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.
Hence why Obama is bombing ISIS. Why is it that the Republican controlled house hasn't approved a use of military force agreement yet?
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
Everybody does it.
And 3000 years ago Grandpa Doogles killed some guy with a stick to steal his berries.
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.
Hence why Obama is bombing ISIS. Why is it that the Republican controlled house hasn't approved a use of military force agreement yet?
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.
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
Everybody does it.
And 3000 years ago Grandpa Doogles killed some guy with a stick to steal his berries.
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.
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.
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.
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.
كنا على هذا الطريق في موضوع قبل نحو سنة عندما سأل عن ممر من كوران تشجيع العنف ، وهو ما قمت به . فأجاب "السياق " خط و استشهد بضع فقرات السلمية كدليل على أن الإسلام دين السلام.
كنا على هذا الطريق في موضوع قبل نحو سنة عندما سأل عن ممر من كوران تشجيع العنف ، وهو ما قمت به . فأجاب "السياق " خط و استشهد بضع فقرات السلمية كدليل على أن الإسلام دين السلام.
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
Sounds like you're not interested in an honest discussion. Liar or stupid. Tell me which one you are.
The Old Testament is a violent as the Koran. The New Testament is about love, redemption, and turning the other cheek. Yet Christians can still get that all fucked up. But nowhere near on the scale that the modern Islamic movement takes.
The left hated the Moral Majority not for using violence but for using the political process to "impose their morality" as in being against abortion and my two dads.
Yet the left runs cover for a religion that is actively violent against out freedoms and social changes, like abortion and my two dads.
it is insane.
I'm willing to go along with the thought that for most of American history Muslims here are like Jews and Christians in that they don't get all fanatic and shit and are basically co opted by our secular way of life. That keeps the peace.
the threat that Obama and his cock suckers like Hondo ignore is the increasing radicalization DUE to religion of American Muslims.
The SB shooter had a great job and a family and everybody thought he was cool. Yet he had a bomb factory and plans to kill far more than he did. He is not alone
Denial is a bad strategy. Instead of whining about how Muslims are getting a bad name Muslims need to help root out the cancer
The Old Testament is a violent as the Koran. The New Testament is about love, redemption, and turning the other cheek. Yet Christians can still get that all fucked up. But nowhere near on the scale that the modern Islamic movement takes.
The left hated the Moral Majority not for using violence but for using the political process to "impose their morality" as in being against abortion and my two dads.
Yet the left runs cover for a religion that is actively violent against out freedoms and social changes, like abortion and my two dads.
it is insane.
I'm willing to go along with the thought that for most of American history Muslims here are like Jews and Christians in that they don't get all fanatic and shit and are basically co opted by our secular way of life. That keeps the peace.
the threat that Obama and his cock suckers like Hondo ignore is the increasing radicalization DUE to religion of American Muslims.
The SB shooter had a great job and a family and everybody thought he was cool. Yet he had a bomb factory and plans to kill far more than he did. He is not alone
Denial is a bad strategy. Instead of whining about how Muslims are getting a bad name Muslims need to help root out the cancer
كنا على هذا الطريق في موضوع قبل نحو سنة عندما سأل عن ممر من كوران تشجيع العنف ، وهو ما قمت به . فأجاب "السياق " خط و استشهد بضع فقرات السلمية كدليل على أن الإسلام دين السلام.
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.
I think that when you say "It is not Islam" you are treating it as if there is no possible interpretation of the quran that a reasonable person could give that would lead to ISIS, correct me if I am wrong. Obviously Lutheran, Greek Orthodox, and Catholic Christianity cannot all be "Christianity", since they contradict each-other. That doesn't mean they are not all christian and offer plausible interpretations of christianity. Are both Sunni and Shia muslims islamic? They both can't practice "Islam". Similarly, ISIS certainly thinks what it believes is islam and the Quran and history of Islam make such an interpretation plausible. But the problem is that many people feel like Obama and many liberals are ignoring that it is an interpretation of Islam. It is not just the "individuals". They didn't just make up an ad hoc interpretation so they could shoot up a Parisian cafe. When Obama refuses to even call it "islamic" terrorism (as some reformist muslims actually want him to do) , it makes it difficult to challenge what it is that inspires people to believe the ISIS interpretation of islam. When he says "it is not islam" he treats that as saying "it is not at all based on the quran" which is not true. I am fine with saying it is not Islam, but only if that allows us to still recognize that it is islamic and is based on a possible interpretation of the quran. Do you think that is what Obama is saying, because it certainly seems like he is trying to separate ISIS completely from the quran, like there are not parts of the quran that could possible give rise to the interpretation ISIS offers. There probably isn't an "Islam" because, well, he wasn't actually a prophet of God and many of the things he wrote probably contradict each other. Indeed I am sure your version of "Islam" would not include death for apostasy, but that is not true in most of the muslim world.
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
This is exactly the problem. Perhaps some of it is the religion. It is not as easy to justify stoning when the founder says "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" or "God makes it rain on both the wicked and the good". People cannot interpret any belief they want into a religion and have it be plausible. And some religions might be more conducive than others.
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.
I think that when you say "It is not Islam" you are treating it as if there is no possible interpretation of the quran that a reasonable person could give that would lead to ISIS, correct me if I am wrong. Obviously Lutheran, Greek Orthodox, and Catholic Christianity cannot all be "Christianity", since they contradict each-other. That doesn't mean they are not all christian and offer plausible interpretations of christianity. Are both Sunni and Shia muslims islamic? They both can't practice "Islam". Similarly, ISIS certainly thinks what it believes is islam and the Quran and history of Islam make such an interpretation plausible. But the problem is that many people feel like Obama and many liberals are ignoring that it is an interpretation of Islam. It is not just the "individuals". They didn't just make up an ad hoc interpretation so they could shoot up a Parisian cafe. When Obama refuses to even call it "islamic" terrorism (as some reformist muslims actually want him to do) , it makes it difficult to challenge what it is that inspires people to believe the ISIS interpretation of islam. When he says "it is not islam" he treats that as saying "it is not at all based on the quran" which is not true. I am fine with saying it is not Islam, but only if that allows us to still recognize that it is islamic and is based on a possible interpretation of the quran. Do you think that is what Obama is saying, because it certainly seems like he is trying to separate ISIS completely from the quran, like there are not parts of the quran that could possible give rise to the interpretation ISIS offers. There probably isn't an "Islam" because, well, he wasn't actually a prophet of God and many of the things he wrote probably contradict each other. Indeed I am sure your version of "Islam" would not include death for apostasy, but that is not true in most of the muslim world.
Read the article I posted and the quotes from Obama. What he's saying is it's not religion, it's individuals. I add that is more than individuals, it's more the society those individuals are in.
For example, India is full of Muslims (and Hindu). Do you hear any Indian terrorists? No.... Indian society is peaceful.
"Many people feel like Obama and liberals...." Don't you think that's because of their news source interpretation of what is said? Rather than what they actually say? Do your own research on what Obama and other liberals actually say, unfiltered by the media.
The Old Testament is a violent as the Koran. The New Testament is about love, redemption, and turning the other cheek. Yet Christians can still get that all fucked up. But nowhere near on the scale that the modern Islamic movement takes.
The left hated the Moral Majority not for using violence but for using the political process to "impose their morality" as in being against abortion and my two dads.
Yet the left runs cover for a religion that is actively violent against out freedoms and social changes, like abortion and my two dads.
it is insane.
I'm willing to go along with the thought that for most of American history Muslims here are like Jews and Christians in that they don't get all fanatic and shit and are basically co opted by our secular way of life. That keeps the peace.
the threat that Obama and his cock suckers like Hondo ignore is the increasing radicalization DUE to religion of American Muslims.
The SB shooter had a great job and a family and everybody thought he was cool. Yet he had a bomb factory and plans to kill far more than he did. He is not alone
Denial is a bad strategy. Instead of whining about how Muslims are getting a bad name Muslims need to help root out the cancer
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.
I think that when you say "It is not Islam" you are treating it as if there is no possible interpretation of the quran that a reasonable person could give that would lead to ISIS, correct me if I am wrong. Obviously Lutheran, Greek Orthodox, and Catholic Christianity cannot all be "Christianity", since they contradict each-other. That doesn't mean they are not all christian and offer plausible interpretations of christianity. Are both Sunni and Shia muslims islamic? They both can't practice "Islam". Similarly, ISIS certainly thinks what it believes is islam and the Quran and history of Islam make such an interpretation plausible. But the problem is that many people feel like Obama and many liberals are ignoring that it is an interpretation of Islam. It is not just the "individuals". They didn't just make up an ad hoc interpretation so they could shoot up a Parisian cafe. When Obama refuses to even call it "islamic" terrorism (as some reformist muslims actually want him to do) , it makes it difficult to challenge what it is that inspires people to believe the ISIS interpretation of islam. When he says "it is not islam" he treats that as saying "it is not at all based on the quran" which is not true. I am fine with saying it is not Islam, but only if that allows us to still recognize that it is islamic and is based on a possible interpretation of the quran. Do you think that is what Obama is saying, because it certainly seems like he is trying to separate ISIS completely from the quran, like there are not parts of the quran that could possible give rise to the interpretation ISIS offers. There probably isn't an "Islam" because, well, he wasn't actually a prophet of God and many of the things he wrote probably contradict each other. Indeed I am sure your version of "Islam" would not include death for apostasy, but that is not true in most of the muslim world.
Read the article I posted and the quotes from Obama. What he's saying is it's not religion, it's individuals. I add that is more than individuals, it's more the society those individuals are in.
For example, India is full of Muslims (and Hindu). Do you hear any Indian terrorists? No.... Indian society is peaceful.
"Many people feel like Obama and liberals...." Don't you think that's because of their news source interpretation of what is said? Rather than what they actually say? Do your own research on what Obama and other liberals actually say, unfiltered by the media.
Why is it okay to blame christianity for all the bigoted views in the south? Are they not just individuals brought up in a certain society? It's not the bible thumping that is the issue, just the people themselves. You can't have it both ways.
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.
I think that when you say "It is not Islam" you are treating it as if there is no possible interpretation of the quran that a reasonable person could give that would lead to ISIS, correct me if I am wrong. Obviously Lutheran, Greek Orthodox, and Catholic Christianity cannot all be "Christianity", since they contradict each-other. That doesn't mean they are not all christian and offer plausible interpretations of christianity. Are both Sunni and Shia muslims islamic? They both can't practice "Islam". Similarly, ISIS certainly thinks what it believes is islam and the Quran and history of Islam make such an interpretation plausible. But the problem is that many people feel like Obama and many liberals are ignoring that it is an interpretation of Islam. It is not just the "individuals". They didn't just make up an ad hoc interpretation so they could shoot up a Parisian cafe. When Obama refuses to even call it "islamic" terrorism (as some reformist muslims actually want him to do) , it makes it difficult to challenge what it is that inspires people to believe the ISIS interpretation of islam. When he says "it is not islam" he treats that as saying "it is not at all based on the quran" which is not true. I am fine with saying it is not Islam, but only if that allows us to still recognize that it is islamic and is based on a possible interpretation of the quran. Do you think that is what Obama is saying, because it certainly seems like he is trying to separate ISIS completely from the quran, like there are not parts of the quran that could possible give rise to the interpretation ISIS offers. There probably isn't an "Islam" because, well, he wasn't actually a prophet of God and many of the things he wrote probably contradict each other. Indeed I am sure your version of "Islam" would not include death for apostasy, but that is not true in most of the muslim world.
Read the article I posted and the quotes from Obama. What he's saying is it's not religion, it's individuals. I add that is more than individuals, it's more the society those individuals are in.
For example, India is full of Muslims (and Hindu). Do you hear any Indian terrorists? No.... Indian society is peaceful.
"Many people feel like Obama and liberals...." Don't you think that's because of their news source interpretation of what is said? Rather than what they actually say? Do your own research on what Obama and other liberals actually say, unfiltered by the media.
No terror attacks in India? Good Christ. You're a piece of work.
Comments
And 3000 years ago Grandpa Doogles killed some guy with a stick to steal his berries.
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.
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.
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.
كنا على هذا الطريق في موضوع قبل نحو سنة عندما سأل عن ممر من كوران تشجيع العنف ، وهو ما قمت به . فأجاب "السياق " خط و استشهد بضع فقرات السلمية كدليل على أن الإسلام دين السلام.
اتخاذ الاعتذار إسلامك والقنب يرتدي، الفول رعاية الحمار و اللعنة معطلة بالفعل .
كنا على هذا الطريق في موضوع قبل نحو سنة عندما سأل عن ممر من كوران تشجيع العنف ، وهو ما قمت به . فأجاب "السياق " خط و استشهد بضع فقرات السلمية كدليل على أن الإسلام دين السلام.
اتخاذ الاعتذار إسلامك والقنب يرتدي، الفول رعاية الحمار و اللعنة معطلة بالفعل .
The left hated the Moral Majority not for using violence but for using the political process to "impose their morality" as in being against abortion and my two dads.
Yet the left runs cover for a religion that is actively violent against out freedoms and social changes, like abortion and my two dads.
it is insane.
I'm willing to go along with the thought that for most of American history Muslims here are like Jews and Christians in that they don't get all fanatic and shit and are basically co opted by our secular way of life. That keeps the peace.
the threat that Obama and his cock suckers like Hondo ignore is the increasing radicalization DUE to religion of American Muslims.
The SB shooter had a great job and a family and everybody thought he was cool. Yet he had a bomb factory and plans to kill far more than he did. He is not alone
Denial is a bad strategy. Instead of whining about how Muslims are getting a bad name Muslims need to help root out the cancer
For example, India is full of Muslims (and Hindu). Do you hear any Indian terrorists? No.... Indian society is peaceful.
"Many people feel like Obama and liberals...." Don't you think that's because of their news source interpretation of what is said? Rather than what they actually say? Do your own research on what Obama and other liberals actually say, unfiltered by the media.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Islamic_terrorism_in_India