Islamic State Seizes Ramadi, Palmyra, and infiltrates Malaysian Military.
- Thread starter Aim64C
- Start date
Pumpkin Ninja
Active member
Awards
See, majority of ISIS members truly don't know shit about Islam. They're either people who were wronged in Iraq and want revenge or scum bags who want money or don't know shit. You're just a paranoid republican who thinks Muslims are all zombies who want to eat your brain. Look at the non-war torn Muslim countries, they frankly don't give a shit about Western countries in power, in fact, they benefit from it. Sure, the Quran may tell people to fight but if you think that is the main motivator, you are sadly mistaken.
I remember you justifying killing women and children in the bible. Smh, the bible and the Quran are barely different. You can't drop beliefs so similar to Islam yet you expect Muslims to drop theirs? If Islam is ditched, then Christianity will follow, remember that.
But then again, I don't know why I'm debating with someone who thinks that it would be a good idea to take out ghetto communities in the U.S. And also predicted a civil war in the U.S by the end of Obama's term. You know you're not much different from those ISIS scumbags.
One thing for sure is Islam will last much longer than you will.
Most of their recruits are devout Sunni muslims born and raised in an arabic speaking world where they learn to recite the Qu'ran from memory.
Their laws are based on Sharia Law, derived primarily from the Qu'ran.
There, also, does not exist a single muslim nation on the planet that is not in continuous conflict with its neighbors.
I do not believe I ever made that case, though with a mind such as yours, I could see how it would be easy to get confused about such things.
Further, the Bible and the Qu'ran are not even the same -type- of book, and their messages are considerably different. The Bible is effectively a chronological story of the relationship between humans (more specifically, the Hebrews) and God, as well as their trials and errors in establishing a nation that properly worships God while following his commandments.
Jesus and Muhammad are polar opposites in terms of the context of their behavior and the content of their message.
The Bible is -not- to be taken as a testament from God, but as a testament about God. In the Bible - God speaks with and motivates many different people along many different paths and to many different actions.
The Qu'ran is claimed to be the revealed testament from God. It is a sort of direct address to humanity. It really has no western equivalent as, within the Islamic viewpoint, it extends beyond simple commands and testimony and is more akin to divine enlightenment - the "Golden Elixir" (to borrow a Taoist concept) that contains the wisdom of divinity, itself.
When Muhammad revealed that allah was commanding muslims to fight - this is not a simple time-sensitive command to be applied for the momment. These are eternal concepts of allah's identity and even motivations behind creation. These are commands that have existed with allah in heaven for all eternity.
There simply is no western equivalent to this concept.
You make a strong argument for the case that humans aren't sentient.
Please, show me where I stated this.
And actually take the time to read what I said, this time.
I never said that it is a good idea to take out ghetto communities. I said that if rioters are left to destroy and politicians argue that their motives are somehow justified - then you will lose your nation. As such, the response to a riot is annihilation of the riot and a minimal regard for collateral damage.
It's a little early to state that as if it's some kind of evidence against my reasoning abilities. Or are you aware that Obama is still the President?
We are similar only in that we both understand things you don't wish to accept.
Killing is a valid solution to a problem. It may not be the most pleasant, and may generate other problems, but it is a valid solution.
The Qu'ran makes it clear that the objective of Islam is to conduct active, militant conquest of other people and nations. It also makes it very clear that the purpose of Muslims is to support this objective. The purpose of the conquest is to bring all people and nations under the laws of the Qu'ran.
This is not negotiable. If you are truly Muslim - then you have submitted to the notion that Muhammad is the rightfully guided prophet and that he has revealed allah's commands/message through Muhammad in the form of the Qu'ran.
If you do not believe this, and do not interpret the Qu'ran as it is literally worded - then you are a hypocrite by the Qur'an's own self-testimony and therefor among the non-believers.
Just because the book says things that are not nice does not mean I can't understand what it is saying.
There is a major and crucial difference, though.
I do not believe that Muhammad was divinely inspired and, if anything, was being guided by the hand of the devil and Islam is, by extension, the religion of the devil.
Within a religious context, this would place us in the "end of days."
Which is, interestingly enough, what ISIS was founded upon. They believed they saw signs of the coming of the Mahdi and hope to engineer a conflict that is predicted to bring about the return of Isa during a battle at Dabiq (a city - also the title of the Islamic State's magazine).
Perhaps it's all self-fulfilling prophecy - but they expect to be killed to the point where only a few thousand true believers remain in the outskirst of Dabiq, at which point the Isa (or 'jesus') will return and kill the leader of the armies against Islam and then begin leading a renewed conquest of the world that will not fail.
But you knew that already, didn't you?
Perhaps.
I don't intend on making that easy for it.
It's hard to win a war you aren't fighting.
The U.S. has withdrawn every combat unit from Iraq, and most of them from Afghanistan. There is a contingent in Baghdad at the Embassy - and I certainly do not want to be them, right about now. This presidential administration has made clear that it would rather create tragedies than heroes (which means his office is likely to order a stand-down on efforts to extract them once the fighting reaches Baghdad).
It's very simple - when we were there, this type of thing didn't happen. We put a stop to it.
When we aren't there, the local population and military doesn't care enough to prevent groups like ISIS from taking over.
Of course... when the religion practiced by everyone more or less names ISIS as a rightfully guided group... it's to be expected that groups like ISIS will be relatively popular and find enough public support to undermine attempts to resist their control.
And the US is somehow always involved.
You must be registered for see links
You must be registered for see links
You must be registered for see links
Muslim countries may be in conflicts with their neighbors, yet they haven't declared war on the west. In fact, there are quite a few treaties in force between f.e. the US and muslim countries. Here are 500 pages of treaties
Have a good time browsing them. It shouldn't take more than 1-2 hrs for someone who's read the Quran in 2 hrs.
You must be registered for see links
"If they incline to peace, then incline to it as well." /Surah Al-Anfal, 61/
_____
What you are saying is only another justification to conquer. Similar to that invoked by ISIS. I see two powerhungry warmonger ideologies blaming each other, the moderates shut up. You're trying to silence us by telling us to renounce our religion, but we do speak up. Keep ignoring my posts, though, if you wish.
[video=youtube;735lA9oF9PM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=735lA9oF9PM[/video]
Last edited:
You must be registered for see links
" The Turks are Muslims but not Arabs. There was a general migration of Turkish-speaking nomads south into the Arab world after 700 CE. In 1055 Turks captured Baghdad and created the Seljuk Empire, which remained Islamic but was no longer Arab-ruled. When the Mongols destroyed the Seljuk state in the 1200s, Turkish tribes scattered West into Anatolia. One of them came to be named for Osman, its leader. They became involved in the wars of the Byzantine Empire against Bulgaria, Serbia and the Crusader states that had been set up in Greece after the sack of Constantinople in 1204. Ottoman Turkish soldiers first entered the Balkans around 1345 as Byzantine mercenaries and later returned to conquer it. They soon defeated the Bulgars and the Serbs.
Incidentally, that Serbian defeat (which took place at the field of Kosovo in 1389) was a defining moment for Serbian history. First, there was a great killing which wiped out the nobility and knights and left the Serbs as a peasant nation. The democratic, populist, often vulgar nature of Serbian politics in modern times owes something to Kosovo. Second, enshrined in national legends and epic poetry, Kosovo encapsulated Serbian identity. The story of Kosovo allowed the Serbs to remember who they were by remembering their enemies. Kosovo as a place remains part of the present day ethnic strife in the Kosovo region. Even though its population today is mostly Albanian, the Serbs are as likely to give up this sanctified battle field as, say, Texans would be to return the Alamo to Mexico.
In 1444 at Varna Sultan Murad II crushed an intervening force of Hungarian, Polish, French and German crusaders. In 1453, scarcely 100 years after the Turks entered Europe, Sultan Mohammed II (known as "the Conqueror") took Constantinople by siege with an army of 100,000 and some of the world's most modern artillery. In taking the city, Mohammed II erased the last remnant of the Roman Empire and subjugated the Greek world. Symbolizing the transition, the great Church of the Holy Wisdom, Hagia Sophia, became a mosque. "
Clearly, America was the problem.
Two problems:Muslim countries may be in conflicts with their neighbors, yet they haven't declared war on the west. In fact, there are quite a few treaties in force between f.e. the US and muslim countries. Here are 500 pages of treatiesYou must be registered for see links
First, these are treaties that are recognized by the West.
Second, treaties with the royal houses of a muslim country do not equate to a treaty with Islam, since these royal families were established by the British for the very purpose of preventing a resurgence of Islam as an empire.
9:29 Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.
If I throw myself before a Muslim and 'willingly humble' myself - then, yes, it is possible to avoid war. Depending upon exactly which branch of Islam we are talking about, it is possible for me to escape death by paying the Jizya.
I actually notice that the Sahih International translation of meaning seems to have changed a bit since I last saw it. That, or I'm remembering another Translation.
Anyway - the matter that is not up for debate is subjugation. A non-believer is not allowed to have equal status to a muslim, and is not to be allowed to discuss his/her faith in public. Since merely allowing Christians to exist can be perceived as a form of Fitnah, it can be logically argued that it is better to exterminate those who will not convert - since Fitnah is a worse crime than killing.
Conquer and annihilation are two different concepts.
I don't care whether you convert, or not. I don't care to take ownership over any of your lands or any of your resources.
Islam is a threat. Plain and simple. A threat that cannot be allowed to exist any longer. It should have been destroyed many generations ago, and it would be irresponsible to leave it for future generations to deal with.
Don't flatter yourself by thinking that is new information to me .-.
"Clearly", muslims caused christians to fight amongst themselves :hmm:
Your implying 'islam is just being islam' is tautology. A slogen at best.
And?
So you admit that:
1) Western powers have been meddling with the ME for about a hundred yrs, and they are interested in keeping the control in the area at whatever cost
2) These 'muslim nations' don't necessarily represent islam, so puhlease don't bring up their conflicts with neighbors as "proof" for 'islam is just being what it is'
Not that the Quran can be translated
Here is a set of articles on the rights of non muslims. Start here.
You must be registered for see links
Another one on the dozen meanings of fitnah:
You must be registered for see links
If you say such things, don't be surprised if some muslims take it seriously and will also think of the West as a threat to islam. But you're still nice in a way :hug: So no need for this hatred, really.
Last edited:
Then you are intellectually dishonest.
Squirrel.
Except that Islam formed the basis for the Ottoman Empire and its doctrine calling for expansion.
The West believes it has treaties with Iran that Iran does not recognize. The same goes for many other Muslim nations. The fact is that the West lists the treaties is simply a means of enacting foreign policy without having to content with various legislative debates. Virtually none of these treaties are actually upheld by the muslim nations they are directed at.
There are some exceptions to this, but the list is small.
Well, yes.
Why?
You must be registered for see links
"Common piracy by the Barbary States blossomed into a sophisticated racket in 1662, when England revived the ancient custom of paying tribute. The corsairs agreed to spare English ships for an annual bribe paid in gold, jewels, arms, and supplies. The custom spread to all countries trading in the Mediterranean.
...
John Adams, the next President, went along with the Europeans and paid for peace in the Mediterranean. Congress, in 1795, authorized payment of tribute. Algiers was granted the equivalent of $642,500 in cash, munitions, and a 36-gun frigate, besides a yearly tribute of $21,600 worth of naval supplies. Ransom rates were officially set for those Americans already in Barbary prisons-$4,000 for each passenger, $1,400 for each cabin boy. Sunday after Sunday, a sad roll of names was read out in the churches of Salem, Newport, and Boston, listing the men in irons. Congress would only pay $200 for their freedom, the rest of the money had to be raised privately. Eventually, at long last, the American captives of the Dey of Algiers walked into the light, except for thirty-seven dead, whose ransoms had to be paid nevertheless (Malone, 1951).
...
Yusuf, the Pasha of Tripoli, seeing the weakness of the Americans, decided to increase demands on the United States. Among the trifles he ordered as part of the American tribute were several diamond-studded guns. On the occasion of the death of George Washington the Pasha informed President Adams that it was customary when a great man passed away from a tributary state to make a gift in his name to the crown of Tripoli. Yusuf estimated Washington to be worth about $10,000.
By the spring of 1801, Yusuf had heard nothing about his $10,000 and his impatience with America had grown to a fine rage. The Pasha summoned the American representative to his court, made him kiss his hand and decreed that, as a penalty, tribute would be raised to $225,000, plus $25,000 annually in goods of his choice. If refused, the alternative was war. To make his point, Yusuf had his soldiers chop down the flagpole in front of the American consulate, a significant gesture in a land of no tall trees-and one that meant war (Channing, 1968).
The reason for Yusuf’s lack of tribute was that the United States had a new president — the former frustrated ambassador, Thomas Jefferson. Upon entering office, Jefferson had been appalled to discover that tribute and ransoms paid to Barbary had exceeded $2,000,000, or about one-fifth, of the entire annual income of the United States government. "
This was standard Ottoman procedure as endorsed by Islam.
Conquest, slave running (the term "slave" comes from the term 'Slav' - the name of the people native to the Balkans... which were too far north to effectively assimilate into Ottoman territory, but were still within slave-raid distance), and piracy were the very foundation of imperial wealth within the Ottoman empire.
The west has every rational interest in making sure no such empire ever sees the light of day again. While blowing them up every few decades is certainly an option - the British were genius in their solution to organize territorial royalties that would have a vested interest in preventing a unified Islam.
The problem with this argument is that it is a failure to understand the region.
Most of the conflicts do not originate with the government. They originate with the local tribes and religious authorities. Saddam Hussein routinely had to kill the living shit out of his people to keep them from starting wars with other nations or to keep them from overthrowing him.
The fact is that the attempt to implement democracy in Iraq is what happens when you "unhinge" Islam. There was an instantaneous rift between the Kurds, Shiite, and Sunni populations. Within months, our soldiers were busy putting down various groups planning to attack and kill their rival religious group. The fact that Sunni don't believe in the legitimacy of democracy didn't help matters (but that sure as hell won't stop our politicians from insisting it's the way to go). The Kurds should have really just been made their own country since they made up such a local majority and were perpetually the odd ones out in much of Iraq's dealings.
Then, our soldiers were getting blown up and shot at because we were there to try and prevent them from 'rightfully guiding' each other.
Saddam was doing this all through his rule over the nation - granted, with far less concern over how he went about securing authority...
Within proper Islamic theology, no, the Qu'ran cannot be directly translated. Hence why I said "translation of meaning." Translations are typically only permitted so long as reproductions of the arabic text are printed alongside it. Technically, without posting relevant pictures alongside my quotations, "my argument is invalid" - but there's archeological evidence that supports alterations were made to the Qu'ran post-Uthman. So I consider all of the muslim prattling over translation and 'scholarship' to be window dressing to impress the tourists.Not that the Quran can be translated
As for whether or not arabic can be translated into English... yes, it can be.
Here's a lengthy lecture related to the subject:
You must be registered for see links
Further, let us review:
You must be registered for see links
To contrast:
You must be registered for see links
These contrasting interpretations of life as a Non-Muslim within a Caliphate are necessary. While the Pro-Caliphate Muslims will quickly point out the "travel brochure" model of what the ideal situation would look like - the historical reality brings up a number of issues that the travel brochure will avoid.
For example, from the travel brochure:
" The dhimmi enjoy the same economic benefits as Muslims. They can be employees, establish companies, be partners with Muslims and buy and sell goods. Their wealth is protected and if they are poor and unable to find work they are entitled to state benefits from the Khilafah’s Treasury (Bait ul-Mal).
Historically, many dhimmi prospered within the lands of the Khilafah.
Cecil Roth mentions that the treatment of the Jews at the hands of the Ottoman State attracted Jews from all over Western Europe. The land of Islam became the land of opportunity. Jewish physicians from the school of Salanca were employed in the service of the Sultan and the Viziers (ministers). In many places glass making and metalworking were Jewish monopolies, and with their knowledge of foreign languages, they were the greatest competitors of the Venetian traders.22
The poor dhimmi will receive state benefits if they are in need.
‘Umar ibn al-Khattab once passed by an old dhimmi begging at doors, and said: “We have not done justice to you if we have taken jizya from you in the prime of your youth and neglected you in your old age.” He then ordered from the treasury what was suitable for him.23 "
From Historical Reality:
" The political arena and the official public sectors are not the only area in which non-Muslims are not allowed to assume a position of authority. A Muslim employee who works in a company inquires in a letter "if it is permissible for a Muslim owner (of a company) to confer authority on a Christian over other Muslims? (Al-Muslim Weekly; Vol. 8; issue No. 418; Friday 2, 5, 1993).
In response to this inquiry three eminent Muslim scholars issued their legal opinions:
Sheikh Manna` K. Al-Qubtan, professor of Higher studies at the School of Islamic Law in Riyadh, indicates that:
Basically, the command of non-Muslims over Muslims in not admissible, because God Almighty said: 'Allah will not give access to the infidels (i.e. Christians) to have authority over believers (Muslims) {Qur'an 4:141}. For God - Glory be to Him - has elevated Muslims to the highest rank (over all men) and foreordained to them the might, by virtue of the Qurtanic text in which God the Almighty said: 'Might and strength be to Allah, the Prophet (Muhammad) and the believers (Muslims) {Qur'an 63:8}.
Thus, the authority of non-Muslim over a Muslim is incompatible with these two verses, since the Muslim has to submit to and obey whoever is in charge over him. The Muslim, therefore becomes inferior to him, and this should not be the case with the Muslim.
Dr. Salih Al-Sadlan, professor of Shari`a at the School of Islamic Law, Riyadh, cites the same verses and asserts that it is not permissible for a infidel (in this case is a Christian) to be in charge over Muslims whether in the private or public sector. Such an act:
"entails the humiliaton of the Muslim and the exaltation of the infidel (Christian). This infidel may exploit his position to humiliate and insult the Muslims who work under his administration. It is advisable to the company owner to fear God Almighty and to authorize only a Muslim over the Muslims. Also, the injunctions issued by the ruler, provides that an infidel should not be in charge when there is a Muslim available to assume the command. Our advice to the company owner is to remove this infidel and to replace him with a Muslim."
In his response Dr. Fahd Al-`Usaymi, professor of Islamic studies at the Teachers' College in Riyadh, remarks that the Muslim owner of the company should seek a Muslim employee who is better than the Christian (manager), or equal to him or even less qualified but has the ability to be trained to obtain the same skill enjoyed by the Christian. It is not permissible for a Christian to be in charge of Muslims by the virtue of the general evidences which denote the superiority of the Muslim over others. Then he quotes (Qur'an 63:8) and also cites verse 22 of Chapter 58:
Thou wilt not find any people who believe in Allah and the Last Day, loving those who resist Allah and His Apostle, even though they were their fathers or their sons, or their brothers, or their kindred. "
The problem is that Islam ultimately holds that it and its believers are to be superior and in control. Even if there are numerous rulings to not treat people as second-class citizens (which is true - the devil is not completely ignorant to the need to preserve functionality), there are many instances where the things most Westerners perceive as being fair and equal amount to a yielding of authority from Muslims - which is forbidden.
There are numerous examples of rationalized exception. The non-muslim slave of a Sultan, for example, may be granted authority over Muslims or Muslim affairs on the pretense that he is acting mostly as an arbiter of the Sultan as opposed to acting as an independent non-muslim.
But you can see how this becomes a labyrinth of religious law and reasoning very quickly, where the outcome of a ruling is going to be found in favor of Muslims and their interests more often than not.
In fact, this is precisely part of what led to the destruction of the ottoman empire as the various districts that were willing to pay Jizya and pretend that the Ottomans didn't exist eventually found themselves being wrapped up in complicated theocratic courts over business disputes and other such things. The Jizya taxes were increased to extortionate levels in attempts to keep the empire funded, and the whole thing fell apart.
Further, you end up with issues like this:
You must be registered for see links
From your source: Ibn al-A’raabi summed up the meanings of fitnah when he said: “Fitnah means testing, fitnah means trial, fitnah means wealth, fitnah means children, fitnah means kufr, fitnah means differences of opinion among people, fitnah means burning with fire.” (Lisaan al-‘Arab by Ibn Manzoor).
I don't see anything that testifies against my use of it. It even supports it.
You must be registered for see links
Here's one for you.
"It is not permissible for a Muslim to make friends with a mushrik or to take him as a close friend, because Islam calls on us to forsake the kaafirs and to disavow them, because they worship someone other than Allaah. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): ... "
And here's another fun one:
You must be registered for see links
" Your question may be answered by the following points:
(1) This is the ruling of Allaah and His Messenger, as the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: "Whoever changes his religion, kill him." (reported by al-Bukhaari, al-Fath, no. 3017).
(2) The one who has known the religion which Allaah revealed, entered it and practised it, then rejected it, despised it and left it, is a person who does not deserve to live on the earth of Allaah and eat from the provision of Allaah. "
Thank you for linking to that site, yourself.
People generally tend to discredit such sites as being linked in to my "conservative Agenda," or something. I'm quite familiar with some of the discussions on that site and have used it extensively to follow-up on some of my own research and understandings of what I've read within the Qu'ran.
So I knew before hand that it contained arguments for the killing of those who convert from Islam and actually argues in favor of many such things I've stated and been told that I know nothing of what I speak.
The thing is that the "West" has never actually been unified in understanding or interpretation of Islam.
It was only a few hundred years after the conversion to Christianity that Muslim hordes began running rampant on the doorstep of the Germanic peoples. Getting the Western Europeans to stop squabbling long enough to beat the Arab-themed Borg back involved a hell of a lot of bribery and the personal sacrifice of many feudal lords.
Further, it doesn't help that much of modern history lessons start with the European Enlightenment with the Crusades as a sort of backdrop for the setting. This has always played into the hands of the "innocent Islam" act. It's just assumed within most modern historical lessons that Christianity had always existed in Europe and that Islam had always existed in the place where Judaism and Christianity originated. Persians are this mythological empire that existed in its own separate dimension and simply attacked/invaded other empires by means of trans-dimensional warp magic. The fact that the Persians became Shia Islam doesn't actually register.
Within the modern presentation of history, we start with a world where the Christians were just attacking the Muslims over Jerusalem, or something - some religious thing that no educated human being would ever believe in and so we won't bother to dwell on it. All religions are good and for the betterment of mankind (and don't you dare point out the inconsistency between those two ideas).
In either case - I am serious in what I say. If there is one muslim left on the face of the planet ... actually, by time I'm done typing this, it's ten too many - let alone by the time I die.
"Hate" is a very strong word. I don't think those who use it have honestly felt it - or have honestly felt anything other than it. To use it so casually as to refer to my conclusions that are unfavorable and consequential to a population is to dilute its value.
Islam is akin to a zombie virus. From an ethical standpoint, I view it as being in that category of threat. Sure - I would love to be able to 'cure' the disease. I would love to see people freed from its utilitarian doctrine devoid of spiritual sustenance.
However, the first priority is preventing the spread to those who are not infected. That means unsavory measures and, I am sure, nightmares in the future.
Islam's own practices can be turned against it. No marriage of women to Muslim men. If an area is attacked and conquered - divide the populations. Men over 14 are executed. Western ideology would have women left to their own devices afterward, but not permitted to marry without disavowing from Islam (and teaching of Islam to children would be forbidden). Female children would be sent off to school and later allowed to pursue their own interests.
Islam effectively broke and destroyed dozens of cultures with that practice - it can be reversed upon the territories it controls.
Although I think that solution opens the door to far too much corruption and enables Islam to survive. "Dust off and nuke the site from orbit" is the logically secure option - perhaps the use of bio-weapons (IL-6 modified smallpox - though distributing the cure in sufficient quantities to preserve containment would be problematic - and IL-6 modified smallpox is a slate-wiper. 100% mortality against non-vaccinated and 60% against smallpox vaccinated). This would be possible in concentrated areas - but less possible in diverse areas.
It would be difficult to use such mass-casualty weapons in areas of infestation, like Michigan. That means boots-on-ground operations that are just messy when dealing with genocide and it is best to be able to remove the human element. Bombs just release energy and physics handles the genocide - much simpler and fewer faces to remember.
Of course, there are several ISIS training camps that have been identified within the U.S. and the number of laws pushing to ban criticism of Islam will eventually trigger an armed backlash of its own. Americans are feeling squeezed at the moment and it's only a matter of time before a lot of nasty consequences boil over from that.
A purging of Islam isn't completely outside the realm of possibility - at least as an endeavor by particular interest groups.
Unfortunately, this does not present a unified and structured front against Islam (which would involve a unified counter-theology approach that would polarize the Islamic faith - to force people to side with the Islamic State or to find their spiritual enlightenment elsewhere - clearing many of the westernized muslims who aren't muslims per the Qu'ran out of the way... IE "A cure" for the zombie virus) and instead leads to chaotic acts by loosely structured groups.
This means that these groups will likely run afoul of other western interests and doctrines (who do not understand what Islam is) and will cause a failure of their individual efforts in the long run.
As far as me personally being a 'nice' guy...
I don't like to harm people. I don't like to see people harmed. I prefer to help people in their life and to see them succeed - to see them become better people or to improve.
That said - I realize that my mind is that of a predator. It is in my blood and bones to kill and destroy. My strongest reaction to frustration is violence and destruction. Patience is an entirely learned capacity, as is temperance to decline from hurling things across the room and otherwise defaulting to destruction.
I tend to evaluate and view things in terms of cost/benefit and tend to relate to people in terms of their assessed value/potential. This reduces much of my perspective of life to a sort of mechanical one where people and decisions are more akin to objects and status reports to be augmented or maneuvered as opposed to an emotional viewpoint to be considered. Emotions, even, are viewed as symptomatic of status that form a sort of feedback into decision making processes.
Which is why I can be a great counselor for people, as I can break down their personality into a functional schematic and help them re-work it into something that will function how they want. But it makes me a relatively poor friend, since my viewpoint of people is almost more like RPG characters to be trained to maximize their potential.
Kind of funny - because my stories often get positive reviews for their ability to convey emotion and character depth, yet it is not how I first view a person.
That, or I seriously under-rate myself and value myself low in order to try and compensate for my instinct that trends toward egotism.
*shrug*
At the end of the day - it means that I am willing to entertain certain courses of action that others find unacceptable and unthinkable.
One could have said the exact same thing about Christianity for the past 2 thousands years. However, since it's not your religion now, Islam must assimilate itself to western religions or be destroyed without a chance to overcome(As was given to Christianity).
A similar situation would be like slavery. A once barbaric and uncivilized group becomes civilized and enslaves a group of uncivilized people. The civilized free their slaves and expect the uncivilized former-slaves to simply assimilate to their civilization, whilst segregating them from that very civilization. The segregation soon stops and the civilized realize to atone for their past mistakes, they will now throw money at the very newly civilized former-slaves and expect them to assimilate faster and better to their civilized culture.
The first civilized group now claims that since they were able to become civilized, why can't these civilized former-slaves be equally civilized? Why can't they be more like them?
Pumpkin Ninja
Active member
Awards
Actually, you did justify killing women and children a while back on a Christianity bash thread and you did say it would be a good idea taking out areas like Baltimore during the riots. Smh, trying to make me seem like the idiot here. If you were born a Muslim, no doubt you'd be a terrorist. And before you say some half witted comment in response, you'd be a terrorist, not because you are a Muslim but because you have the same mentality as ISIS.
Dear Aim. That's ad hominem argumentation at (its) best. Don't play dirty, or you'll lose my respect.
The things you copy pasted are part of the history of my nation. So no, I'm not the one being dishonest here.
Is this sleng?
My point was, Christians had been killing each other off long before islam was born, and it was still going on when the Ottomans appeared on the stage of history. The Byzantines were famous for their oppression of subjugates, minorities...etc. That's why many people saw the Ottomans as liberators. Also, there were...kind of civil wars going on in the Byzantine Empire. Fights for the throne. It was not unusual for usurpers to ask for foreign help to get the throne- be this help coming from the Ottomans. From their point of view, they just wanted to help. Good excuse or not- but justifiable.
You must be registered for see links
It wouldn't be the first nor the last time in history for an empire to have a state religion and (kind of a ) clergy to justify the rulers.
Excuse me, but 'bilateral' in my dictionary means that both parties recognize the treaty. Back up your claim.
So. You're blaming the Ottomans with piracy, an act that was practiced since ancient times, practiced even by the British. Not to mention that the western powers used the barbary pirates against each other, f.e the British against the US, after your country declared independence and was in war with Britain. Btw Morocco was the "first independent nation to recognize the US".
You must be registered for see links
And:
A committee in the name of the United States came to Istanbul in 1829 and proposed that commercial and friendly relations between the two countries should be made official by means of a commercial treaty. The Ottoman sultan of the period, Mahmud II, wanted an answer to be given immediately, saying, "It is not appropriate to leave the demands of American committee unanswered." The subject was put on the table by Grand Vizier Reshid Mehmed Pasha and other statesmen. It was believed that the other side, the United States, would benefit more from the agreement due to the distance of the US from the Ottomans and the difficulty of Ottoman ships traveling any further on the ocean. At the same time, considering the balances, the Ottomans expressed anxiety about the agreement, which could negatively affect relations with Russia and England. In spite of all these doubts, a nine-article commercial treaty was finally signed in 1830. The United States was thus honored as one of the few very privileged countries possessing such a treaty. Various commercial privileges, low tax rates and permission to open a consulate pleased the United States.
Commercial activities and consulates initiated after the enactment of the treaty caused the opening of a new page in Ottoman-American relations. The political-commercial activities of the consulates and missionaries had found an easy location for action. Meanwhile, the first American missionaries went to Beirut in the 1820s. Until 1850, U.S.-Ottoman relations were still being structured. Between the years of 1831 and 1850, seven Protestant churches were founded in Ottoman lands. Izmir, followed later by Istanbul and other cities, became the first missionary center in 1820. American missionary activities and the establishment of educational institutions were accelerated since Protestantism was acknowledged by the Ottoman state as being an official Christian sect. Since the American missionaries were not regarded as a collective movement by the Ottomans of the time, they did not experience any handicaps in their activities.
You must be registered for see links
So I wouldn't demonize the Ottomans.
So. These tribes had been colonized by the West, dictators were put in power, and you expect them to sit still? You can barely stay still under Obama.
Also, if problems don't originate from the gvmnt, why did you exactly attack Saddam?
Why do you support certain groups against certain dictators/governments, training and giving them weapons, one time calling them freedom fighters, next time terrorists? Don't you think that ISIS fighters may really think they're fighting for their freedom ? I often here such groups saying that they're fighting coz the government is corrupt, and is a minion of the West?
And if problems originate from tribal issues, then it is not to be blamed on islam, which actually put an end to tribal feuds and unified the people? 'Muslims form one brotherhood.' Sadly, in many places, only in theory. But lucky for you. Of course the West doesn't want the muslim world to unite. Though,some muslims do their best not to unite, as well...Tribal interests and nationalism play a big role here, exploited by people like Al-Baghdadi.
Good thing you at least admit that there is a bunch of available interpretations and scholarly opinions, and the picture is diverse.
I guess you didn't make it to the 3rd point .-.
3- Persecution, as in the aayah (interpretation of the meaning):
“Then, verily, your Lord for those who emigrated after they had been put to trials [futinoo] and thereafter strove hard and fought (for the Cause of Allaah) and were patient, verily, your Lord afterward is, Oft‑Forgiving, Most Merciful” [al-Nahl 16:110]
Put to trial means persecuted.
___
The verse you mentioned: "Killing is worse than fitnah" is in Surah Al-Baqara, 191:
"And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers."
You must be registered for see links
(Sahih International, at your service The translation of fitnah here is oppression (which, basically,is a form of persecution: the point is, you can fight back against oppression):
You must be registered for see links
Why wouldn't I use islamqa? I like looking up more than one opinions, then if something is not unanimously agreed, or I find the source doubtful, I ask the scholars at my mosque. As for the killing of apostates, there are many different opinions what does it mean 'whoever leaves his religion, kill him'. Here is another one:
You must be registered for see links
I know you're serious, but I don't think you're hopeless. (Well, noone is). You'd be a good muslim u.u
"The best of people are those that bring most benefit to the rest of mankind."
You must be registered for see links
I wonder if you could really kill millions...but I'm not encouraging you to demonstrate it (._. ) But why do you think that if it's ok for you to kill, it's not ok for muslims to do the same? Or, you think it's ok- after all, it's a normal way for handling things (according to you)- but let the stronger one win? What's exactly holding you back now ? And have you ever considered therapy/counselling (as you might be a psychopath- but well, then ofc you wouldn't consider therapy xd) ?
And what would you do to me, f.e? >.>
And you don't think it's a threat that your country has more than enough weapons to destroy the whole Earth?
Yet islam is spreading faster than other religions. Not just due to procreation, but also the number of converts.
Last edited:
Of course Isis's growth is contributed heavily from US made-weapons. Don't you know that when the US invaded Iraq, it captured the current Isis leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, and it released him afterwards? Don't you know that the weapons Isis is using are all American made-weapons, which are still being sent to Isis:
The success of Isis's military is not only supported by the US; look at their finance. They millions everyday through Iraq's fields of oil, and since the US's growth in oil production increased significantly to where it can even match Saudi Arabia's production, it really raises the question of who is financing Isis? If their military providers are the United States, then their financial sponsors are also the United States.
It's really sad that the American people are still blind to see the truth. Even the country is ranked higher than Isis as global peace threat. We can only hope there will be a civil war to overthrow the corrupted government. Only the matter of time though.
But here, you are saying Isis is what true Islam preaches...Tell me, Aim64C, a mosque in Saudi Arabia yesterday was bombed by Isis and killed 21 people. The top Saudi religious cleric condemned it, saying ''This totally criminal plot aims to split our ranks and sow chaos in our country but, God be praised, it will not find a way. The nation and society are united and under a wise leadership." And this religious cleric is worth of +50 years of Islamic knowledge known as Wahhabism and the more than 95% of 1.7 billion Muslims have all condemned Isis, but you who is not Muslim and not Arabic is going to say we're wrong and tell us what is right about our religion? Cry me the river, please.
You must be registered for see links
The success of Isis's military is not only supported by the US; look at their finance. They millions everyday through Iraq's fields of oil, and since the US's growth in oil production increased significantly to where it can even match Saudi Arabia's production, it really raises the question of who is financing Isis? If their military providers are the United States, then their financial sponsors are also the United States.
It's really sad that the American people are still blind to see the truth. Even the country is ranked higher than Isis as global peace threat. We can only hope there will be a civil war to overthrow the corrupted government. Only the matter of time though.
But here, you are saying Isis is what true Islam preaches...Tell me, Aim64C, a mosque in Saudi Arabia yesterday was bombed by Isis and killed 21 people. The top Saudi religious cleric condemned it, saying ''This totally criminal plot aims to split our ranks and sow chaos in our country but, God be praised, it will not find a way. The nation and society are united and under a wise leadership." And this religious cleric is worth of +50 years of Islamic knowledge known as Wahhabism and the more than 95% of 1.7 billion Muslims have all condemned Isis, but you who is not Muslim and not Arabic is going to say we're wrong and tell us what is right about our religion? Cry me the river, please.
You think common westerners were more civilized? The only difference was that the Elite of the Westerners had slightly better technology (especially millitary) at hand.As for the sold part refers to the point that Africans owned African slaves .... which kinda makes your statement inaccurate, as it was one Civilization trading with another.
Last edited:
This is simply incorrect.
The Enlightenment was largely driven by values endorsed and reinforced by Christianity. Simply put, the West would not have evolved beyond tribalism and territorial wars were it not for the influence of Christianity.
Christianity as a religion has never been a threat to civilization. At worst, the ambitions of nations attempt to bolster support for a territorial acquisition by espousing an evangelical cause - but no religion, or even philosophy, is exempt from this as evidenced by the Taoist influences that are strong throughout East Asia and the Pacific Islands.
Further, it is logically impossible for Islam to reform. The very premise of Islam is that all of Judaism and Christianity's key figures were Muslims and that it was through the distortion of scholars and clerics that Jews and Christians came to be. Islam is the 'final word' - the revelation of wisdom that has existed in heaven with god/allah for all eternity. The Qu'ran is allah's final say in what laws humans are to follow and how people are to go about their lives.
The "reform" in Islam was attempted. Shiite Muslims are Persians who refused to completely yield their culture to the Arab barbarism. All of Islam's "gifts" to humanity come from Shiite culture that was a passive-aggressive move on behalf of the conquered Persian empire. The Arabs were just fine destroying everything that wasn't Muhammad - and anything made in his likeness.
Islam in India was dampened considerably because of the language barrier. Because native Arabic speakers were few and far between, the Qu'ran had to be dealt with through translation of meaning - and much of this was done by native individuals who later learned Arabic... who padded the interpretations and focused lessons away from the whole "fight those who do not believe" part of the Qu'ran.
Part of the recent up-tick in Islamic fundamentalism has been the effort of Arab Muslims to release what they have deemed to be more accurate translations of the Qu'ran's meaning. For a long time, Arabs had little interest in seeing the Qu'ran in print or seeing it circulate abroad. That has changed, particularly after Arab muslims traveled from the middle east to areas around the world with local muslim communities who were seen as being far too permissive and as not understanding the Qu'ran because of poor translations.
It is not possible for Islam to reform so long as it believes that Muhammad is the prophet and that the Qu'ran is the revelation of God. If you believe in one - you have to believe in the other. If you don't believe in one, then can't believe in the other - and you aren't a Muslim, a follower of Islam.
Logically, you can "reform" Islam by pretending that about 2/3 of the Qu'ran doesn't exist - but this still leaves an institution that could only be honestly described as a front for "radicals" who will bother to read and believe the other 2/3.
Black slaves were not uncivilized, at all. In fact, entering into the 1950s, Blacks had the lowest out-of-wedlock birth rates, the highest marriage rates, and some of the most stable and religious of families.
Then the "civil rights act" hit as a result of Blacks moving into the northern "free" states and under-bidding White unions. This is where "prevailing wage" laws came from. Black laborers would come into town from the Southern states and bid 30% less than what a White union worker would - the Blacks would get the job. "Free" states didn't like this idea, and soon started lobbying to try and force Blacks out of the market and 'back where they came from.'
This is also where a lot of construction permit concepts come from. By having the government adopt a set of codes that only your unions know and have agreed upon, you can keep rival unions from being able to obtain licenses in your domains.
You'll hear a lot of fuss over Jim Crow and other such issues - but these were a very minor thing compared to what was the real driving factor behind racism in the 60s. Simply put - "Equality" and "Freedom" are very nice slogans to club someone else over the head with, but a real ***** when it means you have to deal with your trade's market value deflating.
Then, when the Federal government got into play - things got all kinds of crazy. State and Federal policies essentially set up "black" and "white" districts that were in effect into the 70s and even 80s at the federal level (yes, the same institution that was supposed to be the hero in the civil rights movement). This compounded upon targeted benefit programs that made it more cost-effective to be a single mother than to be a married couple.
The remarkably strong Black Family core was destroyed by these policies and led to a feedback system of decay. Because these programs were so heavily geared toward 'benefiting' blacks and they had also been more or less relegated to 'black' districts within many densely populated areas - maintenance in these areas declined as did property values and quality of life.
This meant that values of inheritance declined for families that remained composed and that it became more difficult to establish an enduring 'legacy' for black families to assist in education and the like.
To the people who voted for these policies - these amount to unintended consequences from the best of intentions. Many of them look at the state of blacks, these days, and say: "Oh wow, good thing we have these policies in place or these people wouldn't have a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of."
Because, you know, blacks are somehow lesser of a human species than the rest of us are. They can't survive without someone else paying their way.... (yes, I'm deliberately extrapolating from that perspective the racist logic inherent to liberals).
As for the people who championed these policies before the people to vote upon - they wrote essays in college or, in some cases, wrote books describing why these policies were necessary as forms of controlling various undesirable population segments. They described how these policies would effectively destroy these population groups and make them subservient.
What frustrates me most about 'my fellow conservatives' is that they often times fail to understand that the Democratic party figures are not stupid - they know exactly what they are doing... that's just how evil they are. Conservatives, contrary to what is being taught in school these days, are actually very trusting and caring people. They like to believe that there is goodness in every human being and are more inclined to grant people the benefit of the doubt - to assume something was in error or a mistake.
It's somewhat ironic.
There's a saying: "Pics or it didn't happen."
In other words, quotes.
I'm actually doing you a favor. I am fairly certain I know exactly what you are referring to, and if you return to it, you will see how you are in error, here.
I have argued for the logic of extermination - to include women and children, yes.
If you wish to include Christianity into the issue, we actually have to go back to the Old Testament where God ordered the Israelis to kill everyone in a land they overtook. The Prophet who relayed this message noticed that Saul had disobeyed this order and was going to broker captured livestock for personal gain and there were others who were going to take and/or market the survivors as slaves.
You must be registered for see links
There are numerous things going on within the context of that section - other scriptures establish that the subject tribes were corrupt and unclean (could be higher rates of disease) and were to be destroyed. Even if we remove the divine judgment idea from the picture - the point of not taking plunder was to not turn war into a form of economic sustenance nor a cultural assimilation.
To return to within a religious context - this order was relayed by a prophet and the decision to enact such a policy is one strictly retained by God. Under no rational theology could one use this particular segment as an enduring command or encompassing philosophy.
If I were to adopt the same philosophy to my own strategy, it would be my own independent reasoning and between myself and God - a decision I bear the weight of.
There's a considerable difference between inductive reasoning and scriptural justification. Much of the Old Testament is, within Christianity, applied through a process of inductive reasoning. Even much of the New Testament must also be applied through inductive reasoning.
There are few literal, time-eternal commands.
Even if it were the case that I am an idiot, that does not clear your name of the label. Though it is my experience that idiocy is a localized phenomena. It comes and goes.
Though some people go out of their way to save a seat at their table for it.
This would depend upon what region of the world I was born in and what my exposure to other values systems I had.
ISIS is simply reading the Qu'ran and applying it. They believe Muhammad was the prophet and that the Qu'ran revealed through him is God's command. Whether or not we 'like' it is irrelevant.
Which is precisely what the Qu'ran says Islam is about.
Therefor, whether or not I would be a part of ISIS depends upon whether or not I would believe that God revealed the Qur'an to Muhammad. The probability that I would believe this would be more likely to be influenced by my exposure, as I said, to other value systems and other spiritual systems.
If I were raised in Saudi Arabia - I'd probably be plotting the assassination of the Saudi Royal Family because they run against God's system.
If I were raised in India - it's possible that I would have decided that Muhammad was insane and become a Buddhist.
I'd like to think that I would have picked up on the multiple incongruities it the Qu'ran and seemingly erratic behavior of Muhammad in the Hadith to question his legitimacy as a divinely inspired prophet (Muhammad wants more than 4 wives, allah gives Muhammad a revelation saying that he can have more than 4 wives. Muhammad wants to marry a girl younger than he's allowed, allah gives him a revelation saying he can marry Aisha... rather convenient) - but this is not certain.
You can argue that I have the same mentality as ISIS, but this really is a failure to understand 'mentality.'
Your mentality is lawlessness. Things can mean whatever they want to mean to suit the purpose at the time. "How can you say what Muslims believe when you're not a Muslim!?"
My mentality is lawfulness. There are rules and defined consequences to the world. "I can tell you who is a Muslim based upon the book written to do just that."
If you believe that terms have definitions - then I'm correct.
If you believe that how we feel about things is all that matters - then you're correct right up until the point where you become a statistic.
You would save yourself a lot of effort if you'd just read what I've already posted.
Yes.
I know this.
I also know why it is happening.
This is a failure to understand how the economy works.
Oil from these fields is produced by a company. This company pays ISIS not to kill its workers. Or, ISIS does kill their workers and sets up its own market. Either way is the same. The oil is not actually bought directly by any nation at this point. Another company - usually a regional distributor, purchases the oil before delivering it to a global distributor - such as BP, Exxon, etc. There may be multiple intermediaries in the mix, and it can be difficult to track just how much oil in a tanker truck or ship came from where.
Yes. The sooner we can get that minor complication over with, the sooner I can get down to my true purpose for being here.
That's what they get for being hypocrites and supporting the Saudis.
A man paid by the Saudi Royal Family who originally supported the Sunni militants in Syria before it became painfully obvious that the motives of those rebels would have them toppling the Saudis, as well.
95% of what Muslims, where?
You must be registered for see links
Part of the problem with polling countries like Saudi Arabia is that they have roughly 18 million citizens and 8 million foreign workers with 51% of the population being under the age of 25.
You must be registered for see links
You must be registered for see links
Saudi Arabia is a troubled nation that is trying to balance Islamic fundamentalism against the draw of Western wealth and economics. We know it. The Saudis know it. The people in Saudi Arabia know it.
And, yes, I will tell you what your religion believes. Or, rather, all I have to do is point to the sections in the Qu'ran that tell us what a Muslim is supposed to do and the sections of the Qu'ran that explain why the Qu'ran was 'revealed' - to make it clear how the deity that created the universe would have people live. If you have a problem with that, might I suggest you consider that you find a different religion that supports your values?
Islam is not a religion for spiritual enlightenment. It was preached by a warlord possibly under the advisement of the devil. It is built upon the raw expression of the power to subjugate. Those who have the power to bend and break others to their will are those who are most factually able to argue that they are following Islam. Islam does not provide for 'denominations' or for 'factions' - it argues against these interpretations and commands adherence to a single outlook.
You must be registered for see images
This is what Islam does to people.
You must be registered for see images
You must be registered for see images
You must be registered for see images
You must be registered for see images
You're not very familiar with how our euphemisms work, are you?
You are the one who is upset that your religion is not what you want it to be.
By the end of summer, bombings in Saudi Arabia will be quite common, and calls to join the Islamic State will be common. That is just how Islam has always been.
You may not like that. That may not be the type of religion you wish to be a part of - but you are part of a religion with a book that clearly commands that you subjugate others. You are part of a religion where it is ordained for you to kill and where you are condemned for not 'riding with the prophet.' You are part of a religion where the commands that extend directly from god's wisdom expressly state to kill those who have turned from your religion.
You have two options. Well... three.
1 - You believe that Muhammad was the messenger and the the Qu'ran is the revealed wisdom of god. You then rid yourself of the pollution that is the western value system and conform to god's commands.
2 - You do not believe that Muhammad was the messenger and you find a different religion that supports what you believe to be the values that God or the supreme deity would have us adhere to.
3 - you remain in denial and become a statistic.
"Civilized" and "Advanced" are two different things.