How bout building some camps or gulags to house those you've rounded up ... oh wait someone already took that idea.Nyte wrote:
If you are religious, then whatever house you live in needs a good ol' government liberation.
lowing, at the end of the day. The majority of Christians are very unlike Jesus and most Christian traditions and rules etc.. either stem from the Old Testament or they were incorporated into Christianity from the Indigenous European religions to make it easier to Christianise/Convert Europe. Very rarely do you get Christians who try to actually be like Jesus, most just spend their time wallowing in the Old Testament with all the archaic bullshit that it brings. I wish they just told the OT to fuck off
What was it that Gandhi said, something like "I like your Christ, but you Christians are so unlike your Christ"
I will agree that when it comes to Islam and Muhammad. Muslims are at least honest in the sense that they're more like Muhammad than Christians are like Christ.
What was it that Gandhi said, something like "I like your Christ, but you Christians are so unlike your Christ"
I will agree that when it comes to Islam and Muhammad. Muslims are at least honest in the sense that they're more like Muhammad than Christians are like Christ.
You're right, Mek, even those of us who try are very unlike Jesus. None of us will reach His perfection. The only ritual I follow is from the NT and all the Christians I know do the same. I have heard of Christians who are stuck in the OT, which is unfortunate and contrary to the message Jesus brought.
You touch on everything EXCEPT the UNDENIABLE truth that CHRIST DID NOT teach or practice violence. MUHAMMAD DID!. CHRISTiana follow the teachings of Christ and Muslims follow the teachings of Muhammad.Krappyappy wrote:
human action as inspired by scripture always involves interpretation, whether literal or metaphorical.
it's amusing how people will discount the violent themes in the bible for frivolous reasons.
'it's in the old testament so it doesn't count'
'it's in revelations so it doesn't count'
'it is a teaching of one of the apostles so it doesn't count'
it might as well be 'i don't agree with it so it doesn't count.'
as if it made any difference. did christ reject the old testament as untrue? does the modern church reject the teachings of paul, or the act of revelations?
or is it simply convenient to willfully ignore those passages in the bible that are at odds with your conviction that christianity is peaceful?
the central theme of christianity is that mankind's sins can only be redeemed and forgiven through violence. god, as an omnipotent being, is unable [or unwilling] to absolve humans of their inherent evil, to the point that he had to resort to ritual human sacrifice to do it.
there is also the inherently violent threat of damnation, as in 'believe in what i say or i will torture you for eternity.'
these are the core beliefs of christianity. compare that with other religions where man can achieve apotheosis through self-actualization [like buddhism] and the contrast is stark, even obvious.
all this word mincing is pointless. what makes one religion peaceful and another one violent? the writing is open to interpretation and we can sit here and argue all day without getting anywhere.
if a religion is full of violent teachings, but no one has ever been harmed as a result, would you call that a violent religion?
how about if a religion doesn't explicitly instruct violence, but millions of people have been killed in its name, would that qualify as a violent religion?
i would sure as fuck call the second one violent. christianity [and judaism] have caused at least as many deaths as islam. all three are violent.
Now, I have never said so called Chirstians do not commit violence in the name of Jesus, they do HOWEVER regardless as t ohow they justify it, JESUS did not teach or condone violence. This is the EXACT opposite of Muhammad and Islam.
It is all bullshit I agree however it changes nothing that Christ did not teach practice or condone violence. Muhammad did. What Christians and Muslim do with those teachings is what is relevant.Shahter wrote:
not in their entirety, no. those books, you know, are extremely boring and the amount of bullshit in them doesn't help to draw the reader in either. i'm told koran in it's original arab language (obviously, i could only read it translated in russian) is quite poetic and beautyful but i can't tell if it's true myself. the bible, however, i tried in both russian (orthodox version, one would think it should've beeen pretty well written and all, considering) and in english. i've read enough though and, imho, neither of those "holy" books could have been writted, influenced or whatever by an infinitely wise and powerfull being - it's preposterous. the true purpose of so called "religious teachings" is so immediately obvious it's not even funny.lowing wrote:
By this I take it you have read both the Koran and the Bible? First hand experience?as i said, the only obvious thing about religious bullshit is that it's bullshit. just as it is obvious that you base your "opinion" on manufactured data.lowing wrote:
Do you need to jump off a building bridge to know you will die from it or does the obvious come into play at all in your world.
say, have you read lewis carrol's alice? to you kids pehaps? doesn't matter, the follwing example would work either way:
i hereby declare that alice books are violent and intolerant, because thay are full of inaproppriate stuff like death jokes and so on. the queen of hearts, that evil devil, orders a beheading in about every sentence - that's just horrible!!1!1one!!1eleven!
see? your "islam is evil" preaching looks exactly like that, dude. koran, or any other "holy scripture" for that matter, is a book of nonsence, much like carrolls works (marvelous stuff, btw). the difference is carroll's nonsence is ment for entertanment, while religious stuff - for information manipulation./sigh this is just ridiculous. evil agendas? define "evil" for me, i dare you.lowing wrote:
Already agreed several times the teachings of Christ has been twisted to suit evil agendas. It takes twisting to do evil in the nam of Jesus.
No such twisting is required to do evil in the name of Islam. Its very founder has laid the foundation for it.
Uhhh no, Islamic law rules in some nations, it does not matter if you accept that or not. That fact remains.
anyway, religion is ment to be twisted. the fact that islam's been twisted more towards supporting violent stuff only means that the societies in which it was being practiced went through really hard times - just that.
What is happening in the world today at the hands of Islam is not manufactured data, the stonings, beheadings, child bombs etc..are very much a reality.
I do accept that Islamic law rules in some nations, and it is that very law of which I speak.
Define evil? How about blowing up children, or stoning women?
I agree with thisMekstizzle wrote:
lowing, at the end of the day. The majority of Christians are very unlike Jesus and most Christian traditions and rules etc.. either stem from the Old Testament or they were incorporated into Christianity from the Indigenous European religions to make it easier to Christianise/Convert Europe. Very rarely do you get Christians who try to actually be like Jesus, most just spend their time wallowing in the Old Testament with all the archaic bullshit that it brings. I wish they just told the OT to fuck off
What was it that Gandhi said, something like "I like your Christ, but you Christians are so unlike your Christ"
I will agree that when it comes to Islam and Muhammad. Muslims are at least honest in the sense that they're more like Muhammad than Christians are like Christ.
Mek did raise a good point. i just wanted to quote you . . .lowing wrote:
I agree with this
Can't say as I blame ya.burnzz wrote:
Mek did raise a good point. i just wanted to quote you . . .lowing wrote:
I agree with this
each time i show how christ preached violence with quoted scripture, someone tells me that apparently being in the bible and being sanctioned by the church isn't enough for it to be considered a christian value.lowing wrote:
You touch on everything EXCEPT the UNDENIABLE truth that CHRIST DID NOT teach or practice violence. MUHAMMAD DID!. CHRISTiana follow the teachings of Christ and Muslims follow the teachings of Muhammad.
Now, I have never said so called Chirstians do not commit violence in the name of Jesus, they do HOWEVER regardless as t ohow they justify it, JESUS did not teach or condone violence. This is the EXACT opposite of Muhammad and Islam.
so instead i fall back to UNDENIABLE basic tenets of christianity that are inherently violent, which you never addressed. and here you go, coming full circle to bug me about christ's teachings.
this is basic rhetoric, ignoring your opponent's points which you can't refute, in the hopes that no one will notice you redirecting the conversation. as far as i am concerned, if you don't address my arguments point by point, you are conceding each point you drop.
OH AND I BETTER ADD SOME CAPS FOR EMPHASIS.
Last edited by Krappyappy (2009-08-13 07:19:59)
nobody knows what did christ, muhammad or any other prophet-dude teach. nobody even knows if they existed in the first place. jesus, muhammad, santa claus or whatever - those are just symbols these days, regardless if they actually lived or not. so called holy books have been altered and edited to the extent that had jesus actually been real and seen his own "teachings" as they are being preached today i bet you he wouldn't have recognized them. and it doesn't fucking matter for religion - it simply reflects the society in which it's being practiced, it assumes whatever form would be the most attractive based on the circomstances. islam's being twisted to justify violence because humans - and not just arabs or the likes, western world played major role in that too - chose for it to be used that way. and the more people like you cry about how evil islam is the more attrocities will be made it its name, even though, ultimately, it's based on a nonsence book that's no more violent than red cap.lowing wrote:
It is all bullshit I agree however it changes nothing that Christ did not teach practice or condone violence. Muhammad did. What Christians and Muslim do with those teachings is what is relevant.
What is happening in the world today at the hands of Islam is not manufactured data, the stonings, beheadings, child bombs etc..are very much a reality.
see my post above about carroll's alice books - islam has no more to do with stonings or blowing children up than those.lowing wrote:
Define evil? How about blowing up children, or stoning women?
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
No matter which country, race, set of ideals, religion, etc... there's always someone fagging it up.
/2¢
/2¢
Well actually "each time" you quoted the bible, you did NOT quote Jesus, the one time you did he was telling a story about a king and spoke as the king not as himself. I also pointed these out one by one So pretty much your "each time" comment is bullshit, as well as your belief that I concede to you. You simply have not yet shown how Christ preached violence. Sorry to break it to ya.Krappyappy wrote:
each time i show how christ preached violence with quoted scripture, someone tells me that apparently being in the bible and being sanctioned by the church isn't enough for it to be considered a christian value.lowing wrote:
You touch on everything EXCEPT the UNDENIABLE truth that CHRIST DID NOT teach or practice violence. MUHAMMAD DID!. CHRISTiana follow the teachings of Christ and Muslims follow the teachings of Muhammad.
Now, I have never said so called Chirstians do not commit violence in the name of Jesus, they do HOWEVER regardless as t ohow they justify it, JESUS did not teach or condone violence. This is the EXACT opposite of Muhammad and Islam.
so instead i fall back to UNDENIABLE basic tenets of christianity that are inherently violent, which you never addressed. and here you go, coming full circle to bug me about christ's teachings.
this is basic rhetoric, ignoring your opponent's points which you can't refute, in the hopes that no one will notice you redirecting the conversation. as far as i am concerned, if you don't address my arguments point by point, you are conceding each point you drop.
OH AND I BETTER ADD SOME CAPS FOR EMPHASIS.
I already acknowledged that the bible has violence in it, I also already acknowledged that violence has been committed in the name of Christ. This is not relevant since Christ's teachings can not be accountable for what people do, they can only accountable for what it teaches. Just like Muhammad. THe difference is Islam is based on the teachings of Muhammad, and his life is full of murders and countelss acts of other violence.
He has set the example he wanted followed
The church is self serving and has not followed Christ's example at all. Islam has followed the example of Muhammad. Your dismissing that or denying that really does not matter.
Last edited by lowing (2009-08-13 18:26:00)
Well if we can not even agree that they are historical figures than there is no use even going any further with this discussionShahter wrote:
nobody knows what did christ, muhammad or any other prophet-dude teach. nobody even knows if they existed in the first place. jesus, muhammad, santa claus or whatever - those are just symbols these days, regardless if they actually lived or not. so called holy books have been altered and edited to the extent that had jesus actually been real and seen his own "teachings" as they are being preached today i bet you he wouldn't have recognized them. and it doesn't fucking matter for religion - it simply reflects the society in which it's being practiced, it assumes whatever form would be the most attractive based on the circomstances. islam's being twisted to justify violence because humans - and not just arabs or the likes, western world played major role in that too - chose for it to be used that way. and the more people like you cry about how evil islam is the more attrocities will be made it its name, even though, ultimately, it's based on a nonsence book that's no more violent than red cap.lowing wrote:
It is all bullshit I agree however it changes nothing that Christ did not teach practice or condone violence. Muhammad did. What Christians and Muslim do with those teachings is what is relevant.
What is happening in the world today at the hands of Islam is not manufactured data, the stonings, beheadings, child bombs etc..are very much a reality.see my post above about carroll's alice books - islam has no more to do with stonings or blowing children up than those.lowing wrote:
Define evil? How about blowing up children, or stoning women?
orly? why is it so important to know if they were historical figures or not? you agreed with me that religious teachings are all bullshit - how, pray tell, is it relevant if their characters were modelled on real humans who actually lived? carroll's alice was a real girl but it didn't prevent him from writing a book full of fantasy and nonsence about her.lowing wrote:
Well if we can not even agree that they are historical figures than there is no use even going any further with this discussion
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
Because each religion is based on its belief that these people existed. It goes to the heart of it. If you are going to take the position that I am not allowed to have an opinion or you are able to simply dismiss my opinion because I can not prove anything, even their existence, then you really do not leave me with much to argue about.Shahter wrote:
orly? why is it so important to know if they were historical figures or not? you agreed with me that religious teachings are all bullshit - how, pray tell, is it relevant if their characters were modelled on real humans who actually lived? carroll's alice was a real girl but it didn't prevent him from writing a book full of fantasy and nonsence about her.lowing wrote:
Well if we can not even agree that they are historical figures than there is no use even going any further with this discussion
I am basing my opinion on what people believe and how they act according to that belief. Christ ( real or imagined) taught harmony and lived it ( allegedly ). this is what Christians respond to, ( or should). If they do not then they are not following his example.
Muhammad lived a life of violence war and murder. ( real or imagined). This is the life Islam worships. and his example is being followed.
The differences are pretty clear.
Last edited by lowing (2009-08-14 02:38:28)
So by your logic shouldn't all Christians be loving and helping people and all 2 billion Muslims killing and raping?lowing wrote:
Because each religion is based on its belief that these people existed. It goes to the heart of it. If you are going to take the position that I am not allowed to have an opinion or you are able to simply dismiss my opinion because I can not prove anything, even their existence, then you really do not leave me with much to argue about.Shahter wrote:
orly? why is it so important to know if they were historical figures or not? you agreed with me that religious teachings are all bullshit - how, pray tell, is it relevant if their characters were modelled on real humans who actually lived? carroll's alice was a real girl but it didn't prevent him from writing a book full of fantasy and nonsence about her.lowing wrote:
Well if we can not even agree that they are historical figures than there is no use even going any further with this discussion
I am basing my opinion on what people believe and how they act according to that belief. Christ ( real or imagined) taught harmony and lived it ( allegedly ). this is what Christians respond to, ( or should). If they do not then they are not following his example.
Muhammad lived a life of violence war and murder. ( real or imagined). This is the life Islam worships. and his example is being followed.
The differences are pretty clear.
YupLittle BaBy JESUS wrote:
So by your logic shouldn't all Christians be loving and helping people and all 2 billion Muslims killing and raping?lowing wrote:
Because each religion is based on its belief that these people existed. It goes to the heart of it. If you are going to take the position that I am not allowed to have an opinion or you are able to simply dismiss my opinion because I can not prove anything, even their existence, then you really do not leave me with much to argue about.Shahter wrote:
orly? why is it so important to know if they were historical figures or not? you agreed with me that religious teachings are all bullshit - how, pray tell, is it relevant if their characters were modelled on real humans who actually lived? carroll's alice was a real girl but it didn't prevent him from writing a book full of fantasy and nonsence about her.
I am basing my opinion on what people believe and how they act according to that belief. Christ ( real or imagined) taught harmony and lived it ( allegedly ). this is what Christians respond to, ( or should). If they do not then they are not following his example.
Muhammad lived a life of violence war and murder. ( real or imagined). This is the life Islam worships. and his example is being followed.
The differences are pretty clear.
those who call themselves Christians who are not following his example and teachings are not practicing Christianity, and those that call themselves Muslims who are not following the example and teachings of Muhammad are not practicing Islam
The key differences between the Bible and the Koran being how they are laid out, and which verses (suras) take precedence.Krappyappy wrote:
no, i am not ignoring anything. i am well aware that the bible contains plenty of variations on 'the golden rule.'Kmarion wrote:
You yourself are willfully ignoring passages. Highlighting only the ones that seem to agree with your message. You're Ignoring the current teachings of Christianity. I see a great bit of hypocrisy here.. in your preaching. Read the rest of the book. It is relevant.
it's not relevant to my point, which is that the bible contains as much violent themes, teachings, and potential as the koran. again, unless i missed the pope's announcement that the old testament, and all of the violent stuff in the bible is no longer valid, it is implicitly endorsed by Christianity.
and i stand by my point that the basic underpinnings of christianity are inherently violent. no matter how we play with scripture there's no denying it.
the koran also contains plenty of passages that tell people to be nice, which the islam-bashers here are content to ignore.
In the Koran, any contradiction in meaning is abrogated by the "most recent" sura. That means that if you read A, then later in the Koran, you read B and they conflict, B wins via abrogation. This is even though the more peaceful suras may have been written after the more violent ones, as the Koran is not written chronologically, but from longest to shortest (or vice versa) sura.
The Bible is not that way.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
and yet again you repeat the common mistake of equating religious dogma and personal beleafs, while, in fact, the true relation between those is much more complex. personal beleafs, aka faith, is something each of us humans defines for him/her-self - this stuff cannot be compared or comminucated to others. "muslim", "christian" - those are but words to give name to something that cannot really be universally defined. being muslim or christian (or atheist for that matter) is different for each follower of those respective ideas, no matter how assorted abusers of others' faith try to bring everyone around them to some kinda standart. you can no more tell what it is to be muslim than you can tell what it is to be human, dude - it's something each of us has to find out for himself.lowing wrote:
I am basing my opinion on what people believe and how they act according to that belief. Christ ( real or imagined) taught harmony and lived it ( allegedly ). this is what Christians respond to, ( or should). If they do not then they are not following his example.
Muhammad lived a life of violence war and murder. ( real or imagined). This is the life Islam worships. and his example is being followed.
...
...
those who call themselves Christians who are not following his example and teachings are not practicing Christianity, and those that call themselves Muslims who are not following the example and teachings of Muhammad are not practicing Islam
now, back to islam being based on a book written by muhammad, who, supposedly, "lived a life of war and murder". let me make another example:
you heard of khrishnaism, didn't you? it's basically a branch of hinduism. you know, those hippies who shaved themselved bald, put on ridiculous orange tunics and sandals and are walking around beating on them tamboorines and chanting "hare krishna"? their teachings - based on "holy" book named bhagavad gita, which is largely a war story - include a concept of holy war against those who won't adhere to certain righteous way of life - dharma, very similar to what islamic jihad is often said to be. so tell me, why aren't you speaking against krishnaism? by your definition it would clearly be "violent" and "intolerant".
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
1. then if you want to take the religion out of peoples motives for they way they act, I would suggest you tell them stop doing shit in the name of Islam and Allah.Shahter wrote:
and yet again you repeat the common mistake of equating religious dogma and personal beleafs, while, in fact, the true relation between those is much more complex. personal beleafs, aka faith, is something each of us humans defines for him/her-self - this stuff cannot be compared or comminucated to others. "muslim", "christian" - those are but words to give name to something that cannot really be universally defined. being muslim or christian (or atheist for that matter) is different for each follower of those respective ideas, no matter how assorted abusers of others' faith try to bring everyone around them to some kinda standart. you can no more tell what it is to be muslim than you can tell what it is to be human, dude - it's something each of us has to find out for himself.lowing wrote:
I am basing my opinion on what people believe and how they act according to that belief. Christ ( real or imagined) taught harmony and lived it ( allegedly ). this is what Christians respond to, ( or should). If they do not then they are not following his example.
Muhammad lived a life of violence war and murder. ( real or imagined). This is the life Islam worships. and his example is being followed.
...
...
those who call themselves Christians who are not following his example and teachings are not practicing Christianity, and those that call themselves Muslims who are not following the example and teachings of Muhammad are not practicing Islam
now, back to islam being based on a book written by muhammad, who, supposedly, "lived a life of war and murder". let me make another example:
you heard of khrishnaism, didn't you? it's basically a branch of hinduism. you know, those hippies who shaved themselved bald, put on ridiculous orange tunics and sandals and are walking around beating on them tamboorines and chanting "hare krishna"? their teachings - based on "holy" book named bhagavad gita, which is largely a war story - include a concept of holy war against those who won't adhere to certain righteous way of life - dharma, very similar to what islamic jihad is often said to be. so tell me, why aren't you speaking against krishnaism? by your definition it would clearly be "violent" and "intolerant".
2. The very second hare krishnas start blowing up shit and acting on whatever they fuck they believe, and stop just being a pain in the ass at the airports, I will have something to say about it. Including my favoring of profiling them.
all i'm trying to point out is that word "muslim" doesn't mean shit. there are millions of them, all supposedly following the teaching of the man, who wrote koran, and they are leading normal lives, never blow anyone up and never hurt any children. why, in you opinion, doesn't "religion of violence and intolerance" turn them into murderers and child molesters?lowing wrote:
1. then if you want to take the religion out of peoples motives for they way they act, I would suggest you tell them stop doing shit in the name of Islam and Allah.
orly? shit, we are finally getting somewhere, dude! are you telling me that you are ready to judge people by their actions and not by which holy books they have in their pockets?lowing wrote:
2. The very second hare krishnas start blowing up shit and acting on whatever they fuck they believe, and stop just being a pain in the ass at the airports, I will have something to say about it. Including my favoring of profiling them.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
1. No if they are not performing acts of violence against non-believers then they are not practicing Islam.Shahter wrote:
all i'm trying to point out is that word "muslim" doesn't mean shit. there are millions of them, all supposedly following the teaching of the man, who wrote koran, and they are leading normal lives, never blow anyone up and never hurt any children. why, in you opinion, doesn't "religion of violence and intolerance" turn them into murderers and child molesters?lowing wrote:
1. then if you want to take the religion out of peoples motives for they way they act, I would suggest you tell them stop doing shit in the name of Islam and Allah.orly? shit, we are finally getting somewhere, dude! are you telling me that you are ready to judge people by their actions and not by which holy books they have in their pockets?lowing wrote:
2. The very second hare krishnas start blowing up shit and acting on whatever they fuck they believe, and stop just being a pain in the ass at the airports, I will have something to say about it. Including my favoring of profiling them.
2. Have always maintained a judgement for peoples actions over all else. This is why I have always maintained my problem with ISLAM and Muslims. Muslims are people I judge them by their actions, Islam is a violent based religion and its teachings is what I judge.
wow! are you mullah, lowing? or imam? no, you can't be, you haven't even read koran ffs. but how do you know all that about islam? because it's on the internetz? how many muslims have you spoken to about their faith? about their understanding of jihad and all that?lowing wrote:
1. No if they are not performing acts of violence against non-believers then they are not practicing Islam.
but why, in your opinion, haven't krishnaism i mentioned earlier turned its followers into murderers and terrorists, lowing? their holy book is, among other things, is about violence too.lowing wrote:
2. Have always maintained a judgement for peoples actions over all else. This is why I have always maintained my problem with ISLAM and Muslims. Muslims are people I judge them by their actions, Islam is a violent based religion and its teachings is what I judge.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
1. Don't need to be an expert on the Koran or Islam to see what is happening around you. Do not need to read the Koran to know I do not want that culture in my country.Shahter wrote:
wow! are you mullah, lowing? or imam? no, you can't be, you haven't even read koran ffs. but how do you know all that about islam? because it's on the internetz? how many muslims have you spoken to about their faith? about their understanding of jihad and all that?lowing wrote:
1. No if they are not performing acts of violence against non-believers then they are not practicing Islam.but why, in your opinion, haven't krishnaism i mentioned earlier turned its followers into murderers and terrorists, lowing? their holy book is, among other things, is about violence too.lowing wrote:
2. Have always maintained a judgement for peoples actions over all else. This is why I have always maintained my problem with ISLAM and Muslims. Muslims are people I judge them by their actions, Islam is a violent based religion and its teachings is what I judge.
2. I have no idea, perhaps, like peaceful "Muslims", they ar3e not following the teachings of their religion. the second they do however, get back with me and I will give you my opinion on about it, then you all can call me a racist all over again.
Hey remember when the Danish people painted some funny pictures of Mohammad?
Quite a lot of angry Muslim people around the world wanted to chop the painters arm off and probably would if they got him. This isn't the only case either.
Some female Muslim author was going to release a book on how evil Islam is but with the LARGE amount of Muslim people wanted the person dead(They where protesting but it was kinda hard to notice with all the death threats) they didn't release it. Well not yet at least.
Point is, if the religion was any bit of peaceful one, they wouldn't be so damn angry about it. Christians only seems to kill abortion doctors now and then where as they leave the rest to do whatever they want. Muslims do not seems to do that. If they get a little bit hurt which most of them do at the slightest flaming of them, they will demand for respect/justice and the death of the person who did it.....
I have read the Koran and it's not a nice book. Constantly reminds you on how you will burn in hell. Like every single chapter. Plus more things.
Quite a lot of angry Muslim people around the world wanted to chop the painters arm off and probably would if they got him. This isn't the only case either.
Some female Muslim author was going to release a book on how evil Islam is but with the LARGE amount of Muslim people wanted the person dead(They where protesting but it was kinda hard to notice with all the death threats) they didn't release it. Well not yet at least.
Point is, if the religion was any bit of peaceful one, they wouldn't be so damn angry about it. Christians only seems to kill abortion doctors now and then where as they leave the rest to do whatever they want. Muslims do not seems to do that. If they get a little bit hurt which most of them do at the slightest flaming of them, they will demand for respect/justice and the death of the person who did it.....
I have read the Koran and it's not a nice book. Constantly reminds you on how you will burn in hell. Like every single chapter. Plus more things.