When it comes to religion... can we all agree...

[Dogmaphobe]

You, or one like you said that it DIDN'T occur. Here I am showing you an example of an extremist. It's not a moral equivalency at all. It is a fact.

Live with it.

What I actually said was that Jesus never instructed his followers in the same way as did Mohammad, and that there were no direct calls in the New Testament to the sort of perpetual violence encouraged in the Q'Ran. You have admitted to absolute ignorance on the subject here, so are just grasping at straws in an ignorant fashion devoid of intelligence. Intelligent people see two different things and notice differences. Unintelligent ones do not. Intelligent people compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges. Unintelligent ones do not.

Congratulations, however, on finding a nut job Christian who represents an extremely tiny percentage of Christians. That you do so in order to defend Islam, where similar attitudes are actually mainstream indicates how desperate you are to indulge in a Tu Quoque fallacy in order to display the lengths you will go in your apologia. I realize you are just as incapable of understanding what a Tu Quoque fallacy is as you are the nature of moral equivalency, but your postings here are an example of both.

You want extreme? How about the desire to kill people for abandoning your own religio-political ideology? Would you consider that extreme? That is Islam, where hundreds upon hundreds of MILLIONS support such notions. Now, since you are motivated to defend Islam, I'm sure you can scour the internet looking for examples of some obscure Christian sect that shuns those who leave it or something, but that would only provide more evidence of your ignorance and intellectual dishonesty.

Christianity and Islam are different. Jesus and Mohammad are VERY different. How can you ever hope to learn to distinguish these differences when you have committed yourself to remaining as ignorant as possible?

 

[JQPublic1]

View attachment 35374

Just what are you implying with this photograph of Christian Nazis and Muslim leaders collaborating? That picture offers no new revelation that would soften the impact for earnest Christians who came to realize the scope of evils their national German Christian base was involved in. Many Muslims hated the Jews as much as the Christian Nazis did;but so, too, did the "good Christian" citizens of many European countries.

Considering the anti-Semitic waves of hatred that enveloped much of Europe at the time, it is doubtful that the killing of the Jews,especially at the hands of fellow Christians, was enough to propel a nation to war. Had the typical physiognomy of the Ashkenazi Jew been more Semitic, other European nations may have offered even less resistance to Nazi Aggression than they did. However, most of those Jews were physically indistinguishable from other Europeans, including the Germans. Prudent governments saw no benefit to risking a Nazi usurpation of their power where ethnic cleansing and perverted euthanasia would be imposed ruthlessly and arbitrarily. That might affect leaders and their families.

Other European Christian nations and atheistic Soviet Russia were forced to become allies in an attempt to arrest the armed aggression of Christian Germany. The USA reluctantly entered the war when most of the fighting was over even as their domestic Christian brothers in the South were conducting pogroms similar to kristal nacht on blacks.

So, in contemplating the Indian massacres, slavery, an attempted genocide on the Jews, atomic bombings and other" conservative traditions I think I'd rather have Muslims for neighbors than White Christians.

"A pre-war critic of Nazism, Pius XII lobbied world leaders to avoid war and, as Pope at the outbreak of war, issued Summi Pontificatus, expressing dismay at the invasion of Poland, reiterating Church teaching against racial persecution and calling for love, compassion and charity to prevail over war.[2]"
- wiki

It's a fallacy to call Pius XII 'Hitler's Pope'.
The fact is, Hitler initially sought to run the Church completely out of Germany. Hitler wanted to create a national church within state control. A. compromise was made, a treaty between Hitler and the Vatican (Reichskonkordat) which allowed the Church to exist in Germany. Almost immediately, Hitler violated the treaty.

Hitler was a Christian only for public consumption. In private, the Nazi system was more based on the occult, Vikingism, and the philosophy of someone like Plotinus.

Religion can be used as a tool, just as patriotism can. But the causes of the World Wars were not religious. Today, we sell the modern 'humanitarian' war by appealing to secular humanism. But, war is always essentially about territory, resources, and economic competition.

"Hitler's public relationship to religion has been characterised as one of opportunistic pragmatism.[8] His regime did not publicly advocate for state atheism, but it did seek to reduce the influence of Christianity on society. Hitler himself was reluctant of public attacks on the Church for political reasons, despite the urgings of Nazis like Bormann. Although he was skeptical of religion,[9][10] he did not present himself to the public as an atheist, and spoke of belief in an "almighty creator".[11][12] In private he could be ambiguous.[13][14] Evans wrote that Hitler repeatedly stated that Nazism was a secular ideology founded on science, which in the long run could not "co-exist with religion"
-wiki

Hitler's Christianity is not the issue. The issue is that millions of ordinary German Christians (men and women) became willing executioners of innocent men, women and children. Most were conscripts of the Orgnungspolizei and they zealously executed their duties with exceptional brutality.

That murderous mindset had been festering for centuries among the German populace; so where were the priests, preachers and various Popes, including Pius XII? According to you, Pius XII made a deal with the devil in an attempt to protect Catholic interests in Germany and anywhere the NAZIs went. Would Jesus have done that?

 

[Coyote]

No. Extremists of any stripe are terrible though. That much I'll grant you.

Islam merely has hundreds upon hundreds of millions of them.

Now, I realize you are a fanboy and all, but could you please refer me to any passage in other religions that instructs its followers on beheading people?

So?

If a religion demands that you kill people (and there are plenty of passages in the OT that do that) who cares if it's by decapitation or by stoning or whatever? Dead is dead.

Have you watched any of the ISIS beheading videos, because I watched the Daniel Pearl beheading years ago and the sawed his head off with a knife. This has happened to many people at the hands of ISIS and I am sure it was a terrible way to die. These people are barbarians and we must fight them.

That's why, presumably, countries like Saudi Arabia have clear professional standards for decapitation as their means of carrying out the death penalty. I fail to see how a fast, clean decapitation is any more barbaric than the electric chair, lethal injection or hanging.

Any deliberate killing of another human being is barbaric. Burning people alive is barbaric. Sawing off their heads with a knife is barbaric. Hanging them, and waiting while they dance, jerk and choke until they die, is barbaric. Stoning people is barbaric. The death penalty is barbaric. So why is it we assign just one element of murder to the term "barbaric"?

Like I said the video of Daniel Pearls beheading was barbaric. A Muslim man stood on the side of his head and cut through his throat, then sawed his head off, you could hear him gurgling, and it was sickening. It was anything but a quick and painless beheading. Muslims used the Quran to justify beheadings and there is a verse which says , " strike their necks, and cut off their finger tips also"

Fanatics and extremist will always find some portion of religious texts to justify their behavior - it's not unique to Islam and many Islamic scholars, religious leaders and clerics have been condemning what ISIS is doing as unIslamic and barbaric.

I agree ISIS (and similar groups such as Boko Haran) need to be ended.

 

[Coyote]

No. Extremists of any stripe are terrible though. That much I'll grant you.

Islam merely has hundreds upon hundreds of millions of them.

Now, I realize you are a fanboy and all, but could you please refer me to any passage in other religions that instructs its followers on beheading people?

I'm not a "fanboi" of any religion. I have worked with many Muslims over the years who I would trust with my life, while I would not with loads of Christians, atheists etc.
I have never bothered to research any of the various religions, but I will grant you that a quick skim through the Bible would reveal all sorts of violent examples that would please you. Especially the Old Testament.

That's not the point though.

Religions are made up of people. PEOPLE warp the religion to suit their individual goals and desires. PEOPLE are fucked up.

Your last sentance sums it up. Truth.

Dangerously naive.

Many of the most terrible purveyors of death were religious cultures. Their religious perspectives were inclusive of their behavior, be it for power or destruction or material gains, that people are an integration of their politics and their religions and their traditions and their desires, etc. No one can simply dismiss any and all religious connotation to acts of depravity, I incorporate them (and do so fairly). These cultures had religion and it didn’t stop them from their conquests, and indeed it motivated some of them.

For example, ISIS has made clear and specific references to their religious perspectives to justify taking sex slaves. They're warping nothing. They're pious moslems who know their koranology and the history of the Arab warlord who invented islamic ideology.

Does that mean then that the LRA and Westboro Baptists are pios Christians who know their bibleology? After all, they use Bible tracts to justify what they do.

 

[Hollie]

No. Extremists of any stripe are terrible though. That much I'll grant you.

Islam merely has hundreds upon hundreds of millions of them.

Now, I realize you are a fanboy and all, but could you please refer me to any passage in other religions that instructs its followers on beheading people?

I'm not a "fanboi" of any religion. I have worked with many Muslims over the years who I would trust with my life, while I would not with loads of Christians, atheists etc.
I have never bothered to research any of the various religions, but I will grant you that a quick skim through the Bible would reveal all sorts of violent examples that would please you. Especially the Old Testament.

That's not the point though.

Religions are made up of people. PEOPLE warp the religion to suit their individual goals and desires. PEOPLE are fucked up.

Your last sentance sums it up. Truth.

Dangerously naive.

Many of the most terrible purveyors of death were religious cultures. Their religious perspectives were inclusive of their behavior, be it for power or destruction or material gains, that people are an integration of their politics and their religions and their traditions and their desires, etc. No one can simply dismiss any and all religious connotation to acts of depravity, I incorporate them (and do so fairly). These cultures had religion and it didn’t stop them from their conquests, and indeed it motivated some of them.

For example, ISIS has made clear and specific references to their religious perspectives to justify taking sex slaves. They're warping nothing. They're pious moslems who know their koranology and the history of the Arab warlord who invented islamic ideology.

Does that mean then that the LRA and Westboro Baptists are pios Christians who know their bibleology? After all, they use Bible tracts to justify what they do.

You didn't address my comments.

ISIS has made clear reference to historical examples of islamic traditions and theology to justify taking of sex slaves. "Striving in the way of Muhammud" (swish), is the highest ideal for moslems and Mo' (swish) clearly had no issue with taking sex slaves. Jihad is incumbent upon moslems.

I can post the relevant information from sahih bukhari If you wish.

Why don't you give us your personal opinions on why the LRA or Westboro Baptists are, or are not pious Christians?

 

[Coyote]

Islam merely has hundreds upon hundreds of millions of them.

Now, I realize you are a fanboy and all, but could you please refer me to any passage in other religions that instructs its followers on beheading people?

I'm not a "fanboi" of any religion. I have worked with many Muslims over the years who I would trust with my life, while I would not with loads of Christians, atheists etc.
I have never bothered to research any of the various religions, but I will grant you that a quick skim through the Bible would reveal all sorts of violent examples that would please you. Especially the Old Testament.

That's not the point though.

Religions are made up of people. PEOPLE warp the religion to suit their individual goals and desires. PEOPLE are fucked up.

Your last sentance sums it up. Truth.

Dangerously naive.

Many of the most terrible purveyors of death were religious cultures. Their religious perspectives were inclusive of their behavior, be it for power or destruction or material gains, that people are an integration of their politics and their religions and their traditions and their desires, etc. No one can simply dismiss any and all religious connotation to acts of depravity, I incorporate them (and do so fairly). These cultures had religion and it didn’t stop them from their conquests, and indeed it motivated some of them.

For example, ISIS has made clear and specific references to their religious perspectives to justify taking sex slaves. They're warping nothing. They're pious moslems who know their koranology and the history of the Arab warlord who invented islamic ideology.

Does that mean then that the LRA and Westboro Baptists are pios Christians who know their bibleology? After all, they use Bible tracts to justify what they do.

You didn't address my comments.

ISIS has made clear reference to historical examples of islamic traditions and theology to justify taking of sex slaves. "Striving in the way of Muhammud (swish), is the highest ideal for moslems. Jihad is incumbent upon moslems.

I can post the relevant information from sahih bukhari If you wish.

Why don't you give us your personal opinions on why the LRA or Westboro Baptists are, or are not pious Christians?

Every extremist group that uses religion to justify their actions do so by providing clear references (though often poorly understood) to their theology, most often - literal interpretations. Islamic scholars, religious leaders and clerics around the world have been denouncing their actions as unIslamic and shown, through their religious teachings - why. Jihad has a multitude of meanings according to Islamic scholars at least, and if you are going to insist that they are pious Muslims then I don't see why the LRA aren't pious Christians when they can point to religious text justifying their actions.

Edited to add: Sure, you can post "relevant" (read - cherry picked) information that is readily available on a anti-Islamic websites in lists that are easy to cut and paste. But you and I both know you are not a scholar of the religion (and neither am I).

I don't happen to think the LRA or Westboro's are "pious Christians" any more than I think that ISIS are pious Muslims.

 

[Hollie]

I'm not a "fanboi" of any religion. I have worked with many Muslims over the years who I would trust with my life, while I would not with loads of Christians, atheists etc.
I have never bothered to research any of the various religions, but I will grant you that a quick skim through the Bible would reveal all sorts of violent examples that would please you. Especially the Old Testament.

That's not the point though.

Religions are made up of people. PEOPLE warp the religion to suit their individual goals and desires. PEOPLE are fucked up.

Your last sentance sums it up. Truth.

Dangerously naive.

Many of the most terrible purveyors of death were religious cultures. Their religious perspectives were inclusive of their behavior, be it for power or destruction or material gains, that people are an integration of their politics and their religions and their traditions and their desires, etc. No one can simply dismiss any and all religious connotation to acts of depravity, I incorporate them (and do so fairly). These cultures had religion and it didn’t stop them from their conquests, and indeed it motivated some of them.

For example, ISIS has made clear and specific references to their religious perspectives to justify taking sex slaves. They're warping nothing. They're pious moslems who know their koranology and the history of the Arab warlord who invented islamic ideology.

Does that mean then that the LRA and Westboro Baptists are pios Christians who know their bibleology? After all, they use Bible tracts to justify what they do.

You didn't address my comments.

ISIS has made clear reference to historical examples of islamic traditions and theology to justify taking of sex slaves. "Striving in the way of Muhammud (swish), is the highest ideal for moslems. Jihad is incumbent upon moslems.

I can post the relevant information from sahih bukhari If you wish.

Why don't you give us your personal opinions on why the LRA or Westboro Baptists are, or are not pious Christians?

Every extremist group that uses religion to justify their actions do so by providing clear references (though often poorly understood) to their theology, most often - literal interpretations. Islamic scholars, religious leaders and clerics around the world have been denouncing their actions as unIslamic and shown, through their religious teachings - why. Jihad has a multitude of meanings according to Islamic scholars at least, and if you are going to insist that they are pious Muslims then I don't see why the LRA aren't pious Christians when they can point to religious text justifying their actions.

And it's pretty typical for islamist apologists to excuse the atrocities of their co-religionists with the "but.... but.... but..., but look at what those other religions are doing", weasel.

In the chapter Arab Imperialism, Islamic Colonialism from his book, Why I Am Not a Muslim, Ibn Warraq draws from the work of Bernard Lewis, Michael Cook, Patricia Crone, Ignaz Goldziher, R.S. Humphreys, Samuel Huntington, et al. to elucidate Arab racism and primacy over all nations conquered under the bloody banner of Islam:

"After their spectacular conquests, the Arabs were unwilling to concede equality to the non-Arab converts to Islam, despite Islamic doctrine that expressly forbade discrimination. But for the Arabs there were the conquered and the conquerers, and there was no question of the Arabs giving up their privileges. "Non-Arab Muslims were regarded as inferior and subjected to a whole series of fiscal, social, political, military, and other disabilities." [Lewis] The Arabs ruled as a "sort of conquistador tribal aristocracy," to which only "true Arabs" could belong, a true Arab being one who was of free Arab ancestry on his father's and mother's side. The Arabs took concubines from the conquered peoples, but their children by these slave women were heavily discriminated against and were not considered full Arabs."


"According to Muhammad’s sacralized biography by Ibn Ishaq, Muhammad himself sanctioned the massacre of the Qurayza, a vanquished Jewish tribe. He appointed an "arbiter" who soon rendered this concise verdict: the men were to be put to death, the women and children sold into slavery, the spoils to be divided among the Muslims. Muhammad ratified this judgment stating that it was a decree of God pronounced from above the Seven Heavens. Thus some 600 to 900 men from the Qurayza were lead on Muhammad’s order to the Market of Medina. Trenches were dug and the men were beheaded, and their decapitated corpses buried in the trenches while Muhammad watched in attendance. Women and children were sold into slavery, a number of them being distributed as gifts among Muhammad’s companions, and Muhammad chose one of the Qurayza women (Rayhana) for himself. The Qurayza’s property and other possessions (including weapons) were also divided up as additional "booty" among the Muslims, to support further jihad campaigns."


But yeah, according to you, ISIS taking sex slaves has nothing to do with Islam.

 

[Hollie]

I'm not a "fanboi" of any religion. I have worked with many Muslims over the years who I would trust with my life, while I would not with loads of Christians, atheists etc.
I have never bothered to research any of the various religions, but I will grant you that a quick skim through the Bible would reveal all sorts of violent examples that would please you. Especially the Old Testament.

That's not the point though.

Religions are made up of people. PEOPLE warp the religion to suit their individual goals and desires. PEOPLE are fucked up.

Your last sentance sums it up. Truth.

Dangerously naive.

Many of the most terrible purveyors of death were religious cultures. Their religious perspectives were inclusive of their behavior, be it for power or destruction or material gains, that people are an integration of their politics and their religions and their traditions and their desires, etc. No one can simply dismiss any and all religious connotation to acts of depravity, I incorporate them (and do so fairly). These cultures had religion and it didn’t stop them from their conquests, and indeed it motivated some of them.

For example, ISIS has made clear and specific references to their religious perspectives to justify taking sex slaves. They're warping nothing. They're pious moslems who know their koranology and the history of the Arab warlord who invented islamic ideology.

Does that mean then that the LRA and Westboro Baptists are pios Christians who know their bibleology? After all, they use Bible tracts to justify what they do.

You didn't address my comments.

ISIS has made clear reference to historical examples of islamic traditions and theology to justify taking of sex slaves. "Striving in the way of Muhammud (swish), is the highest ideal for moslems. Jihad is incumbent upon moslems.

I can post the relevant information from sahih bukhari If you wish.

Why don't you give us your personal opinions on why the LRA or Westboro Baptists are, or are not pious Christians?

Every extremist group that uses religion to justify their actions do so by providing clear references (though often poorly understood) to their theology, most often - literal interpretations. Islamic scholars, religious leaders and clerics around the world have been denouncing their actions as unIslamic and shown, through their religious teachings - why. Jihad has a multitude of meanings according to Islamic scholars at least, and if you are going to insist that they are pious Muslims then I don't see why the LRA aren't pious Christians when they can point to religious text justifying their actions.

Edited to add: Sure, you can post "relevant" (read - cherry picked) information that is readily available on a anti-Islamic websites in lists that are easy to cut and paste. But you and I both know you are not a scholar of the religion (and neither am I).

I don't happen to think the LRA or Westboro's are "pious Christians" any more than I think that ISIS are pious Muslims.

Well honestly, if you don't think ISIS are pious moslems, why not do some overseas outreach. Travel to Syria and confront a jihadi waving an AK-47 in your face and explain to him how misguided his interpretation of Islamism and his koranology really is.

Report back to us how that works out for ya'.

 

[Coyote]

Your last sentance sums it up. Truth.

Dangerously naive.

Many of the most terrible purveyors of death were religious cultures. Their religious perspectives were inclusive of their behavior, be it for power or destruction or material gains, that people are an integration of their politics and their religions and their traditions and their desires, etc. No one can simply dismiss any and all religious connotation to acts of depravity, I incorporate them (and do so fairly). These cultures had religion and it didn’t stop them from their conquests, and indeed it motivated some of them.

For example, ISIS has made clear and specific references to their religious perspectives to justify taking sex slaves. They're warping nothing. They're pious moslems who know their koranology and the history of the Arab warlord who invented islamic ideology.

Does that mean then that the LRA and Westboro Baptists are pios Christians who know their bibleology? After all, they use Bible tracts to justify what they do.

You didn't address my comments.

ISIS has made clear reference to historical examples of islamic traditions and theology to justify taking of sex slaves. "Striving in the way of Muhammud (swish), is the highest ideal for moslems. Jihad is incumbent upon moslems.

I can post the relevant information from sahih bukhari If you wish.

Why don't you give us your personal opinions on why the LRA or Westboro Baptists are, or are not pious Christians?

Every extremist group that uses religion to justify their actions do so by providing clear references (though often poorly understood) to their theology, most often - literal interpretations. Islamic scholars, religious leaders and clerics around the world have been denouncing their actions as unIslamic and shown, through their religious teachings - why. Jihad has a multitude of meanings according to Islamic scholars at least, and if you are going to insist that they are pious Muslims then I don't see why the LRA aren't pious Christians when they can point to religious text justifying their actions.

And it's pretty typical for islamist apologists to excuse the atrocities of their co-religionists with the "but.... but.... but..., but look at what those other religions are doing", weasel.

In the chapter Arab Imperialism, Islamic Colonialism from his book, Why I Am Not a Muslim, Ibn Warraq draws from the work of Bernard Lewis, Michael Cook, Patricia Crone, Ignaz Goldziher, R.S. Humphreys, Samuel Huntington, et al. to elucidate Arab racism and primacy over all nations conquered under the bloody banner of Islam:

"After their spectacular conquests, the Arabs were unwilling to concede equality to the non-Arab converts to Islam, despite Islamic doctrine that expressly forbade discrimination. But for the Arabs there were the conquered and the conquerers, and there was no question of the Arabs giving up their privileges. "Non-Arab Muslims were regarded as inferior and subjected to a whole series of fiscal, social, political, military, and other disabilities." [Lewis] The Arabs ruled as a "sort of conquistador tribal aristocracy," to which only "true Arabs" could belong, a true Arab being one who was of free Arab ancestry on his father's and mother's side. The Arabs took concubines from the conquered peoples, but their children by these slave women were heavily discriminated against and were not considered full Arabs."


"According to Muhammad’s sacralized biography by Ibn Ishaq, Muhammad himself sanctioned the massacre of the Qurayza, a vanquished Jewish tribe. He appointed an "arbiter" who soon rendered this concise verdict: the men were to be put to death, the women and children sold into slavery, the spoils to be divided among the Muslims. Muhammad ratified this judgment stating that it was a decree of God pronounced from above the Seven Heavens. Thus some 600 to 900 men from the Qurayza were lead on Muhammad’s order to the Market of Medina. Trenches were dug and the men were beheaded, and their decapitated corpses buried in the trenches while Muhammad watched in attendance. Women and children were sold into slavery, a number of them being distributed as gifts among Muhammad’s companions, and Muhammad chose one of the Qurayza women (Rayhana) for himself. The Qurayza’s property and other possessions (including weapons) were also divided up as additional "booty" among the Muslims, to support further jihad campaigns."


But yeah, according to you, ISIS taking sex slaves has nothing to do with Islam.

No. I didn't say it had "nothing to do with Islam".

The LRA's stated goals are to rule Uganda according to the Ten Commandments. Does that make them pious Christians?


Also, a bit of practical advice here, if you are going to plagiarize - alter the text a bit. Here is the link, from which you copied and pasted verbatum: FrontPage Magazine - The Sacred Muslim Practice of Beheading and Family Life Relationships Yes it is a Genocide Arab Racism in the Sudan - familylife.todaysummary.com

 

[Coyote]

Your last sentance sums it up. Truth.

Dangerously naive.

Many of the most terrible purveyors of death were religious cultures. Their religious perspectives were inclusive of their behavior, be it for power or destruction or material gains, that people are an integration of their politics and their religions and their traditions and their desires, etc. No one can simply dismiss any and all religious connotation to acts of depravity, I incorporate them (and do so fairly). These cultures had religion and it didn’t stop them from their conquests, and indeed it motivated some of them.

For example, ISIS has made clear and specific references to their religious perspectives to justify taking sex slaves. They're warping nothing. They're pious moslems who know their koranology and the history of the Arab warlord who invented islamic ideology.

Does that mean then that the LRA and Westboro Baptists are pios Christians who know their bibleology? After all, they use Bible tracts to justify what they do.

You didn't address my comments.

ISIS has made clear reference to historical examples of islamic traditions and theology to justify taking of sex slaves. "Striving in the way of Muhammud (swish), is the highest ideal for moslems. Jihad is incumbent upon moslems.

I can post the relevant information from sahih bukhari If you wish.

Why don't you give us your personal opinions on why the LRA or Westboro Baptists are, or are not pious Christians?

Every extremist group that uses religion to justify their actions do so by providing clear references (though often poorly understood) to their theology, most often - literal interpretations. Islamic scholars, religious leaders and clerics around the world have been denouncing their actions as unIslamic and shown, through their religious teachings - why. Jihad has a multitude of meanings according to Islamic scholars at least, and if you are going to insist that they are pious Muslims then I don't see why the LRA aren't pious Christians when they can point to religious text justifying their actions.

Edited to add: Sure, you can post "relevant" (read - cherry picked) information that is readily available on a anti-Islamic websites in lists that are easy to cut and paste. But you and I both know you are not a scholar of the religion (and neither am I).

I don't happen to think the LRA or Westboro's are "pious Christians" any more than I think that ISIS are pious Muslims.

Well honestly, if you don't think ISIS are pious moslems, why not do some overseas outreach. Travel to Syria and confront a jihadi waving an AK-47 in your face and explain to him how misguided his interpretation of Islamism and his koranology really is.

Report back to us how that works out for ya'.

Can you be any more idiotic? Let me know how you make out with the LRA.

 

[Hollie]

Dangerously naive.

Many of the most terrible purveyors of death were religious cultures. Their religious perspectives were inclusive of their behavior, be it for power or destruction or material gains, that people are an integration of their politics and their religions and their traditions and their desires, etc. No one can simply dismiss any and all religious connotation to acts of depravity, I incorporate them (and do so fairly). These cultures had religion and it didn’t stop them from their conquests, and indeed it motivated some of them.

For example, ISIS has made clear and specific references to their religious perspectives to justify taking sex slaves. They're warping nothing. They're pious moslems who know their koranology and the history of the Arab warlord who invented islamic ideology.

Does that mean then that the LRA and Westboro Baptists are pios Christians who know their bibleology? After all, they use Bible tracts to justify what they do.

You didn't address my comments.

ISIS has made clear reference to historical examples of islamic traditions and theology to justify taking of sex slaves. "Striving in the way of Muhammud (swish), is the highest ideal for moslems. Jihad is incumbent upon moslems.

I can post the relevant information from sahih bukhari If you wish.

Why don't you give us your personal opinions on why the LRA or Westboro Baptists are, or are not pious Christians?

Every extremist group that uses religion to justify their actions do so by providing clear references (though often poorly understood) to their theology, most often - literal interpretations. Islamic scholars, religious leaders and clerics around the world have been denouncing their actions as unIslamic and shown, through their religious teachings - why. Jihad has a multitude of meanings according to Islamic scholars at least, and if you are going to insist that they are pious Muslims then I don't see why the LRA aren't pious Christians when they can point to religious text justifying their actions.

And it's pretty typical for islamist apologists to excuse the atrocities of their co-religionists with the "but.... but.... but..., but look at what those other religions are doing", weasel.

In the chapter Arab Imperialism, Islamic Colonialism from his book, Why I Am Not a Muslim, Ibn Warraq draws from the work of Bernard Lewis, Michael Cook, Patricia Crone, Ignaz Goldziher, R.S. Humphreys, Samuel Huntington, et al. to elucidate Arab racism and primacy over all nations conquered under the bloody banner of Islam:

"After their spectacular conquests, the Arabs were unwilling to concede equality to the non-Arab converts to Islam, despite Islamic doctrine that expressly forbade discrimination. But for the Arabs there were the conquered and the conquerers, and there was no question of the Arabs giving up their privileges. "Non-Arab Muslims were regarded as inferior and subjected to a whole series of fiscal, social, political, military, and other disabilities." [Lewis] The Arabs ruled as a "sort of conquistador tribal aristocracy," to which only "true Arabs" could belong, a true Arab being one who was of free Arab ancestry on his father's and mother's side. The Arabs took concubines from the conquered peoples, but their children by these slave women were heavily discriminated against and were not considered full Arabs."


"According to Muhammad’s sacralized biography by Ibn Ishaq, Muhammad himself sanctioned the massacre of the Qurayza, a vanquished Jewish tribe. He appointed an "arbiter" who soon rendered this concise verdict: the men were to be put to death, the women and children sold into slavery, the spoils to be divided among the Muslims. Muhammad ratified this judgment stating that it was a decree of God pronounced from above the Seven Heavens. Thus some 600 to 900 men from the Qurayza were lead on Muhammad’s order to the Market of Medina. Trenches were dug and the men were beheaded, and their decapitated corpses buried in the trenches while Muhammad watched in attendance. Women and children were sold into slavery, a number of them being distributed as gifts among Muhammad’s companions, and Muhammad chose one of the Qurayza women (Rayhana) for himself. The Qurayza’s property and other possessions (including weapons) were also divided up as additional "booty" among the Muslims, to support further jihad campaigns."


But yeah, according to you, ISIS taking sex slaves has nothing to do with Islam.

No. I didn't say it had "nothing to do with Islam".

The LRA's stated goals are to rule Uganda according to the Ten Commandments. Does that make them pious Christians?


Also, a bit of practical advice here, if you are going to plagiarize - alter the text a bit. Here is the link, from which you copied and pasted verbatum: FrontPage Magazine - The Sacred Muslim Practice of Beheading and Family Life Relationships Yes it is a Genocide Arab Racism in the Sudan - familylife.todaysummary.com

You may wish to to do done overseas outreach and quiz the LRA on their christian'ness.

In the meantime, are you going to continue to dance around your inability to address the actions of ISIS and their actions being consistent with islamist history and the actions of its inventor?

Lastly, did you miss the quotations I added to the paragraph you falsely and carelessly assigned as plagiarism?

Here's s little practical advise for you: try paying attention.

 

[Hollie]

Dangerously naive.

Many of the most terrible purveyors of death were religious cultures. Their religious perspectives were inclusive of their behavior, be it for power or destruction or material gains, that people are an integration of their politics and their religions and their traditions and their desires, etc. No one can simply dismiss any and all religious connotation to acts of depravity, I incorporate them (and do so fairly). These cultures had religion and it didn’t stop them from their conquests, and indeed it motivated some of them.

For example, ISIS has made clear and specific references to their religious perspectives to justify taking sex slaves. They're warping nothing. They're pious moslems who know their koranology and the history of the Arab warlord who invented islamic ideology.

Does that mean then that the LRA and Westboro Baptists are pios Christians who know their bibleology? After all, they use Bible tracts to justify what they do.

You didn't address my comments.

ISIS has made clear reference to historical examples of islamic traditions and theology to justify taking of sex slaves. "Striving in the way of Muhammud (swish), is the highest ideal for moslems. Jihad is incumbent upon moslems.

I can post the relevant information from sahih bukhari If you wish.

Why don't you give us your personal opinions on why the LRA or Westboro Baptists are, or are not pious Christians?

Every extremist group that uses religion to justify their actions do so by providing clear references (though often poorly understood) to their theology, most often - literal interpretations. Islamic scholars, religious leaders and clerics around the world have been denouncing their actions as unIslamic and shown, through their religious teachings - why. Jihad has a multitude of meanings according to Islamic scholars at least, and if you are going to insist that they are pious Muslims then I don't see why the LRA aren't pious Christians when they can point to religious text justifying their actions.

Edited to add: Sure, you can post "relevant" (read - cherry picked) information that is readily available on a anti-Islamic websites in lists that are easy to cut and paste. But you and I both know you are not a scholar of the religion (and neither am I).

I don't happen to think the LRA or Westboro's are "pious Christians" any more than I think that ISIS are pious Muslims.

Well honestly, if you don't think ISIS are pious moslems, why not do some overseas outreach. Travel to Syria and confront a jihadi waving an AK-47 in your face and explain to him how misguided his interpretation of Islamism and his koranology really is.

Report back to us how that works out for ya'.

Can you be any more idiotic? Let me know how you make out with the LRA.

And yet you steadfastly refuse to address the specific actions undertaken by ISIS and their specific references to islamic ideology in the taking of sex slaves.

Ignorance is bliss when it comes to apologists for islamic savages.

 

[Coyote]

Does that mean then that the LRA and Westboro Baptists are pios Christians who know their bibleology? After all, they use Bible tracts to justify what they do.

You didn't address my comments.

ISIS has made clear reference to historical examples of islamic traditions and theology to justify taking of sex slaves. "Striving in the way of Muhammud (swish), is the highest ideal for moslems. Jihad is incumbent upon moslems.

I can post the relevant information from sahih bukhari If you wish.

Why don't you give us your personal opinions on why the LRA or Westboro Baptists are, or are not pious Christians?

Every extremist group that uses religion to justify their actions do so by providing clear references (though often poorly understood) to their theology, most often - literal interpretations. Islamic scholars, religious leaders and clerics around the world have been denouncing their actions as unIslamic and shown, through their religious teachings - why. Jihad has a multitude of meanings according to Islamic scholars at least, and if you are going to insist that they are pious Muslims then I don't see why the LRA aren't pious Christians when they can point to religious text justifying their actions.

And it's pretty typical for islamist apologists to excuse the atrocities of their co-religionists with the "but.... but.... but..., but look at what those other religions are doing", weasel.

In the chapter Arab Imperialism, Islamic Colonialism from his book, Why I Am Not a Muslim, Ibn Warraq draws from the work of Bernard Lewis, Michael Cook, Patricia Crone, Ignaz Goldziher, R.S. Humphreys, Samuel Huntington, et al. to elucidate Arab racism and primacy over all nations conquered under the bloody banner of Islam:

"After their spectacular conquests, the Arabs were unwilling to concede equality to the non-Arab converts to Islam, despite Islamic doctrine that expressly forbade discrimination. But for the Arabs there were the conquered and the conquerers, and there was no question of the Arabs giving up their privileges. "Non-Arab Muslims were regarded as inferior and subjected to a whole series of fiscal, social, political, military, and other disabilities." [Lewis] The Arabs ruled as a "sort of conquistador tribal aristocracy," to which only "true Arabs" could belong, a true Arab being one who was of free Arab ancestry on his father's and mother's side. The Arabs took concubines from the conquered peoples, but their children by these slave women were heavily discriminated against and were not considered full Arabs."


"According to Muhammad’s sacralized biography by Ibn Ishaq, Muhammad himself sanctioned the massacre of the Qurayza, a vanquished Jewish tribe. He appointed an "arbiter" who soon rendered this concise verdict: the men were to be put to death, the women and children sold into slavery, the spoils to be divided among the Muslims. Muhammad ratified this judgment stating that it was a decree of God pronounced from above the Seven Heavens. Thus some 600 to 900 men from the Qurayza were lead on Muhammad’s order to the Market of Medina. Trenches were dug and the men were beheaded, and their decapitated corpses buried in the trenches while Muhammad watched in attendance. Women and children were sold into slavery, a number of them being distributed as gifts among Muhammad’s companions, and Muhammad chose one of the Qurayza women (Rayhana) for himself. The Qurayza’s property and other possessions (including weapons) were also divided up as additional "booty" among the Muslims, to support further jihad campaigns."


But yeah, according to you, ISIS taking sex slaves has nothing to do with Islam.

No. I didn't say it had "nothing to do with Islam".

The LRA's stated goals are to rule Uganda according to the Ten Commandments. Does that make them pious Christians?


Also, a bit of practical advice here, if you are going to plagiarize - alter the text a bit. Here is the link, from which you copied and pasted verbatum: FrontPage Magazine - The Sacred Muslim Practice of Beheading and Family Life Relationships Yes it is a Genocide Arab Racism in the Sudan - familylife.todaysummary.com

You may wish to to do done overseas outreach and quiz the LRA on their christian'ness.

In the meantime, are you going to continue to dance around your inability to address the actions of ISIS and their actions being consistent with islamist history and the actions of its inventor?

Lastly, did you miss the quotations I added to the paragraph you falsely and carelessly assigned as plagiarism?

Here's s little practical advise for you: try paying attention.

You plagiarized verbatim from an online source including original commentary you sought to present as your own (outside of any attributed quote):

In the chapter Arab Imperialism, Islamic Colonialism from his book, Why I Am Not a Muslim, Ibn Warraq draws from the work of Bernard Lewis, Michael Cook, Patricia Crone, Ignaz Goldziher, R.S. Humphreys, Samuel Huntington, et al. to elucidate Arab racism and primacy over all nations conquered under the bloody banner of Islam:
​

ISIS may be acting in ways consistent with portions of Islamic history but that does not make them "Islamic" according to today's ideology. That's like saying Christians, like the LRA are acting in ways consistent with Christian history...which in a sense they are but not consistent with today's understanding of Christianity.

 

[Coyote]

Does that mean then that the LRA and Westboro Baptists are pios Christians who know their bibleology? After all, they use Bible tracts to justify what they do.

You didn't address my comments.

ISIS has made clear reference to historical examples of islamic traditions and theology to justify taking of sex slaves. "Striving in the way of Muhammud (swish), is the highest ideal for moslems. Jihad is incumbent upon moslems.

I can post the relevant information from sahih bukhari If you wish.

Why don't you give us your personal opinions on why the LRA or Westboro Baptists are, or are not pious Christians?

Every extremist group that uses religion to justify their actions do so by providing clear references (though often poorly understood) to their theology, most often - literal interpretations. Islamic scholars, religious leaders and clerics around the world have been denouncing their actions as unIslamic and shown, through their religious teachings - why. Jihad has a multitude of meanings according to Islamic scholars at least, and if you are going to insist that they are pious Muslims then I don't see why the LRA aren't pious Christians when they can point to religious text justifying their actions.

Edited to add: Sure, you can post "relevant" (read - cherry picked) information that is readily available on a anti-Islamic websites in lists that are easy to cut and paste. But you and I both know you are not a scholar of the religion (and neither am I).

I don't happen to think the LRA or Westboro's are "pious Christians" any more than I think that ISIS are pious Muslims.

Well honestly, if you don't think ISIS are pious moslems, why not do some overseas outreach. Travel to Syria and confront a jihadi waving an AK-47 in your face and explain to him how misguided his interpretation of Islamism and his koranology really is.

Report back to us how that works out for ya'.

Can you be any more idiotic? Let me know how you make out with the LRA.

And yet you steadfastly refuse to address the specific actions undertaken by ISIS and their specific references to islamic ideology in the taking of sex slaves.

Ignorance is bliss when it comes to apologists for islamic savages.

And plagiarists trying to pretend they're Islamic scholars.

 

[Hollie]

You didn't address my comments.

ISIS has made clear reference to historical examples of islamic traditions and theology to justify taking of sex slaves. "Striving in the way of Muhammud (swish), is the highest ideal for moslems. Jihad is incumbent upon moslems.

I can post the relevant information from sahih bukhari If you wish.

Why don't you give us your personal opinions on why the LRA or Westboro Baptists are, or are not pious Christians?

Every extremist group that uses religion to justify their actions do so by providing clear references (though often poorly understood) to their theology, most often - literal interpretations. Islamic scholars, religious leaders and clerics around the world have been denouncing their actions as unIslamic and shown, through their religious teachings - why. Jihad has a multitude of meanings according to Islamic scholars at least, and if you are going to insist that they are pious Muslims then I don't see why the LRA aren't pious Christians when they can point to religious text justifying their actions.

Edited to add: Sure, you can post "relevant" (read - cherry picked) information that is readily available on a anti-Islamic websites in lists that are easy to cut and paste. But you and I both know you are not a scholar of the religion (and neither am I).

I don't happen to think the LRA or Westboro's are "pious Christians" any more than I think that ISIS are pious Muslims.

Well honestly, if you don't think ISIS are pious moslems, why not do some overseas outreach. Travel to Syria and confront a jihadi waving an AK-47 in your face and explain to him how misguided his interpretation of Islamism and his koranology really is.

Report back to us how that works out for ya'.

Can you be any more idiotic? Let me know how you make out with the LRA.

And yet you steadfastly refuse to address the specific actions undertaken by ISIS and their specific references to islamic ideology in the taking of sex slaves.

Ignorance is bliss when it comes to apologists for islamic savages.

And plagiarists trying to pretend they're Islamic scholars.

Ah. I see you're angry that anyone should be allowed to criticize your heroes.

As I explained to you earlier and as you have again dishonestly and negligently refused to acknowledge, the paragraph I included was appropriately in quotes.

What a shame that you can't honestly and objectively respond to comments that are critical of ISIS and their pious adherence to islamist values of striving in the way of Muhammud (swish). They have provided every indication that their actions ( taking sex slaves), are consistent with islamist principles of jihad and emulate the actions of Mo' (swish), islams inventor.

What a shame you're more interested in defending islamic savages than you are in defending the victims of islamist ideology.

 

[Coyote]

Every extremist group that uses religion to justify their actions do so by providing clear references (though often poorly understood) to their theology, most often - literal interpretations. Islamic scholars, religious leaders and clerics around the world have been denouncing their actions as unIslamic and shown, through their religious teachings - why. Jihad has a multitude of meanings according to Islamic scholars at least, and if you are going to insist that they are pious Muslims then I don't see why the LRA aren't pious Christians when they can point to religious text justifying their actions.

Edited to add: Sure, you can post "relevant" (read - cherry picked) information that is readily available on a anti-Islamic websites in lists that are easy to cut and paste. But you and I both know you are not a scholar of the religion (and neither am I).

I don't happen to think the LRA or Westboro's are "pious Christians" any more than I think that ISIS are pious Muslims.

Well honestly, if you don't think ISIS are pious moslems, why not do some overseas outreach. Travel to Syria and confront a jihadi waving an AK-47 in your face and explain to him how misguided his interpretation of Islamism and his koranology really is.

Report back to us how that works out for ya'.

Can you be any more idiotic? Let me know how you make out with the LRA.

And yet you steadfastly refuse to address the specific actions undertaken by ISIS and their specific references to islamic ideology in the taking of sex slaves.

Ignorance is bliss when it comes to apologists for islamic savages.

And plagiarists trying to pretend they're Islamic scholars.

Ah. I see you're angry that anyone should be allowed to criticize your heroes.

As I explained to you earlier and as you have again dishonestly and negligently refused to acknowledge, the paragraph I included was appropriately in quotes.

What a shame that you can't honestly and objectively respond to comments that are critical of ISIS and their pious adherence to islamist values of striving in the way of Muhammud (swish). They have provided every indication that their actions ( taking sex slaves), are consistent with islamist principles of jihad and emulate the actions of Mo' (swish), islams inventor.

What a shame you're more interested in defending islamic savages than you are in defending the victims of islamist ideology.

Now you are just being silly and flailing around. Or maybe it's swishing.

 

[Hollie]

Well honestly, if you don't think ISIS are pious moslems, why not do some overseas outreach. Travel to Syria and confront a jihadi waving an AK-47 in your face and explain to him how misguided his interpretation of Islamism and his koranology really is.

Report back to us how that works out for ya'.

Can you be any more idiotic? Let me know how you make out with the LRA.

And yet you steadfastly refuse to address the specific actions undertaken by ISIS and their specific references to islamic ideology in the taking of sex slaves.

Ignorance is bliss when it comes to apologists for islamic savages.

And plagiarists trying to pretend they're Islamic scholars.

Ah. I see you're angry that anyone should be allowed to criticize your heroes.

As I explained to you earlier and as you have again dishonestly and negligently refused to acknowledge, the paragraph I included was appropriately in quotes.

What a shame that you can't honestly and objectively respond to comments that are critical of ISIS and their pious adherence to islamist values of striving in the way of Muhammud (swish). They have provided every indication that their actions ( taking sex slaves), are consistent with islamist principles of jihad and emulate the actions of Mo' (swish), islams inventor.

What a shame you're more interested in defending islamic savages than you are in defending the victims of islamist ideology.

Now you are just being silly and flailing around. Or maybe it's swishing.

Not at all. I've been addressing your lies and falsehoods.

I've made the defendable claim that ISIS uses classical islamist ideology, consistent with the islamist model for humanity: muhammud (swish), as their justification for taking sex slaves.

You have consistently avoided any attempt to address that and have instead chosen to spam the thread with irrelevancy and denial.

 

[Coyote]

Can you be any more idiotic? Let me know how you make out with the LRA.

And yet you steadfastly refuse to address the specific actions undertaken by ISIS and their specific references to islamic ideology in the taking of sex slaves.

Ignorance is bliss when it comes to apologists for islamic savages.

And plagiarists trying to pretend they're Islamic scholars.

Ah. I see you're angry that anyone should be allowed to criticize your heroes.

As I explained to you earlier and as you have again dishonestly and negligently refused to acknowledge, the paragraph I included was appropriately in quotes.

What a shame that you can't honestly and objectively respond to comments that are critical of ISIS and their pious adherence to islamist values of striving in the way of Muhammud (swish). They have provided every indication that their actions ( taking sex slaves), are consistent with islamist principles of jihad and emulate the actions of Mo' (swish), islams inventor.

What a shame you're more interested in defending islamic savages than you are in defending the victims of islamist ideology.

Now you are just being silly and flailing around. Or maybe it's swishing.

Not at all. I've been addressing your lies and falsehoods.

I've made the defendable claim that ISIS uses classical islamist ideology, consistent with what the islamist model for humanity: muhammud (swish), as their justification for taking sex slaves.

What's with this retarded "swish" stuff? Tourettes?

ISIS claims to be Islamic in the same way LRA claims to be Christian. Perhaps they are. Religious scholars beg to differ. Feel free to call them liars. Or cut and paste some more plagiarized material.

Religious extremists who decide they want to create a state based on the codes and laws of an ancient civilization can find plenty of support in the Koran or the Bible and, often do to justify their behavior.

You have consistently avoided any attempt to address that and have instead chosen to spam the thread with irrelevancy and denial.

Pointing out your blatant plagiarism is not "spamming" no matter how you try to deflect from that.

 

[Two Thumbs]

...that Islam is fucking terrible?

Yes

No fucking doubt

 

[Two Thumbs]

The heil hitler salute was fairly common back then

just an fyi for the mentals