Topic: Why do people hate islam? - page 108. (Read 221036 times)

Yeah, you know what a "good Muslim" would say to this, they would say those are bad people, they are not muslims, they are deviant sect.

I agree with you, but don't misrepresent Muslims as supporting ISIS.  Look at this thread, a number have commented on these atrocities and distanced themselves and their beliefs from such things.

If your point is the theoretical ability of a "Muslim" to support the committing of atrocities cherry picking the old books, yeah, that's a problem.

The only reason Muhammad started Islam was, he saw how rich corrupt Christians had become using their religion for profit, and he wanted something to take their wealth from them. So he started Islam, basically just to become richer than the corrupt Christians.

Maybe I should have reworded the wives thing.

As far as I know the Yazidiz were not enemy, ohh yea every one who isnt a muslim is an enemy of Islam oops stupid me... continue to rape and pilage ye good religous men.

What if western troops in midle eastern contries followed this doctrine?

Could you imagine the tears that would come from muslims when the first group of women were sold off or married? Especially since it is forbidden for muslim women to marry on muslim men.

I guess thats another reason I dont really care for  Muslims, they cry about everything, yet commit the worst actions and act like they deserve impunity due to a line in the  Quaran. We can fuck your women but you cant fuck ours, see right here it says it in this book, that makes it legit, now im going to chop off your head off non believer and take your wife! Allah Akbar!\

The religion of peace
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/10/13/Witnesses-Describe-Jihadist-Horror-in-Kobane-as-ISIS-Justifies-Enslaving-Yazidis


Also the X religion did this so its really not that bad for muslims to do XX is a bullshit excuse. I dont care for many religions but most are not burning people at the stakes still.

4:24


33:50


About Muslims killing Muslims, that's the outcome of a violent doctrine, they will keep turning on themselves for minor offenses, they were told the only way to settle them was by violence, and that's what they do.
Homicidal doctrines are suicide; towards its own, because will resource violence for pretty much anything, towards other cultures/doctrines because conflicts with the "Golden Rule" and thus leave it open to counter-attacks.

About cognitive dissonance; yes, it would be totally unfair to pin it on Islam alone, it's a common characteristic of religious people, even political, specially when their books are too extent, where contradiction becomes unavoidable.

compartmentalization to avoid cognitive dissonance, an inevitable side effect of believing in fairy tales past early adolescence. It's not just Islam.

This is a stupid graph, you cant put all acts into one pie chart.

A right wing group bombing an abortion clinic is a little different than blowing up a kid and spectators at a marathon.

Latino terror attacks are mainly also organized crime or gang background..

Also not many attacks happen in the us, you should look worldwide.
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/225043.pdf

Notice most attacks are on private citizens ie usually innocents.

It seems all the different rebel groups fight each other.

Muslims scream that the west kills Muslims and they will pay. Yet everytime I see a news arcticle its another muslim bombing againts more muslims.

Isis kidnaps women to turn them into slaves and wives.

Where in Quran does it say take your enemies women, they will be your slaves and wifes, now fuck the shit out them and bring forth babies.

I still dont get this either. Why does it matter if I am not a muslim?

Why is it required to force people to become muslim against their will?

Is this really a reason to murder people? Is this really the image you want of your religion?

Convert or die? But convert to our sect the right sect. Then you be our brother and we will fuckign murder everyone! Then after they are dead we will take their women and fuck them! Because we are men fo Allah!

Also I was under the impressoin that muhammed allowed other religions to practice as long as they paid a tax.

Why do Muslims reflect so hard on certain passages, but then act like other ones don't exist?

I assume, given the source, that we're leaving government agents out of the equation

Well done. I didn't have figures to back it, but I knew that was wrong.

Terrorist Attacks on U.S. Soil by Group, From 1980 to 2005, According to the FBI Database

I don't hate islam =) I don't hate any religion. But yes it's true that many people afraid of islam. It's because 90% of terrorists are islamic.

Eugenics was more of a pseudoscience, but I suppose that's a red herring in itself. I concede some of your point.

However, I was thinking of a much longer time line. The Christian persecution of science (while encouraging it in some cases) set humanity back by a great deal (eg. The Dark Ages). To what degree, it's impossible to say. My particular areas of interest, wherein "god" gets called into the argument quite often, are nanotech and genetics. Whenever a scientist proposes a test case, he is likely to be accused of "playing god". My (slightly) tongue in cheek response is usually "who says they're playing? " but more correctly, it's a non issue. Yet it gets thrown in. I've seen it again and again just in my 46 years. Extrapolate that over a few centuries: How much have they managed to suppress? In the modern world the suppression is bad enough, with, as you noted, multiple factions. From 600 AD until not very long ago, the power of information was in the hands of religions who had a vested interest in suppressing science as it tends to contradict their means of power.

As I said, religious organizations are not entirely to blame, they are one factor of many. But the weight of their wrongdoing remains heavy. Just ask Copernicus.

Agree with the bolded part.  I believe Dende pointed out something to that effect, if it was possible to get past his grammatical constructs.

But I have to disagree with your suggestion as to the great accomplishments we may have had if NOT for religion.  

Consider genetics.  The progressive Eugenics movement, based on science in the first half of the 20th century, was opposed by conservatives.  I guess you could say opposed by "religion", although it's a bit more complicated than that.  Religions and conservative thought (often but not always aligned) does good in preventing moving in given directions too fast, without due consideration to consequences.

Probably it is correct that any time religion gets intertwined with government - theocracy - the results are bad for scientific and industrial progress.  Sharia "law" would certainly come to mind, which means that I would suggest that the concept of such a thing being "good" as viewed in Islam, is simply completely wrong.  It would mean there was no way to use clever speech, duplicate meanings of words and sophistry to get around this.  It's simply a ridiculous and a medieval concept and needs to go away.

Whether various factions debating and casting for votes within a democracy, some religious, some progressive, is counterproductive over say the course of a hundred years is a completely different matter.

  

Well said. There is a great deal of useful principles embodied in old religous tomes. But without a very well tuned and tightly focused bullshit filter, those principles get warped and distorted into something evil. And the thing I find amusing is that those useful things are pretty nearly universal betwixt the various religions and secular philosophies. As I said earlier, the core of all religions and successful secular philosophies is the same. It's the things added to those that tear down societies and erect barriers to human progress.

Were it not for religious influence, it is likely that we would have delved much deeper into genetics, have offworld colonies, and any number of things that a FREE society tends to generate. Instead, we've got arguments against scientific reality on religious grounds clogging up the legislature in the more secular nations, and people that haven't yet found the 20th century in many parts of the world. Religion is not solely to blame for this, but they bear a heavy burden.

The covered-girl look is great, say two Upper West Side artists who think NYC women should give the hijab a try



Saks Afridi and Qinza Najm spread the word with their selfie campaign about the virtues of wearing a traditional veil


The hijab is hot!

That’s the message two Upper West Side artists want to spread by encouraging women around the city to put on the veil and snap a selfie.

“Women who wear a hijab by choice are in complete control of their sexuality,” says Saks Afridi, who started the #DamnILookGood campaign with project partner Qinza Najm. “Here in New York, it’s very brave for a woman to wear one out in public.”

Najm had started wearing a hijab around New York City as an experiment, just to see what it would be like. Though she was raised in Pakistan, she and her family members do not wear the traditional head covering worn by some Muslim women. But one day she put on a hijab in her Lower East Side art studio and went for a walk around the neighborhood.


“Someone started screaming at me to ‘Go home!’ ” Najm recalls. “I was surprised because I figured people in New York would have more tolerance.”

She spent the next week wearing the hijab around town, and encountered more angry New Yorkers on the streets and subways. This aggressive reaction to a garment that’s quite common in many Muslim cultures prompted Najm and Afridi to do the project.

They launched it at the DUMBO Arts Festival last month, where hundreds of women put on the head covering and posed for selfies, posting them to sites like Twitter, Instagram and Facebook with the hashtag #damnilookgood.

“A selfie suggests you are feeling confident and good about yourself,” says Najm, who put her hijab back on for the project and posed with the other women.

[...]

“With it, she is in complete control of her sexuality, and ultimately that’s what makes her so beautiful,” reads the artists’ statement on their website.

Najm was actually surprised by how much she missed covering her regular clothes when she stopped wearing the hijab.

“You can wear pajamas or crappy clothes underneath,” she says. “You can be a total slouch. It’s just very comfortable.”

“Well,” Afridi says, “it’s uncomfortably comfortable.”


http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/covered-girls-aim-show-hijab-hot-article-1.1970678

Which is curiously, why I have emphasized with Dende that he must treat me as Kafir.  Not as one of the "people of the book" who may have temporarily gone astray.  The arguments must be made from first principles, not cherry picked from some old books.

Note.  

At the same time, I don't have any problem with an old historical book such as the Koran or Bible having verses suitable for any and all conditions people might find themselves in, peace or war, famine or times of plenty.  These old books existed in societies where few even could read, and they represented something like a "Google" in those times.  A place one could go find any answer (of course you had to go through an Important Person usually to get that answer).

We discuss not whether such books were "good" back then, but of what use they may be in the now, and the styles of faith derived there on.

I'm not seeing any parallel between the use of atomics in WWII and followers of Qutd.   The US had estimated the loss of a half million soldiers and massive civilian deaths had they attacked the Japanese mainland from the sea.   The Japanese had not surrendered, but their air and naval assets were destroyed.  Declarations of war existed, and a submarine bound for Japan had been captured with advanced designs of weapons and uranium.  

Suggesting the actions of terrorists are no worse than those of the US during WWII is certainly an interesting rationalization.  However, it is fraught with logical errors and would not stand any reasonable or rational test.  Let me rephrase it so that you can see the errors.

If you want to point to Jihad John, what he did was wrong and is condemned. I dont know what measurement that you use for "evilness", if the number of death of innocents in a single event (just one or two mere deaths by beheading) to be the measurement then what US did to either Hiroshima or Nagasaki was far more evil. 90,000–166,000 and 39,000–80,000 estimated deaths caused by the nuclear bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki respectively.

If you don't see the logical errors, just ask and this kafir will be glad to point them out to you.

OK, I opened another reply because now we go for the Mo's violence in the Hadith, the ones you don't say to be heretic...












And here is the list of people killed by Mo's orders.

http://wikiislam.net/wiki/List_of_Killings_Ordered_or_Supported_by_Muhammad

The simple reason you don't see Mo's killing people himself, is because he had his thugs, who he called Muslims, to do the dirty work. But being an assassin or the assassin contractor makes you no less guilty.


About his race:



There you go...

Didn't even noticed the big text above... you've nothing else better to do with your life then preach for your delusion?


So this is NOT in the Quran:


or this


or this


or this


or this


or this


... and the list would go on and on and on...

The only thing you cherry picked surah proved, beyond doubt, is that Islam is an incoherent doctrine.

About written Arabic, if you forgot to notice it, you are referring to "Classical Arabic", not the current one. And if you look at the chart you may see:




Alislam.org... inter-islam.org... sounds legit! 
What next? Beautiful things about Communism on comrade.org?

Well, about your second link, turns funny none of the characters you've there vouching for Islam comes close to the biggest event of Mo's era, and most likely the reason for the success of Islam as whole; the Justinian plague.
Killing on average 5 thousand persons each day, in a society without science or knowledge about what was that at all, made the population soft to superstitions and Gods. As you may know, Mo wasn't the only "prophet" at his time, he was only the one of them who won the wars.

How would they talk if they're headless

I quoted this because I don't have the desire to go point by point as the guy you're answering did, and I agree with you for the most part.

I want to address a couple of things in this, to both posts and the subject in general.

One, I agree. Try to build "paradise" on earth, or abandon the concept. I have no belief in an afterlife, or any gods. I was once a Christian, and I greatly regret that, as to be Christian (or Muslim, or most any religion) is to be a hypocrite, whether you realize it at that time or later. I don't like hypocrisy, and thus hated myself to a great degree before I woke up and realized that most of the religion was hokum. The few parts that are valid have to do with how you relate to your neighbors, regardless of their beliefs, and are the underpinnings of all civil society. Those things are common to all extant religions and most historical ones, including laVeyan Satanism. It's the stuff added on top that differentiates them, and that stuff is either absurd, which doesn't affect me, or a breeding ground for dangerous lunatics.

I can, based upon my knowledge of the bible, justify ANY action I choose with scripture. It is my experience that Muslims can do the same, if they have sufficient knowledge of the Q'uran. This is often referred to as "cherry picking" by those who deride it, and those same individuals will claim that you must look at the book as a whole. Thus the hypocrisy, because in the case of the bible for certain, and the Q'uran as far as I have determined, looking at it as a whole is an exercise in contradiction. For instance, the bible clearly states in absolute terms that there is and is not an after life. The concept of humans going to heaven is a late addition, the existence of heaven is not. But in the early writings, heaven was the abode of Yahweh and his more powerful servants. (not just angels, the scriptures and jewish tradition list a whole plethora of beings under Yahweh).

This is just one example. And in itself, for the non believer, it is trivial. If you don't believe in an afterlife, the threat of hell (the christian's favorite weapon) or the promise of heaven (Christianity's greatest carrot) are frankly meaningless. Thus when the Christian tells me I'm going to hell, I will laugh in his face because he has not convinced me that such a place exists. Falling back on his contradictory and often violent fairy tale is not helpful. On science, it occasionally gets it right and often is so far off base as to be ludicrous.

For me, what it comes down to is this: We're on our own. If there is a god, I'm simply not arrogant enough to believe that such a being would greatly care about a little rock orbiting around a minor star on the southeastern fringe of a minor galaxy far from the center of the universe. And I'm pretty arrogant! Further, in the event that I'm not arrogant enough, then said god would make it OBVIOUS that it wishes to be worshipped. If it can create the universe, it can create unambiguous proof of it's existence and rules, rather than setting up a universe that to all RATIONAL appearance looks to have evolved from a massive explosion into a new reality some few billion years ago.

Religion tends to divide brother against brother. Theistic religions, such as Christianity, Judaism, Islam and their ilk, are more egregious than secular relgions such as communism, fascism, social democracy and their ilk in the long run because the claim is not subject to disproof. Now, it can be argued that the secular religions have made a bigger body count, and I can't deny that. I can't prove it either, but prior to the 20th century, Christianity held the record. Now, it seems radical Islam wants to catch up, and all the arguments of Muslims who believe otherwise do not hold against the reality that the people waging a shadow war against civilization claim to be either Muslim or Christian. In both cases, they're completely wrong, but justified in their hearts because they can use their scriptures to justify their actions and feel they are doing right.

As an atheist and anarchist, I cannot stoop to such moral lows. I have no "god" to justify my actions, I only have the understanding of the consequences and the desire to build better humans via education and peaceable revolution. My actions or inactions will be judged by thinking people solely on their merits, not whether they conform to some mythical being's words.

I'm often asked if I would kill for my beliefs, and derided when I answer in the negative. Yet I am true to my belief! It is simply WRONG to kill over a difference of opinion. I am not a pacifist nor would I roll over and die were I and mine invaded. I would fight, and I would kill. But it's not to defend my BELIEF, it's to defend my PERSON and that of my neighbors. Frankly, this is one of the things that disgusts me about religion, and thankfully the vast majority of the religious are decent people despite their beliefs, but if you have to KILL because a man holds a different opinion than you, that is in and of itself an admission that your belief is false! If it will not withstand scrutiny, then it is not worthy of existence.

You want peace? Learn self reliance. You want an end to poverty and inequity? Learn to cooperate. You want an end to tyranny? Don't promote one form of it over another. A peaceable man is a warrior, but not a soldier. He follows his heart, but leads with his brain. If a thing seems false to him, he investigates. If he proves to be wrong, he changes direction based upon FACTS and RESULTS, not BELIEF.

I long ago washed my hands of religious bullshit, and it was the single best decision I ever made. To the OP, Muslims, Christians, whatever, I invite you to look in the mirror and take a LONG talk with yourself. (you might call it praying, for all I care. It's the same thing.) Ask yourself WHY you believe what you do. If, as was the case for me and is the case for the vast majority of the religious, the answer is "this is the religion of my Fathers", then you have to ask yourself if that's good enough. If it is, your world is small, but that's ok. It's your life. But if it's not, there's a whole universe out there just crying out for us to learn it's secrets. Which you can never do if you already "have all the answers".

There's absolutely no evidence that thing you call "Allah" is a God or the creator of anything. So he has no will, doesn't choose anything and, most likely, doesn't exist at all.
So all your violence for what you call "trial", is nothing but ruthless and senseless violence.

I referred nothing of the paradise, those 4 things were your statement. My point is easy: Make it HERE on Earth. Screw the void promises of afterlife and imaginary friends, the only ones concerning about your "afterlife" are the worms that will eat your body.


No they aren't. Those words have a wide meaning, you would need to treat EVERYBODY, and consider EVERYBODY, Muslim or not, as equal for them to have validity. Islam preaches for the corruption and destruction of others, so all it does is sectarian justice (which is injustice btw), spreading evil and violence.