Topic: Why do islam hates people? - page 151. (Read 437390 times)

It is because in Islam it was easier for priests to be powerful. Since The prophet Mohammad was a leader as well as a preacher it gave the impression that a leader can be a preacher as well. Guess what people in power preached since Mohammad died?

The message is alive, But people are people. Ever since he died until the present day. I won't even have to say which countries because it is pretty obvious. Where the leaders are the preachers. And they happily bend and twist Islam to fit their needs everyday.

Okay, I will indulge and dip my feet here. So you question was


And you do not think his answer was sufficient and explanatory enough. Okay,

For me I would say that what you are thinking of is the association by the media. Most of it is not blatant lies but it is not correct. You see the Arab world is a very disturbed place. All governments there are  puppets to who will feed them more and tyrants to who asks them to be fed off their own land and resources. Every single entity that would go against any of them is labelled a "terrorist group" by the media. Jihad means to strive and to struggle and it perfectly fits their causes. You hear the word and you see blood and explosions and the media associating it with "terrorism" and voila, "Terrorist are always identifying with the Islamic Faith". But you see back then in the period so called the cold war the association was against the Russians. they had others before that and they will have others after Muslims and Arabs. This is summed nicely in the theory of war-economy and how it is expected to get worse and worse very soon in the upcoming year.

Also -even though I don't condone and approve, But understand- if you consider the events of terrorism and not how these involved people came to be, I think you are among terrorists and you don't even know it, Especially if you are a US citizen. Take for example the people who crashed the airplaces in 9/11. Horrible right? Thousands died and so much was lost. Do you understand that those people did not need to be brainwashed? Thousands of deaths is something that happened to them on daily basis by the Americans and foreigners that came bringing "freedom" and only brought blood to the old and the young, to the girls and women. Is their struggle less understandable of an American because he was "disturbed" with a falling building when he was drinking his coffee in Starbucks? Because he felt sad about a couple of thousands that he most likely met here and there and never even said hi? These people lost mothers and fathers and friends. They saw buildings fall over them along with their families (Acceptable causality?). they saw mothers raped and neighbours accused and killed, in the name of "freedom". Yes blood came locally for many many years but that is not an excuse to come and spill more blood in the name of false "freedom".

War is ugly and none in the game that is not to be blamed, Some just have better news channels and control over the media. The ones you call terrorists are the ones every overseas-wars-supporter helped make.

Ok, i will try to say it in a way that you can understand. I guess that you are losing in translation the point of the message. so i will clarify before asking the question.

1) I am not alleging that all Terrorists are Muslims
2) I am not alleging that all Muslims are Terrorists
3) My friend Ahmed is Muslim, and we have discussed briefly the differences in our Religions.
4) I subscribe to many Scholarly mailing lists. I have learned a small detail of Islam from these lists in various discussions that arise.
5) It is my understanding that a stated goal of Islam is for all people to practice Islam as the dominant religion on the planet.
6) When i refer to Terrorists, i am speaking of Islamic Extremists, that is Terrorists who identify themselves as muslims.

Now my question:

If Islam does not teach violence against the so-called "Infidel" (Non Muslim) why do the group of people mentioned in #6 of my list Identify it has a righteous crusade for their religion. Stop feigning ignorance and answer this question, or you will be sure to have been proven a liar or one who does not disclosing the full truth!

My name is Muhammed Zakir not Mohamet Zakir.

What type of answer are you looking for? I may not be able to answer in a way you think. However, if you can clarify a bit, it will be helpful. As I have mentioned earlier, either I will have to make my English better or you will have to know Malayalam for a better answer. Sorry if it isn't answer your question but I can't understand "why" it isn't an answer to your question.

He responded to the question, but it was no answer, as you can see:

Shame on you Mohamet Zakir! How can you miss his question! it is just mere 50 pages! you should go back and forth and review all posts, I cannot trust you too. this is a valid metric to estalish how untrustworthy you are.... 

I checked page 46 and 47. I answered your question in page 47 but I couldn't find question in page 46. Can you please quote it or give me the link? I probably missed it. Thank you!

By ignoring the question i posed 3 pages ago, you have proven that i cannot trust you Mohamet Zakir. Why should i trust you if you cannot answer the simple question i give you?

do you read what you reply? and you find what you wrote something with SENSE?? o.O

Don't lock this thread. In fact, just the opposite. Unravel it.   

Yeah. This is too peaceful and too gentle. Now I understand what it means.

Killing 5-10 million people from '80s is peace. Killing a few thousand people is terrorism.

I even show you a wiki link. If you missed it, http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_violence_in_India.

It is obvious, you want to spread more hate towards Islam. It is one of the reason you used "Islamic" instead of the true one "Muslims".

Another thing is you told Hindus only did communal violence and that too because of Islams. Ever heard about communal violence regardins Sikh which had a possible influence by Hindus? Ever heard of Hindu wars? Ever heard of Christian wars? Ever heard of Jews wars?

Only thing to say "Islam hates". Some of you probably hate me when I say these, but this is how you see us and twist it.

That's why, I said to lock these threads. Probably, this will get similar response I got earlier.

Yes. You should fight a natural fire with a natural fire and artificial fire with are artificial fire. Fighting natural fire with artificial fire isn't good, but fighting artificial fire with natural fire is okay.

However, I think it is better to fight fire with water.


Yes, I understand that when Islam fight a war, it is hateful. When others fight a war, it only "looks" hateful.

 Unjust laws & theories!!!

It has become evident to the wise people of these superpower nations that, if Islam, the religion of violence, is allowed to exert its influence farther, the whole world will destroy itself by Islamic hate and violence.

What is the evidence of this? The evidence is that even when the superpowers attack Islam out of self-defense, they have a hard time destroying the hateful, violent Islamites. The superpowers are too gentle and peaceful to be able to destroy the more violent, hateful nations of Islam.

Islam thinks that it is inserting itself into the superpower nations. The wise of the superpower nations want the Islamites to think this. Rather, the Islamites are allowed to enter the nations, so the Islamites can teach the people of the nations how to be violent and hateful. Why do the wise superpower rulers want their people to learn violence and hate? They don't! But it is the only way their soldiers can learn the great hate and violence so that they have a chance at beating the Islamites.

The danger is that the Islamites might take over the superpower nations. This isn't much of a danger, however. There is too much hate and violence among the Islamites for them to control much of everything. Otherwise they would have taken over the world long ago. It's why they are not superpowers; their hate and violence hinders them.

Communal violence is a bit different from Islamic Terrorism, Communal Violence is more like a civil war, even Muslim can involved in communal violence, but its short lived and happens as a reaction to something.
While terrorism is when you are more interested in threating others, brutally blowing other people and penetrating a sense of fear in the minds of the people, these things aren't common in terrorism and communal violence.

What Hindus, ever did could be related to communal violence(that too when they were provoked by Muslims) but by far it wasn't related to any terrorist activity.
While  Islamic Terrorists are practicing terrorism, and that's the reason why you cannot blame acts on terrorism on other religions.

yeah right, that is why israel ,usa, france,china, uk and russia are superpowers and allies. because muslim and islam attacks them 

Ever heard of the term, "Fight fire with fire?" People don't really want to be hateful. But when Islam, the religion of hate, attacks them, they have to fight back. So they begin to look hateful, just like Islam, when all they are doing is, self-defense against Islam.

I was thinking about this sometime but most times, I was in middle of discussion. So I thought it is good to post after a discussion is somewhat ended. And if I didn't post here, you will think I am avoiding you. Anyway, the response was same.