Topic: Why do islam hates people? - page 134. (Read 437405 times)

From a NYT "journalist"

You see, statements like these are why I say you are a liar. It's obviously false that "no innocents were killed" in Muhammed's many battles. It's also equally obvious that terrorists can point to the teachings and life of Muhammed to justify what they do. I believe you also know that, but one of your purposes in life is to say untrue things to cover up Islam's bloody teachings and bloody history.

By the way, if the world is successful in killing the message of Muhammed, no innocents will be killed.

Good luck with the belief. I wasn't lying but if you believe it, I don't have any persuasive power to make you believe what I say.

The narrator was a liar and was caught by many. Many people who attacked Muslims where released free and no innocents were killed.


No. Read reply to above quote.

Terrorists use Islam as an excuse, in fact, they don't follow it and/or create a new religion.

Garland, Texas - Mayor describes attack on AFDI Draw Mohammad event

By the same standard Muhammed incited his followers to kill a hell of a lot of people. Too bad he's dead or we could kill him.

The teachings of Muhammed even outlived him and incited his followers to kill and enslave millions of people. Maybe we could kill his teachings. The first step is exposing his teachings as bullshit.

I was being a bit sarcastic in my post, but probably this did not come across due to language issues. Let me be very clear:

I believe Muslims lie about aspects of their religion and history. Most Muslims are simply ignorant of their religion and history, but those Muslims usually do not talk about it. You do, and I believe your purpose in threads like this is simple: lie to non-Muslims about Islam. I am calling you a liar.

Just as I cannot know the specifics of Asma bint Marwa case, you also cannot know that it is a fabrication. It is disputed. Still, you do not have any difficulty asserting it is a "fabricated report." In fact, you cannot know that it is fabricated. All you know is that this is what you have been taught to assert in this case. You say "It didn't happen." You cannot know it didn't happen. Whether it did or not, it is not the only case of Mohammed and his followers murdering people.

There was no injustice done at all, Kab incited people to kill Muhammad and Muslims, so therefore he became a big threat to the lifes of Muslims.

In today’s legal system, if you incite murder that is seen as a crime and you yourself are guilty of murder as well. This is exactly what Kab did; he incited murder and violence.

Hey! All those American soldiers who rape Iraqi women do it in the trauma of battle, right?

Think of this, now. American soldiers mostly fight from a little distance. They shoot with guns. Seldom is there hand-to-hand combat. But the early Muslims didn't have guns. Most of their fighting was hand-to-hand. The blood of the enemy rushed over their swords and over their hands. Their clothing was spattered with the blood of the enemy. It was in their faces, and often in their eyes.

Muslims are people. Hand-to-hand fighting rage gets into them just like anyone else. There were plenty of atrocities done by fighting Muslims, just like there were and are by all other close fighters. In fact, Muslims might even be less pure considering the way that many of them interpret the Quran these days, and then do violence.

Word of the day:

Taqiya


In Shi'a Islam, taqiya (تقیة taqiyyah/taqīyah) is a form of religious lie,[1] or a legal dispensation whereby a believing individual can deny his faith or commit otherwise illegal or blasphemous acts, specially while they are in fear or at risk of significant persecution.[2] A similar concept in Sunni Islam is known as idtirar (إضطرار) "coercion". A related concept is known as kitman "concealment; dissimulation by omission". Also related is the concept of ḥiyal, legalistic deception practiced not necessarily in a religious context but to gain political or legalistic advantage.

This practice was emphasized in Shi'a Islam whereby adherents may conceal their religion when they are under threat, persecution, or compulsion.[3] Taqiyya was developed to protect Shi'ites who were usually in minority and under pressure, and Shi'a Muslims as the persecuted minority have taken recourse to dissimulation from the time of the mihna (persecution) under Al-Ma'mun in the 9th century, while the politically dominant Sunnites rarely found it necessary to resort to dissimulation.[4]

In Sunni jurisprudence, denying faith under duress or other permissible reasons as per Islamic law is viewed "only at most permitted and not under all circumstances obligatory".[5] However, there are many examples of practicing taqiyya among Sunnis where it was necessary.[4]

In the Shi'a view, taqiyya is lawful in situations where there is overwhelming danger of loss of life or property and where no danger to religion would occur thereby.[1] Taqiyya has also been legitimised, particularly among Twelver Shia, in order to maintain Muslim unity and fraternity.[6][7]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taqiya

 

Word of the day:

Kitman


In Islamic jurisprudence kitmān (كتمان "secrecy, concealment") is a subfield of Ḥiyal (the science of deception or legal trickery), consisting of the art of making ambiguous statements, paying lip-service to authority while reserving personal opposition, in a kind of political camouflage or reservatio mentalis. The use of such practices to conceal one's religious affiliation when facing persecution or oppression is known as taqiyya.

Some early Muslim jurists such as Muadh bin Jabal were opposed to the concept altogether as they felt it implied “lying” (kidhb) and “hypocrisy” (nifaq). In the Ibadi denomination of Islam, the concept is considered an important one as the denomination's minority status and secretive nature drove many adherents to conceal their creed in order to survive.[1]

Czesław Miłosz in the The Captive Mind uses the concept (spelled Ketman) as a metaphor for understanding how intellectuals behaved under the totalitarian regimes in the postwar communist Eastern Bloc. Miłosz makes parallels between kitman and the act of public hypocrisy (that is, publicly professing orthodoxy, while privately believing heterodoxy with the hope of one day being in a position of authority to spread one's hidden ideas) in the name of individual conscience.[2] Milosz likened this mentality to a kind of acting, similar to the dissimulations of heretics in Persian Islam, who take great pleasure in pretending to be what they are not in order to avoid censure or punishment, and about whom Arthur Gobineau wrote:

"Ketman fills the man who practices it with pride. Thanks to it, a believer raises himself to a permanent state of superiority over the man he deceives, be he a minister of state or a powerful king; to him who uses Ketman, the other is a miserable blind man whom one shuts off from the true path whose existence he does not suspect [while] ... your eyes are filled with light, you walk in brightness before your enemies. It is an unintelligent being that you make sport of; it is a dangerous beast that you disarm. What a wealth of pleasures!"[3]

Nearly every clash of ideas, doctrines, and ideologies are accompanied by some form of kitman. Consider the Nicodemite who were concealed Christians under the Roman Empire or the Marranos in fifteenth-century Spain.[4]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitman


 

So if an enemy comes to attack you, you shouldn't defend yourself?

Can you point me to that incident in Old Testament? Thank you!


You don't know whether is true or not, then why keep spreading it? It didn't happen.

Did I? I don't post more about Qur'an here because my English is not that good and I can't have an effective conversation and dome of the things I say will be oppposite to what I "really" want to say.

Well, it was a long time ago, so I can't say if its true or not. I admit that killing a female poet who says something bad about Mohammed doesn't sound like something Muslims would do.

...Wait...

PS: I'd like to ask you also not to spread false things. Not everything in your Qu'ran is true.

I took the time to watch this. Here's a partial summary with a few points thrown in. It's of a Muslim dude preaching against killing cartoonists. It's in English but with some Arabic thrown in. (The first minute or so is in Arabic.)

He claims to be equally offended by cartoonists and murderers (6:13 - 7:00). That's better than a lot of Muslims. I personally find murderers more offensive than cartoonists.

He then (7:07 - 9:40) talks about the case of Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf, a poet at the time of Mohammed. Dude talks about how Ka'b wrote not only verses against Mohammed, but also dirty verses about the Muslim women. Finally Mohammed says, "Who will rid me of Ka'b?" and then he was killed. Dude is like, no, the real reason Muslims killed Ka'b was not because he was a poet writing dirty verses about that 9-year old Mohammed was fucking, but actually because Ka'b tried to kill Mohammed (multiple times!). I found more at Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ka%27b_ibn_al-Ashraf


To the dude's credit he makes the point that people who interpret this story as kill-those-who-insult Muslims are stupid (11:29). That is the kind of things Muslims need to hear from other Muslims. We non-Muslims can tell them they're stupid all we want, but that just seems to make them more stupid.

As part of that point he says Mohammed was insulted many times to his face and never stopped smiling. I'm not sure how true that is, but it would make an interesting cartoon.

Then he talks about how Muslims are right to be offended by cartoons and seems to be against free speech. It's not clear what he thinks Muslims should do against people who criticize Islam/Mohammed, but it's clear he neither accepts killing the cartoonists nor accepting the cartoonists.

At around 14:35 he asks "Why do people insult Islam?" (16:00) Look in the mirror. Back in Mohammed's time he says people mocked Islam as a tactic to try to stop the spread of Islam, because it called for justice and shit. That's not the case now. Now Islam is being mocked because of what Muslims are doing today. They're corrupt and bad and stuff. (18:40) "What are you going to quote now? What have we done? What have we produced as a people? How have we contributed to the world? The only time we make it on the news is when we blow something up." He argues Western Muslims have low moral standards. Muslims have to transform themselves. This seems to be the main point. In short, pay your taxes and give to charity.

(24:30) He says Muslims shouldn't try to convince non-Muslims they're not crazy because non-Muslims will think they're crazy no matter what. (I can confirm this. The only time I start thinking a Muslim isn't crazy is when they stop believing crazy shit, which means they're an ex-Muslim.)

Then he goes on to talk about how Muslims are great because they believe in reason, intelligence and justice. Or something. Muslims don't need swords, their best weapons are words and stuff. Islam is open-minded and encourages dialogue, but Muslims today are too closed-minded.

All in all, I can say this video is J.J.-endorsed. If Muslims were like this guy, I wouldn't think they were a bunch of violent lunatics. In other words, my guess is that this dude will be beheaded.

Thank you. In this one instance at least, I bow to your advanced thinking.

 

Well, Badecker, crazed Christian thou you are, you got a good comment there.

Half the question isn't about the story. It's about how many times the Prophet did something similar to the story. The story itself is probably fictional.

A prophet that literally bloodies his hands in fearsome battle isn't all that innocent no matter what anybody says.

King David in the Old Testament wasn't allowed to build the temple of God at Jerusalem, by God Himself, because he had been, at times, a bloody warrior. His son, Solomon, who was a man of peace, built the temple of God.

I am not lying. It is one of the popular fabricated report. You are free to investigate more if you think I am saying a lie.

Here we go again. Which one is the liar, and, more importantly, does he know he is lying?

Lying has to do with telling falsehoods. It doesn't necessarily have to do with knowing that you are doing so.