Topic: Why do islam hates people? - page 110. (Read 437478 times)

To expand your list listen read up or get podcasts about history of the ancient world, and the history of Rome.  The twenty-first century has been relatively peaceful compared to that.  In spite of the militants in Africa and the 163 per million homicide rate.

sdp

Congratulations! You are finally getting it. There is nothing wrong with any particular thing at all. The wrongness comes about when mankind does wrong to other mankind. Other than that it doesn't really matter.

When you apply this to government of any kind, be it the religion-government of Islam, or be it any other nation of the world, all there is, is people. That's all that really counts.

That guy sleeps, eats, drinks water, breathes air, etc., just like I do. He can read all the law, or all the porno he wants. But even if he is the king of the world, he is just like me. The moment he harms me and does me wrong, that's the moment to focus on.

The writings of man may suggest wrong. But it isn't wrong until it harms the "me" of one of us, the "me" that exists in each of us.

If this were true, then there is nothing wrong with Mein Kampf.  There is nothing wrong with Justine, by the Marquis de Sade.  There is nothing wrong with cartoons of Mohammed.  There is nothing wrong with an order by a leader of ISIS to behead a hundred children.  They are all just pieces of paper or images on a screen, after all.

In the HISTORY of the world, who has KILLED maximum INNOCENT
human beings

1) "Hitler"
Do you know who he was

He was a Christian, but media will never call Christians terrorists.

2) "Joseph Stalin called as Uncle Joe".

He has killed 20 million human beings including 14.5 million were starved to death.

Was he a Muslim

3) "Mao Tse Tsung (China)"

He has killed 14 to 20 million human beings.

Was he a Muslim

4) "Benito Mussolini (Italy)"

He has killed 400 thousand human beings.

Was he a Muslim

5) "Ashoka" In Kalinga Battle

He has killed 100 thousand human beings.

Was he a Muslim

6) Embargo put by George Bush in Iraq,

1/2 million children
has been killed in Iraq alone!!! Imagine these people are never called terrorists by the media.

Why

Today the majority of the non-muslims are afraid by hearing the words "JIHAD".

Jihad is an Arabic word which comes from root Arabic word "JAHADA" which means "TO STRIVE" or "TO STRUGGLE" against evil and for justice. It does not
mean killing innocents.

The difference is we stand against evil, not with evil".

You still think that ISLAM is the problem

1. The First World War, 17 million dead
(caused by non-Muslim).

2. The Second World War, 50-55 million dead (caused by non-Muslim).

3. Nagasaki atomic bombs 200000 dead
(caused by non-Muslim).

4. The War in Vietnam, over 5 million dead (caused by non-Muslim).

5. The War in Bosnia/Kosovo, over 5,00,000 dead (caused by non-Muslim).

6. The War in Iraq (so far) 12,000,000 deaths
(caused by non-Muslim).

7. Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine, Burma etc (caused by non-Muslim).

8. In Cambodia 1975-1979, almost 3 million deaths (caused by non-Muslim).

"MUSLIMS ARE NOT TERRORISTS
AND
TERRORISTS ARE NOT MUSLIMS."

Please remove first double standards on Killings.

Islam doesn't do anything at all, whatever it may be. Islam can't do anything. It is when Islam gets into the hearts and minds of people that Islam does something. So, it is the people who are doing it, not Islam.

Why do islam hates people? Maybe people hate islam. It may seem silly but it is not...

Do you realize this is just a speculation?

Yep and that's what makes this situation so fucked up.

That would be more or less expected.  "Join/convert or be killed."

Lol, this thread still lives...did any of you Muslims eat some pork while I was away ?

Because love and hate are verbs, and good and bad are adjectives. It's not an analogy because good and bad are judgments, not actions. The first example doesn't relate to the second because the first example you're saying 'Islam can't do these things, therefore Mein Kampf can't be these things.' It doesn't follow.

So you are telling they were forced to fight with ISI?

After Germany invaded Poland, and later France, countless of the male population of those countries were forced to fight on the German uniform.

There have been some claims that a few Western nationals of Christian background have traveled to Syria, to fight with ISIS. But the evidence indicates that they converted to Islam, to become acceptable to the ISIS. Also, there are a few people who converted to Islam in the prisons, fighting with ISIS right now.

No, your link is not proof there are non_muslims in the ISIS groups.  There is no mention of the religion of the man in that story that I saw.

You still think ISIS and other such groups are doing Islamic. They are Muslims and doing jihads. Bla bla bla...

This is one of the proof there are non-Muslims in these groups. They are just paychos. No Islam, no religion, no good humanity just eager to get money and power.

Why?  The others are all inanimate objects, too.  That is my very point.

I don't follow how the first example proves the second and third examples impossible. If we assert Islam can't love or hate because it is inanimate and those are emotions people have, that has no bearing on a value judgement of written works. The analogy is not analogous.

Here's a problem with this point of view.  If  you assert that "Islam can't HATE" then "Islam can't LOVE."  Because only people can do those things, right?

Well, then, Mein Kampf is neither good nor bad.

Written directives of ISIS telling it's soldiers to do atrocities are neither good or bad.

Maquis de Sade's book "Justine" is neither good nor bad.

The Bible is neither good nor bad.  The Koran, same thing.

Do the logical extensions of this concept cause it to fail miserably, or show that it is correct?

And so far much of the participation is about everything else but the core problem addressed in post #2.


...