Western Concept of War vs. Islamist Concept of War

page: 1
12
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 06:52 PM
link   
Islamist concept of war vs. West concept of war

"We will kill you! I don't care how many of us it takes - you will die!"
'Yes, westerners care for their lives because they don't know Allah; they think only this world exists, and they don't care about Allah"

The point: Muslims are fond of the concept of annihilation; annihilation is the extinction of any contingent state; the contingent state becomes "annihilated" and reabsorbed into the homogenous unity of the Godhead. Islam worships God as He in Himself; and so their perception of things is non-dualistic; all things which appear to exist on their own are illusions; only Allah in truth exists. It's very close to pantheism; but as Sayyed Hussein Nasr says:


The world appears to us as multiplicity, and the goal of the spiritual life is to ascend from this multiplicity to unity, to see the One in the many and the many integrated into the One. Now, the doctrine of the Oneness of being does not negate the reality of multiplicity. Nor does it claim that God is the world and the world in its totality is God, a position held by polytheists. How could a metaphysics that speaks so categorically of the transcendence of God be accused of polytheism? What the Sufi asserts is not that God is the world, but that the world is mysteriously plunged in God. – Seyyed Hossein Nasr, The Garden of Truth, pg.40, HarperOne


Now, Mr. Nasr is more of a moderate than the mainstream of Sunni Islam. The Sunnis believe that Gods world DOES negate the reality of multiplicity. The Shi'ites are more moderate in this regard, hence, Iran's scientists have accomplished far more than any other Arab-Sunni government in the sciences. The Sunni's think everything is actually illusion. Only God exists. Therefore, my own existence isn't really mine, but Gods; this means I have no right to my life - but to do what is good and necessary for the faith. If the good of the faith i.e. the pursuit of Allahs will demands it, then one must lay down ones life without regard to the imminent dangers involved.

No people will sacrifice their lives like Iranians will.

The Westerners conversely, even if they do believe in a life after this one, still treat this life as precious; instead of myself being conflated with the Godhead, I am allowed to exist as my own person; yes, ultimately a gift from God, but the fact of the matter is: the aim, the teleology; Judaism and Christianity see mans sense of selfness as the intention of God's creating us this way; so, yes, the religion demands living in a moral way, but the living itself is seen not as a self-abnegation in performance of commands, but the performance of a command because I feel it is the right thing to do; it is in me, this feeling, this command from God, who responds. This free will decision is whats emphasized. But in Islam, it's the exact opposite. We are not given the option of choice because free will actually doesn't exist. Only God exists, all must recognize the transcendent truth of our own non-existence relative to Allah: thus, morality is not conscience, but adherence to the sharia; sharia is not based on basic reason, but on investigation and implementation of Quranic commands; if a command is unclear, it is interpreted in the terms set forth in Al Ashari, Ibn Hanbal, and Al Ghazali i.e. in the metaphysical context of God as Pure Will.

The western concept of war is rooted in "war, as a last resort", whereas the Islamist concept is rooted in "War, at the first opportunity"; Westerners care far more about maintaining the peace than the Islamists do. And this is only stating bluntly what their entire religious viewpoint makes impossible: Islam, in it's Ash'arite form, is an imperialistic religion. Islam, at its heart, is a threat to all others; all differences, secularists, atheists, Christians, Jews, Hindus, etc All are threatened by this ideology.

Robert Reilly, the author of "Closing of the Muslim Mind: How intellectual suicide created the modern Islamist crisis", suggests that given the situation of mainstream Sunni Islam (in particular), the west must take a determined stance against this civilization. His conclusion is based upon the occasionalist metaphysics and identification of Allah as will in Al Ghazali as the major obstacles to an acceptance of democracy in Islamic societies.


Many wonder why democracy did not develop indigenously in the Muslim world and ask whether it can still develop today. The answer is that, so long as the Ash’arite (or Hanbalite) worldview is regnant, democratic development cannot succeed for the simple reason that this view posits the primacy of power over the primacy of reason. – Robert R. Reilly, The Closing of the Muslim Mind, pg. 128, ISI books


The only plausible solution to this problem is to get moderate Muslims to emphasize the influence of early Mu'tazalite philosophers like Avicenna and Averroes, in particular in their conception of Allah in terms compatible with Neo-Platonian and Aristotelian doctrine, which sees God as reason; the created world, the world we see, is invested by God with an intrinsic rationality - a logos - which man can recognize because of his own intrinsic reason; thus, man connects with God through the function of reason.

However, moderate Muslims who do try to emphasize these "forbidden" views of the heretic Mu'tazalites, and who in turn support complete democratization and secularization of Islamic society, are having their lives threatened; the irony is, as we support Muslims, Egypt, the "Arab revolution", were actually supporting the very people who threaten the lives of moderates, forcing those moderates to advocate "reform" in non-Muslim countries.

Anyways, back to my concept of war itself. The west is in trouble. There's going to be major casualties. Iran will throw at them literally everything. They have 73 million people; they have a massive military and millions of reserves. The west can only fight them if they too are willing to sacrifice lives the way the Islamists will. If Iran loses a million men, lets say, how many American, Canadian, European or Israeli lives will that mean? At the very least, given the nature of the territory in which they're fighting, as high as 250,000 dead. At the very worst, as much or more than the Iranians.

I'm not saying this to frighten people or even to support Iran's right to nuclear weapons. Those of you who follow my posts know I am vociferously opposed to Iran's fanatical Shi'ite government. I'm only saying this to give those of you who don't think about it, an idea of how horrific a war with Iran would become. And this ignores the economic interests of Russia and China in defending Iran. If that were ever to happen, the world would spiral into a world war that has the potential to be far far worse than WWII.

The blame is undoubtedly on Iran. Iran doesn't have to pursue nuclear weapons, but they are; as a Shi'ite religious government that denies human rights and fails in every category of the World Freedom Indices and preaches an inflammatory anti-semitism by threatening the Jewish states existence and denying or questioning the holocaust, they have lost all rational credibility; those who accord them credibility, only show others their own lack or rationality.




posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 06:59 PM
link   
That was really well written and insightful.

Thank you for the non bias, objective dress down of reality, if only all threads were like this. Present the facts, draw your own conclusions.

S&F
edit on 18-9-2012 by cnsttsnc because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 07:12 PM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 


Hmm, another Bash Muslim thread, but I will enlighten you , again.

People will fight to protect what they believe is Right , to them.

These Muslims you speak of, have a willingness to give their lives, to Protect what is Sacred to them.

You see it as a Negative, But it is Honorable to the Max.

If some foreign country invaded yours, wouldn't you fight to the Death?

Well you wouldn't, but most Men would.

Thread Closed.



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 07:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Tw0Sides
 


A country cant invade another country, only people invade other peoples area, countrys are man made (birds dont invade during migration do they) mankinds stupidity causes "fight to the death mentality" well maybe its time the world rid itself of mankind i would of hoped any "god "would want us to enjoy our life on earth before our death if not and that "god" is so superior why let us live on earth at all if a better place awaits us? mankind seems to be so determined to make the worst of the one life,such a shame.



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 07:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Tw0Sides
 





You see it as a Negative, But it is Honorable to the Max.


No, on the contrary, I see that as a positive. Love for God is great.

What I see as a negative is their refusal to recognize my right to believe as I want to.




If some foreign country invaded yours, wouldn't you fight to the Death?


You don't seem to get it, do you? You think, I am sure, that 9/11 was an "inside job" (the western elite merely enabled them; they didn't equip them with ideology and purpose). Given all I've written, does it not make sense to you why devout Muslims would hate the west? For one, they tried to change them (for our sake, so we could avoid martial confrontation later on) by introducing science and democracy into the region; but it never worked. Every Arab state has been a creation of the west; unnatural, hated by the majority of Muslims. Now that they have extricated themselves from western influence, some idiots take this as a good sign - "yay" freedom. Freedom from western influence; Freedom for the full implementation of Shari'a. Not good for us in the west.

You people seem to forget that the Muslims have had a caliphate for 1300 years. It was only 90 years ago that the Ottoman Caliphate collapsed; and to Muslims, that is a travesty.

So let me make something clear to you. When you let people with this sort of ideology to mobilize, what is the result? The result is allowing them to empower themselves; to reestablish the caliphate, and then become a much more prickly thorn in the side of the west.

This is an imperialistic religion. Your beliefs are not protected. Islam is not communism. The communists were atheists, and so considered self survival as much more important then mutually insured destruction. The Islamists are packed with an ideology so explosive and so ecstatic that to give them the power of wielding a nuclear bomb, gives them the power over your life: the simple question is: Should Muslims respect the lives of non-Muslims? If they know you'll refuse conversion, should they still leave you alone to live in peace?? No. Islam if given the opportunity would exterminate every non-Muslim to make room for Islamic expansion and make the World completely Islamic.
edit on 18-9-2012 by dontreally because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 11:40 PM
link   
Interesting analysis. I believe Hitler once commented that Islam was the perfect warrior ideology. He was right. How more dangerous can you be when your own death is immaterial to achieving your goals. What the West (and moderates) do not understand is that Islam is Jihad. Unlike the other Abrahamic faiths, Islam by nature is a political doctrine. And unlike the other Abrahamic faiths, in Islam there is little room for reason or interpretation. The ultimate goal of Islamic doctrine is a global Caliphate under Sharia law.

I do not believe an attack will come from Iran, however. Islamic political leaders and Imams are naturally more concerned with maintaining their control, popularity and relevance to the masses than they are in expending their lives in Jihad. The Islamic concept of war is not only metaphysically different, but it will also follow different means. If we believe Iran (or any other Islamic power) will fight a conventional war with bombs and nukes we are looking at the problem through a western perspective. As seen in over a thousand years of Middle Eastern history, and the current problems in Europe, Islam spreads through demographic means, with intimidation, coercion and conversion. Blood will be shed, but only so long as there is resistance. The object, in keeping with a global Caliphate under Sharia, is dhimmitude and conversion. It is through these means that Islam, what started as a band of followers in Medina, became so huge to the size it is today. They don't want to kill you, they want to absorb you, and will only kill so long as you resist them.

Sunni Radical Islamists are using the instability in the Middle East to set the stage for the Caliphate. Al-Qaeda and many other radical splinter groups are fighting in Syria. It is not a civil war when many of the fighters are jihadis that have travelled from all over, including Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. We are at the end of an age of secular dictators and the start of an age where radicalism has free reign. We see growing evidence of Al-Qaeda in Libya. Mohammed Morsi, the Muslim Brotherhood's newly installed President of Egypt, publically promised Jerusalem as the capital of the Caliphate. There is a growing movement among the Muslim Brotherhood to demolish the pyramids. There have been crucifixions of Christians in Cairo. Meanwhile, churches are being smashed in Syria as jihadi fighters pour into the country to take up arms against the last secular dictatorship. It all started when we were foolish enough to remove Saddam, who was another secular stabilizing influence.

The point is that war on the scale you are talking about will come from radical Muslims themselves, the people, not declarations of war by heads of state, who care more about self-preservation. Iran will be unable to stop its radicals, just as Pakistan has no control over their own. I do not believe either that nuclear weapons will be used. Why would they render the grounds they wish to inhabit and take over as radioactive wastelands? Jerusalem must be preserved for the Muslims themselves. To suggest they will fight a war of annihiliation and destruction flies in the face of over a thousand years of history of Islamic expansion. It will be violent to be sure, but Islam always has and always will spread through suppression and conversion. They are not going to change tactics, radical Islam will always do things by the book.

I am also curious about your contrast of Sunni and Shia radicals, as if the latter are more likely to fight the west. Shias may bark more, but most radical violence is commited by Sunni sects. Al-Qaeda is Sunni. So are the Wahhabis, who are stricter than any Shia. We know that it is Saudi Arabia that has funded radical movements throughout the middle east and elsewhere. The Muslim Brotherhood that has taken power in Egypt and demands Jersualem as the capital of the caliphate is also Sunni. The Taliban is Sunni. The London mosques that have produced several convicted terrorists and suicide plots are also Sunni. There are no Shia Osama bin Ladens of note. Jihad is no more a Shia concept than it is a Sunni one. We are threatened by both, but I would say Sunnis are the greater danger and seem to be the more aggressive.

There is a West Point paper that has some interesting insights on Sunni vs Shia terrorism. Worth reading. link
edit on 2012/9/18 by SteveR because: broken link



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 11:47 PM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 


love all the contradictions [or are they?]

you bash iran while pointing out they are more reasonable

most of what is called islamic culture as well as science is of iranian [persian origin]
before the persian conquest, arabian moslems were nothing more than barbarian berserkers

but hey, lets destroy iran, and turn back the clock for islam
which is what the west and the saudis seem to intent on accomplishing



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 11:58 PM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 


I don't think this is just a thing of Islam. If the 'enemy', be they Islam or China or Russia, use means that we find abhorrent, then they have an edge. It is their willingness to do what we will not that is the most terrifying thing. Even in war, we follow the Geneva & Hague Conventions as well as the Geneva Protocols, the 'rules of warfare', but the enemy will not. They will engage in wholesale slaughter, deliberately target civilians and destroy everything they can. They will not keep POWs, they will murder them, most likely in a gruesome manner to intimidate and demoralise their enemy.

By the way, Iran are not the only ones to question or deny the holocaust, that does not make one evil.



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 12:02 AM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 





What I see as a negative is their refusal to recognize my right to believe as I want to.


And they also have this right, as does every human being. Their refusal is their right as is your refusal to see their side.



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 12:54 AM
link   
reply to post by SteveR
 


If only more people would see your post. You should write a thread on this.

Though people will get all emotional and rebuke you. But you may wake up a mind or two.

That is a start.



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 01:02 AM
link   
reply to post by DaesDaemar
 


That's interesting.

So your philosophy essentially amount to 'might is right'.

If my right to personal freedom to believe as I want to believe is infringed or undermined by people who want to force on me beliefs reprehensible to my sensibility (and if you care for the women in your life, logic dictates that you should care as well) then I find that to be a problem.

How anyone cannot find that to be a problem, how they would prefer to 'protect' ones "right" to force upon other people their beliefs is absurd. It is contrary to everything western philosophy and religion stands for.



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 01:05 AM
link   
reply to post by DerepentLEstranger
 





you bash iran while pointing out they are more reasonable


...more reasonable than the Sunni. Did I say they were like us? Did I not point out that Iran is a failure according to the world freedom indices? Again, you fail to put things into their proper context.

Iran is a radical SHI'ITE regime; it's fanaticism is similar to or perhaps exceeds that of the Sunnis.

As for my attentuating comment about shi'ites, that was in reference to their acceptance of reason. It was not an overall general statement of "they are more rational" but rather, the incorporate, and frankly, abuse the use of reason. They grant leeway, but not so much as to free people from the yoke of shari'a.
edit on 19-9-2012 by dontreally because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 01:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by DaesDaemar
 


That's interesting.

So your philosophy essentially amount to 'might is right'.

If my right to personal freedom to believe as I want to believe is infringed or undermined by people who want to force on me beliefs reprehensible to my sensibility (and if you care for the women in your life, logic dictates that you should care as well) then I find that to be a problem.

How anyone cannot find that to be a problem, how they would prefer to 'protect' ones "right" to force upon other people their beliefs is absurd. It is contrary to everything western philosophy and religion stands for.


What I am saying is that everyone has the right to their own opinion, whether someone else thinks it's right or not. Their beliefs are contrary to yours, but yours are contrary to theirs, so what makes yours better than theirs? Your opinion.



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 01:19 AM
link   
reply to post by DaesDaemar
 





Their beliefs are contrary to yours, but yours are contrary to theirs, so what makes yours better than theirs? Your opinion.


That reductionism is pointless.

If a threat exists, what do you do? Reason it away as someones inalienable opinion?

If I walk across the street, should I not look left and right to avoid getting hit? Is that precaution not valid insomuch as my life rests on taking that precaution? In the same way, my very existence is at stake. Whether its "their opinion" or mine which is true is irrelevant. Their belief infringes on mine; it limits my mobility in thought, speech and action.

To look at it in any other way, especially if you yourself follow a secular doctrine, is endlessly stupid. A new word should be created to approximate the intensity of that level of suicidal idiocy.

It is something you could only expect from an insane person who doesn't realize whats at stake.



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 01:39 AM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 

There is a difference between the two sides how they conceive of War. The Middle East Leadership believes that their WARS will have the backing of GOD.

The U.S. knows that whatever the Old Religious Guard Leadership...or Islamic Dictatorships like Syria or Iran...believe...makes no difference in the least.

The U.S. concept of WAR is....We have the Power to Obliterate any enemy. What level of war should be waged in order to have a result of Stability?

The current issue is Iran...and Iran's Regime will fall either by it's own people or by Force of the U.S. Military. The Iranian Regime will create an EVENT at sea if it see's that it's own people are prepared to remove them from power. The U.S. Military will not allow any Country's Government with Nuclear ambitions to exist after an action such as an attempt to Close the Strait of Hormuz.

Thus the U.S. concept of WAR in this case is how to Help the Iranian Pro-Democracy Movement Seize power and continue direct secret Military to Military talks to allow the Iranian Military an OUT to STAND DOWN. The REAL Iranian Military Leadership does not want anything to do with a WAR with the U.S. It will be given an option to STAND DOWN and become the Defenders of a FREE DEMOCRATIC IRAN....or be OBLITERATED.

THIS IS THE U.S. CONCEPT OF WAR. SURRENDER OR DIE! Split Infinity



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 01:42 AM
link   
reply to post by SteveR
 





I believe Hitler once commented that Islam was the perfect warrior ideology.


Jung also commented on Islams vehement collective spirit in action. There is remarkable cohesiveness among Muslims, and the way they follow and perform, and in the words of the Muslim Brotherhood motto "fight in the way of Allah", is astounding; really, the earth has no other example of a people as intellectually and morally primed for battle as Muslims are.




Islam by nature is a political doctrine.


I don't want to completely discount Sufism. There is a continuity between the non-reality of this world experienced in the mystical state and Islams political doctrine of seeing everything outside the boundaries of dar al Islam as essentially non-existent and thus suitable to be warred upon; hence, everything outside the boundaries of Islam is called in Islamic parlance "Dar Al Har" - abode of war. Meaning, at its root, those parts of creation which "war against Allah".




. If we believe Iran (or any other Islamic power) will fight a conventional war with bombs and nukes we are looking at the problem through a western perspective.


I disagree. The threat of Irans nuclear program isn't in thinking Iran will itself attack Israel; rather, they would somehow smuggle it into Lebanon to Hezbollah, who would be in proximity to smuggle it into Israel.

The threat is too great. The consequence, apocalyptic.

Iran, also, routinely engages in anti-semitic rhetoric. They also follow a radical ideology which believes the occultation of the 12 Imam is imminent. And that creating a state of general chaos in the political world will serve as the background in which the Imam Mahdi returns.

One of the portents of the Hadith which Muslims follow is war in Syria; also, great sufferring in Iraq; as well as general conflict between Muslims themselves, fighting internecine between different sects.




publically promised Jerusalem as the capital of the Caliphate


Yes, I heard that too. It's amazing how unabashedly forward these Islamists are. And yet here in the west all you here is apologetics.




Saddam


Completely agree. Saddam, Mubarak, were all good for western interests.




The point is that war on the scale you are talking about will come from radical Muslims themselves, the people, not declarations of war by heads of state, who care more about self-preservation.


Declarations of war will still be made, for instance, between Iran and America. I am certain of it.

As for the danger from within. I was just telling my brother that the day after or within a week of an Israeli attack on Irans nuclear facilities and the western response to Irans blocking the strait of Hormuz will see a massive wave of suicide attacks across America, Canada and Europe. These people are already seeded; many Iranian ex-pats, waiting for the time to be useful to their government and overall, to the Islamist war on the west.

And the west in turn will take advantage of these attacks to enforce draconian laws on us; so we'll probably have civil war aswell; the source of the conflict would be Muslims - so many would probably attack Muslims, who in turn will stealthily deny wanting to convert non-Muslims; the US government will interfere to protect the Islamic population. I can already see how this all will proceed.

This is why they are being enabled. They are the perfect pretext to installing a police state government.




Why would they render the grounds they wish to inhabit and take over as radioactive wastelands?


All they need do is wipeout tel-aviv, Israel intellectual and financial capital. Erase Tel Aviv, 1-2 million Jews killed. Jerusalem is still a good 15 kilometres away, so it wouldn't be subject to anything more than 'fallout'.

Perhaps they see things in long term? The land would only be uninhabitable for at most 50 years.

Islamist by the way firmly believe that this is "their century".




Shias may bark more, but most radical violence is committed by Sunni sects.


Currently the great ARMED threat to the west is Iran. Hezbollah, also Shi'ite is a major threat to Israel.

I agree that the Sunni's act far more furtively, and they are the main ones working from within.

I was in no way exonerating the Shia. They're both dangerous, however, in different ways.



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 01:46 AM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 





Their belief infringes on mine; it limits my mobility in thought, speech and action.


How exactly are they infringing on you? I don't share their belief, but it is their right to that belief whether I agree with it or not. Clearly only your belief counts, you've made yourself quite clear!



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 01:46 AM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 





Did I say they were like us?


lol why should they be?
us? what do you mean by "us",xtian?

failure? i may be wrong but iran isn't bankrupt, economically that is
iranian women wear designer jeans, in the privacy of their own homes, of course
they can even study martial arts among other things

www.abovetopsecret.com...

come to think of it Libyans under Qaddafi had a higher standard of living than most americans, their children and grandchildren will ever know, but that's off topic...



Did I not point out that Iran is a failure according to the world freedom indices? Again, you fail to put things into their proper context.

lol freedom defined by whom?, emperor obama? who has claimed power and the right to lock people up or execute them without trial or having to give any reasons.

the yoke of sharia? LMFAO
Christendom has its own yoke and chains
which i long threw off

the religious paradigm is well into an inevitable downward spiral

this is all just xtians trying to gain relevance for their moribund belief system, even at the price of touching off a world war against muslims with their "clash of "civilizations"" trope,
when they aren't trying to start an interplanetary one with their "aliens are demons" trope
these also cover up and distract from their own violent plans for the world.

i'm quite confident in my ability to put to the sword any kind of religious tyranny and it's agentur, be it sharia or dominionist/quiverful freaks. [and there's always the long range and immensely destructive power of "the Unaskable Question"]

but hey, maybe you'll get your wish, history shows that there's no defense against an opponent that wants to die
once xtianity has been hurled into the abyss, it'll be easy to boot an exhausted [and previously gutted] islam right after them


IMMANENTIZE THE ESCHATON!
edit on 19-9-2012 by DerepentLEstranger because: added edit and comment



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 01:52 AM
link   
reply to post by DaesDaemar
 





How exactly are they infringing on you?


They're belief system mandates that Islam control the non-Muslim world.

For instance, Muslims believe - and the Muslim Brotherhood insisted upon - that non-Muslims be restricted in their speech when talking about Islam. Is that right? Are you ok with being told "you can't say F*** Mohammad"; do you not find something terribly wrong with a totalitarian religious ideology overturning the sacred bill of rightsn which insures one the freedom of expression?

That is what I mean by infringing on my personal rights. I don't want to be harassed by people who believe something different telling me that I should consider sacred something they do. Of course, it's right to be respectful and not openly insult; but that doesn't change the fact that were indued with that right.



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 01:56 AM
link   
reply to post by DerepentLEstranger
 





ranian women wear designer jeans, in the privacy of their own homes, of course they can even study martial arts among other things


oh wow, designer jeans.

They also can't go out after 8pm without a chaperone.
They also can't practice karate with a head scarf.
The also cant go swimming without full body covering and a head scarf.

Yay! Look at how "modern" Iran is.




Christendom has its own yoke and chains


The law or 'yoke' of being a Christian is nothing compared to the restrictions imposed by Shari'a.

Being Christian after all permitted you to reject Christianity; that's in the spirit of Christianity. Islam would sooner cut of your head than let you become an apostate.





new topics
 
12
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join