• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Muslim vs Buddhist mob violence threatens new Myanmar image

No doubt you like the color pink and Apple Pie too.
Not particularly.

"millions of Muslims live peacefully"!! Well, that's quite the claim!
I'd go "Hundreds of millions" of the 1.5 Billion. So??
If hundreds of Millions of Muslims do manage to live peacefully then their interpretation of the Qur'an is obviously not the same as Bin Ladens or other extremists.


And NO, "Christianity does NOT have it's share", at least not in the name of religion.?

I never mentioned Christianity? :confused:
 
When you take something as complex as violence across the world, from places as different and far away as Africa, Europe, Middle East, Indian subcontinent, to Indonesia. They have different histories, languages, culture, traditions, regional problems, their belief in Islam falls into thousands of sects and sub-sects with different traditions, each as different and diverse as everything else about them.

YET, you want us to focus on one simple commonality and blame that for everything, that being the fact that they are all Muslims. That's why its a joke, you and the OP have stuck your head in the sands and denied the importance of everything else about people and want to just focus on their religion.

And to make the joke even worse you want to apply this theory about why these regions suffer violence to individuals who are not violent, to regions where there is no violence. You honestly want me to believe that all there is to the entire world of Islam is Islam? That a Muslim in America is the same as one in Saudi Arabia, same as one in Iraq, same as one in Afghanistan, etc? The world isn't so simple, sorry to burst your bubble but thats the way the world is.
 
When you take something as complex as violence across the world, from places as different and far away as Africa, Europe, Middle East, Indian subcontinent, to Indonesia. They have different histories, languages, culture, traditions, regional problems, their belief in Islam falls into thousands of sects and sub-sects with different traditions, each as different and diverse as everything else about them.

YET, you want us to focus on one simple commonality and blame that for everything, that being the fact that they are all Muslims. That's why its a joke, you and the OP have stuck your head in the sands and denied the importance of everything else about people and want to just focus on their religion.

And to make the joke even worse you want to apply this theory about why these regions suffer violence to individuals who are not violent, to regions where there is no violence. You honestly want me to believe that all there is to the entire world of Islam is Islam? That a Muslim in America is the same as one in Saudi Arabia, same as one in Iraq, same as one in Afghanistan, etc? The world isn't so simple, sorry to burst your bubble but thats the way the world is.
Right here you hit the point when you said:

"When you take something as complex as violence across the world, from places as different and far away as Africa, Europe, Middle East, Indian subcontinent, to Indonesia. They have different histories, languages, culture, traditions, regional problems, their belief in Islam falls into thousands of sects and sub-sects with different traditions, each as different and diverse as everything else about them."

Everything about them is different, but when it come down to violence the islamic way, i.e. killing infidels for the cause of their allah, they all have this one thing in common: islam.
 
Last edited:
Right here you hit the point when you said:

Everything about themn is different,but when it come down to violence the islamic way, i.e. killing infidels for the cause of their allah, they all have this one thing in common: islam.

You have no data, you have no real argument, you're simply stating it as if its the truth. What is your logic? Is that if two people kill, and everything about them is different except their religion, it therefore must be their religion that caused both men to kill? Did it not ever occur to you that people have many many many different reasons to kill and conduct violence?

Let me ask you a question. When Saddam, a Muslim, started gassing the Kurds in Northern Iraq during the 90s was it Islam that motivated him? Did he kill in the name of religion?
 
You have no data, you have no real argument, you're simply stating it as if its the truth. What is your logic? Is that if two people kill, and everything about them is different except their religion, it therefore must be their religion that caused both men to kill? Did it not ever occur to you that people have many many many different reasons to kill and conduct violence?

Let me ask you a question. When Saddam, a Muslim, started gassing the Kurds in Northern Iraq during the 90s was it Islam that motivated him? Did he kill in the name of religion?
Saddam killed the Kurds because first the Kurds are Shiite and Saddam is Sunni, second, it's politics. This has been like this since mohammed's death when shiite fought against Sunni for political power. They didn't even spare the prophet's grandson and the caliphs. Read the history of islam and its religious texts. It's violent from the beginning to now. No other religion is so violent from its core teaching.
 
Saddam killed the Kurds because first the Kurds are Shiite and Saddam is Sunni, second, it's politics. This has been like this since mohammed's death when shiite fought against Sunni for political power. They didn't even spare the prophet's grandson and the caliphs. Read the history of islam and its religious texts. It's violent from the beginning to now. No other religion is so violent from its core teaching.

So if its motivated by differences in Islam, why didn't he blast the Shia in the south of Iraq? And if he's motivated by Shia/Sunni difference, why did he invade Kuwait in the late 90s?
 
So if its motivated by differences in Islam, why didn't he blast the Shia in the south of Iraq? And if he's motivated by Shia/Sunni difference, why did he invade Kuwait in the late 90s?
Islam didn't go with logic since mohammad's time, so why do you expect muslims would follow logic against their supposedly allah's best model for humanity?

Didn't you know that during mohammad's time he had ordered another mosque to be burnt down? Didn't you know that when some followers of his didn't want to fight, he conveniently came down with a message from allah condeming those muslims as renegade deserving death? The sad part was, those early followers of his were his beneficiaries and helpers when mohammad were purportedly persecuted by the Meccans and became a refugee in these beneficiary's homeland.

Of course, when mohammed got himself established with gains from his highway robbery activities and sacking of other towns, those beneficiaries and helpers became disposables when they didn't want to go along with his violent ways.

Like I said, learn the history of islam and you will know why and how muslims today behave the way as they are.
 
Islam didn't go with logic since mohammad's time, so why do you expect muslims would follow logic against their supposedly allah's best model for humanity?

Didn't you know that during mohammad's time he had ordered another mosque to be burnt down? Didn't you know that when some followers of his didn't want to fight, he conveniently came down with a message from allah condeming those muslims as renegade deserving death? The sad part was, those early followers of his were his beneficiaries and helpers when mohammad were purportedly persecuted by the Meccans and became a refugee in these beneficiary's homeland.

Of course, when mohammed got himself established with gains from his highway robbery activities and sacking of other towns, those beneficiaries and helpers became disposables when they didn't want to go along with his violent ways.

Like I said, learn the history of islam and you will know why and how muslims today behave the way as they are.

So you have no explanation, other than you can't explain it. Sorry but you're inability to explain your own position, and to defend it against simple questions is not a fact that works in your favor.

Pathetic.
 
So you have no explanation, other than you can't explain it. Sorry but you're inability to explain your own position, and to defend it against simple questions is not a fact that works in your favor.

Pathetic.
Again..
1. You lied/are ignorant of that fact.. I posted the "Data" you asked for/said was lacking.
There is Nothing like it for any other religion. Not close.

2. You now make the Fallacious assertion that All Muslims have to be attacking all non-Muslims (or other sects) all the time, for them to be considered Inordinately Violent. Or that they can't have any other motive beside Islam for an attack.
IOW, a Ridiculous straw man.

Any answer to my "Data" on the last page proving my and Oceandolphins assertion?
Yes or No?

347 people died last week alone of ... ISLAM.

Not just any crime BY Muslims, but Only those Killed in the Name OF Islam.


http://www.thereligionofpeace.com said:
Weekly Jihad Report
Jun . 02 - Jun. 08

Jihad Attacks: 37
Allahu Akbars*: 6
Dead Bodies: 347
Critically Injured: 535
*Suicide Attacks

- - - - - - -

Monthly Jihad Report
May, 2012

Jihad Attacks:185
Countries: 19
Religions: 5
Dead Bodies: 935
Critically Injured: 2235

And those are not petty or common crimes which they have as well, but Only crimes committed in the Name of Islam against non-Muslims or other Muslims of a different sect. And of course the above and below lists are in no way complete as in many places in ie, Sudan, Afghan. Pakistan, there are simply no reports/reporters.
Yup, you'll see the same, week in/week out.

The last 30 days in detail, at least the ones that have been witnessed, reported, and made Int'l news.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index.html#Attacks
 
Last edited:
When you take something as complex as violence across the world, from places as different and far away as Africa, Europe, Middle East, Indian subcontinent, to Indonesia. They have different histories, languages, culture, traditions, regional problems, their belief in Islam falls into thousands of sects and sub-sects with different traditions, each as different and diverse as everything else about them.

YET, you want us to focus on one simple commonality and blame that for everything, that being the fact that they are all Muslims. That's why its a joke, you and the OP have stuck your head in the sands and denied the importance of everything else about people and want to just focus on their religion.

And to make the joke even worse you want to apply this theory about why these regions suffer violence to individuals who are not violent, to regions where there is no violence. You honestly want me to believe that all there is to the entire world of Islam is Islam? That a Muslim in America is the same as one in Saudi Arabia, same as one in Iraq, same as one in Afghanistan, etc? The world isn't so simple, sorry to burst your bubble but thats the way the world is.

I do not dismiss the entire religion nor do I believe that all or even most Muslims are terrorists. Most terrorists today are, however Muslims.
 
IIf you are infidel or are dark skinned muslims from other third world countries go to Saudi Arabia and other islamic countries in the ME, then come back to tell me about xenophobia

"All mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a white has no superiority over black nor a black has any superiority over white except by piety and good action."
thats from Muhammad's last sermon

I have to give credit to him there, unlike his two major monotheistic predecessors he was very clearly anti-racist, going as far as saying the best thing anyone can do on earth was to free a slave.
Classism in Saudi is hardly Islamic.

More importantly though I think its amusing you chose Saudi Arabia as a representative of Islam seemingly oblivious to the fact that those Muslims of 'dark' color (obviously you have never seen a Saudi before) who are discriminated against in Saudi make up the majority of Muslims worldwide.

Also being a western infidel in Saudi is actually very good for you. I would even say you'd be treated better than other Saudis. just one little example,
last time I went there the staff at the airport opened a special line for a white american couple both of whom were nice teachers, (not diplomats, I had to ask -.-) and let the rest of us wait in line.
 
I do not dismiss the entire religion nor do I believe that all or even most Muslims are terrorists. Most terrorists today are, however Muslims.
can you shows sources for that?

Islamophobes have been popularizing the claim that “not all Muslims are terrorists, but (nearly) all terrorists are Muslims.” Despite this idea becoming axiomatic in some circles, it is quite simply not factual. In my previous article entitled “All Terrorists are Muslims…Except the 94% that Aren’t”, I used official FBI records to show that only 6% of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil from 1980 to 2005 were carried out by Islamic extremists. The remaining 94% were from other groups (42% from Latinos, 24% from extreme left wing groups, 7% from extremist Jews, 5% from communists, and 16% from all other groups).
But what about across the pond? The data gathered by Europol strengthens my argument even further. (hat tip: Koppe) Europol publishes an annual report entitled EU Terrorism Situation and Trend Report. On their official website, you can access the reports from 2007, 2008, and 2009. (If anyone can find the reports from earlier than that, please let me know so we can include those as well.)
The results are stark, and prove decisively that not all terrorists are Muslims. In fact, a whopping 99.6% of terrorist attacks in Europe were by non-Muslim groups; a good 84.8% of attacks were from separatist groups completely unrelated to Islam. Leftist groups accounted for over sixteen times as much terrorism as radical Islamic groups. Only a measly 0.4% of terrorist attacks from 2006 to 2008 could be attributed to extremist Muslims.

Europol Report: All Terrorists are Muslims...Except the 99.6% that Aren't | loonwatch.com
 
Again..
1. You lied/are ignorant of that fact.. I posted the "Data" you asked for/said was lacking.
There is Nothing like it for any other religion. Not close.

2. You now make the Fallacious assertion that All Muslims have to be attacking all non-Muslims (or other sects) all the time, for them to be considered Inordinately Violent. Or that they can't have any other motive beside Islam for an attack.
IOW, a Ridiculous straw man.

Any answer to my "Data" on the last page proving my and Oceandolphins assertion?
Yes or No?

347 people died last week alone of ... ISLAM.

Not just any crime BY Muslims, but Only those Killed in the Name OF Islam.

No where do you show that all these killings took place for Islam, only that they were committed by Muslims. Again, the differences between Muslims across the world, their regional and local issues, not to mention culture and tradition outside of Islam, gives them many different reasons to kill. Not every Muslim who commits an act of violence does so in the name of Islam, you have failed to demonstrate that.

Just because North Sudanese Muslim troops are having skirmishes with South Sudan troops, who are mostly pagan, doesn't automatically mean they are doing it in the name of Islam. In fact it probably has more to do with the oil fields split by their new and undefined border. Just because Saddam invaded Kuwait in the 90s doesn't mean he defied all logic because Muslims are just "coo-coo for cocoa puffs," it had to do with oil and personal pride of Saddam. Just because a Muslim is killing someone, doesn't mean its done in the name of Islam, nor does it show that Islam is the only factor behind motivating these killings.

Your source simply lists incidents of violence by Muslims, but makes no attempt to analysis their motivation it simply assumes that its Islam. That's not good enough.

Lastly, Ive made no such assertion that Muslims have to be attacking "all non-Muslims (or other sects) all the time, for them to be considered Inordinately Violent" don't be foolish.

If we took your model of viewing motivations and history of war and violence, and applied it to say World War 1, we'd be arguing that Russia went to war against Germany because the Russians were Orthodox Christians while the Germans were protestants. And if you know anything about WW1, its completely ridiculous, because we know there are other motivations for war besides religious differences, why is Islam different?
 
So you have no explanation, other than you can't explain it. Sorry but you're inability to explain your own position, and to defend it against simple questions is not a fact that works in your favor.

Pathetic.
I had provided more than enough of explanation on the topic at hand regarding the muslim riot in Burma to your evasive point about Saddam Hussein. You just refused to accept them.

You want me to provide logical explanation of why Saddam did things the way he did, but followers of islam are never logical when their prophet and his whole ideology is never founded on logic.

For instance, the change of “qibla", which is the prayer direction. When it suited mohammed to win over the Jews to accept him as God’s prophet, he had his followers to pray facing Jerusalem. When the Jews refused to recognize him as a prophet of God, mohammad got mad and changed the direction to face Mecca. If you want logic for that, there’s none.

Then you have mohammad’s breaking of the covenant of Hudaibiyah and then blamed it on the other party. Here’s the reason mohammad gave:

if ever I take an oath to do something, and later on I find that it is more beneficial to do something different, I will do the thing which is better, and give expiation for my oath.’ (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 4Number 361)”

And when unbelievers challenged mohammad to prove that what he said was truly from God, he came back with this verse in response in which allah had purportedly said:

“And if you are in doubt as to which We have revealed to Our servant, then produce a sura like it, and call on your helper, besides Allah, if you are truthful. (Qur'an 2:23)”

What kind of logic is that? And it’s purportedly the direct word of the islamic god. Go figure. Logic and islam doesn't go together. They are anti-thesis of each other.

Talk about pathetic. Puhleeze.
 


 
 
Last edited:
"All mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a white has no superiority over black nor a black has any superiority over white except by piety and good action."
thats from Muhammad's last sermon

I have to give credit to him there, unlike his two major monotheistic predecessors he was very clearly anti-racist, going as far as saying the best thing anyone can do on earth was to free a slave.
Classism in Saudi is hardly Islamic.

More importantly though I think its amusing you chose Saudi Arabia as a representative of Islam seemingly oblivious to the fact that those Muslims of 'dark' color (obviously you have never seen a Saudi before) who are discriminated against in Saudi make up the majority of Muslims worldwide.

Also being a western infidel in Saudi is actually very good for you. I would even say you'd be treated better than other Saudis. just one little example,
last time I went there the staff at the airport opened a special line for a white american couple both of whom were nice teachers, (not diplomats, I had to ask -.-) and let the rest of us wait in line.
Do you not know about the islamic concept of “taqiyya“?

Why doesn’t this version from Fordham University contain your Adam and Eve part?

Internet History Sourcebooks Project

Because yours is a forgery:

A Phony Last Sermon of Muhammad and the Fraud of Progressive Islam | FaithFreedom.org

The authentics one is put together from the authentic hadith and sourced accordingly:

The Farewell Sermon - WikiIslam

Yours, however, have no original source provided.
 
Do you not know about the islamic concept of “taqiyya“?

Why doesn’t this version from Fordham University contain your Adam and Eve part?

Internet History Sourcebooks Project

Because yours is a forgery:

A Phony Last Sermon of Muhammad and the Fraud of Progressive Islam | FaithFreedom.org

The authentics one is put together from the authentic hadith and sourced accordingly:

The Farewell Sermon - WikiIslam

Yours, however, have no original source provided.

Why don't you cut down to the chase and simply state what you think should be done about Islam.
 
Why don't you cut down to the chase and simply state what you think should be done about Islam.
Yes, cut down to chase. I wish islam would be outlawed like we outlawed nazism, communism and the destructive ideology of cults like Aum Shinrikyo, Order of the Solar Temple, Heaven’s Gate, Branch Davidians, People’s Temple, Unification Church, The Manson Family, etc.

The atrocity committed by these cult members put all together pale in comparison to the atrocities committed by the followers of islam since its inception.

I know it’s almost impossible to outlaw islam from the face of this earth. We almost come close during WWII but we missed the opportunity then. What I hope to do is to wake the world powers to put pressure on islamic countries to reform their religious practice to outlaw:

1. killing apostates of islam, whether by individuals or sanctioned by state

2. Do away with blasphemy law which carries the death penalty

3. Allow freedom of religion and provide severe penalty for violators

4 Allow freedom of speech, even criticism of islam and provide severe penalty for violators

5. Ban the practice of marrying young girls to old men in the footstep of mohammad as example and give women equality without persecution.

6. Outlaw the quranic teaching of violence against the infidels

I am very certain that if islamic countries will allow these to their people, there will be a mass exodus of apostates from islam. When people are educated and informed, rather than being molded and silenced into obedient, islam will implode and self-destruction within a few generations without us doing anything drastic.

These are reasonable request from their barbaric practice. I don't think it's too much to ask for islam to respect basic human rights.

Of course, there are still many people who would want to protect this great evil to exist as a plague on humanity.
 
 
Last edited:
"All mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a white has no superiority over black nor a black has any superiority over white except by piety and good action."
thats from Muhammad's last sermon.....
Ah, a 'reported' last sermon. There are many versions of that.
How about...

Medina, Islam's second holiest city, was originally a Jewish "settlement"

[...]The Prophet Muhammad's pronouncement: "Two religions may Not dwell together on the Arabian Peninsula."13
This edict was carried out by Abu Bakr and Omar 1, the Prophet Muhammad's successors; the entire community of Jewish settlements throughout northern Arabia was systematically Slaughtered. According to Bernard Lewis, "the Extermination of the Jewish tribe of Quraiza was followed by "an attack on the Jewish oasis of Khaibar."14

Messengers of Muhammad were sent to the Jews who had escaped to the safety and comfort of Khaibar, "inviting" Usayr, the Jewish "war chief," to visit Medina for mediations.

Usayr set off with thirty companions and a Muslim escort. Suspecting no foul play, the Jews went unarmed. On the way, the Muslims turned upon the defenseless delegation, killing all but one who managed to escape. "War is deception," 15 according to an oft-quoted saying of the Prophet.16​


The late Israeli historian and former President, Itzhak Ben-Zvi, judged the "inhuman atrocities" of the Arabian communities as unparalleled since then:

... the complete extermination of the two Arabian-Jewish tribes, the Nadhir and Kainuka' by the mass massacre of their men, women and children, was a tragedy for which no parallel can be found in Jewish history until our own day .... 17​


The slaughter of Arabian Jews and the expropriation of their property became Allah's will. According to the Koran,

... some you slew and others you took captive. He (Allah] made you masters of their [the Jews'] land, their houses and their goods, and of yet another land [Khaibar] on which you had Never set foot before. Truly, Allah has power over all things.18​
[...]
 
Last edited:
Ah, a 'reported' last sermon. There are many versions of that.
How about...

Medina, Islam's second holiest city, was originally a Jewish "settlement"
Add to that, many muslims are proud of their prophet's violent history against the Medina Jews. You can see them held up posters during their mass demonstration or mass protest that mentioned about their prophet's genocidal acts against the Medina Jews, saying, "Remember Khaibar?", etc.

These are the average muslims, not just the islamic terrorists.
 
Last edited:
No where do you show that all these killings took place for Islam, only that they were committed by Muslims. Again, the differences between Muslims across the world, their regional and local issues, not to mention culture and tradition outside of Islam, gives them many different reasons to kill. Not every Muslim who commits an act of violence does so in the name of Islam, you have failed to demonstrate that.
AGAIN:
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index.html#Attacks
and Full explanation here
TheReligionofPeace - About the List of Islamic Terror Attacks

WiseOne said:
Just because North Sudanese Muslim troops are having skirmishes with South Sudan troops, who are mostly pagan, doesn't automatically mean they are doing it in the name of Islam. In fact it probably has more to do with the oil fields split by their new and undefined border. Just because Saddam invaded Kuwait in the 90s doesn't mean he defied all logic because Muslims are just "coo-coo for cocoa puffs," it had to do with oil and personal pride of Saddam. Just because a Muslim is killing someone, doesn't mean its done in the name of Islam, nor does it show that Islam is the only factor behind motivating these killings.
I don't Have to prove the motive in Sudan or Iraq (or in EVERY Case) was particularly religious to show that Islam is particularly violent, and violent in it's cause. I have already provided plenty of documentation for the last Week, Month, Year, 10 Years, etc.
Of course before there were mostly 'Pagans' there were two Million Christians and Animists killed in the First Sudan Genocide (1983-2003) which Preceded, or at least started, before 'oil'.
The second Genocide, Darfur, was more Ethno-religous, with the Arabo-Muslim North genociding the Black-er Muslim Fur people. Islam is an Arab-centric religion and in many cases within that world, racist
The Arab League Backed it's Sister country Sudan for many years in their genocide of the non-Muslims of the south.

Wiseone said:
Your source simply lists incidents of violence by Muslims, but makes no attempt to analysis their motivation it simply assumes that its Islam. That's not good enough.
That's an Utter Lie
See above again for the links detailing violence and 'about' the list.
thereligionofpeace.com-'About the List' said:
This list of terrorist attacks committed by Muslims since 9/11/01 (a rate of about 4 or 5 a day) is Incomplete because not all such attacks are picked up by international news sources, even those resulting in multiple loss of life.

These are Not incidents of ordinary crime involving nominal Muslims killing for money or some other non-religious motive. We Only include incidents of deadly violence that can reasonably be determined to have been committed out of Religious duty - as Interpreted by the Perpetrator."......"
If had already characterized the nature Of the list, and just looking at it one can see it doesn't include ordinary/Common crime.
Your post repeating the goofy claim, is either Dishonest or incredibly blind.

WiseOne said:
Lastly, Ive made no such assertion that Muslims have to be attacking "all non-Muslims (or other sects) all the time, for them to be considered Inordinately Violent" don't be foolish...
You pointed to instances in which their motive wasn't religious as 'proof' they aren't inordinately violent in Islam's name.
Therein was the Dishonest and Fallacious attempt.
Still failed.
 
Last edited:
These are Not incidents of ordinary crime involving nominal Muslims killing for money or some other non-religious motive. We Only include incidents of deadly violence that can reasonably be determined to have been committed out of Religious duty - as Interpreted by the Perpetrator

So why point to their religion, could it not be possible that something about the culture, tradition, environment, of these people leads them to interpret Islam in that way? And if the website even says its the interpretation of the perpetrator, why are we blaming the religion and not the interpretation? Religion is something that can be interpreted in wildly different ways, perhaps its more accurate to blame these people for interpreting their religion the way they do.
For example in the Old Testament, God demands punishments like exile, stoning, etc for certain crimes. The Jews of today never do such things however, yet it is in their Holy Books. Is Judaism a violent religion, or does it have to do more with the interpretation of it?
And have we considered were Islam was used to justify an action they already wanted to take? For example your community neighbors another group with a different culture, tradition, language, etc and conflict starts over an issue to grazing lands for herders, your community becomes angry and demands a violent response and to help justify it the local Imam finds something in the Koran he interprets to justify a violent response.
Would Islam be to blame in this situation? Would the community for wanting violence in the first place? The Imam for making a justification for it?
And don't forget the expanded world of religious texts as well, for example "Just War Theory" as developed by Augustine is something held by the Catholic Church as a means to decide if violence is justified. No where does Just War Theory appear in the Bible, and its primaries referred to by the Catholic Church and not other Christian sects. Is it far to call it part of Christianity then? When its not in the Holy book and primarily used by only one sect, although a very large sect, of all Christianity? If someone used Augustine's Just War Theory to commit violence, would it be far to call all of Christianity violent?
Islam is the same way, very diverse, and full of teachers and books throughout history which are not part of their Holy Book.
It's not as simple as saying Islam as a whole makes people like this, in fact refering to anything about Islam in the whole is almost always inaccurate because it is so diverse. The term must be used so vaguely its normally meaningless.

If you want to convince me you have to show that all other things being equal, a Muslim is more violent than someone else.

And don't demand for me to prove you wrong, you have to prove yourself right.
 
Yes, cut down to chase. I wish islam would be outlawed like we outlawed nazism, communism and the destructive ideology of cults like Aum Shinrikyo, Order of the Solar Temple, Heaven’s Gate, Branch Davidians, People’s Temple, Unification Church, The Manson Family, etc.
What country are you in?Because in America we outlaw ACTIONS not BELIEFS.We don't have "Thought Police" here.
The atrocity committed by these cult members put all together pale in comparison to the atrocities committed by the followers of islam since its inception.
And all that still pales to the atrocities commited by christians since the days of St.Paul.Just saying.You wouldn't happen to be christian,would you.Because I really don't see atheists or any other members of other religions making such a big fuss.
I know it’s almost impossible to outlaw islam from the face of this earth. We almost come close during WWII but we missed the opportunity then. What I hope to do is to wake the world powers to put pressure on islamic countries to reform their religious practice to outlaw:1. killing apostates of islam, whether by individuals or sanctioned by state2. Do away with blasphemy law which carries the death penalty3. Allow freedom of religion and provide severe penalty for violators4 Allow freedom of speech, even criticism of islam and provide severe penalty for violators5. Ban the practice of marrying young girls to old men in the footstep of mohammad as example and give women equality without persecution.6. Outlaw the quranic teaching of violence against the infidelsI am very certain that if islamic countries will allow these to their people, there will be a mass exodus of apostates from islam. When people are educated and informed, rather than being molded and silenced into obedient, islam will implode and self-destruction within a few generations without us doing anything drastic.
How about we outlaw people who advocate outlawing thoughts,beliefs,and ideas also.I think thats a reasonable request also.These are reasonable request from their barbaric practice. I don't think it's too much to ask for islam to respect basic human rights..
 [/QUOTE]Isn't Uganda a christian country?
And isn't homosexuality a capitol crime there punishable by the death penalty?
What do you feel about that?

And there are plenty of people who want to force christianity on everyone to combat this evil.You sound suspiciously like one of them.
And lets say you manage to "outlaw" islam.What's next for your thought banning agenda.How about Atheism?Buddhism?Satanism?Judaism?Any belief structure that you do not believe in?Drawing attentions to the evil of others is how dictators get to commit their own evil.But thank you for the warnings about Islam.I'll be on the lookout for the "evils" of Islam at the same time I keep an eye out for the evils of people like you.Once people get a taste of power from oppressing people,it seems so hard for them to stop.[/quote]
Of course, there are still many people who would want to protect this great evil to exist as a plague on humanity
And now we get to the nitty-gritty.Anyone who disagrees with you is automatically "protecting" this great evil.Whatever you say,Shicklegrubber.

Then you should join me in stating that any form of attempting to impose theocratic beliefs and laws should be outlawed,and that would include Christian Dominionism in this country.
If outlawing beliefs is acceptable,why not include that?
 
Last edited:
Not sure if anyone mentioned this, but is anyone else suprised to hear Buddhists were on the other side of this? My education on Budhism is minimal, but from what I think I know, they are extremely peaceful and a turn the other cheek type of people. Did I get that wrong?
 
Do you not know about the islamic concept of “taqiyya“?

Why doesn’t this version from Fordham University contain your Adam and Eve part?

Internet History Sourcebooks Project

Because yours is a forgery:

A Phony Last Sermon of Muhammad and the Fraud of Progressive Islam | FaithFreedom.org

The authentics one is put together from the authentic hadith and sourced accordingly:

The Farewell Sermon - WikiIslam

Yours, however, have no original source provided.

Ah, a 'reported' last sermon. There are many versions of that.
How about...

Which of course doesn't matter, all religion is forgery. What matters is that the overwhelming majority of Sunni Muslims believe in the versions that have the anti racist remarks in them. Whether Muhammad actually said them or whether he or Jesus even existed is beside the point, so long as most of their followers believe they did and believe these are their words then its all that matters.
What actually happened is beside the point


And of course, again, its silly to hold 20 million Saudis as representative of Islam and how Islam treats "Muslims of darker skin" when the bulk of those 1.3 billion Muslims are not even Arab.
 
Back
Top Bottom