Muslims threw Christians overboard during Med voyage

As I see it, the problem is that Islam is stuck in the seventh century. Apparently, they have never had any sort of reformation and are still living by the rules that brought some sort of rule of law to those that had none in the seventh century.
When will they move toward the present? When will all the Imams speak against terror by those who would kill for no reason? When will the thin-skinned, insecure Muslims stop the death penalty for "insulting Islam," a rather vague term that could mean anything? A cartoon is punished by death? How barbaric is the so-called "religion of peace?"

Now, most want Sharia in the countries they immigrate to. Do they really expect the rest of the world to step back over 1000 years to cater to their whim? What was their goal when they did immigrate?

a reply to: FlySolo

Really, so now some culturally retarded #wits in Pakistan suddenly define Islam?

Google it myself? As far as I known, the Quran does not endorse honor killing or stoning to death for adultery.

No evidence provided to back your laughable claim of Islam promoting honor killing, stoning people to death or any of that #

This is an extension of tribal conflict that has now evolved along religious lines..

This kind of thing has been going on in Africa for millenia and will only subside if and when their societies homogenize and modernize. Starvation and desperation breed these sorts of conflicts.

originally posted by: Boeing777
a reply to: FlySolo

You're having a laugh, honor killing is suddenly part of Islam?

Provide some some evidence in the Quran if you're truthful.

lol You changed it from Sharia to Islam after I came true to my word again...

Does this mean I have to now prove honor killings are part of Islam instead? I'll oblige you ya know

a reply to: FlySolo

Webster's Dictionary's definition of "bigot":

a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person;
especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)

You're attacking 1.6 to 1.8 billion people for the crimes of a few. Yes that's bigotry. I'm actually curious to see if the other people in this thread also think it's okay to attack all Muslims for the crimes of this small mob.

That's not a good argument. If it's not in the Quran, then why are Muslims doing it??? Also, last time I checked, Christians don't stone people anymore. But 80% of Pakistan agrees to killing you with rocks anyway. Hmmm horrible argument.

Why do some Christians in America believe in football on the weekends, bigfoot or racism against black & brown people? Neither of those are in the Bible either. The entire point is to show that cultures & religions are different. and if the culture in East Asia includes corporal punishments, you shouldn't be surprised that people there believe in it. Now why don't you show the stats for the other groups in those countries?

Not on OUR turf amigo. You like that sort of thing? There's a new Caliphate in the works in the ME. Or plenty of Muslim nations to pick from. And your law, which justifies honor killings, where a father and mother and even siblings partake is killing their own daughter/sister because they feel disgraced, is part of your beloved sharia law. You like that sort of thing? It's sick. Sharia law....lmao Are you defending that? Really?

You obviously don't know this, but there's no one Sharia/Islamic Law. It's supposed to be based on the Qur'an, which directly requires & forbids some things. However different denominations also add their interpretations of Sunna & Hadith, as well as other traditions, interpretations, and rulings. And there are fierce debates on how to interpret things, just as in politics. So "Sharia law/Islamic Law" depends on the communities in question. So if you're in a real democracy, why shouldn't the people in a district be able to decide which laws they follow? Isn't that the whole point in democracy?

Also, Islamic law includes rights for women to get divorces, to choose who they marry, to get inheritances, and to get support from the ex-husband & their kids in case of divorce. It also forbids Muslims from lying, from killing except in self defense and from committing adultery, while literally requiring us to give to charity. Of course not all people follow the laws, just as in other cultures. But that's why Muslim activists protest against their governments, protest against corrupt clerical leaders, and fight for women's rights. Of course, MSM here doesn't show that so you wouldn't know that.

Oh & there's no "honor killings" in Islam. That is a cultural thing in India & Pakistan, regardless of religion. and it's not in the Qur'an either. And ISIS are Wahabis. 75-90% of their victims are Muslims like me who reject them. So no thanks.

Also, why did you ignore this?

Also, your stats show that most British Muslims who were polled believe anyone should be prosecuted for insulting Islam. What's wrong with that? The UK already has strict laws against hate speech, particularly anti-Semitism. So what's wrong with Muslims wanting equal protection under the law?

So why shouldn't people be prosecuted for insulting Islam if they're already being prosecuted for insulting Judaism? I'm pointing out the double standard. I live in America & love free speech, so I don't care what people say. I just crush their arguments or ignore them lol. However, I do believe in the law treating people equally. So if you're going to label anti-Semitic speech as hate speech, the same should go for other religions. Do you think that is wrong? And for the record, Arabs & the Prophet Muhammad are Semites as well. So why doesn't that count as anti-Semitism?

originally posted by: Boeing777
a reply to: FlySolo

Really, so now some culturally retarded #wits in Pakistan suddenly define Islam?

Google it myself? As far as I known, the Quran does not endorse honor killing or stoning to death for adultery.

No evidence provided to back your laughable claim of Islam promoting honor killing, stoning people to death or any of that #

Are you purposely trying to be obtuse just so you can remain in a debate? It's like you're saying...stoning doesn't happen. I'm not sure what your stance is here. You want evidence of what exactly? Evidence of stoning or scripture? Because there's a whole lot of Muslims in Muslim nations doing just that.

originally posted by: FlySolo

originally posted by: Boeing777
a reply to: FlySolo

You're having a laugh, honor killing is suddenly part of Islam?

Provide some some evidence in the Quran if you're truthful.

lol You changed it from Sharia to Islam after I came true to my word again...

Does this mean I have to now prove honor killings are part of Islam instead? I'll oblige you ya know

Honor Killings are not a part of Islam

101972: Ruling on honour killings
I would like to know what the ruling on Honor killings would be and how it should be punished acording to the Laws of the Shariat.
Praise be to Allaah.
Killing a Muslim unlawfully is a serious matter and a grave crime. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“And whoever kills a believer intentionally, his recompense is Hell to abide therein; and the Wrath and the Curse of Allaah are upon him, and a great punishment is prepared for him”

[al-Nisa’ 4:93]

al-Bukhaari (6355) narrated from Ibn ‘Umar (may Allaah be pleased with him) that the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “The believer will continue to be encompassed by the mercy of Allaah so long as he does not shed blood that it is forbidden to shed.”

originally posted by: Boeing777
a reply to: FlySolo

Really, so now some culturally retarded #wits in Pakistan suddenly define Islam?

Google it myself? As far as I known, the Quran does not endorse honor killing or stoning to death for adultery.

No evidence provided to back your laughable claim of Islam promoting honor killing, stoning people to death or any of that #

It doesn't. I just wrote a long post on it

a reply to: FlySolo

I'm not the one mixing Islam with hadiths and sharia which varies from culture to culture. From FGMT in Africa to honor killing in Asia. People like to make # up and use it to commit atrocities whether they're fatwas or hadiths that are in direct contradiction with the Quran.

Heck even suicide bombers despite the fact that suicide is a great sin.

a reply to: FlySolo

OK. I know what you want to hear.

Yes most Muslims today are an absolute disgrace.
They're driven by their cultural baggage.

Because what's going on today is the complete opposite of what the Quran tells them. I can't deny that.

Muslims in the past were so straight foward but not today and the past 400 years.

originally posted by: Boeing777
a reply to: FlySolo

I'm not the one mixing Islam with hadiths and sharia which varies from culture to culture. From FGMT in Africa to honor killing in Asia. People like to make # up and use it to commit atrocities whether they're fatwas or hadiths that are in direct contradiction with the Quran.

Heck even suicide bombers despite the fact that suicide is a great sin.

See what flysolo does not understand is that throughout Islam's History many culture traditions have been interwoven into Islam . This is called Bid'ah ( innovation of scripture ) .

this paved the way from many sects to form.

we see the same thing in Christianity and other religions .

Sadly the media does not separate the two . Like flySolo they Mash all Muslims together and assume we conform to the same Ideologies.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

You're attacking 1.6 to 1.8 billion people for the crimes of a few.

No, I'm attacking an entire religion and those that propagate or endorse 7th century behavior. There's a difference. If you endorse stoning, then I will attack your views too.

Why do some Christians in America believe in football on the weekends, bigfoot or racism against black & brown people? Neither of those are in the Bible either. The entire point is to show that cultures & religions are different.

You're just not getting it. the MAJORITY of Muslims agree to TERRORISTS or some barbaric act in the name of Islam. not a small group. almost all of them mate. If you don't condone killing or punishment as per your little book, then you are not part of this group. You are the minority. Get it?

You obviously don't know this, but there's no one Sharia/Islamic Law. It's supposed to be based on the Qur'an, which directly requires & forbids some things. However different denominations also add their interpretations of Sunna & Hadith, as well as other traditions, interpretations, and rulings. And there are fierce debates on how to interpret things, just as in politics. So "Sharia law/Islamic Law" depends on the communities in question. So if you're in a real democracy, why shouldn't the people in a district be able to decide which laws they follow? Isn't that the whole point in democracy?

No. Who's going to enforce your stoning? The Supreme court of Canada, UK or USA? Get real. There is only one set of laws to abide by, the ones YOU pledged allegiance to in the country you reside. Effing religions. We live in a secular society where religion does not dictate the laws of the lands. Give your head a shake and wake up.

As for the hate speech comments. Freedom of speech to criticize should not be considered the same as hate speech. There's a fine line and my personal opinion isn't a popular one. I grew up in the days when Dire Straights rock band could say little faggot on the radio. People's skins over the years have gotten thinner over time. I don't condone racism, or antisemitism but it's a fine line when criticizing. I don't like it when people use that card to avoid truths.

originally posted by: pteridine
As I see it, the problem is that Islam is stuck in the seventh century. Apparently, they have never had any sort of reformation and are still living by the rules that brought some sort of rule of law to those that had none in the seventh century.
When will they move toward the present? When will all the Imams speak against terror by those who would kill for no reason? When will the thin-skinned, insecure Muslims stop the death penalty for "insulting Islam," a rather vague term that could mean anything? A cartoon is punished by death? How barbaric is the so-called "religion of peace?"

Now, most want Sharia in the countries they immigrate to. Do they really expect the rest of the world to step back over 1000 years to cater to their whim? What was their goal when they did immigrate?

Google is your friend. Perhaps you should search for "Muslim statements against terrorism" before spouting that Muslims aren't speaking up against it.

kurzman.unc.edu...
theamericanmuslim.org...
mediamatters.org...
mediamatters.org...
www.religioustolerance.org...

Also, the Prophet Muhammad and all other Arabs are Semites. The point is that there's a double standard when prosecuting anti-Semitism as hate speech for Jews, but not for him. and that hate speech against Judaism isn't tolerated, but hate speech against Islam is.

a reply to: intrepid

using the moral values of the past is just another claim that muslims apologists make to defend him so now we know where you stand for sure.
ol mo was over 50 years old back then and already had other wives, he was closer to death than being a young groom. why didn't he marry a pretty 20yr old instead of a child of "14"".

muslims are as quick or quicker to point values or morals as Christains are. they'll stand in unity and scream that this is against gods will, but let someone say something against the old mo marring a young girl and they flood to to the webs making all kinds of excuses, values and lifespan being one of the first they use.

besides, he wasn't marring her because of life span issues or it being acceptable. he married her because, he had been dreaming about her and he had the power to force her father to let him. sounds like a pervert to me.

a reply to: Boeing777

and that's another defense that muslims apologists like to use.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

Also, Islamic law includes rights for women to get divorces, to choose who they marry, to get inheritances, and to get support from the ex-husband & their kids in case of divorce.

Well isn't that special. They get to have divorce. Tell me, is 9 old enough to request a Sharia divorce? It says there must be a good reason. Perhaps pedophilia is not one of them.

A Muslim man can marry only a Muslim, Christian or Jewish woman. He cannot marry an atheist, agnostic or polytheist.[1]
A Muslim woman can marry only a Muslim man. She cannot marry a Christian, Jew, atheist, agnostic or polytheist.[2]
The minimum age of marriage for females is nine, for males is twelve.[3][4]
A Muslim minor girl's father or guardian may arrange the marriage of a girl, without her consent, before she reaches adulthood.[5]
An adult man cannot marry an adult woman without her consent. An adult woman requires her wali's - father or male guardian - consent to marry, in following schools of sharia: Maliki, Shafi'i, Hanbali and Jafari.[5]
A marriage is a contract that requires the man to pay, or promise to pay some Mahr (property as brideprice) to the woman. The married woman owns this property.[6][7]
A man can divorce his wife any time he wants, without reason. A woman cannot divorce her husband without reason. She may file for divorce for reason, such as he is impotent, missing or biologically related to her.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

why didn't you post the rest, like they need permission of their parent (guardian) and a waiver from the state.
besides that people in the U.S frown upon any marriage that there is more than a few years difference, one that come to mind is, Doug Hutchison & Courtney Stodden. there are more. even back 1200 to 1400 hundred years ago people frowned on 50year old perverts wanting to marry a 6yr old.

This letter Has been authenticated .

It is a letter to the Christian's living in Muslim lands from Muhammad him self.

lets take a look and see how he felt about them Christians

Muhammad the son of ‘Abd Allah, the Messenger of Allah, and careful guardian of the whole world; has written the present instrument to all those who are in his national people, and of his own religion, as a secure and positive promise to be accomplished to the Christian nation, and relations of the Nazarene, whosoever they may be, whether they be the noble or the vulgar, the honorable or otherwise, saying thus.I. Whosoever of my nation shall presume to break my promise and oath, which is contained in this present agreement, destroys the promise of God, acts contrary to the oath, and will be a resister of the faith, (which God forbid) for he becomes worthy of the curse, whether he be the King himself, or a poor man, or whatever person he may be.
That whenever any of the monks in his travels shall happen to settle upon any mountain, hill, village, or other habitable place, on the sea, or in deserts, or in any convent, church, or house of prayer, I shall be in the midst of them, as the preserver and protector of them, their goods and effects, with my soul, aid, and protection, jointly with all my national people; because they are a part of my own people, and an honor to me.
Moreover, I command all officers not to require any poll-tax on them, or any other tribute, because they shall not be forced or compelled to anything of this kind.
None shall presume to change their judges or governors, but they shall remain in their office, without being deported.
No one shall molest them when they are travelling on the road.
Whatever churches they are possessed of, no one is to deprive them of them.
Whosoever shall annul any of one of these my decrees, let him know positively that he annuls the ordinance of God.
Moreover, neither their judges, governors, monks, servants, disciples, or any others depending on them, shall pay any poll-tax, or be molested on that account, because I am their protector, wherever they shall be, either by land or sea, east or west, north or south; because both they and all that belong to them are included in this my promissory oath and patent.
And of those that live quietly and solitary upon the mountains, they shall exact neither poll-tax nor tithes from their incomes, neither shall any Muslim partake of what they have; for they labor only to maintain themselves.
Whenever the crop of the earth shall be plentiful in its due time, the inhabitants shall be obliged out of every bushel to give them a certain measure.
Neither in time of war shall they take them out of their habitations, nor compel them to go to the wars, nor even then shall they require of them any poll-tax.
In these eleven chapters is to be found whatever relates to the monks, as to the remaining seven chapters, they direct what relates to every Christian.
Those Christians who are inhabitants, and with their riches and traffic are able to pay the poll-tax, shall pay no more than twelve drachms.
Excepting this, nothing shall be required of them, according to the express order of God, that says, ‘Do not molest those that have a veneration for the books that are sent from God, but rather in a kind manner' [29:46]. Give of your good things to them, and converse with them, and hinder everyone from molesting them.
If a Christian woman shall happen to marry a Muslim man, the Muslim shall not cross the inclination of his wife, to keep her from her church and prayers, and the practice of her religion.
That no person hinder them from repairing their churches.
Whosoever acts contrary to my grant, or gives credit to anything contrary to it, becomes truly an apostate to God, and to his divine apostle, because this protection I have granted to them according to this promise.
No one shall bear arms against them, but, on the contrary, the Muslims shall wage war for them.
And by this I ordain, that none of my nation shall presume to do or act contrary to this my promise, until the end of the world.

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: pteridine
As I see it, the problem is that Islam is stuck in the seventh century. Apparently, they have never had any sort of reformation and are still living by the rules that brought some sort of rule of law to those that had none in the seventh century.
When will they move toward the present? When will all the Imams speak against terror by those who would kill for no reason? When will the thin-skinned, insecure Muslims stop the death penalty for "insulting Islam," a rather vague term that could mean anything? A cartoon is punished by death? How barbaric is the so-called "religion of peace?"

Now, most want Sharia in the countries they immigrate to. Do they really expect the rest of the world to step back over 1000 years to cater to their whim? What was their goal when they did immigrate?

Google is your friend. Perhaps you should search for "Muslim statements against terrorism" before spouting that Muslims aren't speaking up against it.

Also, the Prophet Muhammad and all other Arabs are Semites. The point is that there's a double standard when prosecuting anti-Semitism as hate speech for Jews, but not for him. and that hate speech against Judaism isn't tolerated, but hate speech against Islam is.

Are cartoons or images considered hate speech? Prosecution is one thing and murder by insecure barbarians is another. See Charlie Hebdo. Google is your friend.

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: pteridine
As I see it, the problem is that Islam is stuck in the seventh century. Apparently, they have never had any sort of reformation and are still living by the rules that brought some sort of rule of law to those that had none in the seventh century.
When will they move toward the present? When will all the Imams speak against terror by those who would kill for no reason? When will the thin-skinned, insecure Muslims stop the death penalty for "insulting Islam," a rather vague term that could mean anything? A cartoon is punished by death? How barbaric is the so-called "religion of peace?"

Now, most want Sharia in the countries they immigrate to. Do they really expect the rest of the world to step back over 1000 years to cater to their whim? What was their goal when they did immigrate?

Google is your friend. Perhaps you should search for "Muslim statements against terrorism" before spouting that Muslims aren't speaking up against it.

Also, the Prophet Muhammad and all other Arabs are Semites. The point is that there's a double standard when prosecuting anti-Semitism as hate speech for Jews, but not for him. and that hate speech against Judaism isn't tolerated, but hate speech against Islam is.

Are cartoons or images considered hate speech? Prosecution is one thing and murder by insecure barbarians is another. See Charlie Hebdo. Google is your friend.

YouTube can be your friend to .

This is a respected Salafi Muslim Scholar .

He should be able to answer your question .