• [Jordan] Christian journalist murdered after being charged with insulting Islam
    130 replies, posted
Why is every single Islamic apologists counter argument "If you're anti-Islam then you must be pro-Christian"? Baffles me. The guy who was killed had bigger balls than most of us all.
[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;51103509]Oh, and forgive my increasing smugness, but while you have correctly identified the Nazis as racist, it's a little bit of kettle calling pot black considering the treatment of black people and black soldiers in America and the interment of Japanese citizens around that period.[/QUOTE] Mate, considering Smoot's stance on the Nazis and his stance on modern Islam, I doubt he condones any of that.
[QUOTE=Psychokitten;51103690]Mate, considering Smoot's stance on the Nazis and his stance on modern Islam, I doubt he condones any of that.[/QUOTE] I'm very willing to admit that was a very low blow. But what he said to me, in context, sounded very hypocritical. [quote=Captain James]Why is every single Islamic apologists counter argument "If you're anti-Islam then you must be pro-Christian"? Baffles me. The guy who was killed had bigger balls than most of us all.[/quote] I'm not apologising for anyone. I'm just pointing out that painting about 1 billion people as all the same and all as extremists is super hypocritical, because you could bet that there would be a ton of these "critics" would easily defeat their own point by saying 'ah but not all Christians are like those Christians!!!'
[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;51103712]I'm not apologising for anyone. I'm just pointing out that painting about 1 billion people as all the same and all as extremists is super hypocritical, because you could bet that there would be a ton of these "critics" would easily defeat their own point by saying 'ah but not all Christians are like those Christians!!!'[/QUOTE] I am critiquing the ideology not the person/people because it's easy as hell to say "you're a dumbass with zero forethought and cognitive capacity" but harder to attack the cause and not the effect. In scripture the angel Gabriel directly spoke to Mohammed the very word of God. No ifs and or buts, it is literally the true Word of God. That includes things like submission to your husband and Shariah, which you either agree with or you don't because cherry picking is not applicable to unalterable "truth" so I don't see the point in mincing words and just cut the middle man calling a violent cesspit of mankind out for what it is. I also do not believe someone should feel self shame for making people who support something that is antithetical to human life feel bad, they should feel bad. They are supporting totalitarianism. They are totalitarian, you don't have to feel bad for saying these things by masking ignorance as altruism. It's always "WHATABOUT WHATABOUT WHATABOUT" I don't see any posts where someone is condoning or excusing the actions of the other religious groups that are brought up, merely pointing a current problem with Islam and how it seems absurd to be more concerned about feelings of said Islamic people. You are also making a false equivalence between Isolated events and things taught as part of the Islamic ideology that quite frequently have real consequences. Firstly it's important to set a couple of premises. Islam in the west is largely toothless. As generations go further what happened with Christianity is very likely to happen to Islam, as they adapt to the societies of the countries they live in, they normalise, and start cherry picking their beliefs from the Quran like Christians did with the Bible. Islam in practice, right now however is in dire need of reform. Leading Islamic Scholars and the majority of Imam's do not cherrypick, and although nearly all of them teach the messages of peace from the Quran, they are also happy to teach the abhorrent messages in the Quran aswell; That's how Muhammad demand the Quran be interpreted, and it's reinforced in the Hadiths. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi himself had a BA, MA and PhD in Islamic Studies from the Islamic University of Baghdad. There's a difference in terror attacks that happen to be Buddhist or Christian, and Islamically motivated violence and terrorism. There are many verses in the Quran that call Muslims to war, and even rewards the Jihadists in question with a one way trip to heaven. Islam in particular is especially barbaric and militant as a religion, and that the prophet writing it said to interpret it literally doesn't help. [url=http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/violence.aspx]Source 1[/url] [url=https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/killing-avoid-hell.aspx]Source 2[/url] [url=http://www.oxfordislamicstudies.com/article/opr/t243/e275]Source 3[/url] I could go all day but people rarely show any nuance when talking about this topic, and it often turns into a weird shit fest. You don't enable a cancerous growth because it grew on you, you treat it with aggressive chemotherapy or completely remove it before it metastasises. I see no point in enabling something so detrimental to life and western society, or society in general for that matter and human development.
[QUOTE=Captain James;51103762]I am critiquing the ideology not the person/people because it's easy as hell to say "you're a dumbass with zero forethought and cognitive capacity" but harder to attack the cause and not the effect. In scripture the angel Gabriel directly spoke to Mohammed the very word of God. No ifs and or buts, it is literally the true Word of God. That includes things like submission to your husband and Shariah, which you either agree with or you don't because cherry picking is not applicable to unalterable "truth" so I don't see the point in mincing words and just cut the middle man calling a violent cesspit of mankind out for what it is. I also do not believe someone should feel self shame for making people who support something that is antithetical to human life feel bad, they should feel bad. They are supporting totalitarianism. They are totalitarian, you don't have to feel bad for saying these things by masking ignorance as altruism. It's always "WHATABOUT WHATABOUT WHATABOUT" I don't see any posts where someone is condoning or excusing the actions of the other religious groups that are brought up, merely pointing a current problem with Islam and how it seems absurd to be more concerned about feelings of said Islamic people. You are also making a false equivalence between Isolated events and things taught as part of the Islamic ideology that quite frequently have real consequences. Firstly it's important to set a couple of premises. Islam in the west is largely toothless. As generations go further what happened with Christianity is very likely to happen to Islam, as they adapt to the societies of the countries they live in, they normalise, and start cherry picking their beliefs from the Quran like Christians did with the Bible. Islam in practice, right now however is in dire need of reform. Leading Islamic Scholars and the majority of Imam's do not cherrypick, and although nearly all of them teach the messages of peace from the Quran, they are also happy to teach the abhorrent messages in the Quran aswell; That's how Muhammad demand the Quran be interpreted, and it's reinforced in the Hadiths. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi himself had a BA, MA and PhD in Islamic Studies from the Islamic University of Baghdad. There's a difference in terror attacks that happen to be Buddhist or Christian, and Islamically motivated violence and terrorism. There are many verses in the Quran that call Muslims to war, and even rewards the Jihadists in question with a one way trip to heaven. Islam in particular is especially barbaric and militant as a religion, and that the prophet writing it said to interpret it literally doesn't help. [url=http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/violence.aspx]Source 1[/url] [url=https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/killing-avoid-hell.aspx]Source 2[/url] [url=http://www.oxfordislamicstudies.com/article/opr/t243/e275]Source 3[/url] I could go all day but people rarely show any nuance when talking about this topic, and it often turns into a weird shit fest. You don't enable a cancerous growth because it grew on you, you treat it with aggressive chemotherapy or completely remove it before it metastasises. I see no point in enabling something so detrimental to life and western society, or society in general for that matter and human development.[/QUOTE] The problem with treating it as a cancerous growth is that you're forgetting the human factor in all of this. You've even said it yourself - the next few generations of Muslims in the West will adapt to Western culture. Hell, many of them have already and the younger generations are significantly more liberal than their parents. But that's irrelevant. Again, no issue with criticising religious ideology or dogma. I do take up issue with a lot of what is said in the Bible, or the Quran, or whatever. My point is is that many people go beyond criticising Islam and then make broad statements about Muslims, saying they need to 'modernise' or to leave our countries or that they're backwards, etc. I'll also point out that so many terrorist groups don't follow any mainstream interpretation or practise of Islam - their cherrypick what they want so as to gain power and control over others. I'd also have concerns over calling the faith of 1 billion people a 'cancerous growth' when we fail to deal with extremists of other faiths, and because of course that's another generalisation.
[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;51103860]The problem with treating it as a cancerous growth is that you're forgetting the human factor in all of this. You've even said it yourself - the next few generations of Muslims in the West will adapt to Western culture. Hell, many of them have already and the younger generations are significantly more liberal than their parents.[/QUOTE] Allow me to reword my resting case, not everything is redeemable and can be reformed, given the circumstances and time versus development, and I would wager not every ideology is even worth salvaging because of the lack of compatibility with the west, Islam being in the spotlight for that title. I think as the west grows and strengthens if things go well then future generations of children with Islamic parents will eventually turn away by choice but in having said that the culture surrounding it grooms from a young age and "voluntells" kids they're born into it as a dominant default and narrative, that you never really "leave" as if it was a race and genotype instead of a religion. But in all of this, it's a huge gamble that I do not believe the risks are worth the reward if the only argument is one of grey value involving "the human factor". [QUOTE=BlackMageMari;51103860]I'd also have concerns over calling the faith of 1 billion people a 'cancerous growth' when we fail to deal with extremists of other faiths, and because of course that's another generalisation.[/QUOTE] See my points about mincing words and cutting the middle man. If you think I'm not going to show vocal dissent in an unfiltered way towards an ideology when [url=https://pics.onsizzle.com/Facebook-Pew-Research-Center-The-moderate-side-147b69.png]moderates[/url] would put my own eight year old sister under that kind of system I don't know what to possibly tell you.
[QUOTE=SirJon;51103427]That's ridiculous. You can't blame people for criticizing radical islam if we're talking about safety in the west. They do exist, and they're terrible, but that's not the point. You're just trying to spin the argument into a smug nonsensical way in which it isn't used. Fact is, these cells do not operate as much in europe as radical islamist cells do. And that's why the topic at hand is radical islam. Don't try to spin and handwave it away in such a fashion. [editline]25th September 2016[/editline] Well that's true, it's obviously not exclusive. But it is mainly radical Islam in the areas about which we should be first and foremost concerned. Saying a problem doesn't exist won't make it go away.[/QUOTE] There's nothing wrong with being critical of [I]radical[/I] Islam. Obviously. The problem occurs when the modifier, "radical," is dropped, and that criticism leeches over onto Muslims as a whole. We may have a problem with radical Islam, but we don't have a problem with Muslims, and [I]that[/I] is where the narrative being pushed by the alt-right turns sour and ugly.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;51103898]There's nothing wrong with being critical of [I]radical[/I] Islam. Obviously. The problem occurs when that criticism leeches over onto Muslims as a whole. Surprise: in a religion of 1.6bn people, most of whom live in politically unstable nations, during a period of intense media scrutiny, you don't have to wait long for examples and anecdotes that confirm your prejudice. We may have a problem with radical Islam, but we don't have a problem with Muslims, and [I]that[/I] is where the hateful narrative being pushed by the alt-right turns sour and ugly.[/QUOTE] But it's not "radical" Islam. There a core tenants that are being applied on a global scale that if it wasn't a religious tenant would be considered murderous if not psychotic. The danger lies in tolerating it by again, masking ignorance as altruism "not all X". It's easy to say conservatives or the right/alt-right hate Muslims but it's harder to look past the narrative and see the danger for what it is to the species. Radicalists are simply those that follow it to it's logical conclusion.
[QUOTE=Captain James;51103917]But it's not "radical" Islam. There a core tenants that are being applied on a global scale that if it wasn't a religious tenant would be considered murderous if not psychotic. The danger lies in tolerating it by again, masking ignorance as altruism "not all X". It's easy to say conservatives or the right/alt-right hate Muslims but it's harder to look past the narrative and see the danger for what it is to the species. Radicalists are simply those that follow it to it's logical conclusion.[/QUOTE] No. Violent extremists make up less than 0.067% of the Muslim population. You are just prejudiced. You are taking fringe examples of an [I]extreme[/I] minority and using it to fuel your ignorant perspective.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;51103929]No. Radicalists make up less than 0.067% of the Muslim population. You are just prejudiced.[/QUOTE] So which part of Shariah is altruistic and beneficial to the human species that you would not consider "radical"? Are you trying to imply that something like death being a black and white, inarguable punishment for apostasy is within reason? Because that sort of strikes me as "radical" when it's considered acceptable by almost 1/6th of the planet. I do not see how you can reform what is supposed to be according to it's own scripture, and I quote, the [b][i]infallible and incorrigible[/b][/i] word of God. It's no longer "Islam" then. It's like suggesting reforming Judaism by removing Moses or Christ in Catholicism. It does not make literary and grammatical, canon sense. Then it's not even a religion, it's just bat shit crazy, murderous laws to abide by. This isn't some kind of comic book that you can retcon fictional characters with for fans. This is a real world religion that is reaping life and cultures throughout it's inception behind it on a mass scale everywhere it has reached. History repeats itself because no one bloody learns from it, a prominent figure in Turkish history, Atatürk, foresaw this. [quote=Mustafa Kemal Atatürk]"Even before accepting the religion of the Arabs, the Turks were a great nation. After accepting the religion of the Arabs, this religion, didn't effect to combine the Arabs, the Persians and Egyptians with the Turks to constitute a nation. (This religion) rather, loosened the national nexus of Turkish nation, got national excitement numb. This was very natural. Because the purpose of the religion founded by Muhammad, over all nations, was to drag to an including Arab national politics. For nearly five hundred years, these rules and theories [regarding civil and criminal law] of an Arab Shaikh and the interpretations of generations of lazy and good-for-nothing priests have decided the civil and criminal law of Turkey. They have decided the form of the Constitution, the details of the lives of each Turk, his food, his hours of rising and sleeping the shape of his clothes, the routine of the midwife who produced his children, what he learned in his schools, his customs, his thoughts-even his most intimate habits. This theology of an immoral Arab [presented as Islam] is a dead thing. Possibly it might have suited tribes in the desert. It is no good for modern, progressive state. God's revelation! There is no God! These are only the chains by which the priests and bad rulers bound the people down. A ruler who needs religion is a weaklings. No weaklings should rule! I have no religion, and at times I wish all religions at the bottom of the sea. He is a weak ruler who needs religion to uphold his government; it is as if he would catch his people in a trap. My people are going to learn the teachings of science. Let them worship as they will; every man can follow his own conscience, provided it does not interfere with sane reason or bid him act against the liberty of his fellow man."[/quote] [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mustafa_Kemal_Atat%C3%BCrk%27s_personal_life]Source[/url]
[QUOTE=Trebgarta;51103759]What matters is the ability to form terrorist organizations, does the ideological foundation exist? If yes, then it is equal, because that is the complete part Islam plays in an Islamic extremist organization. What these groups lack when compared to ISIS isnt just manpower, it is all the other factors that contribute.[/QUOTE] Then the ability clearly exists to a greater extent for Islam than it does for Christianity, because the fact of the matter is there are more Islamic terrorist organizations to day than there are Christian ones, the Islamic ones are more widespread than the Christian ones are, and the Islamic ones are currently more threatening than the Christian ones are-- both in terms of the international scope of their operations and the sheer size of their forces. The "just as bad" argument is a relativistic fallacy. It tries to paint everything as being the same, when everything is [i]not[/i] the same. Islam is not the same as Christianity. Islamic terrorist organizations are not the same as Christian terrorist organizations, especially in terms of their politics (Islamic ones tend to focus more on religion, Christian ones like to mix nationalism and social issues in with their religious overtones). The threat posed by Islamic terrorist organizations is not the same as Christian terrorist organizations; Christian terrorist organizations are not anywhere near as dangerous nor as widespread as Islamic terrorist organizations are. And that's how simple it is. I don't think anyone here is seriously going to dispute that fucking ISIS is a much more dangerous group than some obscure Acholi Christian militia Zonesylvania listed off that's got maybe 200-250 people in it total running around the backwater areas of Uganda and Sudan occasionally attacking people.
[QUOTE=Nitro836;51103103]RELIGION OF PEACE [highlight](User was banned for this post ("shitposting" - Gurant))[/highlight][/QUOTE] And with certain Christians deciding you'll see the same shit happening with Christian encouragement The Christian faith contains just as much bloodthirst and hatred as Islam does, the vast difference between most (western) Christians and muslims is cultural, the religions are fundamentally the same
[QUOTE=Captain James;51103931]So which part of Shariah is altruistic and beneficial to the human species that you would not consider "radical"?[/QUOTE] The bits that discuss a religious [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zakat"]duty[/URL] to the [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waqf"]poor[/URL] or the parts that discuss [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_military_jurisprudence#Ethics_of_warfare"]just conduct in war[/URL]? Remember that Sharia also includes things like "make sure you clip your moustache" and "eat with the right hand" and "wash before you pray". It isn't just The Islamic Guidebook to World Domination.
[QUOTE=Dr. Ethan Asia;51104110]The bits that discuss a religious [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zakat"]duty[/URL] to the [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waqf"]poor[/URL] or the parts that discuss [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_military_jurisprudence#Ethics_of_warfare"]just conduct in war[/URL]? Remember that Sharia also includes things like "make sure you clip your moustache" and "eat with the right hand" and "wash before you pray". It isn't just The Islamic Guidebook to World Domination.[/QUOTE] Irrelevant when you can be stoned to death for [url=http://www.payvand.com/news/01/feb/1085.html]"adultery"[/url]. You cannot cherry pick, that is my ultimate point here. I don't understand what isn't clicking with this message I am trying to highlight. The moment you cherry pick the beneficial verses including brotherly love and charitable behaviour it is no longer Shariah and you're just being a decent human being, one is directly symbiotic with the other. To follow Shariah is to follow everything within it and the surrounding faith it is birthed from. All the good in the world counts for nothing when you sell your soul to achieve it etc. To preface, I am employing allegory and metaphor with that last statement, so please extrapolate meaning from it without telling me I am suggesting the existence of souls or some kind of cosmic contract. Shariah allows legal revenge—physical eye for physical eye. [url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3313207.stm]1[/url] [url=http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f%E2%80%94news/1434247/posts]2[/url] Commands that a male and female thief must have a hand cut off. [url=http://answeringislam.org/Authors/Arlandson/hands_off.htm]1[/url] That homosexuals must be executed. [url=http://answeringislam.org/Authors/Arlandson/homosexual.htm]1[/url] I don't understand the logic, please employ it here to bring me to some kind of understanding as to why anyone sane and sensible does not see you can have the benefits of decency without the looming threat of copulating it with Shariah or middle eastern scripture. I want to know, I am unironically looking for a claim or statement that brings to the table something of reason here. It's like if I was pro nationalistic and flew under the banner of the Nazi flag, I would be a.) retarded for reasons I should hope I don't have to explain to you to do so, and b.) shooting myself in the foot and opening myself up to extreme scrutiny when I could just go under something already existing that has no ties to a violent history or create my own beneficial group/party. Excuse the Godwin, I just had to employ an example.
[QUOTE=Captain James;51103683]Why is every single Islamic apologists counter argument "If you're anti-Islam then you must be pro-Christian"? Baffles me. The guy who was killed had bigger balls than most of us all.[/QUOTE] I'm anti-Islam and anti-Christian, but the widespread xenophobia and hatred toward muslims in the west is simply harmful. I think you're barking up the wrong tree, the general argument as I understand it isn't so much against people who don't like Islam, but those who are willing to generalize millions and millions of people and justifying persecution of people based on the fact that they identify as muslims.
[QUOTE=Captain James;51104131]Irrelevant when you can be stoned to death for "adultery". You cannot cherry pick, that is my ultimate point here. I don't understand what isn't clicking with this message I am trying to highlight. The moment you cherry pick the beneficial verses including brotherly love and charitable behaviour it is no longer Shariah and you're just being a decent human being, one is directly symbiotic with the other. To follow Shariah is to follow everything within it and the surrounding faith it is birthed from. All the good in the world counts for nothing when you sell your soul to achieve it etc.[/QUOTE] So, how do you feel about Leviticus and Deuteronomy, the two parts of the bible which call for perhaps the most death to others for arbitrary reasons out of the entire 'book'? Yeah, most modern Christians do not follow those specific rules the same way they do not consider the mixing of fabrics in cloth-weaving to be an abomination, but the potential is still there. When the same books get picked up by an extremist movement, they [I]are [/I]used as an instructional guide for where to apply the death penalty to further a moral society. You are cherry-picking the shit out of this argument if you think you can focus on Shariah law without discussing the fact that for every damnable verse in the Koran, there is an equivalent in the Bible. [QUOTE]Deuteronomy 17: 2 If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant, 3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; 4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel: 5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die. Luke 19:27: But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. As well as Matthew 10:34: Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.[/QUOTE]
Funny how Christianity is always brought up whenever Islam itself is discussed
[QUOTE=Zonesylvania;51103347][url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-balaka[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Liberation_Front_of_Tripura[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Council_of_Nagaland[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord%27s_Resistance_Army[/url][/QUOTE]Do you want me to start listing off every Islam-based terror organization because it's going to take me awhile to make that list. I'll start off with four to match your four: [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hizbul_Mujahideen[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Badr_(Jammu_and_Kashmir)[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harkat-ul-Mujahideen[/url] If you notice these are all groups that have operated in or do operate in India. [editline]25th September 2016[/editline] Actually here's some more: [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Mujahideen[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamaat-ul-Mujahideen_Bangladesh[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaish-e-Mohammed[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Students_Islamic_Movement_of_India[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dukhtaran-e-Millat[/url] (questionable, but since it's listed as a terrorist organization I'll include it)
[QUOTE=Tarver;51104613]Funny how Christianity is always brought up whenever Islam itself is discussed[/QUOTE] This is because those bigoted against Islam are most often Christians or people who define Christianity as exempt from the standards they are holding Islam to.
[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;51103400]And well you were proven wrong. But of course instead of admitting that you're going to double down on your blatant ignorance.[/QUOTE][QUOTE=DeEz;51103423]You said it was exclusive to islam, and were proven wrong. So yeah, got you good there.[/QUOTE][QUOTE=BlackMageMari;51103437]Which is why I was being smug in that I knew exactly what was about to happen: said poster in question would refuse to actually take that on board and would instead double down on their ignorance.[/QUOTE][QUOTE=DeEz;51103442]Move the goalposts all you like but you were wrong.[/QUOTE][B]HAHAHA, how rich![/B] Okay, since apparently you guys didn't get the memo here's some more Islamic terrorist groups: [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Nusra_Front[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant[/url] (not really a "terrorist group" but whatever) [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_of_the_Men_of_the_Naqshbandi_Order[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jabhat_Ansar_al-Din[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yarmouk_Martyrs_Brigade[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mujahideen_Shura_Council_in_the_Environs_of_Jerusalem[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Promised_Day_Brigade[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaish_al-Muhajireen_wal-Ansar[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liwa_Abu_al-Fadhal_al-Abbas[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lashkar-e-Taiba[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jundallah_(Iran)[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasus_Emirate[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boko_Haram[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaysh_al-Islam[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_of_Islam_(Gaza_Strip)[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Shabaab_(militant_group)[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tehrik-i-Taliban_Pakistan[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tehreek-e-Nafaz-e-Shariat-e-Mohammadi[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haqqani_network[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezb-e_Islami_Gulbuddin[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harkat-ul-Mujahideen[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Movement_of_Uzbekistan[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_Islamic_Jihad[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hizb_ut-Tahrir[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamiat-e_Islami[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of_the_Revival_of_Islamic_Heritage[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Jihad_Movement_in_Palestine[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamaat-ul-Ahrar[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houthis[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Sayyaf[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamaat-ul-Ahrar[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khuddam_ul-Islam[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansaru[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansar_al-Islam[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansar_Dine[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansar_Bait_al-Maqdis[/url] (I think this is the last of the "Ansars") [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mujahidin_Indonesia_Timur[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armed_Islamic_Group_of_Algeria[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moroccan_Islamic_Combatant_Group[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libyan_Islamic_Fighting_Group[/url] [editline]25th September 2016[/editline] Oh fuck I just can't stop! Here's some I forgot but either remembered or found while looking up the others: [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jund_al-Sham[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jund_al-Khilafah[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jund_al-Aqsa[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jemaah_Islamiyah[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Jihad_Union[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harkat-ul-Jihad_al-Islami[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Eastern_Islamic_Raiders%27_Front[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Turkestan_Liberation_Organization[/url] (weak point here, but whatever) [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkistan_Islamic_Party[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aden-Abyan_Islamic_Army[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdullah_Azzam_Brigades[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamaat_Ansar_al-Sunna[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansar_Bait_al-Maqdis[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deendar_Anjuman[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Aqsa_Martyrs%27_Brigades[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Mourabitoun_(militant_group)[/url] [B]Yeah, religious terrorism is [I]pretty fucking much[/I] delegated to just Islam these days.[/B] [editline]25th September 2016[/editline] Do you guys want more? These are active/semi-active or have been in the past decade, if you want I can start going back into history all the way back to when [I]Muhammad himself got kicked out of Mecca, the San Francisco, "Keep Austin Weird!" city of it's day, and then turned around and sacked it and [B]killed everyone who told him he was a violent thug.[/B][/I] Islam was founded by a psychopathic, murderous asshole and set the standard for Muslims since [I]emulating him and his life is a core tenet of the Islamic faith.[/I] Don't even try to hand me that "oh hurr durr it's just da bad moslems!!!" shit, the religion is rotten to the foundation and just because some fucking brown guy you know has some liberal interpretation of things doesn't mean he's a representative of all Muslims. Actually [I]according to the religious texts he's cherrypicking[/I] he's not actually a Muslim, so think of that before you accuse the extremists of cherrypicking from their silly holy books because they're the true fucking face of Islam. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Racism" - Bradyns))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=Captain James;51104131]Irrelevant when you can be stoned to death for [url=http://www.payvand.com/news/01/feb/1085.html]"adultery"[/url]. You cannot cherry pick, that is my ultimate point here. I don't understand what isn't clicking with this message I am trying to highlight. The moment you cherry pick the beneficial verses including brotherly love and charitable behaviour it is no longer Shariah and you're just being a decent human being, one is directly symbiotic with the other. To follow Shariah is to follow everything within it and the surrounding faith it is birthed from. All the good in the world counts for nothing when you sell your soul to achieve it etc. To preface, I am employing allegory and metaphor with that last statement, so please extrapolate meaning from it without telling me I am suggesting the existence of souls or some kind of cosmic contract. Shariah allows legal revenge—physical eye for physical eye. [url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3313207.stm]1[/url] [url=http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f%E2%80%94news/1434247/posts]2[/url] Commands that a male and female thief must have a hand cut off. [url=http://answeringislam.org/Authors/Arlandson/hands_off.htm]1[/url] That homosexuals must be executed. [url=http://answeringislam.org/Authors/Arlandson/homosexual.htm]1[/url] I don't understand the logic, please employ it here to bring me to some kind of understanding as to why anyone sane and sensible does not see you can have the benefits of decency without the looming threat of copulating it with Shariah or middle eastern scripture. I want to know, I am unironically looking for a claim or statement that brings to the table something of reason here. It's like if I was pro nationalistic and flew under the banner of the Nazi flag, I would be a.) retarded for reasons I should hope I don't have to explain to you to do so, and b.) shooting myself in the foot and opening myself up to extreme scrutiny when I could just go under something already existing that has no ties to a violent history or create my own beneficial group/party. Excuse the Godwin, I just had to employ an example.[/QUOTE] I think you just set a land-speed-record for goal-post moving.
[QUOTE=FreakyMe;51104651]I think you just set a land-speed-record for goal-post moving.[/QUOTE]I don't think you actually read any of his post to be honest.
[QUOTE=Nitro836;51103103]RELIGION OF PEACE [highlight](User was banned for this post ("shitposting" - Gurant))[/highlight][/QUOTE] this shouldnt even be ruled as shitposting, what else is there to say i dont know of any other religion which has its followers murdering skeptics in such huge numbers [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Not the place to talk about bans" - Craptasket))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;51104656]I don't think you actually read any of his post to be honest.[/QUOTE] I did. He asked what parts of Shariah law were "altruistic and beneficial to the human species," and then discounted the answer because there were parts of Shariah law that are indecent, redefining the term itself to exclude decency and implicitly only focus on the violent components. He asked for an answer, and then when he got it, changed the question. Could you explain what I got wrong here? I think you might have missed it. What did you hope to achieve by posting that list? Congratulations, you posted a list. There are as many individual terrorist organizations associated with Christianity in Africa, and several in America. The fact that they do not have a Wikipedia page dedicated to them does not mean they do not exist. The only thing you managed to achieve was a perfectly succinct demonstration how ignorant and biased you are against Islam.
[QUOTE=FreakyMe;51104685]I did. He asked what parts of Shariah law were "altruistic and beneficial to the human species," and then discounted the answer because there were parts of Shariah law that are indecent, redefining the term itself to exclude decency and implicitly only focus on the violent components. He asked for an answer, and then when he got it, changed the question. Could you explain what I got wrong here? I think you might have missed it. What did you hope to achieve by posting that list? [b]Congratulations, you posted a list. There are as many individual terrorist organizations associated with Christianity in Africa. The fact that they do not have a Wikipedia page dedicated to them does not mean they do not exist.[/b][/QUOTE] got any kind of proof of them ? I legitimately haven't heard like anything about those organizations in Africa
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;51104648]snip[/QUOTE] You know it's funny. You accused me of cherry picking one sentence from an argument we had before. And that's exactly what you're doing here. Great list, man. Doesn't even repute anything I've said. EDIT: oh and since you have no problem bringing another person's country and claiming they're ignorant of it (WHICH YOU ALSO ACCUSED ME OF) in this debate, [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism#United_States"]here, have an article about Christian extremism in the United States.[/URL] And before you talk about Ireland, [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provisional_Irish_Republican_Army"]read this[/URL] and [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Troubles"]this.[/URL]
[QUOTE=Kite_shugo;51104707]got any kind of proof of them ? I legitimately haven't heard like anything about those organizations in Africa[/QUOTE] [URL="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/rest-of-world/Almost-all-mosques-destroyed-in-Central-African-Republic-unrest/articleshow/46610528.cms"] Almost all Mosques in Central Africa Destroyed[/URL] [URL="http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/03/envoy-car-mosque-destroyed-war-150318072200714.html"]Second Source[/URL] [QUOTE]The groups of armed vigilantes, initially organized to combat local crime and whose ranks of Christians and animists includes ex-soldiers, have fought back against the militants and furiously targeted the Muslim minority, which they view as complicit in Séléka’s unpunished abuses. Anti-balaka now stand accused of crimes worse than what prompted their retaliation as the burning of whole villages and gruesome mutilations, among other threats and attacks, have killed an untold number of people and pushed hundreds of thousands of others from their homes. Amid tales of ethnic cleansing in the west and as reports of crude attacks surface in the east, where Séléka remains in control and is regrouping, the country continues to slide into perhaps the bloodiest and most unstable crossroads of its independence.[/QUOTE] Source: [URL="http://time.com/42131/anti-balaka-central-african-republic/"]Time[/URL] [URL="http://www.globalresearch.ca/france-and-the-militarization-of-central-africa-thousands-of-muslims-fleeing-the-central-african-republic/5369276"] Thousands of Muslims fleeing Central Africa due to Ethnic and Religious Cleansing[/URL] [URL="http://heavy.com/news/2015/12/anti-balaka-christian-extremism-terrorism-central-african-republic-car-africa-mass-muslim-islam-execution-behead-murder-mass-grave-genocide-uncensored-youtube/"] Christians Mass-Beheading Muslims in Central African Republic[/URL] [QUOTE]A new video purportedly released by radical Christians in the Central African Republic shows them beheading alleged Muslims before pushing them into a mass grave. The video was shared by regional conflict watchdog Twitter account Iraq Now. Its validity cannot be verified. The Central African Republic lies on the “Muslim-Christian fault line” of sub-Saharan Africa. While North Africa continues be bloodlet by groups like the Islamic State, Christian extremism and violence against Muslims has grown in Nigeria, Sudan, and the Central African Republic. Violence by Christian groups like Anti-balaka against Muslims rose to a crescendo in the Central African Republic in February 2014, when the country’s first Muslim leader, Michel Djotodia, was forced to step down after taking power in a coup. The Washington Post reports that “[Djotodia’s] departure was meant to bring stability to this poor country, but humanitarian and human rights workers say there is more violence now than at any time since the coup.” Sometimes the Christians forcibly convert Muslims to Christianity. [/QUOTE] Plenty. Google Christian Terrorism in Africa. Click News. Read. Pop your echo chamber.
[QUOTE=FreakyMe;51104727][URL="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/rest-of-world/Almost-all-mosques-destroyed-in-Central-African-Republic-unrest/articleshow/46610528.cms"] Almost all Mosques in Central Africa Destroyed[/URL] [URL="http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/03/envoy-car-mosque-destroyed-war-150318072200714.html"]Second Source[/URL] Source: [URL="http://time.com/42131/anti-balaka-central-african-republic/"]Time[/URL] [URL="http://www.globalresearch.ca/france-and-the-militarization-of-central-africa-thousands-of-muslims-fleeing-the-central-african-republic/5369276"] Thousands of Muslims fleeing Central Africa due to Ethnic and Religious Cleansing[/URL] Plenty. Google Christian Terrorism in Africa. Click News. Read. Pop your echo chamber.[/QUOTE] Thankfully no chamber to pop, but appreciate the answer
[QUOTE=FreakyMe;51104685]I did. He asked what parts of Shariah law were "altruistic and beneficial to the human species," and then discounted the answer because there were parts of Shariah law that are indecent, redefining the term itself to exclude decency and implicitly only focus on the violent components. He asked for an answer, and then when he got it, changed the question.[/QUOTE]Clarification is not redefinition, buddy. I'll add to that discussion with this:[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;51104648][I]Muhammad himself got kicked out of Mecca, the San Francisco, "Keep Austin Weird!" city of it's day, and then turned around and sacked it and [B]killed everyone who told him he was a violent thug.[/B][/I] Islam was founded by a psychopathic, murderous asshole and set the standard for Muslims since [I]emulating him and his life is a core tenet of the Islamic faith.[/I][/QUOTE]"Decency" is a loaded word for "shit I don't like" in [U]any[/U] religious law, Islam is particular in that there is a large amount of explicit prohibitions because of Mohammad-related shenanigans. Everything else is vague and probably by design, and then you get religions like Christianity that have the Old Testament as a reference section but is taken literally by some people but also isn't supposed to be because of several remarks made regarding the New Testament being the new covenant. Nothing is concrete and defined about that, it's a matter of perspective and interpretation, it's why Christianity in general is just hard to pin down as anything other than "waaa peace and love cuz Jesus loves you!!!" Anything beyond that is culture and dogma pushed by the enigmatic and/or freakish who attracted followers, it's why the different sects of Christianity didn't ever engage in open conflict unless religious-flavored politics were involved. When you make a religion that's so fucking dogmatic you run the risk of having a Sunni vs Shia war that lasts for centuries, no other religious group [I]in the history of the human race[/I] has had so much goddamn bloodshed spilled between followers and have had such violent followers to begin with. [QUOTE]What did you hope to achieve by posting that list?[/QUOTE]Considering you're asking I think I may have achieved it. [QUOTE]There are as many individual terrorist organizations associated with Christianity in Africa, and several in America. The fact that they do not have a Wikipedia page dedicated to them does not mean they do not exist.[/QUOTE]Ah yes, subtext. Let me translate: [quote]You posted a very large list of jihadist terrorist organizations and affiliates, but I don't really have anything productive to say but I want to say [I]something.[/I] So I'll come up with this anecdote about groups that [I]might[/I] exist but I won't prove it because once I start digging I'll find that Islamic extremism outweighs every other form combined several times over.[/quote] [editline]is this a dirty edit? I don't know, but I'm glad I saw it![/editline] [QUOTE]The only thing you managed to achieve was a perfectly succinct demonstration how ignorant and biased you are against Islam.[/QUOTE]All you've managed to achieve is how talented you are at talking out of your ass and making shit up, my bias against Islam isn't based out of ignorance even in the slightest. I've made many, many posts in plenty of threads analyzing the religion and it's followers, I think I've gone above and beyond to demonstrate that I know [I]at least a little bit[/I] of what I'm talking about. I'll do it again in this thread too. I did laugh when I saw this though, it's clear that in your world that education is bullshit. I'll stick to reality, where people can formulate opinions, research, and then reevaluate based on new information.
"b-b-b-b-but christians are bad too guys!!!" the enemy of my enemy is not my friend
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.