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.
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.
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.Originally Posted by http://www.thereligionofpeace.com
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.
Last edited by mbig; 06-11-12 at 10:51 PM.
I'm personally sick of not being able to dunk a basketball because of racism.
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.
Europol Report: All Terrorists are Muslims...Except the 99.6% that Aren't | loonwatch.comIslamophobes 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.
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?
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 by dolphinocean; 06-12-12 at 12:57 PM.
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.