Spooks said: Shaheen- said: [Religion is never that influential. hmm. I think you're seeing things from a very narrow "my experiences" kind of angle, from one community area ignoring the rest of the world around you to fit your preferred style of thinking. Very much the vein of what you're saying the west does. you say to dispel negative stereotypes by ignoring negative events and facts whilst operating on the stereotypes of everyone else and assuming their perspective without understanding it. "If I never see it, If I never think it, subjective subjective ect" kind of argument. Alright. "Only recently started happening!?" Well now you're just ignoring the religions history all together for narrative. Instances of sectarian violence from the far past, please? RedRoseFring said: The only thing I agree with is that things would be better if Muslims were detached from their religion and didn't seriously view Muhammad as a good model to follow. If they even only just followed the Gospels and Torah that are validated by the Quran, things would be better. In the first case, they'd be more like Christians, in the second, they'd be non-proselytizing and non-expansionist like Jews. The most reasonable step for me would be to scrap the Hadiths altogether. Muhammad's actions are definitely unacceptable to follow. Unfortunately, many view the Hadiths as being integral just like the Quran. Muhammad is a good example to follow, so is Islam. When the Jews of Banu Quraiza rebelled against the treaty they signed themselves, Muhammd asked them, 'Who should be your judge?', instead of straight out judging. They chose Saad who was an ex-Jew, and who declared their judgment on the basis of Torah (the book you're advocating) that all males who've reached maturity be killed and others exiled. If that's the example you deem more moderate and worthy to be followed, then I'll have to challenge your views here. What are they? Let's see. Who was using wrong arguments again? the entire basis of your argument is that my argument is a fallacy. I contested that claim and you go like, 'Boo hoo nigga chickened out'. I have to admit, followed by Trolls_Bane, you're the most unintelligent member of this site. I've never seen a single intelligent member saying that traed is anywhere near good. If it consoles you any bit, in the discord chat you're a group joke. Is that backbiting? yes it is. But now it's not. By you. The scrutinization of moral values passed down from their holy God who is deem as infallible? It's clearly blasphemy and won't happen back then, that was my point. It was actually happening. History anyone? Altairius said: The Arab empire seems an exception in that it wasn't just 'barbarians-turned-civilized'. It was them conquering very old and already substantially advanced societies and claiming them all as the Islamic empire. Also, just from the religious angle, Christianity spread very differently. Those methods blind us to what is really going on, but people are waking up. Islam from the very start wanted to conquer the world. The West made it worse in modern times, but the fact that the Islamic world still wants to conquer the world doesn't have to matter. We could easily just isolate them, and maybe from there start to present an alternate view of society within Muslim countries, change their education systems etc. If it doesn't work, just cut them off. No matter what, you surely will acknowledge that letting in hordes of the current Muslims into Western countries is not advantageous for those countries. I told you to state other cases. And Christianity spread in much the same way. In fact, more violently. Let's ask Umar ibn al Khattab, the second Caliph of Islamic World, perfectly capable of conquering the world, does he want to conquer the world? He says: "I wish that between the Suwad and the Persian hills there were walls which would prevent them from getting to us, and prevent us from getting to them. The fertile Suwad is sufficient for us; and I prefer the safety of the Muslims to the spoils of war." "I wish there was a mountain of fire between us and the Iranians, so that neither they could get to us, nor we to them." There's definitely something wrong with either Umar's understanding of Islam or yours. |
Shaheen- said: Let's see. Who was using wrong arguments again? the entire basis of your argument is that my argument is a fallacy. I contested that claim and you go like, 'Boo hoo nigga chickened out'. I have to admit, followed by Trolls_Bane, you're the most unintelligent member of this site. I've never seen a single intelligent member saying that traed is anywhere near good. If it consoles you any bit, in the discord chat you're a group joke. Is that backbiting? yes it is. But now it's not. So answer the question if you have an answer. You're avoiding it and turning to personal attacks at this point. I don't care about that little circle jerking narcissist group. Throwing around names like Wittgenstein or Freud doesn't make someone intelligent so give it up with your self bloated ego stuff. You have shown no sign of any ability to look beyond the blinders of your religion either out of fear or laziness. All you have done is prove by your own example how much an asshole a so called "good" Muslim can be. |
traedMay 27, 2016 11:27 PM
All of fucking western civilization and people who knows what the fuck definitions are. Subjectivity something perceived when not based on a standard, the standard here is human happiness on the amount of restriction they have and being treated like you are worth less than another is downright oppression. Fuck's sake. It was actually happening. History anyone? What the are you even saying? So there wasn't any stoning? History? Fucking history? I have to admit, followed by Trolls_Bane, you're the most unintelligent member of this site. No. You are a pretentious and substance less halfwit with so much pretense jam up your ass, you left at least two argument regarding this contention fucking hanging and then you come back again with the same shit and kept repeating it as if we don't fucking understand it. I have fucking told you before that moral relativism doesn't work as an argument for your bullshit but you just kept going with your two words reply. So, I am just thinking here, where is your evidence for all of these judgement or are you just jerking yourself off again? Either come up with a point by pulling your inflated head out of your inflated ass or fuck off into the bandwidth. |
Shaheen- said: Altairius said: The Arab empire seems an exception in that it wasn't just 'barbarians-turned-civilized'. It was them conquering very old and already substantially advanced societies and claiming them all as the Islamic empire. Also, just from the religious angle, Christianity spread very differently. Those methods blind us to what is really going on, but people are waking up. Islam from the very start wanted to conquer the world. The West made it worse in modern times, but the fact that the Islamic world still wants to conquer the world doesn't have to matter. We could easily just isolate them, and maybe from there start to present an alternate view of society within Muslim countries, change their education systems etc. If it doesn't work, just cut them off. No matter what, you surely will acknowledge that letting in hordes of the current Muslims into Western countries is not advantageous for those countries. I told you to state other cases. And Christianity spread in much the same way. In fact, more violently. Let's ask Umar ibn al Khattab, the second Caliph of Islamic World, perfectly capable of conquering the world, does he want to conquer the world? He says: "I wish that between the Suwad and the Persian hills there were walls which would prevent them from getting to us, and prevent us from getting to them. The fertile Suwad is sufficient for us; and I prefer the safety of the Muslims to the spoils of war." "I wish there was a mountain of fire between us and the Iranians, so that neither they could get to us, nor we to them." There's definitely something wrong with either Umar's understanding of Islam or yours. Ancient Greece and Rome for example seem to have expanded in a more organic way, as opposed to simply taking over already advanced, totally distinct societies. I suppose Egypt too. I'm mainly referring to Christianity's spread throughout Europe. Of course it wasn't totally peaceful but it seems to have been much more substantially so, and you can see plenty of basis for that in the text. The Spanish are a different story. I think Umar was clearly a liberal Muslim. I've said this for a while now about the Islamic "Golden Age". It was as far as they got into a Renaissance (in other words, largely a throwing off of dogma). If the Muslim world comes around to that again, then maybe the West can interact with it to an extent again. |
AllenVonStein said: The problem here is not religion or any others believes out there , like Putin said Terrorism has no nationality or religion." Lol, terrorism has no religion... It just so happens that 99% of terrorism is done by ONE religion. |
JustALEX said: AllenVonStein said: The problem here is not religion or any others believes out there , like Putin said Terrorism has no nationality or religion." Lol, terrorism has no religion... It just so happens that 99% of terrorism is done by ONE religion. actually the majority of terrorist acts in the U.S. are perpetrated by domestic terrorists. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/omar-alnatour/muslims-are-not-terrorist_b_8718000.html 94% by non- muslims |
| I CELEBRATE myself, And what I assume you shall assume, For every atom belonging to me as good belongs to you. |
xrockxz89 said: JustALEX said: Lol, terrorism has no religion... It just so happens that 99% of terrorism is done by ONE religion. actually the majority of terrorist acts in the U.S. are perpetrated by domestic terrorists. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/omar-alnatour/muslims-are-not-terrorist_b_8718000.html 94% by non- muslims Who is talking about America? We're talking about the world. BTW, Muslims comprise about 0.2% of the American population. Oh and you know that little event....9/11....Yeah...we haven't forgotten. |
JustALEX said: xrockxz89 said: actually the majority of terrorist acts in the U.S. are perpetrated by domestic terrorists. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/omar-alnatour/muslims-are-not-terrorist_b_8718000.html 94% by non- muslims Who is talking about America? We're talking about the world. BTW, Muslims comprise about 0.2% of the American population. Oh and you know that little event....9/11....Yeah...we haven't forgotten. even worldwide, most terrorism is non religious in nature, studies show >_> Yeah they are .9% you can google these things lol its okay. |
| I CELEBRATE myself, And what I assume you shall assume, For every atom belonging to me as good belongs to you. |
xrockxz89 said: JustALEX said: Lol, terrorism has no religion... It just so happens that 99% of terrorism is done by ONE religion. actually the majority of terrorist acts in the U.S. are perpetrated by domestic terrorists. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/omar-alnatour/muslims-are-not-terrorist_b_8718000.html 94% by non- muslims Haha statistics based in 2005 and solely on America and what accounts for Terrorism isn't the same either. 94% of terrorist attacks carried out in the United States from 1980 to 2005 Funny considering the rise of Islamic terrorism since and even ISIS and yes America only, 2005. So lets look at those statistics A couple of tricks here - the biggest being that they are drawing on domestic data only. In other words, when they say that 94% of terrorists aren't Muslim, they actually mean in the United States, where terror attacks are relatively rare and Muslims make up only 1% of the population. So, if we ignore the overwhelming bulk of attacks across the globe, Muslims are "only" six times more likely to commit acts of terror than the general population. The numbers get even worse on closer examination. As it turns out, much of the FBI list includes "violence" against property rather than people. In fact, the formula used by the agency to define terrorism is somewhat fuzzy. While it includes tree-spiking and bank robbery, for example, it somehow omits the Arizona assassination of a Sunni cleric by Iranian terrorists in 1980, the 1990 murder of Rabbi Kahane by an Islamic radical at a New York hotel, and even the killing of two CIA agents by a Muslim extremist at Langley in 1993. When Americans hear the word 'terrorism', however, what comes to mind isn't vandalism, but rather those acts of genuine violence that are intended to cause loss of life. So, how do we focus on these incidents and filter out the rest? Well, perhaps the best way of knowing whether terrorists are serious about killing people is if they actually do. Since Muslims and non-Muslim terrorists have equal opportunity to kill, we shouldn’t object to an analysis of only those attacks which cause deaths. What does the data have to say when we exclude non-lethal attacks? Even by the FBI’s curious standard, the sort of truly violent terrorism that most concerns Americans is extremely rare in the United States. Only 29 attacks on their list of incidents between 1980 and 2005 resulted in actual death. Of these, Islamic extremists were responsible for 24%, accounting for 2,981 kills, while non-Muslim attackers racked up 196. Thus, what the FBI report is really saying is that a demographic which makes up only 1% of the American population accounts for one-fourth of all deadly terror attacks in the U.S. and 94% of related casualties! (The 94% statistic is somewhat ironic). The Jewish population in the U.S. is more than twice that of Muslims, but there were only three so-called Jewish attacks during the entire 25 years (all by the "Jewish Defense League") with a total of three killed. Since 2005, there have been at least six additional deadly attacks that would probably qualify as terrorism in the U.S. even to the FBI. One was the 2012 shooting by a skinhead that resulted in six deaths at a Sikh temple and the other five were by Muslims, which left 19 dead. This means that since 1980, Muslims in the U.S. have been 35 times more likely to commit terror than all other demographics combined. Now, the point of all this isn’t to "prove" that any particular person is dangerous. The numbers are quite low and it is unlikely that the Muslim you know personally is all that different from you, much less plotting mass murder. A person's nominal religion is not grounds for thinking a certain way about them or for reaching conclusions that are based on anything other than their own words or deeds. In fact you'll be hard pressed to find any site willing to give statistics globally of Islamic terrorism vs other terrorism numbers or hell Islamic terror statistics worldwide at all. because obviously it would be very un-narrative. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamist_terrorist_attacks In 2014, the BBC did a thorough analysis of Islamic terror attacks occurring during the month of November. They found 664 attacks and 5,042 deaths. In one month. Sufficed to say Islamic reasons are the worldwide number 1 causes of most, saying 80 - 90% of all terror attacks. Which is why you'll find most sites using the 2005 homeland study to ignore the rest. |
SpooksMay 28, 2016 1:39 AM
 |
traed said: Shaheen- said: Let's see. Who was using wrong arguments again? the entire basis of your argument is that my argument is a fallacy. I contested that claim and you go like, 'Boo hoo nigga chickened out'. I have to admit, followed by Trolls_Bane, you're the most unintelligent member of this site. I've never seen a single intelligent member saying that traed is anywhere near good. If it consoles you any bit, in the discord chat you're a group joke. Is that backbiting? yes it is. But now it's not. So answer the question if you have an answer. You're avoiding it and turning to personal attacks at this point. I don't care about that little circle jerking narcissist group. Throwing around names like Wittgenstein or Freud doesn't make someone intelligent so give it up with your self bloated ego stuff. You have shown no sign of any ability to look beyond the blinders of your religion either out of fear or laziness. All you have done is prove by your own example how much an asshole a so called "good" Muslim can be. The question was flawed. Repair the question and I'll answer it. Throwing informal logical fallacies around doesn't make you intelligent either -- especially when you use them all wrong. 'Subjectivist fallacy' in a discussion regarding morals, circular reasoning with different premise and conclusion. Top kek Trolls_Bane said: All of fucking western civilization and people who knows what the fuck definitions are. Subjectivity something perceived when not based on a standard, the standard here is human happiness on the amount of restriction they have and being treated like you are worth less than another is downright oppression. Fuck's sake. It was actually happening. History anyone? What the are you even saying? So there wasn't any stoning? History? Fucking history? I have to admit, followed by Trolls_Bane, you're the most unintelligent member of this site. No. You are a pretentious and substance less halfwit with so much pretense jam up your ass, you left at least two argument regarding this contention fucking hanging and then you come back again with the same shit and kept repeating it as if we don't fucking understand it. I have fucking told you before that moral relativism doesn't work as an argument for your bullshit but you just kept going with your two words reply. So, I am just thinking here, where is your evidence for all of these judgement or are you just jerking yourself off again? Either come up with a point by pulling your inflated head out of your inflated ass or fuck off into the bandwidth. Human happiness is a mental state. It's almost independent of external influences. If net happiness is your basis of morality then I have a thing or two to say about the Western standards of right or wrong but I'm not taking your words even if it's in regards to your own morality. I'd rather find someone better at making arguments and take from him the basis of Western morality. Yeah, but the stoning happening in the court did not prevent people from discussing things in libraries. Altairius said: Ancient Greece and Rome for example seem to have expanded in a more organic way, as opposed to simply taking over already advanced, totally distinct societies. I suppose Egypt too. I'm mainly referring to Christianity's spread throughout Europe. Of course it wasn't totally peaceful but it seems to have been much more substantially so, and you can see plenty of basis for that in the text. The Spanish are a different story. I think Umar was clearly a liberal Muslim. I've said this for a while now about the Islamic "Golden Age". It was as far as they got into a Renaissance (in other words, largely a throwing off of dogma). If the Muslim world comes around to that again, then maybe the West can interact with it to an extent again. Spartans anyone? the Romans expanded by conquering Greeks. The Greeks expanded by conquering Egyptians and India (remember Alexander?). Regardless, Greeks had a long history, much of it not documented. Knowledge is never crafted out of nothing; every civilization took something from its predecessors and then added to it. Islamic Golden Age worked exactly like that. Umar was the second closest companion of Muhammad and was also a member of Ashra Mubashra. If he is a liberal Muslim to you, then Islam is surely a liberal religion then. About history of Islam itself, it thrived on war just as much as America right now does, Greeks did in the past, as did Romans and Egyptians and so on. This is pure bias to say one certain great civilization thrived 'more' on war. In fact, I would assert that Muhammad conquered the entirety of Arabia with minimal loss of life. An area that huge conquered with that minimal amount of damage says a thing or two about the history of Islam. Contrast that to what the Crusaders did (not talking about the Inquisition -- screw that). Or well, what the Romans did when they had to spread Christianity. EndofSummer said: just throw a muslim, a palistinian, a jew, in a bag with a monkey a snake and a weasel and drown them in a lake. who ever gets out wins. then shoot them. does this solve anything. Everything, boy. Everything. |
| I agree. The right approach would be to spill lots of blood, seas—oceans of blood. |
You have a really weird outlook on things. Human happiness doesn't exist in a vacuum. Most if not all external influences effect a persons happiness. We don't walk around inside our own heads. You really stretch reality to argue your own reality. You also talk as if the Muslim world is united and happy with how things are. Plenty of people dislike how its run, plenty of young people like the ones mentioned in that other thread disagree with how things are. I guess their unhappiness isn't at all coming from how their society decided to run their lives though what they can and can't do. Its all internalized unhappiness. |
SpooksMay 28, 2016 1:54 AM
|
TheBrainintheJar said: Interesting: Pro-Islam people are more concerned with us not liking Islam, rather than people using Islam as fuel for terror/Muslims killing other Muslims. More Muslims die by Islamic terror than by Islamophobia. The sad thing is that it's almost all muslims dying in these conflicts. |
 Anime is good, fucking deal with it. |
Spooks said: You have a really weird outlook on things. Human happiness doesn't exist in a vacuum. Most if not all external influences effect a persons happiness. We don't walk around inside our own heads. You really stretch reality to argue your own reality. You also talk as if the Muslim world is united and happy with how things are. Plenty of people dislike how its run, plenty of young people like the ones mentioned in that other thread disagree with how things are. I guess their unhappiness isn't at all coming from how their society decided to run their lives though what they can and can't do. Its all internalized unhappiness. Its weird logic. Happiness can be retained even when you're living in a dystopia. Happiness is, quite simply, a mental state. That's the definition of happiness. If it gets influenced by external realities, then the cure for it is still in the mind. And since the cure is in the mind, external realities become nigh irrelevant. I'm not happy with the Muslim world. If you read my post with that preconception, then I can't say anything. But I didn't say anything of that sort. |
xrockxz89 said: JustALEX said: Who is talking about America? We're talking about the world. BTW, Muslims comprise about 0.2% of the American population. Oh and you know that little event....9/11....Yeah...we haven't forgotten. even worldwide, most terrorism is non religious in nature, studies show >_> Yeah they are .9% you can google these things lol its okay. Um...what studies? One quick look at TheReligionofpeace.com shows just how big Islam and Terrorism are linked and how it's an almost daily occurrence. And yes...I got the percentage wrong...it's still under 1% though. |
Spooks said: Sufficed to say Islamic reasons are the worldwide number 1 causes of most, saying 80 - 90% of all terror attacks. Which is why you'll find most sites using the 2005 homeland study to ignore the rest. Okay hmmm first of all where is the article you linked from? Just wondering. Secondly, there's nothing untrue about that FBI study, although yes that's interesting that 94% of deaths are caused by muslims. Of course we all know about school shootings and other acts of terrorism carried out by white folks that resulted in lots of death. But nonetheless, in terms of actual terrorist actions, most of them aren't by muslims, even the deadly ones... You know even if only 1 person dies, the fact that it's yet another isolated event is indeed meaningful. So maybe as it happens, Islamic terrorism is a pretty big deal, but it's still highly misleading to take the phenomenon of terrorism and blame it on Islam. I mean all these terrorist groups really are is para-military groups, and there have been a LOT of those in many different fields. They sometimes operate as terrorists and sometimes as 'official' soldiers, but they're similar in that they attack civilians indiscriminately My only point here is the simple one that turning the religion of Islam into an enemy is not only unwise but misguided. I know they come off as bad but you gotta understand, if we're talking about 'terrorism' it's a much larger phenomenon than can be confined to a single religion. JustALEX said: One quick look at TheReligionofpeace.com shows just how big Islam and Terrorism are linked and how it's an almost daily occurrence. That whole site is clearly designed as anti-muslim... no thanks. I'll take the peace of Islam over that any day boi. @JustALEX |
| I CELEBRATE myself, And what I assume you shall assume, For every atom belonging to me as good belongs to you. |
| Just over 2000 people died in 9/11, more than 150,000 people have died so far in the syrain war. War is a much bigger problem than terrorism as far as I see it. |
Anime is good, fucking deal with it. |
JustALEX said: TheReligionofpeace.com You lose all credibility when you mention that site. |
Minnim said: JustALEX said: TheReligionofpeace.com You lose all credibility when you mention that site. He loses all credibility by the virtue of being what he is lol |
And what is that? An "Islamaphobe" or some other made up word Islamic apologists have nowadays? It's laughable seeing some of you people defend Islam the way you do. Pay no attention to the numerous of Islamic terrorist groups causing all kind of havoc wherever they preside. Hell...Pay no attention to the fact that thousands of Muslims have died by the hands of other Muslims. Oh but I'm sure it has NOTHING to do with religion....cuz non-religious people scream "GOD IS GREAT" before blowing themselves and a variety of innocent people to bits. |
| It's always been this way, the invasors need a narrative to excuse their actions, the Spanish empire was based on "the expansion of the Catholic faith", the Japanese talked about the Asian Co-prosperity sphere, the Americans about civilization and destiny. In the end the attacker manages to find a logic behind his actions |
 |
JustALEX said: It's laughable seeing some of you people defend Islam the way you do. Pay no attention to the numerous of Islamic terrorist groups causing all kind of havoc wherever they preside. Hell...Pay no attention to the fact that thousands of Muslims have died by the hands of other Muslims. Oh but I'm sure it has NOTHING to do with religion....cuz non-religious people scream "GOD IS GREAT" before blowing themselves and a variety of innocent people to bits. Well personally I'm not denying that Islamic terrorism exists, it obviously does, just pointing out that it's only one form of terrorism. Not 99% of it as you stated earlier. I mean that was a really bold statement you made. I mean look at these guys https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_of_Fire_Nuclei. Freaking Greek arsonists dude. Maybe not quite as big a deal but don't act like Islam is so much worse of people, if anything they just seem to actually be amazingly skilled at this terrorism business (those of them that are doing it). |
xMizu_May 28, 2016 3:09 AM
| I CELEBRATE myself, And what I assume you shall assume, For every atom belonging to me as good belongs to you. |
Human happiness is a mental state. It's almost independent of external influences. If net happiness is your basis of morality then I have a thing or two to say about the Western standards of right or wrong but I'm not taking your words even if it's in regards to your own morality. I'd rather find someone better at making arguments and take from him the basis of Western morality. What are you even fucking saying? External fucking influence is not linked to the mental state? That makes no fucking sense at all. External influences like the act of eating good food, be entertained and being able to behave the way you want to directly affect your satisfaction in living. You are blatantly fucking wrong. Net happiness is not my basis of morality, net satisfaction and ability to progress society without affecting another individual's ways of living his life, the overall structure of a meritocracy and the access to knowledge to people of all races and gender and equality is the basis of western morality. And that's not all, you are talking about the overall happiness of a person? the acts itself are violent and intolerant in nature. Cutting someone's hands off for stealing instead of giving him a second chance is not logically concise, there is no nuance as to judge the many reasons to why that would have happened, a punishment as to remove someone's limb is the definition of intolerant. Stoning for adultery et cetera and et cetera. To say a person is worth less than another because of her gender is THE FUCKING DEFINITION of oppression. Furthermore, your arrogance is again oozing through every word you are saying. Better at making argument? You think YOU, FUCKING YOU ARE BETTER AT MAKING ARGUMENT? YOU HAVE THE BLOODY ASININE FUCKING BALLS TO JUDGE ME FOR BEING BAD AT MAKING ARGUMENT? MOTHERFUCKING WOW. The fucking guy that kept repeating the same point and stop replying after it gets rebutted, is telling me this shit. Yeah, but the stoning happening in the court did not prevent people from discussing things in libraries. Discussing if the infallible words of God is not wrong as long as it is in the libraries? They still get fucking stoned if they were to state the prophet's word as false and they will get reported regardless. You are the true fucking test of my patience and stoicism. I wouldn't say you are stupid because I do not believe anyone is truly idiotic. You just have your head so far up your ass you can't see anything else but your inflated fucking ego. Don't. Even fucking go there. |
Shaheen- said: RedRoseFring said: The only thing I agree with is that things would be better if Muslims were detached from their religion and didn't seriously view Muhammad as a good model to follow. If they even only just followed the Gospels and Torah that are validated by the Quran, things would be better. In the first case, they'd be more like Christians, in the second, they'd be non-proselytizing and non-expansionist like Jews. The most reasonable step for me would be to scrap the Hadiths altogether. Muhammad's actions are definitely unacceptable to follow. Unfortunately, many view the Hadiths as being integral just like the Quran. Muhammad is a good example to follow, so is Islam. When the Jews of Banu Quraiza rebelled against the treaty they signed themselves, Muhammd asked them, 'Who should be your judge?', instead of straight out judging. They chose Saad who was an ex-Jew, and who declared their judgment on the basis of Torah (the book you're advocating) that all males who've reached maturity be killed and others exiled. If that's the example you deem more moderate and worthy to be followed, then I'll have to challenge your views here. What are they? Simple. My view is not to wage a war of revenge or conquest at all. Not to bully people who took you in when you were in need, attack caravans and make pretend treaties you are going to break anyway to steal wealth. To truly follow the teachings of Jesus and disregard earthly gains and bear persecution meekly until the opportunity for change arises. To not be a warmonger who seduces people to war with promises of virgins in paradise or rebuke them to hell for refusing to fight with you. To not persecute unbelievers and slaughter them under more pretenses of broken treaties. To not encourage lust for women, free or slave, and beat them into submission and excuse it as revelation. To not twist religion to satisfy your carnal desires. All in all, to not be the opposite of what Jesus taught. |
RedRoseFringMay 28, 2016 7:56 AM
| "Let Justice Be Done!" My Theme Fight again, fight again for justice! |
Trolls_Bane said: What are you even fucking saying? External fucking influence is not linked to the mental state? That makes no fucking sense at all. External influences like the act of eating good food, be entertained and being able to behave the way you want to directly affect your satisfaction in living. You are blatantly fucking wrong. http://myanimelist.net/forum/?topicid=1515029&show=50#msg46219901 Net happiness is not my basis of morality, net satisfaction and ability to progress society without affecting another individual's ways of living his life, the overall structure of a meritocracy and the access to knowledge to people of all races and gender and equality is the basis of western morality. Then what's the difference between our moralities? Cutting someone's hands off for stealing instead of giving him a second chance is not logically concise eh? logically? a punishment as to remove someone's limb is the definition of intolerant Since you love definitions: not tolerant of views, beliefs, or behaviour that differ from one's own. That's not the definition. To say a person is worth less than another because of her gender is THE FUCKING DEFINITION of oppression. Well, it never says. (inb4 verse from Surah al Nisa) Discussing if the infallible words of God is not wrong as long as it is in the libraries? They still get fucking stoned if they were to state the prophet's word as false and they will get reported regardless. If that were true, all the Jews in Palestine would have been killed. Because disbelieving in Islam is asserting that the Prophet lied. So...?? RedRoseFring said: Simple. My view is not to wage a war of revenge or conquest at all. Not to bully people who took you in when you were in need, attack caravans and make pretend treaties you are going to break anyway to steal wealth. To truly follow the teachings of Jesus and disregard earthly gains and bear persecution meekly until the opportunity for change arises. To not be a warmonger who seduces people to war with promises of virgins in paradise or rebuke them to hell for refusing to fight with you. To not persecute unbelievers and slaughter them under more pretenses of broken treaties. To not encourage lust for women, free or slave, and beat them into submission and excuse it as revelation. To not twist religion to satisfy your carnal desires. All in all, to not be the opposite of what Jesus taught. So, you're saying that Islam is 90% compatible with you? |
Shaheen- said: Discussing if the infallible words of God is not wrong as long as it is in the libraries? They still get fucking stoned if they were to state the prophet's word as false and they will get reported regardless. If that were true, all the Jews in Palestine would have been killed. Because disbelieving in Islam is asserting that the Prophet lied. So...?? Not from lack of trying. Multiple Arab armies tried to do exactly that in 1948, 1967 and 1973. They just got trounced because the Jews would have none of that (and were more productive, disciplined and God-blessed.) RedRoseFring said: Simple. My view is not to wage a war of revenge or conquest at all. Not to bully people who took you in when you were in need, attack caravans and make pretend treaties you are going to break anyway to steal wealth. To truly follow the teachings of Jesus and disregard earthly gains and bear persecution meekly until the opportunity for change arises. To not be a warmonger who seduces people to war with promises of virgins in paradise or rebuke them to hell for refusing to fight with you. To not persecute unbelievers and slaughter them under more pretenses of broken treaties. To not encourage lust for women, free or slave, and beat them into submission and excuse it as revelation. To not twist religion to satisfy your carnal desires. All in all, to not be the opposite of what Jesus taught. So, you're saying that Islam is 90% compatible with you? Um.....no. I'm saying it is not at all. It is the opposite of what Jesus preached, a religion twisted by a man who sought to satisfy his earthly desires, something Jesus preached against vehemently (and for good reason). |
| "Let Justice Be Done!" My Theme Fight again, fight again for justice! |
RedRoseFring said: Shaheen- said: If that were true, all the Jews in Palestine would have been killed. Because disbelieving in Islam is asserting that the Prophet lied. So...?? Not from lack of trying. Multiple Arab armies tried to do exactly that in 1948, 1967 and 1973. They just got trounced because the Jews would have none of that (and were more productive, disciplined and God-blessed.) We are talking about post Crusades, after Saladin conquered Jerusalem. Um.....no. I'm saying it is not at all. It is the opposite of what Jesus preached, a religion twisted by a man who sought to satisfy his earthly desires, something Jesus preached against vehemently (and for good reason). If living in poverty and starving for weeks on end is satisfying one's earthly desires, then you must have some inhumane standards of asceticism. |
Shaheen- said: RedRoseFring said: Not from lack of trying. Multiple Arab armies tried to do exactly that in 1948, 1967 and 1973. They just got trounced because the Jews would have none of that (and were more productive, disciplined and God-blessed.) We are talking about post Crusades, after Saladin conquered Jerusalem. So after Islam was spearheaded by the Turks? People whom Muhammad had previously berated? Um.....no. I'm saying it is not at all. It is the opposite of what Jesus preached, a religion twisted by a man who sought to satisfy his earthly desires, something Jesus preached against vehemently (and for good reason). If living in poverty and starving for weeks on end is satisfying one's earthly desires, then you must have some inhumane standards of asceticism. Lol. Muhammad certainly wasn't starving when he started attacking caravans. He was taken in by the Jews and gracious people of Medina and started to build an army. Heck, he could theoretically have lived the rest of his life peacefully in Medina instead of seeking revenge and conquest. Conversely, many Christians did exactly that (live in poverty and starve for weeks), yet managed to change the hearts of those around them despite the persecution and remain strong in their faith. Some went from prison cell to prison cell like Paul. Muhammad with his share of all the fruits of conquest and multiple wives was one of (if not) the richest amongst his followers. Persecution obviously didn't suit him. Doing the persecuting apparently fit him better. |
| "Let Justice Be Done!" My Theme Fight again, fight again for justice! |
Shaheen- said: Happiness can be retained even when you're living in a dystopia. Happiness is, quite simply, a mental state. That's the definition of happiness. If it gets influenced by external realities, then the cure for it is still in the mind. And since the cure is in the mind, external realities become nigh irrelevant. This is a blatant conjecture and doesn't answer what the fuck I said, I saw this shit already. Your explanation is already flawed from its core. It is in the mind and the mind is interacting with reality so if the reality is, for example, inflicting pain upon the body, the mind will suffer, they are fucking interconnected. Your explanation on somehow one can alter the inherent instinct of their mind based on.......???? Then what's the difference between our moralities? I just stated it. No tolerance for homosexuals and people who wants to leave the religion and live the way they want to live without being punished for being born into something that they didn't consciously decide to accept as a belief and being fucking forcibly punished when they decide to leave it. eh? logically? It is not fucking logical to cut off another's hand for a mundane crime of stealing as his entire personality is being judged for that and one his most important human organ is being removed because of something so minuscule. I am trying to adapt to your bullshit about dissecting this also logically. I can't fucking believe I have to explain this shit. a punishment as to remove someone's limb is the definition of intolerant Since you love definitions: not tolerant of views, beliefs, or behaviour that differ from one's own. Yeah. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intolerant "not willing to allow or accept something" "not willing to allow some people to have equality, freedom, or other social rights " An unwillingness to accept homosexuality and severe punishment for small crimes, follow by the abundance of sexism. Please, don't fucking even. Well, it never says. (inb4 verse from Surah al Nisa) According to Sahih Bukhari, Volume 3 Book 48 Number 826: Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: The Prophet said, "Isn’t the witness of a woman equal to half of that of a man?" The women said, "Yes." He said, "This is because of the deficiency of a woman’s mind." The Quran in Sura 2:228 says:. . . Wives have the same rights as the husbands have on them in accordance with the generally known principles. Of course, men are a degree above them in status . The Quran in Sura 4:24 says:And forbidden to you are wedded wives of other people except those who have fallen in your hands (as prisoners of war) . . (sex slaves for fuck's sake) If that were true, all the Jews in Palestine would have been killed. Because disbelieving in Islam is asserting that the Prophet lied. So...?? What the fuck are you talking about? I was referencing to people who are BORN Muslim somehow and they can't leave the religion and are punished for it as apostasy. Also, let's look at the amount of people who are misguided by the religion, by that logic of saying that the theology itself is vague enough that people might not always lean towards the idea of violence, the books that followed it does and as shown by the countries that demonstrated the immense sexism such as honor killing their wives and rapes, capital punishment of homosexuals. I am still not sure how it is possible you are defending the nature of the fucked-up primitive morality when the existence of God can also be disprove with science and philosophy. |
xrockxz89 said: JustALEX said: Lol, terrorism has no religion... It just so happens that 99% of terrorism is done by ONE religion. actually the majority of terrorist acts in the U.S. are perpetrated by domestic terrorists. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/omar-alnatour/muslims-are-not-terrorist_b_8718000.html 94% by non- muslims There are other countries besides the US where a lot of terror attacks happen. Just because the victims happen to be Muslims doesn't mean it wasn't terror. |
| WEAPONS - My blog, for reviews of music, anime, books, and other things |
| There's a documentary on BBC about American's approach towards Muslim people and there was one guy from south, he had this really sticking southern accent. He was an extreme Islamophobic. He was saying things like yh I support all the policies about not taking refugees to America, deporting them etc. and he really hated Muslim people and then, he met ONE refuge from Syria, a mother and he was like "Oh, they're human too, they're actually nice." His all perception of Muslims changed at that moment. He never met a Muslim before and he was around 40-50. I think the main problem is we, I'm a Muslim, seem like this terrorist, hijabs or black turbans, really conservative and dangerous people because of the politicians and news reports especially in America. If the media stops projecting Muslims as dangerous terrorists and schools start teaching what Islam is this would stop. I'm not saying turn them Muslim, I'm saying briefly explain what it is. I met so many American people who said this; "Oh you're from Turkey, so you're Muslim right?" I said, "Yeah!" and they asked me, "So you speak Arabic?" No, No I don't speak Arabic. Not all Muslims speak Arabic. They think that because the media shows us like we do, we're not mentally connected. I think that's the real problem. When some people thinks of Muslims their image is this person with beard, dark skin, mustache and traditional Arabic clothing or hijab/turban. But I'm also Muslim, I'm white, light brown hair, Turkish and modern and I also wear skirts, shorts etc. There are also American Muslims, and Indian can be Muslim do can a British, French. People has to acknowledge that and put their prejudices away. |
  |
Trolls_Bane said: This is a blatant conjecture and doesn't answer what the fuck I said, I saw this shit already. Your explanation is already flawed from its core. It is in the mind and the mind is interacting with reality so if the reality is, for example, inflicting pain upon the body, the mind will suffer, they are fucking interconnected. Your explanation on somehow one can alter the inherent instinct of their mind based on.......???? Ok, here's an easy analogy for you since you cannot comprehend complex reasoning: You're playing a game, the game is real difficult. You can't play it. What do you do? You get good. Contrast that to this situation: External realities influence your happiness negatively, but solving the external problems doesn't address the issue of your happiness. So you solve your happiness in your head. An unwillingness to accept homosexuality and severe punishment for small crimes, follow by the abundance of sexism. Please, don't fucking even. Yeah, but you said:"a punishment as to remove someone's limb is the definition of intolerant". Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: The Prophet said, "Isn’t the witness of a woman equal to half of that of a man?" The women said, "Yes." He said, "This is because of the deficiency of a woman’s mind." Yeah, but that isn't calling their gender inferior. It's just expressing one of their inabilities. Wives have the same rights as the husbands have on them in accordance with the generally known principles. Of course, men are a degree above them in status . The status is in allotment of rights. Not intrinsic status. :And forbidden to you are wedded wives of other people except those who have fallen in your hands (as prisoners of war) . . (sex slaves for fuck's sake) And that isn't stating their inferiority either. What the fuck are you talking about? I was referencing to people who are BORN Muslim somehow and they can't leave the religion and are punished for it as apostasy Because it's meaningless to leave Islam in a Muslim state unless you desire to commit major crimes. If you want to, then just leave the state and become an apostate. Honor killings aren't a part of Islam though. when the existence of God can also be disprove with science and philosophy. top fkn kek RedRoseFring said: Lol. Muhammad certainly wasn't starving when he started attacking caravans. He was taken in by the Jews and gracious people of Medina and started to build an army. Heck, he could theoretically have lived the rest of his life peacefully in Medina instead of seeking revenge and conquest. Conversely, many Christians did exactly that (live in poverty and starve for weeks), yet managed to change the hearts of those around them despite the persecution and remain strong in their faith. Some went from prison cell to prison cell like Paul. Muhammad with his share of all the fruits of conquest and multiple wives was one of (if not) the richest amongst his followers. Persecution obviously didn't suit him. Doing the persecuting apparently fit him better. Actually, he was. He used to fast on every day of fighting. He wasn't rich at all. He had no property. All of his wives' homes were gifted by his friends. One who can choose not to be persecuted but still chooses to be persecuted is whom we call an 'idiot' or a masochist. >So after Islam was spearheaded by the Turks? People whom Muhammad had previously berated? No. |
TranceMay 28, 2016 10:53 AM
Shaheen- said: RedRoseFring said: Lol. Muhammad certainly wasn't starving when he started attacking caravans. He was taken in by the Jews and gracious people of Medina and started to build an army. Heck, he could theoretically have lived the rest of his life peacefully in Medina instead of seeking revenge and conquest. Conversely, many Christians did exactly that (live in poverty and starve for weeks), yet managed to change the hearts of those around them despite the persecution and remain strong in their faith. Some went from prison cell to prison cell like Paul. Muhammad with his share of all the fruits of conquest and multiple wives was one of (if not) the richest amongst his followers. Persecution obviously didn't suit him. Doing the persecuting apparently fit him better. Actually, he was. He used to fast on every day of fighting. He wasn't rich at all. He had no property. All of his wives' homes were gifted by his friends. One who can choose not to be persecuted but still chooses to be persecuted is whom we call an 'idiot' or a masochist. >So after Islam was spearheaded by the Turks? People whom Muhammad had previously berated? No. Fasting is not the same as starving, especially when you simply break it at sundown. And no. Muhammad went on multiple conquests well fed and he always got 20% of plunder. He had his own house with separate rooms for his wives, a council of warriors who received higher shares and a number of slaves as well. He was one of the most opulent warlords of the region. All his wives (including the one from his adopted son) and slaves were his property. In fact, there's a verse warning people about not disturbing him in his house or talking to him too long. He was killed when a woman poisoned him before his last conquest because he had killed her husband and people. He was feasting before heading out for that conquest. Of course, Muhammad chose to persecute instead of suffer persecution. How noble. The fact of the matter is that he faced no persecution in Medina, yet chose to rob caravans, then returned to wage war and persecute people in Mecca, then spread in greedy conquest of the entire Arabian Peninsula, and even set his eyes on Europe. He would not have rested until "Islam reigns supreme." As for the rest, are you saying that the Ottomans weren't Turks when they conquered Palestine? Or that Muhammad didn't speak badly of Turks? |
| "Let Justice Be Done!" My Theme Fight again, fight again for justice! |
| @shaeen- Ok, here's an easy analogy for you since you cannot comprehend complex reasoning: You're playing a game, the game is real difficult. You can't play it. What do you do? You get good. Here's an analogy for you. Guy A decide to hit Guy B, therefore Guy B proceed to kill Guy A because it's only logical. This is an analogy to your ever nuance less rhetorical statements and shit analogues. No. Don't fucking even condescend me after you give me something that is completely fucking retarded and probably irrelevant to the complex psychology of the fucking mind. Get good? Like not playing the fucking game? Or even changing the rules of the game? What do you mean by getting good? If the game is naturally a shit game with shit rules then you can change it, if not you still fucking suffer or you by fucking definition become OPPRESS by it. You are like the FUCKING KING of ignoring nuances and chopping argument down to simplest of your fucking reasoning and that you think is complex with your self-gratifying fucking delusions. I love this mindset you have that when you suck at communicating your own idea and when people don't get it because of various inconsistency in your shit logic or some carelessness in reading it, you get the chance to tell yourself that you are smarter than them because they don't get it. Such fucking ego. Yeah, but that isn't calling their gender inferior. It's just expressing one of their inabilities. Oh-ho, so you are saying it's not fucking inferior to call someone less smarter than you because of their fucking gender? That is not fucking saying they are inferior in the department of intelligence? The definition is there, check it out or just stop. Contrast that to this situation: External realities influence your happiness negatively, but solving the external problems doesn't address the issue of your happiness. So you solve your happiness in your head. No. Just fuck. That's called Buddhism, you reach enlightenment and then you can say you only need to live on rice and water because you don't care about your surroundings, your natural human instinct still stay, if you are in a shit environment you will still feel shit regardless because it's a natural human instinct, that's why we adapt to it by CHANGING our environment instead of letting it change us, we invented tools to help us, that's what the fuck separates from the animals. Happiness being a mental state therefore you can be happy even when severe pain is being inflicted upon you is your shit brand of logic, the fact you are trying to convey this to me as gospel truth whilst thinking I am the one not fucking getting it WHEN you are the egotistical little halfwit having the wrong fucking idea on the whole affair is something I have to bloody marvel at. Yeah, but you said:"a punishment as to remove someone's limb is the definition of intolerant". Look at this shit. not tolerant of views, beliefs, or behaviour that differ from one's own. And as a result of that. You removed their limbs. Do you understand how the logic fucking connects? Because tolerant means acceptance, an unacceptance of that behavior leads to limb removal. Fucking get it? This is common sense 101. And that isn't stating their inferiority either. You are going to debate semantics on fucking slavery? The person has been seen as inferior and of less worth when they are the one having to serve their master. Slaves obeys and master commands, master is therefore of higher status and value then the slave. How the fuck do your mind work? And this is one more contention to make, it's okay to take people in as slaves? The status is in allotment of rights. Not intrinsic status. The allotment of rights? I don't fucking even. But you know what? Fuck it. I will take your word for it . The allotment of rights? So one gets alloted less rights then another, but they are still not inferior? What? You have less rights to do things as compared to another person and you are not viewed as inferior? The contention isn't just the idea of inferiority, it's also discriminations and this is already by fucking definition sexist. Because it's meaningless to leave Islam in a Muslim state unless you desire to commit major crimes. If you want to, then just leave the state and become an apostate. No. Fuck no. You said that like it's something that is natural, it fucking isn't and get that through your head, you can leave Islam for many fucking reasons, change in beliefs, change in agreements towards the theology and just becoming an atheist. You can't just leave the place you are born and working, therefore it's a restriction of human rights and naturally restraining to people who have now become fucking different. Honor killings aren't a part of Islam though. What I am telling you that it is vague enough to interpret it as such so it can be and has been shown to happened in Islamic countries. top fkn kek Also you, fucking you are trying to tell me all of these shit about Islam being subjective in the moral spectrum when it fucking isn't and even though you believed that he is God and therefore all of the things he said should be infallible, why then are we able to debate what he said to be true or false when he should be there to give the reasoning himself? In fact, why even create us? (Most of the points are going to get ignored like my previous comment and I am going to get three words reply, calling it now. Still have some hope he will have something ready. But very little.) |
Shaheen- said: The question was flawed. Repair the question and I'll answer it. Throwing informal logical fallacies around doesn't make you intelligent either -- especially when you use them all wrong. 'Subjectivist fallacy' in a discussion regarding morals, circular reasoning with different premise and conclusion. Top kek. So you did not understand the question. You could have just said so. Why and how are thing's like homosexuality, sex outside of marriage ( im not talking promiscuity), not wearing head covering and things like dancing with the opposite sex in private property bad things? Why do you think these things deserve corporal punishment? Do you have proof of positive effects of corporal punishment on these types of things and that it does not have a negative impact on society? Can you give a reason than just " the quran says so" because that's not a logically valid reason. That only explains why it is seen as bad not why it is bad. Before you answer if you're answer is " social fabric" / " social balance" or whatever you want to call it then you really still are not giving a reason because that argument only works for immediate drastic changes, it does not give a reason against gradual changes. Tons of countries and religions evolve. Why can't Islam improve? " Because it''s Allah's word" but that is based off what the quran says which is circular reasoning. Also the social fabric argument never explains why it would be bad to begin with before it was a norm so it's dancing around the question without answering it at all. I never claimed to be anything. I was mostly just annoying you so you would lose your temper and show your true colours; which you did. Also I was actually making up the term as I was going along and not relying on the formal use. Either way relying on relative morality is just a way of avoiding coming up with real answers. |
traedMay 28, 2016 12:12 PM
RedRoseFring said: Fasting is not the same as starving, especially when you simply break it at sundown. And no. Muhammad went on multiple conquests well fed and he always got 20% of plunder. He had his own house with separate rooms for his wives, a council of warriors who received higher shares and a number of slaves as well. He was one of the most opulent warlords of the region. All his wives (including the one from his adopted son) and slaves were his property. In fact, there's a verse warning people about not disturbing him in his house or talking to him too long. He was killed when a woman poisoned him before his last conquest because he had killed her husband and people. He was feasting before heading out for that conquest. Of course, Muhammad chose to persecute instead of suffer persecution. How noble. The fact of the matter is that he faced no persecution in Medina, yet chose to rob caravans, then returned to wage war and persecute people in Mecca, then spread in greedy conquest of the entire Arabian Peninsula, and even set his eyes on Europe. He would not have rested until "Islam reigns supreme." As for the rest, are you saying that the Ottomans weren't Turks when they conquered Palestine? Or that Muhammad didn't speak badly of Turks? There's hardly any evidence whether he went on war well fed or not. Neither can you acquire such evidence. So it's pretty meaningless. But the few examples we do have that include the words 'eating' and 'war' show that he fasted. That is called wisdom. And you're saying that as if the Romans didn't do anything of that sort to spread 'Christianity'. Ideologies, in the old world, spread through conquest and proselytizing; the latter wasn't allowed in many places and was hence ineffective without conquest. Muhammad had an ideology, and to spread it he deployed the right method. He was wise. What I'm talking about, is the post-Crusades Jerusalem which includes both the Ottomans and the Saracens. Not just Ottomans. When did Muhammad speak badly of Turks again? @Trolls_Bane At least follow your own advice: Being passive and stoic is the best. Not everyone have to die at the end of a discussion. |
traed said: Shaheen- said: The question was flawed. Repair the question and I'll answer it. Throwing informal logical fallacies around doesn't make you intelligent either -- especially when you use them all wrong. 'Subjectivist fallacy' in a discussion regarding morals, circular reasoning with different premise and conclusion. Top kek. So you did not understand the question. You could have just said so. Why and how are thing's like homosexuality, sex outside of marriage ( im not talking promiscuity), not wearing head covering and things like dancing with the opposite sex in private property bad things? Why do you think these things deserve corporal punishment? Do you have proof of positive effects of corporal punishment on these types of things and that it does not have a negative impact on society? Can you give a reason than just " the quran says so" because that's not a logically valid reason. That only explains why it is seen as bad not why it is bad. Before you answer if you're answer is " social fabric" / " social balance" or whatever you want to call it then you really still are not giving a reason because that argument only works for immediate drastic changes, it does not give a reason against gradual changes. Tons of countries and religions evolve. Why can't Islam improve? " Because it''s Allah's word" but that is based off what the quran says which is circular reasoning. Also the social fabric argument never explains why it would be bad to begin with before it was a norm so it's dancing around the question without answering it at all. I never claimed to be anything. I was mostly just annoying you so you would lose your temper and show your true colours; which you did. Also I was actually making up the term as I was going along and not relying on the formal use. Either way relying on relative morality is just a way of avoiding coming up with real answers. Let me teach you the first thing about religion and what it is supposed to be: The truth. Religion is a 'supposed' truth, essentially. And truth has a value of 1 only. A truth that evolves overtime (as you want it) is no truth at all. So all your demands regarding religion should evolve are essentially asking an apple to become a motorcycle. Then comes why they are wrong. Every morality has a basis which stretches far beyond your, and your ilks', rudimentary understanding of it doesn't harm anyone. I can start a new moral system on the basis of antinatalism and it will still be a moral system; perfectly valid within its own constructs. The morality of Islam is based upon the words of God -- the words of God are the basis of religion and since religion is the supposed 'truth', the basis of morality hence becomes the 'word of God'. It's not circular reasoning; the entire moral system is based on a supposed truth. So, your argument, which is that my argument is a circular reasoning, is wrong. I feel good having true colors of an 'arrogant prick' rather than an incredulous idiot. |
JustALEX said: Lol, terrorism has no religion... It just so happens that 99% of terrorism is done by ONE religion. Some has already replied to you but lol are u that lazy to do some basic googling As studies have shown Not the religion that creates terrorists, it’s the politics , most members of Isis have been in prison b4 or were drugs addicted anyway i can keep talking all day but not sure if u are trolling since a lot of users have dealt with u b4 like: written by: Tsudecimo  written by: Jd  Don't wanna waste my time just like that. @Shaheen- lol are u trying to become Imam or what ? it seems to me u are insecure about ur own religion , most of ur threads about religions even ur previous account geniobastard , correct me if i am wrong . ........................... like to add that b4 like my grandparent has said there weren't any problem in Me , the problem has started the day Zionist plan was made to move Jews from Europe to what so called Israel since that day we have been hearing Term Islamist Terrorist and Murica war on Terrorism Aka Iraq..... listen to this guy if u have time: |
 |
AllenVonStein said: @Shaheen- lol are u trying to become Imam or what ? it seems to me u are insecure about ur own religion , most of ur threads about religions even ur previous account geniobastard , correct me if i am wrong . http://myanimelist.net/forum/?action=search&q=&u=Shaheen-&uloc=2&loc=11 This is the only one. It just so happens that any thread with 'Islam' in title blows up. *pun intended* |
| @Shaheen- i meant ur previous account if u have one called geniobastard or something like that or maybe was someone else then i apologize . |
|
AllenVonStein said: @Shaheen- i meant ur previous account if u have one called geniobastard or something like that or maybe was someone else then i apologize . Let's try that guy out hmm http://myanimelist.net/forum/?action=search&q=&u=geniobastardo&uloc=2&loc=11 Two threads related to Islam, the rest are either religious or bullshit. |
SarahIlayda said: There's a documentary on BBC about American's approach towards Muslim people and there was one guy from south, he had this really sticking southern accent. He was an extreme Islamophobic. He was saying things like yh I support all the policies about not taking refugees to America, deporting them etc. and he really hated Muslim people and then, he met ONE refuge from Syria, a mother and he was like "Oh, they're human too, they're actually nice." His all perception of Muslims changed at that moment. He never met a Muslim before and he was around 40-50. I think the main problem is we, I'm a Muslim, seem like this terrorist, hijabs or black turbans, really conservative and dangerous people because of the politicians and news reports especially in America. If the media stops projecting Muslims as dangerous terrorists and schools start teaching what Islam is this would stop. I'm not saying turn them Muslim, I'm saying briefly explain what it is. I met so many American people who said this; "Oh you're from Turkey, so you're Muslim right?" I said, "Yeah!" and they asked me, "So you speak Arabic?" No, No I don't speak Arabic. Not all Muslims speak Arabic. They think that because the media shows us like we do, we're not mentally connected. I think that's the real problem. When some people thinks of Muslims their image is this person with beard, dark skin, mustache and traditional Arabic clothing or hijab/turban. But I'm also Muslim, I'm white, light brown hair, Turkish and modern and I also wear skirts, shorts etc. There are also American Muslims, and Indian can be Muslim do can a British, French. People has to acknowledge that and put their prejudices away. I live in the US in a southern state ( although its pretty far north) where I am surrounded by conservative Christian rednecks. It is very common to see them wearing camouflage every day or clothes that look like they just walked off a farm and there are trailer parks here and confederate flags hanging off trucks and some peoples homes. I also see occasionally Muslims walking around in hijabs and even full on Burkas. In fact I see burkas more often than hijabs and these arent even all foreigners. You know what happens when these people walk past eachother? Or when I saw a Muslim man praying in a parking lot ( horrible choice of location)...nothing happened, most people don't care beyond the confused glance at a black ghost roaming around. In fact sometimes people like my mom try to strike up a conversation and you know what the Muslim women in Burkas do? They shy away and sometimes even act rude or at least that is the case with the ones in the burkas, i guess those types are more fearful people or something. The ones in hijabs act more normal but even then I always see them only hanging out with other girls in Hijabs. Why I added that last bit in is, it's not easy to get to know some Muslims because they sometimes only associate with other Muslims. Yes, there are people like you describe out there but as I said most people don't hate Muslims just for being Muslims. Also it's not odd for them to ask if you speak Arabic because some Muslims think the Quran can only be properly interpreted in Arabic. That and not many Americans are familiar with foreign countries so they do not know of the Turkish language so they think because it is a Mid East country they speak Arabic. Also Turkish has some Arabic words in it so they are kind of close a bit.... As for how you dress while that may be more normal there in Turkey you are still in a minority of Muslims who dress like that. Sure there are Muslims who dress modern but even then they usually are very covered head to toe still. Like I said even in the US there are Muslim women born in the US going around in burkas. The whole "media influence" thing is a meme. The media reflects reality although it does distort it. I've never once seen a single media thing say all Muslims are bad aside from a few far right idiots that get airtime that only ultra conservatives even pay attention to but at the same time you have people defending Muslims as well in the media. So the media may back up the beliefs of some misinformed people who already believe something it doesnt put false ideas in the heads of people it just is information without the full picture if they only look at one side of things. I used to know a girl online id talk to whos husband forced her to wear a burka and would not allow her to go anywhere without one and without him and she was native born in the US living in the US and was only a Muslim convert which was for the sake of heritage. Her brother had at one point in time threatened me because she would come onto me sometimes trying to get with me. She did eventually divorce the guy at least. Another American Muslim I personally knew to was this 15 year old guy who would drink, smoke weed, and sleep around in one night stands all the time constantly hitting on girls and constantly bragging to me about girls hes slept with always talking about them like pieces of meat. I don't really blame Islam for that guy though. |
traedMay 28, 2016 1:42 PM
Raimu4 said: SarahIlayda said: There's a documentary on BBC about American's approach towards Muslim people and there was one guy from south, he had this really sticking southern accent. He was an extreme Islamophobic. He was saying things like yh I support all the policies about not taking refugees to America, deporting them etc. and he really hated Muslim people and then, he met ONE refuge from Syria, a mother and he was like "Oh, they're human too, they're actually nice." His all perception of Muslims changed at that moment. He never met a Muslim before and he was around 40-50. I think the main problem is we, I'm a Muslim, seem like this terrorist, hijabs or black turbans, really conservative and dangerous people because of the politicians and news reports especially in America. If the media stops projecting Muslims as dangerous terrorists and schools start teaching what Islam is this would stop. I'm not saying turn them Muslim, I'm saying briefly explain what it is. I met so many American people who said this; "Oh you're from Turkey, so you're Muslim right?" I said, "Yeah!" and they asked me, "So you speak Arabic?" No, No I don't speak Arabic. Not all Muslims speak Arabic. They think that because the media shows us like we do, we're not mentally connected. I think that's the real problem. When some people thinks of Muslims their image is this person with beard, dark skin, mustache and traditional Arabic clothing or hijab/turban. But I'm also Muslim, I'm white, light brown hair, Turkish and modern and I also wear skirts, shorts etc. There are also American Muslims, and Indian can be Muslim do can a British, French. People has to acknowledge that and put their prejudices away. That Southern American guy reminds me of the German women in cologne, they had no problem with immigration and welcomed the poor refugees with open arms. Then on new years eve they got raped by those nice people. I think their opinion about muslims changed as well. Same goes for all the people that attended that concert in Paris, and everyone that lives near a 'muslim ghetto' like me. You do realize Germans rape too right? Like rape happens in almost every country. You can't generalize refugees as rapists. They are running away from a war, you also aware of that right? We, Turkey, has millions of refugees and majority of them know 3-4 languages, they used to have jobs and families. Just because one does a bad thing it doesn't mean everyone will do the same. traed said: I live in the US in a southern state ( although its pretty far north) where I am surrounded by conservative Christian rednecks. It is very common to see them wearing camouflage every day or clothes that look like they just walked off a farm and there are trailer parks here and confederate flags hanging off trucks and some peoples homes. I also see occasionally Muslims walking around in hijabs and even full on Burkas. In fact I see burkas more often than hijabs and these arent even all foreigners. You know what happens when these people walk past eachother? Or when I saw a Muslim man praying in a parking lot ( horrible choice of location)...nothing happened, most people don't care beyond the confused glance at a black ghost roaming around. In fact sometimes people like my mom try to strike up a conversation and you know what the Muslim women in Burkas do? They shy away and sometimes even act rude or at least that is the case with the ones in the burkas, i guess those types are more fearful people or something. The ones in hijabs act more normal but even then I always see them only hanging out with other girls in Hijabs. Why I added that last bit in is, it's not easy to get to know some Muslims because they sometimes only associate with other Muslims. Yes, there are people like you describe out there but as I said most people don't hate Muslims just for being Muslims. Also it's not odd for them to ask if you speak Arabic because some Muslims think the Quran can only be properly interpreted in Arabic. That and not many Americans are familiar with foreign countries so they do not know of the Turkish language so they think because it is a Mid East country they speak Arabic. Also Turkish has some Arabic words in it so they are kind of close a bit.... As for how you dress while that may be more normal there in Turkey you are still in a minority of Muslims who dress like that. Sure there are Muslims who dress modern but even then they usually are very covered head to toe still. Like I said even in the US there are Muslim women born in the US going around in burkas. The whole "media influence" thing is a meme. The media reflects reality although it does distort it. I've never once seen a single media thing say all Muslims are bad aside from a few far right idiots that get airtime that only ultra conservatives even pay attention to but at the same time you have people defending Muslims as well in the media. So the media may back up the beliefs of some misinformed people who already believe something it doesnt put false ideas in the heads of people it just is information without the full picture if they only look at one side of things. I used to know a girl online id talk to whos husband forced her to wear a burka and would not allow her to go anywhere without one and without him and she was native born in the US living in the US and was only a Muslim convert which was for the sake of heritage. Her brother had at one point in time threatened me because she would come onto me sometimes trying to get with me. She did eventually divorce the guy at least. Another American Muslim I personally knew to was this 15 year old guy who would drink, smoke weed, and sleep around in one night stands all the time constantly hitting on girls and constantly bragging to me about girls hes slept with always talking about them like pieces of meat. I don't really blame Islam for that guy though. First of all, people can feel disturbed or threaten or just don't like the situation but make a scene so I'm not shocked why nothing happens but it doesn't mean they actually don't mind. People who are in burkas don't socialize or they don't want to if it's not necessary especially with strangers doesn't matter which gender. If you're a friend, family they are comfortable it's not because they are shy or fear, it's a choice they're just uncomfortable because it's not what they do. People in hijabs are usually from Iran, Turkey, Pakistan etc. not Saudi Arabia, Iraq or Egypt. Iran & Turkey is more modern you can think hijab as a modern burka. And the people are usually more open and modern as I said. That's the main difference. Turkish has in common with Persian and French more than Arabic. We only used the alphabet, not the language. It's like latin alphabet being used in English, French, Spanish etc. it has similarities but complete different language and the sound of it has no relation either. I'm not in the minority more than %90 of Turkey is Muslim and you will find normal clothing more than burkas and people who wears hijabs also wear jeans and shirts. It's the same in Iran, Lebanon and Jordan. Same with parts of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Egypt. And Muslims are also people so they can be addicts, rapists, civil right activists, politicians or murderers like Christians, Jews and atheists. So again, generalizing Muslims or any kind of group is plain wrong cause it will only lead to prejudice and judgement. |
|
Shaheen- said: traed said: So you did not understand the question. You could have just said so. Why and how are thing's like homosexuality, sex outside of marriage ( im not talking promiscuity), not wearing head covering and things like dancing with the opposite sex in private property bad things? Why do you think these things deserve corporal punishment? Do you have proof of positive effects of corporal punishment on these types of things and that it does not have a negative impact on society? Can you give a reason than just " the quran says so" because that's not a logically valid reason. That only explains why it is seen as bad not why it is bad. Before you answer if you're answer is " social fabric" / " social balance" or whatever you want to call it then you really still are not giving a reason because that argument only works for immediate drastic changes, it does not give a reason against gradual changes. Tons of countries and religions evolve. Why can't Islam improve? " Because it''s Allah's word" but that is based off what the quran says which is circular reasoning. Also the social fabric argument never explains why it would be bad to begin with before it was a norm so it's dancing around the question without answering it at all. I never claimed to be anything. I was mostly just annoying you so you would lose your temper and show your true colours; which you did. Also I was actually making up the term as I was going along and not relying on the formal use. Either way relying on relative morality is just a way of avoiding coming up with real answers. Let me teach you the first thing about religion and what it is supposed to be: The truth. Religion is a 'supposed' truth, essentially. And truth has a value of 1 only. A truth that evolves overtime (as you want it) is no truth at all. So all your demands regarding religion should evolve are essentially asking an apple to become a motorcycle. Then comes why they are wrong. Every morality has a basis which stretches far beyond your, and your ilks', rudimentary understanding of it doesn't harm anyone. I can start a new moral system on the basis of antinatalism and it will still be a moral system; perfectly valid within its own constructs. The morality of Islam is based upon the words of God -- the words of God are the basis of religion and since religion is the supposed 'truth', the basis of morality hence becomes the 'word of God'. It's not circular reasoning; the entire moral system is based on a supposed truth. So, your argument, which is that my argument is a circular reasoning, is wrong. I feel good having true colors of an 'arrogant prick' rather than an incredulous idiot. There are two types of truths. Objective truths and subjective truths. Religions like Islam fall into the subjective truths. What a subjective truth is, is nothing more than a personal belief. So while it is an objective truth that Islam is a religion, and that Muslims follow Islam, it is also an objective truth that not all Muslims interpret the Quran the same way even in the scholarly opinion. So it is an objective truth that Muslims can shift from one belief to another of the Islamic kind and it would still be true to them. Of course though if they go too far from the Quran then at some point the subjective truths are no longer based on the text so you could no longer consider them Muslims but more an Islamic influenced religion however even then this still would not make their truth not a truth to them but it would lose some backing if they do not gather more sources. Either way nothing objectively says that Islam is the objective truth any more than any other religion. It is just subjective truths not objective truths even though a Muslim may think it is objective. When it comes to morals there are facts in reality such as the effects on people or animals or objects certain things have and these are backed up by scientific facts that can be used to help make a truth. While the Quran is just something of subjective truths written down without the objective basis. When it comes to sharing the world with other people than your own self or people exactly like you an objective truth based subjective truth has much more weight than a subjective truth based on a subjective truth such as religion and no subjective truth based on subjective truth is superior to another but objective based subjective truths are superior. There is an objective truth that lies beyond these religions and sciences that is not known but it is not within our reach to see the ultimate undeniable truth, at least for now from this physical world in this time. People do not care as much about what you believe in the unknown but how things objectively effect people are important and can not be trumped by subjectivities. Your argument is that Islam can not adapt or change to fit with the times beyond the iron age despite so many things being in existence which did not exist then. This is exactly why people do not like Islam and so readily generalise Muslims because if thy follow the Quran to every word they already know a Muslim has beliefs that defy some objective based subjective truths. This is also why some would like Islam to go extinct because people like you don't want to see it change ever no matter how much suffering it may cause. Sorry, but it really is begging the question to assume the Quran is true because it says so in the Quran. That truth is not an objective one like it claims to be, just subjective that only those who believe it is it truth see it as that. It's status as objective truth is not backed by objective facts. |
More topics from this board
» can you tolerate spicy food?removed-user - Mar 31 |
40 |
by LoveYourEyes
»»
12 seconds ago |
|
» Proper way to reply to profile comments?Rokumi - Sep 7, 2014 |
40 |
by Kuldeep2
»»
23 minutes ago |
|
» Do you celebrate your BirthdayST63LTH - Yesterday |
22 |
by Carol1ne4
»»
36 minutes ago |
|
» Have you ever put someone on the 'Ignored Users' list?Thy-Veseveia - 6 hours ago |
9 |
by SnipeStrike
»»
52 minutes ago |
|
» What age range do you find the most physically attractive?Ejrodiew - Apr 11 |
40 |
by Driz
»»
2 hours ago |