Islam promotes Terrorism.

page: 12
16
<< 9  10  11   >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 12:25 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 

Hahahhahahaha...you say I post nothing but "blatant propaganda garbage" when I got my information first hand, and through several (hindu/indian) references in Wikipedia, then you go on to post an article from danielpipes.org



What can I say? I mean, I can't stop you from believing the sky is green. I can't force you to read up on history. Go ahead and believe it. To think I almost took you serious debater and discusser once
.
edit on 10-2-2011 by babloyi because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by babloyi
 


You are a awfully uncivil; more concerned with your "hahaha" and trying to demean people's intelligence than actually showing any yourself - It's all about the ad hominems for you.

You didn't argue the content of the link and just called it "blatant propaganda garbage" - Ironic use of grammar as that really is just quoting your own biased opinion.

You are what's known as narrow-minded; you refuse to accept evidence or at least consider it and respond reasonably.

Islam promotes tyranny....community amongst believers but hostility against those without belief. The alledgedly "moral" passages of Islam do not make up for the irrational, inhumane and immoral passages of the scriptures.

Terrorists militias quote parts of the Koran to justify their motives.

No idiotic smiley faces needed.
edit on 10/2/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by babloyi
 


There are a great many sources that document the Muslim invasion of India.

Wiki is rarely a decent source, it is too easily manipulated. There are a great many sources on the Mulslim invasion of India.

india.gov.in...

www.hinduwebsite.com...

www.hindunet.org...


Islamic imperialism came with a different code--the Sunnah of the Prophet. It required its warriors to fall upon the helpless civil population after a decisive victory had been won on the battlefield. It required them to sack and burn down villages and towns after the defenders had died fighting or had fled. The cows, the Brahmins, and the Bhikshus invited their special attention in mass murders of non-combatants. The temples and monasteries were their special targets in an orgy of pillage and arson. Those whom they did not kill, they captured and sold as slaves. The magnitude of the booty looted even from the bodies of the dead, was a measure of the success of a military mission. And they did all this as mujahids (holy warriors) and ghazls (kafir-killers) in the service of Allah and his Last Prophet.


www.experiencefestival.com...

www.freerepublic.com...

www.boloji.com...



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 01:59 AM
link   
reply to post by babloyi
 

I laugh because I find things funny. I laugh a lot, and I dislike the use of "lol", that just sounds stupid. If you are feeling sensitive about my laughing, then there is perhaps some issue on YOUR side?

See, again, your accusation of "ad hominems" from me makes me laugh, considering it was YOU who were being uncivil with the attacks, not me. Of course, now, one of those posts by you have been removed by a moderator, and the other has been edited so that now instead of being a "butthurt fan of Islam", I'm a "wimpering fan of Islam". I haven't been rude to anyone so far (notwithstanding your dislike of my laughing). To you, I simply pointed out that your source was wrong (either intentionally misleading- lying, or unintentionally ignorant), and you lashed back with a fury.

To poet1b now I've levelled the accusation of racism, but I don't think he denies it in the least. He's made it very clear that he hates arabs, hates arab culture, hates arab traditions, hates "arab religion" (as he calls it). I think that is a very fair definition of "racist". And the accusation of "blatant propaganda garbage" didn't come from ME, it came from poet1b. After that, I made the assertion that he really has no idea about the history of India, and is only using whatever knowledge he has for the purposes of attacking Islam. I think any person who has even basic knowledge of India would tell him as well that he is wrong.

Anyhow, I'm sorry for the large off-topic, but to be fair, you started it
.
To bring it back on track, let me ask a simple question. Do you acknowledge that the edited versions of the Quranic quotes you quoted in your OP are most definitely different and distorted when compared to the actual, complete quotes such as the one I posted? Because then that is definitely a point against the premise of your thread.
Now I am making an attempt to get this thread back on track, I hope you will stick with it as well (it is "your" thread, after all).


reply to post by poet1b
 

Hey poet. I didn't say you should use wiki as a source. If you check, you'll see I suggested you check the references in the wikipedia articles. They are most definitely more reliable.
Also, if you note, I didn't deny that there had been Muslim conquests in India. My point was in response to your claim that there are no native indian muslims (that they are all great great grandchildren of arabs), which I have to say, is patently absurd, even from a logical point of view, nevermind through historical analysis.
Your india gov was the most unbiased of those links you provided, but it doesn't touch on this topic.



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 09:43 AM
link   
reply to post by babloyi
 



you lashed back with a fury.


LOL. Cool story bro.

Don't apologise to me either, i've already tried being civil and that didn't work. You refused my apology.

My point STILL stands; The core beliefs of Islam promote discrimination and invoke violence towards non-believers.


Do you acknowledge that the edited versions of the Quranic quotes you quoted in your OP are most definitely different and distorted when compared to the actual, complete quotes such as the one I posted?


They don't just come out of nowhere, of course mistakes are made by translators, Any scholar or historian can conclude that the verses of the original scriptures do preach hostility towards non-believers, that's a FACT. There's only so much you can mistranslate or misinterpret.

Prove me wrong though, you made the claim, wheres your evidence that ALL of my passages are completely wrong and that the originals are actually really nice towards non-believers.

Sam Harris, Dawkins, Hitchens seem to think it's immoral, i guess they're just unintelligent ignoramuses.

I'm still keeping an open mind though, if you can show me the original verses which i have referenced are in fact COMPLETLY incorrect, i will sincerely apologise for wasting everyone's time.

Personally, i don't think you are A) willing to research the philosophy AND B) Going to prove the immoral preaching to be moral.
edit on 11/2/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 09:53 AM
link   
reply to post by babloyi
 


If you have any legitimate links to back up your claims, then post them. I went back a page, and I don't see where you have provided any links. Every single one of the links I provided points out the brutality of the Muslim invasion of India. It is the same story with all of the Muslim conquests.

By the way, I live among what is probably the largest Indian community in the U.S., was roommates with an Indian at one time. I talk with Indians on a regular basis. You are the idiot, who does not have a clue, who speaks from complete and total bias.

You have to call me a racist, because to admit that my criticisms of Islam are valid, would mean some soul searching which you are incapable or unwilling to do. You are a case book example of all that is wrong with Islam. To admit the terrible crimes committed in the name of Muhammad, would probably make getting down on the carpet daily to prostrate yourself to Muhammad, all that much more difficult.

I didn't say that all Muslims are a result of past raping of others cultures, it is absurd the way you make up these things. Hate isn't the right word for how I feel about Arabs. Pity is more accurate.

I think that everyday, when they go down on the carpet. a little piece of them inside dies, until there is very little left. I don't see how, in this modern world, every Muslim can not realize, deep down inside, that no omnipotent God would desire to have his creation pray to him daily in such a manner.

What would be a good thing, is if a billion Muslim men, all suddenly realize how ridiculous their religion is, and stopped the nonsense. Let the healing began, free your sons and daughters, end the holy war, and find true peace in this world.



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 10:00 AM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 



You have to call me a racist, because to admit that my criticisms of Islam are valid, would mean some soul searching which you are incapable or unwilling to do. You are a case book example of all that is wrong with Islam. To admit the terrible crimes committed in the name of Muhammad, would probably make getting down on the carpet daily to prostrate yourself to Muhammad, all that much more difficult.


A good point, well made. It's really a shame that we lost the ignore button for situations like this.


I don't see how, in this modern world, every Muslim can not realize, deep down inside, that no omnipotent God would desire to have his creation pray to him daily in such a manner.


That's the whole concept of religion - follow the rituals, follow the rules and believe in the unbelievable. A belief in a God doesn't require dogma - It is a man made control.

Euthyphro dilemma


The Euthyphro dilemma is found in Plato's dialogue Euthyphro, in which Socrates asks Euthyphro: "Is the pious (τὸ ὅσιον) loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?" (10a)

The dilemma has had a major effect on the philosophical theism of the monotheistic religions, but in a modified form: "Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?" This question has presented a problem for theists ever since Plato's original discussion, and it continues to be an object of theological and philosophical discussion today


Is God pious? Does he require you to be pious? How do we know?
edit on 11/2/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by awake_and_aware

Is God pious? Does he require you to be pious? How do we know?


My thoughts exactly.
So why worry about irrelevances like God and the whole charade that goes with it?



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 


My personal belief is that God put us here to live, to thrive, to evolve, to do great and amazing things.

Certainly not to spend our lives praying to him, or to some guy who claims he is the only one who speaks to God.



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 

Did I apologise to you? I don't remember it. You apologised to me for linking the wrong video. I had no issue with you linking the wrong video. What has that got to do with civility?


I DID show you the verse that was completely incorrect. The very first one in the list! You keep throwing about "mistranslation" but it isn't a mistranslation. That's like saying that "I'm a fatty fatty fatso fatty fatty" is just a "mistranslation" of "I like apple pie", and the general meaning behind the statement is the same.

But I agree with you about Sam Harris and Dawkins! Personally, I kinda like Hitchens, but as you wish!



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


I have little concerns and very few arguments in regards to the Deist position. Is the universe created by a single source or entity? does the universe even require a "creator"? Is the universe infinite? I don't know.......i don't think scientists have the evidence they require either.

Personally, myself, i'd rather remain cautious/skeptical - I'm an Agnostic Atheist. I'm not saying my position is superior, but i feel that i could be deluding myself by putting faith in such an unfalsifiable theory.

Although unfalsifiable hypothesis are unprovable or at least un-demonstratable; they are not nessasarily always false (Multiverse theory, the 4th/5th/6th dimension etc.)

If I can't prove a theory right or wrong (logically or empircally) and neither can science - i won't put blind faith in it. I'm not being arrogant or stubborn.

Have you ever considered the "Atheist Wager"?

I feel this is a much more honest and balanced take rather than submitting to "Pascal's Wager"

Peace, thanks for participating.

ADDED: Infinity is an interesting concept:-

The mandelbrot set

The Fibonacci Sequence
edit on 11/2/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)
edit on 11/2/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Freeborn
 


Indeed, how could you possibly know the creator's thoughts (if he exists)? How is the possible? It's not, nor has anyone proved it is possible.

Religion is explaining the "colour" of God without being able to prove God does or doesn't exist.

Religion is a construct of man, a comfort for what man doesn't understand, If God was obvious and provable logically or empirically, God would be a science, a powerful theory. Fortunately, there is no evidence for any of the religious Gods.

I think if God did exist, he'd be much more intelligent than anything man can write about.

God wouldn't burn someone for eternity because they failed to subscribe to a man made religion.



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 

Sorry, poet! Didn't see your response there.


Originally posted by poet1b
If you have any legitimate links to back up your claims, then post them. I went back a page, and I don't see where you have provided any links. Every single one of the links I provided points out the brutality of the Muslim invasion of India. It is the same story with all of the Muslim conquests.

Were we talking about brutality? That is a whole other question, and very subjective, and not exactly constant throughout the years. I do believe you were talking about the ORIGINS of the Muslims in India, and that is where I (and most of the universe who knows anything at all about the matter) deferred with you. YOU claimed that all muslims in India (and everywhere, actually) are actually "arabs" somewhere back (great great grandfather or whatever). I have no idea what on earth you mean by "past raping of other cultures" but I'm pretty sure I never said you claimed this.



Originally posted by poet1b
By the way, I live among what is probably the largest Indian community in the U.S., was roommates with an Indian at one time. I talk with Indians on a regular basis. You are the idiot, who does not have a clue, who speaks from complete and total bias.

Good for you that you live in the largest Indian community in the US. I lived in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh for several years. I've had to go through the social studies and history books that they have to read in these countries. I grew up around indians in the UK. If we are having this sort of "who interacted with them more" type of absurd competition, I'm pretty sure I'd win, but that is just silly. I believe it's you who does not have a clue.



Originally posted by poet1b
You have to call me a racist, because to admit that my criticisms of Islam are valid, would mean some soul searching which you are incapable or unwilling to do.

I called you a racist because you said it yourself- arab arab arab. It's actually pretty funny, because most of the time when islamophobes beat on Islam, they're called racists, and they respond "Islam is not a race" (and it certainly isn't, they're not racists, they're bigots). But you, you claimed that islam==arab and arab==islam. Thus racist.

The rest of your post (heck even the parts I addressed) were all just you lathering more and more hatred on Islam/muslims/arabs. It's guys like you that make me happy that I'm me
. And you are even attempting a higher moral position here! It really makes me laugh.
edit on 11-2-2011 by babloyi because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by babloyi
 


My criticism of Islam is legitimate and accurate.

You can't reply with anything but accusing me of being a racist, proving you simply refuse to look at the reality of the facts.



posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 07:13 AM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


Just ignore.

If we can't use the button anymore. I'm actually generally interested in someone providing evidence against mine and other user's findings. Waiting for someone to give a honest and unbiased opinion on Islam using only the evidence of philosophy and teachings to form their opinion.

I'm not looking Islamic apologists. If you are going to defend the Religion, Please say why, and use the scripture to show why Islam is a great thing for society.



posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 12:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by inforeal
.

Many of those versus are referring to pagans at the time [ 1400 years ago] who were attacking and murdering the followers of Muhammad.

THESE VERSUS ARE NOT REFFERING TO PEOPLE OF ALL TIME ONLY THOSE 1400 YEARS AGO WHO WERE ATTACKING MUHAMMAD AND HIS FOLLOWERS.



The Islamic verses inciting Holy War again non Muslims are non specific, they do not merely relate to the situation of the 7th century; further Mohammad's Meccan revolution was an armed violent revolution; his armies took Mecca by force; it was essentially a military coup which imposed Mohammad as a military dictator.

Qiyamah: Judgement Day & the End Times Prophecies

Part of the problem of both the Biblical faith and the Islamic faith is their genocidal End Times prophecies.

Both faiths believe that eventually their faith will "rule" the world, and both faiths promote theocratic dictatorship; both faiths have genocidal edicts and apocalyptic prophecies. It is not merely a matter of Islam promoting isolated acts "terrorism;" but overt Holy War against all non believers and total global domination.

While the Biblical texts are certainly no better and no less genocidal than the edicts of Mohammad, Western culture, where Christianity is the main religion, has also benn tempered by Enlgihtenment philosophies, humanism, atheism, rationalism feminism, socialism and even the New Age / Neopagan movement etc., all of which tend to be antagonistic to ancient and primitive religions such as Judeo-Christianity and Islam, and this has affected what Richard Dawkins refers to as the modern "moral Zeitgest (the spirit of the age)" where even Christians are affected by this to a degree. America may still be full of Biblical fanatics but it is rare to come across a person in the West who wishes to strictly impose the savage and primitive Biblical laws of Moses, yet in the Islamic world it is entirely common to find persons who wish to impose Sharia Law.

I suspect that many of the English speaking Islamic apologists on the Internet are also to a great extent also influenced by Western culture and modern humanist values, but such apologists do not represent the hundreds of millions of Muslms who often have been totally indoctrinated by the Islamic faith since childhood. Having travelled throughout the Islamic world, including Iran and Afghanistan, it seems to me that a person who would be considered to be a primitive and savage Islamic religious fanatic in Europe would actually be considered quite normal in many parts of the Islamic world.

Ultimately, since Islam is a militant and imperialistic faith, I don't expect the problem of Islam to be resolved peacefully, and apparently neither do the American and Israeli military elites; in a post nuclear age, where the two main religions of the world (Christianity and Islam) both have genocidal apocalyptic prophecies which could only really be self-fulfilled by nuclear warfare, I don't expect all this to end very well.

Lux





new topics
top topics
 
16
<< 9  10  11   >>

log in

join