Author

Topic: Why do islam hates people? - page 149. (Read 437390 times)

hero member
Activity: 560
Merit: 509
I prefer Zakir over Muhammed when mentioning me!
April 11, 2015, 12:28:10 AM
i think you are wise enough to know who controls wikipedia Smiley

As I have already posted multiple times, Wikipedia can't be an unbiased source for articles in the following topics: Politics, Religion, History, and Crime. However, Wikipedia can be a good reference for subjects in other topics, such as Flora & Fauna, Linguistics, Sports, Science, Medicine.etc.
If you think Wikipedia is biased then have a look at this- http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Islam
Some parts of the article are hillarious.

I don't know much about various wikis hosted in wikia, so I am not going to comment on it. If you want unbiased and quality information, then you should refer the Encyclopedia Britannica or some other reputed reference material. I was an editor with Wikipedia from 2004 to 2011, and I know very well what is going on there right now.
I always used to think that there must be many people working with Wikipedia and all will have different believes and faiths, but still is it possible for an organisation like Wikipedia to get biased?

It is possible. If there are people who check recent edits, they can/may correct biased edits, however, we can't tell it doesn't have any biased sentences in it.
hero member
Activity: 686
Merit: 504
always the student, never the master.
April 11, 2015, 12:18:16 AM
i think you are wise enough to know who controls wikipedia Smiley

As I have already posted multiple times, Wikipedia can't be an unbiased source for articles in the following topics: Politics, Religion, History, and Crime. However, Wikipedia can be a good reference for subjects in other topics, such as Flora & Fauna, Linguistics, Sports, Science, Medicine.etc.
If you think Wikipedia is biased then have a look at this- http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Islam
Some parts of the article are hillarious.

I don't know much about various wikis hosted in wikia, so I am not going to comment on it. If you want unbiased and quality information, then you should refer the Encyclopedia Britannica or some other reputed reference material. I was an editor with Wikipedia from 2004 to 2011, and I know very well what is going on there right now.

Thanks, i'll just pass this information along to Jimmy Wales and see what he thinks about your comments
sr. member
Activity: 280
Merit: 250
April 11, 2015, 12:17:04 AM
i think you are wise enough to know who controls wikipedia Smiley

As I have already posted multiple times, Wikipedia can't be an unbiased source for articles in the following topics: Politics, Religion, History, and Crime. However, Wikipedia can be a good reference for subjects in other topics, such as Flora & Fauna, Linguistics, Sports, Science, Medicine.etc.
If you think Wikipedia is biased then have a look at this- http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Islam
Some parts of the article are hillarious.

I don't know much about various wikis hosted in wikia, so I am not going to comment on it. If you want unbiased and quality information, then you should refer the Encyclopedia Britannica or some other reputed reference material. I was an editor with Wikipedia from 2004 to 2011, and I know very well what is going on there right now.
I always used to think that there must be many people working with Wikipedia and all will have different believes and faiths, but still is it possible for an organisation like Wikipedia to get biased?
legendary
Activity: 3752
Merit: 1217
April 11, 2015, 12:12:31 AM
i think you are wise enough to know who controls wikipedia Smiley

As I have already posted multiple times, Wikipedia can't be an unbiased source for articles in the following topics: Politics, Religion, History, and Crime. However, Wikipedia can be a good reference for subjects in other topics, such as Flora & Fauna, Linguistics, Sports, Science, Medicine.etc.
If you think Wikipedia is biased then have a look at this- http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Islam
Some parts of the article are hillarious.

I don't know much about various wikis hosted in wikia, so I am not going to comment on it. If you want unbiased and quality information, then you should refer the Encyclopedia Britannica or some other reputed reference material. I was an editor with Wikipedia from 2004 to 2011, and I know very well what is going on there right now.
hero member
Activity: 560
Merit: 509
I prefer Zakir over Muhammed when mentioning me!
April 10, 2015, 10:52:26 PM
Truth is not established by the number of claims on one side or the other.  Almost everything about WWII is documented and the records are stored.  For example every single Allied flight mission, every person on those missions, where they went and what they did.  Even the secret records are no longer secret, IIRC.

We can't be sure about that. Even in most recorded wars, people can do things secretly. However, most of the things record say will be true.

Next you will be claiming that 4 million Jews did not die in concentration camps.

I would never say that.

While telling others (us) not to believe propaganda (anti-Muslim), you use it yourself for your own purposes(pro-Muslim)?

I didn't understand exactly what you are saying. Probably, you can clarify a bit?
legendary
Activity: 2912
Merit: 1386
April 10, 2015, 06:13:18 PM

Claims are almost equal. Almost half say it is false and almost another half say it is true. Besides, most of them who say it is false are Americans.

However, if this is still false(which I think it isn't), I am sorry! But I think many of them believed it. This is an influence caused by media. Don't you think this will also be used for making all muslims terrorists? This is why I said, if some people do bad, don't tell all are bad.

Truth is not established by the number of claims on one side or the other.  Almost everything about WWII is documented and the records are stored.  For example every single Allied flight mission, every person on those missions, where they went and what they did.  Even the secret records are no longer secret, IIRC.

Next you will be claiming that 4 million Jews did not die in concentration camps.

While telling others (us) not to believe propaganda (anti-Muslim), you use it yourself for your own purposes(pro-Muslim)?
full member
Activity: 196
Merit: 100
Scam / Scammer Hunter
April 10, 2015, 06:03:50 PM
i think you are wise enough to know who controls wikipedia Smiley

As I have already posted multiple times, Wikipedia can't be an unbiased source for articles in the following topics: Politics, Religion, History, and Crime. However, Wikipedia can be a good reference for subjects in other topics, such as Flora & Fauna, Linguistics, Sports, Science, Medicine.etc.
If you think Wikipedia is biased then have a look at this- http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Islam
Some parts of the article are hillarious.


what you are saying is :  i have $1.. and i have 1$
this is the best metaphore i can use to explain what you just said
sr. member
Activity: 280
Merit: 250
April 10, 2015, 05:41:57 PM
i think you are wise enough to know who controls wikipedia Smiley

As I have already posted multiple times, Wikipedia can't be an unbiased source for articles in the following topics: Politics, Religion, History, and Crime. However, Wikipedia can be a good reference for subjects in other topics, such as Flora & Fauna, Linguistics, Sports, Science, Medicine.etc.
If you think Wikipedia is biased then have a look at this- http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Islam
Some parts of the article are hillarious.
hero member
Activity: 560
Merit: 509
I prefer Zakir over Muhammed when mentioning me!
April 10, 2015, 03:10:50 PM
I suggest you to read this interesting article:

After the Charlie Hebdo attack, a Paris imam went to the scene and condemned the murders. "These victims are martyrs, and I shall pray for them with all my heart," said Hassen Chalghoumi (above). He was also quoted as saying that 95% of victims of terrorism are Muslim. How accurate is this statistic?
The claim is similar to one in a 2011 report by the US government's National Counter-Terrorism Center (NCTC), which said: "In cases where the religious affiliation of terrorism casualties could be determined, Muslims suffered between 82 and 97% of terrorism-related fatalities over the past five years."

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-30883058

I think your point is invalid, if the most victims of terrorist attack (all) are muslim this is really no sense. A muslim attack another muslim in name o a God (Allah)... this is really no sense.

According to people above who say "Islam is violence", they are thinking that we muslims are born with guns and bombs directly from stomach of mother. Undecided

No, it is not only for you but for all who "watching" this thread. They should prove that all the muslim are terrorists and why the most victim of those attacks are muslims. I really can't understand this theory because I have a lot of friends from numerous Religion (jewish, muslim, hinduism,Sikhism and christianity) and none of them is a terrorist.

Me too. They just don't care.

I pity US more than I pity claimed-to-be-muslim terrorists. 1.7 million Germans killed and telling it was Russians who did it! Shocked Cry

He ordered that these Germans did not fall under the Geneva Rules, and were NOT TO BE FED, NOR GIVEN ANY WATER or medical attention. The Swiss Red Cross was NOT to inspect the camps, for under the DEF classification, they had no such authority or jurisdiction.

Months after the war was officially over, Eisenhower’s special German DEF camps were still in operation forcing the men into confinement, but denying that they were prisoners.

For years we have blamed the 1.7 million missing German POW’s on the Russians. Until now, no one dug too deeply … Witnesses and survivors have been interviewed by the author; one Allied officer compared the American camps to Buchenwald.”

It is known, that the Allies had sufficient stockpiles of food and medicine to care for these German soldiers. This was deliberately and intentionally denied them. Many men died of gangrene from frostbite due to deliberate exposure.

Edit: Nazis were at-least kind enough to give food unlike this US.

What total bullshit.  You use made up conspiracy theories to demonize the United States. 

Why not use reputable sources?  Why not for that matter, use the original sources?

Here is wikipedia refuting your conspiracy theory in which the USA was the bad guy in WWII and not Germany.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Other_Losses#cite_note-Bacque_1989_p.3D25-26.2C29-30-3

Historians conclude that, among its many problems, Other Losses:[39]

    misuses documents
    misreads documents
    ignores contrary evidence
    employs a statistical methodology that is hopelessly compromised
    made no attempt to see the evidence he has gathered in relation to the broader situation
    made no attempt to perform any comparative context
    puts words into the mouths of the subjects of his oral history
    ignores a readily available and absolutely critical source that decisively dealt with his central accusation

Claims are almost equal. Almost half say it is false and almost another half say it is true. Besides, most of them who say it is false are Americans.

However, if this is still false(which I think it isn't), I am sorry! But I think many of them believed it. This is an influence caused by media. Don't you think this will also be used for making all muslims terrorists? This is why I said, if some people do bad, don't tell all are bad.
legendary
Activity: 3752
Merit: 1217
April 10, 2015, 02:29:49 PM
i think you are wise enough to know who controls wikipedia Smiley

As I have already posted multiple times, Wikipedia can't be an unbiased source for articles in the following topics: Politics, Religion, History, and Crime. However, Wikipedia can be a good reference for subjects in other topics, such as Flora & Fauna, Linguistics, Sports, Science, Medicine.etc.
full member
Activity: 196
Merit: 100
Scam / Scammer Hunter
April 10, 2015, 01:33:21 PM
I suggest you to read this interesting article:

After the Charlie Hebdo attack, a Paris imam went to the scene and condemned the murders. "These victims are martyrs, and I shall pray for them with all my heart," said Hassen Chalghoumi (above). He was also quoted as saying that 95% of victims of terrorism are Muslim. How accurate is this statistic?
The claim is similar to one in a 2011 report by the US government's National Counter-Terrorism Center (NCTC), which said: "In cases where the religious affiliation of terrorism casualties could be determined, Muslims suffered between 82 and 97% of terrorism-related fatalities over the past five years."

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-30883058

I think your point is invalid, if the most victims of terrorist attack (all) are muslim this is really no sense. A muslim attack another muslim in name o a God (Allah)... this is really no sense.

According to people above who say "Islam is violence", they are thinking that we muslims are born with guns and bombs directly from stomach of mother. Undecided

No, it is not only for you but for all who "watching" this thread. They should prove that all the muslim are terrorists and why the most victim of those attacks are muslims. I really can't understand this theory because I have a lot of friends from numerous Religion (jewish, muslim, hinduism,Sikhism and christianity) and none of them is a terrorist.

Me too. They just don't care.

I pity US more than I pity claimed-to-be-muslim terrorists. 1.7 million Germans killed and telling it was Russians who did it! Shocked Cry

He ordered that these Germans did not fall under the Geneva Rules, and were NOT TO BE FED, NOR GIVEN ANY WATER or medical attention. The Swiss Red Cross was NOT to inspect the camps, for under the DEF classification, they had no such authority or jurisdiction.

Months after the war was officially over, Eisenhower’s special German DEF camps were still in operation forcing the men into confinement, but denying that they were prisoners.

For years we have blamed the 1.7 million missing German POW’s on the Russians. Until now, no one dug too deeply … Witnesses and survivors have been interviewed by the author; one Allied officer compared the American camps to Buchenwald.”

It is known, that the Allies had sufficient stockpiles of food and medicine to care for these German soldiers. This was deliberately and intentionally denied them. Many men died of gangrene from frostbite due to deliberate exposure.

Edit: Nazis were at-least kind enough to give food unlike this US.

What total bullshit.  You use made up conspiracy theories to demonize the United States. 

Why not use reputable sources?  Why not for that matter, use the original sources?

Here is wikipedia refuting your conspiracy theory in which the USA was the bad guy in WWII and not Germany.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Other_Losses#cite_note-Bacque_1989_p.3D25-26.2C29-30-3

Historians conclude that, among its many problems, Other Losses:[39]

    misuses documents
    misreads documents
    ignores contrary evidence
    employs a statistical methodology that is hopelessly compromised
    made no attempt to see the evidence he has gathered in relation to the broader situation
    made no attempt to perform any comparative context
    puts words into the mouths of the subjects of his oral history
    ignores a readily available and absolutely critical source that decisively dealt with his central accusation


i think you are wise enough to know who controls wikipedia Smiley
legendary
Activity: 2912
Merit: 1386
April 10, 2015, 01:19:28 PM
I suggest you to read this interesting article:

After the Charlie Hebdo attack, a Paris imam went to the scene and condemned the murders. "These victims are martyrs, and I shall pray for them with all my heart," said Hassen Chalghoumi (above). He was also quoted as saying that 95% of victims of terrorism are Muslim. How accurate is this statistic?
The claim is similar to one in a 2011 report by the US government's National Counter-Terrorism Center (NCTC), which said: "In cases where the religious affiliation of terrorism casualties could be determined, Muslims suffered between 82 and 97% of terrorism-related fatalities over the past five years."

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-30883058

I think your point is invalid, if the most victims of terrorist attack (all) are muslim this is really no sense. A muslim attack another muslim in name o a God (Allah)... this is really no sense.

According to people above who say "Islam is violence", they are thinking that we muslims are born with guns and bombs directly from stomach of mother. Undecided

No, it is not only for you but for all who "watching" this thread. They should prove that all the muslim are terrorists and why the most victim of those attacks are muslims. I really can't understand this theory because I have a lot of friends from numerous Religion (jewish, muslim, hinduism,Sikhism and christianity) and none of them is a terrorist.

Me too. They just don't care.

I pity US more than I pity claimed-to-be-muslim terrorists. 1.7 million Germans killed and telling it was Russians who did it! Shocked Cry

He ordered that these Germans did not fall under the Geneva Rules, and were NOT TO BE FED, NOR GIVEN ANY WATER or medical attention. The Swiss Red Cross was NOT to inspect the camps, for under the DEF classification, they had no such authority or jurisdiction.

Months after the war was officially over, Eisenhower’s special German DEF camps were still in operation forcing the men into confinement, but denying that they were prisoners.

For years we have blamed the 1.7 million missing German POW’s on the Russians. Until now, no one dug too deeply … Witnesses and survivors have been interviewed by the author; one Allied officer compared the American camps to Buchenwald.”

It is known, that the Allies had sufficient stockpiles of food and medicine to care for these German soldiers. This was deliberately and intentionally denied them. Many men died of gangrene from frostbite due to deliberate exposure.

Edit: Nazis were at-least kind enough to give food unlike this US.

What total bullshit.  You use made up conspiracy theories to demonize the United States. 

Why not use reputable sources?  Why not for that matter, use the original sources?

Here is wikipedia refuting your conspiracy theory in which the USA was the bad guy in WWII and not Germany.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Other_Losses#cite_note-Bacque_1989_p.3D25-26.2C29-30-3

Historians conclude that, among its many problems, Other Losses:[39]

    misuses documents
    misreads documents
    ignores contrary evidence
    employs a statistical methodology that is hopelessly compromised
    made no attempt to see the evidence he has gathered in relation to the broader situation
    made no attempt to perform any comparative context
    puts words into the mouths of the subjects of his oral history
    ignores a readily available and absolutely critical source that decisively dealt with his central accusation
hero member
Activity: 924
Merit: 1001
Unlimited Free Crypto
April 10, 2015, 12:50:45 PM
Quote
Let us look at John 10:30 "I (Jesus) and the Father are One."  This verse is  severely misunderstood and is taken out of context, because beginning at verse John 10:23 we read (in the context of 10:30) about Jesus talking to the Jews. In verse John 10:28-30, talking about his followers as his sheep, he states: "...Neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father who gave them me, is greater than all, and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. I and the Father are One."

These verses prove only that Jesus and the Father are one in that no man can pluck the sheep out of either's hand. It does not at all state that Jesus is God's equal in everything. In fact the words of Jesus, " My Father, who gave them me is Greater than ALL...,"  in John 10:29 completely negates this claim, otherwise we are left with a contradiction just a sentence apart. All includes everyone even Jesus.

Roll Eyes
Just one thing, are you deliberately trying to deviate from the main topic or do you think talking about other religion's weakness and messages would save Islam from the bad limelight? You cannot prove something is right by identifying a same fault in the other religion

 gave up trying to make them stick to the main thread and subject. One day I will become a legendary member then a moderator and I will show true tyranny >_<
hero member
Activity: 560
Merit: 509
I prefer Zakir over Muhammed when mentioning me!
April 10, 2015, 10:09:01 AM
Just one thing, are you deliberately trying to deviate from the main topic or do you think talking about other religion's weakness and messages would save Islam from the bad limelight? You cannot prove something is right by identifying a same fault in the other religion

Nope. This topic came here, so I posted. That's all. No deliberate deviation.

Islam doesn't tell to be a terrorist, it is people who do it. I know once you keep these beliefs are careved on heart, you can't change it easily. This is how the world is: “Whatever bad things muslims do is because of Islam and no matter how small it is, it will be marked and known/popular in history. But whatever good things muslims do is because of his goodness not Islam's and no matter how big it is, it will be unmarked and unknown/unpopular in history!Sad

Same fault? I was trying to prove that Jesus isn't God but a prophet.
sr. member
Activity: 280
Merit: 250
April 10, 2015, 08:52:09 AM
Quote
Let us look at John 10:30 "I (Jesus) and the Father are One."  This verse is  severely misunderstood and is taken out of context, because beginning at verse John 10:23 we read (in the context of 10:30) about Jesus talking to the Jews. In verse John 10:28-30, talking about his followers as his sheep, he states: "...Neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father who gave them me, is greater than all, and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. I and the Father are One."

These verses prove only that Jesus and the Father are one in that no man can pluck the sheep out of either's hand. It does not at all state that Jesus is God's equal in everything. In fact the words of Jesus, " My Father, who gave them me is Greater than ALL...,"  in John 10:29 completely negates this claim, otherwise we are left with a contradiction just a sentence apart. All includes everyone even Jesus.

Roll Eyes
Just one thing, are you deliberately trying to deviate from the main topic or do you think talking about other religion's weakness and messages would save Islam from the bad limelight? You cannot prove something is right by identifying a same fault in the other religion
hero member
Activity: 560
Merit: 509
I prefer Zakir over Muhammed when mentioning me!
April 10, 2015, 08:46:04 AM
Quote
Let us look at John 10:30 "I (Jesus) and the Father are One."  This verse is  severely misunderstood and is taken out of context, because beginning at verse John 10:23 we read (in the context of 10:30) about Jesus talking to the Jews. In verse John 10:28-30, talking about his followers as his sheep, he states: "...Neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father who gave them me, is greater than all, and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. I and the Father are One."

These verses prove only that Jesus and the Father are one in that no man can pluck the sheep out of either's hand. It does not at all state that Jesus is God's equal in everything. In fact the words of Jesus, " My Father, who gave them me is Greater than ALL...,"  in John 10:29 completely negates this claim, otherwise we are left with a contradiction just a sentence apart. All includes everyone even Jesus.

Roll Eyes
legendary
Activity: 2912
Merit: 1386
April 10, 2015, 08:32:17 AM
@BADecker, What denomination do you follow? This is an important question because %90 of all denominations will condemn you to blasphemy. You cannot say 3 god, 3 god(s). You can refer to them individually but you cannot call each god.

So by definition you are not a Christian so by definition you are a terrorist <---( I don't really believe this but just following how some people here thinks  XD )

LOL a suggestion?  Don't go down the road of trying to understand the Trinity, it's purposefully constructed against the rules of logic and sort of a "created mystery."  Waste of total time. 
legendary
Activity: 3234
Merit: 1654
Enterapp Pre-Sale Live - bit.ly/3UrMCWI
April 10, 2015, 07:07:39 AM
@BADecker, What denomination do you follow? This is an important question because %90 of all denominations will condemn you to blasphemy. You cannot say 3 god, 3 god(s). You can refer to them individually but you cannot call each god.

So by definition you are not a Christian so by definition you are a terrorist <---( I don't really believe this but just following how some people here thinks  XD )

he will just ignore your post and go reply other post. but still. am strapping on my chair and waiting for his answer to this.



From his this Post It looks he is a Christian


Thats why some people got crazy by reading the bible there are so flaws in it. You would read other passages that contradicts the other.

There are no flaws in the Bible. The flaws are in the people... especially the people who look for flaws in the Bible.

Smiley

But what He Posted above, I dont think He is a Christian. 
full member
Activity: 196
Merit: 100
Scam / Scammer Hunter
April 10, 2015, 07:00:41 AM
@BADecker, What denomination do you follow? This is an important question because %90 of all denominations will condemn you to blasphemy. You cannot say 3 god, 3 god(s). You can refer to them individually but you cannot call each god.

So by definition you are not a Christian so by definition you are a terrorist <---( I don't really believe this but just following how some people here thinks  XD )

he will just ignore your post and go reply other post. but still. am strapping on my chair and waiting for his answer to this.

hero member
Activity: 924
Merit: 1001
Unlimited Free Crypto
April 10, 2015, 06:30:25 AM
@BADecker, What denomination do you follow? This is an important question because %90 of all denominations will condemn you to blasphemy. You cannot say 3 god, 3 god(s). You can refer to them individually but you cannot call each god.

So by definition you are not a Christian so by definition you are a terrorist <---( I don't really believe this but just following how some people here thinks  XD )
Jump to: