First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next  Last
Muslims and free speech
62169 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Vancouver, BC, Ca...
Offline
Posted 1/7/15 , edited 1/9/15
It isn't ALL Muslims, it's a small portion of extremists, learn the difference you dip shit. Saying that Islamic extremist terrorists represent the Islam/Muslim community as a whole is like saying the KKK represent the Christian/Catholic community as a whole.
5 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 1/7/15 , edited 1/11/15
Every religion has some form of extremism not only islam.
For example, Judaism has Zionism but just because there are bad jews does not mean they are all bad. Another example for Christianity is the Westboro Baptist church. In Islam you have ISIS and Al Qaeda. Every religion has their own messed up groups. I am muslim but do not agree on what that man in France has done.
8701 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Definitely not EU
Offline
Posted 1/7/15 , edited 1/11/15

staphen wrote:
I see that you're not a moron, but you don't seem to know how to back up your arguments. If your argument is that there are more Muslim extremists than there are extremists in any other religion, then you need data that indicates how many Muslims are extremists AND how many extremists there are in other religions. The closest you got to having that data was your second link, but the article clearly stated that although 20% sympathized with the feelings and motives of the bombers, 99% thought the bombers were wrong to commit the atrocity.

Data is important, but it also needs to back up your claim.


http://muslimstatistics.wordpress.com/2014/10/06/violence-in-defense-of-islam-statistics/

All the data you need is there. I rest my case.


SpiritWolf15 wrote:

It isn't ALL Muslims, it's a small portion of extremists, learn the difference you dip shit.


Well you clearly didn't watch the video I posted, that small portion still amounts to over thousands, hundreds of thousands, maybe even in the millions, dipshit. Also Islam is only so popular because in these other countries most are forced into the religion. If you happen to be born in one of these inbred families you better believe your listening to what your parents say or face getting raped/killed. Yay to the most popular religion?


Ballerballer wrote:

Every religion has some form of extremism not only islam.
For example, Judaism has Zionism but just because there are bad jews does not mean they are all bad. Another example for Christianity is the Westboro Baptist church. In Islam you have ISIS and Al Qaeda. Every religion has their own messed up groups. I am muslim but do not agree on what that man in France has done.


lol yeah because Westboro are just as bad as beheadings that go on right?

I've posted enough proof that Islam does in fact practice violent nonsense, along with data to prove that it's not only a 'small minority'. Until people actually realize this, and maybe when other Muslims stop feeling sorry for themselves and also take action then things might get better because this is the civilized world, until then, nothing will change. That's all good day.
1176 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Kamra
Offline
Posted 1/7/15 , edited 1/11/15


All quotes you've posted from Quran, you don't know the context behind them. If law tells you to shot someone, then of course law is wrong. But if it says "IF someone tries to take you or your family's life, you can shot that person"... Now that changes everything. Same is the case here with these quotes.. My guess is you just googled and copy pasted them so you aren't aware about the context in which they are being spoken. Also for the women rights, Islam never said to treat them like cattle, rather it gave them equal footing as men in society where girls were buried alive and no one questioned that.

Religious debates can go on forever and they just promote more hatred between people if they don't have proper knowledge of each other's religion so I would request people not to drag it any furthur as it's already turning into flamming...
60157 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 1/7/15 , edited 1/9/15

DanteVSTheWorld wrote:


staphen wrote:
I see that you're not a moron, but you don't seem to know how to back up your arguments. If your argument is that there are more Muslim extremists than there are extremists in any other religion, then you need data that indicates how many Muslims are extremists AND how many extremists there are in other religions. The closest you got to having that data was your second link, but the article clearly stated that although 20% sympathized with the feelings and motives of the bombers, 99% thought the bombers were wrong to commit the atrocity.

Data is important, but it also needs to back up your claim.


http://muslimstatistics.wordpress.com/2014/10/06/violence-in-defense-of-islam-statistics/

All the data you need is there. I rest my case.


At best, that data proves that extremism is more a function of region than religion. Without a direct comparison to other religions, it's impossible to assert that Islam is any worse than other religions.
32 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M
Offline
Posted 1/7/15

perrandy wrote:
you gotta be thankful that you werent born in a communist country which atheist beliefs allows/allowed them to persecute gays in unspeakable ways because of communist dogma.so much for atheism to be the panacea of free progressive thinking



Woah, home skillet. Step back a second.

1. Atheism and communism are not the same thing. They do not go hand in hand, and they never will.

2. With little exception, most communist regimes practiced religion. Because it helped them control the masses. In fact, of all the current communist regimes, only North Korea claims to be an atheist country (even though, that isn't a fact. While they have a large population of atheists per capita compared to many countries, the largest religion in North Korea is actually the deification of Dear Leader.)

3. Just because the leader is an atheist, does not make the country so. In fact, Soviet religious persecution was reserved for the religious of the non-Christian sort. More specifically Russian Orthodox Catholicism was safe.

4. More homosexual persecution occurs in theocratic countries than any, ANY secular nation. Period. Even Russia, with all the land-mass it possesses has fewer cases of homosexual persecution than the smallest theocracy in the middle east. And that's counting non-violent cases in Russia against violent cases in these smaller countries. Remember, in Russia, homosexuality is just a sin and they don't care for it. In Saudi Arabia, it's punishable by death.
41690 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Somewhere
Offline
Posted 1/7/15 , edited 1/7/15


You and nnss78613 are both right. Religion can have a positive as well as a negative impact on a society. I personally think it's determined by who is in power. Being the leader of a religious organization or ruling a country that has it's religion as the only religion are forms of power and usually power like that corrupts people or is used for selfish reasons. Not every religious person takes things to an extreme. A lot of religions can have good ideals, but it's man that takes the religion and twists it. I wouldn't say the problem is religion, but people themselves.

Also I've always wondered who is that lady you use as gif at the end of most of your posts?
Posted 1/7/15

DanteVSTheWorld wrote:


You know, I actually started to go through and paste in all the actual passages you quoted and included context in them that changed their meanings. Then I decided I wasn't going to do your research for you. Instead, take all of those quotes you provided and just google the passage. Read what it actually says. Read what comes before and after the passage. I know you won't but it's pretty easy to do. I'll make it easy.

Start here as it is the passage right before your first quote.

http://quran.com/3/84

Just go ahead and type in that sites search bar 2:1, 2:2, 2:3 etc of all the quotes you listed.

Most of it is typical Bible stuff.
62169 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Vancouver, BC, Ca...
Offline
Posted 1/7/15

DanteVSTheWorld


GO back to Faux News and Limbaugh buddy. the minority does NOT make the whole, a few extremist nut jobs does not make a religion.

1176 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Kamra
Offline
Posted 1/7/15

DanteVSTheWorld wrote:


nnss78613 wrote:

All quotes you've posted from Quran, you don't know the context behind them. If law tells you to shot someone, then of course law is wrong. But if it says "IF someone tries to take you or your family's life, you can shot that person"... Now that changes everything. Same is the case here with these quotes.. My guess is you just googled and copy pasted them so you aren't aware about the context in which they are being spoken. Also for the women rights, Islam never said to treat them like cattle, rather it gave them equal footing as men in society where girls were buried alive and no one questioned that.

Religious debates can go on forever and they just promote more hatred between people if they don't have proper knowledge of each other's religion so I would request people not to drag it any furthur as it's already turning into flamming...


Oh, so the whole quote that says 'I will strike terror in their hears' or the one about beheading the non-believers, what secret, hidden context am I missing?


staphen wrote:

At best, that data proves that extremism is more a function of region than religion. Without a direct comparison to other religions, it's impossible to assert that Islam is any worse than other religions.


Direct comparison? How about Islam being the most popular in those other regions, no other religion is even allowed, there's your comparison. Lmao even if the evidence was to slap you in the face the next day you would say 'Oh that was probably a dream I had....' or some other shit. This is my last post on the subject.


Here God is saying that he will strike terror in enemy's heart on battlefield. It was said when muslim were going into war against enemy that were lot bigger in number than muslims so as to console them that God will help them on battlefield. Also the other one was also said about war i.e. to behead non-believer enemies in war. I don't think muslims are the only one who kill enemies in wars O.o
31839 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 1/7/15

Jannt wrote:


perrandy wrote:
you gotta be thankful that you werent born in a communist country which atheist beliefs allows/allowed them to persecute gays in unspeakable ways because of communist dogma.so much for atheism to be the panacea of free progressive thinking



Woah, home skillet. Step back a second.

1. Atheism and communism are not the same thing. They do not go hand in hand, and they never will.

2. With little exception, most communist regimes practiced religion. Because it helped them control the masses. In fact, of all the current communist regimes, only North Korea claims to be an atheist country (even though, that isn't a fact. While they have a large population of atheists per capita compared to many countries, the largest religion in North Korea is actually the deification of Dear Leader.)

3. Just because the leader is an atheist, does not make the country so. In fact, Soviet religious persecution was reserved for the religious of the non-Christian sort. More specifically Russian Orthodox Catholicism was safe.

4. More homosexual persecution occurs in theocratic countries than any, ANY secular nation. Period. Even Russia, with all the land-mass it possesses has fewer cases of homosexual persecution than the smallest theocracy in the middle east. And that's counting non-violent cases in Russia against violent cases in these smaller countries. Remember, in Russia, homosexuality is just a sin and they don't care for it. In Saudi Arabia, it's punishable by death.
you are wrong in everything that you say there and i was writing a lengthy response but i pressed the wrong button and erased it by accident lol .i advise you to talk to people that were born behind the iron curtain to know the truth.i was born in a communist country almost 40 years ago,dude! so i know what i am talking about because i didnt learn it from a book or my history teacher or some other author i saw the abuse and even have the testimony of my parents that saw the beginning of it all.yes homosexuals were greatly persecuted to the point of years and years of prison or exile and even death and so the people that believed it in a highest being or power.the existence of anything spiritual or religious was mocked and ridiculed by the state propaganda who only elevated the dictator to some kind of god or infallible personality


35033 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 1/7/15 , edited 1/7/15
The Daily Mail? No. Let's go with what the Associated Press has to say about this instead:

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2015/01/07/world/europe/ap-eu-france-newspaper-attack.html?_r=0

Some key highlights (if you don't read any of the others, read the last one):



So what have we learned, and how can we integrate that into what we already know? We've learned that:

-Charlie Hebdo (and editor Stephane Charbonnier in particular) had a long history of being threatened by terrorist organizations for satirical works in the publication, especially from al-Qaida and ISIL

-The woman who let the terrorists into the offices said that they both spoke fluent French and claimed to be from al-Qaida

-It has been confirmed by security analysts and multiple witness accounts that the assailants were professionals

-No organization has claimed responsibility for the attack at this time, but it has drawn praise from both al-Qaida and ISIL supporters

-The attack has also drawn stern condemnation from significant Muslim organizations based both in France and Saudi Arabia

-The French people, taken generally, have expressed solidarity against the attack by standing with Charlie Hebdo

We already know that:

-ISIL is an organization which has openly encouraged people to engage in terrorist activity without prior consultation or prompting from them, and people have followed that command (for example, in Canada and Australia)

-People involved with ISIL have moved back and forth between their home countries and Syria

I understand that "All X are Y" is a simple, straightforward thought process which comfortably comports with the prevailing view of Islam and Muslims in a post-9/11 world. But it doesn't comport with the facts, and that's what really matters. The fact is that this attack was, based on all currently available information, perpetrated by professionals which either are members of or have strong sympathies with al-Qaida. The question to ask is not "Why can't Muslims respect free speech?", it's "Why can't organizations like al-Qaida and ISIL and their supporters respect free speech?". The answer, of course, is obvious: they're totalitarians. Free speech is anathema to the sort of society they seek to establish, which is one in which their vision of Islam is the only sociocultural object on anyone's radar anywhere and in which any opposing viewpoint is ruthlessly and immediately stomped out.

The people to be challenging, to be opposing, aren't Muslims in general. The system to be calling out isn't Islam in general. It's the authoritarian, totalitarian, militant extremist minority within the Muslim community and their brutally repressive vision of Islam which need to be called out for their unacceptable behavior. I consider it a part of my Christian duty to make the distinction between a run-of-the-mill Muslim, which is just a person with a different faith than my own, and someone who has taken up a violent vision of that alternative religion and which seeks to do me harm. To that end I will not let the distinction between these two be blurred and will continue to examine the facts of the matter as I have done in this case. This attack was perpetrated by professional terrorists with either ties to or sympathy with al-Qaida, not a group of random French Muslims who got pissed off and decided to grab assault rifles and attack a publication office.
31839 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 1/7/15

BlueOni wrote:

The Daily Mail? No. Let's go with what the Associated Press has to say about this instead:

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2015/01/07/world/europe/ap-eu-france-newspaper-attack.html?_r=0

Some key highlights (if you don't read any of the others, read the last one):



So what have we learned, and how can we integrate that into what we already know? We've learned that:

-Charlie Hebdo (and editor Stephane Charbonnier in particular) had a long history of being threatened by terrorist organizations for satirical works in the publication, especially from al-Qaida and ISIL

-The woman who let the terrorists into the offices said that they both spoke fluent French and claimed to be from al-Qaida

-It has been confirmed by security analysts and multiple witness accounts that the assailants were professionals

-No organization has claimed responsibility for the attack at this time, but it has drawn praise from both al-Qaida and ISIL supporters

-The attack has also drawn stern condemnation from significant Muslim organizations based both in France and Saudi Arabia

-The French people, taken generally, have expressed solidarity against the attack by standing with Charlie Hebdo

We already know that:

-ISIL is an organization which has openly encouraged people to engage in terrorist activity without prior consultation or prompting from them, and people have followed that command (for example, in Canada and Australia)

-People involved with ISIL have moved back and forth between their home countries and Syria

I understand that "All X are Y" is a simple, straightforward thought process which comfortably comports with the prevailing view of Islam and Muslims in a post-9/11 world. But it doesn't comport with the facts, and that's what really matters. The fact is that this attack was, based on all currently available information, perpetrated by professionals which either are members of or have strong sympathies with al-Qaida. The question to ask is not "Why can't Muslims respect free speech?", it's "Why can't organizations like al-Qaida and ISIL and their supporters respect free speech?". The answer, of course, is obvious: they're totalitarians. Free speech is anathema to the sort of society they seek to establish, which is one in which their vision of Islam is the only sociocultural object on anyone's radar anywhere and in which any opposing viewpoint is ruthlessly and immediately stomped out.

The people to be challenging, to be opposing, aren't Muslims in general. The system to be calling out isn't Islam in general. It's the authoritarian, totalitarian, militant extremist minority within the Muslim community and their brutally repressive vision of Islam which need to be called out for their unacceptable behavior. I consider it a part of my Christian duty to make the distinction between a run-of-the-mill Muslim, which is just a person with a different faith than my own, and someone who has taken up a violent vision of that alternative religion and which seeks to do me harm. To that end I will not let the distinction between these two be blurred and will continue to examine the facts of the matter as I have done in this case. This attack was perpetrated by professional terrorists with either ties to or sympathy with al-Qaida, not a group of random French Muslims who got pissed off and decided to grab assault rifles and attack a publication office.
what dont you call it what it is? its wahabism which originates from saudi arabia..granted not every muslim in saudi are wahabbi but this line of thought or school is being promoted by the kingdom through the funding of madrassas and mosques all over the world

20890 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M
Online
Posted 1/7/15
A crime is crime, The reasons could have been for Religion, Personal Dispute for the emperor, for the republic, for Hitler or for not getting free week in December

The thing Is that victims are dead, no one can change it, justice must be done.

Blaming a belief for a sole act non sense. Blame those who commit it .
35033 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 1/7/15 , edited 1/7/15

perrandy wrote:

what dont you call it what it is? its wahabism which originates from saudi arabia..granted not every muslim in saudi are wahabbi but this line of thought or school is being promoted by the kingdom through the funding of madrassas and mosques all over the world


I'll change my tone, that was rude. The Saudi government has an interest in promoting totalitarian thinking, and does so. This shouldn't be surprising, and it doesn't actually show that Islam is (on the whole) characterized by totalitarianism.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.