How about your own link? review your own sources. It speslls it out pretty clearly. Yoiur own documentary calls him a fuckin warrior... Surely you will blelieve your own sources right?Beduin wrote:
Lowing, you know it is me, right? Cause I know you know it is me
And I will keep saying it: Present what you have lowing
e.: "Not a problem, where can I get it? " Sounds so sweet coming from you -thats me too
Last edited by lowing (2009-09-01 13:26:52)
Do me a favor, either finally post an argument citing peaceful Islamic teachings, tolerant Sharia Law and a non-violent Muhammad or move along. Nothing more needs to be discussed.Varegg wrote:
Ehr ... where have you been for the last years lowing?lowing wrote:
you will never know until you try, and as of yet, mis-direction, dismissal, denial, and insults, hardly warrants an argument.Varegg wrote:
Making points against yours is like banging ones head into a brick wall lowing, whatever the rest of us can come up with will never ever shift your stand so what is the point?
and like I already said, if you could provide a real argument that shows Islam, its teachings and its laws, were tolerant and peaceful, you would have done so by now.
Last edited by lowing (2009-09-01 13:30:56)
lowing... I have alot to read my friend.. It was my first day at school and my brain is all blank after the summer!lowing wrote:
How about your own link? review your own sources. It speslls it out pretty clearly. Yoiur own documentary calls him a fuckin warrior... Surely you will blelieve your own sources right?Beduin wrote:
Lowing, you know it is me, right? Cause I know you know it is me
And I will keep saying it: Present what you have lowing
e.: "Not a problem, where can I get it? " Sounds so sweet coming from you -thats me too
yet again, your own sources speak of his violence, executions, battles etc....your own documentary calls him a warrior. Again, YOUR OWN SOURCES.....I honestly think the ball is back in your court.Beduin wrote:
lowing... I have alot to read my friend.. It was my first day at school and my brain is all blank after the summer!lowing wrote:
How about your own link? review your own sources. It speslls it out pretty clearly. Yoiur own documentary calls him a fuckin warrior... Surely you will blelieve your own sources right?Beduin wrote:
Lowing, you know it is me, right? Cause I know you know it is me
And I will keep saying it: Present what you have lowing
e.: "Not a problem, where can I get it? " Sounds so sweet coming from you -thats me too
I bet you didn't even see the documentary...
I will look again here to see if you post what you have been writing about the last 2-3 pages.
Most parts of both the Quran and Sharia law is nothing quite like how you describe it, some parts of it are however just like you say but as usual you generalize turning a feather into a chickenfarm.lowing wrote:
Do me a favor, either finally post an argument citing peaceful Islamic teachings, tolerant Sharia Law and a non-violent Muhammad or move along. Nothing more needs to be discussed.Varegg wrote:
Ehr ... where have you been for the last years lowing?lowing wrote:
you will never know until you try, and as of yet, mis-direction, dismissal, denial, and insults, hardly warrants an argument.
and like I already said, if you could provide a real argument that shows Islam, its teachings and its laws, were tolerant and peaceful, you would have done so by now.
Muhammad and the Koran lends no tolerance to those that do not succumb to Islam. Muslims today might, but Islam does not. Isn't the meaning of Islam submission or subit to Allah?Varegg wrote:
Most parts of both the Quran and Sharia law is nothing quite like how you describe it, some parts of it are however just like you say but as usual you generalize turning a feather into a chicken farm.lowing wrote:
Do me a favor, either finally post an argument citing peaceful Islamic teachings, tolerant Sharia Law and a non-violent Muhammad or move along. Nothing more needs to be discussed.Varegg wrote:
Ehr ... where have you been for the last years lowing?
I have read most of the Quran and have much knowledge of how Islamic law is practiced and it's contents after talking about it with many people both inside and outside the Muslim religion.
I'm not saying the Quran or Mohammed doesn't have their violent sides, I'm saying there is so much more than that and the latter is what seems to be so damn difficult for you to comprehend.
No, you want to pick the parts which suit your argument and ignore the bits which don't.llowing wrote:
want to compare the 2 figures each religion are founded upon. you want to compare a primary figure in one relgion with a secondary figure in another
I wantt to compare current events, you don't. You insist on comparing 1100 years ago with today
I want to compare specifically the teachings of the 2 messengers of God for each religion. You refuse
I want to compare the specific actions of each messenger of God, you flat out refuse.
I wnat an apples to apples comparison, you refuse.
Read the entire post again lowing ...lowing wrote:
Muhammad and the Koran lends no tolerance to those that do not succumb to Islam. Muslims today might, but Islam does not. Isn't the meaning of Islam submission or subit to Allah?Varegg wrote:
Most parts of both the Quran and Sharia law is nothing quite like how you describe it, some parts of it are however just like you say but as usual you generalize turning a feather into a chicken farm.lowing wrote:
Do me a favor, either finally post an argument citing peaceful Islamic teachings, tolerant Sharia Law and a non-violent Muhammad or move along. Nothing more needs to be discussed.
I have read most of the Quran and have much knowledge of how Islamic law is practiced and it's contents after talking about it with many people both inside and outside the Muslim religion.
I'm not saying the Quran or Mohammed doesn't have their violent sides, I'm saying there is so much more than that and the latter is what seems to be so damn difficult for you to comprehend.
As far as Sharia Law please explain how according to law you are allowed to stone kill or imprison someone who looks at another, or exposes a knee or has a beer. If you call these things feathers, then we will agree to disagree because I will call them them a chicken farm, in the context of tolerance and violence.
Already agreed to dismiss all the violence in both books and stick to the messengers of God, their teachings and their actions that each religion is founded upon. You still refuse. I can't help thatDilbert_X wrote:
No, you want to pick the parts which suit your argument and ignore the bits which don't.llowing wrote:
want to compare the 2 figures each religion are founded upon. you want to compare a primary figure in one relgion with a secondary figure in another
I wantt to compare current events, you don't. You insist on comparing 1100 years ago with today
I want to compare specifically the teachings of the 2 messengers of God for each religion. You refuse
I want to compare the specific actions of each messenger of God, you flat out refuse.
I wnat an apples to apples comparison, you refuse.
I'm done
and read my post again, I said Muslims might be but Islam does not. the very fact that the laws of Islam permit such abuses is enough. I will also bet that these abuses are carried out every time someone is "caught". No not in GB or the US, but in Islamic countries where these laws prevail I will take the bet.Varegg wrote:
Read the entire post again lowing ...lowing wrote:
Muhammad and the Koran lends no tolerance to those that do not succumb to Islam. Muslims today might, but Islam does not. Isn't the meaning of Islam submission or subit to Allah?Varegg wrote:
Most parts of both the Quran and Sharia law is nothing quite like how you describe it, some parts of it are however just like you say but as usual you generalize turning a feather into a chicken farm.
I have read most of the Quran and have much knowledge of how Islamic law is practiced and it's contents after talking about it with many people both inside and outside the Muslim religion.
I'm not saying the Quran or Mohammed doesn't have their violent sides, I'm saying there is so much more than that and the latter is what seems to be so damn difficult for you to comprehend.
As far as Sharia Law please explain how according to law you are allowed to stone kill or imprison someone who looks at another, or exposes a knee or has a beer. If you call these things feathers, then we will agree to disagree because I will call them them a chicken farm, in the context of tolerance and violence.
How often do these stonings occour? ... not often enough to call it anything else but feathers tbh ... it's not that many years ago you guys strung up "niggers" because of their skin color so easy on the rethorics if you please ...
I also noted both the Quran and Sharia wasn't flawless, not in todays world by our (yours and mine) standards, if the Quran is all about violence and intolerence don't you think the populace would have revolted and dismissed it by now?
Last edited by lowing (2009-09-02 09:06:23)
WRONG again... Why did none muslims move to muslim countries during the Islam golden age?lowing wrote:
Muhammad and the Koran lends no tolerance to those that do not succumb to Islam. Muslims today might, but Islam does not.
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?Varegg wrote:
So I understand it as all women in all Islamic countries are stoned if looking on a another man or if they show to much skin?
Is that what you believe?
Can't ever get enough of fan mail. Keep it coming, but whatever ya do, don't post anything that shows me wrong.Uzique wrote:
lowing you are batshit insane
Last edited by lowing (2009-09-02 10:30:23)
Yes.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?Varegg wrote:
So I understand it as all women in all Islamic countries are stoned if looking on a another man or if they show to much skin?
Is that what you believe?
read upDrunkFace wrote:
Yes.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?Varegg wrote:
So I understand it as all women in all Islamic countries are stoned if looking on a another man or if they show to much skin?
Is that what you believe?
Last edited by lowing (2009-09-02 10:36:58)
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?Varegg wrote:
So I understand it as all women in all Islamic countries are stoned if looking on a another man or if they show to much skin?
Is that what you believe?
Thank you very much Sir for the link you provided.lowing wrote:
http://www.ntpi.org/html/womensrights.html
No lowinglowing wrote:
Yes, post nothing proves me wrong
http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/08/ … ia_is.html
just keep TELLING me I am wrong, or I am crazy.
Beduin wrote:
Thank you very much Sir for the link you provided.lowing wrote:
http://www.ntpi.org/html/womensrights.html
However the link is very colorful and has with no doubt mixed cultural behaviour with teaching of Islam.
Pick any issue from that article, and lets see what they are about
... you ignoring me lowing?lowing wrote:
Don't dare provide any evidence that Islam is peaceful, and Sharia law is tolerant. Just keep telling me about events that are 3500 years old
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid … 959455421#
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?Varegg wrote:
So I understand it as all women in all Islamic countries are stoned if looking on a another man or if they show to much skin?
Is that what you believe?
Taliban in Afghanistan before the invasion fits your description very well, very few others do however ...
