FOLLOW BOREME
TAGS
<< Back to listing
Matt Dillahunty vs a Muslim

Matt Dillahunty vs a Muslim

(11:47) Aziz from Saudi Arabia gets tied up in knots when he tries to reinterpret a verse in the Quran.

Share this post

You can comment as a guest, but registering gives you added benefits

Add your comment
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: mb (451 days ago)

No one can defend the passage but sadly the language barrier with these guys makes the debate onesided. Although it does demostrate the unconditional following, or brain washing, of beleivers to take such text as undisputable regardless of logic.

ReplyVote up (101)down (81)
Original comment

No one can defend the passage but sadly the language barrier with these guys makes the debate onesided. Although it does demostrate the unconditional following, or brain washing, of beleivers to take such text as undisputable regardless of logic.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (449 days ago)

Great only the verse isn't about slaying apostates at all.. Come on guys do your homework.

#FAIL

ReplyVote up (101)down (91)
Original comment

Great only the verse isn't about slaying apostates at all.. Come on guys do your homework.

#FAIL

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (451 days ago)

Aziz was struggling to speak English as well as tying his logic in knots. I think Matt could have made some allowance for the former.

ReplyVote up (101)down (96)
Original comment

Aziz was struggling to speak English as well as tying his logic in knots. I think Matt could have made some allowance for the former.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (451 days ago)

come on this is "aziz" as chosen by the athiest experience they are hardly going to use an imam or some one who is fluent and can explain things are they!!

ReplyVote up (86)down (101)
Original comment

come on this is "aziz" as chosen by the athiest experience they are hardly going to use an imam or some one who is fluent and can explain things are they!!

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (451 days ago)

It's logic not language that is Aziz's problem.

ReplyVote up (101)down (80)
Original comment

It's logic not language that is Aziz's problem.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Thundercat (451 days ago)

An imam can bullshit better about their lousy religion.

ReplyVote up (101)down (95)
Original comment

An imam can bullshit better about their lousy religion.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (451 days ago)

I haven't seen the whole episode but generally it's people who call in, not people chosen by Atheist Experience. Occasionally they have an invited guest like Ray Comfort. Not someone who is struggling with a foreign language.

But why don't you explain this bit of the Koran.

My explanation is simple: there is no god; Mohammed made it up; he was a nasty piece of work and he lived in a violent time and place; most (but not all!) people nowadays are uncomfortable with having to kill unbelievers; the problem is a conflict between ordinary people's humanity and the inhumanity that is captured, unchanging, in a written book which they claim to believe is divine in origin. Something's gotta give.

So much trouble has been caused by the invention of writing.

Original comment

I haven't seen the whole episode but generally it's people who call in, not people chosen by Atheist Experience. Occasionally they have an invited guest like Ray Comfort. Not someone who is struggling with a foreign language.

But why don't you explain this bit of the Koran.

My explanation is simple: there is no god; Mohammed made it up; he was a nasty piece of work and he lived in a violent time and place; most (but not all!) people nowadays are uncomfortable with having to kill unbelievers; the problem is a conflict between ordinary people's humanity and the inhumanity that is captured, unchanging, in a written book which they claim to believe is divine in origin. Something's gotta give.

So much trouble has been caused by the invention of writing.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (445 days ago)
Latest comment:

When will James take the hint from Bore Me?

Original comment
Latest comment:

When will James take the hint from Bore Me?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: gfcs (447 days ago)

So did Mohammed live the perfect life ? and should I be copying it as much as I can or not ?

ReplyVote up (88)down (101)
Original comment

So did Mohammed live the perfect life ? and should I be copying it as much as I can or not ?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (447 days ago)

Strange (or trick) question. Muslims don't believe Muhammed lived a perfect life. The basis of the Quran is not how he lived, but rather what Allah supposedly told him directly. He was just a messenger. Maybe you mean Jesus?

ReplyVote up (101)down (94)
Original comment

Strange (or trick) question. Muslims don't believe Muhammed lived a perfect life. The basis of the Quran is not how he lived, but rather what Allah supposedly told him directly. He was just a messenger. Maybe you mean Jesus?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Guest God (449 days ago)

Atheists are double te moron as relegioninas.

God created relegion to punish mankind and created atheists to jerk off.

ReplyVote up (83)down (101)
Original comment

Atheists are double te moron as relegioninas.

God created relegion to punish mankind and created atheists to jerk off.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
iknowlessthanyoudo iknowlessthanyoudo (452 days ago)

Can any Muslim give a convincing refutation of passage's instructions to slay apostates?

ReplyVote up (81)down (101)
Original comment

Can any Muslim give a convincing refutation of passage's instructions to slay apostates?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (451 days ago)

Proud Agnostic can offer a refutation of that passage. He's pretty good at text analysis.

ReplyVote up (101)down (85)
Original comment

Proud Agnostic can offer a refutation of that passage. He's pretty good at text analysis.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Proud Agnostic (451 days ago)

The key word is 'convincing', and the answer to you and the person below asking about the Bible passage is no. Like many of the posters here, I suspect you would not be convinced because like most in your position you're probably as hardened to religious justifications as the religious are to atheistic. That's why you're not reading about it from independent sources, and why you're raising your query on a forum of an atheist website rather than going somewhere a little more suitable. I'm not a Muslim, but still, Dillahunty is a ridiculously easy target so just humour me for 2 minutes:

Firstly, the passage (see below) is about slaying Hypocrites (munnafiq), and not as you and the BoreMe editor have said about slaying apostates (murtadd) - it's an entirely different meaning. Hypocrites were dishonest and dangerous Muslims that remained Muslim, but who tried to subvert Islamic culture - certainly not people who had left their faith. To be clear, there is absolutely no passage in the Quran that orders Muslims to slay apostates (the Quran only condones the death penalty for 2 types of crime - apostasy isn't one). I won't hold my breath for a retraction from the editor.

Secondly, and most importantly, I wonder why Dillahunty decided to stop reading where he did, missing out the very next verse which starts with the word ' except '. It strikes me as rather important, so here it is its full unedited entireity:
4:88 "What is [the matter] with you [that you are] two groups concerning the Hypocrites, while Allah has made them fall back [into error and disbelief] for what they earned. Do you wish to guide those whom Allah has sent astray? And he whom Allah sends astray - never will you find for him a way [of guidance]...
4:89 "They wish you would disbelieve as they disbelieved so you would be alike. So do not take from among them allies until they emigrate for the cause of Allah. But if they turn away, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them and take not from among them any ally or helper."...
4:90 " Except for those who take refuge with a people between yourselves and whom is a treaty or those who come to you, their hearts strained at [the prospect of] fighting you or fighting their own people. And if Allah had willed, He could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you. So if they remove themselves from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah has not made for you a cause [for fighting] against them."
Interesting. So the exact surah Dillahunty quotes is actually advocating not fighting anyone who offers you peace and does not fight. By the way, this hardly qualifies as text analysis - this is simple reading. Personally, I'd say anyone who purposefully removes a qualifying clause in a passage such as "except..." or "apart from..." is practising straightforward deception. Be brave enough to ask yourself why Dillahunty would want to omit part of a passage which is clearly integral to the meaning.

The fact that the BoreMe editor and countless other atheists here didn't even go so far as to look up the full verse that is being criticised just shows the lack of enquiry or questioning that seems to infest atheism these days. Ignorance breeds hatred. Judge less, understand more.

ReplyVote up (101)down (86)
Original comment

The key word is 'convincing', and the answer to you and the person below asking about the Bible passage is no. Like many of the posters here, I suspect you would not be convinced because like most in your position you're probably as hardened to religious justifications as the religious are to atheistic. That's why you're not reading about it from independent sources, and why you're raising your query on a forum of an atheist website rather than going somewhere a little more suitable. I'm not a Muslim, but still, Dillahunty is a ridiculously easy target so just humour me for 2 minutes:

Firstly, the passage (see below) is about slaying Hypocrites (munnafiq), and not as you and the BoreMe editor have said about slaying apostates (murtadd) - it's an entirely different meaning. Hypocrites were dishonest and dangerous Muslims that remained Muslim, but who tried to subvert Islamic culture - certainly not people who had left their faith. To be clear, there is absolutely no passage in the Quran that orders Muslims to slay apostates (the Quran only condones the death penalty for 2 types of crime - apostasy isn't one). I won't hold my breath for a retraction from the editor.

Secondly, and most importantly, I wonder why Dillahunty decided to stop reading where he did, missing out the very next verse which starts with the word ' except '. It strikes me as rather important, so here it is its full unedited entireity:
4:88 "What is [the matter] with you [that you are] two groups concerning the Hypocrites, while Allah has made them fall back [into error and disbelief] for what they earned. Do you wish to guide those whom Allah has sent astray? And he whom Allah sends astray - never will you find for him a way [of guidance]...
4:89 "They wish you would disbelieve as they disbelieved so you would be alike. So do not take from among them allies until they emigrate for the cause of Allah. But if they turn away, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them and take not from among them any ally or helper."...
4:90 " Except for those who take refuge with a people between yourselves and whom is a treaty or those who come to you, their hearts strained at [the prospect of] fighting you or fighting their own people. And if Allah had willed, He could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you. So if they remove themselves from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah has not made for you a cause [for fighting] against them."
Interesting. So the exact surah Dillahunty quotes is actually advocating not fighting anyone who offers you peace and does not fight. By the way, this hardly qualifies as text analysis - this is simple reading. Personally, I'd say anyone who purposefully removes a qualifying clause in a passage such as "except..." or "apart from..." is practising straightforward deception. Be brave enough to ask yourself why Dillahunty would want to omit part of a passage which is clearly integral to the meaning.

The fact that the BoreMe editor and countless other atheists here didn't even go so far as to look up the full verse that is being criticised just shows the lack of enquiry or questioning that seems to infest atheism these days. Ignorance breeds hatred. Judge less, understand more.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Primate Primate (450 days ago)

"To be clear, there is absolutely no passage in the Quran that orders Muslims to slay apostates (the Quran only condones the death penalty for 2 types of crime - apostasy isn't one)."

Quite interestingly, in certain areas of the muslim world, death for apostaty is widely approved. Why is that?

ReplyVote up (100)down (100)
Original comment

"To be clear, there is absolutely no passage in the Quran that orders Muslims to slay apostates (the Quran only condones the death penalty for 2 types of crime - apostasy isn't one)."

Quite interestingly, in certain areas of the muslim world, death for apostaty is widely approved. Why is that?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Proud Agnostic (450 days ago)

It is indeed quite interesting, and probably has a very complex answer to do with how different socieities develop - why does the USA have the death penalty whereas its neighbour Canada doesn't?

In over half of Islamic countries apostasy isn't even a crime, let alone punishable by death. It's also worth noting that even in the few countries where it is a capital offence, actual executions are incredibly rare - something like a couple every decade. It doesn't quite match up with what the Islamophobes would have us believe.

ReplyVote up (101)down (72)
Original comment

It is indeed quite interesting, and probably has a very complex answer to do with how different socieities develop - why does the USA have the death penalty whereas its neighbour Canada doesn't?

In over half of Islamic countries apostasy isn't even a crime, let alone punishable by death. It's also worth noting that even in the few countries where it is a capital offence, actual executions are incredibly rare - something like a couple every decade. It doesn't quite match up with what the Islamophobes would have us believe.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Primate Primate (450 days ago)

What is actually the law and what is inforced is one thing, and what you say is indeed notable. And one can argue back and forth whether or not the quran or the hadith say or do do not say so, but this is nothing more than a theological discussion on some web site.

What matters is what the population of a society actually thinks, for whatever reason. I have mentioned it in another thread - Pew surveys from places like Egypt or the Palestinian territories had truely horrifying results, with around 60% of the muslims there having said apostate should be killed and homosexuals should be stoned. (Other places like Turkey were much better, with 2%.)

ReplyVote up (82)down (101)
Original comment

What is actually the law and what is inforced is one thing, and what you say is indeed notable. And one can argue back and forth whether or not the quran or the hadith say or do do not say so, but this is nothing more than a theological discussion on some web site.

What matters is what the population of a society actually thinks, for whatever reason. I have mentioned it in another thread - Pew surveys from places like Egypt or the Palestinian territories had truely horrifying results, with around 60% of the muslims there having said apostate should be killed and homosexuals should be stoned. (Other places like Turkey were much better, with 2%.)

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Proud Agnostic (450 days ago)

Obviously many things in religion are down to interpretation, but there are some clear facts on literal matters. For example, when Dillahunty / the BoreMe Editor says the verse above condones killing apostates, that's factually incorrect and they ought to be called out on it. Simple misinformation. It isn't merely a subjective theological discussion because we can all go and look it up, and look at the subject of that phrase, and see that they're explicitly wrong. It's always worth trying to figure out why someone would be interested in deceiving people.

I agree, it matters what a society thinks, but it's not necessarily down to religion - plus it's notoriously difficult to gauge in a fair way and of course it varies so much even between Islamic states. It's also difficult not to attempt to export our Western values wholesale. But yes, it would make more sense to criticise certain societies rather than an entire religion or its followers. Indonesia has the largest population of Muslims and yet seems to have relatively moderate values compared to other Islamic societies. On another matter, the British public tend to support the reintroduction of a death penalty despite the fact that it is not currently legal and that the country is perceived as increasingly secular. I suppose what you end up with is a criticism of certain beliefs, or maybe specific countries, or some forms of Sharia law in Islamic states, and not the sweeping negative generalisations that many wish to make about Muslims.

ReplyVote up (100)down (98)
Original comment

Obviously many things in religion are down to interpretation, but there are some clear facts on literal matters. For example, when Dillahunty / the BoreMe Editor says the verse above condones killing apostates, that's factually incorrect and they ought to be called out on it. Simple misinformation. It isn't merely a subjective theological discussion because we can all go and look it up, and look at the subject of that phrase, and see that they're explicitly wrong. It's always worth trying to figure out why someone would be interested in deceiving people.

I agree, it matters what a society thinks, but it's not necessarily down to religion - plus it's notoriously difficult to gauge in a fair way and of course it varies so much even between Islamic states. It's also difficult not to attempt to export our Western values wholesale. But yes, it would make more sense to criticise certain societies rather than an entire religion or its followers. Indonesia has the largest population of Muslims and yet seems to have relatively moderate values compared to other Islamic societies. On another matter, the British public tend to support the reintroduction of a death penalty despite the fact that it is not currently legal and that the country is perceived as increasingly secular. I suppose what you end up with is a criticism of certain beliefs, or maybe specific countries, or some forms of Sharia law in Islamic states, and not the sweeping negative generalisations that many wish to make about Muslims.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Primate Primate (450 days ago)

I agree that criticism should be directed specifically. Sweeping generalisations are never good and being a lunatic with violent beliefs is foremost a personal thing.

But despite the theological views that you laid out, those 60% in Egypt and Palestine will most probably argue that their view is backed by their religion. As are other barbaric convictions and conditions that exist in a significant part of countries where islam is the dominant religion.

And this sadly is where islamic and anti-islamic morons work hand in hand. This is why we must speak up against both sides.

Original comment

I agree that criticism should be directed specifically. Sweeping generalisations are never good and being a lunatic with violent beliefs is foremost a personal thing.

But despite the theological views that you laid out, those 60% in Egypt and Palestine will most probably argue that their view is backed by their religion. As are other barbaric convictions and conditions that exist in a significant part of countries where islam is the dominant religion.

And this sadly is where islamic and anti-islamic morons work hand in hand. This is why we must speak up against both sides.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Proud Agnostic (450 days ago)

Absolutely - and religion / non-religion can and is used to justify any number of opposing beliefs. The KKK and the Lord's Resistance Army believe Christianity justifies their barbaric actions, and Stalin and Pol Pot believed atheism justified theirs. But alongside those 60% of Egyptian / Palestinian (?) Muslims who would claim the Quran backs their beliefs for the penalty for apostacy, are the majority of Muslims in other countries that claim it backs their opposing attitudes. I'm not sure which statistics you used, but the Pew survey I've read (about Sharia) suggested that in 75% of the countries surveyed, a minority of Sharia-supporting Muslims backed death for apostates - and that's only the Muslims who think Sharia should be the official law of their country. With this in mind, I'm not sure why one would use the attitudes in the more conservative societies to characterise Muslim attitudes, if one has to characterise them at all.

What frustrates me is the misinformation peddled by those with an agenda, particularly anti-religious or anti-Islamic who I've encountered far more frequently than Islamists. Verses are carefully and very deliberately taken out of context (as above); important differences between texts and sources are glossed over and denied; minority phenomena are extrapolated onto a majority; and so many people seem oblivious to this, happy enough that someone is making them feel better about their opinions. Personally, I think the dividing line is not between the Islamic and non-Islamic, or religious and secular, but between those of us who believe in diversity and coexistence, and those who believe in division and alienation. Islamophobes are on the same side as the Islamists.

ReplyVote up (96)down (101)
Original comment

Absolutely - and religion / non-religion can and is used to justify any number of opposing beliefs. The KKK and the Lord's Resistance Army believe Christianity justifies their barbaric actions, and Stalin and Pol Pot believed atheism justified theirs. But alongside those 60% of Egyptian / Palestinian (?) Muslims who would claim the Quran backs their beliefs for the penalty for apostacy, are the majority of Muslims in other countries that claim it backs their opposing attitudes. I'm not sure which statistics you used, but the Pew survey I've read (about Sharia) suggested that in 75% of the countries surveyed, a minority of Sharia-supporting Muslims backed death for apostates - and that's only the Muslims who think Sharia should be the official law of their country. With this in mind, I'm not sure why one would use the attitudes in the more conservative societies to characterise Muslim attitudes, if one has to characterise them at all.

What frustrates me is the misinformation peddled by those with an agenda, particularly anti-religious or anti-Islamic who I've encountered far more frequently than Islamists. Verses are carefully and very deliberately taken out of context (as above); important differences between texts and sources are glossed over and denied; minority phenomena are extrapolated onto a majority; and so many people seem oblivious to this, happy enough that someone is making them feel better about their opinions. Personally, I think the dividing line is not between the Islamic and non-Islamic, or religious and secular, but between those of us who believe in diversity and coexistence, and those who believe in division and alienation. Islamophobes are on the same side as the Islamists.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Primate Primate (450 days ago)

Yes, that was the survey on sharia (see below). I agree with your frustration. But I think actually, islamic extremism is not so much our problem, but the problem of the islamic world. Not only because the vast majority of victins from islamic terrorism have been muslim, and that goes way back. And even if you are right about the majority of muslims who want to live peaceful lives: it is not the KKK or the LRA that are the biggest terroristic threat at the moment. Or hindus, catholics, jews, or protestants.

It is the muslim world which has the means in its hand to finish islamic terrorism. Just as the christian world pushed back the dictatorial and violent influence of christianity.

(BTW: No, Stalin and Pol Pot did not slaughter in the name of Atheism, buzt in the name of a dictatorial idealogy, which were essentially dictatorial cults with almost every characteristic of a religion. But that is another field to plough.)

Here are the numbers, friom the Pew survey on sharia from 2014 I think:

Percent of Muslims who want sharia to be the law of the land in their country:

Egypt: 74%
Palestinian terr.: 89%
Lebanon: 29%
Turkey: 12%
Bosnia-Herzegovina: 15%
Indonesia: 72%

Percent of those who want sharia to be the law of the land and who support stoning for adultery:

Egypt: 81% - that translates into 59.9 % of all Muslims
Palestinian terr.: 84% - ... 74.8%
Lebanon: 46% - ... 13.3 %
Turkey: 29% - ... 3.5%
Bosnia-Herzegovina: 21% - ... 3.2%
Indonesia: 48% - ... 34.6%

Percent of those who want sharia to be the law of the land and who support the death penalty for a leaving Islam:

Egypt: 86% - that translates into 63.6% of all Muslims
Palestinian terr.: 66% - ... 58.7.8%
Lebanon: 46% - ... 13.3 %
Turkey: 17% - ... 2.0 %
Bosnia-Herzogevina: 15% - ... 2.3 %
Indonesia: 18% - ... 13.0%

ReplyVote up (86)down (101)
Original comment

Yes, that was the survey on sharia (see below). I agree with your frustration. But I think actually, islamic extremism is not so much our problem, but the problem of the islamic world. Not only because the vast majority of victins from islamic terrorism have been muslim, and that goes way back. And even if you are right about the majority of muslims who want to live peaceful lives: it is not the KKK or the LRA that are the biggest terroristic threat at the moment. Or hindus, catholics, jews, or protestants.

It is the muslim world which has the means in its hand to finish islamic terrorism. Just as the christian world pushed back the dictatorial and violent influence of christianity.

(BTW: No, Stalin and Pol Pot did not slaughter in the name of Atheism, buzt in the name of a dictatorial idealogy, which were essentially dictatorial cults with almost every characteristic of a religion. But that is another field to plough.)

Here are the numbers, friom the Pew survey on sharia from 2014 I think:

Percent of Muslims who want sharia to be the law of the land in their country:

Egypt: 74%
Palestinian terr.: 89%
Lebanon: 29%
Turkey: 12%
Bosnia-Herzegovina: 15%
Indonesia: 72%

Percent of those who want sharia to be the law of the land and who support stoning for adultery:

Egypt: 81% - that translates into 59.9 % of all Muslims
Palestinian terr.: 84% - ... 74.8%
Lebanon: 46% - ... 13.3 %
Turkey: 29% - ... 3.5%
Bosnia-Herzegovina: 21% - ... 3.2%
Indonesia: 48% - ... 34.6%

Percent of those who want sharia to be the law of the land and who support the death penalty for a leaving Islam:

Egypt: 86% - that translates into 63.6% of all Muslims
Palestinian terr.: 66% - ... 58.7.8%
Lebanon: 46% - ... 13.3 %
Turkey: 17% - ... 2.0 %
Bosnia-Herzogevina: 15% - ... 2.3 %
Indonesia: 18% - ... 13.0%

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Proud Agnostic (450 days ago)

Well if the Islamist terrorism is an Islamic problem (which I'm not so sure about), then by the same logic the Islamophobic right-wing that alienate the moderates and divide Western society is our problem. I suppose that's why I'm on here challenging Islamophobia rather than hunting down Islamist cells, but I know from experience I would challenge either when I recognised it.

Yes, those included the same statistics as I was looking at, although the Sharia and apostasy data on there is actually pulled from another Pew survey. I don't think the figures on support of Sharia are particularly worrying, as Sharia encompasses a whole range of perfectly civil and beneficial concepts and is formed case-by-case in much the same way that any other laws are. But as regards apostasy, which I suppose is the origin of this conversation, 20 Muslim countries are included in the results, and only six had a majority of "Sharia-suporting Muslims" that favour the death penalty (Malaysia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Egypt, Jordan and Palestinian) - right? Obviously these places are a concern, but they can't be used to suggest most Muslims have that sort of belief. In the same survey you quoted it's interesting to read how all Islamic countries surveyed had a vast majority believing that other faiths such as Christianity should be given religious freedom in their country (ranging from 85% to 97%), showing that statistics rarely give the whole story. That's not the kind of statistic you often hear about Islam.

The 'dictatorial ideologies' of Stalin and Pol Pot (and countless others) were heavily influenced in atheist and anti-religious belief, which was why the religious were so heavily persecuted in their regimes. Stalin in particular used his militant atheism to structure education, oppressive laws, discrimination against believers and even set up the 'Society of the Godless' - atheism was the backbone of his dictatorship; that's pretty hard to deny. It's not a problem with the belief set itself, but rather the attempt to enforce that belief on others.

ReplyVote up (93)down (101)
Original comment

Well if the Islamist terrorism is an Islamic problem (which I'm not so sure about), then by the same logic the Islamophobic right-wing that alienate the moderates and divide Western society is our problem. I suppose that's why I'm on here challenging Islamophobia rather than hunting down Islamist cells, but I know from experience I would challenge either when I recognised it.

Yes, those included the same statistics as I was looking at, although the Sharia and apostasy data on there is actually pulled from another Pew survey. I don't think the figures on support of Sharia are particularly worrying, as Sharia encompasses a whole range of perfectly civil and beneficial concepts and is formed case-by-case in much the same way that any other laws are. But as regards apostasy, which I suppose is the origin of this conversation, 20 Muslim countries are included in the results, and only six had a majority of "Sharia-suporting Muslims" that favour the death penalty (Malaysia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Egypt, Jordan and Palestinian) - right? Obviously these places are a concern, but they can't be used to suggest most Muslims have that sort of belief. In the same survey you quoted it's interesting to read how all Islamic countries surveyed had a vast majority believing that other faiths such as Christianity should be given religious freedom in their country (ranging from 85% to 97%), showing that statistics rarely give the whole story. That's not the kind of statistic you often hear about Islam.

The 'dictatorial ideologies' of Stalin and Pol Pot (and countless others) were heavily influenced in atheist and anti-religious belief, which was why the religious were so heavily persecuted in their regimes. Stalin in particular used his militant atheism to structure education, oppressive laws, discrimination against believers and even set up the 'Society of the Godless' - atheism was the backbone of his dictatorship; that's pretty hard to deny. It's not a problem with the belief set itself, but rather the attempt to enforce that belief on others.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Primate Primate (449 days ago)

Your 1st paragraph: Yes, of course the islamophobe right-wing is our problem.

Your 2nd paragraph: Pretty much what I said. Although I think tolerance towards christians may be on the good side, I would think the numbers would be lower when it came to Jews or atheists.

Your 3rd paragraph: I see it differently. Essentially, Stalin, Pol Pot, the Kims and similar dictators made themselves a god, much like the god-kings of the antiquity. Theirs is not an atheist society. The dicator takes the role of a god, is being worshiped in pompous rituals, he is almight, his ways cannot be questioned but are sanctified by a caste of priests, there are holy books, and apostaty is not tolerated. They are very much like the realisation of the jewish, christian and muslim god: their atheism is that they do not tolerate other gods beside themselves. They just took it a step further than Muhamed, who needed a god to justify his hunger for power, indoctrination, violence and war.

ReplyVote up (80)down (101)
Original comment

Your 1st paragraph: Yes, of course the islamophobe right-wing is our problem.

Your 2nd paragraph: Pretty much what I said. Although I think tolerance towards christians may be on the good side, I would think the numbers would be lower when it came to Jews or atheists.

Your 3rd paragraph: I see it differently. Essentially, Stalin, Pol Pot, the Kims and similar dictators made themselves a god, much like the god-kings of the antiquity. Theirs is not an atheist society. The dicator takes the role of a god, is being worshiped in pompous rituals, he is almight, his ways cannot be questioned but are sanctified by a caste of priests, there are holy books, and apostaty is not tolerated. They are very much like the realisation of the jewish, christian and muslim god: their atheism is that they do not tolerate other gods beside themselves. They just took it a step further than Muhamed, who needed a god to justify his hunger for power, indoctrination, violence and war.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Proud Agnostic (449 days ago)

Well the survey asked about religious freedom in general, so it would certainly include Jews. I'm not too surprised actually; Islam has a long history of having relatively inclusive multi-faith societies - even back in Al-Andalus more than 500 years ago, the 'dhimmis' (protected people) were an accepted and important part of society, and many non-Muslims ended up with senior roles in society. This was while much of Europe were chasing people out of towns with burning torches and holding spontaneous pogroms.

Your views on atheist dictators are interesting. However, I'd say the specific persecution of religious believers in these regimes was a deliberate attempt to enforce atheistic values on an entire nation in barbaric way, rather than simply a symptom of a dictatorship. Of course, they wanted the adulation and hero-worship, but that's true of theistic dictators like Franco too. Besides, what you describe is actually commonplace among most modern atheists rather than just dictators: they have their idols and prophets whom they frequently refer to; they have their sacred texts most of which they haven't actually read; they organise and commune in societies, rallies, and lectures; they fallaciously claim the unequivocal support of science; they tend to berate those with different belief sets; I learned the other day they even have their own symbol! I was raised as an atheist before realising that these days it seems to encapsulate everything I hate about organised religion, and doesn't withstand too much scrutiny in my opinion

ReplyVote up (100)down (101)
Original comment

Well the survey asked about religious freedom in general, so it would certainly include Jews. I'm not too surprised actually; Islam has a long history of having relatively inclusive multi-faith societies - even back in Al-Andalus more than 500 years ago, the 'dhimmis' (protected people) were an accepted and important part of society, and many non-Muslims ended up with senior roles in society. This was while much of Europe were chasing people out of towns with burning torches and holding spontaneous pogroms.

Your views on atheist dictators are interesting. However, I'd say the specific persecution of religious believers in these regimes was a deliberate attempt to enforce atheistic values on an entire nation in barbaric way, rather than simply a symptom of a dictatorship. Of course, they wanted the adulation and hero-worship, but that's true of theistic dictators like Franco too. Besides, what you describe is actually commonplace among most modern atheists rather than just dictators: they have their idols and prophets whom they frequently refer to; they have their sacred texts most of which they haven't actually read; they organise and commune in societies, rallies, and lectures; they fallaciously claim the unequivocal support of science; they tend to berate those with different belief sets; I learned the other day they even have their own symbol! I was raised as an atheist before realising that these days it seems to encapsulate everything I hate about organised religion, and doesn't withstand too much scrutiny in my opinion

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
iknowlessthanyoudo iknowlessthanyoudo (449 days ago)

Am very grateful for your convincing answer. Thank you.

ReplyVote up (83)down (101)
Original comment

Am very grateful for your convincing answer. Thank you.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (451 days ago)

Which passage?

Original comment

Which passage?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (451 days ago)

The passage they are discussing is Quran 4.89: "They wish that you should reject faith as they reject faith, and then you would be equal; therefore take not to yourselves friends of them, until they emigrate in the way of God; then, if they turn their backs, take them, and slay them wherever you find them; take not to yourselves any one of them as friend or helper."

But there are loads more that advocate killing non-believers or apostates: LINK

ReplyVote up (101)down (78)
Original comment

The passage they are discussing is Quran 4.89: "They wish that you should reject faith as they reject faith, and then you would be equal; therefore take not to yourselves friends of them, until they emigrate in the way of God; then, if they turn their backs, take them, and slay them wherever you find them; take not to yourselves any one of them as friend or helper."

But there are loads more that advocate killing non-believers or apostates: LINK

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: PA (451 days ago)

Phew.

Well isn't that funny. You seem to have missed the verse before and after too.

ReplyVote up (101)down (91)
Original comment

Phew.

Well isn't that funny. You seem to have missed the verse before and after too.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (451 days ago)

I'm here to be educated. Do they change the meaning of 4:89?

ReplyVote up (96)down (101)
Original comment

I'm here to be educated. Do they change the meaning of 4:89?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: PA (451 days ago)

Absolutely. Look above. Firstly they clarify the subject of 4:89 from seemingly any apostate to actually just Hypocrites in the Islamic meaning. Secondly, not just any Hypocrites, but specifically those who fight Islam, do not offer peace, and do not stay away. So not, as Dillahunty is suggesting about slaying anyone who doesn't believe in Islam. As I've said, straightforward deception. I'll assume in your case it was simple nescience as it often is - in his case, it's deliberate I'm sure.

ReplyVote up (101)down (99)
Original comment

Absolutely. Look above. Firstly they clarify the subject of 4:89 from seemingly any apostate to actually just Hypocrites in the Islamic meaning. Secondly, not just any Hypocrites, but specifically those who fight Islam, do not offer peace, and do not stay away. So not, as Dillahunty is suggesting about slaying anyone who doesn't believe in Islam. As I've said, straightforward deception. I'll assume in your case it was simple nescience as it often is - in his case, it's deliberate I'm sure.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (450 days ago)

To be honest, I find translations of Quran verses confusing because they are written in some ancient style. More for poetic effect than clarity I suspect.

So did I get this right? In plain English and in context of surrounding verses, Quran 4:89 means: a Muslim must kill another Muslim if they are not acting like a Muslim should. Unless that hypocritical Muslim stops being hypocritical and acts like a Muslim should.

Does that mean a Muslim should kill Saudi billionaires who claim to be Muslim yet are partying in London with coke, booze and girls? Unless they stop partying?

Quran 4:91 says: "You will find others who wish to obtain security from you and [to] obtain security from their people. Every time they are returned to [the influence of] disbelief, they fall back into it. So if they do not withdraw from you or offer you peace or restrain their hands, then seize them and kill them wherever you overtake them. And those - We have made for you against them a clear authorization." LINK Does that mean a partying Muslim who decides to ditch Islam because he prefers to party, should be killed?

Original comment

To be honest, I find translations of Quran verses confusing because they are written in some ancient style. More for poetic effect than clarity I suspect.

So did I get this right? In plain English and in context of surrounding verses, Quran 4:89 means: a Muslim must kill another Muslim if they are not acting like a Muslim should. Unless that hypocritical Muslim stops being hypocritical and acts like a Muslim should.

Does that mean a Muslim should kill Saudi billionaires who claim to be Muslim yet are partying in London with coke, booze and girls? Unless they stop partying?

Quran 4:91 says: "You will find others who wish to obtain security from you and [to] obtain security from their people. Every time they are returned to [the influence of] disbelief, they fall back into it. So if they do not withdraw from you or offer you peace or restrain their hands, then seize them and kill them wherever you overtake them. And those - We have made for you against them a clear authorization." LINK Does that mean a partying Muslim who decides to ditch Islam because he prefers to party, should be killed?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Proud Agnostic (450 days ago)

You're moving the goalposts. My comment was simply about whether the verse in question "orders believers to slay apostates" , which is what the BoreMe editor and Dillahunty are advertising to people too lazy to look it up. That is the whole premise of the video, and its description here. I have shown with the minimum effort that the verse has nothing to do with apostasy at all, and for Dillahunty (or anyone else) to give you that impression they must deliberately remove a clause that is crucial to the meaning. Deception, propaganda, whatever you want to call it.

Your attempt to summarise the extract is woeful. Did you read all 3 verses including 4:90? Broadly, it suggests that if a Muslim is intentionally trying to subvert other Muslims (a Hypocrite) and is fighting others, or fighting his own people, and will not stay away (remove themselves), and will not offer you peace or offer you a treaty, and is not seeking refuge, then Allah permits you to fight, to seize and to kill them. Dillahunty and the BoreMe editor think it's about apostates, and WalterEgo thinks it might apply to partying "Saudi billionaires"? Good grief. Utterly clueless. Much of the An-Nisa sura is specifically about warfare and when it is acceptable, and the ideas from these verses are expanded in others to include fighting for the oppressed, and never fighting anyone who wants peace. If you were serious about understanding the Quran (which I realise you aren't), I'd advise you to get a decent copy with a clear commentary - you can get study editions that will help you get the gist. I don't particularly want to get into a habit of simplifying verse after verse for you.

ReplyVote up (101)down (92)
Original comment

You're moving the goalposts. My comment was simply about whether the verse in question "orders believers to slay apostates" , which is what the BoreMe editor and Dillahunty are advertising to people too lazy to look it up. That is the whole premise of the video, and its description here. I have shown with the minimum effort that the verse has nothing to do with apostasy at all, and for Dillahunty (or anyone else) to give you that impression they must deliberately remove a clause that is crucial to the meaning. Deception, propaganda, whatever you want to call it.

Your attempt to summarise the extract is woeful. Did you read all 3 verses including 4:90? Broadly, it suggests that if a Muslim is intentionally trying to subvert other Muslims (a Hypocrite) and is fighting others, or fighting his own people, and will not stay away (remove themselves), and will not offer you peace or offer you a treaty, and is not seeking refuge, then Allah permits you to fight, to seize and to kill them. Dillahunty and the BoreMe editor think it's about apostates, and WalterEgo thinks it might apply to partying "Saudi billionaires"? Good grief. Utterly clueless. Much of the An-Nisa sura is specifically about warfare and when it is acceptable, and the ideas from these verses are expanded in others to include fighting for the oppressed, and never fighting anyone who wants peace. If you were serious about understanding the Quran (which I realise you aren't), I'd advise you to get a decent copy with a clear commentary - you can get study editions that will help you get the gist. I don't particularly want to get into a habit of simplifying verse after verse for you.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: PA (451 days ago)

Oh I've just seen your very authoritative and impartial source material and couldn't resist.

So by 'loads more that advocate killing non-believers or apostates', you actually mean 2 verses in the Quran, and one of those is referring to Hypocrites not apostates, and the other mentions nothing other than fighting disbelief rather than killing anyone.

Brilliant. I stand corrected.

ReplyVote up (101)down (95)
Original comment

Oh I've just seen your very authoritative and impartial source material and couldn't resist.

So by 'loads more that advocate killing non-believers or apostates', you actually mean 2 verses in the Quran, and one of those is referring to Hypocrites not apostates, and the other mentions nothing other than fighting disbelief rather than killing anyone.

Brilliant. I stand corrected.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (451 days ago)

Don't the Hadiths or Sharia Law count?

ReplyVote up (101)down (92)
Original comment

Don't the Hadiths or Sharia Law count?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: PA (451 days ago)

Count as what? They don't count as the Quran, which is the single unifying aspect of Islam, having the over-riding authority over all other Islamic texts. Sharia law is not really anything to do with it, as it varies quite radically from one Islamic state to another. The authority and authenticity of each hadith is disputed between different schisms, being as they are hearsay rather than the claimed writings of Moh himself.

Original comment

Count as what? They don't count as the Quran, which is the single unifying aspect of Islam, having the over-riding authority over all other Islamic texts. Sharia law is not really anything to do with it, as it varies quite radically from one Islamic state to another. The authority and authenticity of each hadith is disputed between different schisms, being as they are hearsay rather than the claimed writings of Moh himself.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (451 days ago)

Count as "loads more that advocate killing non-believers or apostates".

Original comment

Count as "loads more that advocate killing non-believers or apostates".

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: PA (451 days ago)

Well your comment starts "The passage they are discussing is Quran", so it's reasonable to assume the 'loads more' was talking about the Quran too. As soon as you start including hadith it becomes impossibly broad and no longer characterises most, let alone all Muslims. Are you aware that there are literally tens of thousands of hadith, arguably hundreds of thousands? Different schisms attribute different levels of authority (including none) to different hadiths, according to how many narrators are recorded, who those narrators were, etc. etc.

ReplyVote up (101)down (95)
Original comment

Well your comment starts "The passage they are discussing is Quran", so it's reasonable to assume the 'loads more' was talking about the Quran too. As soon as you start including hadith it becomes impossibly broad and no longer characterises most, let alone all Muslims. Are you aware that there are literally tens of thousands of hadith, arguably hundreds of thousands? Different schisms attribute different levels of authority (including none) to different hadiths, according to how many narrators are recorded, who those narrators were, etc. etc.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (450 days ago)

I'm not sure if you're being sloppy or hypocritical. Maybe you can tell me.

My comment actually started "The passage they are discussing is Quran 4:89". Why did you miss out "4:89"? Without it, the sentence doesn't even make sense. Add "4:89" and it's perfectly reasonable to assume that when I said "loads more ..." I meant loads more in Islam. Even the link I posted had examples from outside the Quran.

So were you being sloppy or hypocritical?

ReplyVote up (101)down (86)
Original comment

I'm not sure if you're being sloppy or hypocritical. Maybe you can tell me.

My comment actually started "The passage they are discussing is Quran 4:89". Why did you miss out "4:89"? Without it, the sentence doesn't even make sense. Add "4:89" and it's perfectly reasonable to assume that when I said "loads more ..." I meant loads more in Islam. Even the link I posted had examples from outside the Quran.

So were you being sloppy or hypocritical?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: PA (450 days ago)

OK now you're just trying a wind-up. I quoted you to show whether you were referring to the Quran, or to the hadith, or to Islamic texts in general, so specifying which verse of the Quran you meant is entirely irrelevant. Don't be embarrassed that you didn't check your sources first. I never expect you to these days.

So you actually meant "loads more (verses?) in Islam"? In Islam? Have a think, bearing in mind what you recently learned. Have a tweak, go on. Maybe redefine what is meant by a verse, or maybe what is meant by Islam.

Original comment

OK now you're just trying a wind-up. I quoted you to show whether you were referring to the Quran, or to the hadith, or to Islamic texts in general, so specifying which verse of the Quran you meant is entirely irrelevant. Don't be embarrassed that you didn't check your sources first. I never expect you to these days.

So you actually meant "loads more (verses?) in Islam"? In Islam? Have a think, bearing in mind what you recently learned. Have a tweak, go on. Maybe redefine what is meant by a verse, or maybe what is meant by Islam.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (450 days ago)

Calm down. You get sloppier when you're angry. And then you start calling me ignorant and a bigot.

I was answering a simple question which was "Which passage?". So I quoted the passage. Then I said "there's loads more" and linked to a page with similar violent hadiths and Sharia laws. How do you manage to read that as "I actually mean 2 verses in the Quran"?

Was that just sloppiness, or were you being hypocritical? An honest answer would be nice rather than more tap dancing.

ReplyVote up (101)down (93)
Original comment

Calm down. You get sloppier when you're angry. And then you start calling me ignorant and a bigot.

I was answering a simple question which was "Which passage?". So I quoted the passage. Then I said "there's loads more" and linked to a page with similar violent hadiths and Sharia laws. How do you manage to read that as "I actually mean 2 verses in the Quran"?

Was that just sloppiness, or were you being hypocritical? An honest answer would be nice rather than more tap dancing.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Proud Agnostic (450 days ago)

I'm perfectly calm, but it's amusing to see your goal seems to now be to irritate rather than engage. Isn't that what they call a troll? Is this subject matter so tricky for you that you'd rather comment on the commenting? Maybe I've hit a nerve.

I think you're clever enough to know 'Which passage?' was referring to the video, which in turn is referring to the Quran. Your comment started with referencing the Quran, and you just made a bold and hasty statement that there were 'loads more' and again, it's a safe assumption that you were still referring to the Quran as the hadith hadn't even been mentioned at that point (and are an entirely different body of texts). It's OK - you can be a big boy now and concede that there aren't loads (or any) passages in the Quran that advocate killing apostates and that you were just wrong. You're here to learn remember? Woopsy, never mind, life goes on. It's OK to be wrong Walter - this is factual stuff, not metaphysical mumbo jumbo, not opinions - and you make it clear you don't want to read the source material. I'd get it wrong too if I had that attitude. We've established in the past that you're not really familiar with the difference between the Quran and the hadith so I wasn't surprised. It's fine. For future reference, what you can say is that in some of the tens of thousands of hadith it says apostasy is punishable by death, and in others it says it isn't, and (unlike the Quran) which hadith you value depends on your schism. That would be true, OK? Factually correct, in the unlikely case that's something you still strive for.

ReplyVote up (101)down (67)
Original comment

I'm perfectly calm, but it's amusing to see your goal seems to now be to irritate rather than engage. Isn't that what they call a troll? Is this subject matter so tricky for you that you'd rather comment on the commenting? Maybe I've hit a nerve.

I think you're clever enough to know 'Which passage?' was referring to the video, which in turn is referring to the Quran. Your comment started with referencing the Quran, and you just made a bold and hasty statement that there were 'loads more' and again, it's a safe assumption that you were still referring to the Quran as the hadith hadn't even been mentioned at that point (and are an entirely different body of texts). It's OK - you can be a big boy now and concede that there aren't loads (or any) passages in the Quran that advocate killing apostates and that you were just wrong. You're here to learn remember? Woopsy, never mind, life goes on. It's OK to be wrong Walter - this is factual stuff, not metaphysical mumbo jumbo, not opinions - and you make it clear you don't want to read the source material. I'd get it wrong too if I had that attitude. We've established in the past that you're not really familiar with the difference between the Quran and the hadith so I wasn't surprised. It's fine. For future reference, what you can say is that in some of the tens of thousands of hadith it says apostasy is punishable by death, and in others it says it isn't, and (unlike the Quran) which hadith you value depends on your schism. That would be true, OK? Factually correct, in the unlikely case that's something you still strive for.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Thundercat (451 days ago)

Who the hell cares?

All muslims are lying bastards and the earth will be a much better place when they are all gone.

ReplyVote up (101)down (94)
Original comment

Who the hell cares?

All muslims are lying bastards and the earth will be a much better place when they are all gone.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: PA (451 days ago)

This is why I had to stop being friends with abusive bigots. You try and have a reasonable conversation and cite your sources but they just cannot do it.

ReplyVote up (101)down (96)
Original comment

This is why I had to stop being friends with abusive bigots. You try and have a reasonable conversation and cite your sources but they just cannot do it.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Thundercat (451 days ago)

A bigot hates people for no reason.

I have reasons, and anyone in western society has a reason as well.

The muslims gave us a reason, and im tired of being lied to by them.

Islam is peacfull is just one of their lies.

ReplyVote up (101)down (83)
Original comment

A bigot hates people for no reason.

I have reasons, and anyone in western society has a reason as well.

The muslims gave us a reason, and im tired of being lied to by them.

Islam is peacfull is just one of their lies.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (450 days ago)

canada is peaceful is just one of your lies but we see through. never bombed syria? wrong. only a couple of flq bombs? wrong. only the french speakers are terorists? wrong. never been canadian genocideal? wrong. just some of your lies lies lies. i never been lied to by a muslim as much as i have by violent canadian racists.

Original comment

canada is peaceful is just one of your lies but we see through. never bombed syria? wrong. only a couple of flq bombs? wrong. only the french speakers are terorists? wrong. never been canadian genocideal? wrong. just some of your lies lies lies. i never been lied to by a muslim as much as i have by violent canadian racists.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Thundercat (450 days ago)

Your an idiot.

Your statements are so far off the wall that its hard not to laugh.

There has never been a Canadian genocide.

Now your on the muslim side of the issue.

Canadians never lie.

ReplyVote up (101)down (91)
Original comment

Your an idiot.

Your statements are so far off the wall that its hard not to laugh.

There has never been a Canadian genocide.

Now your on the muslim side of the issue.

Canadians never lie.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (450 days ago)

my statements are off the wall? you tell me you can prove any thing on the internet?

ok then prove to me that 1 canada never bombed syria like you said and that operation impact never happened.

prove to me that 2 the flq were only a couple of bombs?

prove to me that 3 there wasnt arranged cultural genocide in your residential schools and forced sterilizations.

i am serious. these are all things you have said here and else where. i am waiting for your replys!!

canadians never lie? we can see for our selves. white wash history. far worse than muslims. at least there are muslim moderates who are honest and admit mistakes. yes i would rather live next to a muslim any day compared to a canadian. dont want to be fed lies and posted anthrax. disgusting people. i know plenty of muslims and never did they lie to me like you do every comment.

ReplyVote up (93)down (101)
Original comment

my statements are off the wall? you tell me you can prove any thing on the internet?

ok then prove to me that 1 canada never bombed syria like you said and that operation impact never happened.

prove to me that 2 the flq were only a couple of bombs?

prove to me that 3 there wasnt arranged cultural genocide in your residential schools and forced sterilizations.

i am serious. these are all things you have said here and else where. i am waiting for your replys!!

canadians never lie? we can see for our selves. white wash history. far worse than muslims. at least there are muslim moderates who are honest and admit mistakes. yes i would rather live next to a muslim any day compared to a canadian. dont want to be fed lies and posted anthrax. disgusting people. i know plenty of muslims and never did they lie to me like you do every comment.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Thundercat (450 days ago)

Your not going to win this **** head.

Tell me your country.

I think you said once it was the united states and we all know what scumbags you all are.

ReplyVote up (100)down (93)
Original comment

Your not going to win this **** head.

Tell me your country.

I think you said once it was the united states and we all know what scumbags you all are.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Thundercat (450 days ago)

Your a piece of shite.

LINK

We dropped bombs on Isis in syria not on syrians. Loudmouth. WE NEVER BOMBED SYRIANS!!!!!!!

There were 95 bombings by the flq only two of which i am familiar with.

This does not make me or anyone else a liar, all the bombiings were in the province of quebec a very long way away from me, and all members of the flq were Quebecers, french speaking quebecers.

Sterilizations did happen under the guise of eugenics, this happened in B.C and Alberta and it was not targeted against natives. Again most canadians do not know about this as the govt kept it secret. There was no forced sterilization in residential schools and if you can prove there was please do. In my province which is larger than most countrys of the world, there was absolutely no sterilization at all of any kind. It was only recently that i was made aware of the sterilizations that did happen.

This is the second largest country in the world, it is easy for the govt to keep secrets and most of this shit is from before I was born. Certainly nothing like this would ever happen today, but back then we had a lot of people like you who thought they knew everthing.

Muslims are the scum of the earth and you are a traitor to your own country for saying otherwise.

ReplyVote up (91)down (101)
Original comment

Your a piece of shite.

LINK

We dropped bombs on Isis in syria not on syrians. Loudmouth. WE NEVER BOMBED SYRIANS!!!!!!!

There were 95 bombings by the flq only two of which i am familiar with.

This does not make me or anyone else a liar, all the bombiings were in the province of quebec a very long way away from me, and all members of the flq were Quebecers, french speaking quebecers.

Sterilizations did happen under the guise of eugenics, this happened in B.C and Alberta and it was not targeted against natives. Again most canadians do not know about this as the govt kept it secret. There was no forced sterilization in residential schools and if you can prove there was please do. In my province which is larger than most countrys of the world, there was absolutely no sterilization at all of any kind. It was only recently that i was made aware of the sterilizations that did happen.

This is the second largest country in the world, it is easy for the govt to keep secrets and most of this shit is from before I was born. Certainly nothing like this would ever happen today, but back then we had a lot of people like you who thought they knew everthing.

Muslims are the scum of the earth and you are a traitor to your own country for saying otherwise.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (450 days ago)

HAHA! now it comes out. you said you never dropped bombs on SYRIA remember not syrians? fact is you bombed syria in operation impact. same as usa same as uk same as plenty of countrys. it was official news you dumb fool. you bombed syria. called you out on your lie, deal with it.

now it comes out. 95 BOMBINGS!!! and you said "a couple". i called you out on your lie, deal with it. and it wasnt just the flq was it now. the names denis lortie or richard bain mean anything to you???

never any genocide in canada. cultural genocide is a type of genocide and final report of the truth and reconcilation comittee say it as ""conscious policy of cultural genocide"". national indian brother hood (i know you wont respect them though) say it as ""the destruction of a Nation of People by legislation and cultural genocide."” called you out, deal with it. LINK read it you may learn some truth.

you say there was no forced sterilzation. "compulsory sterilization of students" based on Alberta's 1928 Sexual Sterilization Act and British Columbia's 1933 Sexual Sterilization Act". natives were selected in schools sterilized there or in hospitals as part of your sickening racist eugenics program like nazis. I KNOW what happened to leilani muir and many others. i KNOW what happened at provincial training school. i called you out, deal with it.

before you were born, not your fault, you didnt know, all inocent, all polite, and your paying compensation 100 YEARS later! good for you, and in the same comment that you deny most of it even happened.. i bet the ghosts of the metis are looking over you now. you traitor to deny there suferings. sick. we will pretend it never happened then yes? we will deny it shall we? no way. your all the same. instead of lying about your countrys evil recent past you should acept it and be ashamed for the sake of the lives and the cultures you destroyed.

yes i know you thought they were ""savages" ".. i wonder what kind of other words you called them... ""wagon burners"" maybe? sand or bush monkeys?? you havent changed have you?? you would do the same to muslims as you did to the metis. your all the same. at least muslims come from countries world over, have diferent attitudes diferent cultures. as for canadians? what have you have shown us... are you polite?? haha. honest?? haha. more like violent abusive racists that lie. i dont know wether your one of the stupid ones that beleve all the lies or your one of the sicks ones who tell the lies and white wash history. you seem both. i guess muslims have got a long way to go before they nock off canada from top spot scum of the earth.

i. called. you. out. canadian.

deal. with. it.

ReplyVote up (101)down (87)
Original comment

HAHA! now it comes out. you said you never dropped bombs on SYRIA remember not syrians? fact is you bombed syria in operation impact. same as usa same as uk same as plenty of countrys. it was official news you dumb fool. you bombed syria. called you out on your lie, deal with it.

now it comes out. 95 BOMBINGS!!! and you said "a couple". i called you out on your lie, deal with it. and it wasnt just the flq was it now. the names denis lortie or richard bain mean anything to you???

never any genocide in canada. cultural genocide is a type of genocide and final report of the truth and reconcilation comittee say it as ""conscious policy of cultural genocide"". national indian brother hood (i know you wont respect them though) say it as ""the destruction of a Nation of People by legislation and cultural genocide."” called you out, deal with it. LINK read it you may learn some truth.

you say there was no forced sterilzation. "compulsory sterilization of students" based on Alberta's 1928 Sexual Sterilization Act and British Columbia's 1933 Sexual Sterilization Act". natives were selected in schools sterilized there or in hospitals as part of your sickening racist eugenics program like nazis. I KNOW what happened to leilani muir and many others. i KNOW what happened at provincial training school. i called you out, deal with it.

before you were born, not your fault, you didnt know, all inocent, all polite, and your paying compensation 100 YEARS later! good for you, and in the same comment that you deny most of it even happened.. i bet the ghosts of the metis are looking over you now. you traitor to deny there suferings. sick. we will pretend it never happened then yes? we will deny it shall we? no way. your all the same. instead of lying about your countrys evil recent past you should acept it and be ashamed for the sake of the lives and the cultures you destroyed.

yes i know you thought they were ""savages" ".. i wonder what kind of other words you called them... ""wagon burners"" maybe? sand or bush monkeys?? you havent changed have you?? you would do the same to muslims as you did to the metis. your all the same. at least muslims come from countries world over, have diferent attitudes diferent cultures. as for canadians? what have you have shown us... are you polite?? haha. honest?? haha. more like violent abusive racists that lie. i dont know wether your one of the stupid ones that beleve all the lies or your one of the sicks ones who tell the lies and white wash history. you seem both. i guess muslims have got a long way to go before they nock off canada from top spot scum of the earth.

i. called. you. out. canadian.

deal. with. it.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: thundercat (449 days ago)

LMAO

Yep we had our planes over there but you don't wanna know that the prime minister responsible for that was voted out and the planes were recalled.

Bombing is not what Canada is about.

No i have no idea who those people are. Like I said, I live so far away and I speak a completely different language, so asking me about bombings in Quebec or about just about anything about Quebec is just stupid on your part. Quebec politics are even different (slightly) than ours.

If I could go back and change things i would but a time machine hasnt been invented yet and i don't think i could go back to before I was born.

Yes , some weird shit happened in Alberta and BC but I sure as hell didn't know anything about it. Eugenics was from the nazis but at that time many people liked everything German, even in the states. There probably wasn't a lot of people living out there at that time IDK.

So what I never killed an native, no one I know has killed one either. Shit I grew up with them, I still have native friends i grew up with. Sure ive called them wagon burners but theyve called me white bastard so many times Ive lost count. Holy heck. Ive been way up to st marys amoung the Huron to see the fort and the church. Pope went there once.

The Metis had some kind of revolt against the crown , they were rounded up and the leader was hanged. Learned it in school, to the British he was a traitor , to the French/natives a hero. Happened a long time ago and it doesnt matter one bit today. This is an english/french bilingual country now, with both languages being official.

Cultures destroyed? The whole uprising only involved a couple of hundred people at that time. Hardly a destroyed culture, the metis have been recognized as an official native people and have been granted all the benefits of native status.

Your really out of your mind pal, frankly Im concerned. Have you seen a doctor?

You can call me a Canadian any time you want, because its the best country on earth. There are no finer people, so generous , who have sacrificed so much for freedom and peace, than the Canadians.

ReplyVote up (91)down (100)
Original comment

LMAO

Yep we had our planes over there but you don't wanna know that the prime minister responsible for that was voted out and the planes were recalled.

Bombing is not what Canada is about.

No i have no idea who those people are. Like I said, I live so far away and I speak a completely different language, so asking me about bombings in Quebec or about just about anything about Quebec is just stupid on your part. Quebec politics are even different (slightly) than ours.

If I could go back and change things i would but a time machine hasnt been invented yet and i don't think i could go back to before I was born.

Yes , some weird shit happened in Alberta and BC but I sure as hell didn't know anything about it. Eugenics was from the nazis but at that time many people liked everything German, even in the states. There probably wasn't a lot of people living out there at that time IDK.

So what I never killed an native, no one I know has killed one either. Shit I grew up with them, I still have native friends i grew up with. Sure ive called them wagon burners but theyve called me white bastard so many times Ive lost count. Holy heck. Ive been way up to st marys amoung the Huron to see the fort and the church. Pope went there once.

The Metis had some kind of revolt against the crown , they were rounded up and the leader was hanged. Learned it in school, to the British he was a traitor , to the French/natives a hero. Happened a long time ago and it doesnt matter one bit today. This is an english/french bilingual country now, with both languages being official.

Cultures destroyed? The whole uprising only involved a couple of hundred people at that time. Hardly a destroyed culture, the metis have been recognized as an official native people and have been granted all the benefits of native status.

Your really out of your mind pal, frankly Im concerned. Have you seen a doctor?

You can call me a Canadian any time you want, because its the best country on earth. There are no finer people, so generous , who have sacrificed so much for freedom and peace, than the Canadians.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (449 days ago)

more lies and excuses. unbeleivable. you just cant face up to the disgusting shameful history is shocking. i am out of my mind because i confront you with the facts that you cant disprove? you said canada never bombed syria. canada did bomb syria. it was just another lie admit it. you have shown how often canadians lie about there past.
i am not asking you about bombs in quebec i was teaching you about it because as you admit you know nothing about the terorism in your own country and your long history of violence. the last person i would ask about canada is canadians because they can bullshit about there country better than any one.

canadians in quebec are still technicaly canadians just like isis are still muslim. in fact you have all the same excuses as mulsims and isis. i live far away from them. i speak a diferent language. it wasnt me. i didnt do it. i havent killed any one. those guys are different. we are the real canadians/muslims. yadda yadda. at least when saying the horrible truth about canadians its not such a bad generilzation because theres only 35 million of you instead of 1.5 billion muslims and the fact is you canadians are the same from the same country. your responsible because you are part of the same dispicable place.

best country in the world with a history of culture genocide, eugenics, bombings, terorism, racism and atacking other countrys??? shame on you. in canada it takes 100 years to tell the truth and even then you get racists online denying it. you have native friends right? lmao. your a racist clichay. on 1 hand you say you are making amends on the other you are STILL denying it. disgusting. the truth and reconcilation report said cultures WERE destroyed. please read it and see how at least some canadians TRY to fight there own nature and be honest and good. but i know you. you had a shitty up bringing. your racist 100%. your dishonest. your abusive. but you cant help it. your just a scummy canadian.

Original comment

more lies and excuses. unbeleivable. you just cant face up to the disgusting shameful history is shocking. i am out of my mind because i confront you with the facts that you cant disprove? you said canada never bombed syria. canada did bomb syria. it was just another lie admit it. you have shown how often canadians lie about there past.
i am not asking you about bombs in quebec i was teaching you about it because as you admit you know nothing about the terorism in your own country and your long history of violence. the last person i would ask about canada is canadians because they can bullshit about there country better than any one.

canadians in quebec are still technicaly canadians just like isis are still muslim. in fact you have all the same excuses as mulsims and isis. i live far away from them. i speak a diferent language. it wasnt me. i didnt do it. i havent killed any one. those guys are different. we are the real canadians/muslims. yadda yadda. at least when saying the horrible truth about canadians its not such a bad generilzation because theres only 35 million of you instead of 1.5 billion muslims and the fact is you canadians are the same from the same country. your responsible because you are part of the same dispicable place.

best country in the world with a history of culture genocide, eugenics, bombings, terorism, racism and atacking other countrys??? shame on you. in canada it takes 100 years to tell the truth and even then you get racists online denying it. you have native friends right? lmao. your a racist clichay. on 1 hand you say you are making amends on the other you are STILL denying it. disgusting. the truth and reconcilation report said cultures WERE destroyed. please read it and see how at least some canadians TRY to fight there own nature and be honest and good. but i know you. you had a shitty up bringing. your racist 100%. your dishonest. your abusive. but you cant help it. your just a scummy canadian.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: thundercat (449 days ago)

Lmao yet again.

You truly are a moron aren't you?

Your really taking things a little too far, and i don't give a rats ass whether you like Canada or not. Yet there you are getting all fumed up.

I couldn't ask for anything better.

lolololololol no really lolol

ReplyVote up (89)down (101)
Original comment

Lmao yet again.

You truly are a moron aren't you?

Your really taking things a little too far, and i don't give a rats ass whether you like Canada or not. Yet there you are getting all fumed up.

I couldn't ask for anything better.

lolololololol no really lolol

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (448 days ago)

wtf I am the one getting fumed up? HAHA have a look at your comments on friday night. you sent like 4 comments within 5 minutes screeching and swearing and having a proper tantrum. i never knew canadians got so upset when you call out there bullshit. so you call me a moron for showing you the facts and you cant show me a single thing that i lied about even though i have pulled apart every one of all your lies. if you are to stupid to know that you bombed syria and to stupid to know what your country did to natives and to stupid to read the truth and reconcilation report and to stupid to know about your own terorism.. that aint my problem. have another little cry about it and throw some more insults at me. it doesnt change the facts does it? canadians are all the same. lying racist scum like you showed us.

ReplyVote up (101)down (92)
Original comment

wtf I am the one getting fumed up? HAHA have a look at your comments on friday night. you sent like 4 comments within 5 minutes screeching and swearing and having a proper tantrum. i never knew canadians got so upset when you call out there bullshit. so you call me a moron for showing you the facts and you cant show me a single thing that i lied about even though i have pulled apart every one of all your lies. if you are to stupid to know that you bombed syria and to stupid to know what your country did to natives and to stupid to read the truth and reconcilation report and to stupid to know about your own terorism.. that aint my problem. have another little cry about it and throw some more insults at me. it doesnt change the facts does it? canadians are all the same. lying racist scum like you showed us.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: thundercat (448 days ago)

Loser

ReplyVote up (101)down (93)
Original comment

Loser

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (448 days ago)

so which one of my points wasnt true? which was a lie? didnt you bomb syria? didnt the flq set off ove 90 bombs? didnt other people commit terorism to? didnt canada carry out cultural genocide and then lie about it? didnt you just lie about it yourself?

thank you. case proven. canadians = racist vermin from a pathetic land. now run along.

ReplyVote up (90)down (101)
Original comment

so which one of my points wasnt true? which was a lie? didnt you bomb syria? didnt the flq set off ove 90 bombs? didnt other people commit terorism to? didnt canada carry out cultural genocide and then lie about it? didnt you just lie about it yourself?

thank you. case proven. canadians = racist vermin from a pathetic land. now run along.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (450 days ago)

dont worry hes a canadian. this kinda shit is normal over there. it wont be long before they put all muslims into "residential schools" and sterlize them

Original comment

dont worry hes a canadian. this kinda shit is normal over there. it wont be long before they put all muslims into "residential schools" and sterlize them

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Thundercat (450 days ago)

We don't treat citizens of our country like that.

The last residential school closed in 1970, some of my friends went to school there. No one had any idea ,at the time, what had happened in the residential schools.

If you decide to come visit, im sure we could find something to do with you.

ReplyVote up (93)down (101)
Original comment

We don't treat citizens of our country like that.

The last residential school closed in 1970, some of my friends went to school there. No one had any idea ,at the time, what had happened in the residential schools.

If you decide to come visit, im sure we could find something to do with you.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (450 days ago)

yes keep going with your lies. thats what the truth and reconcilation comitee was for. to uncover liers like you. no one had idea that indians were being rounded up and forced into residential schools?? i knew canadians were dumb but ok.

ReplyVote up (101)down (90)
Original comment

yes keep going with your lies. thats what the truth and reconcilation comitee was for. to uncover liers like you. no one had idea that indians were being rounded up and forced into residential schools?? i knew canadians were dumb but ok.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Thundercat (450 days ago)

Tell me your country ass hole.

ass hole

ass hole

better yet give me your address and ill come over cut a hole in your skull and screw it.

ReplyVote up (100)down (101)
Original comment

Tell me your country ass hole.

ass hole

ass hole

better yet give me your address and ill come over cut a hole in your skull and screw it.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (448 days ago)

HAHA so funny! look at him spitting and cussing. is it your time of the month? and threatning violence! what a true canadian! lying abusive and all upset. awwwwwww

ReplyVote up (101)down (88)
Original comment

HAHA so funny! look at him spitting and cussing. is it your time of the month? and threatning violence! what a true canadian! lying abusive and all upset. awwwwwww

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Thundercat (450 days ago)

The truth and reconcilitation commitee was to try and mend the fences between us and the natives. Compensation has been doled out to the natives and many old residential schools have been turned into museums.

There has never been a genocide in Canada,. Indians in general were not being rounded up and placed in residential schools only their children were. This happened when natives were considered savages and needed to be taught. We now know that this was the wrong thing to do and are making amends.

It has nothing to do with being as dumb as you , the govt and the anglican church kept this information from the general public.

Why dont you tell me where your from and ill dig some dirt up on your country , **** face.

Stop posting this shit **** face.

Your a complete ******* asshole, stop disrespecting my country.

Youve done this shit to me before ass hole , just stop it and grow the **** up.

Tell me your country , I dare you.

ReplyVote up (89)down (100)
Original comment

The truth and reconcilitation commitee was to try and mend the fences between us and the natives. Compensation has been doled out to the natives and many old residential schools have been turned into museums.

There has never been a genocide in Canada,. Indians in general were not being rounded up and placed in residential schools only their children were. This happened when natives were considered savages and needed to be taught. We now know that this was the wrong thing to do and are making amends.

It has nothing to do with being as dumb as you , the govt and the anglican church kept this information from the general public.

Why dont you tell me where your from and ill dig some dirt up on your country , **** face.

Stop posting this shit **** face.

Your a complete ******* asshole, stop disrespecting my country.

Youve done this shit to me before ass hole , just stop it and grow the **** up.

Tell me your country , I dare you.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (448 days ago)

HAHA and again HAHA

deep breaths little guy. stay calm. you just got schooled thats all.

ReplyVote up (84)down (101)
Original comment

HAHA and again HAHA

deep breaths little guy. stay calm. you just got schooled thats all.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: thundercat (448 days ago)

I got trolled.

Original comment

I got trolled.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Thundercat (451 days ago)

This verse is why i stopped being friends with muslims, they simply cannot do it and be good muslims.

ReplyVote up (99)down (101)
Original comment

This verse is why i stopped being friends with muslims, they simply cannot do it and be good muslims.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: PA (451 days ago)

You stopped being friends with Muslims because of the way the Quran says you should deal with Muslim Hypocrites who attack Islam? Wow.

ReplyVote up (95)down (100)
Original comment

You stopped being friends with Muslims because of the way the Quran says you should deal with Muslim Hypocrites who attack Islam? Wow.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Thundercat (451 days ago)

No.

I think I was clear.

Muslims can only be friends with other muslims, to do otherwise would mean to be a bad muslim. Since a muslim can lie to a non-muslim , why would anyone trust them?

ReplyVote up (101)down (94)
Original comment

No.

I think I was clear.

Muslims can only be friends with other muslims, to do otherwise would mean to be a bad muslim. Since a muslim can lie to a non-muslim , why would anyone trust them?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: PA (451 days ago)

You said 'This verse is why I stopped being friends with muslims'.

Which verse? Because the verse you seem to be referring to is talking about Islamic Hypocrites who fight Islam.

Actually I don't know why I'm bothering.

Don't worry yourself.

ReplyVote up (91)down (101)
Original comment

You said 'This verse is why I stopped being friends with muslims'.

Which verse? Because the verse you seem to be referring to is talking about Islamic Hypocrites who fight Islam.

Actually I don't know why I'm bothering.

Don't worry yourself.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Thundercat (451 days ago)

Your right I am referring to the wrong verse, my bad.

Original comment

Your right I am referring to the wrong verse, my bad.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Thundercat (451 days ago)

The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule.

Sorry if i got the wrong verse , there is just so many hatefull verses to contend with.

ReplyVote up (82)down (101)
Original comment

The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule.

Sorry if i got the wrong verse , there is just so many hatefull verses to contend with.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: PA (451 days ago)

Urgh it's so hard not to bite.

OK just for the sake of it... could you give me just 2 example verses from the Quran that "call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule." Choose the very worst you know of, because I have a little hunch you may have just copy-pasted something from an Islamophobic website without looking into things yourself. I maybe wrong. 2 verses, humour me.

Original comment

Urgh it's so hard not to bite.

OK just for the sake of it... could you give me just 2 example verses from the Quran that "call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule." Choose the very worst you know of, because I have a little hunch you may have just copy-pasted something from an Islamophobic website without looking into things yourself. I maybe wrong. 2 verses, humour me.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Thundercat (451 days ago)

Nope, i just copy and pasted.

lmao.

Original comment

Nope, i just copy and pasted.

lmao.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Thundercat (451 days ago)


Quran (9:30) - "And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!"


Quran (9:73) - "O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination." Dehumanizing those who reject Islam, by reminding Muslims that unbelievers are merely firewood for Hell, makes it easier to justify slaughter. It also explains why today's devout Muslims have little regard for those outside the faith.

Basically any religion that says god has put a seal on my heart so i wont understand their religion and Im to be put to death for not believing, hellfire is my reward. The words are meant to trap people with loopy logic. I wont believe their bs so obviously god has sealed my heart so i will die and be tortured as an example., or they will kill me cause god said so. Their Allah is flawed. Why does He need any prophets at all.?

If He is all powerfull and omnipitent he can easily make himself be heard by everyone and seen by everyone and make his message clear. Why doesnt he do this? cause he is bull shite.

Original comment


Quran (9:30) - "And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!"


Quran (9:73) - "O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination." Dehumanizing those who reject Islam, by reminding Muslims that unbelievers are merely firewood for Hell, makes it easier to justify slaughter. It also explains why today's devout Muslims have little regard for those outside the faith.

Basically any religion that says god has put a seal on my heart so i wont understand their religion and Im to be put to death for not believing, hellfire is my reward. The words are meant to trap people with loopy logic. I wont believe their bs so obviously god has sealed my heart so i will die and be tortured as an example., or they will kill me cause god said so. Their Allah is flawed. Why does He need any prophets at all.?

If He is all powerfull and omnipitent he can easily make himself be heard by everyone and seen by everyone and make his message clear. Why doesnt he do this? cause he is bull shite.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: PA (451 days ago)

Are those honestly the best two examples you could find of verses that "call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule"? The first verse says that Allah will be the one doing the destroying, so hardly inciting Muslims to war. And the second says simply strive against people that disagree, saying that they are destined for hell - again, not calling anyone to declare war or slaughter anyone else. I think I could have found you some better examples. Saying people are destined for hell is no more a justification for murdering them than saying they are all liars or all evil - in fact, considerably less so. I don't know what I was expecting really, but I thought you'd do a little better than that with that bookmark selection of yours.

I'm not going to get into your general naive objections about the idea of a god who proves himself to humans, or wider objections to theism. We'd be here all year and I doubt you'd get your head around too much theology or philosophy. I think we both know your opinions are based on an emotional and deep-seated prejudice rather than evidence-based conclusion, but feel what you have to feel. We've been here before haven't we? "Who cares" if your reasons for hating Islam don't stack up, right? Muslims are still all evil lying sand monkeys etc, right? OK fellow.

Anyway, you've had a go, and those two verses were your best shot. Nice one. Now your hate-filled abusive generalisations across a fifth of the world's population seem entirely rational. Yes, that's sarcasm.

I just have to remind myself it's you.

Original comment

Are those honestly the best two examples you could find of verses that "call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule"? The first verse says that Allah will be the one doing the destroying, so hardly inciting Muslims to war. And the second says simply strive against people that disagree, saying that they are destined for hell - again, not calling anyone to declare war or slaughter anyone else. I think I could have found you some better examples. Saying people are destined for hell is no more a justification for murdering them than saying they are all liars or all evil - in fact, considerably less so. I don't know what I was expecting really, but I thought you'd do a little better than that with that bookmark selection of yours.

I'm not going to get into your general naive objections about the idea of a god who proves himself to humans, or wider objections to theism. We'd be here all year and I doubt you'd get your head around too much theology or philosophy. I think we both know your opinions are based on an emotional and deep-seated prejudice rather than evidence-based conclusion, but feel what you have to feel. We've been here before haven't we? "Who cares" if your reasons for hating Islam don't stack up, right? Muslims are still all evil lying sand monkeys etc, right? OK fellow.

Anyway, you've had a go, and those two verses were your best shot. Nice one. Now your hate-filled abusive generalisations across a fifth of the world's population seem entirely rational. Yes, that's sarcasm.

I just have to remind myself it's you.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (451 days ago)

Can any Jew or Christian give a convincing refutation of: "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass." 1 Samuel 15:3 ? Can such a passage ever be squared with a plain commandment against killing by reasoning men? Should any of us really try to live our 21st century, post-enlightenment lives in conformity with the brutal text of any bronze age desert nomads fable?

ReplyVote up (95)down (101)
Original comment

Can any Jew or Christian give a convincing refutation of: "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass." 1 Samuel 15:3 ? Can such a passage ever be squared with a plain commandment against killing by reasoning men? Should any of us really try to live our 21st century, post-enlightenment lives in conformity with the brutal text of any bronze age desert nomads fable?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Proud Agnostic (451 days ago)

I don't think the majority of scholars or believers would see the need for a refutation. For the sake of argument though, as above I'll pretend you're genuinely interested and will gladly explain from an exegesis point of view. There are a few key points that are useful:

- Most importantly, the commandment 'Thou shalt not kill' is far from 'plain' as you suggest, and has numerous caveats that are explored throughout the Bible covering everything from meat production to warfare.
- God's commandment to slay the Amalekites is separate from his commandment not to kill - and if god has omniscience and ultimate sovereignty (as believers believe) then there is no contradiction. He has the power and knowledge to make general guidelines and also to make exceptions - and there is no religious requirement or expectation that mankind should fully understand or agree with what he orders.
- There are countless examples of the Old Testament god punishing those that sin, and indeed the idea of judgement is integral into most faiths. In the Bible, the Amalekites were persistently immoral, had been at war with Israel, and were predicted to continue generation to generation.
- With my non-religious exegesis hat on, I would also raise the point that strictly speaking, the mention of Amalekites is probably anachronistic, thereby suggesting it's inclusion (possibly at a later date) is more allegorical. In Jewish study for example, this is extended to identifying Amalekites as any iredeemable and absolute enemy.

The only apparent disharmony is between the idea of an all-loving god and one that would order a slaughter. This is reasonably unpicked by debating what is meant by 'all-loving', in so far as theists even believe such a thing. Most people would probably believe it would include being cruel to be kind, for example. Anyway, that wasn't your point.

Of course, the extract is a real chestnut of the Old Testament, without a doubt, and that's hardly the weirdest or even least Christian part of it. We should be thankful that Christians are defined (quite literally) by the teachings of the Christ character and are therefore identified with the New Testament before the Old. Jesus Christ supposedly brought a 'new way', a 'new convenant', and in some cases explicitly overruled parts that had come before. I could give you a list of maybe a dozen extracts of the Bible that are frequently wheeled out by New Atheists, and not one is from the New Testament.

I agree though, I don't think anyone should live according to a literal interpretation of the Old Testament alone. Thankfully, it's self-evident that most people don't. The obvious majority of Jews, Christians and Muslims don't attempt genocide, nor slaughter non-believers, etc. etc, and instead use their texts to live humble, compassionate, and disciplined lives. Fair play to them. We can be glad they don't cherry pick the same parts of their texts that atheists do.

ReplyVote up (101)down (83)
Original comment

I don't think the majority of scholars or believers would see the need for a refutation. For the sake of argument though, as above I'll pretend you're genuinely interested and will gladly explain from an exegesis point of view. There are a few key points that are useful:

- Most importantly, the commandment 'Thou shalt not kill' is far from 'plain' as you suggest, and has numerous caveats that are explored throughout the Bible covering everything from meat production to warfare.
- God's commandment to slay the Amalekites is separate from his commandment not to kill - and if god has omniscience and ultimate sovereignty (as believers believe) then there is no contradiction. He has the power and knowledge to make general guidelines and also to make exceptions - and there is no religious requirement or expectation that mankind should fully understand or agree with what he orders.
- There are countless examples of the Old Testament god punishing those that sin, and indeed the idea of judgement is integral into most faiths. In the Bible, the Amalekites were persistently immoral, had been at war with Israel, and were predicted to continue generation to generation.
- With my non-religious exegesis hat on, I would also raise the point that strictly speaking, the mention of Amalekites is probably anachronistic, thereby suggesting it's inclusion (possibly at a later date) is more allegorical. In Jewish study for example, this is extended to identifying Amalekites as any iredeemable and absolute enemy.

The only apparent disharmony is between the idea of an all-loving god and one that would order a slaughter. This is reasonably unpicked by debating what is meant by 'all-loving', in so far as theists even believe such a thing. Most people would probably believe it would include being cruel to be kind, for example. Anyway, that wasn't your point.

Of course, the extract is a real chestnut of the Old Testament, without a doubt, and that's hardly the weirdest or even least Christian part of it. We should be thankful that Christians are defined (quite literally) by the teachings of the Christ character and are therefore identified with the New Testament before the Old. Jesus Christ supposedly brought a 'new way', a 'new convenant', and in some cases explicitly overruled parts that had come before. I could give you a list of maybe a dozen extracts of the Bible that are frequently wheeled out by New Atheists, and not one is from the New Testament.

I agree though, I don't think anyone should live according to a literal interpretation of the Old Testament alone. Thankfully, it's self-evident that most people don't. The obvious majority of Jews, Christians and Muslims don't attempt genocide, nor slaughter non-believers, etc. etc, and instead use their texts to live humble, compassionate, and disciplined lives. Fair play to them. We can be glad they don't cherry pick the same parts of their texts that atheists do.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (451 days ago)

Amen to that; the majority of believers sure don't see any need to refute, they have far too many canned excuses (Jesus changed all that/it only referred to really, really bad guys/whatever)...yet the fundamentalists around me still insist that I must accept on faith that every word in the Bible is literally true, lest I spend an eternity roasting in flames, and cherry pick their own favorite bits...as they cram pork and shellfish in their mouths with a piety that refuses to recognize their own hypocrisy. I have no need for Christ to be divine to accept the morality of his message, in much the same way that I have no need to insist that Ghandi or Abraham Lincoln were right and thus must be divine. I fear fundamentalism in every faith, as the certainty and exclusivity of its logic necessarily ends in the the slaughter of neighbors over some trivial disagreement. As human history provides no example of any benevolent theocracy ever, I'm all for keeping faith well out of politics. Believe whatever you like, enjoy whatever gives you comfort, but don't force your belief on others. I'll not slay you over it, I'll be too content with moderation in all things.

ReplyVote up (101)down (96)
Original comment

Amen to that; the majority of believers sure don't see any need to refute, they have far too many canned excuses (Jesus changed all that/it only referred to really, really bad guys/whatever)...yet the fundamentalists around me still insist that I must accept on faith that every word in the Bible is literally true, lest I spend an eternity roasting in flames, and cherry pick their own favorite bits...as they cram pork and shellfish in their mouths with a piety that refuses to recognize their own hypocrisy. I have no need for Christ to be divine to accept the morality of his message, in much the same way that I have no need to insist that Ghandi or Abraham Lincoln were right and thus must be divine. I fear fundamentalism in every faith, as the certainty and exclusivity of its logic necessarily ends in the the slaughter of neighbors over some trivial disagreement. As human history provides no example of any benevolent theocracy ever, I'm all for keeping faith well out of politics. Believe whatever you like, enjoy whatever gives you comfort, but don't force your belief on others. I'll not slay you over it, I'll be too content with moderation in all things.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Thundercat (451 days ago)

This seems only to concern amalek and not everyone who doesn't believe.

Its still wrong.

Original comment

This seems only to concern amalek and not everyone who doesn't believe.

Its still wrong.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (451 days ago)

Oh look, there's something bad over there! (In other words, why are you changing the subject?)

Original comment

Oh look, there's something bad over there! (In other words, why are you changing the subject?)

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
RELATED POSTS
Journalist Katy Tur on covering Donald Trump's election campaign
Journalist Katy Tur on covering Donald Trump's election campaign
Proof Chesterfield Cigarettes have no adverse effects
Proof Chesterfield Cigarettes have no adverse effects
Harvey Weinstein body language
Harvey Weinstein body language
Vladimir Putin - We shouldn't politicise youth festivals
Vladimir Putin - We shouldn't politicise youth festivals
David Pakman - Trump doesn't understand how money works
David Pakman - Trump doesn't understand how money works