Re: Chapel Hill Shooting: 3 young Muslims have been killed due to "dispute over parki
I'm saying the westerns protest when Islam is seen as the enemy. As a matter of fact, they only protest when Islam is growing more in population, and they have the fear it will take over their country (which some Muslims are native there). If you ever want to protest, at least don't be a hypocrite and protest against the government when Muslims are victims.
Oh?
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 must be registered for see images
Please, by all means, tell me more about how inappropriate it is for westerners to protest Islam and how it is the Muslims who are the real victims in the world.
You do not have much time to learn, boy, so I suggest you do it quickly. The Qu'ran commands Muslims to form what is known as a Caliphate. There is no debate with this fact - Muslims are to live under the laws of the Qu'ran and the authenticated Hadith and there is to be no Fitnah (conflict) between them.
The Qu'ran isn't a big book - you'll find these commands largely throughout Surat 2 - though there are quite a few commands to fight until there is no more Fitnah, there are several places where Fitnah is elaborated upon (or the consequences of it), and multiple mentions that there will be Muslims who are 'not Muslim enough.'
The Caliphate is essentially a Qu'ranic mandate and there is little disagreement on the validity and importance of Sharia law within Muslim society. There are only 'minor' disagreements regarding specific punishments as well as who serves as the judicial and monetary authorities - which is why there are actually multiple Caliphates at this point in time (though Boko Haram is likely to side with ISIS and Al Qaeda is likely to be adsorbed once ISIS is successful at claiming Iraq or Syria - the militants will join whomever can make the Caliphate a reality).
What does this have to do with those of us who aren't Muslim?
Well, it really sucks when your town begins prosecuting everyone according to the only legal system seen as valid according to Islam - which is Sharia.
Of course, if you have a problem with this, you're a bigot who likes to attack Islam.
I don't grant Islam a privileged victim status. When you are in my country, you live by my country's rules and laws. You don't get to live by yours. Every single one of the Sharia Court members in Dallas should be arrested and tried for treason. There are several active training camps for Islamic militants within the U.S.
That we know of.
Those need to go away.
Now,
I hear a lot of "they aren't Islam" or that there is some kind of "true Islam" somewhere.
"True Islam," apparently, isn't doing anything.
As non-Muslims in Yemen, Syria, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia are hunted and executed... where are the "True Muslims?" When the Saudi government official on Western History says: "Women in America drive because they don't care if they get raped" - where is the condemnation?
Where is the reform? Or the call for it?
Look up Muslim discussion forums. What is on there?
Calls for reform? That it's okay for a Muslim woman to marry a very responsible and caring Buddhist she met? No. Replies on the discussion forum tantamount to: "Ignore your western upbringing; what is right is what is written; if she goes through with this, disown her or report her for trial."
"Yes, but he's nice and makes her happy."
"It doesn't matter, and if you have anything to do with her afterward then you are committing shirk at best."
Perhaps you believe that book contains the keys to salvation in it, and therefor find no reason to dispute such logic.
I, however, do not.
Nor will I fall for the tactics.
The man who did this was a radical liberal atheist. I have long warned of the instability of liberals and how they are more prone to spontaneous violent outbursts than the much-feared "gun-loving-conservatives." I've been a proponent of firearm safety and of teaching people self-control so that conflicts between people are not nearly as prone to such escalations.
As far as protesting - that is the only pattern I see behind his behavior. Like all liberals - he was a miserable human being who believed his genius was unrecognized. This is why liberals resort to foisting their agenda upon the world through underhanded tactics. I've long opposed liberalism (the new variety, at least) and what it does to people.
I also generally caution that humans require faith in something, and atheism is very non-descript in what one places his/her faith in. Humans need to believe there is some process by which they obtain purpose/meaning. If they do not have this, they can be horribly unstable and prone to irrational outbursts when they lose sight of their own relative identity/worth. Basically, when they lose perspective on their life, they are prone to acting without regard for life in general.
Which is why I generally regard 'true' atheists as loose cannons, particularly when liberal.
Most atheists are technically agnostic - they don't have a belief in 'no god' so much as they do not see any reason to believe in a god (much less a specific one outlined by a religion); therefor they aren't going to bother entertaining problems they can't solve. They believe they are atheists because they like to logically challenge the depictions and descriptions of deities in religions - basically, they like to make the argument that a religion doesn't have the answers it asserts it does.
But that's a distinction that Atheist organizations have yet to realize. It also doesn't help that there really isn't a "book of atheism" that defines what qualifies one to be an atheist. You can simply claim to be one because you believe religions are stupid. Atheists don't really have a motivation to band together and form coherent systems of ideals and rules - so there isn't really an ability to confirm or deny one was "an atheist."
Consider how if I were to decide to McVeigh a few Mosques some evening during their call to prayer and my Facebook were filled with all kinds of Christian idioms (it isn't - but for the sake of argument).
Immediately, the question is asked: "What church was he a part of?"
I haven't attended church in about 5 years and am not considered an "active" member anywhere. My last real church activity was with the Presbyterian Church - which is the denomination I was raised under. Both Presbyteries (sub-denominations of the denomination... it's complicated) would be -very- quick to denounce what I did and you would see prayers going out to the Muslim families affected and invitations for Muslims to speak to the Congregation and other forms of inter-faith outreach.
If I were an active member, it still wouldn't change their reaction - but you would see media focus on the Presbyterian church (they would get bored pretty quick, 'we' aren't called the "Frozen Chosen" for nothing). The media would have someone/something to focus on - some group from which I was associating and gaining ideas (like the ones on my hypothetical Facebook page).
Another Example:
Where did the "Reverend" Al Sharpton get his degree? No church recognizes him as being a Reverend, that I'm aware of. Yet he claims the title.
By contrast - where did Richard Dawkins gain any kind of official Atheism certificate?
It's true that there are Atheist groups - but none of them really work like a church. Even so - Dawkins was quick to denounce what this man did (because this man was a fan of Dawkins) and stated that this is not how an Atheist should behave - particularly since it amounts to violating the Rule of Law that is the product of human sociological advancement. Dawkins even took the opportunity to take a political stab at the NRA, Second Amendment, and Concealed Carry.
soon they will,no doubt
and you are the clown
No, the media has been blaming "anti-Muslim bigotry" despite the fact that the man shows a long history of mental instability and the conflict was over parking.
Well... it was probably aggravated by the expectation for this man to accept diminutive status - but not withstanding.
several members already said he was an atheist in this thread,don't you read,i never meant you
See above.
The fact is that he claimed to be an atheist. A militant one, at that. What that has to do with you, personally, exists only in your head.
Which is mildly concerning.
