Topic: Why do people hate islam? - page 54. (Read 221077 times)

Oh, changing the subject from"Why hate Islam" to your own crackpot religious ideas and then to UFOs?

Okay.

I am not a scholar of old books... Really? Then tell me what is Anthropology? By the way, you think that you can really use the word Logic in order to say that this facts are non-sense?

“We are already here, among you. Some of us have always been here, with you, yet apart from, watching, and occasionally guiding you whenever the opportunity arose.”

According to Brinsley Le Poer Trench, editor of Flying Saucer Review, this otherworldly message appeared for the first time in a 1947 issue of Fanatic Stories written by an author under the pseudonym “Alexander Blade”. Curiously, it was made available only a few months after one of the most talked-about UFO incidents: Roswell.

Genghis Khan allowed people of other religions to remain in their religion. He allowed Islam to remain, rather than destroying people for following it. I wonder if this was the reason that his kingdom was ultimately broken after he passed.

Temujin (Genghis Khan) conquered way more way faster than Muhammad could have even dreamed. Yet, he allowed people he conquered to maintain the religion of their choice.

Do you respect the religions Mohammed destroyed when he and his followers captured Mecca?

What's telling is not the community attitude, and neither the attitude of the police, but the silence - and hence approval - of the local Muslim community of these actions.

That's the way they do it.

Good little Jihad boys.

“Sh*tty Christians”: Militant Muslim youths storm a Christmas service at a Church in Mönchengladbach, Germany


This is Europe, not the Middle East. *Crickets chirping* in parliaments, political chambers and newsrooms across the world.

Will the islamofauxbia never end? Meanwhile, across the pond, the intrepid FBI is chasing down the bacon-bandito.

    “Sh*tty Christians”: Belligerent Muslim youths storm a Christmas service at a Church in Mönchengladbach

    »Scheiß Christen«: Randalierende Muslime stürmen in Mönchengladbach eine Kirche – Kopp Online

    Only one of the youths was even 14 years old, the other 5 were just young children. Nonetheless, they behaved like adult radical extremists. The young Muslims stormed the Rheydter Marien Church in Mönchengladbach on Christmas Eve. They interrupted the manger festival by running through the halls during the service, all the while yelling and cursing at churchgoers saying, “Shitty Christians!” And what happened after that? Not much beyond a small article in a local paper.

    Imagine it were the other way around: wild Christian children storming into a mosque and abusing praying Muslims! 50 minutes later there would have been an emergency news break during the daily television programming…special edition pages in FAZ and the Süddeutsche Zeitung would have gone to press.

    …

    The  reflex of the mainstream media? It was Muslims so all is silent…there were only a few who showed civil courage in the church. One of the church members nabbed two of the children in the heat of the moment. Later a police detail released the two to their parents at a nearby McDonalds.





    The pastor Manfred Riethdorf (Photo: right) doesn’t want to let the matter go so lightly, and files a formal complaint against the 14-yr-old for disturbance of the peace. This is likely because he doesn’t believe it was just a stupid youthful prank.

    “Shitty Christians.” And especially at Christmas? How do these young Muslims know what their actions will invoke? Their parents or other adults must have infected them with this knowledge.

    If adult Muslims had stormed the church, they would not have been let off so easily without punishment. Against minor children one cannot do much. Is this all a coincidence or were the children sent like an instrument of religious extremism?

    Upon direct questioning, the police refused to confirm the religious background of the young offenders. The pastor himself energetically replied: “I explained clearly to them, how one should act in a church. Possibly tomorrow I will try to establish contact with their parents to discuss this event with them and their children.”

    The police have not shown as much initiative. The relationship between Christians and Muslims in Mönchengladbach is tense, otherwise this would not have happened, but up until now the media have still not reported on the event.

    Official Muslim leaders have said nothing and the local politicians are silent. No one wants to throw oil on a fire.

    Silence is falsely understood consideration. To talk about the issue would call integration politics into question. There would be an international media echo if Germany tried to discuss (such behavior) of Muslims gone wild.

    One must also see: He who presses (the issue), will confirm the fears of “concerned citizens.” They feel that life with Muslims in Germany has become more difficult, but one does not talk about it. Now so called “concerned citizens” see their worries again confirmed.
    (Note – “concerned citizens” or “besorgte Bürger” is a buzz word in Germany for right-wing extremists)

    Another article (here) suggests that Pastor Riethdorf suggests this incident should lead to a community culture of discussion.

Yes, more inter-faith dialogue. That’s the ticket.


http://pamelageller.com/2016/01/shtty-christians-militant-muslim-youths-storm-a-christmas-service-at-a-church-in-monchengladbach-germany.html/

I did not mention ISIS or Taliban.

You are at least in part incorrect, as Islam does teach to stone to death adulterers, and to kill apostates of Islam.  Islam does teach killings.

But I have little interest in arguing those details. 

I asked - was Yassir Arafat a good Muslim?

Probably not. But don't know if linking religion to movements for national liberation says much. Most or all of those movements were terrorist. Palestinian movement of course. Israeli movement against the british and palestinians. American movement against the british, its own population to stop cooperation, against the native americans. Etc.

You defend Islam because you're ignorant about it... that's all.

My respectable friend, you know why I defend Islam, just because today some Muslims forget the real teachings of Islam, and thats why I strongly condemnd them. Islam never teachs or preach TO KILL ANY PERSON, but people today killed innocent persons on the name of ISLAM. I just wants to tell you in very respectable manner that please do not think that these type of techings are true Islam. Muslims forget the real teachings of Muhammad (peace be upon him) same as some Christans forget the true teachings of Jesus (peace be upon him). I respect all the religions because no one preach the bad things. I just want that if you talk about any group (indivisual) like ISIS or Taliban, never think that is the Islam. please

Without sword there won't be Islam at all, it never spread on any other way. STOP LYING AND DECEIVE YOURSELF!

And there you go again.  A proponent of Islam, lecturing on the Internet about Jihad.

That's about all we need to read of your post....

Let me as an atheist, compare your behavior with that of Christians.  They talk about peace, and about turning the other cheek.  They talk about who they can help. 

They do not talk about why stoning women to death is okay, and why cutting off limbs is okay, and why one meaning of jihad is good, and another is bad, blah blah blah.

Answer me this.  Was Yassir Arafat a good Muslim?

Because of the failure to understand the philosophy of the issue of Jihad, and its reality, the people of this age as well as of the middle ages were gravely mistaken, and we have to admit with great embarrassment that their dangerous mistakes provided an opportunity to the opponents of Islam to criticize the pure and the holy religion like Islam, which is nothing but a reflection of the laws of nature, and a manifestation of the majesty of God.

Islam is such a religion, which does not need the support of sword for its propagation. Rather, the inherent excellences of its teachings, its truth, enlightenment, reasoning, arguments, and the active assistance of God the Exalted, the signs, and His personal attention are such matters that always drive its progress and propagation…The message of Islam does not need any compulsion for its propagation… To mention that the Ghazis (Islamic veterans of wars) of the Frontier Region raise rebellion in the name of Jihad is an absurd thought, and it is nothing but foolishness and ignorance to call these rebellious people by the name of Ghazi. If an ignorant Muslim harbors even the least amount of sympathy for these people considering them performing Jihad, I tell the truth, that the one who calls a rebellious person ghazi, and praises those who bring a bad name to Islam is an enemy of Islam… In England, France and other European countries, Islam is very harshly criticized to have been spread by the use of force… The real truth is that this rebellion has been spread by the Maulvies (Islamic clerics), who are the unwise friends of Islam. They did not understand the reality of Islam, and provided an opportunity to others to raise objections because of their concocted beliefs. The beliefs concocted by them greatly aided the Christians. If they had not deceived others about jihad or misunderstood the meaning of jihad, no one would have taken advantage of the opportunity to criticize Islam.

This is what i am saying, Jihad (or fight) in Islam is only for PEACE. But today, people forgot the actual teachings of Islam. The true Islam never said to kill any , i repeat Any person on the name of RELIGION or any way.

TEACHINGS OF JUDAISM AND CHRISTIANITY 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.

Bah.  You are no scholar of old books.  You have no authority and make numerous mistakes in understanding and logic.

Really? Then what is authentically for you?

I will share you some facts just to see where the Bible is coming from...

In many depictions of the Anunnaki, we can see strange objects worn by “those who came from the stars”, one of the most interesting examples are “wrist watches” which appear in almost every single depiction of the Anunnaki.

The Sumerians were the first people who started building actual cities, organised using actual city grids like we see in modern day cities around the world, according to the Ancient Alien theory, the Anunnaki transferred this knowledge to ancient man.

In the 19th century archaeologists exploring the ancient ruins of Nineveh discovered 22,000 clay tablets which are directly connected to the Anunnaki.

In 1976 author Sitchin published his personal translations of the Sumerian texts in a series of books called “The Earth Chronicles“. According to Sitchin the clay tablets describe an alien race known as the Anunnaki who came to Earth to mine gold.

Gold reflects infrared light. Infrared is basically light you don’t see it, but we interact with it in the form of heat,  the radiation interacts with our molecules and that makes them vibrate faster and you’ll feel that as heat, gold also makes a good heat shield, partly because it’s so malleable. You can make gold very thin; it’s easy to work with; and it has great properties for reflecting and heat protection making it a “must have” resource not only for us but potentially for extraterrestrial visitors as Sitchin suggests.

The bolded one is the evidence about the first and the oldest book on planet Earth! Feel free to check this things...

Well, behind the pretense of authenticity from the Old Book Quote, this is utter nonsense and has no meaning at all.

Let me remind you of something that is coming from the Galatians 4:22

22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman. 23 His son by the slave woman was born according to the flesh, but his son by the free woman was born as the result of a divine promise.

24 These things are being taken figuratively: The women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar. 25 Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother. 27 For it is written:

“Be glad, barren woman,
you who never bore a child;
shout for joy and cry aloud,
you who were never in labor;
because more are the children of the desolate woman
than of her who has a husband.”

I don't have nothing against the Prophet Mohamed because he should be placed in Old Testament together with the other Prophets!

I understand the logical fallacies he will bring, we have heard them before in this thread.

What I find disturbing, in fact somewhat insulting, is when these guys talk themselves up next to God and Glory, and ignore the atrocities, they are saying, basically....  "OH, WE don't have to worry about ALL THAT."

That's something of an insult, that sort of denialism of reality.

Well, Spendy, I gotta agree with you on this one. The good stuff mohsin qureshi is talking about is only for Muslims and potential Muslims, as long as the potentials seem to be going in the direction of Islamic penitence.

The mohsin qureshi stuff that you are talking about is the stuff reserved for impenitent non-Muslims, and for Muslims who are converting to or reverting back to something other than Islam.