Radical Islam

2001400ex

Another faux outrage.

President Barack Obama said Wednesday that he refuses to describe the Islamic State and al Qaeda as groups fueled by "radical Islam" because the term grants them a religious legitimacy they don't deserve.

"They are not religious leaders; they are terrorists," Obama said during remarks at a White House event on countering violent extremism. "We are not at war with Islam. We are at war with people who have perverted Islam."

"No religion is responsible for terrorism. People are responsible for violence and terrorism."

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/6708610

PurpleJ

We ARE at war with Islam dumbfuck. No terrorist perverted it. Read the Qaran for me one time.

2001400ex

PurpleJ said:

We ARE at war with Islam dumbfuck. No terrorist perverted it. Read the Qaran for me one time.

I figured J would be the first one with the ignorant post.

PurpleJ

2001400ex said:

PurpleJ said:

We ARE at war with Islam dumbfuck. No terrorist perverted it. Read the Qaran for me one time.

I figured J would be the first one with the ignorant post.

thereligionofpeace.com/quran/023-violence.htm

It's a wannabe spin off of Christianity that was invented with the goal of gaining political power. HTH.

2001400ex

PurpleJ said:

2001400ex said:

PurpleJ said:

We ARE at war with Islam dumbfuck. No terrorist perverted it. Read the Qaran for me one time.

I figured J would be the first one with the ignorant post.

thereligionofpeace.com/quran/023-violence.htm

It's a wannabe spin off of Christianity that was invented with the goal of gaining political power. HTH.

J clearly believes everything he reads on the internet. Here's an example from your article:

Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing...
but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)" (Translation is from the Noble Quran) The verse prior to this (190) refers to "fighting for the cause of Allah those who fight you"

That very clearly says, with the context added at the end, that is to fight to defend those who fight you. Then the author goes on the explain how that's wrong.

Just shake my head J. Go smoke another bowel.

WeAreAFatLesboSchool

I'm dumbfounded that liberals defend this piece of shit religion yet have zero respect for Christians and Jews. A Christian chooses not be participate in a gay wedding and the libs go apeshit. Islam punishes homosexuality with death and it's meh, what are you going to do?

http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-exec/

RaceBannon

What is the fake outrage?

Did the church shooter represent white people? Sure seemed like it judging by Obama's reaction.

Did the planned parenthood shooter represent Christians? That's what I am hearing.

A movement of millions of Muslims right out of their holy book doing what that book says to do has nothing to do with that religion. How stupid do you have to believe that? Hondo stupid

When Europe was flowing with blood during the Catholic Protestant wars did that have anything to do with Christianity?

Call a spade a spade

Doogles

2001400ex said:

PurpleJ said:

2001400ex said:

PurpleJ said:

We ARE at war with Islam dumbfuck. No terrorist perverted it. Read the Qaran for me one time.

I figured J would be the first one with the ignorant post.

thereligionofpeace.com/quran/023-violence.htm

It's a wannabe spin off of Christianity that was invented with the goal of gaining political power. HTH.

J clearly believes everything he reads on the internet. Here's an example from your article:

Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing...
but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)" (Translation is from the Noble Quran) The verse prior to this (190) refers to "fighting for the cause of Allah those who fight you"

That very clearly says, with the context added at the end, that is to fight to defend those who fight you. Then the author goes on the explain how that's wrong.

Just shake my head J. Go smoke another bowel.

Hondo is a dumb ass troll.

We've been down this road in a thread about a year ago when he asked for a passage from the kuran promoting violence, which I did. He replied with the "context" line and cited a few peaceful passages as proof it's a religion of peace.

Take your Islam apologizing, hemp wearing, bean nurturing ass and Fuck Off already.

2001400ex

You guys are some truly ignorant fucks.

WeAreAFatLesboSchool

2001400ex said:

You guys are some truly ignorant fucks.

Can you refute the pew research? Have at it dipshit.

PurpleJ

2001400ex said:

You guys are some truly ignorant fucks.

You mean like the guy who never read the Qaran trying to tell us what they actually believe?

Hippopeteamus

2001400ex said:

PurpleJ said:

2001400ex said:

PurpleJ said:

We ARE at war with Islam dumbfuck. No terrorist perverted it. Read the Qaran for me one time.

I figured J would be the first one with the ignorant post.

thereligionofpeace.com/quran/023-violence.htm

It's a wannabe spin off of Christianity that was invented with the goal of gaining political power. HTH.

J clearly believes everything he reads on the internet. Here's an example from your article:

Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing...
but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)" (Translation is from the Noble Quran) The verse prior to this (190) refers to "fighting for the cause of Allah those who fight you"

That very clearly says, with the context added at the end, that is to fight to defend those who fight you. Then the author goes on the explain how that's wrong.

Just shake my head J. Go smoke another bowel.

You do realize that ISIS offers textual interpretations of both the Quran and Hadith? Why don't you argue with them about their interpretation of islam? You can say all you want that it is wrong, and it may be, but it is still an interpretation that they feel as plausible (also, don't forget that apostasy is punished by death in Islam and that is a very common interpretation). There is one fundamental difference you are missing, while Jesus was crucified, Muhammed was a warrior. Now you can debate whether ISIS interpretation is a good one, but it is much easier to justify war in the long term when your founder fought wars and didn't let himself be killed by the Romans. To say that ISIS has nothing to do with islam is idiotic. That is what they base their actions on, their interpretation of the Quran. Many great "Islamic" scholars tried to make the religion more workable (e.g. Ibn Rshd, Alfarabi, ps. they didn't really think Muhammed was a prophet). But unfortunately a popular interpretation now of islam is that of ISIS. It is not necessarily "Islam" but it is islamic and only willful ignorance or complete stupidity would not recognize that.

CuntWaffle

Hondo if you had a fucking clue you would realize the Quran is a book about a leader who preaches hate/death and rapes/kills people.

But you hate facts.

PurpleJ

Hippopeteamus said:

2001400ex said:

PurpleJ said:

2001400ex said:

PurpleJ said:

We ARE at war with Islam dumbfuck. No terrorist perverted it. Read the Qaran for me one time.

I figured J would be the first one with the ignorant post.

thereligionofpeace.com/quran/023-violence.htm

It's a wannabe spin off of Christianity that was invented with the goal of gaining political power. HTH.

J clearly believes everything he reads on the internet. Here's an example from your article:

Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing...
but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)" (Translation is from the Noble Quran) The verse prior to this (190) refers to "fighting for the cause of Allah those who fight you"

That very clearly says, with the context added at the end, that is to fight to defend those who fight you. Then the author goes on the explain how that's wrong.

Just shake my head J. Go smoke another bowel.

You do realize that ISIS offers textual interpretations of both the Quran and Hadith? Why don't you argue with them about their interpretation of islam? You can say all you want that it is wrong, and it may be, but it is still an interpretation that they feel as plausible (also, don't forget that apostasy is punished by death in Islam and that is a very common interpretation). There is one fundamental difference you are missing, while Jesus was crucified, Muhammed was a warrior. Now you can debate whether ISIS interpretation is a good one, but it is much easier to justify war in the long term when your founder fought wars and didn't let himself be killed by the Romans. To say that ISIS has nothing to do with islam is idiotic. That is what they base their actions on, their interpretation of the Quran. Many great "Islamic" scholars tried to make the religion more workable (e.g. Ibn Rshd, Alfarabi, ps. they didn't really think Muhammed was a prophet). But unfortunately a popular interpretation now of islam is that of ISIS. It is not necessarily "Islam" but it is islamic and only willful ignorance or complete stupidity would not recognize that.

Because they would chop his head off.

jecornel

Defending Islam is like defending Sark saying he doesn't have a Patron problem.

2001400ex

Hippopeteamus said:

2001400ex said:

PurpleJ said:

2001400ex said:

PurpleJ said:

We ARE at war with Islam dumbfuck. No terrorist perverted it. Read the Qaran for me one time.

I figured J would be the first one with the ignorant post.

thereligionofpeace.com/quran/023-violence.htm

It's a wannabe spin off of Christianity that was invented with the goal of gaining political power. HTH.

J clearly believes everything he reads on the internet. Here's an example from your article:

Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing...
but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)" (Translation is from the Noble Quran) The verse prior to this (190) refers to "fighting for the cause of Allah those who fight you"

That very clearly says, with the context added at the end, that is to fight to defend those who fight you. Then the author goes on the explain how that's wrong.

Just shake my head J. Go smoke another bowel.

You do realize that ISIS offers textual interpretations of both the Quran and Hadith? Why don't you argue with them about their interpretation of islam? You can say all you want that it is wrong, and it may be, but it is still an interpretation that they feel as plausible (also, don't forget that apostasy is punished by death in Islam and that is a very common interpretation). There is one fundamental difference you are missing, while Jesus was crucified, Muhammed was a warrior. Now you can debate whether ISIS interpretation is a good one, but it is much easier to justify war in the long term when your founder fought wars and didn't let himself be killed by the Romans. To say that ISIS has nothing to do with islam is idiotic. That is what they base their actions on, their interpretation of the Quran. Many great "Islamic" scholars tried to make the religion more workable (e.g. Ibn Rshd, Alfarabi, ps. they didn't really think Muhammed was a prophet). But unfortunately a popular interpretation now of islam is that of ISIS. It is not necessarily "Islam" but it is islamic and only willful ignorance or complete stupidity would not recognize that.

You are arguing with me, but then basically saying the same thing as me. It's not Islam. It's the individuals, which is a small minority.

Have any of you actually ever met a Muslim? They are strange fucks, don't get me wrong. But the hate shouldn't be towards Muslims, it should be toward the extremists.

Doogles

2001400ex said:

Hippopeteamus said:

2001400ex said:

PurpleJ said:

2001400ex said:

PurpleJ said:

We ARE at war with Islam dumbfuck. No terrorist perverted it. Read the Qaran for me one time.

I figured J would be the first one with the ignorant post.

thereligionofpeace.com/quran/023-violence.htm

It's a wannabe spin off of Christianity that was invented with the goal of gaining political power. HTH.

J clearly believes everything he reads on the internet. Here's an example from your article:

Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing...
but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)" (Translation is from the Noble Quran) The verse prior to this (190) refers to "fighting for the cause of Allah those who fight you"

That very clearly says, with the context added at the end, that is to fight to defend those who fight you. Then the author goes on the explain how that's wrong.

Just shake my head J. Go smoke another bowel.

You do realize that ISIS offers textual interpretations of both the Quran and Hadith? Why don't you argue with them about their interpretation of islam? You can say all you want that it is wrong, and it may be, but it is still an interpretation that they feel as plausible (also, don't forget that apostasy is punished by death in Islam and that is a very common interpretation). There is one fundamental difference you are missing, while Jesus was crucified, Muhammed was a warrior. Now you can debate whether ISIS interpretation is a good one, but it is much easier to justify war in the long term when your founder fought wars and didn't let himself be killed by the Romans. To say that ISIS has nothing to do with islam is idiotic. That is what they base their actions on, their interpretation of the Quran. Many great "Islamic" scholars tried to make the religion more workable (e.g. Ibn Rshd, Alfarabi, ps. they didn't really think Muhammed was a prophet). But unfortunately a popular interpretation now of islam is that of ISIS. It is not necessarily "Islam" but it is islamic and only willful ignorance or complete stupidity would not recognize that.

You are arguing with me, but then basically saying the same thing as me. It's not Islam. It's the individuals, which is a small minority.

Have any of you actually ever met a Muslim? They are strange fucks, don't get me wrong. But the hate shouldn't be towards Muslims, it should be toward the extremists.

All religion is based on interpretations of a fictional story used to cultivate power in the dark ages.

There is a book. And it inspires x to do this, y to do that, and z to do something else.

You can run through the entire alphabet a hundred times over and not capture all the ways man interprets its content. However, the source remains the same.

The Muslim Book is the source that inspires radical Islam, therefore it is a product of its nature and the religion owns the labels given to the increasing number of people following that interpretation.

2001400ex

Doogles said:

2001400ex said:

Hippopeteamus said:

2001400ex said:

PurpleJ said:

2001400ex said:

PurpleJ said:

We ARE at war with Islam dumbfuck. No terrorist perverted it. Read the Qaran for me one time.

I figured J would be the first one with the ignorant post.

thereligionofpeace.com/quran/023-violence.htm

It's a wannabe spin off of Christianity that was invented with the goal of gaining political power. HTH.

J clearly believes everything he reads on the internet. Here's an example from your article:

Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing...
but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)" (Translation is from the Noble Quran) The verse prior to this (190) refers to "fighting for the cause of Allah those who fight you"

That very clearly says, with the context added at the end, that is to fight to defend those who fight you. Then the author goes on the explain how that's wrong.

Just shake my head J. Go smoke another bowel.

You do realize that ISIS offers textual interpretations of both the Quran and Hadith? Why don't you argue with them about their interpretation of islam? You can say all you want that it is wrong, and it may be, but it is still an interpretation that they feel as plausible (also, don't forget that apostasy is punished by death in Islam and that is a very common interpretation). There is one fundamental difference you are missing, while Jesus was crucified, Muhammed was a warrior. Now you can debate whether ISIS interpretation is a good one, but it is much easier to justify war in the long term when your founder fought wars and didn't let himself be killed by the Romans. To say that ISIS has nothing to do with islam is idiotic. That is what they base their actions on, their interpretation of the Quran. Many great "Islamic" scholars tried to make the religion more workable (e.g. Ibn Rshd, Alfarabi, ps. they didn't really think Muhammed was a prophet). But unfortunately a popular interpretation now of islam is that of ISIS. It is not necessarily "Islam" but it is islamic and only willful ignorance or complete stupidity would not recognize that.

You are arguing with me, but then basically saying the same thing as me. It's not Islam. It's the individuals, which is a small minority.

Have any of you actually ever met a Muslim? They are strange fucks, don't get me wrong. But the hate shouldn't be towards Muslims, it should be toward the extremists.

All religion is based on interpretations of a fictional story used to cultivate power in the dark ages.

There is a book. And it inspires x to do this, y to do that, and z to do something else.

You can run through the entire alphabet a hundred times over and not capture all the ways man interprets its content. However, the source remains the same.

The Muslim Book is the source that inspires radical Islam, therefore it is a product of its nature and the religion owns the labels given to the increasing number of people following that interpretation.

Sounds like you agree with Obama.

So what should we do then? Close down mosques and create a registry for Muslims?

Doogles

2001400ex said:

Doogles said:

2001400ex said:

Hippopeteamus said:

2001400ex said:

PurpleJ said:

2001400ex said:

PurpleJ said:

We ARE at war with Islam dumbfuck. No terrorist perverted it. Read the Qaran for me one time.

I figured J would be the first one with the ignorant post.

thereligionofpeace.com/quran/023-violence.htm

It's a wannabe spin off of Christianity that was invented with the goal of gaining political power. HTH.

J clearly believes everything he reads on the internet. Here's an example from your article:

Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing...
but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)" (Translation is from the Noble Quran) The verse prior to this (190) refers to "fighting for the cause of Allah those who fight you"

That very clearly says, with the context added at the end, that is to fight to defend those who fight you. Then the author goes on the explain how that's wrong.

Just shake my head J. Go smoke another bowel.

You do realize that ISIS offers textual interpretations of both the Quran and Hadith? Why don't you argue with them about their interpretation of islam? You can say all you want that it is wrong, and it may be, but it is still an interpretation that they feel as plausible (also, don't forget that apostasy is punished by death in Islam and that is a very common interpretation). There is one fundamental difference you are missing, while Jesus was crucified, Muhammed was a warrior. Now you can debate whether ISIS interpretation is a good one, but it is much easier to justify war in the long term when your founder fought wars and didn't let himself be killed by the Romans. To say that ISIS has nothing to do with islam is idiotic. That is what they base their actions on, their interpretation of the Quran. Many great "Islamic" scholars tried to make the religion more workable (e.g. Ibn Rshd, Alfarabi, ps. they didn't really think Muhammed was a prophet). But unfortunately a popular interpretation now of islam is that of ISIS. It is not necessarily "Islam" but it is islamic and only willful ignorance or complete stupidity would not recognize that.

You are arguing with me, but then basically saying the same thing as me. It's not Islam. It's the individuals, which is a small minority.

Have any of you actually ever met a Muslim? They are strange fucks, don't get me wrong. But the hate shouldn't be towards Muslims, it should be toward the extremists.

All religion is based on interpretations of a fictional story used to cultivate power in the dark ages.

There is a book. And it inspires x to do this, y to do that, and z to do something else.

You can run through the entire alphabet a hundred times over and not capture all the ways man interprets its content. However, the source remains the same.

The Muslim Book is the source that inspires radical Islam, therefore it is a product of its nature and the religion owns the labels given to the increasing number of people following that interpretation.

Sounds like you agree with Obama.

So what should we do then? Close down mosques and create a registry for Muslims?

Acknowledge there is an inherent problem woven into the fabric of the religion and not apologize for blatant attacks on western civilizations way of life, the civilization that allows you to wear Sambas in the park while sipping an espresso.

WeAreAFatLesboSchool

Doogles said:

2001400ex said:

Hippopeteamus said:

2001400ex said:

PurpleJ said:

2001400ex said:

PurpleJ said:

We ARE at war with Islam dumbfuck. No terrorist perverted it. Read the Qaran for me one time.

I figured J would be the first one with the ignorant post.

thereligionofpeace.com/quran/023-violence.htm

It's a wannabe spin off of Christianity that was invented with the goal of gaining political power. HTH.

J clearly believes everything he reads on the internet. Here's an example from your article:

Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing...
but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)" (Translation is from the Noble Quran) The verse prior to this (190) refers to "fighting for the cause of Allah those who fight you"

That very clearly says, with the context added at the end, that is to fight to defend those who fight you. Then the author goes on the explain how that's wrong.

Just shake my head J. Go smoke another bowel.

You do realize that ISIS offers textual interpretations of both the Quran and Hadith? Why don't you argue with them about their interpretation of islam? You can say all you want that it is wrong, and it may be, but it is still an interpretation that they feel as plausible (also, don't forget that apostasy is punished by death in Islam and that is a very common interpretation). There is one fundamental difference you are missing, while Jesus was crucified, Muhammed was a warrior. Now you can debate whether ISIS interpretation is a good one, but it is much easier to justify war in the long term when your founder fought wars and didn't let himself be killed by the Romans. To say that ISIS has nothing to do with islam is idiotic. That is what they base their actions on, their interpretation of the Quran. Many great "Islamic" scholars tried to make the religion more workable (e.g. Ibn Rshd, Alfarabi, ps. they didn't really think Muhammed was a prophet). But unfortunately a popular interpretation now of islam is that of ISIS. It is not necessarily "Islam" but it is islamic and only willful ignorance or complete stupidity would not recognize that.

You are arguing with me, but then basically saying the same thing as me. It's not Islam. It's the individuals, which is a small minority.

Have any of you actually ever met a Muslim? They are strange fucks, don't get me wrong. But the hate shouldn't be towards Muslims, it should be toward the extremists.

All religion is based on interpretations of a fictional story used to cultivate power in the dark ages.

There is a book. And it inspires x to do this, y to do that, and z to do something else.

You can run through the entire alphabet a hundred times over and not capture all the ways man interprets its content. However, the source remains the same.

The Muslim Book is the source that inspires radical Islam, therefore it is a product of its nature and the religion owns the labels given to the increasing number of people following that interpretation.

When over half of a group of people thinks death by stoning is an appropriate punishment for adultery because that's what their religion dictates, it's not "individuals" who are a problem. How can you defend a group who's majority advocates killing gays? Or beating wives, or chopping off hands for stealing? You are one sick fuck to defend that shit. Because by defending Islam, that is what you are doing.

2001400ex

WeAreAFatLesboSchool said:

Doogles said:

2001400ex said:

Hippopeteamus said:

2001400ex said:

PurpleJ said:

2001400ex said:

PurpleJ said:

We ARE at war with Islam dumbfuck. No terrorist perverted it. Read the Qaran for me one time.

I figured J would be the first one with the ignorant post.

thereligionofpeace.com/quran/023-violence.htm

It's a wannabe spin off of Christianity that was invented with the goal of gaining political power. HTH.

J clearly believes everything he reads on the internet. Here's an example from your article:

Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing...
but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)" (Translation is from the Noble Quran) The verse prior to this (190) refers to "fighting for the cause of Allah those who fight you"

That very clearly says, with the context added at the end, that is to fight to defend those who fight you. Then the author goes on the explain how that's wrong.

Just shake my head J. Go smoke another bowel.

You do realize that ISIS offers textual interpretations of both the Quran and Hadith? Why don't you argue with them about their interpretation of islam? You can say all you want that it is wrong, and it may be, but it is still an interpretation that they feel as plausible (also, don't forget that apostasy is punished by death in Islam and that is a very common interpretation). There is one fundamental difference you are missing, while Jesus was crucified, Muhammed was a warrior. Now you can debate whether ISIS interpretation is a good one, but it is much easier to justify war in the long term when your founder fought wars and didn't let himself be killed by the Romans. To say that ISIS has nothing to do with islam is idiotic. That is what they base their actions on, their interpretation of the Quran. Many great "Islamic" scholars tried to make the religion more workable (e.g. Ibn Rshd, Alfarabi, ps. they didn't really think Muhammed was a prophet). But unfortunately a popular interpretation now of islam is that of ISIS. It is not necessarily "Islam" but it is islamic and only willful ignorance or complete stupidity would not recognize that.

You are arguing with me, but then basically saying the same thing as me. It's not Islam. It's the individuals, which is a small minority.

Have any of you actually ever met a Muslim? They are strange fucks, don't get me wrong. But the hate shouldn't be towards Muslims, it should be toward the extremists.

All religion is based on interpretations of a fictional story used to cultivate power in the dark ages.

There is a book. And it inspires x to do this, y to do that, and z to do something else.

You can run through the entire alphabet a hundred times over and not capture all the ways man interprets its content. However, the source remains the same.

The Muslim Book is the source that inspires radical Islam, therefore it is a product of its nature and the religion owns the labels given to the increasing number of people following that interpretation.

When over half of a group of people thinks death by stoning is an appropriate punishment for adultery because that's what their religion dictates, it's not "individuals" who are a problem. How can you defend a group who's majority advocates killing gays? Or beating wives, or chopping off hands for stealing? You are one sick fuck to defend that shit. Because by defending Islam, that is what you are doing.

You are discussing Christianity 200 years ago. That's society causing those issues, not religion.

HTH