Mosques in UK refuse to bury Manchester bomber

a reply to: TinfoilTP

Only in your topsy turvy make believe fake world which coincides with all the other radical progressive anti American terror sympathizers.

1. I'm anti-imperialist.

2. My past post show that I'm no terrorist sympathizer, nor am I a supporter of Waahabi ideologies which you confuse as religious ideologies due to ignorance.

3. American foriegn policy and practices have shown that the US government and military industrial complex are very sympathetic towards terrorism and in fact support it.

originally posted by: worldstarcountry
a reply to: MisterSpock
If it has anything to do with Islam, it will always be hollow or not good enough for you, is that it?

You say that like I have some sort of posting history that allows you to have any idea about my feelings regarding the subject.

I'm assuming you have me confused with one of the regulars that piss and moan some side of some subject back and forth in all the political threads on here.

Next time, catch the knee jerk, you just sound foolish otherwise.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: SaturnFX

Those quotes are referring to war time and defense when being attacked. It does NOT refer to killing innocent people who haven't done anything to you.

Nope

The verse prior to this (190) refers to "fighting for the cause of Allah those who fight you" leading some to claim that the entire passage refers to a defensive war in which Muslims are defending their homes and families. The historical context of this passage is not defensive warfare, however, since Muhammad and his Muslims had just relocated to Medina and were not under attack by their Meccan adversaries. In fact, the verses urge offensive warfare, in that Muslims are to drive Meccans out of their own city (which they later did). Verse 190 thus means to fight those who offer resistance to Allah's rule (ie. Muslim conquest).

aka, this is what you do when you ATTACK someone. This is orders of conquest. History is important here. They weren't defending, they were converting by the sword

Religion is trash.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: SaturnFX

That's cherry picking. Context matters.

Indeed context matters

(might as well post this again)

The verse prior to this (190) refers to "fighting for the cause of Allah those who fight you" leading some to claim that the entire passage refers to a defensive war in which Muslims are defending their homes and families. The historical context of this passage is not defensive warfare, however, since Muhammad and his Muslims had just relocated to Medina and were not under attack by their Meccan adversaries. In fact, the verses urge offensive warfare, in that Muslims are to drive Meccans out of their own city (which they later did). Verse 190 thus means to fight those who offer resistance to Allah's rule (ie. Muslim conquest).

Context: how to take over a nation according to Muhammed

a reply to: SaturnFX

Is there a chapter on how to use Christ to genocide two whole continents and take over their lands??? It has to be in there somewhere, because they also refer to Christ. So clearly he is part of the goal if two whole continents were conquered with his name and the natives all but destroyed by the English, Portuguese and Spanish. And maybe the French to an extent.

On the flip side, Islam made it into South Asia mostly through peaceful cultural exchange by merchants and such. Thoughts??

a reply to: crazyewok

Pigs eat just about anything..just sayin

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Maybe the evil folks who run the numerous no go zones can deal with it.

originally posted by: worldstarcountry
a reply to: SaturnFX

Is there a chapter on how to use Christ to genocide two whole continents and take over their lands??? It has to be in there somewhere, because they also refer to Christ. So clearly he is part of the goal if two whole continents were conquered with his name and the natives all but destroyed by the English, Portuguese and Spanish. And maybe the French to an extent.

On the flip side, Islam made it into South Asia mostly through peaceful cultural exchange by merchants and such. Thoughts??

Thoughts:
Religion is trash. Catholic church has been castrated now and is harmless due to renessance, however, if you must look at history through the scope of who is more righter'er

The crusades were a response after 500+ years of muslims riding into the west, attacking towns, stealing resources and enslaving masses. after 500 years the west acted because it was becoming routine, The catholic church at the time was the only power that could unite quarreling nations and give the bonuses of redemption to enough to make a army to bloody the noses of those of the east who have for centuries been destroying the west.

My thoughts?
sucks it was done via religion I suppose, but it worked...pushed these savage raiders back a few times

We should really take time to learn history...knowledge is power.

a reply to: SaturnFX

This is true:

The verse prior to this (190) refers to "fighting for the cause of Allah those who fight you" leading some to claim that the entire passage refers to a defensive war in which Muslims are defending their homes and families.

This is batsh*t bullsh*t:

The historical context of this passage is not defensive warfare, however, since Muhammad and his Muslims had just relocated to Medina and were not under attack by their Meccan adversaries. In fact, the verses urge offensive warfare, in that Muslims are to drive Meccans out of their own city (which they later did). Verse 190 thus means to fight those who offer resistance to Allah's rule (ie. Muslim conquest).

Care to provide historical evidence to the second quote Mr F****** saturn?

originally posted by: mekhanics
Care to provide historical evidence to the second quote Mr F****** saturn?

Sure Mr F***** mekhanics

The use of the word "persecution" by some Muslim translators is disingenuous - the actual Arabic words for persecution (idtihad) - and oppression are not used instead of fitna. Fitna can mean disbelief, or the disorder that results from unbelief or temptation. A strict translation is 'sedition,' meaning rebellion against authority (the authority being Allah). This is certainly what is meant in this context since the violence is explicitly commissioned "until religion is for Allah" - ie. unbelievers desist in their unbelief.

So it isn't persecution in matters of person to person but of peoples choice of religion vs the one true Allah.

historical? what, you don't believe of the migration from Mecca to Medina and back again?

Sorry. Your religion is crap.
Not even gonna go into detail about the 6 year old bride...

(Stealth add: not sorry)

a reply to: SaturnFX

ok, except for those same 500 years those Westerners were doing the same thing to each other, sometimes religion was a factor, sometimes not. Every empire in Earths history was and still is guilty of the same atrocities and attacks that people are trying to apply exclusively to Islam.

it is simply the story of humanity. Basically," if I want it and you don't give it to me, I will take it!" Those Arabs were not conquering and because they wanted to spread Islam, they were doing it for the acquisition of wealth just like everybody else. Religious BS was simply the catalyst to rationalize it for the ignorant masses that make up a rulers army. Kind of the same way Western rulers today plays on "humanitarian crises" to liberate/destroy a society, even though they are simply after market domination and resources.

Traditional Jews, as in those that do not accept Christ as their savior, follow the Old Testament/Talmud/Torah. Those books are filled with the same barbarity one would allegedly find to ostracize in the Quran.

Those who understand how propaganda works and are honest with themselves about the world and humanity actually function already know that Islam, Judaism, and Christianity are pretty much one and the same. The principals and guiding tenants are universally followed and hypocritically broken by billions across the ages.

The problem is not Islam, or religion, or even economic models. The problem is just human nature and free will.

If you take the most mundane, introverted, gentle people an stick them all together in a group setting for a social experiment, they will quickly break down into a similar pecking order of an alpha with a right hand man/woman with unwavering loyalty who will whip the others in line with insults and coercion. It won't matter what religion they follow, or if they prefer capitalism to socialism. Humans will always on their own try to climb over each other to be the one calling the shots. And somebody will end up being the shot caller, and the rest will fall in line.

But back to the topic, I don't see why the ones who are always saying "where are the moderates to denounce the extremists" are not in here giving kudos for doing exactly what they always demand of people from a different faith.

Hoist him up like a Pinata!

a reply to: TinfoilTP

Jihad - Often described as Holy war however the actual meaning is simply to struggle and can be used for a lot of different areas.

Suicide - Quran forbids suicide / suicide bombers - verses 21: 107, 34: 28, 17: 105, and 25: 56

Murder - Murder of a person, which all are created by God, is forbidden - Qur’an 6:151. The ten commandments are actually distorted on this topic as its often said "Thou shall not kill". The correct translation is "Thou shall not murder". All religions / their texts make killing in some circumstances acceptable.

Conversion to Islam - The Quran forbids forced conversion of non Muslims to Muslim - The Cow, 2:256. Conversion must be voluntary. Anything less is forbidden.

Warfare - The Quran forbids aggressive warfare. If the enemy desires peace then so shall Muslims. If the enemy attacks Muslims then Muslims may respond but Islam can never be the aggressor - The Cow,” 2:190, 8:61

Killing non combatants / civilians - Forbidden.

The killing of innocent non-combatants is forbidden. According to Sunni tradition, ‘Abu Bakr al-Siddiq, the first Caliph, gave these instructions to his armies: “I instruct you in ten matters: Do not kill women, children, the old, or the infirm; do not cut down fruit-bearing trees; do not destroy any town . . . ” (Malik’s Muwatta’, “Kitab al-Jihad.”)

Terrorism (hirabah) - Forbidden by Islamic law / Quran - Surah al-Ma’ida 5:33–34 -

brigandage, highway robbery and extortion rackets– any illicit use of fear and coercion in public spaces for money or power.

Justice -

The Qur’an demands of believers that they exercise justice toward people even where they have reason to be angry with them: “And do not let the hatred of a people prevent you from being just. Be just; that is nearer to righteousness.”[5:8]

Christians / Jews -

The Qur’an assures Christians and Jews of paradise if they believe and do good works, and commends Christians as the best friends of Muslims.

Quran 5:69 says (Arberry): “Surely they that believe, and those of Jewry, and the Christians, and those Sabeaans, whoso believes in God and the Last Day, and works righteousness–their wage waits them with their Lord, and no fear shall be on them, neither shall they sorrow.”

Just touching on a few points.

The issue revolves around religious leaders issuing their own interpretations of Islam to suit their agenda.

There is just as much stupidity in the Jewish and Christian religions as there are in the Muslim religion.

As an example Westborrow Baptist lunatics.


ISIS / KKK used the respective religions to hide behind in order to -
A - justify their actions
B - Give the appearance that God supports their undertaking.

Do you think ISIS / KKK would be more successful if they stated they want to kill people simply because a leader in that group wants power with no opposition or diverging thoughts other than the one being pushed...

or

Do you think they would be more successful in co-opting a religion and twisting parts of it to justify their actions while ignoring the sections they cant?

He who keeps the keys to Heaven rules the world.
- Sir Leigh Teabing

a reply to: SaturnFX

Where are you quoting from?

ETA: Never mind. It's from exactly the site I thought. No wonder you tried to stealth it, which is beneath you. The site you quoted from takes words out of the Quran passage among other things. That site is also pure anti Islam propaganda. I'm really surprised by your usage and apparent consumption of it.

This article refers specifically to this.
Patheos

a reply to: Xcathdra

Excellent post. I am not a religious person myself. I have always felt that religion was man's way of trying to explain things he didn't understand, and providing some sense of comfort when bad stuff happens. I have no real problem with religion. I don't think religion is trash. I think some people are trash, and those people will find whatever venue they can to do bad things to other people, whether it's religion or government or something else.

Most people just want to live their lives in peace. They aren't interested in overpowering others or becoming feared and worshiped by others. They just want to go to their jobs and spend time with their families and friends, without having to worry about being enslaved or tortured or killed. They could be religious or not. They could be Christians or Jews or Muslims or Hindus or atheists.

But there are people who have evil intentions. They'll use whatever way they can find to do their evil things to others. Ban religion, and they will use government. Ban government, and they will find another way to overpower others.

Religion is not the problem.Government is not the problem. Evil people are the problem.

a reply to: Xcathdra

I would Star this all day if I could

originally posted by: Kali74
This article refers specifically to this.
Patheos

"hosting the conversion on faith"
aka: I find your secular propaganda flawed, here, read the islamic propaganda that explains why. lol

Seems we are both pushing propaganda

But even in this patheos propaganda, the main arguments against what is posted over there is "well, that might not be the only way to interpret" but even with that, the entire article is stating pretty much the same thing. fight until the worship is for Allah (not just strife ended)
"Fight them until there is no fitnah and [until] worship is [acknowledged to be] for Allah."
See the second part?

This is hardly countering anything...its actually reinforcing it.

sidenote:
Why are you so stubbornly sticking up for a religion? are you islamic? Would you be flipping out equally if I was headbutting against (as I often do) Christians hammering parts of the bible that discusses that blood god?

originally posted by: Xcathdra
There is just as much stupidity in the Jewish and Christian religions as there are in the Muslim religion.

Yep

Difference is, in the west, we have gone through a Renaissance...so western Christianity is weakened.
btw, christianity and judism is a different religion. tbh, I don't even understand how the two can be claimed to be even remotely related. You have the OT which any readthrough is as radical as any other death cult, and then Jesus who is leading a completely different mindset and philosophy that counters almost everything in the OT.
I have no issue with christianity for the people who practice christianity because you are hard pressed to find something in the NT that speaks of crazy coming from Jesus. first hippy really.
Now
Paul came along later and tried to crazy it up a bit, but even then, lightweight by comparison.

The most dangerous thing Muhammed said (outside of the many battle plans and vengence orders) is not that he was a prophet...but that he was the LAST prophet..so the religion cannot grow, cannot expand out into new philosophies and refining without losing its original intent.

A-hole jewish take the OT as literal. A-hole christians ignore the NT and take the OT as literal. A-hole muslims take the koran as literal.

We would have been better if this pantheon of Yahweh never came to be.

originally posted by: [post=22299933]Kali74[/post
No wonder you tried to stealth it, which is beneath you.

"Stealth it"? I gave the link (in the first post) as it has a nice catalogue premade on all topics with a discussion of context.

progressives need to stop equating religion with race. That is the real issue with criticism of islam I think. the narrative pushed that somehow islam is a skintone.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

The Muslims of Manchester reported him 5 times

SOME Muslims in Manchester reported him 5 times, not all of them.
Absolving all of them of any blame is simply the polar opposite of blaming all Muslims.....and both are equally incorrect.

Yes, some Muslims have been particularly vocal in condemning this man and his actions, and they deserve the utmost credit and respect, but many haven't.

If you want to blame anyone other than the bomber for this blame the police for not listening to the concerns of those reporting him.

I think it's a bit harsh to 'blame' the police - they weren't complicit in the planning of this attack.

Maybe we should question the lack of police resources due to completely unnecessary austerity cuts made by Teresa May?

Where do we stop?

The responsibility lies firmly with those involved in spreading these vile interpretations of Islam, the people involved in the planning and carrying out of these terrorist attacks and those who are complicit due to their silence.

If you really thing about it Muslims done more to try and stop this attack than anyone else

Yes, and they deserve to be commended and held up as examples of how Muslims should act when radicalism is active within their communities.
Unfortunately I very much doubt that will happen.