Muhammadanism WEBSITE...

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
AZ,


I think we are in total agreement. Its just that the immediate threat happens to be muslims this time around, and not the catholics.

[/ QUOTE ]

Um... no.

Calculate a death toll anyway you like. It's not even CLOSE.

[/ QUOTE ]

And by the way, that is not proof of some inherent violent tendencies found within Catholicism. It is simply common sense that when two groups of people (both capable of incredible generosity and altruism as well as incredible evil and barbarism, as ALL humans are) clash, the one with the bigger guns is going to kill more people. Funny, common sense used to be applauded.

Look, the bible condones some pretty brutal things at times, including genocide. Now if someone were to come on here and say this means that the Christians and/or Jews MUST be inherently violent, they'd be shouted down and probably banned- and rightly so. But for whatever reason OP, you are still allowed to come on here and spread your bone-headed hate speech. You think that because you read some fanatics website and a few passages of the Koran out of context, you are now an authority on what real Muslims MUST believe. You aren't.

Whether you take the past year as your sample size, the past decade, the past century, or the past 1000 years, over any of these it is clear that Catholics have killed more Muslims than vice versa. This being so, your ideas crumble when exposed to the light of empirical evidence. They're dumb. you're like the big elephant afraid of the tiny mouse.

[/ QUOTE ]


Your reading comprehension is that of a 3rd graders.



who said muslims are inherently evil? no one.

I read teh whole koran, and books to complement it, then wrote a lengthy paper summarizing it. Im not an expert by any means, but know the teachings more than most on this board.


You think that because you read some fanatics website and a few passages of the Koran out of context, you are now an authority on what real Muslims MUST believe.



these terrible messages arent regulated to a "few pages". again. learn to read.



It is simply common sense that when two groups of people (both capable of incredible generosity and altruism as well as incredible evil and barbarism, as ALL humans are) clash, the one with the bigger guns is going to kill more people.


Im fairly sure that this view has been expressed several times in this thread, and you just love jerking yourself off to how sympathetic and "diverse" you can be. can you understand english or what?

[/ QUOTE ]

I read just fine. OP says Muslims must support violence. I say this is ignorant. You jump in, throw some cheap insults, and tell me that you read the Koran. I'm not sure how that is relevant to my comments to OP.

1) You're POV is predicated upon a double standard. Let me demonstrate.

You point to violent passages in the Koran as proof that Islam is violent. However, you ignore that the Bible is just as violent, and at times supports murder and genocide of non-believers as well. You hold one side up to a certain standard, but view the other side in a different context. For instance, a Muslim straps a bomb to himself and blows himself up. This is evidence to you that Islam is violent. Now A Christian kills a doctor in front of an abortion clinic. This is just a Christian who is misinterpreting the bible.

There is a passage in the Bible that states if a women sits on her chair while menstruating, the chair must be burned. Now, if we read this without context, we can come to some wacky conclusions. Are Christians really a threat to the chairs of menstruating women everywhere? CONTEXT.

2) Your POV is based on assumptions.

The OP stated that because the Koran says that Muslims must support those who are fighting the cause of Allah, therefore they must support terrorist groups. That is making a lot of assumptions. Are these groups really fighting for the cause of Allah? Does simply saying you are make it so? This is quite a stretch, and lends itself to all kind of crazy outcomes. If you build on assumption after assumption, you can pretty much conclude any thing you'd like. For instance, one of the Ten Commandments is honor thy mother and father. Now, I have this German Christian friend. Thing is, his grand father had a position in the nazi party. Since real Christians honor their mother and father, Does that make his parents nazis? And if he's a real Christian, what does that make HIM? It's a silly notion, for sure, but no more silly than taking a 1500 year old passage saying "support those who fight for God" and extrapolating from this "modern Muslims must support terrorists".

[/ QUOTE ]

There's one way to simplify this whole discussion.

Would you agree that the FOUNDERS of each religion each knew a fair bit about their own respective religions? Jesus knew Christianity; Mohammed knew Islam; and Buddha knew Buddhism. AT LEAST, they each knew their own religions as much or more than any other living person at the time, wouldn't you agree?

They also each passed on, and personally practiced, key tenets of their respective religions. Now, the following is incontrovertibly true: Mohammed supported violence on many occasions and engaged in violence on many occasions. Jesus did not. Buddha did not. From this, you are free to draw your own conclusions.

[govman6767]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
AZ,


I think we are in total agreement. Its just that the immediate threat happens to be muslims this time around, and not the catholics.

[/ QUOTE ]

Um... no.

Calculate a death toll anyway you like. It's not even CLOSE.

[/ QUOTE ]

And by the way, that is not proof of some inherent violent tendencies found within Catholicism. It is simply common sense that when two groups of people (both capable of incredible generosity and altruism as well as incredible evil and barbarism, as ALL humans are) clash, the one with the bigger guns is going to kill more people. Funny, common sense used to be applauded.

Look, the bible condones some pretty brutal things at times, including genocide. Now if someone were to come on here and say this means that the Christians and/or Jews MUST be inherently violent, they'd be shouted down and probably banned- and rightly so. But for whatever reason OP, you are still allowed to come on here and spread your bone-headed hate speech. You think that because you read some fanatics website and a few passages of the Koran out of context, you are now an authority on what real Muslims MUST believe. You aren't.

Whether you take the past year as your sample size, the past decade, the past century, or the past 1000 years, over any of these it is clear that Catholics have killed more Muslims than vice versa. This being so, your ideas crumble when exposed to the light of empirical evidence. They're dumb. you're like the big elephant afraid of the tiny mouse.

[/ QUOTE ]


My OP has nothing to do with Cathlolics I can't stand them either. I'll get to them later.

I'm glad all the wife beating suicide bombing ppl are coming to the defense of my OP.

[UATrewqaz]

If your default response to

"Islam is bad because..."

or

"Muslims have a problem with..."

is the immediate

"but but Christians!"

is just an indication of the anti-Christian baggage you carry.

Many people here are very anti relgion and most were raised in Western, predominantly Christian countries and thus have alot of baggage towards that particular religion.

If someone says "Christians good, Muslims bad" then feel free to do the "but but Christians" stuff, but if you can't have a discussion on the merits/flaws of Islam by itself without going on an anti-Christian rant you're just blinded by your own issues.

[govman6767]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

If you change "Catholics" to "Religious non-muslims" and I think you find more murders by Muslims than RNMs over the last decade. (Not to mention the fact that far more Muslims were killed by other Muslims than by RNMs).


[/ QUOTE ]

This simply isn't true. The US has killed more Muslims in the past decade than vice versa. The U.S, of course, being the preeminent Christian-populated nation. Or are you not including Christian state-sponsored killings in your analysis, while including Muslim state-sponsored killings? I just don't see how you can come to this conclusion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nielso's gimmick account ????

I read this and LOL'ed

[govman6767]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
AZ,


I think we are in total agreement. Its just that the immediate threat happens to be muslims this time around, and not the catholics.

[/ QUOTE ]

Um... no.

Calculate a death toll anyway you like. It's not even CLOSE.

[/ QUOTE ]

And by the way, that is not proof of some inherent violent tendencies found within Catholicism. It is simply common sense that when two groups of people (both capable of incredible generosity and altruism as well as incredible evil and barbarism, as ALL humans are) clash, the one with the bigger guns is going to kill more people. Funny, common sense used to be applauded.

Look, the bible condones some pretty brutal things at times, including genocide. Now if someone were to come on here and say this means that the Christians and/or Jews MUST be inherently violent, they'd be shouted down and probably banned- and rightly so. But for whatever reason OP, you are still allowed to come on here and spread your bone-headed hate speech. You think that because you read some fanatics website and a few passages of the Koran out of context, you are now an authority on what real Muslims MUST believe. You aren't.

Whether you take the past year as your sample size, the past decade, the past century, or the past 1000 years, over any of these it is clear that Catholics have killed more Muslims than vice versa. This being so, your ideas crumble when exposed to the light of empirical evidence. They're dumb. you're like the big elephant afraid of the tiny mouse.

[/ QUOTE ]


Your reading comprehension is that of a 3rd graders.



who said muslims are inherently evil? no one.

I read teh whole koran, and books to complement it, then wrote a lengthy paper summarizing it. Im not an expert by any means, but know the teachings more than most on this board.


You think that because you read some fanatics website and a few passages of the Koran out of context, you are now an authority on what real Muslims MUST believe.



these terrible messages arent regulated to a "few pages". again. learn to read.



It is simply common sense that when two groups of people (both capable of incredible generosity and altruism as well as incredible evil and barbarism, as ALL humans are) clash, the one with the bigger guns is going to kill more people.


Im fairly sure that this view has been expressed several times in this thread, and you just love jerking yourself off to how sympathetic and "diverse" you can be. can you understand english or what?

[/ QUOTE ]

I read just fine. OP says Muslims must support violence. I say this is ignorant. You jump in, throw some cheap insults, and tell me that you read the Koran. I'm not sure how that is relevant to my comments to OP.

1) You're POV is predicated upon a double standard. Let me demonstrate.

You point to violent passages in the Koran as proof that Islam is violent. However, you ignore that the Bible is just as violent, and at times supports murder and genocide of non-believers as well. You hold one side up to a certain standard, but view the other side in a different context. For instance, a Muslim straps a bomb to himself and blows himself up. This is evidence to you that Islam is violent. Now A Christian kills a doctor in front of an abortion clinic. This is just a Christian who is misinterpreting the bible.

There is a passage in the Bible that states if a women sits on her chair while menstruating, the chair must be burned. Now, if we read this without context, we can come to some wacky conclusions. Are Christians really a threat to the chairs of menstruating women everywhere? CONTEXT.

2) Your POV is based on assumptions.

The OP stated that because the Koran says that Muslims must support those who are fighting the cause of Allah, therefore they must support terrorist groups. That is making a lot of assumptions. Are these groups really fighting for the cause of Allah? Does simply saying you are make it so? This is quite a stretch, and lends itself to all kind of crazy outcomes. If you build on assumption after assumption, you can pretty much conclude any thing you'd like. For instance, one of the Ten Commandments is honor thy mother and father. Now, I have this German Christian friend. Thing is, his grand father had a position in the nazi party. Since real Christians honor their mother and father, Does that make his parents nazis? And if he's a real Christian, what does that make HIM? It's a silly notion, for sure, but no more silly than taking a 1500 year old passage saying "support those who fight for God" and extrapolating from this "modern Muslims must support terrorists".

[/ QUOTE ]

Like I said I don't care about christianity or cathlolics or any other religion all I"m talking about is Islam.

Your defending a religion that's in a currently HORRIBLE state by doing nothing other than attacking another one.

" WEll uuuuuuhhhh christiantiy was bad........ Uhhhhhh so we can be bad..."

Here is what I see really going on here.

1) Guys who defend the middle east in EVERY THREAD MADE ON 2+2 have no ground to stand on.

2) All they have is one silly little poll where they interviewed a few muslims from who know's where. And they post this poll anytime someone shows how horrible Islam can be.

3) IF AC'istS would start using the term "Jack Booted Thugs for Radical Islamists" Then I would start taking their phliosoply more serious. Ppl who give them the freedom to spout their stuff are Thugs and Hard Line muslims who would give them the death sentence for even thinking AC are sympathetic.

4) Islam has it's good points and can be a wonderful relgion from what I read. But it's too flawed and filled with violence. NOT THAT THERE ARE ANY real good alternatives. Religion is silly IMO and a waste of time and energy.

I personally find it sickining how so many 2+2'ers are defending a religion built around so much violence.

A mans wife is Raped so he get's sent to Jail and Lashes..... Then the Raped woman get's sent to Jail and LASHES.

I don't care how bad christiantiy is or was but the above paragraph is enough to make me want to puke and all you ppl defending islam are a source of hilarity for me.

[Max Raker]

[ QUOTE ]

Just because it isnt named mohamadism means nothing, mohamad is the central character, and speaks for god in the koran, essentialy he is a christ-like figure.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have to look at the origin of the phrase Muhammadanism. Religons ending in -ism are words created by Christians to put down other religons. Christianity was taken apart with the ity suffix and other religons hinduism, buddhism etc where given the ism suffix to lump them together as mythology. They want their religon to be called Islam and to be called Muslims. These words exist in the language that is important to their religon. Anybody who does not use these words is probably not very objective. It would be like quoting a study that refered to blacks as the n word. Could what they say be correct, sure, but they cast alot of doubt on their objectivity with their choice of phrasing.

[guids]

I think our misunderstanding is due to you quoting the wrong people, and your lack of reading comprehension, which is hilariously terrible.


I do not have a double standard, I do not think every muslim is evil, inherenetly or not, I condemn christians who kill others, just like I condemn muslims that do. I believe that takeing any of the old books literally is insane. You can not deny the fact that in the year 2007 the people who are taking the bible literally are a little more benign than the people taking the koran literally.

[sebbb]

[ QUOTE ]

<font color="black"> Work with me on the next one cause it's big </font>

[ QUOTE ]
One of the five pillars of Islam is the requirement that every Muslims contribute to the Islamic charity (alms) tax or Zakat. According to the Qur'an, the Zakat funds must be used for the following purposes.

The Fuqara poor. They are the poor who do not beg for support.
The Masakin. They are the poor who beg for support.
Those who administer the collection and distribution of the Zakat funds.
Those who may be enticed to Islam as well as new converts who need financial support.
Those Muslim slaves who may have their freedom purchased.
Those who are fighting in the Cause of Allah, e.g., the Mujahideen.
Muslim travelers who need assistance while on a journey.


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Those who are fighting in the Cause of Allah, e.g., the Mujahideen


[/ QUOTE ]

According to the 5 pillars of ISLAM the holiest of holy commandments. Every single muslim in the world whether in america, europe, russia, Antartica, should be doing all they can to help Al Quieda.

Sounds to me like anyone who believes in teh 5 pillars of islam (uhh all muslims) pretty much HAS to support the terrorists.

I'd love to hear some opinions on this.

[/ QUOTE ]


I'll give you my opinion on that part (Zakat).

There are two things that you are not understanding about Zakat.

1) The different categories are categories eligible for Zakat. Muslims are not supposed to split the amount between the different categories... So not all muslims are giving money to "those who are fighting"... A lot of those contributions will just go to the people in need, it's a bit like social welfare.

I think it's a pretty good concept


2) "the Mujahideen" &lt;&gt; terrorists

Do you think the people who were fighting against the soviet invasion of Afghanistan were terrorists?
What about the muslims fighting during the crusades?


To me it seems that it's a bit like a muslim version of "support our troops".

But it doesn't mean that Muslims are all supporting Al Qaeda. A lot think AQ is not a legitimate representative of the Muslim people. However, they would probably donate to a legitimate cause such as defending Lebanon against an external invasion. Though they would do this only if they feel it is needed; it's not like all the muslims have been donating to Lebanese soldiers

As an analogy, a lot of Americans have a "support our troops" sticker on their car. Does that mean that they support the bad part of the troops (the torturers, the rapists, the murderers, which are a minority). Of course not.


In addition, using the term Muhammadanism is a bit of a tease and I believe annoying to muslims, since it could imply some form of idolatry. But that's a different subject.

[JOHNY CA$H]

[ QUOTE ]
I think our misunderstanding is due to you quoting the wrong people, and your lack of reading comprehension, which is hilariously terrible.


I do not have a double standard, I do not think every muslim is evil, inherenetly or not, I condemn christians who kill others, just like I condemn muslims that do. I believe that takeing any of the old books literally is insane. You can not deny the fact that in the year 2007 the people who are taking the bible literally are a little more benign than the people taking the koran literally.

[/ QUOTE ]

guids- I was never talking to you. I was always referencing the OPs original argument, which was that the Koran states that present day Muslims MUST support terrorists. But you somehow drew the conclusion I was speaking to you, demonstrating that it is YOU who has the reading comprehension problem. Funny, huh? It's crazy how the people who accuse others of something are usually more guilty of it themselves. He who smelt it, dealt it, I guess. You might want to think about how that relates to this discussion in general. But I don't blame you, guids- when someone has their head so far up their ass, you can't really blame them when they open their mouth and only [censored] comes out. Just quit talking politics. Forever. It's over your head.

It's a shame what's happened to this forum, and to American political discourse in general. I think it's time to stick to the more profitable areas of this site. This is just a breeding ground for hate speech.

In the end, YOUR COUNTRY invaded two of THEIR countries, and killed untold hundreds of thousands in the process. You arguing that Islam is inherently violent is like a few Nazis debating the violent nature of Judaism. When you step back and look at it, it's laughable. Work on fixing YOUR CULTURE, rather than blaming another one, and the world would be a much better place.

[MelchyBeau]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
muhammadanism website

There is some FUNNY STUFF ON THIS WEBSITE it's not meant to be funny but it's funny.

Here is some exerpts

[ QUOTE ]
Hollywood Is Scared
Hollywood loves to push the boundaries of social sensibilities. However, when it comes to the icons of Islam, Hollywood is fearful to produce a historically accurate movie of Muhammad’s life. Muhammad fought battles, beheaded hundreds of people, married many women — including a nine-year old girl when he was a 54 year old man, raided merchant caravans, flew during the night on a winged animal whose size was between a donkey and a horse to the temple mount in Jerusalem. If Jesus Christ had beheaded people, married many women or had robbed caravans, and flew around on a winged-donkey, Hollywood would have produced numerous films lampooning his life. However, Hollywood film directors and actors are afraid they would have their throats slit, if they produced a realistic movie of Muhammad’s life.



[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure Rob Zombie would have no problem making a movie about muahmmmud

[ QUOTE ]
Will the West die peacefully?
European’s Western civilization has left its Christian heritage and is dying and being replaced by Islam. So, will this transition be peaceful or filled with conflict? Europeans have lost the will to live and flourish as a moral and religious people. For Islam to become the dominate religion of Europe, Muslims have little more to do other than to continue to value their families and have children. Already, many of Europe’s leaders submit to Islam, blaming the Europeans themselves for the Muslim demonstrations and riots. Mentally, it is as if they have already accepted the status of dhimmitude.

A civilization dies when it diminishes the value of children. Many nations in the Western world have legalized abortion, developed birth control pills, and affirmed the homosexual lifestyle. Societies succumb when they demean married life, postpone marriage for as long as possible, engage in sexually promiscuous behavior, tolerate the drug culture, and value self-gratifying hedonism more than moral virtue. Biologically, Europe is dying! 11 Between North America (40+ million in the USA) and Europe, more than 100 million babies have been aborted. The numbers will increased due to the popularity of the French abortifacient pill Mifepristone (RU486). One article states there are More Abortions Than Births in Russia. Abortive societies loathe their own existence, valuing the death of their offspring more than life and the future. So, it is rather pointless for Muslims to engage in an unnecessary conflict, while the West is busy destroying itself.

Westerners are proud of their democracy, liberalism, scientific and technical advancements. In their pride, they assume that Muslim immigrants will adopt their Western values. However, many Muslims are appalled by Western moral standards, and they feel they should avoid the popular culture to preserve their families. Because they view the West as morally decadent, they return to Islam for spiritual, moral, social, and political guidance. Islam is their Complete Way of Life. Such was the case with Sayid Qutb, a key intellectual figure associated with the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, who became radicalized after visiting the West. On the other hand, Western TV programs show frenzied Muslim mobs rampaging through the streets and burning down buildings. So, the tension between Islam and the West continues to grow.



[/ QUOTE ]

Yes practicing safe sex, not spreading disease, having children you can afford to take care of, feeding, clothing them are all things that will destroy THE WEST.

Islam has more kids that live in misery but someday those kids will rule the U.S. ... Is that what this guy is saying ?

<font color="black"> Work with me on the next one cause it's big </font>

[ QUOTE ]
One of the five pillars of Islam is the requirement that every Muslims contribute to the Islamic charity (alms) tax or Zakat. According to the Qur'an, the Zakat funds must be used for the following purposes.

The Fuqara poor. They are the poor who do not beg for support.
The Masakin. They are the poor who beg for support.
Those who administer the collection and distribution of the Zakat funds.
Those who may be enticed to Islam as well as new converts who need financial support.
Those Muslim slaves who may have their freedom purchased.
Those who are fighting in the Cause of Allah, e.g., the Mujahideen.
Muslim travelers who need assistance while on a journey.


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Those who are fighting in the Cause of Allah, e.g., the Mujahideen


[/ QUOTE ]

According to the 5 pillars of ISLAM the holiest of holy commandments. Every single muslim in the world whether in america, europe, russia, Antartica, should be doing all they can to help Al Quieda.

Sounds to me like anyone who believes in teh 5 pillars of islam (uhh all muslims) pretty much HAS to support the terrorists.

I'd love to hear some opinions on this.

[/ QUOTE ]

More quips and tidbits from the worlds most peaceful and loving religion

www.submission.org:



(1)Muslim women have to wear the veil.
(2) Islam encourages wife beating.
(3) The woman inherits only half what a man can inherit.
(4)The woman's testimony is equal only to half of the man's testimony.
(5)Muslim woman cannot have jobs outside their homes.
(6)Polygamy is strongly recommended.
(7)Men status is higher than that of the women. (Goes into the Eve problem and Christians)
(8) Muslim Women cannot have education.
(9)Women cannot share in the political life in their communities.
(10)Women cannot pray, fast, do Hajj or Ummrah during menstruation.
(11)Women are stoned to death for Adultery.
(12)Muslim women cannot marry Jewish or Christian men.
(13)Muslim women do not have the right to divorce their husbands.
(14)Compensation for the murder of a woman is half the going rate for men.
(15)For a woman to prove rape, four adult males of "impeccable" character must witness the incident.
(16)The legal age for girls to marry tends to be very young.
(17)Female circumcision, also called female genital mutilation.
(18) Muslim women are not allowed to drive.
(19) Typically, fathers win custody of boys over the age of six and girls after the onset of puberty.
(20) Women must be segregated form men in public, work and places of worship.
(21) "honor killings" of women: Murders by husbands or male relatives of women suspected of disobedience, usually a sexual indiscretion or marriage against the family's wishes.
(22) "Morality Police" keeps control on the behaviour of women.
(23) Women cannot travel freely except in the company of a male relative, "mahram

[/ QUOTE ]

govman did you even look what you cited. These points come from a link titled Misconeptions about women in islam.
http://www.submission.org/women/mis.html

so all these little points you just copy'd and pasted are actually proven wrong by the website you cite as a source.

Good Job,
Melch