User Controls
It must suck to be afraid of Muslims
-
2016-11-10 at 2:40 AM UTC
Excuse me…
Someone here who has actually read the Quran and the Catholic Bible, twice. And there is NOWHERE in the Quran where it commands to rape and murder. As mmQ quoted above, such thing comes up only in the Bible, in the book of numbers, which is in fact not a Christian thing either, but a jedi.
On the other hand, the Quran strictly forbids inflicting damage onto anything or anyone, not even onto an infidel, stating that all life is sacred. Quoting it's words "…he who slayest a soul if not for food or defense is as though he has slain his brother and his father and all of Islam".
Also "what ye do onto others ye do onto God"
Also, the Quran is actually the first book to defend women's rights and equality, and it is not from Islam, but from the ancient middle Eastern tribal roots, among which are the Shiite, Hitite, and Semite (proto-hebrew) where the oppression of women come. Also from the ancient Helenic influence on the region, given it was almost entirely conquered by the Macedonians. The Quran clearly states that "you should honor your women a great honor fit Good has made them your companion and made them from your chest (rib cage in some translations) (actually referring to "your heart), that you should not wander alone and lost and you remember God when you look in their eyes and know that God is ever merciful". Also "you should treat your women like your fields fertile with bounty from thy Lord". And more that we are on this, "help the orphan girls by taking them in marriage, but if you can't give justice to the orphan girls by taking them in marriage, take for wife any women, or two, or three, but only if you can love all of them justly, if not, take only one and honor her".
You should fucking read it yourself before you start babbling bullshit on a topic that you don't even know about.
I can't say I've read the Quran cover to cover but it's pretty easy to find passages like:Quran (8:15) - "O ye who believe! When ye meet those who disbelieve in battle, turn not your backs to them. (16)Whoso on that day turneth his back to them, unless maneuvering for battle or intent to join a company, he truly hath incurred wrath from Allah, and his habitation will be hell, a hapless journey's end."
Quran (8:57) - "If thou comest on them in the war, deal with them so as to strike fear in those who are behind them, that haply they may remember."
Quran (9:123) - "O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness."
Maybe you think killing in war doesn't constitute murder but most of the civilized world does not consider unbelief sufficient criteria for jus ad bellum. -
2016-11-10 at 9:07 AM UTCLanny, have you tried reading the passages before those? It's easy to cherry pick some verses and say it represents the whole thing. They are so out of context, it's not even funny. There's always a reason for something that is stated in the Qur'an. You're literally doing the following:
Let's say I quote a movie, and I actually state it like this: "Okay, this next quote is from X movie "I will slowly torture you and then kill you off.""
What people like you do is this: you just focus on the quote, and claim that the quote I used is something I said that to you; taking it completely out of context, since I literally beforehand said it was a quote. I see Islamophobes do it all the time. But hey, can't change a bigot's mind if they refuse to listen.Excuse me…
Someone here who has actually read the Quran and the Catholic Bible, twice. And there is NOWHERE in the Quran where it commands to rape and murder. As mmQ quoted above, such thing comes up only in the Bible, in the book of numbers, which is in fact not a Christian thing either, but a jedi.
On the other hand, the Quran strictly forbids inflicting damage onto anything or anyone, not even onto an infidel, stating that all life is sacred. Quoting it's words "…he who slayest a soul if not for food or defense is as though he has slain his brother and his father and all of Islam".
Also "what ye do onto others ye do onto God"
Also, the Quran is actually the first book to defend women's rights and equality, and it is not from Islam, but from the ancient middle Eastern tribal roots, among which are the Shiite, Hitite, and Semite (proto-hebrew) where the oppression of women come. Also from the ancient Helenic influence on the region, given it was almost entirely conquered by the Macedonians. The Quran clearly states that "you should honor your women a great honor fit Good has made them your companion and made them from your chest (rib cage in some translations) (actually referring to "your heart), that you should not wander alone and lost and you remember God when you look in their eyes and know that God is ever merciful". Also "you should treat your women like your fields fertile with bounty from thy Lord". And more that we are on this, "help the orphan girls by taking them in marriage, but if you can't give justice to the orphan girls by taking them in marriage, take for wife any women, or two, or three, but only if you can love all of them justly, if not, take only one and honor her".
You should fucking read it yourself before you start babbling bullshit on a topic that you don't even know about.
Could it be, somebody who isn't anti-Islam, on my NIGGAS IN SPACE?!? -
2016-11-10 at 6:45 PM UTC
Lanny, have you tried reading the passages before those? It's easy to cherry pick some verses and say it represents the whole thing. They are so out of context, it's not even funny.
Like I said, I have not read the Quran cover to cover. I did read the 14 verses leading up to my first quote, I have not gained any particular context, it seems to be a description of appropriate conduct during war?There's always a reason for something that is stated in the Qur'an. You're literally doing the following:
Let's say I quote a movie, and I actually state it like this: "Okay, this next quote is from X movie "I will slowly torture you and then kill you off.""
What people like you do is this: you just focus on the quote, and claim that the quote I used is something I said that to you; taking it completely out of context, since I literally beforehand said it was a quote.
So in this analogy do you think I'm attributing passages in the Quran to you personally? Because I'm not and haven't. Are you saying the passage here is actually a quote of someone other than the author of the text and isn't intended as a directive to readers? If that's the case go ahead and show me why, because I'm not seeing it yet.But hey, can't change a bigot's mind if they refuse to listen.
I'm listening, please, explain to me the context that makes these passages something other than a directive towards violence. You'll note I never said these passages are representative of the text as a whole (again, haven't read it) but it seems trivially easy to dismiss such claims as "NOWHERE in the Quran does it command murder", realizing there is some subtlety around the meaning of murder or that it's some great text on women's rights -
2016-11-10 at 10:56 PM UTC
Begin a grand scheme to cause them to wage war against each other, like crows.
No way that's real. -
2016-11-12 at 12:51 PM UTC
Like I said, I have not read the Quran cover to cover. I did read the 14 verses leading up to my first quote, I have not gained any particular context, it seems to be a description of appropriate conduct during war?
No, I'm just saying people like to take things out of context and give it a false spin: making it seem as us Muslims are bloody savages out to kill anybody who does not believe. But that's basically it, yeah, the verses are there for a meaning. It's in the context of a war. Tons of people pretend like it's a verse that commands Muslims to kill anyone who isn't a Muslim, which is absolutely false. Even in war, there are still rules one must adhere to. One of these rules is not killing women, children, the elderly or the sick, or somebody of another faith who is in their place of worship. It's just a fair thing to do, when you have a contract with "the enemy" and "the enemy" breaches this contract, it is only logical and understandable that if attacked, one should be able to murder "the enemy." It is violence in response to violence. It's not unwarranted violence, what a lot of people seem to think.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2016-11-12 at 12:54 PM UTC(Cont) Which is what I thought you were doing, hence my reply.
-
2016-11-14 at 2:31 AM UTCActually, Lanny, yes it is in the context of war. The next verses day that if the unbelievers are not doing violence against you or if they stop their aggressions it is a crime against God that you should do an aggression. It also says that if the unbelievers you are fighting in war surrender, you should not kill them, instead you should take them captive and feed them and treat them like your brothers until you can ransom them back to their people unless they change in heart and convert and ask to join your cause.
In fact, during the holy war against Europe (the Crusades as known to us Westerners) this particular detail resulted a complete mindfuck for the Europeans. The tide of war continually changed and when the khalifate (muslims) regained Jerusalem or Damascus from the Crusadiers and imprisoned the ones who surrendered, the prisons simply changed hands and the previously imprisoned Muslims would now guard Christian captives, and they were well fed and treated of their injuries. Given captives and guards were fed together and had built shrines for praying where both would pray side by side, they started sharing with each other their cultures. This led to many Europeans converting to Islam and refusing to continue fighting when the tide of war switched hands again. Instead they would either go back to Europe to work as builders or fight on the side of the Muslims. Those who went back to Europe carried with them the secret cult to the Goat of Mithras (Baphomet), which they adopted from Iranian (Persian) Muslims, and funded the ordered of the Freemasons.
The French Knight Templars are particularly famous for this and this was one of the primary accusations against then when they were betrayed by King Lewis (i think but I'm not quite sure what king it was) who owed then great amount of money so he sought and found a way to kill them all instead of paying his debt.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2016-11-23 at 3:34 PM UTC
Originally posted by Anal Scratch Hemorrage The French Knight Templars are particularly famous for this and this was one of the primary accusations against then when they were betrayed by King Lewis (i think but I'm not quite sure what king it was) who owed then great amount of money so he sought and found a way to kill them all instead of paying his debt.
That's interesting. Also, you probably already know this, but the Crusades started after the pope lied to the people about their Christians brothers being slaughtered by Muslims. They were actually living in peace in Palestine. But the pope decided to fuck it up. I think it was because a king asked him to. I'm not entirely sure.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2016-11-23 at 4:10 PM UTCAll fine and dandy, but what is mentioned in the Quran and what (some!) Muslims do are not necessarily the same thing. The Quran might be one of the few religious texts that actually opposes violence to women and it doesn't mention anything about niqabs or burqa's.. Yet muslim women still wear them or are forced to wear them. Even the more moderate Muslims promote the covering up of hair. Extremist muslims still believe in strict sharia law, where women get their skulls bashed in for showing their hair. I have spoken with a Belgian who converted to Islam. He actually advocated killing his own sister because she's lesbian.
In short: I don't think the argument "Quran doesn't promote violence, therefore no Muslims are violent, therefore fear for Islam is ungrounded" doesn't hold water.
To be clear though, I don't think anyone should be afraid of Muslims or Islam. But the more radical sects? Whipe them off the face of the earth. -
2016-11-23 at 4:51 PM UTC
Originally posted by Satyr All fine and dandy, but what is mentioned in the Quran and what (some!) Muslims do are not necessarily the same thing. The Quran might be one of the few religious texts that actually opposes violence to women and it doesn't mention anything about niqabs or burqa's.. Yet muslim women still wear them or are forced to wear them. Even the more moderate Muslims promote the covering up of hair. Extremist muslims still believe in strict sharia law, where women get their skulls bashed in for showing their hair. I have spoken with a Belgian who converted to Islam. He actually advocated killing his own sister because she's lesbian.
In short: I don't think the argument "Quran doesn't promote violence, therefore no Muslims are violent, therefore fear for Islam is ungrounded" doesn't hold water.
To be clear though, I don't think anyone should be afraid of Muslims or Islam. But the more radical sects? Whipe them off the face of the earth.
Hey Satyr, first off, good to have you back. Second, you're correct. The Qur'an does not tell how women (and men, for that matter) should be dressed; rather, it says that we are required to cover up. Regardless of gender. See, it's a common misconception. Same thing happens with honor killings and executing homosexuals. They are a cultural thing, not a religious thing. In fact, honor killings are un-Islamic, same thing applies to executing homosexuals. But this does not happen often, I think. But a lot of people use it to further their anti-Muslim agenda, even though it is incorrect. They pretend as if it's an every day kind of thing, when it is not. I think the argument jumps to conclusions. Yes, the Qur'an does not promote unwarrented violence, but that does not mean Muslims can't be violent. After all, we're just human beings, and we are prone to human emotions, such as anger. Violence means you act in on that emotion. I think the Belgian is wrong in wanting his lesbian sister dead. But a lot of people think that way, actually. They all have their opinions, and I have no problem with that as long as they don't actively harm somebody in a physical fashion. I don't care if somebody is anti-gay or pro-gay, or anti-trans or pro-trans. PS: did you know that trans people are actually accepted in Pakistan, a Muslim-majority country? Hell, if someone is trans, and has to choose between being male or female, they can check the third box which says "third gender." And it's been that way for years. Yet Americans get their panties in a bunch when transgenders want to enter the bathroom they wish to enter. Pakistanis have no problem with that. Yet we are the ones who are "backwards." Funny, right?The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2016-11-24 at 1:27 AM UTCAllahu Akbar!
-
2016-11-24 at 3:09 PM UTC
Originally posted by Michael Myers Hey Satyr, first off, good to have you back. Second, you're correct. The Qur'an does not tell how women (and men, for that matter) should be dressed; rather, it says that we are required to cover up. Regardless of gender. See, it's a common misconception. Same thing happens with honor killings and executing homosexuals. They are a cultural thing, not a religious thing. In fact, honor killings are un-Islamic, same thing applies to executing homosexuals. But this does not happen often, I think. But a lot of people use it to further their anti-Muslim agenda, even though it is incorrect. They pretend as if it's an every day kind of thing, when it is not. I think the argument jumps to conclusions. Yes, the Qur'an does not promote unwarrented violence, but that does not mean Muslims can't be violent. After all, we're just human beings, and we are prone to human emotions, such as anger. Violence means you act in on that emotion. I think the Belgian is wrong in wanting his lesbian sister dead. But a lot of people think that way, actually. They all have their opinions, and I have no problem with that as long as they don't actively harm somebody in a physical fashion. I don't care if somebody is anti-gay or pro-gay, or anti-trans or pro-trans. PS: did you know that trans people are actually accepted in Pakistan, a Muslim-majority country? Hell, if someone is trans, and has to choose between being male or female, they can check the third box which says "third gender." And it's been that way for years. Yet Americans get their panties in a bunch when transgenders want to enter the bathroom they wish to enter. Pakistanis have no problem with that. Yet we are the ones who are "backwards." Funny, right?
Blij dat er toch nog een beetje Totse/Zoklet-spirit op het web te vinden is. Heb het gemist. ;)
Well, I get what you're saying and I agree for the most part.
I get that honor killings and stonings are a cultural thing. I get that a violent piece of shit is a violent piece of shit, regardless of their religion. But the fact is, a lot of awful things are being commited in the name of Islam. Lots of violent pieces of shit are gathering under the banner of Islam to commit acts of violence. That guy I mentioned is not an exception. There are quite a lot of young people from Belgium in particular (think Antwerp and Brussels) who go to Syria to fight in the name of Islam, to perform beheadings, stonings and whatnot. Even though they are not raised in a culture that promotes such atrocious acts of violence. The guy I spoke to was only a small part in a bigger organisation. The leader of that organisation, Fouad Belkacem, actually had quite a following here. Especially during the time he spent in jail.
I get that those people more or less hijack the religion to then perform acts of violence in its name. But I also get why some people then feel they should be cautious of Islam. I don't necessarily agree with them, but I do understand them.
In some countries a 'third gender' has been accepted for a long time already. Look at Thailand.
Not to be an ass, but isn't it Pakistan where they dress up little boys as girls/women to then dance for older men? I think I read something like that. Oh, nope. Looked it up. That's Afghanistan, a tradition called 'bacha bazi'.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2016-11-24 at 3:18 PM UTCSnoopy tried to join ISIS but they have one of those "You have to be this tall to ride" things and he just couldn't tiptoe enough to make it. Now he's trying to come back as a refugee.
-
2016-11-24 at 4:03 PM UTCbrown people intimidate me!
-
2016-11-26 at 7:16 PM UTC
Originally posted by Satyr Blij dat er toch nog een beetje Totse/Zoklet-spirit op het web te vinden is. Heb het gemist. ;)
Yep, heb ik ook gemist! En dankzij Lanny hebben we nu weer een oude forum software in plaats van zo'n hele nieuwe die totaal niet mooi is. Anyway, yeah, people doing evil things in the name of Islam, but that does not mean that they actually represent Islam. Do you get what I'm saying? I could kill somebody in the name of democracy, but that would still be a heinous crime as well as me not actually representing democracy. People like the guy you mentioned have a following because they exploit the irrational thoughts of vulnerable (read: discriminated) young men. It's easy to trick someone after you exploit their vulnerabilities. But there's more than that at play there. It's not just the "Us Vs Them" mentality. It's seeing the injustice of what is happening to our brothers and sisters in the Middle East. Countless civilians getting killed in airstrikes led by white governments. That all fuels the anger. So I understand why they feel angry, but I don't understand why they would kill innocent people. And forming an army against a couple of governments does not work either. I understand that Pakistan is not the first country to implement the third gender, but I picked Pakistan for a reason. It is a Muslim majority country and we are often told that Muslim countries have no regards for the transgender community, which is absolutely false. In that aspect, Pakistan is more progressive than the self-proclaimed progressive Western countries. Bacha bazi, huh? Yeah, I've heard of that. I only know what "bacha" means, it means "child." -
2016-11-26 at 10:43 PM UTC1. Stop speaking jedi, windmill jedis
2. Islam fundamentally has some pretty gross shit built into the doctrine. A human being that is actually a "good person" by the current standards of society also cannot be a "good Muslim".
I would hugely prefer for people to be good people over good Muslims, because being a good Muslim inherently entails being a bad person. Muslims can also definitely be good people, but they also need to admit that in doing so they're not adhering well to the doctrines of Islam. -
2016-11-26 at 10:48 PM UTCAlso, one thing I've noticed with Muslims, specially "progressive" Muslims, is that if you present them a verse of the Quran that has some fucked up stuff in it, they cry "context!" as if that specific line was not index to be read and applied in a generalised fashion. However, they'll take verses in a vacuum when it's convenient.
-
2016-11-26 at 10:53 PM UTCProud to be a non-victim. LOL @ the faggots itt justifying their fear of immigrants.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2016-11-27 at 1:01 AM UTC
Originally posted by mmQ Proud to be a non-victim. LOL @ the faggots itt justifying their fear of immigrants.
You're a fucking white male! -
2016-11-27 at 1:37 AM UTC
Originally posted by mmQ Proud to be a non-victim. LOL @ the faggots itt justifying their fear of immigrants.
Says the privileged white male. Of course you have nothing to fear!
