Islam promotes Terrorism.

reply to post by Freeborn


Insofar as the rape example goes, it (and many other "innovations" in Islam) stems from the warped Salafi movement in Saudi Arabia. They spend an inordinate amount of money and resources spreading their version of Islam all over the world.

Problem is, lots of cultural stuff gets thrown into the mix as well, not to mention lots of rhetoric and propaganda benefiting them. Saudi culture is an interesting one... I know one person who said (and it is only his word, so I don't know how far it is true) that they're so "protective" of their women, that even at home, he rarely ever saw his mother's face (it was always hidden). Now, even if you take the most extreme interpretations of hijab and burqa in the Quran and Hadith, this would still be wrong.

And when the government that is propagating this stuff has been propped up and protected by foreign interests, it is obviously going to spread even more.

reply to post by babloyi

They spend an inordinate amount of money and resources spreading their version of Islam all over the world.

If you'd care to read any of my source, or read any "interpretation" of the QuRan you'll find that that is the core of their agendas, to convert all, their utopia consists of the world submitting to Allah, and most will stop at nothing to fulfil this; ESPECIALLY the extremists who commit acts of genocide. Many "moderates" state they are "moderate" but i don't see enough of them condemning extremists.

The "Islam is just another religion" argument just doesn't hold water - And it's been stated before.

Tally up the Islamic extremism (TODAY) compared with Bhuddist, Jewish, Christian - I think you'll find that i'm not being dishonest when i say Islam is the most aggressive religion in our current time.

I admire your persistance in this thread.

reply to post by babloyi

They spend an inordinate amount of money and resources spreading their version of Islam all over the world.

If you'd care to read any of my source, or read any "interpretation" of the QuRan you'll find that that is the core of their agendas, to convert all, their utopia consists of the world submitting to Allah, and most will stop at nothing to fulfil this; ESPECIALLY the extremists who commit acts of genocide. Many "moderates" state they are "moderate" but i don't see enough of them condemning extremists.

The "Islam is just another religion" argument just doesn't hold water - And it's been stated before.

Tally up the Islamic extremism (TODAY) compared with Bhuddist, Jewish, Christian - I think you'll find that i'm not being dishonest when i say Islam is the most aggressive religion in our current time.

I admire your persistance in this thread.

reply to post by babloyi


Muslims are not native to Kashmir. The best solution would be for all the Muslims to leave Kashmir and go back to Arabia where they belong.

Islam is the aggressor, carrying out a bloody war against Kashmir and India, which has been going on for almost a thousand years.

The fact that you want to pretend this isn't so, shows just how little regard you have for the realities of this world, how you will say anything so that the murderous buggers you support can keep on murdering, raping, and pillaging in the name of Allah.

That you ignore what the Muslim invaders are doing to the people of Kashmir demonstrates the whole problem with Islam. No doubt you claim yourself to be a moderate.

Edit to add.

Here is the link to the real situation in Kashmir.

www.kashmiri-pandit.org...

400,000 Kashmiri Pandits, constituting 99% of the total population of Hindus living in Muslim majority area of the Kashmir Valley, were forcibly pushed out of the Valley by Muslim terrorists, trained in Pakistan, since the end of 1989. They have been forced to live the life of exiles in their own country, outside their homeland, by unleashing a systematic campaign of terror, murder, loot and arson.

reply to post by awake_and_aware

Hello a&a.

I wasn't talking to you, since I thought you weren't talking to me, and it doesn't seem you were reading my posts properly anyway. Who is this "they" "them and "their" you are talking about?


reply to post by Ersatz

Hey again, Ersatz. The word literally just means "the way" or "the path". There is nothing about watering holes.
But yeah, you use an apt description, one that may be helpful to Freeborn as well. "Shariah" denotes a way of life, it's not really a criminal justice system.

And no, neither shariah, nor Islam in general, have anything against democracy. In fact, the Quran can be seen as supporting democracy.


reply to post by poet1b

Originally posted by poet1b
Muslims are not native to Kashmir. The best solution would be for all the Muslims to leave Kashmir and go back to Arabia where they belong.

What?! WHAT?! I ask in all seriousness, are you insane?
The muslims there are NATIVES. They've been there, as you said, for at least a thousand years. Most of them are locals who converted. There are no "arab kashmiris", There are no "invading muslims". I'm beginning to think my comparison of your hatred to the hatred against the jews is more and more accurate ("THEY SHOULD GO BACK WHERE THEY CAME FROM!"). I mean, wow...you jump straight to the ethnic cleansing, don't you?
You can tell the muslim kashmiri victims of state-sponsored killings, rape, harassment, censorship "Yeah, this is your fault, why don't you leave and go to this country that you've never been to, and you have no connection to".

Edited to add: Yeah, a website called kashmiri-pandits.com is most certainly going to give a balanced and neutral version of the story. Are they the ones who suggested that the native muslims of kashmir should be held responsible for their hardships, or was that you alone? You really should read up on the history of Kashmir properly before saying such ridiculous things.

reply to post by babloyi


You allege that the similarities in the Sharia practised in such diverse places as Twelver Shia Iran and distinctly African Sunni Sudan is due to the actions of Saudi Wahhabi miissionaries and not something that is inherent in Islam?

ETA.
Sharia may mean 'the way' but it is used, and is sought to be used, by an ever increasing number of Muslims as an all encompassing legal and lifstyle system.

reply to post by babloyi


Just replace "their" with "Islam's" and "they" with "Muslims". My point still stands, the core philosophy and teachings of the Koran promote a general tension between Muslims and non-Muslims, there's no misinterpretation needed.

www.liveleak.com...

Understand why Islamic terrorists use the Koran to support their agenda, because it does so with ease, terror against non-believers, a want to submit everyone and use it to support their hatred against other people.

So i'll do the work for you, as your carry on asserting that Islam itself is not deep routed in discrimitory ideology (separating believers and non-believers).

I'm not debating the ideology of individual Muslims as i believe individual Christians have very different ideology, it varies depending on culture etc.. I'm actually arguing against the core principles in the Koran being a promoter of such discrimitory ideology.

Now please if you are not going to rebut my arguments or at least answer the OP's original questions then you are doing nothing to contribute to this thread. Simply making claims without backing your arguments up is benign and of no intellectual value here.

Thanks.

reply to post by babloyi


Do you really believe the ignorance that you are spreading.

Most of the Muslims aren't converts, they are the descendants of Muslim invaders who raped the women, and turned them into baby making machines for their twisted religion. Buddhists existed in large numbers all the way into Afghanistan, and no longer live there because they were killed by the Muslim invaders.

You talk about Arabia as if Arabia, and Arabian culture, isn't the root of Islam. Mohammad was an Arab. All Muslim countries are extensions of Arab culture, and Arab blood, spread by conquest and rape.

If you are not an Arab, why do you pray to an Arab daily?

Now that is insane.

Freeborn, I gave you one example, pertaining to rape. I showed you that these "similarities" go against the very verses of the Quran and Hadith, so obviously it is not something inherent in Islam, rather it belongs to a narrow-minded, extremist slant of Islam, which, however, despite the instigators' best efforts, certainly doesn't speak for anywhere near the majority.

reply to post by awake_and_aware

I....I'm not sure I understand the purpose of the video you linked. Are you now agreeing with me?

Of course islam "separates" believers and non-believers. So does almost every religion on the planet. But saying that a follower of islam is different from a person who doesn't follow islam doesn't promote terrorism any more than saying a follower of christ is different from a person who doesn't follow christ, or a follower of judaism is different from a person who doesn't follow judaism.

And I DID rebut your arguments, and respond to the OP. I seem to remember being told "Yeah, go away, we don't want your kind in here", after which I ignored you (a vigilant moderator has removed that post of yours now). You did the same with another member as well, basically ignoring everything s/he said with a "Nice try, fail!"
It seems YOU are the one with nothing useful to contribute to this thread, which is hilarious, considering you are the one who started it.

Edit: hahahaha....it seems you linked the wrong video by mistake at first. Let me re-link it, for the benefit of those who missed it the first time, before you edited your post:


reply to post by poet1b

And congratulations, poet1b! Your racism finally surfaces! Yes, yes! ARAB EVIL VILE SEND THEM BACK WHERE THEY CAME FROM EVIL EVIL ARAB!

reply to post by poet1b


I've seen many Islamic apologists; as i've seen many other religious apologists, largely Christians it appears on ATS. What i don't understand is the non-religious/Atheists who defend these institutions, these religions - If they felt they were no good for themselves, then why do they defend the opposite position they uphold?

reply to post by babloyi


Apologies, i posted the wrong link, i opted for a different site in the end. Feel free to refresh.

My points still stand without video evidence.

I admit i have only provided 1 source to support my convictions; you disagree but i don't know on what premise.

An abundance of the Koran's content invokes tension that leads to discrimination (and often hatred) of non-believers, that can be used to justify political or personal motives. Jihad and Martyrdom definetly do not deter suicide bombers, quite the opposite.

Check my video, many Islamic militia groups quote notoriously violent passages from the Koran.

You disagree, now let's see your source and your argument.

Yeah, go away, we don't want your kind in her

Please, nothing of that sort was said - Please stop detracting away from arguments with personal irrelevant details. Where's your source, do you disagree or agree with the translations or "misintrepations" - why?

I've pitched my argument, now let's see yours, and i will respond (in kind) to your posts. I'm not being uncivil.

NOTE: If you're going to quote the Koran, remember the "good" passages don't make up for the "bad" ones. My point would still stand that it promotes discrimination and even violence against non-believers. And that political and personal aggressiveness can be justified using the Koran and most notably concepts of Jihad and Martyrdom.

Also, i don't wish to defend or attack individual members of religion, only the ideology it promotes.

Further detraction from thread topic and i will request a mod to take appropriate action.

reply to post by babloyi

Edit: hahahaha....it seems you linked the wrong video by mistake at first. Let me re-link it, for the benefit of those who missed it the first time, before you edited your post:

See, you display your maturity very vividly on this website. I admitted; it was a mistake, i apologise.

And It doesn't contradict my argument at all. Here's why:-

If you're going to quote the Koran, remember the "good" passages don't make up for the "bad" ones. My point would still stand that it promotes discrimination and even violence against non-believers. And that political and personal aggressiveness can be justified using the Koran and most notably concepts of Jihad and Martyrdom.

Now please, i have been civil so far. What's your game if you wish to ignore the OP's questions or arguments i have made.

reply to post by babloyi


Telling the true history of Islam is not racism, it is history.

It is like saying that anyone who talks about British colonies is a racist against Brits.

As far as your claims that the Koran does not condone rape, once again you spew pure ignorance.

Do you deny that Mohammad took female slaves from those he conquered? Muslims are well known for collecting women as sex slaves.

Are you trying to claim that forcing a slave to have sex isn't rape?

At what point in time do you wake up to the reality that Islam is a horrible religion?

reply to post by awake_and_aware

I'm not asking for your apology, and I certainly don't need it.
I wasn't using it as a point to show that the "good" ones make up for the "bad ones". That is a total distortion of my argument. What I was saying in my original responses to you was that your so-called "bad passages" had been distorted, maligned, mis-edited and shown out of context by your source site.

Your response? You ignored the content of my post, attacked me personally, and told me to "go away".
It is all very well to claim now that you said no such thing...that post of yours has gone, and there is no way for me to prove it.


reply to post by poet1b

Originally posted by poet1b
It is like saying that anyone who talks about British colonies is a racist against Brits.

Actually, it's like saying "Anyone who speaks english in this non-british country that was once colonised by GB is evil, and should be sent back to Britain where they came from! (never mind that they're natives, and have never been to the UK in their life)".

reply to post by babloyi


What? We should all speak Spanish?

Not only does your statement not have anything to do with my point, it is completely wrong as well.

A great many Native American descendants whose ancestors lived in what is not the U.S. are very happy to speak English, and enjoy living in the most prosperous country on Earth. The are free to worship what religion they desire, and a great many people who are descendants of Europeans, even practice Native American religions.

At least we don't deny that we came here and took over, claim we are all Native Americans who converted to English culture.

reply to post by babloyi


And it still doesn't explain the similarities of Sharia that has been imposed in countries of varying cultures and denominations.
Every country that practices Sharia has such stories.

And whilst it may not be representative of the beliefs of the majority of Muslims it is certainly both the belief of the most vocal and the one that is growing in influence.

reply to post by poet1b

Hahahhaa....typical of you to think I was talking about America. Weren't we talking about India just now? And seriously, if you really think that the muslims in India are all originally arab, then you really need to read up on the history properly, and try not to be blinded by your hatred. Also, I'd suggest you use something a lot better than kashmiri-pandits.com.

Just to clarify with an example how your racism is so absurd, when you think of "christian" do you think of Africans? Because 20% of the Christian population is African. The same percentage goes for Islam. Only 20% of the muslims population is Arab. Or perhaps you are talking about origins? Then when you think of "Christian", you think of arabs/semites as well? Because as much as you'd like it to be, Muslim does not equal Arab, and Arab does not equal Muslim (heck, there are more Arab Christians than the entire population of Jews in the world). Are you suggesting that the muslims in Africa are all originally Arabs? The Muslims in Pakistan/India/Bangladesh are all originally Arabs? The Muslims in Indonesia/Malaysia/Brunei are all originally Arabs?


reply to post by Freeborn

What similarities? Each country is very different. And honestly, I don't know, because before now, I hadn't looked into it. It was enough for me to know that it wasn't at least from Islam.
And when I looked into it today, it seems that Sudan is the only country currently requiring 4 witnesses to make an accusation of rape? Pakistan also had such a law, but that was amended. Perhaps it came from Saudi Arabia originally, but as far as I can tell from a cursory search, even in Saudi Arabia, there is not a requirement for 4 witnesses, as the crime is prosecuted as a hiraba ("spreading war in the land") rather than zina (adultery).
As far as Iran goes, I cannot find any reliable information at all, just discussions in some shia forums. Wikipedia has this to say:

Hadd Crimes
Rape is punished differently in Iran than most countries using Islamic law, rape is punished as "moharebeh", along with other violent crimes. However, in Iran, rape is punished under "zina", or unlawful sexual relations/adultery. Four witnesses are needed officially, but judges also use cirumstantial evidence, and generally four witnesses are not needed.

But that tidbit of information is unsourced and unreferenced, and the article has been tagged "factual accuracy disputed" and "neutrality disputed", so take it as you will.

You know, it's kinda funny that in the past couple of pages, you are the most level-headed and non-vitriol filled person speaking to me ?

reply to post by babloyi


Their great grandads from way back when were Arabs. Islam is Arab culture. Spin all the nonsense you want, this is the reality.

Sure, the further you get from Arabia, the weaker the blood line connection, but the core cultural values remain Arabic.

reply to post by poet1b

I have no idea what to say to you....I mean, such blatant lack of knowledge....and you are letting your hatred of muslims....errr...sorry...arabs blind you to sense and logic.
There is less than 800km between Arabia and countries like Ethopia, Eritrea and Somalia. Yet these countries have very strong, very historical NON-ARAB Islamic identities.

About India: Are you suggesting that no hindus ever converted to Islam? And don't start that absurd "Only those who were converted by the sword" nonsense. The introduction of Islam into India may have been partly due to the military conquests (although this was preceded by traders and missionaries), but even those conquerors (such as Muhammad bin Qasim) didn't impose Islam on or interfere with the religious practices of the hindus. And the sufi vein of Islam (with even more focus on love and togetherness), although it may have been started by arabs, it soon was wholely taken over by hindu converts.

I seriously didn't know how to respond to your post. It was like trying to explain that the sky is blue to someone who adamantly wished that the sky was green. I keep telling you to read up on the history, but I guess that isn't very important or interesting to you, except in how you can use it to denigrate muslims.

It'd be nice if some native indian ATSer came in and explained a few things to you, but for now, you might like to check out this:
History of Islam in India

All this talk about "bloodlines" and "weak bloodlines" is making me feel dirty . In my years in the indian subcontinent, I met many hindus and muslims who considered themselves "superior" due to their royal indian heritage ("I am a Raja", "I am a Rai")...I guess the caste system is still very strong there, even among the muslims, who really shouldn't be having a caste. And now here in ATS is someone who is racist in the complete opposite way .

reply to post by babloyi


You post nothing but blatant propaganda garbage. Islam needs to own up to its bloody history.

www.danielpipes.org...

Will Durant, the famous historian summed it up like this:
"The Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex of order and freedom, culture and peace, can at any moment be overthrown by barbarians invading from without or multiplying within."

Koenraad Elst , the german historian writes in "Negation in India"

The Muslim conquests, down to the 16th century, were for the Hindus a pure struggle of life and death. Entire cities were burnt down and the populations massacred, with hundreds of thousands killed in every campaign, and similar numbers deported as slaves. Every new invader made (often literally) his hills of Hindus skulls. Thus, the conquest of Afghanistan in the year 1000 was followed by the annihilation of the Hindu population; the region is still called the Hindu Kush, i.e. Hindu slaughter. The Bahmani sultans (1347-1480) in central India made it a rule to kill 100,000 captives in a single day, and many more on other occasions. The conquest of the Vijayanagar empire in 1564 left the capital plus large areas of Karnataka depopulated. And so on.

In every direction Islam conquered all that it coul,d brutally and with extreme prejudice. This is the history of Islam