I have not dismissed anything, I read what you posted and YOUR OWN links speaks of the violence of Islam and Muhammad. Your own documentary calls Muhammad a warrior. I addressed both links you provided, and endless lip service.Beduin wrote:
I don't know.. You haven't even seen the documentary about Muhammad, the warrior.lowing wrote:
too bad, the argument against sharia law has been made several articles deep now. You wnated me to "show you",so I did, now you you are telling me it is too much and you want me to dissect each and every one for you. No thanks.
Tell ya what in return why don't you post some HUGE articles talking about how tolerant Sharia law is, and how it champiaons womens rights. I promise you I won;t demand you dissect it for me.
You have dismissed every thing I posted until now.
It is therefore I ask you to present what you have, and at the same time asking you to be more specific.
have you seen it?lowing wrote:
Your own documentary
الشعب يريد اسقاط النظام
...show me the schematic
...show me the schematic
Gotta love current events compared with 1100 year old history.Bradt3hleader wrote:
Holy shit !Krappyappy wrote:
they certainly do, especially in body count.
the crusades killed about 1.5 million people
the spanish inquisition killed between 30k and 300k
the colonization of both americas is an astronomical 100+ million, depending on how you add up the figures.
those muslims better get crackin on some suicide bombs if they want to catch up to those numbers.
one source
Also I address the laws of Islam, so please do not post an abortion clinic blowing up and use that as current events regarding the laws of the west.
nope, not yet. I already asked you to discribe it to me, and tell me if it portraits Muhammad as peaceful and tolerant, and how he never engaged in war, or executions, but you didn't answer me.Beduin wrote:
have you seen it?lowing wrote:
Your own documentary
Why is Muhammad on the wall of US supreme court building?lowing wrote:
nope, not yet.Beduin wrote:
have you seen it?
الشعب يريد اسقاط النظام
...show me the schematic
...show me the schematic
Dunno, Don't give a shit. When are you goning to present your argument that Muhammad was peaceful and tolerant. When are you going to present your argument that Sharia Law is the same, hell you can even use womens rights as an example of just how just Islam is. Be my guest.Beduin wrote:
Why is Muhammad on the wall of US supreme court building?lowing wrote:
nope, not yet.Beduin wrote:
have you seen it?
Or are is your plan to keep manuvering until I say something you can pounce on?
You were from US, right? Certainly you lowing give a poop about why Muhammad is on your supreme court wall!lowing wrote:
Dunno, Don't give a shit.
الشعب يريد اسقاط النظام
...show me the schematic
...show me the schematic
You have some pretty bullshit laws that aren't followed also lowing so calm down before your head implodes ...lowing wrote:
I don't give a fuck if it is followed or not, IT IS THE LAWS of ISLAM. This is what differentiates the religion form the people. The people may be good, but the religion is intolerant.Varegg wrote:
Yes you are, you haven't even bothered checking if Sharia Law is followed 100% in every Muslim government, very few of them have actually stoned women for any reason after the case have been through the legal system ... some lynchings have occoured but those are equally against the same law as the cases you have provided.lowing wrote:
didn't say that, I said if they were caught and it was to be pressed into an issue, Islamic law would be against them. Or am I wrong?
Taliban in Afghanistan before the invasion fits your description very well, very few others do however ...
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
Perfect example of mis-direction.Varegg wrote:
You have some pretty bullshit laws that aren't followed also lowing so calm down before your head implodes ...lowing wrote:
I don't give a fuck if it is followed or not, IT IS THE LAWS of ISLAM. This is what differentiates the religion form the people. The people may be good, but the religion is intolerant.Varegg wrote:
Yes you are, you haven't even bothered checking if Sharia Law is followed 100% in every Muslim government, very few of them have actually stoned women for any reason after the case have been through the legal system ... some lynchings have occoured but those are equally against the same law as the cases you have provided.
Taliban in Afghanistan before the invasion fits your description very well, very few others do however ...
Bullshit ... you constantly change what is accepted as proof or not, we can't use this or that material because of some narrow minded reason you make up to fit your paranoid way of thinking ... to old, to new, wrong part of the book, abortion, outdated laws and what ever and what not ...lowing wrote:
Perfect example of mis-direction.Varegg wrote:
You have some pretty bullshit laws that aren't followed also lowing so calm down before your head implodes ...lowing wrote:
I don't give a fuck if it is followed or not, IT IS THE LAWS of ISLAM. This is what differentiates the religion form the people. The people may be good, but the religion is intolerant.
No matter what is presented you dismiss it ... like previously stated, debating with you is like banging ones head into a brick wall!
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
lowing wrote:
Gotta love current events compared with 1100 year old history.
Sorry can't have it both ways.lowing wrote:
When are you goning to present your argument that Muhammad was peaceful and tolerant.
You wont accept historical events ordered directly from the pope or other religious leaders because they are 'old' and 'outdated', yet keep bringing up Muhammad's deeds with are also outdated. But considering the time period in which Muhammad lived he was extremely tolerant.
Most other conquerors would outlaw competing religions and execute those who didn't convert.Christian and Jewish communities who had submitted to Muslim rule were allowed to worship in their own way and follow their own family law, and were given a fair degree of self-government.
Muhammad demanded the Jews' political loyalty in return for religious and cultural autonomy.
Sharia Law.
Been changed and altered consistently over the 1400 years, the same way the catholic church keeps revising its stance on things.
sharia was not fully developed at the time of Muhammad's death, but rather it evolved around the Muslim community or Ummah through which it would serve.
In the field of human rights, early Islamic jurists introduced a number of advanced legal concepts before the 12th century which anticipated similar modern concepts in the field. These included the notions of the charitable trust and the trusteeship of property; the notion of brotherhood and social solidarity; the notions of human dignity and the dignity of labour; the notion of an ideal law; the condemnation of antisocial behavior; the presumption of innocence; the notion of "bidding unto good" (assistance to those in distress); and the notions of sharing, caring, universalism, fair industrial relations, fair contract, commercial integrity, freedom from usury, women's rights, privacy, abuse of rights, juristic personality, individual freedom, equality before the law, legal representation, non-retroactivity, supremacy of the law, judicial independence, judicial impartiality, limited sovereignty, tolerance, and democratic participation. Many of these concepts were adopted in medieval Europe through contacts with Islamic Spain and the Emirate of Sicily, and through the Crusades and the Latin translations of the 12th century.
Islam is not an intolerant religion, it is actually one of the forerunners of human rights for the entire world and it is only a minority of present day mutations of which are intolerant and violent. But none of that matters.In terms of women's rights, women generally had more legal rights under Islamic law than they did under Western legal systems until the 19th and 20th centuries.
Wow 21 pages of wtf.
Can we agree there are some crazy muslims and move along?
And just in case I get flagged for wtf dumb post:
Lowing has a point, but its directed at the crazy few. Unfortunately some of the crazy few have a lot of power at the current time. I would think defusing the crazy would be a good plan, if not, fuck em.
Can we agree there are some crazy muslims and move along?
And just in case I get flagged for wtf dumb post:
Lowing has a point, but its directed at the crazy few. Unfortunately some of the crazy few have a lot of power at the current time. I would think defusing the crazy would be a good plan, if not, fuck em.
Nope, your argument is bullshit, you refuse to compare apples to apples, what I reject is your comparing 11 century violence to todays jihad, the teachings of Muhammad to a secondary figure, on and on and onVaregg wrote:
Bullshit ... you constantly change what is accepted as proof or not, we can't use this or that material because of some narrow minded reason you make up to fit your paranoid way of thinking ... to old, to new, wrong part of the book, abortion, outdated laws and what ever and what not ...lowing wrote:
Perfect example of mis-direction.Varegg wrote:
You have some pretty bullshit laws that aren't followed also lowing so calm down before your head implodes ...
No matter what is presented you dismiss it ... like previously stated, debating with you is like banging ones head into a brick wall!
Use the right book, the right characters, the right time periods, in the proper contexts and you will get nothing but my undivided attention
If we talk about Sharia law of today, don't tell me about the OT bullshit. If we talk about violence of taday, don't talk to me about the fuckin crusades. If we talk about the characters each religion is based upon talk, no need to mention Moses
I am not looking for it both ways, I accept that violence has bee ndone in the name of Christianity by church leaders, however that violence was not taught by Christ and not part of his message. Compare Jesus and Muhammad if you will. Also I am not buying Muhammads behavior is proper for the time period. Jesus lived 600 years earlier and was not violent, did not take a life or engage in battles.DrunkFace wrote:
lowing wrote:
Gotta love current events compared with 1100 year old history.Sorry can't have it both ways.lowing wrote:
When are you goning to present your argument that Muhammad was peaceful and tolerant.
You wont accept historical events ordered directly from the pope or other religious leaders because they are 'old' and 'outdated', yet keep bringing up Muhammad's deeds with are also outdated. But considering the time period in which Muhammad lived he was extremely tolerant.Most other conquerors would outlaw competing religions and execute those who didn't convert.Christian and Jewish communities who had submitted to Muslim rule were allowed to worship in their own way and follow their own family law, and were given a fair degree of self-government.
Muhammad demanded the Jews' political loyalty in return for religious and cultural autonomy.
Sharia Law.
Been changed and altered consistently over the 1400 years, the same way the catholic church keeps revising its stance on things.sharia was not fully developed at the time of Muhammad's death, but rather it evolved around the Muslim community or Ummah through which it would serve.In the field of human rights, early Islamic jurists introduced a number of advanced legal concepts before the 12th century which anticipated similar modern concepts in the field. These included the notions of the charitable trust and the trusteeship of property; the notion of brotherhood and social solidarity; the notions of human dignity and the dignity of labour; the notion of an ideal law; the condemnation of antisocial behavior; the presumption of innocence; the notion of "bidding unto good" (assistance to those in distress); and the notions of sharing, caring, universalism, fair industrial relations, fair contract, commercial integrity, freedom from usury, women's rights, privacy, abuse of rights, juristic personality, individual freedom, equality before the law, legal representation, non-retroactivity, supremacy of the law, judicial independence, judicial impartiality, limited sovereignty, tolerance, and democratic participation. Many of these concepts were adopted in medieval Europe through contacts with Islamic Spain and the Emirate of Sicily, and through the Crusades and the Latin translations of the 12th century.Islam is not an intolerant religion, it is actually one of the forerunners of human rights for the entire world and it is only a minority of present day mutations of which are intolerant and violent. But none of that matters.In terms of women's rights, women generally had more legal rights under Islamic law than they did under Western legal systems until the 19th and 20th centuries.
Whatever you say about Sharia Law don't forget to mention that as it is today, it is still violent and intolerant I gave links to prove it. If you disagree, prove it.
Last edited by lowing (2009-09-02 19:07:17)
No, I have a point, and it is directed at an entire religion and its teachings from its violent intolerant founder.Pug wrote:
Wow 21 pages of wtf.
Can we agree there are some crazy muslims and move along?
And just in case I get flagged for wtf dumb post:
Lowing has a point, but its directed at the crazy few. Unfortunately some of the crazy few have a lot of power at the current time. I would think defusing the crazy would be a good plan, if not, fuck em.
And what of those who describe themselves as followers of said religion?lowing wrote:
No, I have a point, and it is directed at an entire religion and its teachings from its violent intolerant founder.Pug wrote:
Wow 21 pages of wtf.
Can we agree there are some crazy muslims and move along?
And just in case I get flagged for wtf dumb post:
Lowing has a point, but its directed at the crazy few. Unfortunately some of the crazy few have a lot of power at the current time. I would think defusing the crazy would be a good plan, if not, fuck em.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
individuals, and shall be judged as such, by their actions.Spark wrote:
And what of those who describe themselves as followers of said religion?lowing wrote:
No, I have a point, and it is directed at an entire religion and its teachings from its violent intolerant founder.Pug wrote:
Wow 21 pages of wtf.
Can we agree there are some crazy muslims and move along?
And just in case I get flagged for wtf dumb post:
Lowing has a point, but its directed at the crazy few. Unfortunately some of the crazy few have a lot of power at the current time. I would think defusing the crazy would be a good plan, if not, fuck em.
That's your problem right there, you have already decided your stance on an issue you know very little about ... ignorance is bliss!lowing wrote:
No, I have a point, and it is directed at an entire religion and its teachings from its violent intolerant founder.Pug wrote:
Wow 21 pages of wtf.
Can we agree there are some crazy muslims and move along?
And just in case I get flagged for wtf dumb post:
Lowing has a point, but its directed at the crazy few. Unfortunately some of the crazy few have a lot of power at the current time. I would think defusing the crazy would be a good plan, if not, fuck em.
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
I do not need to be an expert I have resources to read. I have made my case.Varegg wrote:
That's your problem right there, you have already decided your stance on an issue you know very little about ... ignorance is bliss!lowing wrote:
No, I have a point, and it is directed at an entire religion and its teachings from its violent intolerant founder.Pug wrote:
Wow 21 pages of wtf.
Can we agree there are some crazy muslims and move along?
And just in case I get flagged for wtf dumb post:
Lowing has a point, but its directed at the crazy few. Unfortunately some of the crazy few have a lot of power at the current time. I would think defusing the crazy would be a good plan, if not, fuck em.
and if I am wrong, why are you not linking me to evidence proving it, instead of your constant barrage of lip service.
If you KNOW I am wrong stop telling me and start showing me.
SHOW me Islam is non-violent in its teachings and sharia law is tolerant. Show me Muhammad was not a warrior and executed enemies. Stop telling me how stupid and crazy I am and start producing some fuckin' articles stating your case.
Take all the time you need, good luck
Last edited by lowing (2009-09-03 06:01:20)
The point I have been trying to make for years here.
"Don't judge the Muslims that you know by Islam and
don't judge Islam by the Muslims that you know. "
http://thereligionofpeace.com
from the main link
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Muham … u-home.htm
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages … s-Play.htm
I love this one.
"Don't judge the Muslims that you know by Islam and
don't judge Islam by the Muslims that you know. "
http://thereligionofpeace.com
from the main link
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Muham … u-home.htm
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages … s-Play.htm
I love this one.
Last edited by lowing (2009-09-03 06:15:26)
And if they justify their peaceful actions through their religion?lowing wrote:
individuals, and shall be judged as such, by their actions.Spark wrote:
And what of those who describe themselves as followers of said religion?lowing wrote:
No, I have a point, and it is directed at an entire religion and its teachings from its violent intolerant founder.
See that makes no sense. A religion is only as much as its adherents."Don't judge the Muslims that you know by Islam and
don't judge Islam by the Muslims that you know. "
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Yeah, I've always thought of it like that. I may dislike Islam, but at the end of the day, everyone is an individual.
Then quit arguing with the talking donkey and end this fool's errand - Shrek.lowing wrote:
No, I have a point, and it is directed at an entire religion and its teachings from its violent intolerant founder.Pug wrote:
Wow 21 pages of wtf.
Can we agree there are some crazy muslims and move along?
And just in case I get flagged for wtf dumb post:
Lowing has a point, but its directed at the crazy few. Unfortunately some of the crazy few have a lot of power at the current time. I would think defusing the crazy would be a good plan, if not, fuck em.
It makes perfect sense.Spark wrote:
And if they justify their peaceful actions through their religion?lowing wrote:
individuals, and shall be judged as such, by their actions.Spark wrote:
And what of those who describe themselves as followers of said religion?See that makes no sense. A religion is only as much as its adherents."Don't judge the Muslims that you know by Islam and
don't judge Islam by the Muslims that you know. "
A Priest that molests little boys does so against the teaching of the church.
The priest is judged by his actions NOT his religion. Christianity is judged separately by its teachings
Muslims are judged by their actions not by Islam, Islam and its teachings are judged separately. It just so happens the violence within Islam is condoned by its teachings.
Oh, as proven
Last edited by lowing (2009-09-03 08:00:23)
Linking from yet another hatepage lowing all your links come the same sort of source, the bias kind ... no wonder you have your views because you are looking for material that only supports your view and you discard the rest ... if you atleast had based your opinion after reading several sources and from both camps I would have understood you better but you don't even try ...lowing wrote:
The point I have been trying to make for years here.
"Don't judge the Muslims that you know by Islam and
don't judge Islam by the Muslims that you know. "
http://thereligionofpeace.com
from the main link
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Muham … u-home.htm
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages … s-Play.htm
I love this one.
Have you visited www.islam.com or www.islamicity.com ?
Those are two sites off the top of my head that aren't biased any direction but made for general information of what Islam are all about both for Muslims and the rest of us ...
Wait behind the line ..............................................................