Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
They attack to spread their god's law.Muslims aren't attacking us because we are non-believers. They are attacking us because we are the ruthless slaves of their arch-enemy, Israel, and we slaughter Muslims at Israel's bidding. If they were attacking us because 100 verses tell them kill non-believers, they would be attacking India, China, Finland, New Zealand, Bolivia, and Canada, as well.100+ verses in the Islamic texts exhort the faithful to wage Jihad against non-believers, and there have been over 30,000 Islamic terrorist attacks since 9/11, so the Islamic texts might have to always be suspect #1 when it comes to trying to determine the motivation of a particular Muslim terrorist - until we get more info - if we ever get more info. The terrorist is dead, so we often won't know.
So "we might never know that Muslim terrorist's motivation" can't be used anymore.
Instead, our default position should be "until shown otherwise, we have to assume that this Muslim terrorist was simply following some of the 100+ verses in his religion relating to Jihad - including the enticing promise of 72 virgins in Paradise to those that wage jihad for Allah."
Question: should this be our default position, or not?
Me, I'm certainly starting to lean this way.
You?
The Uigher attacks in China are not Jihad. They are occupied resistance to cultural demise.You seriously don't think that Jihadists are not attacking in China, do you!?Muslims aren't attacking us because we are non-believers. They are attacking us because we are the ruthless slaves of their arch-enemy, Israel, and we slaughter Muslims at Israel's bidding. If they were attacking us because 100 verses tell them kill non-believers, they would be attacking India, China, Finland, New Zealand, Bolivia, and Canada, as well.100+ verses in the Islamic texts exhort the faithful to wage Jihad against non-believers, and there have been over 30,000 Islamic terrorist attacks since 9/11, so the Islamic texts might have to always be suspect #1 when it comes to trying to determine the motivation of a particular Muslim terrorist - until we get more info - if we ever get more info. The terrorist is dead, so we often won't know.
So "we might never know that Muslim terrorist's motivation" can't be used anymore.
Instead, our default position should be "until shown otherwise, we have to assume that this Muslim terrorist was simply following some of the 100+ verses in his religion relating to Jihad - including the enticing promise of 72 virgins in Paradise to those that wage jihad for Allah."
Question: should this be our default position, or not?
Me, I'm certainly starting to lean this way.
You?
And what about the other five countries I listed. No answer?You seriously don't think that Jihadists are not attacking in China, do you!?Muslims aren't attacking us because we are non-believers. They are attacking us because we are the ruthless slaves of their arch-enemy, Israel, and we slaughter Muslims at Israel's bidding. If they were attacking us because 100 verses tell them kill non-believers, they would be attacking India, China, Finland, New Zealand, Bolivia, and Canada, as well.100+ verses in the Islamic texts exhort the faithful to wage Jihad against non-believers, and there have been over 30,000 Islamic terrorist attacks since 9/11, so the Islamic texts might have to always be suspect #1 when it comes to trying to determine the motivation of a particular Muslim terrorist - until we get more info - if we ever get more info. The terrorist is dead, so we often won't know.
So "we might never know that Muslim terrorist's motivation" can't be used anymore.
Instead, our default position should be "until shown otherwise, we have to assume that this Muslim terrorist was simply following some of the 100+ verses in his religion relating to Jihad - including the enticing promise of 72 virgins in Paradise to those that wage jihad for Allah."
Question: should this be our default position, or not?
Me, I'm certainly starting to lean this way.
You?
Not as many Muslims in those lands, and also, yes, French and Americans are standing in the way of them implementing Sharia Law. So per 8:39 they are allowed to attack us, since we support man-made law, and of course stand in the way of Sharia Law (god's law.) We both agree that bombing them just creates more terrorists in the long run, but also keep in mind that they also want to get a guaranteed place in Jannah, and Jihadis get the HIGHEST place in Jannah, the Islamic texts say - and 72 virgins is a great motivating factor as well.OK, genius, you tell me why Jihad has them killing Americans and not Mexicans. Has them killing the French, and not the Vietnamese?Sounds like propaganda right out of the KoranMuslims aren't attacking us because we are non-believers. They are attacking us because we are the ruthless slaves of their arch-enemy, Israel, and we slaughter Muslims at Israel's bidding. If they were attacking us because 100 verses tell them kill non-believers, they would be attacking India, China, Finland, New Zealand, Bolivia, and Canada, as well.100+ verses in the Islamic texts exhort the faithful to wage Jihad against non-believers, and there have been over 30,000 Islamic terrorist attacks since 9/11, so the Islamic texts might have to always be suspect #1 when it comes to trying to determine the motivation of a particular Muslim terrorist - until we get more info - if we ever get more info. The terrorist is dead, so we often won't know.
So "we might never know that Muslim terrorist's motivation" can't be used anymore.
Instead, our default position should be "until shown otherwise, we have to assume that this Muslim terrorist was simply following some of the 100+ verses in his religion relating to Jihad - including the enticing promise of 72 virgins in Paradise to those that wage jihad for Allah."
Question: should this be our default position, or not?
Me, I'm certainly starting to lean this way.
You?
See response in post above.And what about the other five countries I listed. No answer?You seriously don't think that Jihadists are not attacking in China, do you!?Muslims aren't attacking us because we are non-believers. They are attacking us because we are the ruthless slaves of their arch-enemy, Israel, and we slaughter Muslims at Israel's bidding. If they were attacking us because 100 verses tell them kill non-believers, they would be attacking India, China, Finland, New Zealand, Bolivia, and Canada, as well.100+ verses in the Islamic texts exhort the faithful to wage Jihad against non-believers, and there have been over 30,000 Islamic terrorist attacks since 9/11, so the Islamic texts might have to always be suspect #1 when it comes to trying to determine the motivation of a particular Muslim terrorist - until we get more info - if we ever get more info. The terrorist is dead, so we often won't know.
So "we might never know that Muslim terrorist's motivation" can't be used anymore.
Instead, our default position should be "until shown otherwise, we have to assume that this Muslim terrorist was simply following some of the 100+ verses in his religion relating to Jihad - including the enticing promise of 72 virgins in Paradise to those that wage jihad for Allah."
Question: should this be our default position, or not?
Me, I'm certainly starting to lean this way.
You?
No, their god approves of that, to spread Sharia, the 100+ verses show that.The Uigher attacks in China are not Jihad. They are occupied resistance to cultural demise.You seriously don't think that Jihadists are not attacking in China, do you!?Muslims aren't attacking us because we are non-believers. They are attacking us because we are the ruthless slaves of their arch-enemy, Israel, and we slaughter Muslims at Israel's bidding. If they were attacking us because 100 verses tell them kill non-believers, they would be attacking India, China, Finland, New Zealand, Bolivia, and Canada, as well.100+ verses in the Islamic texts exhort the faithful to wage Jihad against non-believers, and there have been over 30,000 Islamic terrorist attacks since 9/11, so the Islamic texts might have to always be suspect #1 when it comes to trying to determine the motivation of a particular Muslim terrorist - until we get more info - if we ever get more info. The terrorist is dead, so we often won't know.
So "we might never know that Muslim terrorist's motivation" can't be used anymore.
Instead, our default position should be "until shown otherwise, we have to assume that this Muslim terrorist was simply following some of the 100+ verses in his religion relating to Jihad - including the enticing promise of 72 virgins in Paradise to those that wage jihad for Allah."
Question: should this be our default position, or not?
Me, I'm certainly starting to lean this way.
You?
But Mexicans aren't Muslims. Why aren't they attacking Mexicans?They attack to spread their god's law.Muslims aren't attacking us because we are non-believers. They are attacking us because we are the ruthless slaves of their arch-enemy, Israel, and we slaughter Muslims at Israel's bidding. If they were attacking us because 100 verses tell them kill non-believers, they would be attacking India, China, Finland, New Zealand, Bolivia, and Canada, as well.100+ verses in the Islamic texts exhort the faithful to wage Jihad against non-believers, and there have been over 30,000 Islamic terrorist attacks since 9/11, so the Islamic texts might have to always be suspect #1 when it comes to trying to determine the motivation of a particular Muslim terrorist - until we get more info - if we ever get more info. The terrorist is dead, so we often won't know.
So "we might never know that Muslim terrorist's motivation" can't be used anymore.
Instead, our default position should be "until shown otherwise, we have to assume that this Muslim terrorist was simply following some of the 100+ verses in his religion relating to Jihad - including the enticing promise of 72 virgins in Paradise to those that wage jihad for Allah."
Question: should this be our default position, or not?
Me, I'm certainly starting to lean this way.
You?
Q8:39: Mohsin Khan: "And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allah) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah Alone [in the whole of the world]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allah), then certainly, Allah is All-Seer of what they do."
So why don't they attack Mexico?No, their god approves of that, to spread Sharia, the 100+ verses show that.The Uigher attacks in China are not Jihad. They are occupied resistance to cultural demise.You seriously don't think that Jihadists are not attacking in China, do you!?Muslims aren't attacking us because we are non-believers. They are attacking us because we are the ruthless slaves of their arch-enemy, Israel, and we slaughter Muslims at Israel's bidding. If they were attacking us because 100 verses tell them kill non-believers, they would be attacking India, China, Finland, New Zealand, Bolivia, and Canada, as well.100+ verses in the Islamic texts exhort the faithful to wage Jihad against non-believers, and there have been over 30,000 Islamic terrorist attacks since 9/11, so the Islamic texts might have to always be suspect #1 when it comes to trying to determine the motivation of a particular Muslim terrorist - until we get more info - if we ever get more info. The terrorist is dead, so we often won't know.
So "we might never know that Muslim terrorist's motivation" can't be used anymore.
Instead, our default position should be "until shown otherwise, we have to assume that this Muslim terrorist was simply following some of the 100+ verses in his religion relating to Jihad - including the enticing promise of 72 virgins in Paradise to those that wage jihad for Allah."
Question: should this be our default position, or not?
Me, I'm certainly starting to lean this way.
You?
We do agree that the religious supremacism of Judaism "we are god's chosen people!" is a great contributor to the problem.You think that JIHAD should not be the default cause the we attribute to a Muslim terrorist - unless we know other facts that would lead us to think that his motivation was something other than Jihad/72-virgins for Allah?Sure, whatever. Any reason to go spend trillions on war in the ME.100+ verses in the Islamic texts exhort the faithful to wage Jihad against non-believers, so the Islamic texts might have to always be suspect #1 when it comes to trying to determine the motivation of a particular Muslim terrorist - until we get more info - if we ever get more info. The terrorist is dead, so we often won't know.
"We might never know that Muslim terrorist's motivation" can't be used anymore.
Instead, our position should be "until shown otherwise, we have to assume that this Muslim terrorist was simply following some of the 100+ verses in his religion relating to Jihad - including the promise of 72 virgins in Paradise to those that wage jihad for Allah."
Question: should this be our default position, or not?
Me, I'm certainly starting to lean this way.
You?
They attack us. Not Mexico. If the cause were Jihad, as you believe, they would have just as much reason to hit them as us. The real reason is we allow Israel to trot us around feeding their blood lust by slaughtering Muslims. Wake up, for crying out loud.
If a city "turns away from God," kill everybody, even the cows, and burn all their stuff, and God will give you lots of childrenNot as many Muslims in those lands, and also, yes, French and Americans are standing in the way of them implementing Sharia Law. So per 8:39 they are allowed to attack us, since we support man-made law, and of course stand in the way of Sharia Law (god's law.) We both agree that bombing them just creates more terrorists in the long run, but also keep in mind that they also want to get a guaranteed place in Jannah, and Jihadis get the HIGHEST place in Jannah, the Islamic texts say - and 72 virgins is a great motivating factor as well.OK, genius, you tell me why Jihad has them killing Americans and not Mexicans. Has them killing the French, and not the Vietnamese?Sounds like propaganda right out of the KoranMuslims aren't attacking us because we are non-believers. They are attacking us because we are the ruthless slaves of their arch-enemy, Israel, and we slaughter Muslims at Israel's bidding. If they were attacking us because 100 verses tell them kill non-believers, they would be attacking India, China, Finland, New Zealand, Bolivia, and Canada, as well.100+ verses in the Islamic texts exhort the faithful to wage Jihad against non-believers, and there have been over 30,000 Islamic terrorist attacks since 9/11, so the Islamic texts might have to always be suspect #1 when it comes to trying to determine the motivation of a particular Muslim terrorist - until we get more info - if we ever get more info. The terrorist is dead, so we often won't know.
So "we might never know that Muslim terrorist's motivation" can't be used anymore.
Instead, our default position should be "until shown otherwise, we have to assume that this Muslim terrorist was simply following some of the 100+ verses in his religion relating to Jihad - including the enticing promise of 72 virgins in Paradise to those that wage jihad for Allah."
Question: should this be our default position, or not?
Me, I'm certainly starting to lean this way.
You?
Give them time.So why don't they attack Mexico?No, their god approves of that, to spread Sharia, the 100+ verses show that.The Uigher attacks in China are not Jihad. They are occupied resistance to cultural demise.You seriously don't think that Jihadists are not attacking in China, do you!?Muslims aren't attacking us because we are non-believers. They are attacking us because we are the ruthless slaves of their arch-enemy, Israel, and we slaughter Muslims at Israel's bidding. If they were attacking us because 100 verses tell them kill non-believers, they would be attacking India, China, Finland, New Zealand, Bolivia, and Canada, as well.100+ verses in the Islamic texts exhort the faithful to wage Jihad against non-believers, and there have been over 30,000 Islamic terrorist attacks since 9/11, so the Islamic texts might have to always be suspect #1 when it comes to trying to determine the motivation of a particular Muslim terrorist - until we get more info - if we ever get more info. The terrorist is dead, so we often won't know.
So "we might never know that Muslim terrorist's motivation" can't be used anymore.
Instead, our default position should be "until shown otherwise, we have to assume that this Muslim terrorist was simply following some of the 100+ verses in his religion relating to Jihad - including the enticing promise of 72 virgins in Paradise to those that wage jihad for Allah."
Question: should this be our default position, or not?
Me, I'm certainly starting to lean this way.
You?
We agree on that!If a city "turns away from God," kill everybody, even the cows, and burn all their stuff, and God will give you lots of childrenNot as many Muslims in those lands, and also, yes, French and Americans are standing in the way of them implementing Sharia Law. So per 8:39 they are allowed to attack us, since we support man-made law, and of course stand in the way of Sharia Law (god's law.) We both agree that bombing them just creates more terrorists in the long run, but also keep in mind that they also want to get a guaranteed place in Jannah, and Jihadis get the HIGHEST place in Jannah, the Islamic texts say - and 72 virgins is a great motivating factor as well.OK, genius, you tell me why Jihad has them killing Americans and not Mexicans. Has them killing the French, and not the Vietnamese?Sounds like propaganda right out of the KoranMuslims aren't attacking us because we are non-believers. They are attacking us because we are the ruthless slaves of their arch-enemy, Israel, and we slaughter Muslims at Israel's bidding. If they were attacking us because 100 verses tell them kill non-believers, they would be attacking India, China, Finland, New Zealand, Bolivia, and Canada, as well.100+ verses in the Islamic texts exhort the faithful to wage Jihad against non-believers, and there have been over 30,000 Islamic terrorist attacks since 9/11, so the Islamic texts might have to always be suspect #1 when it comes to trying to determine the motivation of a particular Muslim terrorist - until we get more info - if we ever get more info. The terrorist is dead, so we often won't know.
So "we might never know that Muslim terrorist's motivation" can't be used anymore.
Instead, our default position should be "until shown otherwise, we have to assume that this Muslim terrorist was simply following some of the 100+ verses in his religion relating to Jihad - including the enticing promise of 72 virgins in Paradise to those that wage jihad for Allah."
Question: should this be our default position, or not?
Me, I'm certainly starting to lean this way.
You?
If thou shalt hear say in one of thy cities, which the LORD thy God hath given thee to dwell there, saying, Certain men, the children of Belial, are gone out from among you, and have withdrawn the inhabitants of their city, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which ye have not known; Then shalt thou enquire, and make search, and ask diligently; and, behold, if it be truth, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought among you; Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword. And thou shalt gather all the spoil of it into the midst of the street thereof, and shalt burn with fire the city, and all the spoil thereof every whit, for the LORD thy God: and it shall be an heap for ever; it shall not be built again. And there shall cleave nought of the cursed thing to thine hand: that the LORD may turn from the fierceness of his anger, and shew thee mercy, and have compassion upon thee, and multiply thee, as he hath sworn unto thy fathers;
Deut 13:13
That's the problem with having "sacred" texts. Here's one from the Bible condoning both racism AND slavery in a single verse:We do agree that the religious supremacism of Judaism "we are god's chosen people!" is a great contributor to the problem.You think that JIHAD should not be the default cause the we attribute to a Muslim terrorist - unless we know other facts that would lead us to think that his motivation was something other than Jihad/72-virgins for Allah?Sure, whatever. Any reason to go spend trillions on war in the ME.100+ verses in the Islamic texts exhort the faithful to wage Jihad against non-believers, so the Islamic texts might have to always be suspect #1 when it comes to trying to determine the motivation of a particular Muslim terrorist - until we get more info - if we ever get more info. The terrorist is dead, so we often won't know.
"We might never know that Muslim terrorist's motivation" can't be used anymore.
Instead, our position should be "until shown otherwise, we have to assume that this Muslim terrorist was simply following some of the 100+ verses in his religion relating to Jihad - including the promise of 72 virgins in Paradise to those that wage jihad for Allah."
Question: should this be our default position, or not?
Me, I'm certainly starting to lean this way.
You?
They attack us. Not Mexico. If the cause were Jihad, as you believe, they would have just as much reason to hit them as us. The real reason is we allow Israel to trot us around feeding their blood lust by slaughtering Muslims. Wake up, for crying out loud.
But doesn't explain why an ISIS member crucifies as punishment (barbaric!)...that's because Q5:33 instructs them to crucify as punishment.
And serve as a role model for today.Those verse were given 1400+ years ago in response to various wars, battles, and social upheavals, taking place during that time period. ....You can't deny that 100+ verses in the Islamic texts approve of Jihad against non-believers, can you? If not, then that's tacit admission that they do.
Tell foreigners you come in peace. If they respond peacefully and welcome you, enslave them. If they don't, kill all the males, enslave the women and children, take everything valuable for yourself, and feast on it as God's gift to you.No, their god approves of that, to spread Sharia, the 100+ verses show that.The Uigher attacks in China are not Jihad. They are occupied resistance to cultural demise.You seriously don't think that Jihadists are not attacking in China, do you!?Muslims aren't attacking us because we are non-believers. They are attacking us because we are the ruthless slaves of their arch-enemy, Israel, and we slaughter Muslims at Israel's bidding. If they were attacking us because 100 verses tell them kill non-believers, they would be attacking India, China, Finland, New Zealand, Bolivia, and Canada, as well.100+ verses in the Islamic texts exhort the faithful to wage Jihad against non-believers, and there have been over 30,000 Islamic terrorist attacks since 9/11, so the Islamic texts might have to always be suspect #1 when it comes to trying to determine the motivation of a particular Muslim terrorist - until we get more info - if we ever get more info. The terrorist is dead, so we often won't know.
So "we might never know that Muslim terrorist's motivation" can't be used anymore.
Instead, our default position should be "until shown otherwise, we have to assume that this Muslim terrorist was simply following some of the 100+ verses in his religion relating to Jihad - including the enticing promise of 72 virgins in Paradise to those that wage jihad for Allah."
Question: should this be our default position, or not?
Me, I'm certainly starting to lean this way.
You?
Agreed.That's the problem with having "sacred" texts. Here's one from the Bible condoning both racism AND slavery in a single verse:We do agree that the religious supremacism of Judaism "we are god's chosen people!" is a great contributor to the problem.You think that JIHAD should not be the default cause the we attribute to a Muslim terrorist - unless we know other facts that would lead us to think that his motivation was something other than Jihad/72-virgins for Allah?Sure, whatever. Any reason to go spend trillions on war in the ME.100+ verses in the Islamic texts exhort the faithful to wage Jihad against non-believers, so the Islamic texts might have to always be suspect #1 when it comes to trying to determine the motivation of a particular Muslim terrorist - until we get more info - if we ever get more info. The terrorist is dead, so we often won't know.
"We might never know that Muslim terrorist's motivation" can't be used anymore.
Instead, our position should be "until shown otherwise, we have to assume that this Muslim terrorist was simply following some of the 100+ verses in his religion relating to Jihad - including the promise of 72 virgins in Paradise to those that wage jihad for Allah."
Question: should this be our default position, or not?
Me, I'm certainly starting to lean this way.
You?
They attack us. Not Mexico. If the cause were Jihad, as you believe, they would have just as much reason to hit them as us. The real reason is we allow Israel to trot us around feeding their blood lust by slaughtering Muslims. Wake up, for crying out loud.
But doesn't explain why an ISIS member crucifies as punishment (barbaric!)...that's because Q5:33 instructs them to crucify as punishment.
It's ok to own slaves, but you have to free the Jewish ones after six years. If your Jewish slave refuses to leave after emancipation, he must be your servant for life, but first you have to pound something called an 'aul' through his ear and into the door. Same goes for the female slaves who are Jewish.
And if thy brother, an Hebrew man, or an Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee, and serve thee six years; then in the seventh year thou shalt let him go free from thee. And it shall be, if he say unto thee, I will not go away from thee; because he loveth thee and thine house, because he is well with thee; Then thou shalt take an aul, and thrust it through his ear unto the door, and he shall be thy servant for ever. And also unto thy maidservant thou shalt do likewise.
Deut 15:6
Another great post. Let's move beyond ancient fairy-tales.Tell foreigners you come in peace. If they respond peacefully and welcome you, enslave them. If they don't, kill all the males, enslave the women and children, take everything valuable for yourself, and feast on it as God's gift to you.No, their god approves of that, to spread Sharia, the 100+ verses show that.The Uigher attacks in China are not Jihad. They are occupied resistance to cultural demise.You seriously don't think that Jihadists are not attacking in China, do you!?Muslims aren't attacking us because we are non-believers. They are attacking us because we are the ruthless slaves of their arch-enemy, Israel, and we slaughter Muslims at Israel's bidding. If they were attacking us because 100 verses tell them kill non-believers, they would be attacking India, China, Finland, New Zealand, Bolivia, and Canada, as well.100+ verses in the Islamic texts exhort the faithful to wage Jihad against non-believers, and there have been over 30,000 Islamic terrorist attacks since 9/11, so the Islamic texts might have to always be suspect #1 when it comes to trying to determine the motivation of a particular Muslim terrorist - until we get more info - if we ever get more info. The terrorist is dead, so we often won't know.
So "we might never know that Muslim terrorist's motivation" can't be used anymore.
Instead, our default position should be "until shown otherwise, we have to assume that this Muslim terrorist was simply following some of the 100+ verses in his religion relating to Jihad - including the enticing promise of 72 virgins in Paradise to those that wage jihad for Allah."
Question: should this be our default position, or not?
Me, I'm certainly starting to lean this way.
You?
When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it. And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee. And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it: And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee.
Deut 20:11
OK, we agree on everything except the motives of the terrorists. If you are right, then, to solve the problem, we have to either kill all Muslims or force them to stop being Muslim. If I am right, we have to stop being Israel's puppet. Which is preferable?We agree on that!If a city "turns away from God," kill everybody, even the cows, and burn all their stuff, and God will give you lots of childrenNot as many Muslims in those lands, and also, yes, French and Americans are standing in the way of them implementing Sharia Law. So per 8:39 they are allowed to attack us, since we support man-made law, and of course stand in the way of Sharia Law (god's law.) We both agree that bombing them just creates more terrorists in the long run, but also keep in mind that they also want to get a guaranteed place in Jannah, and Jihadis get the HIGHEST place in Jannah, the Islamic texts say - and 72 virgins is a great motivating factor as well.OK, genius, you tell me why Jihad has them killing Americans and not Mexicans. Has them killing the French, and not the Vietnamese?Sounds like propaganda right out of the KoranMuslims aren't attacking us because we are non-believers. They are attacking us because we are the ruthless slaves of their arch-enemy, Israel, and we slaughter Muslims at Israel's bidding. If they were attacking us because 100 verses tell them kill non-believers, they would be attacking India, China, Finland, New Zealand, Bolivia, and Canada, as well.
If thou shalt hear say in one of thy cities, which the LORD thy God hath given thee to dwell there, saying, Certain men, the children of Belial, are gone out from among you, and have withdrawn the inhabitants of their city, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which ye have not known; Then shalt thou enquire, and make search, and ask diligently; and, behold, if it be truth, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought among you; Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword. And thou shalt gather all the spoil of it into the midst of the street thereof, and shalt burn with fire the city, and all the spoil thereof every whit, for the LORD thy God: and it shall be an heap for ever; it shall not be built again. And there shall cleave nought of the cursed thing to thine hand: that the LORD may turn from the fierceness of his anger, and shew thee mercy, and have compassion upon thee, and multiply thee, as he hath sworn unto thy fathers;
Deut 13:13
Yes, most ALL religions have vile, disgusting, inhuman texts in parts of them.
So then we can agree that the Qur'an is outdated, and that we can find better role models, more modern role models, correct?Those verse were given 1400+ years ago in response to various wars, battles, and social upheavals, taking place during that time period. ....You can't deny that 100+ verses in the Islamic texts approve of Jihad against non-believers, can you? If not, then that's tacit admission that they do.
But Jesus was killed for objecting to the very thing we are. I'm going to check out your link.Another great post. Let's move beyond ancient fairy-tales.Tell foreigners you come in peace. If they respond peacefully and welcome you, enslave them. If they don't, kill all the males, enslave the women and children, take everything valuable for yourself, and feast on it as God's gift to you.No, their god approves of that, to spread Sharia, the 100+ verses show that.The Uigher attacks in China are not Jihad. They are occupied resistance to cultural demise.You seriously don't think that Jihadists are not attacking in China, do you!?Muslims aren't attacking us because we are non-believers. They are attacking us because we are the ruthless slaves of their arch-enemy, Israel, and we slaughter Muslims at Israel's bidding. If they were attacking us because 100 verses tell them kill non-believers, they would be attacking India, China, Finland, New Zealand, Bolivia, and Canada, as well.
When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it. And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee. And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it: And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee.
Deut 20:11
I think you can see why I left Jesus and am now a Scientific Humanist.
