Is that so difficult to comprehend.

 

[naked gent]

why it seems you leftists are so offended to associate violence with Islam?

I'm no leftist and what offends me is you using your limited knowledge to reach conclusions the only purpose of which is to support your preconceived bias.

Yet, you have ZERO problems pointing out that Christianity had a violent PAST?

In order to judge properly one must look at the entire picture not just the sliver one finds comfort in.

I find that only using one standard to judge produces the most accurate result and in any case I don't have your talent for juggling the two or three standards you enjoy using.

This thread is DRENCHED in ignorance.

Perhaps. But when I tried to point yours out you failed to thank me so I'm not sure that you think ignorance is a bad thing.

So long as there are verses in the Quran advising the slaughter of enemies, it can't "mature" away from violence -- which is precisely the point about the Bible. It does matter what's in their Book as opposed to the other, because that's the basic mandate. Christians took a while, but finally figured out that God commanded them to live in peace, not war, which is what maturing amounted to: getting the message. But a "mature" Islam will still have orders to kill and slaughter enemies.

Sorry Kul but I'm just not buying it. Your attempt to predict the future requires you to forget certain parts of the past.

The Ottomans ruled quite successfully and provided their subjects with superior governance with less violence than their european counterparts experienced at a similar time. If they managed it in the past with their mandate how can you say for sure they can't do it again in the future?

Further when exactly do you think the christians figured out that God commanded them to live in peace and not war?

Was it after WW1 or after WW2?

Was that post Iraq invasion or pre?

When christians start acting in accordance with the teachings of Christ and stop killing for land or power then maybe you can make such statements without hearing people laugh at the thought but until then I suggest you do as God does and judge people on what they actually do as opposed to what they claim to believe.

 

[HenryReardon]

To everyone in this thread who accuses the OP of racism or anti-religious prejudice; wiping the problem of islamic mysogeny (or any other muslim problem) under the table isn't going to do the US any good.
Sooner or later the reality of the situation will catch up with you, and I wager that by that time you'll be asking for much harsher measures yourself. It happened to us in the Netherlands, and it will happen to you in the US.

Unless of course you cut through all the unwholesome sanctimonious pseudo-respect and see things the way they really are.

Sadly, most of the foolish and ignorant children in here don't want to see things as they really are.

I've been to your country more than once. In fact, Amsterdam used to be one of my favorite cities, and it saddens me to see what is happening there and in the rest of Europe and in the UK.

It's going to happen in the US as well. Already is, to some extent.

 

[Kulindahr]

And you agree that slavery was no big deal for slaves right?

I never said that -- you made it up.

But the principle holds: if slave owners were terrorists, so are a lot of mothers, fathers, priests, and cops -- and every drill sergeant who's walked this earth. If suffering is all that is required to regard the person responsible for the suffering as a terrorist, then school teachers are terrorists, as are coaches. Indeed, both of the major political parties in the U.S. are terrorists, by that definition!

But definitions of terms don't depend on subjective reactions, but on objective content.

 

[Kulindahr]

There are several bible verses detailing the "process" of acquiring slaves and the guidelines for human ownership, there is also a verse saying it's okay to beat your slave as long as they remain alive for a day or two.

"And if a man beats his male or female servant with a rod, so that he dies under his hand, he shall surely be avenged. Notwithstanding, if he remains alive a day or two, he shall not be avenged; for he is his property."

More Fred Phelps school of interpretation.

When will people get it through their heads that the Bible is not a recipe book?