Topic: Why do islam hates people? - page 88. (Read 437405 times)
I would not judge all muslim people, just because few islam religious soldiers (ISIS etc) are doing harm to western civilized world. They are doing it for their God, and they think that is the right thing to do
He's making a valid point on a reframing of the argument to suit the point he wishes to make. The fundamental question was and is:
Can Islam support and encourage contributions to society from totally weird, totally brilliant people such as Turing, which the tolerance of in Britian resulted in the winning of WWII and the computer, which we use today?
I think NOT, and hence argued that we would not have the computer today or many other things, in the context of a Muslim society. Indirect evidence for this might lie in the backwards state of many such nations.
Can Islam support and encourage contributions to society from totally weird, totally brilliant people such as Turing, which the tolerance of in Britian resulted in the winning of WWII and the computer, which we use today?
I think NOT, and hence argued that we would not have the computer today or many other things, in the context of a Muslim society. Indirect evidence for this might lie in the backwards state of many such nations.
My original point was, and still is, that there is no moral superiority in forcing castration on a man instead of killing him. My point disclaims the moral superiority you claimed in your original post.
And my point is YOU'VE GOT THE BENEFIT OF A COMPUTER to project whatever your point of view is, and if Turing had been in Islamic country, you would be, effectively, totally shut up because you'd have no computer.
Turing had NOTHING to do with SJW or gay rights or any crap like that. Think advances in pure math.
I'm making a valid point as a humanist. I'm not sure what your motivation is in obfuscation.
I am giving you the right to ask away. Why aren't you happy about me giving you permission to express yourself? Obfuscation? Nope.
Your premises are flawed (almost certainly intentionally) so can only be regarded as obfuscation since you're no longer contributing anything relevant to what lead you on this tangent.
I am not the one defending the rights of gays under sharia law... I am just saying they have none. I never said it was cool what happened to turing. I am saying he does not exist under sharia law.
I told you not to trust my answer and ask muslims here in this thread. You are afraid to ask, saying it is irrelevant to have the opinion of people with the knowledge of sharia law.
I know enough that I do not know enough so to feel superior to believe I am talking in the name of all muslims here, not needing a direct answer from them...
Look to other religion such as christian, buddhist , catholic , hindu
These religion as far as I review are peacefull religion. But when I looked into islam, I remember something terrible such as terorism mostly.
These religion as far as I review are peacefull religion. But when I looked into islam, I remember something terrible such as terorism mostly.
Moral superiority:
Sharia law - the code of law derived from the Koran and from the teachings and example of Mohammed; "sharia is only applicable to Muslims"; "under Islamic law there is no separation of church and state"
Sharia is only applicable to Muslims... Is that so?
Let's say it is. Is this terribly (or partially) relevant for some reason?
Moral superiority:
Sharia law - the code of law derived from the Koran and from the teachings and example of Mohammed; "sharia is only applicable to Muslims"; "under Islamic law there is no separation of church and state"
Sharia is only applicable to Muslims... Is that so?
I'm making a valid point as a humanist. I'm not sure what your motivation is in obfuscation.
I am giving you the right to ask away. Why aren't you happy about me giving you permission to express yourself? Obfuscation? Nope.
Your premises are flawed (almost certainly intentionally) so can only be regarded as obfuscation since you're no longer contributing anything relevant to what lead you on this tangent.
He's making a valid point on a reframing of the argument to suit the point he wishes to make. The fundamental question was and is:
Can Islam support and encourage contributions to society from totally weird, totally brilliant people such as Turing, which the tolerance of in Britian resulted in the winning of WWII and the computer, which we use today?
I think NOT, and hence argued that we would not have the computer today or many other things, in the context of a Muslim society. Indirect evidence for this might lie in the backwards state of many such nations.
Can Islam support and encourage contributions to society from totally weird, totally brilliant people such as Turing, which the tolerance of in Britian resulted in the winning of WWII and the computer, which we use today?
I think NOT, and hence argued that we would not have the computer today or many other things, in the context of a Muslim society. Indirect evidence for this might lie in the backwards state of many such nations.
My original point was, and still is, that there is no moral superiority in forcing castration on a man instead of killing him. My point disclaims the moral superiority you claimed in your original post.
I'm making a valid point as a humanist. I'm not sure what your motivation is in obfuscation.
I am giving you the right to ask away. Why aren't you happy about me giving you permission to express yourself? Obfuscation? Nope.
I haven't seen the movie, so I wouldn't know how accurate or not it is. I didn't miss your point, I disputed it directly. Your point is, as you just said, "the interest of a culture in encouraging brilliant work from whomever it may come from, instead of harshly suppressing it" as you seek to differentiate it from Muslim cultures which you believe would harshly suppress an individual such as Turing. Your point is Turing was appreciated greatly for his work, and my rebuttal was he obviously wasn't, as evidenced by how harshly the great and brilliant war hero was suppressed after the war when he was prosecuted for who he was and chemically castrated. These actions do not show a "culture encouraging brilliant work from whomever it may come from" because the caveat was "unless you're gay, in which case you will be suppressed."
Maybe before making broad sweeping generalizations of this sort, you might want to look at say, 100 people who knew him? What is "a culture?"
It's a lot more than a couple cops who made a case up against the man.
You did not dispute my point one bit in condemning English culture of that time, from the modern point of view.
My point remains. If the Islamics had then ruled Britian, he would not have done his work, and you would likely not have a computer today.
Interchange "culture" with "society" and see if it helps your understanding any. Your point remains discredited. British society was not morally superior because they actually suppressed him slightly less harshly than an Islamic one theoretically might have. The British government didn't prosecute him until the war was over, so there's every reason to believe an Islamic government would have similarly used him for his talents in order to aid a war effort, and then persecuted him afterwards like the Brits did.
You and spendulus are not muslims. I am not a muslim.
A simple idea: why don't you ask directly that question to the muslims in this thread. Find out if this man would have been accepted, as openly gay, in a society based on sharia law. Why not let the people with the necessary experience answer? Could be yes. Could be no.
Ask away.
Asking about a hypothetical situation is irrelevant, and further your premise is incorrect. "Find out if this man would have been accepted, as openly gay, in a society based on sharia law." He wasn't accepted as openly gay under British law - he was forced into chemical castration - so why would also not being accepted as openly gay under sharia law have any relevance? We can accept that he would have not been accepted in as openly gay in an Islamic society and it doesn't affect my point at all. My point is he wasn't accepted by British society, all attempts in this thread to gain some moral superiority over Islam for only castrating the man notwithstanding. There are no bragging rights to be had over how much more civilized you are for forcing someone to be castrated, instead of murdering them. One society can be more barbaric and yet neither have any moral standing whatsoever on the matter.
You are making a valid point, as a muslim. Are you speaking as a shiite or a sunni?
Can Islam support and encourage contributions to society from totally weird, totally brilliant people such as Turing, which the tolerance of in Britian resulted in the winning of WWII and the computer, which we use today?
I think NOT, and hence argued that we would not have the computer today or many other things, in the context of a Muslim society. Indirect evidence for this might lie in the backwards state of many such nations.
I'm making a valid point as a humanist. I'm not sure what your motivation is in obfuscation.
I haven't seen the movie, so I wouldn't know how accurate or not it is. I didn't miss your point, I disputed it directly. Your point is, as you just said, "the interest of a culture in encouraging brilliant work from whomever it may come from, instead of harshly suppressing it" as you seek to differentiate it from Muslim cultures which you believe would harshly suppress an individual such as Turing. Your point is Turing was appreciated greatly for his work, and my rebuttal was he obviously wasn't, as evidenced by how harshly the great and brilliant war hero was suppressed after the war when he was prosecuted for who he was and chemically castrated. These actions do not show a "culture encouraging brilliant work from whomever it may come from" because the caveat was "unless you're gay, in which case you will be suppressed."
Maybe before making broad sweeping generalizations of this sort, you might want to look at say, 100 people who knew him? What is "a culture?"
It's a lot more than a couple cops who made a case up against the man.
You did not dispute my point one bit in condemning English culture of that time, from the modern point of view.
My point remains. If the Islamics had then ruled Britian, he would not have done his work, and you would likely not have a computer today.
Interchange "culture" with "society" and see if it helps your understanding any. Your point remains discredited. British society was not morally superior because they actually suppressed him slightly less harshly than an Islamic one theoretically might have. The British government didn't prosecute him until the war was over, so there's every reason to believe an Islamic government would have similarly used him for his talents in order to aid a war effort, and then persecuted him afterwards like the Brits did.
You and spendulus are not muslims. I am not a muslim.
A simple idea: why don't you ask directly that question to the muslims in this thread. Find out if this man would have been accepted, as openly gay, in a society based on sharia law. Why not let the people with the necessary experience answer? Could be yes. Could be no.
Ask away.
Asking about a hypothetical situation is irrelevant, and further your premise is incorrect. "Find out if this man would have been accepted, as openly gay, in a society based on sharia law." He wasn't accepted as openly gay under British law - he was forced into chemical castration - so why would also not being accepted as openly gay under sharia law have any relevance? We can accept that he would have not been accepted in as openly gay in an Islamic society and it doesn't affect my point at all. My point is he wasn't accepted by British society, all attempts in this thread to gain some moral superiority over Islam for only castrating the man notwithstanding. There are no bragging rights to be had over how much more civilized you are for forcing someone to be castrated, instead of murdering them. One society can be more barbaric and yet neither have any moral standing whatsoever on the matter.
You are making a valid point, as a muslim. Are you speaking as a shiite or a sunni?
I haven't seen the movie, so I wouldn't know how accurate or not it is. I didn't miss your point, I disputed it directly. Your point is, as you just said, "the interest of a culture in encouraging brilliant work from whomever it may come from, instead of harshly suppressing it" as you seek to differentiate it from Muslim cultures which you believe would harshly suppress an individual such as Turing. Your point is Turing was appreciated greatly for his work, and my rebuttal was he obviously wasn't, as evidenced by how harshly the great and brilliant war hero was suppressed after the war when he was prosecuted for who he was and chemically castrated. These actions do not show a "culture encouraging brilliant work from whomever it may come from" because the caveat was "unless you're gay, in which case you will be suppressed."
Maybe before making broad sweeping generalizations of this sort, you might want to look at say, 100 people who knew him? What is "a culture?"
It's a lot more than a couple cops who made a case up against the man.
You did not dispute my point one bit in condemning English culture of that time, from the modern point of view.
My point remains. If the Islamics had then ruled Britian, he would not have done his work, and you would likely not have a computer today.
Interchange "culture" with "society" and see if it helps your understanding any. Your point remains discredited. British society was not morally superior because they actually suppressed him slightly less harshly than an Islamic one theoretically might have. The British government didn't prosecute him until the war was over, so there's every reason to believe an Islamic government would have similarly used him for his talents in order to aid a war effort, and then persecuted him afterwards like the Brits did.
You and spendulus are not muslims. I am not a muslim.
A simple idea: why don't you ask directly that question to the muslims in this thread. Find out if this man would have been accepted, as openly gay, in a society based on sharia law. Why not let the people with the necessary experience answer? Could be yes. Could be no.
Ask away.
Asking about a hypothetical situation is irrelevant, and further your premise is incorrect. "Find out if this man would have been accepted, as openly gay, in a society based on sharia law." He wasn't accepted as openly gay under British law - he was forced into chemical castration - so why would also not being accepted as openly gay under sharia law have any relevance? We can accept that he would have not been accepted in as openly gay in an Islamic society and it doesn't affect my point at all. My point is he wasn't accepted by British society, all attempts in this thread to gain some moral superiority over Islam for only castrating the man notwithstanding. There are no bragging rights to be had over how much more civilized you are for forcing someone to be castrated, instead of murdering them. One society can be more barbaric and yet neither have any moral standing whatsoever on the matter.
I haven't seen the movie, so I wouldn't know how accurate or not it is. I didn't miss your point, I disputed it directly. Your point is, as you just said, "the interest of a culture in encouraging brilliant work from whomever it may come from, instead of harshly suppressing it" as you seek to differentiate it from Muslim cultures which you believe would harshly suppress an individual such as Turing. Your point is Turing was appreciated greatly for his work, and my rebuttal was he obviously wasn't, as evidenced by how harshly the great and brilliant war hero was suppressed after the war when he was prosecuted for who he was and chemically castrated. These actions do not show a "culture encouraging brilliant work from whomever it may come from" because the caveat was "unless you're gay, in which case you will be suppressed."
Maybe before making broad sweeping generalizations of this sort, you might want to look at say, 100 people who knew him? What is "a culture?"
It's a lot more than a couple cops who made a case up against the man.
You did not dispute my point one bit in condemning English culture of that time, from the modern point of view.
My point remains. If the Islamics had then ruled Britian, he would not have done his work, and you would likely not have a computer today.
Interchange "culture" with "society" and see if it helps your understanding any. Your point remains discredited. British society was not morally superior because they actually suppressed him slightly less harshly than an Islamic one theoretically might have. The British government didn't prosecute him until the war was over, so there's every reason to believe an Islamic government would have similarly used him for his talents in order to aid a war effort, and then persecuted him afterwards like the Brits did.
Country A. Homosexual behavior is illegal and results in jail if prosecuted.
Country B. Homosexual behavior is illegal and you are killed.
Go ahead, claim these are morally and ethically equivalent.
I'm not saying they're equivalent. I am saying there is no morality credit to be mined by Country A.
....
Not OP, but if I recall correctly, the UAE has a de facto moratorium on using the death penalty to deal with these cases. I mean, you can do to the craigslist for the country and you'll see a lot of gay people openly seeking homosexual relations, with their contact details and everything. Do you think they would do that if there was a real threat to their life of doing that? Dubai has a bit of a reputation for having a very... active gay scene.
I think muslims aren't allowed to hate gay men. They can hate the act of having homosexual relations, but if someone says that they have homosexual desires but there is no proof that they acted on them, then they cannot be blamed since they having a desire is not a crime. While some scholars have said that homosexual convicted of having same-sex intercourse should be punished as adulterers, but that is not a general rule that can be applied in every circumstance, in every place, in every time. The Shari'ah is not a rigid set of laws, stagnant, not changing. They must be adapted.
But IINAL, so yeah.
That's certainly interesting input. There may be several directions in this thread, but mine is not at all about rights of gays, which I really don't care much about. I do though care about ridiculous killing or jailing of anybody.Not OP, but if I recall correctly, the UAE has a de facto moratorium on using the death penalty to deal with these cases. I mean, you can do to the craigslist for the country and you'll see a lot of gay people openly seeking homosexual relations, with their contact details and everything. Do you think they would do that if there was a real threat to their life of doing that? Dubai has a bit of a reputation for having a very... active gay scene.
I think muslims aren't allowed to hate gay men. They can hate the act of having homosexual relations, but if someone says that they have homosexual desires but there is no proof that they acted on them, then they cannot be blamed since they having a desire is not a crime. While some scholars have said that homosexual convicted of having same-sex intercourse should be punished as adulterers, but that is not a general rule that can be applied in every circumstance, in every place, in every time. The Shari'ah is not a rigid set of laws, stagnant, not changing. They must be adapted.
But IINAL, so yeah.
This was the point concerning Turing-
I believe it is a certainty that "he could not have done his work in an Islamic country" and that of course has tremendous consequences.
However, perhaps our friends could prove the opposite. Can they point to an openly gay scientist doing work of such proportions in the Muslim world?
Let's extend that. Openly gay sports starts? TV stars? Whatever. But none of these would have had the nearly unthinkable effect of the computer being invented or not being invented......
So my direction of concern was more the detriment to society, the way it would be held back, by it's not allowing gays to contribute, by it's not allowing education to women ---- rather than whether some guys were permitted to go off in some corner and have "fun" without getting in trouble with the law....
I apologise if I misunderstood what you were saying.
I think you have a small misconception on the Muslim world - it is not only Arab. Although many people, especially in the United States and other Western countries, may associate Islam with countries in the Middle East or North Africa, nearly two-thirds (62%) of Muslims live in the Asia-Pacific region, according to the Pew Research analysis. In fact, more Muslims live in India and Pakistan (344 million combined) than in the entire Middle East-North Africa region (317 million). While I agree that there is a strong social stigma against homosexuality in Arab culture (not just Muslims, but Arabs of other religions, too), I can point to Indonesia - the world's largest Muslim country (on a side note, no Muslim army ever step foot in INdonesia, so there's some evidence for those people who think that Islam was spread by the sword. But anyways, Indonesia has never had any legal prohibitions against homosexuality, since its founding as a nation. The country even has the longest running LGBT organizations in Asia. Even today, gay and transsexuals can be found performing in Indonesian television and entertainment industry. In Indonesian view, it is quite acceptable to have transsexual or cross dresser entertainers or public figures. Since you're looking for some gay TV stars, I'd suggest Indonesia as a good place to start. It is in their culture that sexuality of any kind is a taboo subject, so they prefer not to talk about it, but Indonesia is generally a very tolerant country.
Another interesting thing to note here is that Indonesia's neighbors, Singapore (non-Muslim) and Malaysia (Muslim), both have laws that make it illegal to be gay. Another thing they have in common is that both these countries had been colonized by the British Empire.
You can also look at another Muslim country, Turkey. While Turkey was under Ottoman rule, the Ottoman Caliph decriminalized homosexuality in 1858 (Britain only decriminalised homosexuality in The Sexual Offences Act of 1967, more than 100 years after the Ottoman Caliphs). When Turkey became an independent nation in 1920, it didn’t see a need to change this law. I remember reading about a representative of KAOS LG, one of the largest LGBT organizations in Turkey, saying that their organization was never censored. Jack Scott, a British writer who moved to Turkey with his gay partner, said that he never got any bad publicity from any Turk because of it.
Furthermore, another country that used to be under Ottoman rule is Jordan, an Arab country. When the Ottoman empire collapsed and Jordan became mandated by the League of Nations between 1922 and 1945 is the time when homosexuality wasn't okay. But when the country became fully independent in 1951, it nation made homosexuality legal. “Jordan is considered an open minded country, and when coming to cities, the tolerance is even higher,” said the editor of My.Kali, a gay magazine that is based in the capital. “And considering the fact that it’s an Islamic country, the morality of the culture could be a huge pressure to many people to remain discreet, but it never stopped many of my friends and other LGBTQ people to come out and show who they are,” he added.
Other countries with a large Muslim population and where homosexuality is legal include Abkhazia, Albania, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burkina Faso, Chad, Djibouti, Guinea-Bissau, Iraq, Ivory Coast, Kazakhstan, Kosovo, Kyrgyzstan, Mali, Niger, Northern Cyprus, Palestine, and Tajikistan.
Now tell me, if Islam really was the root of the problem in the harsh treatment of gays, then why would all these countries still be Muslim majority and not prosecute homosexuals? How come the Islamic Ottoman empire decriminalised homosexuality more than a hundred years before the British? In my humble judgement, I would argue that this is an issue pertaining to certain cultures of the world and not to a religion which has almost 2,000,000,000 followers worldwide.
And as for your comment on education of women, I won't even get into that because we could be here for hours, but I'd just like to say that the person who founded the first ever university in the world was a Muslim woman named Fatima al-Fihri, and the university, incidentally, is still thriving today. I believe that one of Islam's main teachings is that the pursuit of knowledge is obligatory in every man and woman. When reading up on the topic, I found an explanation by an Islamic speaker that I'd recommend you take 5 minutes of your day to watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bnWf6CuLjU
Thanks, and have a great day.
....
Not OP, but if I recall correctly, the UAE has a de facto moratorium on using the death penalty to deal with these cases. I mean, you can do to the craigslist for the country and you'll see a lot of gay people openly seeking homosexual relations, with their contact details and everything. Do you think they would do that if there was a real threat to their life of doing that? Dubai has a bit of a reputation for having a very... active gay scene.
I think muslims aren't allowed to hate gay men. They can hate the act of having homosexual relations, but if someone says that they have homosexual desires but there is no proof that they acted on them, then they cannot be blamed since they having a desire is not a crime. While some scholars have said that homosexual convicted of having same-sex intercourse should be punished as adulterers, but that is not a general rule that can be applied in every circumstance, in every place, in every time. The Shari'ah is not a rigid set of laws, stagnant, not changing. They must be adapted.
But IINAL, so yeah.
That's certainly interesting input. There may be several directions in this thread, but mine is not at all about rights of gays, which I really don't care much about. I do though care about ridiculous killing or jailing of anybody.Not OP, but if I recall correctly, the UAE has a de facto moratorium on using the death penalty to deal with these cases. I mean, you can do to the craigslist for the country and you'll see a lot of gay people openly seeking homosexual relations, with their contact details and everything. Do you think they would do that if there was a real threat to their life of doing that? Dubai has a bit of a reputation for having a very... active gay scene.
I think muslims aren't allowed to hate gay men. They can hate the act of having homosexual relations, but if someone says that they have homosexual desires but there is no proof that they acted on them, then they cannot be blamed since they having a desire is not a crime. While some scholars have said that homosexual convicted of having same-sex intercourse should be punished as adulterers, but that is not a general rule that can be applied in every circumstance, in every place, in every time. The Shari'ah is not a rigid set of laws, stagnant, not changing. They must be adapted.
But IINAL, so yeah.
This was the point concerning Turing-
I believe it is a certainty that "he could not have done his work in an Islamic country" and that of course has tremendous consequences.
However, perhaps our friends could prove the opposite. Can they point to an openly gay scientist doing work of such proportions in the Muslim world?
Let's extend that. Openly gay sports starts? TV stars? Whatever. But none of these would have had the nearly unthinkable effect of the computer being invented or not being invented......
So my direction of concern was more the detriment to society, the way it would be held back, by it's not allowing gays to contribute, by it's not allowing education to women ---- rather than whether some guys were permitted to go off in some corner and have "fun" without getting in trouble with the law....
Yes. Even if some would try to turn this thread into something else, you end up asking the same question, no matter the subject, computer science, gays, etc...
But let's not forget:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sF4pYQ_5obk
I am here to just say one thing? Why do YOU hate people? and you should really give a valid reason not a shitty one that says 'Because Jews, Because Christians, Because Atheists'
and Yes, I am a people's person for those who ask, just tell me, come out of your shell and say why you HATE people like myself, and I could be here to clarify things to you, or not...
Also here is something that most muslims mistake about people's person like me is that "Christianity or Buddhism hate other religions" for this I say, Christianity or Buddhism does not hate ANY religion, but they suggest to 'invite' them to Christianity or Buddhism or Judaism, as slowly, and peacefully, even if they refuse, you can try and try, until it's their choice, you stop. and for all the wars that happened, it's because this other religion decided to come into war on Christianity or Buddhism or Judaism.
If you need anything clarified, I may not be here to answer you, don't be scared, I won't be offended by anyone, also haters, you can reply, I won't care Wink Wink Wink Wink Wink Wink Wink Wink Wink Wink Wink Wink
In other news ->
I dont think Islam hates people, it is a really silly question . Just another question was saying why people hate Islam. What is that supposed to mean. It is just a misunderstanding between people . Some is caused by ignorance , some by narrow minded thinking, some because of oblivion. There are multiple reasons why this conflict has arised.
I believe we are getting somewhere... Slowly, but surely...
I am here to just say one thing? Why do YOU hate people? and you should really give a valid reason not a shitty one that says 'Because Jews, Because Christians, Because Atheists'
and Yes, I am a people's person for those who ask, just tell me, come out of your shell and say why you HATE people like myself, and I could be here to clarify things to you, or not...
Also here is something that most muslims mistake about people's person like me is that "Christianity or Buddhism hate other religions" for this I say, Christianity or Buddhism does not hate ANY religion, but they suggest to 'invite' them to Christianity or Buddhism or Judaism, as slowly, and peacefully, even if they refuse, you can try and try, until it's their choice, you stop. and for all the wars that happened, it's because this other religion decided to come into war on Christianity or Buddhism or Judaism.
If you need anything clarified, I may not be here to answer you, don't be scared, I won't be offended by anyone, also haters, you can reply, I won't care Wink Wink Wink Wink Wink Wink Wink Wink Wink Wink Wink Wink
In other news ->
I just answered another question saying why people hate islam. It is just a big misunderstanding between people. The reasons are multiple, some are caused by ignorance, some by oblivion and some by narrow minded thinking . There are many reasons why this silly conflict has taken place/
I am here to just say one thing? Why do YOU hate people? and you should really give a valid reason not a shitty one that says 'Because Jews, Because Christians, Because Atheists'
and Yes, I am a people's person for those who ask, just tell me, come out of your shell and say why you HATE people like myself, and I could be here to clarify things to you, or not...
Also here is something that most muslims mistake about people's person like me is that "Christianity or Buddhism hate other religions" for this I say, Christianity or Buddhism does not hate ANY religion, but they suggest to 'invite' them to Christianity or Buddhism or Judaism, as slowly, and peacefully, even if they refuse, you can try and try, until it's their choice, you stop. and for all the wars that happened, it's because this other religion decided to come into war on Christianity or Buddhism or Judaism.
If you need anything clarified, I may not be here to answer you, don't be scared, I won't be offended by anyone, also haters, you can reply, I won't care Wink Wink Wink Wink Wink Wink Wink Wink Wink Wink Wink Wink
In other news ->
I dont think Islam hates people, it is a really silly question . Just another question was saying why people hate Islam. What is that supposed to mean. It is just a misunderstanding between people . Some is caused by ignorance , some by narrow minded thinking, some because of oblivion. There are multiple reasons why this conflict has arised.
Some people who claim that Islam is profoundly evil will also say that they bear Muslims no ill will but I don’t think they are telling the truth. It is really difficult and indeed psychologically unnatural to claim that you hate an ideology without hating the people in whose lives it is expressed. Religions, nations, and even races are all shared imaginative constructs (although nations and races have other characteristics as well) and if you really want to extirpate them, you must extirpate the people who imagine them as well.
Jump to: