- Joined
- Jan 8, 2017
- Messages
- 18,820
- Reaction score
- 5,167
- Location
- new zealand.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
That's a non-sequitur. Even if not one person in the world followed the Qur'an, it would not change the fact that it was created for the sole purpose of defining Islam. You simply can't deny that was the intention, yet you do.
What! You mean there is an actual god ?There your fundamental error yet again. It's not THEY who dictate; it's "God".
And what! the bible you are indifferent to? Neither book has any claim to a higher moral ground they are both full of crap. But that does not change the fact that youi still ned to first talk to the theist before judging whether theirs is religion of hate or love.Nothing "allows" me to hate Islam. Reading the Qur'an in it's entirety is what MAKES me hate Islam. Although I haven't done so, I imagine that reading Mein Kampf in it's entirety would make me hate Hitler (if I didn't already).
I can understand not liking or accepting the religion of islam. I do not as well. But for me it is matter of courtesy to at least listen to the individual theist before judging them.Yup, I've never denied that. Still doesn't change a word of what I'm saying about Islam.
True that. Pity none of them can actually agree with each other on which book or what interpretation of the book to obey. Which is what makes religion such a laughable concept.They must obey it if they want to avoid going to Hell (according to "God").
Yup. Never said otherwise. That's like saying speed limits don't exist because people drive at various speeds.
The rules exist. They're in the Qur'an. Some obey, some don't. What the hell is so hard to understand about that?
But in today's society, and especially in America, to have a fear of a people based on their religion is an irrational fear based on a generalization stemming from horror stories we hear about rather than personal experience. Neither Christians nor Muslims put people to death with any regularity at all. Some terrorists who identify as Muslims or Christians do, but they are a fraction of a fraction of a percent of those religions and in no way represent them.
99.999% of Muslims (and Christians) are no danger to anyone, therefore to fear them because of their religion is irrational.
With the word Islamophobia being thrown about like Frisbees in a dog park, isn't it time we actually defined it? Iqra Khalid's M-103 introduced and then condemned Islamophobia in Canada's House of Commons minus any explanation of what it is. Such vagueness leaves the door to abuse wide open. Canadians would be vulnerable to capricious and politically-motivated prosecution/persecution should parliament take M-103 to the next level and pass an imprecisely worded law criminalizing Islamophobia.
Our right to responsibly speak freely and debate uncomfortable subjects is at stake. In defining Islamophobia we have to recognize that legitimate criticism of some tenets of Islam, or any other religion, is neither hate speech, phobic, nor incitement to commit violence. This is Free Speech 101.
This is all very simple, Steve. If anyone here needs an example of what true Islamophobia is, they need only read your threads on Islam.
There...cleared that up. Next thread...
Ask the native Americans of N, S, and Central American about your 99.999% of Christians not being any danger to them. That has to be the lie of the last 5 centuries.
Ask the native Americans of N, S, and Central American about your 99.999% of Christians not being any danger to them. That has to be the lie of the last 5 centuries.
I said "in today's society." I actually know quite a few Native Americans. None fear christians or christianity. Most are christians themselves.
Derp...why you talking about the last 5 centuries, quoting a post that talks about Christianity today?
Thought you guys were supposed to be the smart ones...:lol:
You actually believe that the killing in the name of religion has stopped. Tell that to all the people fleeing their homes in the Middle East. Let them know they can back without fear. There are no religious nuts endangering their lives so no need for asylum. They can go back to raising unicorns.
If you refuse to convert to Islam, refuse to pay the Jizya or in any way refuse to admit that Muslims are your masters, and you, as an infidel are their slave, you may be an Islamophobe.
You think the killing in the name of God has stopped all around the world. Dream on.
How so?
The Koran often urges believers to fight, yet it also commands that enemies be shown mercy when they surrender.
99.999% of Muslims... are no danger to anyone, therefore to fear them because of their religion is irrational.
Islamaphobia is a disinformation campaign created by the Left in order to try to make people feel bad or shut up about a very real threat... Islam.
Christians in Pakistan might beg to differ. The good Muslims of Pakistan, who have a democratically elected government, support blasphemy laws that call for death to anyone who insults Islam. Christians, and "wrong" Muslims such as Ismaelis and Ahmadiyas are particularly vulnerable.
Don't you think that if 99.999% of Muslims were "no danger to anyone", that there would be no such thing as blasphemy laws?
Blasphemy laws in Pakistan apply almost entirely to Muslims and the vast majority of offenses result in fines.
But I agree that religiously conservative government is a bad thing. I do not support blasphemy laws any more than I support an irrational fear of an entire religion and therefore any who practice it.
This is all very simple, Steve. If anyone here needs an example of what true Islamophobia is, they need only read your threads on Islam.
There...cleared that up. Next thread...
The books were created for that purpose that i would not deny. But it is also true that every person chooses to interpret what they want out of it.
It is not as if there is an actual god to make sure they all follow the book.
It is nothing more than people using religion to justify their own beliefs.
What! You mean there is an actual god ?
And what! the bible you are indifferent to?
Neither book has any claim to a higher moral ground they are both full of crap.
But that does not change the fact that you still need to first talk to the theist before judging whether theirs is religion of hate or love.
I can understand not liking or accepting the religion of islam. I do not as well. But for me it is matter of courtesy to at least listen to the individual theist before judging them.
True that. Pity none of them can actually agree with each other on which book or what interpretation of the book to obey. Which is what makes religion such a laughable concept.
That is quite a good analogy for me when you consider that speed limits are not a target they are a limit. One does not have to sit on the limit. Drivers can choose to vary according to conditions.
These books are written to be deliberately vague. One can use it to fly planes into buildings or help little old ladies across the street.
Again, it's more a matter of choosing whether or not to obey more than it is a translation.
It only matters that they believe they are being watched and that notes are being taken.
Could you be getting your cause and effect backwards? Doesn't the religion create beliefs rather than support existing ones?
If there is, I'm in BIG trouble.
The NT contains stories about Jesus and his love for all mankind (I wish he really did exist). The Qur'an has literally hundreds of God-hates-infidels verses. Hundreds.
Yes, but one of those books has worse crap than the other.
I already know Islam is a religion of hate. What I have to do is try not to judge individual Muslims until they show me the degree to which they have bought into it.
Agreed.
Sometimes I look at the calendar just to reassure myself that we live in the 21st century.
Not one of my best analogies.
Mohamed was not trying to be vague. He was trying to build an army. The least vague aspect of his 6,236 verse rant was in defining the bad guys. That would be us. After all, what's the good of building an army if you don't tell them who the enemy is (God is the enemy of infidels - 2:98).
In your opinion, on a worldwide basis, what percentage of Muslims actually want to go to war with infadels/non-believers, and shed blood to install a world wide Islamic Caliphate in which Shariah Law is to be followed ?
I happen to know the exact number: enough to be a problem. Enough to finance and man such organizations as AQ, ISIS, El shabaab, The Muslim Brotherhood, Boko Haram, and many others. Enough to cause the rest of us to change our routines and to spend billions on security.
Pakistan voted in a president who supports the death penalty for those who insult Islam. In that case the number was around 17 million.
Criticism of Islam = islamophobia and white supremacist/racist. Thanks liberalism.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?