London Terror Attack(s)

[UltraDolphinRevolution]

That is your opinion, and exactly because you have the right to state it, you don't have the right to silence someone else's. You are not special, you're just another average temper, and whatever the self entitlement that makes you think you have more of a right than somebody else to state your opinion is no more than a self aggrandizing delusion.

I don't try to silence anyone. I just showed the irony of participating in a debate by declaring it not useful. Of course he can participate.

 

[StarTrekVoyager]

Say the last sentence publically in Morocco and Algeria. Let us know how it went.

My parents are born in Morocco. Despite the islam still being somehow part of the law, it is a country with freedom of religion. Islam there is much more a tradition/ a culture than a matter of belief.

 

[UltraDolphinRevolution]

My parents are born in Morocco. Despite the islam still being somehow part of the law, it is a country with freedom of religion. Islam there is much more a tradition/ a culture than a matter of belief.

Ok, but honestly, in which situation would you experience more physical harm:
a) Publicly saying that the Bible is for retards in a crowd of Christians in the Vatican
or b) publicly saying that the Quran is for retards in a crowd of Muslims in Morocco or Algeria.
[note that I didn't say Mekka or Medina, which would be the equivalent of the Vatican]

 

[StarTrekVoyager]

Ok, but honestly, in which situation would you experience more physical harm:
a) Publicly saying that the Bible is for retards in a crowd of Christians in the Vatican
or b) publicly saying that the Quran is for retards in a crowd of Muslims in Morocco or Algeria.
[note that I didn't say Mekka or Medina, which would be the equivalent of the Vatican]

I didn't say these books were for retards. I said that wanting to obey these books to the letter in 2017 was retarded.

And honestly, I don't even know what'd be the worst. Perhaps saying that the Bible is for retards in some place in Alabama would be worse than those two.

 

[sarkwalvein]

Ok, but honestly, in which situation would you experience more physical harm:
a) Publicly saying that the Bible is for retards in a crowd of Christians in the Vatican
or b) publicly saying that the Quran is for retards in a crowd of Muslims in Morocco or Algeria.
[note that I didn't say Mekka or Medina, which would be the equivalent of the Vatican]

The latter probably, that said the Vatican is not the most extermist place.
Go say "the bible is for retards" in a crowd of Christians near to a church in some very extermist religious state of USA and you will get very hurt.
(the same applies to some other countries)

(I think I got ninja'd )

 

[G0R3Z]

In the end, it's still people arguing over who has the best imaginary friend.

Religion isn't relevant, nor is it useful in teaching morals. Morals themselves are an illusion, and different societies have their own view on what is 'moral', even if they're not overly religious.

What needs to be realised is just because religion is a force in the world, it doesn't need respect. I'll put this way - If I was in the street giving out leaflets/pamphlets to people talking about the Sun God Ra, what would people think? People would think I was insane, police would likely be called and I'd be told to cease. But if someone does it about the Christian or Islamic God, it's somehow okay. Why do they get a free pass? All religions and ideas are equally open to ridicule.

 

[UltraDolphinRevolution]

Mh I didn't think of the USA. You two might be right. I almost want to test it (in case I visit the USA one day). XD

 

[StarTrekVoyager]

Mh I didn't think of the USA. You two might be right. I almost want to test it (in case I visit the USA one day). XD

Shoutouts to the guys of Top Gear who decided to enter Alabama with cars with "Gay Pride", "Hillary for President", etc. written on them. They stopped at a gas station and were chased XD

 

[G0R3Z]

Shoutouts to the guys of Top Gear who decided to enter Alabama with cars with "Gay Pride", "Hillary for President", etc. written on them. They stopped at a gas station and were chased XD

I remember that Special. They put stuff like "Nascar Sucks" and "Country and Western is rubbish". They're not wrong but you know... 'Mericans.

 

[sarkwalvein]

In the end, it's still people arguing over who has the best imaginary friend.

Made me think of this, couldn't help it.

What needs to be realised is just because religion is a force in the world, it doesn't need respect. I'll put this way - If I was in the street giving out leaflets/pamphlets to people talking about the Sun God Ra, what would people think? People would think I was insane, police would likely be called and I'd be told to cease. But if someone does it about the Christian or Islamic God, it's somehow okay. Why do they get a free pass? All religions and ideas are equally open to ridicule.

It is not religion exactly what requires respect, but the people that practice and share it, because they are people.
Everything is "open to ridicule" if you wish, from economics, to the current social order, to the concept of nationality and belonging, but you should show respect in a society, exchange respect for respect, be civilized at least in a "let's agree to disagree" kind of way.

 

[UltraDolphinRevolution]

Shoutouts to the guys of Top Gear who decided to enter Alabama with cars with "Gay Pride", "Hillary for President", etc. written on them. They stopped at a gas station and were chased XD

Thanks for the suggestion. It's actually on youtube:

 

[G0R3Z]

It is not religion exactly what requires respect, but the people that practice and share it, because they are people.
Everything is "open to ridicule" if you wish, from economics, to the current social order, to the concept of nationality and belonging, but you should show respect in a society, exchange respect for respect, be civilized at least in a "let's agree to disagree" kind of way.

You're right, absolutely. I have respect for people, but I don't have to respect their outdated, idiotic and potentially dangerous ideologies. My philosophy is basically "Don't be a dick". People can believe what they like, but just be a friendly, contributing member of society who pays their taxes and just gets on with it.

But time has come to question all of Religion and everything it stands for. Religion is not a force for good in the world, from the priests and ministers who fiddle with little boys, protected by the pope himself to the islamic extremists and their apologists. I've read the Qu'ran, it's not a nice book; it's very similar to the bible and has much more bloodshed and war. Mohammad is not a prophet worth respecting or following, he was a vicious, calculating tyrant according to the book.

Even if modern muslims don't agree with what ISIS stands for, why aren't they doing more? If I was a part of a religion just like any society, who would put up with someone besmirching that? They're here killing people in the name of Allah, and the best normal muslims are doing is apologizing for them, saying they don't stand for the same cause? Where's the retaliation, where's the protests? Where's the demonstration of unity to show that no, they don't and won't stand for it? I'd be doing everything I can to demonstrate that I oppose them.

 

[deinonychus71]

Even if modern muslims don't agree with what ISIS stands for, why aren't they doing more? If I was a part of a religion just like any society, who would put up with someone besmirching that? They're here killing people in the name of Allah, and the best normal muslims are doing is apologizing for them, saying they don't stand for the same cause? Where's the retaliation, where's the protests? Where's the demonstration of unity to show that no, they don't and won't stand for it? I'd be doing everything I can to demonstrate that I oppose them.

As a man, do you feel that you have to demonstrate whenever another man rapes a woman?
This is an idiotic example yes, but they don't actually have to apologize in the first place. They haven't done anything and are hated anyway.

I dont know how I would feel about constantly having to apologize to people who are going to hate me nonetheless, even though all i did is having a belief that is used by psychopaths to do wrong.

This logic is used in America with guns btw. As a gun owner and proud supporter of guns you dont feel like you have to apologize when a shooting happens.

 

[G0R3Z]

As a man, do you feel that you have to demonstrate whenever another man rapes a woman?
This is an idiotic example yes, but they don't actually have to apologize in the first place. They haven't done anything and are hated anyway.

I dont know how I would feel about constantly having to apologize to people who are going to hate me nonetheless, even though all i did is having a belief that is used by psychopaths to do wrong.

I'm not saying apologise, that's what they do already. I'm saying that in defense of their religion, they should oppose ISIS. Do something other than "This is not what Islam stands for".

I know i'm disgusted when I hear about Rape, that's how they should react. They should be disgusted that their religion, no matter how ridiculous it may be, is being besmirched by people who would kill for some vague goal.

 

[insidexdeath]

I'm not saying apologise, that's what they do already. I'm saying that in defense of their religion, they should oppose ISIS. Do something other than "This is not what Islam stands for".

I know i'm disgusted when I hear about Rape, that's how they should react. They should be disgusted that their religion, no matter how ridiculous it may be, is being besmirched by people who would kill for some vague goal.

Lol Iraqi/Libyan/Syrian forces fighting off ISIS in their countries to ensure that it doesn't spread out like cancer isn't enough of you? Do you know how many people died in the process of freeing territories? Honestly this whole you're 'not doing enough' is getting old, and quite idiotic.

 

[barak06]

*sighs*. Another jewel of argumentation.
- Hitler being a meme on the Internet doesn't automatically invalidate an argument. In the present context, you did well at making my point.
- Someone must be worth it for you to be insulted. Interesting.
- I lived for about 25 years in France, I am sorry for presenting a slightly alternative version of your reality of good and evil.
- No you can't kill them all. Thanks to the majority of the French still having some common sense.
- I'm 27, but I do believe even a teenager can understand why hateful speeches are counter productive.

Seriously, you guys still haven't figured why Marine LePen did so awful during the second debate? Not every discussion belongs on 4chan.

no need to reply. You take everything on first degree. You feel you're right every time you speak. And yes you're not worth it and yes when you use Hitler for this or that everytime you're not agree, disqualify you and what you say.
Donc Jesus, si je peux vous appeler ainsi, qui ne voit rien de la réalité
- c'est vous qui classez les gens comme bons ou mauvais (moi je suis mauvais pour vous) Moi j'ai dit que 1 musulman sur 1000 était djihadiste, c'est pas beaucoup mais ça fait 8000 en France et 50% des autres les soutiennent et essaient d'attaquer nos faibles démocraties (avec votre aide)
- seulement la fréquentation de musulmans bien intégrés représentant 1% de leur population
- qui ne voit pas qu'ils se réclament musulmans avant tout,
- qu'ils nous submergent avec l'aide d'idiots utiles comme toi, plein de bonnes intentions mais qui en réalité ne font que paver l'enfer (comme le dit le proverbe) en minimisant, en relativisant, en traitant d.islamophobe quiconque denonce la realite de ce qui se passe

Ok je suis un méchant blanc et les musulmans sont de gentils marrons.
Vous avez gagné, je me soumets

 

[TheDarkGreninja]

It says they are the worst creatures. Let's leave it at that. I hope you can see how this mindset could POTENTIALLY make Muslims think very little of their fellow man.

Let's look at this in detail, shall we?
It's unavoidable that those of the book and polytheists will go to hell (of the islamic viewpoint) and why should they be praised for that? The Quran isn't saying you shouldn't respect them or tolerate them, it is saying they will be the one's in hell and for that they will be the worst. And how at all is this calling muslims to kill jews and christians?

You defend an oppressive system that even calls on family members to hand over each other to Sharia law, i.e. being killed if one denounces his faith.
Both Muhammad and Muslims demand tolerance when they are weak (e.g. small minority) but show no tolerance once they are strong. Did Muhammad preach publicly in Mekka or not? He did. By your own standards, he should have been killed in the very beginning by the non-monotheists of his time!
The Quran mentions Abraham' father and how he threatened him with death if he didn't stop preaching monotheism. By your [the Muslim] standard, Abraham's father should have killed Abraham for preaching publicly.
Pls explain why you don't have a problem with this double standard.

That's so much bullshit in an entire paragraph that I'm surprised you hadn't noticed any of it. No offence to you personally, of course.

1. Family Members can keep it secret.
2. Prove that claim. That sharia law has no tolerance.
3. I didn't say you can't preach against a religion, what I meant to say was that you cannot be deceitful in your preaching. As in if you are caught lying, then the death penalty is in order.
4. So debunk these three points, please.

Here's why you cant:
1. Sharia is public law and unlike other law systems does not deal AT ALL with the private lives of the caliphate, that's why there was so much freedom in the caliphate.
2. Sharia is tolerant of many views as proven by history. The history you went on to ignore, as well as my hadith post.
3. Same as above.

This brings me to something I'll be accusing you of, and if at all you feel I'm misrepresenting you. please point that out.
So as I was saying, I've seen you twice now deliberately ignore my posts. Are you trying to avoid being wrong or is there something else?

And that's shocking! Quran allows (actually orders) men to hit disobedient women.

Yeah, I'm going to need evidence, but I think I know what you'll provide.

people shouldn't kill others for insulting a prophet or VIP or ideology. How can you defend this?

Already addressed.

If I kill your enemy and you publicly say I should not be prosecuted, then it is approval.

Annnnnd you completely ignored the hadith. The punishment is an eternity in hell, so what's the point of killing him when his fate has already been written. If anything it's a greater punishment to let him live and wait for his death.

Does a small Roman outpost at the north of Arabia (which they didn't even try to retake) justify an all-out war with an empire?
9:29 and 9:30 say that Christians and Jews need to be humiliated, paying the Jizya tax. That sounds like a takeover of cities (civilians), not some forgotten outpost.

No they dont.
here's what 9:30 says:
Quran 9:30 “And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!”

Yeah, so only certain Jews and all Christians.

Also I'll need evidence of this "outpost".

It is not religion exactly what requires respect, but the people that practice and share it, because they are people.
Everything is "open to ridicule" if you wish, from economics, to the current social order, to the concept of nationality and belonging, but you should show respect in a society, exchange respect for respect, be civilized at least in a "let's agree to disagree" kind of way.

I absolutely agree.

I've read the Qu'ran, it's not a nice book; it's very similar to the bible and has much more bloodshed and war.
Mohammad is not a prophet worth respecting or following, he was a vicious, calculating tyrant according to the book.

Even if modern muslims don't agree with what ISIS stands for, why aren't they doing more? If I was a part of a religion just like any society, who would put up with someone besmirching that? They're here killing people in the name of Allah, and the best normal muslims are doing is apologizing for them, saying they don't stand for the same cause? Where's the retaliation, where's the protests? Where's the demonstration of unity to show that no, they don't and won't stand for it? I'd be doing everything I can to demonstrate that I oppose them.

you obviously havent been keeping up with the news. Notice the fact syrian rebels fighting ISIS, if they were really on the same side, would they?
Here are some articles:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...am-media-outlets-say-organisers-a6765976.html
https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/muslims-trump-isis-kurds-al-badr-iraq-islamic-state-election-2016
http://www.newsweek.com/muslim-countries-forming-military-alliance-fight-terrorism-586315
the rest of your claims are without basis, so I'll leave it at that.

 

[UltraDolphinRevolution]

Prove that claim. That sharia law has no tolerance.

Sharia tolerates people who submit. If you denounce your Mulim faith publicly or if you try to convince others of your non-Islamic religion or if you publicly attack Islam/Muhammad as a non-Muslim, you can be killed.
I really just want to understand this: How can you defend this kind of system? By the same standard Muhammad should have been killed by the polytheists for proselytizing among them and attacking their religion.
Hope you get my point.

I didn't say you can't preach against a religion, what I meant to say was that you cannot be deceitful in your preaching. As in if you are caught lying, then the death penalty is in order.

That's not correct. Preaching was forbidden:
"Although dhimmis were allowed to perform their religious rituals, they were obliged to do so in a manner not conspicuous to Muslims. Display of non-Muslim religious symbols, such as crosses or icons, was prohibited on buildings and on clothing (unless mandated as part of distinctive clothing). Loud prayers were forbidden, as were the ringing of church bells and the blowing of the shofar.[99][citation needed] They were also not allowed to build or repair churches without Muslim consent.[70] Moreover, dhimmis were not allowed to seek converts among Muslims" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmi

This brings me to something I'll be accusing you of, and if at all you feel I'm misrepresenting you. please point that out.
So as I was saying, I've seen you twice now deliberately ignore my posts. Are you trying to avoid being wrong or is there something else?

I said from the beginning that there were times and places in which Muslim rulers were very tolerant. Some would argue that they were unislamic (e.g. drinking alcohol) because of it. I remember reading about Damascus and Bagdhad (I believe around the 10th century).
However, the first Caliphate, Rashidun Caliphate - named after the rightly guided Caliphs after Muhammad, was not like that. Dhimmis were not aloud to preach to Muslims.

Would you agree with the following justification (as you have not given me one yet) for why you defend this practice? I once heard Zakir Naik make the same argument:

"For instance, it is not permissible for Christians to go around preaching their faith in an Islamic country even though they believe that it is compulsory for them to do so. The reason is because this directly clashes with Islam that forbids such a thing. One may ask "Why don't you just let the Non-Muslims preach their faith and let the people freely accept or reject? It is their personal choice". Well then using the same logic we could then argue "Why don't you just let the drug dealers sell their drugs and let the people freely accept or reject? It is their personal choice".
http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/the_status_of_non_muslims_in_the_islamic_state

Yeah, I'm going to need evidence, but I think I know what you'll provide.

Then let's not open another topic.
Which Hadith did I fail to acknowledge btw? I didn't do it on purpose.

No they dont.
here's what 9:30 says:
Quran 9:30 “And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!”

Yeah, so only certain Jews and all Christians.

There was disagreement among some Christian groups (e.g. Arians) whether Jesus was divine and human, only divine or only human. But all Christians called and still call Jesus the Son of God.

9:29 tells Muslims to fight Christians
9:30 tells Muslims why (because Christians say Jesus is the Son of God)

Also I'll need evidence of this "outpost".

Can't find it. I doubt it was a Muslim city taken by Byzantine Christians. Can you provide me evidence of Christian offensive wars towards Muslim that would justify an all-out war against the Byzantine empire?
Here is the (according to Islamic history) letter of Muhammad to the Byzantine emperor:

"In the name of God, the Most Merciful, the Bestower of Mercy

From Muhammad, son of Abdullah to Heraclius the Leader of the Romans:

Peace be upon he who follows the guidance.

Furthermore, I invite you with the invitation of Islam. If you accept Islam- you will find peace, God will give your reward in double. If you turn away, you will bear the sin of the Arians."

-> Doesn't that sound nice? Sounds more direct than a mafia letter.

 

[TotalInsanity4]

Mh I didn't think of the USA. You two might be right. I almost want to test it (in case I visit the USA one day). XD

Most of us that see good in Islam are from America, where we see firsthand the bad in Christianity lol

Which is not saying I see Christianity as a bad religion, I think both just have equal potential for good or for harm

 

[TheDarkGreninja]

you can be killed.

Still no evidence for that.

Preaching was forbidden

Dhimmis were not aloud to preach to Muslims

Could you link the exact Wikipedia article?
Also, it was preaching to muslims that was forbidden. I never stated it wasn't as what I meant when I said that was that criticising Islam was not forbidden. Preaching was just a poor choice of words.
Also, I never stated it was legal for non-Muslims to try and convert Muslims.

"Can't find it."

That's good enough for me.

As for the letter. I already provided evidence in the form of a Hadith that it was the Byzantines who waged war.

More evidence:
"According to Muslim biographies, Muhammed, having received intelligence that Byzantine forces were concentrating in northern Arabia with alleged intentions of invading Arabia, led a Muslim army north to Tabouk in present-day northwestern Saudi Arabia, with the intention of pre-emptively engaging the Byzantine army; the news, however, proved to be false. Though it was not a battle in the typical sense, nevertheless the event represented the first Arab attack on the Byzantines. It did not, however, lead immediately to a military confrontation.[8]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab–Byzantine_wars#Muslim_conquests.2C_634.E2.80.93718

He received intelligence that was false.