Topic: Why do people hate islam? - page 47. (Read 221036 times)

NO freedom of speech something these fucks need to learn.. there actions wont be doing much.. LET HIM DREAM ..
OVER ALL YOU MIGHT KILL 10K WESTERNERS ..

WE WILL KILL MILLIONS OF YOU..

THE ONLY WAY A RELIGION CAN WIN IS IF YOU LAY DOWN YOUR WEAPONS AND BE BENIGN
FREE FROM VIOLENCE AND HATE..
THEN THE MASSES HAVE NO REASON TO HATE YOU..
And to all you religious freaks its a ATHEIST PLANET NOW WE WILL TEACH YOU SENSE

 everyone can sing little donkey at Christmas I will make it law someday..
if you sing little donkey in a bad way you get 50 lashes 

No sorry i take that back starting to sound like ISLAM AKA ISIS..

Because of shit like this...


Should this be reported or something?

Islam is for Muslims. Koran sounds like peace for Muslims. So, look at how peaceful Muslims live to see how much peace they have. But notice, also, that any peace that they might have is kind of a backward, retarded peace.

Islam is against people who are not Muslim. Oh sure, it offers peace for a while, while it is trying to convert them to Islam. But then it is violence for these other people. Read the Koran.

Bacon is the devil.

Why, that's so enlightening.  You are not ignorant and have knowledge of the True Islam.  So you can speak with authority.

Problem is, there are 99 other people out there babbling that They Are Not Ignorant (but you are) and THey Have Knowledge Of The True Islam(and you don't).

Why should anyone listen to you?

people hate islam because islam hates people - simple as that.

because they are ignorant and they resist to learn the true islam.. they think isis or any other terrorist organisations represents islam but not.. everyone should read koran and then decide whether they should hate islam or not.

You're right, lets just say all religion is evil and be done with it.

Because any given group of muslims has numerous other muslim groups that they don't consider Islamic. 

"True Scotsman" logical fallacy.

Most muslims don't consider IS or Al Q et al Islamic, why should anyone else?

Sounds like EXACTLY the justification method by which Bin Laden advocated terrorism toward the West.

Now let's see.  Do you agree with Sayyad Qutb's views?

People hating other people for beliefs alone is something that eludes me, and will always do so. If I believe in something, in anything at all, why should I care what the rest of the world believes? Even more so, when that belief it attached to spiritual ties. Think about it. Why do religions even want to convert more people? Is some contest running that no one informed me about? Will god, any god, open the gates only once a certain number of followers is reached?

How can we not think straight?

Now read the teachings of Islam about War: -


The teaching of Islam is different from both these teachings. It strikes a mean between the two. Islam does not teach aggression as did Moses. Nor does it, like present-day (and presumably corrupt) Christianity, preach a contradiction. It does not ask us to turn the other cheek and at the same time to sell our clothes to buy a sword. The teaching of Islam fits into the natural instincts of man, and promotes peace in the only possible way.

Islam forbids aggression, but it urges us to fight if failure to fight jeopardizes peace and promotes war. If failure to fight means the extirpation of free belief and of the search of truth, it is our duty to fight. This is the teaching on which peace can ultimately be built, and this is the teaching on which the Prophet based his own policies and his practice. The Prophet suffered continuously and consistently at Mecca but did not fight the aggression of which he was an innocent victim. When he escaped to Medina, the enemy was out to extirpate Islam; it was, therefore, necessary to fight the enemy in defense of truth and freedom of belief.

We quote below the passages in the Quran which bear on the subject of war.

(1)   In 22:40-42 we have:

    Permission to fight is given to those against whom war is made, because they have been wronged-and Allah indeed has power to help them-Those who have been driven out from their homes unjustly only because they said, "Our Lord is Allah"-And if Allah did not repel some men by means of others, there would surely have been pulled down cloisters and churches and synagogues and mosques, wherein the name of Allah is oft commemorated. And Allah will surely help one who helps Him. Allah is indeed Powerful, Mighty.-Those who, if We establish them in the earth, will observe Prayer and pay the Zakat and enjoin good and forbid evil. And with Allah rests the final issue of all affairs.

The verse purports to say that permission to fight is given to the victims of aggression. God is well able to help the victims-those who have been driven out of their homes because of their beliefs. The permission is wise because, if God were not to repel the cruel with the help of the righteous, there would be no freedom of faith and worship in the world. God must help those who help to establish freedom of worship. It follows that fighting is permitted when a people have suffered long from wanton aggression-when the aggressor has had no cause for aggression and he seeks to interfere with the religion of his victim. The duty of the victim, if and when he attains to power, is to establish religious freedom and to protect all religions and all religious places. His power is to be used not for his own glorification, but for the care of the poor, the progress of the country and the general promotion of peace. This teaching is as unexceptionable as it is clear and precise. It proclaims the fact that early Muslims took to war because they were constrained to do so. Aggressive wars were forbidden by Islam. Muslims are promised political power, but are warned that this power must be used not for self-aggrandizement, but for the amelioration of the poor and the promotion of peace and progress.

(2)   In (2:191-194) we have:

    And fight in the cause of Allah against those who fight against you, but do not transgress. Surely, Allah loves not transgressors. And kill them wherever you meet them and drive them out from where they have driven you out; for persecution is worse than killing. And fight them not in, and near, the Sacred Mosque until they fight you, then fight them: such is the requital for the disbelievers. But if they desist, then surely Allah is Most Forgiving, Merciful. And fight them until there is no persecution, and religion is professed for Allah. But if they desist, then remember that no hostility is allowed except against the aggressors.

Fighting is to be for the sake of God, not for our own sake or out of anger or aggrandizement, and even fighting is to be free from excesses, for excesses are displeasing to God. Fighting is between parties of combatants. Assaults on individuals are forbidden. Aggression against a religion is to be met by active resistance, for such aggression is worse than bloodshed. Muslims are not to fight near the Sacred Mosque, unless an attack is first made by the enemy. Fighting near the Sacred Mosque interferes with the public right of pilgrimage. But if the enemy attacks, Muslims are free to reply, this being the just reward of aggression. But if the enemy desists, Muslims must desist also, and forgive and forget the past. Fighting is to continue so long as religious persecution lasts and religious freedom is not established. Religion is for God. The use of force or pressure in religion is wrong. If the Kafirs desist from it and make religion free, Muslims are to desist from fighting the Kafirs. Arms are to be taken up against those who commit excesses. When excesses cease, fighting must cease also.

If Jihad, is the only reason for peoples who hate Islam, then here are some teachings of different faiths about War.


... The question ... arises - Can it ever be right to fight for a faith? Let us, therefore, turn to this question.

The teaching of religion on the subject of war takes different forms... Moses is commanded to enter the land of Canaan by force, to defeat its population and to settle his own people in it (Deut. 20:10-18). In spite of this teaching in the Book of Moses, and in spite of its reinforcement by practical example of the Prophets Joshua, David and others, Jews and Christians continue to hold their Prophets in reverence and to regard their books as the Books of God.

At the end of the Mosaic tradition, we had Jesus who taught;

    But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also (Matthew 5-39).

Christians have often cited this teaching of Jesus and argued that Jesus preached against war. But in the New Testament, we have passages which purport to teach quite the opposite. One passage, for instance, says:

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword (Matthew 10:34).

And another passage says:

    Then said he unto them. But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one (Luke 22:36).

Of the three verses the last two contradict the first. If Jesus came for war, why did he teach about turning the other cheek? It seems we have either to admit a contradiction in the New Testament, or we have to explain one of the contradictory teachings in a suitable manner. We are not concerned here with the question whether turning the other cheek can ever be practicable. We are concerned only to point out that, throughout their long history, no Christian people have ever hesitated to make war. When Christians first attained to power in Rome, they took part in wars both defensive and aggressive. They are dominant powers in the world today, and they continue to take part in wars both defensive and aggressive. Only now the side which wins is canonized by the rest of the Christian world. Their victory is said to be the victory of Christian civilization. Christian civilization has come to mean whatever tends to be dominant and successful. When two Christian powers go to war, each claims to be the protector of Christian ideals. The power which wins is canonized as the true Christian power. It is true, however, that from the time of Jesus to our time, Christendom has been involved-and indications are that it will continue to remain involved-in war. The practical verdict of the Christian peoples, therefore, is that war is the real teaching of the New Testament, and that turning the other cheek was either an opportunist teaching dictated by the helplessness of early Christians, or it is meant to apply only to individuals, not to States and peoples.

Secondly, even if we assume that Jesus taught peace and not war, it does not follow that those who do not act upon this teaching are not holy and honored. For Christendom has ever revered exponents of war such as Moses, Joshua and David. Not only this, the Church itself has canonized national heroes who suffered in wars. They were made saints by the Popes.

I am conscious of the fact that, strictly speaking, the word 'terrorism' applies to acts of terror, attempts to cause bomb explosions, and so on. But I do not believe that this is the only type of terrorism the world is suffering from. I believe that whenever repressive measures are taken by governments against their own countrymen to still the voice of disagreement, those measures too should be included within the term 'terrorism' and be as strongly and roundly condemned as any other form of terrorism. I consider all oppressive measures taken by governments against the left or right within their own countries as terrorism of the worst type. When acts of terrorism are directed against foreign governments and take the form of the use of explosives here and there, or the hijacking of planes, such events gain a great deal of attention. World opinion sympathizes with the victims of such callous terrorist acts, as indeed it should. Such sympathies are not merely voiced, but are generally followed by constructive means to prevent and pre-empt such attempts in the future. However, what about those hundreds of thousands of people suffering under the stem and merciless hands of their own governments? Their cries of anguish are seldom heard outside. Their cries of protest are very often muffled by the application of strict measures of censorship. Even if philanthropic agencies like Amnesty International draw the attention of the world to such cruel acts of persecution, torture, and denial of human rights, such events are only mildly condemned, if at all, by world governments. More often than not, these are considered to be internal matters for the countries concerned. Instead of being described as acts of terrorism, they are widely mentioned as government efforts to suppress terrorism in these countries, and to establish peace, law and order.

I am quite convinced that in essence all restrictive and punitive measures taken by a government against its own people to suppress a popular movement or suspected opposition, more often than not, go beyond the limits of genuine legal measures and end up as brutal acts of violence designed to strike terror in the hearts of a dissatisfied section of their own people. Humanity has suffered far more through such acts of State terrorism than through all acts of sabotage or hijacking put together As far as Islam is concerned, it categorically rejects and condemns every form of terrorism. It does not provide any cover or justification for any act of violence, be it committed by an individual, a group or a government.

Odd.  In the US we know for a fact that it is the left wing that controls the media.

So how do you get this point of view?

I dont hate islam.
Islam is a fantastic religion but i dont follow it, the problem is the conservative and other right wing parties that control the media want us to hate it. they position us to hate it.

Was Yassir Araft a good Muslim?

Was Bin Laden a good Muslim?

How about Sayyad Qutb?

Is it okay to spread hate about the Jews?

If already spread terror, it is wrong. In any religion always teach about love, including also present in Islam. And I don't see people hate islam,  but hated those are the people who in the name of Islam in spreading terror.

To see why people hate Islam, look at what the Islamic writings tell them to do - https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.13565183. Most people who are in a free country aren't forced by Islam. The Muslims in predominantly Islamic countries can't say that they don't like Islam for fear of being punished or executed.