Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Radical Islam
Comments
-
Sounds like you're not interested in an honest discussion. Liar or stupid. Tell me which one you are.2001400ex said:
You are discussing Christianity 200 years ago. That's society causing those issues, not religion.WeAreAFatLesboSchool said:
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.Doogles said:
All religion is based on interpretations of a fictional story used to cultivate power in the dark ages.2001400ex said:
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.Hippopeteamus said:
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.2001400ex said:
J clearly believes everything he reads on the internet. Here's an example from your article:PurpleJ said:
thereligionofpeace.com/quran/023-violence.htm2001400ex said:
I figured J would be the first one with the ignorant post.PurpleJ said:We ARE at war with Islam dumbfuck. No terrorist perverted it. Read the Qaran for me one time.
It's a wannabe spin off of Christianity that was invented with the goal of gaining political power. HTH.
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.
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.
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.
HTH -
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 -
Ok, what do you propose to do then Race?RaceBannon said: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 -
تعارض.dnc said:هوندو هو الحمار القزم البكم .
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 . -
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.2001400ex said:
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.Hippopeteamus said:
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.2001400ex said:
J clearly believes everything he reads on the internet. Here's an example from your article:PurpleJ said:
thereligionofpeace.com/quran/023-violence.htm2001400ex said:
I figured J would be the first one with the ignorant post.PurpleJ said:We ARE at war with Islam dumbfuck. No terrorist perverted it. Read the Qaran for me one time.
It's a wannabe spin off of Christianity that was invented with the goal of gaining political power. HTH.
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.
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. -
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.2001400ex said:
You are discussing Christianity 200 years ago. That's society causing those issues, not religion.WeAreAFatLesboSchool said:
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.Doogles said:
All religion is based on interpretations of a fictional story used to cultivate power in the dark ages.2001400ex said:
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.Hippopeteamus said:
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.2001400ex said:
J clearly believes everything he reads on the internet. Here's an example from your article:PurpleJ said:
thereligionofpeace.com/quran/023-violence.htm2001400ex said:
I figured J would be the first one with the ignorant post.PurpleJ said:We ARE at war with Islam dumbfuck. No terrorist perverted it. Read the Qaran for me one time.
It's a wannabe spin off of Christianity that was invented with the goal of gaining political power. HTH.
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.
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.
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.
HTH -
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.Hippopeteamus said:
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.2001400ex said:
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.Hippopeteamus said:
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.2001400ex said:
J clearly believes everything he reads on the internet. Here's an example from your article:PurpleJ said:
thereligionofpeace.com/quran/023-violence.htm2001400ex said:
I figured J would be the first one with the ignorant post.PurpleJ said:We ARE at war with Islam dumbfuck. No terrorist perverted it. Read the Qaran for me one time.
It's a wannabe spin off of Christianity that was invented with the goal of gaining political power. HTH.
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.
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.
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. -
2001400ex said:
Ok, what do you propose to do then Race?RaceBannon said: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
-
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.2001400ex said:
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.Hippopeteamus said:
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.2001400ex said:
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.Hippopeteamus said:
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.2001400ex said:
J clearly believes everything he reads on the internet. Here's an example from your article:PurpleJ said:
thereligionofpeace.com/quran/023-violence.htm2001400ex said:
I figured J would be the first one with the ignorant post.PurpleJ said:We ARE at war with Islam dumbfuck. No terrorist perverted it. Read the Qaran for me one time.
It's a wannabe spin off of Christianity that was invented with the goal of gaining political power. HTH.
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.
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.
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.2001400ex said:
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.Hippopeteamus said:
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.2001400ex said:
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.Hippopeteamus said:
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.2001400ex said:
J clearly believes everything he reads on the internet. Here's an example from your article:PurpleJ said:
thereligionofpeace.com/quran/023-violence.htm2001400ex said:
I figured J would be the first one with the ignorant post.PurpleJ said:We ARE at war with Islam dumbfuck. No terrorist perverted it. Read the Qaran for me one time.
It's a wannabe spin off of Christianity that was invented with the goal of gaining political power. HTH.
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.
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.
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 -
Holy shit, seriously?2001400ex said:
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.Hippopeteamus said:
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.2001400ex said:
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.Hippopeteamus said:
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.2001400ex said:
J clearly believes everything he reads on the internet. Here's an example from your article:PurpleJ said:
thereligionofpeace.com/quran/023-violence.htm2001400ex said:
I figured J would be the first one with the ignorant post.PurpleJ said:We ARE at war with Islam dumbfuck. No terrorist perverted it. Read the Qaran for me one time.
It's a wannabe spin off of Christianity that was invented with the goal of gaining political power. HTH.
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.
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.
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 fuck it is. Indians are violent motherfuckers.2001400ex said:
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.Hippopeteamus said:
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.2001400ex said:
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.Hippopeteamus said:
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.2001400ex said:
J clearly believes everything he reads on the internet. Here's an example from your article:PurpleJ said:
thereligionofpeace.com/quran/023-violence.htm2001400ex said:
I figured J would be the first one with the ignorant post.PurpleJ said:We ARE at war with Islam dumbfuck. No terrorist perverted it. Read the Qaran for me one time.
It's a wannabe spin off of Christianity that was invented with the goal of gaining political power. HTH.
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.
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.
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.
Grow the fuck up and learn the difference between Hindus and Buddhists. -
I've tried to give Hondo the benefit of the doubt, but that statement is at best ignorant.PurpleThrobber said:
The fuck it is. Indians are violent motherfuckers.2001400ex said:
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.Hippopeteamus said:
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.2001400ex said:
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.Hippopeteamus said:
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.2001400ex said:
J clearly believes everything he reads on the internet. Here's an example from your article:PurpleJ said:
thereligionofpeace.com/quran/023-violence.htm2001400ex said:
I figured J would be the first one with the ignorant post.PurpleJ said:We ARE at war with Islam dumbfuck. No terrorist perverted it. Read the Qaran for me one time.
It's a wannabe spin off of Christianity that was invented with the goal of gaining political power. HTH.
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.
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.
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.
Grow the fuck up and learn the difference between Hindus and Buddhists. -
How did I miss that gem on India?
Pakistan is a garden spot of peace too. India and Pakistan love each other as well
When you hear that low information voters love Obama think of Hondo -
For shitsakes, the fact that Muslims and Hindus have a penchant for killing each is a major reason why Pak-eesh-shtahn exists as a country.RaceBannon said:How did I miss that gem on India?
Pakistan is a garden spot of peace too. India and Pakistan love each other as well
When you hear that low information voters love Obama think of Hondo
The Mumbai attack might be the template for the urban invasion style of terrorism. -
Indian society is not peaceful at all, it is full of religious violence, not only between Muslims and Hindus but also with Sikhs and Christians. Pakistan broke away after India gained independence in order to form a separate muslim state. There are islamic attacks on India (for example the Mumbai attack in 2008). ISIS declared war on India, especially after the hindu lynching of muslims. A better argument would be to say that shows how all religions can be violent given the right circumstances.2001400ex said:
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.Hippopeteamus said:
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.2001400ex said:
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.Hippopeteamus said:
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.2001400ex said:
J clearly believes everything he reads on the internet. Here's an example from your article:PurpleJ said:
thereligionofpeace.com/quran/023-violence.htm2001400ex said:
I figured J would be the first one with the ignorant post.PurpleJ said:We ARE at war with Islam dumbfuck. No terrorist perverted it. Read the Qaran for me one time.
It's a wannabe spin off of Christianity that was invented with the goal of gaining political power. HTH.
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.
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.
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.
Also, there are Indian ISIS fighters, just like there are american and european ISIS fighters.
"huffingtonpost.in/2015/11/23/isis-indian-fighters-infe_n_8627772.html"
I would recommend this article from the Atlantic (hardly a conservative journal): theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/
Also, here is a counterargument from Maajid Nawaz, a former radical Islamist and still a muslim, for calling it radical islam and islamic terrorism. Get over the fact that it is on Fox news, since Maajid is certainly not a conservative.
-
Can't wait to see Hondo's response to his own stupidity when he gets back from making a dreamcatcher.RaceBannon said:How did I miss that gem on India?
Pakistan is a garden spot of peace too. India and Pakistan love each other as well
When you hear that low information voters love Obama think of Hondo -
As non-Abrahamic & polytheistic, Hinduism is even more distasteful to Islam.Hippopeteamus said:
Indian society is not peaceful at all, it is full of religious violence, not only between Muslims and Hindus but also with Sikhs and Christians. Pakistan broke away after India gained independence in order to form a separate muslim state. They supported the independence of Bangladesh and there are islamic attacks on India (for example the Mumbai attack in 2008). ISIS declared war on India, especially after the hindu lynching of muslims. A better argument would be to say that shows how all religions can be violent given the right circumstances.2001400ex said:
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.Hippopeteamus said:
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.2001400ex said:
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.Hippopeteamus said:
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.2001400ex said:
J clearly believes everything he reads on the internet. Here's an example from your article:PurpleJ said:
thereligionofpeace.com/quran/023-violence.htm2001400ex said:
I figured J would be the first one with the ignorant post.PurpleJ said:We ARE at war with Islam dumbfuck. No terrorist perverted it. Read the Qaran for me one time.
It's a wannabe spin off of Christianity that was invented with the goal of gaining political power. HTH.
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.
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.
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.
Also, there are Indian ISIS fighters, just like there are american and european ISIS fighters.
"huffingtonpost.in/2015/11/23/isis-indian-fighters-infe_n_8627772.html"
I would recommend this article from the Atlantic (hardly a conservative journal): theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/
Also, here is a counterargument from Maajid Nawaz, a former radical Islamist and still a muslim, for calling it radical islam and islamic terrorism. Get over the fact that it is on Fox news, since Maajid is certainly not a conservative. -
Yep and all those great people who support sharia fucking law don't represent Islam either
-
"America is a sexist country."WeAreAFatLesboSchool said: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/
"Let's not generalize a religion based on the significant minority that support honor killings"
-feminazis -
But, but what about all those days that sark doesn't show up drunkjecornel said:Defending Islam is like defending Sark saying he doesn't have a Patron problem.
-
Fine that comment wasn't one of my finer moments. However there is a billion people there or some shit. So fuck off.WeAreAFatLesboSchool said:
No terror attacks in India? Good Christ. You're a piece of work.2001400ex said:
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.Hippopeteamus said:
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.2001400ex said:
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.Hippopeteamus said:
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.2001400ex said:
J clearly believes everything he reads on the internet. Here's an example from your article:PurpleJ said:
thereligionofpeace.com/quran/023-violence.htm2001400ex said:
I figured J would be the first one with the ignorant post.PurpleJ said:We ARE at war with Islam dumbfuck. No terrorist perverted it. Read the Qaran for me one time.
It's a wannabe spin off of Christianity that was invented with the goal of gaining political power. HTH.
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.
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.
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 -
Both those motherfuckers are wound up tight as ticks.RaceBannon said:How did I miss that gem on India?
Pakistan is a garden spot of peace too. India and Pakistan love each other as well
When you hear that low information voters love Obama think of Hondo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSM4Cw_1V9E
-
These two just need to play a football game already.PurpleThrobber said:
Both those motherfuckers are wound up tight as ticks.RaceBannon said:How did I miss that gem on India?
Pakistan is a garden spot of peace too. India and Pakistan love each other as well
When you hear that low information voters love Obama think of Hondohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSM4Cw_1V9E -
That comment is a great example of everything you post. Just completely ducking clueless.2001400ex said:
Fine that comment wasn't one of my finer moments. However there is a billion people there or some shit. So fuck off.WeAreAFatLesboSchool said:
No terror attacks in India? Good Christ. You're a piece of work.2001400ex said:
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.Hippopeteamus said:
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.2001400ex said:
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.Hippopeteamus said:
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.2001400ex said:
J clearly believes everything he reads on the internet. Here's an example from your article:PurpleJ said:
thereligionofpeace.com/quran/023-violence.htm2001400ex said:
I figured J would be the first one with the ignorant post.PurpleJ said:We ARE at war with Islam dumbfuck. No terrorist perverted it. Read the Qaran for me one time.
It's a wannabe spin off of Christianity that was invented with the goal of gaining political power. HTH.
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.
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.
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
Kill yourself. -
We're just here to keep you safe.
-
I don't want to read this whole thread so if someone else pointed this out I apoligize. But Hondas argument is the No True Scotsman fallacy.
-
*gurgle*
-
I had to google that so I learned something todayallpurpleallgold said:I don't want to read this whole thread so if someone else pointed this out I apoligize. But Hondas argument is the No True Scotsman fallacy.
-
Logical fallacies are my wheelhouse and while I'm very familiar with the No True Scotsman fallacy, I admit I didn't see it until it was pointed. Well done sir. You've always been one of my favorite posters.RaceBannon said:
I had to google that so I learned something todayallpurpleallgold said:I don't want to read this whole thread so if someone else pointed this out I apoligize. But Hondas argument is the No True Scotsman fallacy.
