It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Mainstream Islam Is The Antithesis Of Western Liberal Values (BY THE NUMBERS)

page: 6
49
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 03:44 PM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv




Maybe they don't have the weapons or anyone to organize them or maybe they are frightened for their wives and children.


You just nailed it without knowing it. This is why and how 'bad' Islam is able to seep into 'good' Islam for a lack of a better word or understanding to keep things simple. This is how Nazism maintained control on "good" Germans 1939. Many good German people didn't subscribe to hitlerism but yet were all Nazis. You need to hold up both ideologies up side-by-side in order to grasp as what's going on here. It's actually the passive version of the ideology which makes the extreme version more dangerous, believe it or not.




Why don't the millions of law abiding American gun owners simply wipe out the bad guys with guns? Couldn't they do it a single day with all those guns? Must be because they secretly approve of all the gun violence, hmmmm?


Well, they can't. Just the same as Moderate Islam can't stop Jihad. My point was, there's too many Jihadists out there for "modest" Islam to do anything about. Therefore, my conclusion is: Islam is dangerous. I know your analogy was intended to be sarcastic and negate my comment but it actually supports it. There's too many bad guys with guns for the general law abiding citizen to do anything about. If we're comparing apples to apples then your conclusion would be to remove all guns as to my conclusion to remove Islam.




posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 04:14 PM
link   
a reply to: TheFlyOnTheWall

You know the Qur'an and Hadith are 2 different things, right? I literally said that stoning is "in different traditions & regional teachings", which would include Hadith. Not to mention, every Islamic denomination and school of thought accepts different Hadith as being authentic. And each one interprets Hadith differently, as well. But stoning is NOT in the Qur'an.

As for Qur'an Surah 4:24 (Pickthall translation HERE and other translations HERE), that verse has nothing to do with rape. If you were trying to be credible, you'd post the 2 verses that come before it, too. That section of Surah 4 literally describes marriage rules!

22. And marry not those women whom your fathers married, except what hath already happened (of that nature) in the past. Lo! it was ever lewdness and abomination, and an evil way.

23. Forbidden unto you are your mothers, and your daughters, and your sisters, and your father's sisters, and your mother's sisters, and your brother's daughters and your sister's daughters, and your foster-mothers, and your foster-sisters, and your mothers-in-law, and your step-daughters who are under your protection (born) of your women unto whom ye have gone in - but if ye have not gone in unto them, then it is no sin for you (to marry their daughters) - and the wives of your sons who (spring) from your own loins. And (it is forbidden unto you) that ye should have two sisters together, except what hath already happened (of that nature) in the past. Lo! Allah is ever Forgiving, Merciful.

24. And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess. It is a decree of Allah for you. Lawful unto you are all beyond those mentioned, so that ye seek them with your wealth in honest wedlock, not debauchery. And those of whom ye seek content (by marrying them), give unto them their portions as a duty. And there is no sin for you in what ye do by mutual agreement after the duty (hath been done). Lo! Allah is ever Knower, Wise.

And I can't help noticing that your fake translation leaves out the fact that Surah 4:24 literally mentions "wedlock, not debauchery" and "marriage". So which translation are you quoting from? Unlike you, I actually posted a link to the Qur'an itself so people can fact check what it actually says. Why won't you do the same?



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 05:16 PM
link   
a reply to: TheFlyOnTheWall


There isn't good or bad Islam just like there isn't good and bad Christianity, and there aren't good and bad guns. There are good and bad people. And we all know that no one is ever going to be able to get rid of all bad people, even if you get rid of Islam or get rid of Christianity or get rid of guns.
edit on 17-9-2016 by kaylaluv because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 05:28 PM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant



I literally said that stoning is "in different traditions & regional teachings", which would include Hadith. Not to mention, every Islamic denomination and school of thought accepts different Hadith as being authentic. And each one interprets Hadith differently, as well. But stoning is NOT in the Qur'an


I will concede stoning isn't in the standard Quran but it has been rumored to be in the missing verse of Rajm.

No mention of stoning/Rajm or capital punishment for adultery is found in the Qur'an,[2] which (in Surah an-Nur) prescribes lashing as punishment for premarital and extramarital sex (zina).[7] For this reason some minority Muslim sects such as Kharijites found in Iraq, and Islamic Modernists such as the Quranists disagree with the legality of rajm. However, stoning is mentioned in multiple hadiths[8] (reports claiming to quote what the prophet Muhammad said verbatim on various matters, which most Muslims and Islamic scholars consider an authoritative source second only to Quran as a source of religious law[9][10]) and therefore most Muslim and all Sunni and Shia schools of jurisprudence accept it as a prescribed punishment for adultery.[

Didn't I already say previously it was in the hadiths? You seem to want to deflect that writing in the hadiths supporting stoning isn't "Islam" it's like eating three cookies but claiming you didn't eat one.
Games Muslims play.




As for Qur'an Surah 4:24 (Pickthall translation HERE and other translations HERE), that verse has nothing to do with rape. If you were trying to be credible, you'd post the 2 verses that come before it, too. That section of Surah 4 literally describes marriage rules!


Marriage rules not to commit incest. Nothing there about not committing rape. It tells you not to have sex with family. Funny, you need a god to tell you not to have sex with your family. Anyway i digress. The translation I provided is not that much different from the Picktall translation. The key words here are slaves or captives. If you want to add credibility then you could provide the context. Except the context doesn't help you so much...thus, no credibility.


Abu Said al-Khudri said: "The apostle of Allah sent a military expedition to Awtas on the occasion of the battle of Hunain. They met their enemy and fought with them. They defeated them and took them captives. Some of the Companions of the apostle of Allah were reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives in the presence of their husbands who were unbelievers. So Allah, the Exalted, sent down the Quranic verse, "And all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess". That is to say, they are lawful for them when they complete their waiting period." [The Quran verse is 4:24] [3] Abu Dawud 11:2150


Enough jurisprudence for you?

Also, here's what an imam has to say about rape.


Let me guess, he's not Muslim right? You see, it's still rape if you're married. Just because Allah said you must be married doesn't make it any less of a barbaric act.




And I can't help noticing that your fake translation leaves out the fact that Surah 4:24 literally mentions "wedlock, not debauchery" and "marriage". So which translation are you quoting from? Unlike you, I actually posted a link to the Qur'an itself so people can fact check what it actually says. Why won't you do the same?


Just quran 4:24. Anyone can look it up. Translations may vary slightly but the messages are still the same and start the same: And [also prohibited to you are all] married women except those your right hands possess. This line says it all. You can't have sex with ANY married woman EXCEPT those whom your right hand possess. Slaves. Captives. What charges do you normally get when you rape someone. Rape and unlawful confinement. Captives. It says it right there in plain English.


Sahih International: And [also prohibited to you are all] married women except those your right hands possess. [This is] the decree of Allah upon you. And lawful to you are [all others] beyond these, [provided] that you seek them [in marriage] with [gifts from] your property, desiring chastity, not unlawful sexual intercourse. So for whatever you enjoy [of marriage] from them, give them their due compensation as an obligation. And there is no blame upon you for what you mutually agree to beyond the obligation. Indeed, Allah is ever Knowing and Wise.

Pickthall: And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess. It is a decree of Allah for you. Lawful unto you are all beyond those mentioned, so that ye seek them with your wealth in honest wedlock, not debauchery. And those of whom ye seek content (by marrying them), give unto them their portions as a duty. And there is no sin for you in what ye do by mutual agreement after the duty (hath been done). Lo! Allah is ever Knower, Wise.

Yusuf Ali: Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess: Thus hath Allah ordained (Prohibitions) against you: Except for these, all others are lawful, provided ye seek (them in marriage) with gifts from your property,- desiring chastity, not lust, seeing that ye derive benefit from them, give them their dowers (at least) as prescribed; but if, after a dower is prescribed, agree Mutually (to vary it), there is no blame on you, and Allah is All-knowing, All-wise.

Shakir: And all married women except those whom your right hands possess (this is) Allah's ordinance to you, and lawful for you are (all women) besides those, provided that you seek (them) with your property, taking (them) in marriage not committing fornication. Then as to those whom you profit by, give them their dowries as appointed; and there is no blame on you about what you mutually agree after what is appointed; surely Allah is Knowing, Wise.

Muhammad Sarwar: You are forbidden to marry married women except your slave-girls. This is the decree of God. Besides these, it is lawful for you to marry other women if you pay their dower, maintain chastity and do not commit indecency. If you marry them for the appointed time you must pay their dowries. There is no harm if you reach an understanding among yourselves about the dowry, God is All-knowing and All-wise.

Mohsin Khan: Also (forbidden are) women already married, except those (captives and slaves) whom your right hands possess. Thus has Allah ordained for you. All others are lawful, provided you seek (them in marriage) with Mahr (bridal money given by the husband to his wife at the time of marriage) from your property, desiring chastity, not committing illegal sexual intercourse, so with those of whom you have enjoyed sexual relations, give them their Mahr as prescribed; but if after a Mahr is prescribed, you agree mutually (to give more), there is no sin on you. Surely, Allah is Ever All­Knowing, All­Wise.

Arberry: and wedded women, save what your right hands own. So God prescribes for you. Lawful for you, beyond all that, is that you may seek, using your wealth, in wedlock and not in licence. Such wives as you enjoy thereby, give them their wages apportionate; it is no fault in you in your agreeing together, after the due apportionate. God is All-knowing, All-wise.



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 05:31 PM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv




There isn't good or bad Islam


You're right. It's just Islam.




There are good and bad people


So is it your stance that all Jihadists should be judged on a case-by-case basis?

eta: I just wanted to add I think you're really overlooking my last post to you and my explanation about Nazism. I make a very valid point there I don't think anyone can refute.
edit on 17-9-2016 by TheFlyOnTheWall because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 05:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

So you hate all things Islam. Just like I said.


Your right to say it. My right to denounce it.


And there you go jumping to absolutes again. Sharia Law is the mainstream, globally. Even int he western nations across those polls majorities still prefer it, and want it there. Sharia Law as a doctrine is the DARK SIDE.

Now, following your words there, that kind of logic, in response to me calling it the most oppressive whatever.
Does that mean that all things Islam are Sharia Law?



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 05:49 PM
link   
a reply to: TheFlyOnTheWall

Yeah and Islam in and of itself isn't bad.

German does not equal Nazi. Simply being a German isn't bad. Germany has some wonderful traditions. Nazis were bad and they hijacked Germany to do bad things.

Extremists and terrorists do not equal Islam. Simply being a Muslim isn't bad. Islam has some wonderful traditions. Extremists and terrorists are bad and they hijacked Islam to do bad things.



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 06:02 PM
link   
Splitting hairs over the ins & outs of what says where it does or doesn't say stoning people to death is 'the way'....

The fact is they do it. And it's barbarism. And it needs to stop.

And the Old Testament says it too. I never hear about its followers doing it, but if they does, it needs to stop.

I dont think the New Testament says anything of the sort.

Perhaps there needs to be a revisionist / 'new testament' version of the Quran, if such a thing were possible. Actually, is there one? I'm clueless on such details.

Something needs to give. It needs to change, somehow. Muslim's will have to figure it out. And one thing I can see right away is if the time they spend 'in defense' over its criticisms, if they spent that time actually trying to reform it in practice, then that should make a difference. While I know for sure if nobody 'can ever' criticize its DARK SIDE then it'll never change. It still hasn't so far as it is for Science Sake.
edit on 17-9-2016 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 06:03 PM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv




Yeah and Islam in and of itself isn't bad.


Correction. Muslims as people aren't bad. Islam as a whole is a pernicious ideological theocracy. Just like Nazism except worse because of the religious fervor. What people do with it aka. Muslims, is another story.




German does not equal Nazi.

whoop. Stop the boat before you go any further. I never said Germans were Nazis. I simply stated the German Nazis (during ww2) didn't necessarily subscribe to Hitlerism.




Extremists and terrorists do not equal Islam. Simply being a Muslim isn't bad. Islam has some wonderful traditions. Extremists and terrorists are bad and they hijacked Islam to do bad things.


There's that hijacked word again. I asked you if you thought ISIS was Islamic, what's your response?



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 06:06 PM
link   
a reply to: TheFlyOnTheWall

ISIS claims to be Islamic. Westboro people claim to be Christian.



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 06:09 PM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv

You didn't really answer my question. In your opinion, are ISIS members Muslim?



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 06:12 PM
link   
a reply to: TheFlyOnTheWall

No. They are terrorists.



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 06:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: projectvxn

Now that the Democrat's have had 8 modern years to show their true colors, it's just total pure insanity the lot of their efforts (far beyond when last "we gave" the GOP 8 years to show how insane they become), and the bulk of the social engineering propaganda efforts (the ENTIRE basis of their supporters going all rabid parroting their agenda's).

May this reference serve as a tool for you in the future. It's why I do all these pieces like this.


The problem with your thinking, and many Americans' thinking is highlighted in one of your own posts. You admirably show how Muslims in America are different. Yes there is a too high percentage of them that are bad, (~20%), but 57% of Republicans support abolishing securalism and making Christianity the national religion, so you're looking at a similar number of Christian undesirables.

Some people will say, there are Muslims in Europe that are shown to be bad, therefore because there are Muslims in America they must follow the same trends, but that is to simultaneously play on the idea that identities can influence beliefs (whether you're Muslim), and deny the idea that identities can influence beliefs (being an American Muslim) just to suit the argument. The fact of the matter is, American Muslims have integrated better, they are not extreme like their European counterparts, yet it is Americans who are the most up in arms about Muslims.

Most of the people on here should realize they're targeting their hate against the best group of Muslims in the world, they need our encouragement, not our hate. It is mean and stupid to do otherwise.

ETA: We had a similar history in WWII with the Japanese, locking up a great many patriotic Americans just because they shared the same ancestry, but of course we didn't do that with ethnic Germans.
edit on 17-9-2016 by WhateverYouSay because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 06:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: TheFlyOnTheWall

No. They are terrorists.


Ah and there's the cognitive dissonance. Why are they not Muslims? ISIS, i'm afraid to say, has more legitimacy to call themselves Muslims than Westerners simply because they're practicing orthodox Islam. The raw form of the 7th century religion.

Explain to me why you think they can't call themselves Muslims?



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 06:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheFlyOnTheWall
ISIS, i'm afraid to say, has more legitimacy to call themselves Muslims than Westerners simply because they're practicing orthodox Islam. The raw form of the 7th century religion.


You mean this 7th century religion?


Trade with the regions to the north brought the Arabs into contact with Judaism and Christianity. Moreover, there were settled communities of Christians and Jews in the peninsula, and Arabic-speaking Jewish tribes. As a result, the Arabs were familiar with these two religions, and Muhammad's closely-related teachings. Teaching that Islam is the climax of monotheistic faith, Muhammad reached out to both Jews and Christians, seeking alliances and hoping to win converts to his message of social and religious reform.

Muslims and Christians enjoyed debate and dialogue, particularly over theological issues, and Muhammad invited Christians to pray in his mosque.

www.patheos.com...

Do you think ISIS would enjoy dialogue and invite Christians to pray in their mosques?



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 06:49 PM
link   
a reply to: TheFlyOnTheWall


I will concede stoning isn't in the standard Quran but it has been rumored to be in the missing verse of Rajm.

Rumored by who? Salafis? Because The Qur'an is complete. It's usually the Salafis and Wahhabis who claim the Qur'an is incomplete.



Didn't I already say previously it was in the hadiths? You seem to want to deflect that writing in the hadiths supporting stoning isn't "Islam" it's like eating three cookies but claiming you didn't eat one. Games Muslims play.

I'm not deflecting anything. You're the one who selectively quoted me when I had said something wasn't in the Qur'an but was from traditions and regional interpretations. You tried to "correct" me by pointing to Hadith, even though that made my point.

You also skipped over the fact that I said that different denominations and schools of thought accept different Hadith as valid, and have different interpretations for the Hadith they do accept. So you literally can't point to a Hadith and an interpretation of it without saying which denominations and schools of thought accept it. I even used an example of someone saying all Christians shun electricity since Amish people traditionally do. If I quote Amish interpretations of Scripture which support that position, does it mean that all other Christian denominations also agree with their interpretations?

As for Surah 4:24. Once again, why are you deliberately ignoring the 2 Ayats/passages before it? The Qur'an is meant to be followed in whole, which is why we're supposed to learn the entire Qur'an. Because no passage overrides another; they all go together with additional passages adding new conditions to the same situation. That's why someone has to look into multiple passages to see the restrictions on a situation like marriage (which is ironically why 2 divorcing Muslims will typically ask local religious figures or a Sharia court for assistance on how to implement the divorce while following all details of Scripture).

So for example, Surah 24 Ayat 2 says this (HERE):

Sahih International translation
The [unmarried] woman or [unmarried] man found guilty of sexual intercourse - lash each one of them with a hundred lashes, and do not be taken by pity for them in the religion of Allah , if you should believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a group of the believers witness their punishment.

Muhsin Khan translation
The woman and the man guilty of illegal sexual intercourse, flog each of them with a hundred stripes. Let not pity withhold you in their case, in a punishment prescribed by Allah, if you believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a party of the believers witness their punishment. (This punishment is for unmarried persons guilty of the above crime but if married persons commit it, the punishment is to stone them to death, according to Allah's Law).

Pickthall translation
The adulterer and the adulteress, scourge ye each one of them (with) a hundred stripes. And let not pity for the twain withhold you from obedience to Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a party of believers witness their punishment.

Yusuf Ali translation
The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication,- flog each of them with a hundred stripes: Let not compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day: and let a party of the Believers witness their punishment.

Shakir translation
(As for) the fornicatress and the fornicator, flog each of them, (giving) a hundred stripes, and let not pity for them detain you in the matter of obedience to Allah, if you believe in Allah and the last day, and let a party of believers witness their chastisement.

Dr. Ghali translation
The female fornicater and the male fornicator, (The Arabic Zaniyah and Zan refer to those who commit either fornication or adultery. By a comparison of this verse to other and to Hadiths., it is it is understood that this verse refers to fornicators, i.e., unmarried people committing illegal sexual intercourse) then lash each one of them a hundred lashes, and let not compassion for them (both) take (hold of) you in the religion of Allah, in case you believe in Allah and the Last Day; and let a section of the believers witness their (The torment of the two of them) torment.

How does that reconcile with what you're claiming? Other verses also say that a Muslim male can choose a mate from one of his servants, but they must also meet the other conditions for marriage that are laid out in the Qur'an. That means that the servant will still have to be free to choose him, can still divorce him, and must be married to him for the sexual relations to be permissible.

This is actually one reason I don't care for debating people like you on the Qur'an. Anyone can pick and choose a part of a passage from a specific or unnamed translation to make a false argument. But people like you conveniently overlook the passages that directly contradict what you said, even though all of the passages are supposed to work together.

Even many Islamic "preachers" are no different than the leaders of other religious sects; meaning they pick and choose what they want to follow. That's why there are so many different Islamic denominations and schools of thought now. And that's also why it helps to point out which denomination or school of thought that you're picking from. That's also why there is no single form of Sharia. It's exactly the same reason why a Catholic interpretation of a single passage of Scripture can be very different from a Protestant interpretation of that same Scripture.
edit on 17-9-2016 by enlightenedservant because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 07:46 PM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant



The Qur'an is complete. It's usually the Salafis and Wahhabis who claim the Qur'an is incomplete.


How ironic cause it's those sects which are the biggest problem. There's 73 of them, I'm well aware. I don't know and certainly you can't be sure the quran is complete. Just like the bible isn't complete. Lots of edited stuff so you can't be 100% sure.




I'm not deflecting anything. You're the one who selectively quoted me when I had said something wasn't in the Qur'an but was from traditions and regional interpretations.


You keep referring to those hadiths as "traditions and regional interpretations" as if they're an obscure choice not recognized by all. Well that maybe so, but who gives jurisprudence to those hadiths? You? No, scholars and imams. Just because stoning isn't in the Quran does not mean a majority of Muslims do not approve. We've all seen the polls.

But who has jurisprudence? Whilst you made your point that not all hadiths are recognized, you have yet to prove stoning hadiths are not. How about Aisha? Can she be trusted? This is the one when the goat ate her homework:


[Narrated 'Aisha] "The verse of the stoning and of suckling an adult ten times were revealed, and they were (written) on a paper and kept under my bed. When the messenger of Allah expired and we were preoccupied with his death, a goat entered and ate away the paper." Musnad Ahmad bin Hanbal. vol. 6. p. 269; Sunan Ibn Majah, p. 626; Ibn Qutbah, Tawil Mukhtalafi 'l-Hadith (Cairo: Maktaba al-Kulliyat al-Azhariyya. 1966) p. 310; As-Suyuti, ad-Durru 'l-Manthur, vol. 2. p. 13


How about trusted Bukhari?

Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Umar : The Jew brought to the Prophet a man and a woman from amongst them who have committed (adultery) illegal sexual intercourse. He ordered both of them to be stoned (to death), near the place of offering the funeral prayers beside the mosque." Sahih Bukhari 2:23:413


As you know, Bukhari is one of the most trusted for islamic jurisprudence.

But never mind that, what's in the hadiths never stopped scholars from trying to find it in the Quran:
11:82
So when Our decree came to pass, We turned them upside down and rained down upon them stones, of what had been decreed, one after another.
7:84
And we rained down on them a shower (of brimstone): Then see what was the end of those who indulged in sin and crime!
26:173
YUSUFALI: We rained down on them a shower (of brimstone): and evil was the shower on those who were admonished (but heeded not)!




How does that reconcile with what you're claiming?


It doesn't. All of what you pasted there has nothing to do with what were talking about. It talks about whipping people who commit adultery. I don't know, are you saying you're supposed to whip people instead of stoning them? I don't know what your point is.




Other verses also say that a Muslim male can choose a mate from one of his servants, but they must also meet the other conditions for marriage that are laid out in the Qur'an. That means that the servant will still have to be free to choose him, can still divorce him, and must be married to him for the sexual relations to be permissible.


What does this have to do with stoning in the hadiths? it's all here:
wikiislam.net...'an,_Hadith_and_Scholars:Stoning




This is actually one reason I don't care for debating people like you on the Qur'an. Anyone can pick and choose a part of a passage from a specific or unnamed translation to make a false argument. But people like you conveniently overlook the passages that directly contradict what you said, even though all of the passages are supposed to work together.


That is absolutely not what I'm doing, I don't need to cherry pick. I don't believe you've adequately provided a rebutle; you say I overlooked those two previous verses 4:22 and 4:23. But those verses don't provide any more context in regards the first second point of rape. And you say I'm overlooking the context about stoning yet I provided hadiths with popular jurisprudence. So what am I cherry picking exactly? speaking of cherry picking...when was the last time you used verse 5:32 and omitted the truth behind that? I know my stuff. Perhaps that's why you don't like debating people like me?



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 07:57 PM
link   
I don't agree with your religious culture but I will defend your right to kill your own sister with my life!

Doesn't sound right, does it?





posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 07:59 PM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv

Ah that's an easy answer. This was the early Mecca days. Muhammad spent 13 years as a prophet there and only acquired 90 or so followers. If there was ever a peaceful Islam, it was the early days before he went to Medina. All peaceful verses have been abrogated by the Quran. Do you know the standard Quran isn't in order? Yup, it's jumbled from longest chapter to the shortest. Now why in the world would they do that? Because they've hidden the verses that trump the peaceful ones. That was Muhammad's way of hiding his screw ups like the satanic verses he spoke. Oops. Abrogated.

What your experiencing with this dialog is cognitive dissonance now. You're trying to fight through it with information that will help you maintain your defensive stance. ISIS are Muslims. Bottom line. They are just as much Islamic as your beer drinking gay Muslim friend you may have. Once you admit to this... the entire islamaphobia argument goes right out the window.

p.s
Read this if you want to learn about Muhammad. You need all the information
thereligionofpeace.com...
edit on 17-9-2016 by TheFlyOnTheWall because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 10:55 PM
link   
I'll just leave some of these Bible quotes in here for you.

Women Shall Not Speak

"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." (I Corinthians 14:34-35)

Women's Sorrow

"Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." (Genesis 3:16)

Rip Up Pregnant Women

"Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up." (Hosea 13:16)

The Wicked Woman

"Give me any plague, but the plague of the heart: and any wickedness, but the wickedness of a woman." (Eccles. 25:13)

"Of the woman came the beginning of sin, and through her we all die." (Eccles. 25:22)

"If she go not as thou wouldest have her, cut her off from thy flesh, and give her a bill of divorce, and let her go." (Eccles. 25: 26)

"The whoredom of a woman may be known in her haughty looks and eyelids. If thy daughter be shameless, keep her in straitly, lest she abuse herself through overmuch liberty." (Eccles. 26:9-10)

"A silent and loving woman is a gift of the Lord: and there is nothing so much worth as a mind well instructed. A shamefaced and faithful woman is a double grace, and her continent mind cannot be valued." (Eccles. 26:14-15)

"A shameless woman shall be counted as a dog; but she that is shamefaced will fear the Lord." (Eccles.26:25)

"For from garments cometh a moth, and from women wickedness. Better is the churlishness of a man than a courteous woman, a woman, I say, which bringeth shame and reproach." (Eccles. 42:13-14)


Stone The Woman!

"If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;" (Deuteronomy 22:22)

"Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you." (Deuteronomy 22:24)



new topics




 
49
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join