Topic: Why do islam hates people? - page 71. (Read 437503 times)

Is a mob stoning a woman, based on the word of one man, enough for her death? That does not sound like people following rules but people looking for free entertainment...

Btw, where it happened?
every religion must have rules, just as every country must have the rules of each
the picture above is called the sentence 'rajam'
Such punishment is given to a person who has committed fornication outside marriage
That Islamic law
Islam will not punish someone if someone is innocent
Islamic rules not made by human, but Islamic rules made by the Lord
Sorry if my language a little messed up, I am still in the learning phase 

So, did we find out any reason why Islam hates people? Or are there any proofs it doesn't?

This is coming to America. Here is the scarey thing. It is coming without the Muslims and Islam coming.

Actually, it is here right now. Cops are doing Judge Dredd style executions almost daily and getting away with it. Why are they getting away with it? Because the people of the grand juries and the regular juries are too scared of the cops to find them guilty of their crimes.

We don't need Islam to do the violence of Islam in America. We have the police gangs.

The Killing of Farkhunda

Farkhunda Malikzada, a 27-year-old Muslim woman falsely accused of burning a Quran, was killed by a mob in central Kabul as hundreds watched and filmed. This video contains scenes of graphic violence.




KABUL, Afghanistan — Farkhunda had one chance to escape the mob that wanted to kill her. Two Afghan police officers pulled her onto the roof of a low shed, above the angry crowd.

But then the enraged men below her picked up poles and planks of wood, and hit at her until she lost her grip and tumbled down.

Her face bloodied, she struggled to stand. Holding her hands to her hair, she looked horrified to find that her attackers had yanked off her black hijab as she fell. The mob closed in, kicking and jumping on her slight frame.

The tormented final hours of Farkhunda Malikzada, a 27-year-old aspiring student of Islam who was accused of burning a Quran in a Muslim shrine, shocked Afghans across the country. That is because many of her killers filmed one another beating her and posted clips of her broken body on social media. Hundreds of other men watched, holding their phones aloft to try to get a glimpse of the violence, but never making a move to intervene. Those standing by included several police officers.

Unlike so many abuses against Afghan women that unfold in private, this killing in March prompted a national outcry. For Farkhunda had not burned a Quran. Instead, an investigation found, she had confronted men who were themselves dishonoring the shrine by trafficking in amulets and, more clandestinely, Viagra and condoms.

At first, the trial and convictions that followed seemed a victory in the long struggle to give Afghan women their due in a court of law. But a deeper look suggests otherwise. The fortuneteller who several investigators believe set the events in motion was found not guilty on appeal. The shrine’s custodian, who concocted the false charge of Quran burning and incited the mob, had his death sentence commuted. Police officers who failed to send help and others who stood by received slaps on the wrist, at most. Some attackers identifiable in the videos avoided capture altogether. Afghan lawyers and human rights advocates agree that most of the accused did not receive fair trials. Farkhunda’s family, fearing reprisals and worried that the killers would not be held accountable, fled the country.


http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/27/world/asia/flawed-justice-after-a-mob-killed-an-afghan-woman.html?_r=3

Well, this IS REALLY PEACEFUL.

You see, nobody is fighting BACK.

People who do something as radical as killing millions, always have some philosophy in life that is virtually a religion for them. Their religion may not be formal. It may not be recognized by any church. It may be in addition to a formal religion. But it is a religion for them.

The peaceful person who has no formal religion, has a religion of peace.

Atheism is a religion of no god, according to the definition of atheism. Some self proclaimed atheists mix terms up. Some believe in the existence of God, but are against the idea of religion. Or maybe they are agnostic, believing God exists, but that we can't find anything out about God.

A person who acts in a strong way... one who does mass murders... has a religion that includes the mass murders that he does.

We were discussing about some religions using genocide as a tool for gaining new adherents. Stalin was a Communist, and he butchered civilians (60 million of them to be precise) in order to establish the Communist totalitarian state. He just happened to be an atheist. There are a lot of Jewish and Christian communists as well. But it was not atheism, but Communism which led to all those genocides. You should also remember that Adolph Hitler was a practicing Catholic. But he massacred people to establish the Nazi state, and not to establish a Catholic state. So massacres by Stalin and Hitler can't be attributed to any particular religion.

Because people hates islam... And that's their revenge I guess

Actually, we would have a lot more peace and order in America if premarital sex was cause for required marriage; and voluntary sex with other than your marriage partner after marriage was cause for execution. I don't mean changing things overnight. I am talking about this as rule of thumb since the inception of the country.

Who is justifying anything? However, is it just to pick on Islam and Christianity without picking on atheism and the rest?

How many different forms of Christianity are there? There is one source for Christianity. It is the New Testament of the Bible, and it is backed by the Old Testament foundation. If someone doesn't follow the tenets of Christianity, he and all his buddies can jump up and down until Hell freezes over saying that they are Christians. Doing this doesn't make them Christians, and neither does someone else calling them Christians make them Christians. If they don't follow the tenets and directives of the New Testament, they aren't Christian.

I was going to stop there, but...

If Islamites aren't appropriately violent as the tenets and directives of their holy books proclaim, then they aren't really Islamites, no matter how much they jump up and down and say that they are, or no matter how much some media says that they are.

This thread is not about terrorism. This is about islam and how some muslims, not all, are living under sharia. Just like this peaceful muslim woman:

You can't justify one genocide by quoting another. Stalin was a monster, but so was conquistadors such as Hernán Cortés, Bartolomé de las Casas, Hernando De Soto and Francisco Pizarro.


There is an evangelical organization known as the "New Tribes Mission", based in the United States. For the past 100 years or so, they have hunted down tribal people in the Amazon rain forest, in order to convert them to Christianity. Anyone who refuse to convert is either killed or imprisoned. They have targeted a large number of tribes, such as the Ache of Paraguay in 1970s, Ayoreo of Paraguay in 1980s, and the Nukaak of Colombia in the 1990s. They are recognized as a Christian organization.

And when you consider all the mass murders of Stalin, you have to consider that the atheism religion is not peaceful either.

There is more to it than simply saying a religion is violent or peaceful. What do the religious writings say? Who claims that they are of a particular religion, but doesn't follow what the writings say?

Violent Christians are not true Christian, even though they say that they are. Check the writings. The writings call for peace.

Peaceful Muslims are not true Muslims if they are not ready to kill the infidels when the right time comes. Check the writings. The writings call for a time of peace, to give the people a chance to become Muslim. But if they won't convert, the writings say to kill the infidels.

Correct judgment of religion isn't simple.

But both points of view can be true.  Yours from a historical perspective, and his from his personal experience.  This is why one must be very careful and correctly phrase sentences and statements.

ISIS would say that Islam is peaceful only towards true Muslims.

What defines Islam. Is Islam only what this person says it is? Is it only what that person says it is?

If you are going to define Islam as peaceful, you have to cut some of the things out of the Quran and the Hadiths. If you keep everything in the Quran and the Hadiths, you will find that Islam is not peaceful, but only temporarily peaceful.

Both Islam and Christianity have used genocide and warfare as a means to gain new converts, during the last many centuries. Tell me the name of a single Muslim majority nation, where Islam was spread peacefully. The non-Muslims were either exterminated (as in Turkey, where the Assyrians, Armenians and Greeks were eradicated in 1915), or forced to accept Islam (the case with Nuristanis and Sarawak tribals).

in fact, in Islam is not taught to hate people, on the contrary. Islam has loved peace. maybe the people of Islam as mentioned in the title above, they do not understand religion in depth. Islam is a religion of tolerance.
I as a Muslim, I do not agree with this topic. because it is not justified that Islam has hated the person.
precisely the contrary, the Islamic religion tells us to respect one another and help others
both among religions and different religions.
Islam is a friend, not an enemy
Islam is not a terrorist, Islam is peaceful
 

The question is, will she ever do it again?