Slashdot Mirror

Don't worry, it's only being used against people who disagree with us

Facebook has a long history of censoring stuff they simply don't like regardless of it actually being against any law or not.

Their rules on "hate speech" is a dozen lines but accounts for a huge amount of blocking/removal. In particular they don't like uncomfortable facts, like the massive over-representation of Muslims living in the west within certain crime areas, like violence, robbery, domestic violence, rape and fraud. Just mention this and you're likely to be penalized. I got hit by replying to someone complaining that yet another crime show had Muslims as terrorists, that it simply reflected reality where most terror acts in the last couple of decades were perpetrated by Muslims. Just in the last 30 days there were 111 Islamic attacks in 20 countries, in which 611 people were killed and 728 injured. In the same time period only 1 attack was perpetrated by a non-Muslim and that was the attack in Christchurch that left 50 dead and a similar number injured. Source: https://www.thereligionofpeace...

A citation, really? Do you habitually stick your head in the sand?

A specific example of attempted genocide by Islamic invaders. ...with the Muslim camps being described as building "towers of skulls of the infidels" on hillocks.

Here's another reference for your citation list.

another one.

ADL is fake, they don't even list sources. They claim Islamic extremists only killed 9 in the US in 2017 but really 19 were killed and 49 killed in 2016. That's a lot of deaths coming from less than 1% of the population that claims to be "peaceful" https://thereligionofpeace.com...

It would be more fair to say that Mormonism has evolved so that it no longer promotes/tolerates violence nor polygamy, just as modern day Christianity mostly does not (barring of course evangelicals who are pushing for wars in the Middle East in order to start the second coming/rapture/Armageddon).

Where would you get the idea that Christianity promotes violence? I know that's a popular meme but as with so many memes it lacks a basis in facts. Please point me towards the New Testament verses promoting wars, I must have missed them. Along the same lines, please point me towards the New Testament verses promoting polygamy as I must have missed those too.

Where did I say that? I said most Christians don't support violence.

This is the issue for Islam: there are many within it that are resisting efforts to modernize the religion. If you want to fix things you can't demonize Islam, you have to support those within the religion who want to moderate and modernize Islam. Animosity and hatred only feeds those who seek to keep Islam in the past.

You do know that the standard practice for an invading Muslim army is to give the conquered people 3 options: convert, die, or become a slave. That's literally taken out of the Koran, it cannot be attributed to wayward followers. There is no reforming that as it's directly from Mohammed. I'm curious where you got the notion that Islam can be reformed.

citation:

https://www.thereligionofpeace...

The natives of South and Central America would like to have a word with you regarding forced conversions to Christianity. And Christian Crusaders would often kill, enslave, and/or rape the entire population of a sacked city, including other Christians.

You missed the entire point of my post: Christianity evolved past the violence of the Crusades (of course it took plenty of wars, persecutions, and inquisitions for it to do so). Islam needs to be given the time and support to do so as well, and that change needs to come from within.

I think we're somewhat in agreement but I want to clarify on the Crusades. They were a response, albeit delayed and not entirely pure in motive, to the Muslim armies having taken over large chunks of what used to be Christian areas. The popular narrative is that the crusaders came out of nowhere to attack the peaceful Muslims. That's just not accurate. As for the Americas, it wasn't right to force conversions. It also wasn't mandated by Jesus the way that Mohammed mandated that non-Muslims (Infidels) be enslaved / killed. That's a key distinction. I would say it's less a case of Christianity evolved and more a case that it got back to its roots. Islam cannot do this as the roots were always violent. It would take a departure from the teachings of Mohammed to actually get a peaceful Islam.

It would be more fair to say that Mormonism has evolved so that it no longer promotes/tolerates violence nor polygamy, just as modern day Christianity mostly does not (barring of course evangelicals who are pushing for wars in the Middle East in order to start the second coming/rapture/Armageddon).

Where would you get the idea that Christianity promotes violence? I know that's a popular meme but as with so many memes it lacks a basis in facts. Please point me towards the New Testament verses promoting wars, I must have missed them. Along the same lines, please point me towards the New Testament verses promoting polygamy as I must have missed those too.

Where did I say that? I said most Christians don't support violence.

This is the issue for Islam: there are many within it that are resisting efforts to modernize the religion. If you want to fix things you can't demonize Islam, you have to support those within the religion who want to moderate and modernize Islam. Animosity and hatred only feeds those who seek to keep Islam in the past.

You do know that the standard practice for an invading Muslim army is to give the conquered people 3 options: convert, die, or become a slave. That's literally taken out of the Koran, it cannot be attributed to wayward followers. There is no reforming that as it's directly from Mohammed. I'm curious where you got the notion that Islam can be reformed.

citation:

https://www.thereligionofpeace...

The natives of South and Central America would like to have a word with you regarding forced conversions to Christianity. And Christian Crusaders would often kill, enslave, and/or rape the entire population of a sacked city, including other Christians.

You missed the entire point of my post: Christianity evolved past the violence of the Crusades (of course it took plenty of wars, persecutions, and inquisitions for it to do so). Islam needs to be given the time and support to do so as well, and that change needs to come from within.

It would be more fair to say that Mormonism has evolved so that it no longer promotes/tolerates violence nor polygamy, just as modern day Christianity mostly does not (barring of course evangelicals who are pushing for wars in the Middle East in order to start the second coming/rapture/Armageddon).

Where would you get the idea that Christianity promotes violence? I know that's a popular meme but as with so many memes it lacks a basis in facts. Please point me towards the New Testament verses promoting wars, I must have missed them. Along the same lines, please point me towards the New Testament verses promoting polygamy as I must have missed those too.

This is the issue for Islam: there are many within it that are resisting efforts to modernize the religion. If you want to fix things you can't demonize Islam, you have to support those within the religion who want to moderate and modernize Islam. Animosity and hatred only feeds those who seek to keep Islam in the past.

You do know that the standard practice for an invading Muslim army is to give the conquered people 3 options: convert, die, or become a slave. That's literally taken out of the Koran, it cannot be attributed to wayward followers. There is no reforming that as it's directly from Mohammed. I'm curious where you got the notion that Islam can be reformed.

citation:

https://www.thereligionofpeace...

Furthermore, nobody is born a Muslim;

Nope. A little google searching:

Muslim children follow their Muslim parents. Hence the one who has two Muslim parents is deemed to be a Muslim, so he may inherit or be inherited from, and if he dies he is to be washed and buried, the funeral prayer is to be offered for him and he is to be buried in the Muslim graveyard. And in the Hereafter he will be one of the people of Paradise, according to scholarly consensus.
The Shaafa‘i scholar an-Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: The one whose parents, or one of them, are Muslim is also regarded as a Muslim with regard to rulings concerning the hereafter and worldly matters. End quote from Sharh Muslim, 16/208
The Hanbali scholar Ibn Qudaamah (may Allah have mercy on him) said: The child follows his parents in both realms (i.e., this world and the hereafter). If the parents are of different religions, then he must follow the one who is Muslim, such as the child of a Muslim man from a kitaabi (i.e., Jewish or Christian) woman. End quote from al-Mughni, 10/91.

...people choose to be Muslim and can change at any time. .

Nope. Once one is a Muslim, leaving Islam is defined as apostasy, and in most Muslim countries, is punishable by death.
https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/apostasy.aspx

I disagree with prejudice and discrimination against Muslims, or against anybody on the basis of their religion, but that's not reason to underplay how oppressive the religion is.

Exactly.

If you look over the list 2,478 Islam-inspired attacks in 2016, which killed 21,237 humans -- TheReligionOfPeace.com/attacks/attacks.aspx?Yr=2016 -- you'll see that most of the victims were Muslim themselves.

There's nothing wrong with a containment strategy that keeps this problem from spreading to non-Muslim countries.

For example, if Seddique Mateen, the Taliban-supporting father of the Orlando shooter, had never been permitted to travel to the U.S., 49 additional Americans would be alive today.

I'm not saying Islam doesn't have particular issues, but they are not unique to Islam

That's like saying breast cancer is not unique to women. Technically true -- because on very rare occasions men get breast cancer -- but a stupid point to make.

Go here: TheReligionOfPeace.com/attacks/attacks.aspx?Yr=2016

and note that there were 2,478 Islam-inspired attacks in 2016, that killed 21,237 humans.

It would be quite impossible to compile a comparable list of Buddhism-inspired attacks, or Christianity-inspired attacks, or Sikh-inspired attacks.

Also note that the politically-correct climate forces me to go A.C. for this post. Screw the prime minister's call to regulate the internet because it has "safe spaces" for terrorists; how about creating a safe space for truth-speakers like me?

Honestly, liberals are what is ruining Hollywood (movies & TV) today. Liberals by definition feel their way through life instead of thinking their way through. Go watch the first season of The Walking Dead and then (if you can survive it) the first season of Fear the Walking Dead. TWD must have had some input from someone with a brain because the characters are complex (not all good or bad) and they make reasonable choices. OTOH, FTWD is ridiculous, many characters are liberal stereotypes (the soldiers, police, gun owners, gun objectors). The show had great source material, but instead of working to build realistic characters in TWD universe, they instead chose to barf their liberal agenda all over the sad excuse for a story (or they are incapable of controlling themselves).

The really successful movies out of Hollywood in the last 15 plus years have been superhero flicks because they have predefined cartoon villains that Hollywood cant really screw up and don't offend their liberal bias (excepting a few, like Iron Man 3 who completely pooched many things due to the obvious liberal bias in the writing, including the Mandarin, because a person of Chinese ancestry couldn't possibly be evil). 99% of the original Hollywood movies in the last 40 years depict villains as some kind of white male who is either a corrupt corporate type (Avatar etc) or a US soldier or some kind of crazy Christian (rock of ages, Red State, Salvation Boulevard, Higher Ground, Tyrannosaur, The Ledge etc. http://archives.relevantmagazi... ) Those are the boogeymen for the liberals in Hollywood, and it is ridiculous to the rest of us. In the real world (outside of the massive liberal echo chamber, you know where there are history books to study) the majority of villains in the real world are: politicians (Hitler, Stalin Mao etc were all politicians, yet liberals want powerful government to save us from ourselves and care for our every need, so politicians can't be villains), criminals (liberals believe that criminals are just ill and need to be rehabilitated, rather than evil that need to be punished or eliminated from society), atheists (liberals love these morally relativisitic God deniers, but they have killed about 200M people in the last 100 years http://www.conservapedia.com/A... ) and radical Muslim terrorists (note they are MUSLIMS, no other religion comes close to the 30,000 plus murders committed by radical MUSLIMS in the past 17 years in the name of Islam http://www.thereligionofpeace.... or the 30% acceptance of radical violence by the US Muslim population). You may not like it, but that is the reality. The one movie that had a Muslim as the villain that I am aware of (True Lies) has been blacklisted by Hollywood (you can't buy it or stream it on Hulu, iTunes, Ultraviolet, Netflix, Amazon and it is not available on BluRay or 4K, only it's original DVD release as of a few months ago).

Even if you are going for pure fantasy, there are many villain tropes to draw from in literary technique/history and yet liberals seem to be incapable of creative thought outside of their fascist, limited worldview, and that is what is killing the quality of movies.

it has politics and xenophobic policies that demand followers murder infidels and people of other religions, people deny these facts at their own peril https://www.thereligionofpeace...

Yep, all those Buddhist suicide bombers trying to kill all Jews are a threat to us all.

Who's the "dim twit"?

Those were called "kamikaze" you twit.

Google "Shinto", you brainless howler monkey.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

Throughout the 90s, nobody even thought about Islam: everybody assumed that since the Cold War was over, we would live happily ever after. That despite things like the First WTC bombing, the Khobar Towers bombing, the Embassy bombings in Kenya & Tanzanya, the USS Cole and finally 9/11.

And since 9/11, there have been more that 30,000 deadly Jihad attacks worldwide, this before there were any US troops in Afghanistan or Iraq. Yeah, there were US troops in KSA, but that was at the behest of the Saudi government in response to Saddam Hussein's 1991 occupation of Kuwait. People make the same assumptions you do b'cos they know nothing about the Islamic doctrines of Jihad, and the necessity to keep spreading Islamic law worldwide until Islam becomes supreme

Here's one source - shows 21k killed, 27k injured. http://www.thereligionofpeace....

Note that most of these attack are in Islamic countries, so they don't get Western press coverage.

They aren't trying to murder small numbers of people to effect political change

Look at the list. That's what they're doing for these numbers: ~2500 small attacks. I don't think ISIS battle casualties are included, and probably bring the total up to the 27k I saw elsewhere.

Anyway, the idea that ISIS could bring their war to US shores is laughable. Maybe some terror attacks at best.

Just the occasional truck through a crowd - no problem, right? I agree we won't see small communities slaughtered in "door-to-door beheadings" as in Africa, but a suicide bomber in a crowded nightclub could have a similar death toll.

It's not Muslims who are bombing 7 countries on the other side of the world of them for bullshit reasons - that's you

The Religion of Peace:

Attacks 195
Killed 1386
Injured 1644
Suicide Blasts 39
Countries 30

It wasn't Iran who had a wordwide kidnapping and torture program - that was you.

Iran and state-sponsored terrorism

It wasn't Syria that overthrew two democracies just during the Obama years - that was you.

What two "democracies" would those be?

It wasn't Libya that invaded Iraq over lies and got a million people killed and created million more refugees - that was you.

Congratulations, you got one, but let's not pretend Saddam didn't help dig his own grave or was anything but a brutal dictator that earned the ire of the US and our Middle East allies after invading Kuwait.

Stupid SJW sockpuppet mods and AC posts can die in a fire. You pieces of shit force everyone to post as AC because of your downmod shitstorms. I take comfort in knowing that soon, you will be living in concentration camps and experiencing routine electroshock therapy to correct your deviancy (at least according to you).

THE 0.3% ARE THE CURRENT NUMBERS WITH 3M MUSLIMS OUT OF 318M AMERICANS!!! So Muslims are currently 1% of the population and Muslim terrorists caused 0.3% of the murders (for reference, there are 74M children in the US, and 25 accidental deaths by toddler every year is apparently unavoidable). 0.3% seems pretty fucking high for 1% of the population (that 0.3% of all murders doesn't take into account the other murders committed by Muslims for non terrorist reasons, like honor killings, or just plain old murder). So what the fuck do you think happens when we import another who knows how many "refugees" who we know 100% have been infiltrated by ISIS? At a minimum, that number goes up. Beyond that, Islamic terrorists 0.3% murder rate is only because they have not been more successful. If you get enough who want jihad and they reach critical mass, they will probably be more successful (see France). The 0.3% is cherry picked libtard propaganda that leaves out the biggest terrorist attack in the US (that happened 16 years ago, you dishonest little fucks).

There have been 510 islamic terrorist attacks on Americans since 1995 and 3576 fatalities and close to 10,000 injured. https://www.start.umd.edu/pubs...
http://www.thereligionofpeace....

There are about 16k murders in the US per year. Over half of all murders take place in the big liberal bastion cities, coincidentally. However, using that time year period, islamic terrorists accounted for 1% of all murders. The extremely reasonable concern that citizens like myself further realize that in 2001, after years of ignoring the Islamist threat, terrorism accounted for almost 20% of all murders. Thus, if you ignore the threat of radical Islam, it can and has accounted for much more of the murders in the US than the small fraction you dishonestly cite.

You libtards are living examples of reverse Darwinism. Your capacity for stupidity is limitless and 100 years ago you wouldn't have lived to adulthood, let alone reproduced. You would have been murdered by the first truly dangerous thing that you came across, and the rest of us would have been better off for it.

The difference is: the Bible has a New Testament. It's primary message? Scripture can be hard to interpret, so if you think it's telling you to hurt someone, that's how you know you're reading it wrong. That Jesus guy just wouldn't shut up about this: turn the other cheek, do unto others as you would have them do unto you, etc., etc.

The Koran desperately needs its own New Testament, just as Islam desperately needs it's own Reformation. That can only happen from within, of course, but we should recognize it for what it is.

Just in 2016 there were 2455 Islamic attacks in 60 countries, in which 21152 people were killed and 26499 injured. If that number surprises you, it's because the western press doesn't care to report attacks without western victims. Your false equivalence is obvious and foolish.

If all those rules of the OT aren't important, then why did the Council of Nicaea and subsequent generations of scholars and clergy leave them in there? The OT is still part of the Bible, so by choosing not to follow those rules you are proving my point that both religions pick and choose (and different followers of the religions choose differently than others) which to follow. As for Jesus saying turn the other cheek, you are correct. But simply read the Wikipedia page on the Bible and Violence and you will see how Christians have still chose to interpret the Bible as advocating violence, and the page on Christianity and violence is also enlightening.

Personally, I am of the opinion that, as Islam is roughly 600 years newer than Christianity, if we look at what the Chrsitian world was like 600 years ago there are a lot of parallels between Christianity then and Islam now. Christianity had its reformation which left it a much less violent and (as it has modernized) more tolerant religion (there is of course a lot of intolerance left). Islam has the dual issue of not having gone through a reformation and being judged on modern terms while still in it's ancient form. The problem is that change has to come from within and it has to come organically, it can't be forced. And right now I don't see any indications of anything that could cause that change. Maybe if the Mosul Dam collapses and kills hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and displaces millions more it may be apocalyptic enough and attributable to ISIS (and therefore extremist Islam) that it might trigger a reformation or a rise of moderate Islam, but even that is a bit of a stretch.

The difference is: the Bible has a New Testament. It's primary message? Scripture can be hard to interpret, so if you think it's telling you to hurt someone, that's how you know you're reading it wrong. That Jesus guy just wouldn't shut up about this: turn the other cheek, do unto others as you would have them do unto you, etc., etc.

The Koran desperately needs its own New Testament, just as Islam desperately needs it's own Reformation. That can only happen from within, of course, but we should recognize it for what it is.

Just in 2016 there were 2455 Islamic attacks in 60 countries, in which 21152 people were killed and 26499 injured. If that number surprises you, it's because the western press doesn't care to report attacks without western victims. Your false equivalence is obvious and foolish.

The 'Fear of Muslims is RATIONAL' is something that's easy to trace back, having done it so often since 9/11. It's the term 'Islamophobia'. Whenever anybody says anything against either Islam or Muslims, they are accused of being 'Islamophobes', which is the term used for anti-Muslim bigots.

And here is what the rebuttal is. A phobia is an irrational fear of something. Like if one is scared of a butterfly or a spider, that's a phobia, since those 2 things are harmless. But if one is scared of a scorpion or a wasp, that's not a phobia. It's the same here. If one is scared of a Buddhist or Jew or Hindu or even a Christian, it would be a phobia, since none of these groups are out to destroy all other religions in favor of their own. But if one is scared of a Muslim doing this, it's legit.

And that's not just based on one's prejudices, but rather, a combination of observing events around the world since 9/11, and then comparing them to what Islamic texts advocate. Since 9/11, there have been close to 30,000 jihadist attacks worldwide - be it the 7/7 attacks in London, the massacre of schoolkids in Beslan, the massacre last year in Paris, the attack in Nice, San Bernardino, Boston, Orlando, Minneapolis, Salt Lake City, Chattanooga, Israel, Mumbai, Yala (Thailand), Bali bombings, the list goes on & on & on. While the attackers in all these places came from different places of the world - be it Afghanistan, Algeria, Pakistan, Chechnya, Bosnia, Kuwait, as well as being Westerners recruited by al Qaeda or ISIS, one thing that was common to all of them - they were all Muslim! Some of them were born Muslims, and some of them, like Westerners such as John Walker Lindh, Adam Gadahn, Jose Padilla, Richard Reid, Steven Vikas Chand, et al were converts. But all of them shared one thing in common - a fanatical belief in Islam. While some screamed 'allahu-akbar' while committing their carnage, others did it more quietly but were later found to be Islamically motivated.

What does one do when the evidence on this is so overwhelming? One is to review the sermons that come out of mosques anywhere, and one finds that the imams/mullahs/whatever are the ones who preach this bigotry. What's the next step? That would be to find out how do so many people, whose only job is reading and interpreting Islamic texts, from the Quran to Hadiths to Siras to Tafseers - come to the same conclusion? Solution then is to either read these works in the original - a rather cumbersome exercise - or check out various non-Muslims who've studied these things from something other than a devotional approach, and see what they say. People like Ali Sina, Ibn Warraq, Wafa Sultan, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Walid Shoebat, Bat Yeor, Robert Spencer, Hugh Fitzgerald, Raymond Ibrahim and so on. A combination of all this would reveal the frightening truth - that Islam indeed does endorse and advocate the destruction of all non-Islamic civilization.

The question that then follows is: if this is indeed what Islam states and preaches, is it also what all 1.8 billion Muslims believe? B'cos it would be pretty scary if they do! That's pretty right. Unfortunately, it's impossible to know. However, Pew Research polls taken in various countries of Muslims does reveal that a high percentage of them - maybe under 50%, but still, nowhere as low as 10% - believe in a lot of things, such as honor killings. Also, Muslims have a practice known as taquiyya, which allows them to lie to anybody in defense of, or in furtherance of Islam and Islamic interests. As a result, short of genuine psychic powers, it's impossible to know which ones are genuine and which ones are Jihadists in secular clothing.

So Michael Flynn linked to a claim that stated that Islam wants 80% of humanity enslaved or exterminated? That's pretty much accurate - read

Radical Islamic Terror in the US is very rare - even if we include the outlier of 9-11.

Meanwhile, an anti-Semite has been appointed to Chief Strategist and hate crimes are on the rise. As a Jew, do you really think I should be more afraid of Muslims than of someone who hates Jews whispering in the President's ear?

There have been some 100 Jihad attacks in the US since 9/11- it's not all that rare. Overall, there have been something like 30k Jihad attacks worldwide since 9/11.

"the vast majority of terrorists in America are white"

I suspect you are trolling, but on the off chance that you are serious:

Only if you redefine the meaning of the word terrorist. In the last 16 years, virtually every terrorist attack in the US and in fact on the planet has been radical Islam in origin. Not sure how you square that circle.

http://www.wnd.com/2015/07/big...

https://www.thereligionofpeace...

Deranged gunmen with a history of mental illness and road rage/workplace violence do not count as terrorism, no matter how hard you squint at it. Those are baked into our society and something that we can work on with involuntary commitment reform and more effective policing. Terrorism is an external threat created and bred by Islamist countries to deflect the internal anger over their own deficiencies onto the American people.

http://www.thereligionofpeace....

Does the Quran really contain over a hundred verses promoting violence?

The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule. Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding. Muslims who do not join the fight are called 'hypocrites' and warned that Allah will send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter.

Unlike nearly all of the Old Testament verses of violence, the verses of violence in the Quran are mostly open-ended, meaning that they are not restrained by historical context contained in the surrounding text (although many Muslims choose to think of them that way). They are part of the eternal, unchanging word of Allah, and just as relevant or subject to interpretation as anything else in the Quran.

The context of violent passages is more ambiguous than might be expected of a perfect book from a loving God. Most contemporary Muslims exercise a personal choice to interpret their holy book's call to arms according to their own moral preconceptions about justifiable violence. Their apologists cater to these preferences with tenuous arguments that gloss over historical fact and generally do not stand up to scrutiny. Still, it is important to note that the problem is not bad people, but bad ideology.

Unfortunately, there are very few verses of tolerance and peace to balance out the many that call for nonbelievers to be fought and subdued until they either accept humiliation, convert to Islam, or are killed. Muhammad's own martial legacy, along with the remarkable stress on violence found in the Quran, have produced a trail of blood and tears across world history.
Quran
Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing...
but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun(the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)" (Translation is from the Noble Quran) The verse prior to this (190) refers to "fighting for the cause of Allah those who fight you" leading some to believe that the entire passage refers to a defensive war in which Muslims are defending their homes and families. The historical context of this passage is not defensive warfare, however, since Muhammad and his Muslims had just relocated to Medina and were not under attack by their Meccan adversaries. In fact, the verses urge offensive warfare, in that Muslims are to drive Meccans out of their own city (which they later did). Verse 190 thus means to fight those who offer resistance to Allah's rule (ie. Muslim conquest). The use of the word "persecution" by some Muslim translators is disingenuous (the actual Arabic words for persecution - "idtihad" - and oppression - a variation of "z-l-m" - do not appear in the verse). The word used instead, "fitna", can mean disbelief, or the disorder that results from unbelief or temptation. This is certainly what is meant in this context since the violence is explicitly commissioned "until religion is for Allah" - ie. unbelievers desist in their unbelief.

Quran (2:244) - "Then fight in the cause of Allah, and know that Allah Heareth and knoweth all things."

Quran (2:216) - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not." Not only does this verse establish that violence can be virtuous, but it also contradicts the myth that fighting is intended only in self-defense, since the audience was obviously not under attack at the time. From the Hadith, we know that this v

islam, the religion of peace, thats what i blame

https://www.thereligionofpeace...

there's nothing in the Qu'ran as far as violence, misogyny and plain old fashioned wickedness

Are you high, or just ignorant? How about:
    "kill them wherever you find them"
    "fighting is prescribed for you"
    "soon shall we cast terror into the hearts of the unbelievers"
    "those who believe fight in the cause of allah"
    "and be not weak hearted in pursuit of the enemy"
    "and fight them until there is no more fitna and religion is all for allah"
    "Fight against them so that Allah will punish them by your hands"

and on, and on, and on.

Because no other ideological streams produce mass murdering terrorists. ....

Not to THIS degree:

During this time period, there were 226 Islamic attacks in 32 countries, in which 2229 people were killed and 2224 injured.

30 days - 226 Islam-inspired acts of terrorism.

Just one of the many listed:

2016.05.23 Syria Jableh 161 300 Children are among one-hundred and sixty innocents incinerated or blown apart by ISIS suicide blasts.

Didn't even make the news it's so damn common.

The site's over-the-top, but even if what it claims is Islamic terrorism is 90% wrong, the number of deaths is staggering - even at just 10% of the claims, no other force exists on Earth that even comes close in inciting violence.

Remember Boko Haram? How Obama posted hash tags to return kidnapped girls? Then forgot about it? Well, Boko Haram makes that list several times.

I disagree with your assertion.

Follow the argument.

If you are Muslim then by definition your holy book is the Quran. The Quran specifically instructs you to inflict violence against non-believers or be labeled a hypocrite and be sent to hell by Allah.

If you do not want to be sent to hell, you must fight to make every knee bow to Islam.

And as they say on Wikipedia, (Citation Needed). Here is your citation in the form of 109 verses from the Quran on violence against non-believers.

Following your argument, you could say, "oh this is just a mental balance issue" or "bad ideology issue". People will not tolerate this bad behavior and keep it in check.

In World War II, there is only one known case of an SS solider punished for refusing to exterminate Jews. One case. So, while your argument has some support, it is very, very weak.

Unfortunately, this has nothing to do with "those that practice it" but those that lead it and call others to action. If your tribal leader is dynamic enough and has enough followers, no one will oppose the atrocities carried out by the tribe. Sadly, history repeats this theme in human history over and over and over.

Thus, if you think the sheep won't go along with the "mentally unbalanced", think again. Just like the school children in France celebrating the night club attack. Their tribe had killed. Their tribe scored a point. Their tribe was winning for today.

Spoken like an naive idiot that doesn't understand Islam.

It is convert or die!

Islam can't even get along with Islam in the middle east. You are a naive. Look at what is already happened in UK, France, and Germany. It is no longer safe and the immigrants are already biting the hand that feeds them. In UK the muslims have established new systems of government. It is good times.

While your 99% assertion is true, muslims tolerate it because they are weak. However, the Quran endorses violence against non-believers and it is ingrained into them by their preachers. If they get to critical mass anywhere, death will follow. Yes, this is their (sic) scripture laid bare. Read it for yourself. They will kill you, your family, and anyone who doesn't agree with their specific interpretation of the quran if given a chance. They do not believe in democracy, the republic, and think that your freedom is stupid and female genitals should be mutilated.

See http://www.thereligionofpeace....

Excerpt:

Does the Quran really contain over a hundred verses promoting violence?

The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule. Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding. Muslims who do not join the fight are called 'hypocrites' and warned that Allah will send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter.

Unlike nearly all of the Old Testament verses of violence, the verses of violence in the Quran are mostly open-ended, meaning that they are not restrained by historical context contained in the surrounding text (although many Muslims choose to think of them that way). They are part of the eternal, unchanging word of Allah, and just as relevant or subject to interpretation as anything else in the Quran.

The context of violent passages is more ambiguous than might be expected of a perfect book from a loving God. Most contemporary Muslims exercise a personal choice to interpret their holy book's call to arms according to their own moral preconceptions about justifiable violence. Their apologists cater to these preferences with tenuous arguments that gloss over historical fact and generally do not stand up to scrutiny. Still, it is important to note that the problem is not bad people, but bad ideology.

Unfortunately, there are very few verses of tolerance and peace to balance out the many that call for nonbelievers to be fought and subdued until they either accept humiliation, convert to Islam, or are killed. Muhammad's own martial legacy, along with the remarkable stress on violence found in the Quran, have produced a trail of blood and tears across world history.

Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing...
but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun(the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)" (Translation is from the Noble Quran) The verse prior to this (190) refers to "fighting for the cause of Allah those who fight you" leading some to believe that the entire passage refers to a defensive war in which Muslims are defending their homes and families. The historical context of this passage is not defensive warfare, however, since Muhammad and his Muslims had just relocated to Medina and were not under attack by their Meccan adversaries. In fact, the verses urge offensive warfare, in that Muslims are to drive Meccans out of their own city (which they later did). Verse 190 thus means to fight those who offer resistance to Allah's rule (ie. Muslim conquest). The use of

Islam is inherently violent. Christianity is inherently peaceful. Christianity says to love your enemy. Islam says to kill Jews and Christians.

Gotta play devil's advocate on this one.. Where exactly does "Islam" say to kill Jews and Christians, specifically? Islamists, sure, all day long. I don't believe the Koran specifically calls out for the eradication of any specific religion though.

You might find this website to be useful. I couldn't find it on there but I seem to recall that the Quran says that it is the duty of all Muslims to fight "until all religion is for Allah". That is calling for the eradication of all other beliefs, not just Christianity and Judaism.

doesn't have the balls to say "Islamic terrorism"

Only if we can call KKK and abortion clinic bombers "Christian terrorists".

If you are going to be rude, be equal opportunity rude.

Both of them?

Compared to the THOUSANDS of Islamic ones? (Only 113 Islamic terrorist attacks that have killed 907 people - in the last 30 days)

Hey, can you tell me how many Christians murdered people over Piss Christ?

There is quite a bit of difference between Islam and Christianity.

Christianity might have its share of hypocrites, but the foundational message is the practice of virtue, forgiveness and charity. There are some very bad Christians but these can be dealt with by currently existing laws. Christians who kill and break the law are going against their own code of conduct and so do not form an existential threat to Europe.

Atheists also are generally those who want to see a more 'reasonable' approach to life. At times it can be intolerant of others, but in general [today's] atheism still respects the need for law and order for the peace and prosperity of society.

Islam on the other hand has an entirely different set of values. Its fundamental tenet is to wage Jihad, to such an extent that those Muslims who refuse to wage Jihad are also public enemies. This is one of the reasons that sectarian strife in Muslim countries is very brutal. There is no nation on earth that has accepted Islam voluntarily - it has always been imposed due to military conquest. A believer in Islam does not even accept the authority of the state if it is not in accordance with Sharia law. Islam cannot be simply be dealt with by a policy of appeasement, as its system of belief will not tolerate any other laws but its own.

The real problem is not with Arab peoples or any race, but the horrible book which is named the 'Koran' that incites violence and destruction. Every nation that has adopted Islam has always been at war with itself and other peoples. To think Europe can deal with this crisis of Islam like it has dealt with others is simply not knowing the enemy nor his motivations.

So you're OK with Christians whose holy book advocates pedophilia and incest?

The Koran and Bible are quite different in many ways.

The Bible was written by dozens of people "inspired" by God, in a handful of languages, over hundreds of years. Very few read it in the original languages. The New Testament, centered on the pacifistic Jesus, largely supersedes* the Old. (*This is probably not the theologically-correct word, but you get my meaning.) There's lots of room for interpretation, and nearly all of the bad stuff that people cite is in the Old Testament, which very few Christians treat as central or equal to the New. (Many Bibles simply delete the entire Old Testament.)

The Koran is very different. It was (supposedly) dictated by Allah (who speaks a somewhat archaic Arabic) through Gabriel to Mohammad. Mohammad was very different from Jesus: not a pacifist but a caravan robber, murderer, and warlord. The copies of the Koran on Earth are "perfect" copies of Allah's copy in heaven. Muslims are expected to read it in the original Arabic. (Korans in translation are not "really" Korans in their view.) There is comparatively little room for interpretation.

The Koran itself is almost the opposite of the Bible: it's more peaceful in the beginning, and gets more violent later on, reflecting Mohammad's transformation from caravan robber to prophet to warlord. So you might notice that when Muslim apologists quote the Koran, they quote early passages, and when critics do, they quote later ones. But like the Bible, the latter parts are said to supersede (to some degree) the earlier parts.

In addition to the Koran being Allah's direct words, there's the problem of considering Muhammad "perfect" and a model for all Muslims: that gives you justification for child brides and cousin marriage (hence the well-documented negative eugenic effects of inbreeding in the Muslim world), slavery (ISIS has total theological justification for their sex slavery), hatred of Jews, death for gays, death for apostates, death for blasphemers, etc. And, of course, it's a central Islamic belief that Islam is destined to rule the world, with everyone else officially subjugated as second-class citizens, or converted, or killed. Which happens in every country ruled by Muslims.

You will find very little like that in the Bible, and very few Christians defend violence in the name of Jesus. But many Muslims all over the world are fine with religious violence. And mentioning these facts about Islam counts as "hate speech" in many European countries (not to mention Islamic ones)....

Funny how being reflexively liberal gains vast positive moderation---even when it is not backed up and unfounded. Ok kids, lets play. Let's dissect this awful, thoughtless post using 3 minutes of internet searching or less

Comment 1: Mexicans are rapists:

Actually, Mexicans in the US are 3 times as likely to be rapists compared to their white counter part. Easily found in this document from the Department of Justice. http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub...

Comment 2: Muslims are going to blow me up....

Do I really need to go there? Fish in a barrel are envious about easy this one is. I mean, you brought this up. But, since you asked, in the last 3 days, 157 attacks in 22 countries killing 1747 people. Number of, I don't know, choosing a country at random, Germans bombing others in same period.....0. Just saying'
http://www.thereligionofpeace....

I honestly won't touch the last once, since I really don't want to see the bestiality. sites, but but between you and me, I would not take that bet if I were you.

So, in a nut shell. This gets a 5 mod for being incorrect and supporting nothing. Nice job slashdot. Nice job.

you don't have to look very far back in time to find the IRA and other Christian groups doing their thing. Remember also the Tokyo ricin attacks? That was some local cult. How about David Koresh and Jim Jones?

I have to look back decades to find those things. When it comes to jihadi attacks, I only have to look back minutes.

Firstly let me just say that I think all religion is bad, Christianity included.
To address your point though, as far as I am aware even the old testament doesnt tell Christians to torture unbelievers or to treat women like cattle. or do things like this shit:
http://www.themalaymailonline....

Yes the old testament has violent stuff in it, but not even close to the scale of the quran. And as far as I understand, most christians consider the old testament is an outdated anachronism and only focus on the much more gentle new testament, and interpret it al sorts of ways other than literally.
Unlike Christianity, Islam fundamentally requires the quran to be taken completely literally.
The quran states in at least 109 different verses (see here: http://www.thereligionofpeace....) that order to be a good muslim, you must(not should, MUST) do what we in the West would consider seriously screwed up stuff, including commit Jihad and kill any/all non believers. As a Muslim If you do anything else or interpret the writings any differently you are literally not following islam, and are commiting apsotacy so have now made yourself a target, since the penalty for apostasy is death (and the penalty relies at the core of it on an authentically verified Hadith from Prophet Muhammad so is considered especially fundamentally unquestionable by all other good muslims). You can now see how Islam itself is fundamentally constructed to be viral, it contains many such cleverly constructed mechanisms like this entirely designed to hold on to and extend the number of believers simply through fear of persecution and even quran-sanctioned death from their own communities.
Show me anything of that even remotely scale anywhere in the new testament and then I'll believe what you claim.

The Quran establishes the fundamental tenets of Islam. No muslim will disagree with the statement that literally believing and following everything in the Quran is absolutely fundamental to being a "good" muslim.
http://www.quran-islam.org/art...

The quran includes many passages on torture and death to all non-believers, and treating women like chattels.
http://www.thereligionofpeace....

Many hundreds of thousands of "good" Muslims around the world are acting on the quran and are committing murder and torture of innocent people, and abuse of even their own women on a daily basis. Of the many millions of Muslims around the world, a high percentage are clearly in at least quiet agreement with terrorist organizations like IS's motives and methods.

It boggles my mind how any supposedly intelligent people can still seriously think anyone that voluntarily chooses to follow such a religion deserves to get given the benefit of all doubt, and even be treated like civilized people when they clearly aren't civilized BY THEIR OWN CHOICE.

Pointing out the stupidity of the barbaric Quran is not hate speech, it is information about facts to overcome ignorance and spiritual immaturity:

Quran (2:191-193)

191: And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- îaram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers.
192: And if they cease, then indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.
193: Fight them until there is no [more] fitnah and [until] worship is [acknowledged to be] for Allah. But if they cease, then there is to be no aggression except against the oppressors.
194: [Fighting in] the sacred month is for [aggression committed in] the sacred month, and for [all] violations is legal retribution. So whoever has assaulted you, then assault him in the same way that he has assaulted you. And fear Allah and know that Allah is with those who fear Him.

This is just _one_ example.

* http://www.thereligionofpeace....

--
The way to shut down ISIS is to name-and-shame those who sell weapons to them.

You have a very naive view of Syrian refugees and Muslims in general. True, most aren't running around committing mass murder, but that's a bit of a straw many, because scores of polls in many countries over many years prove that significant fractions (and depending on the question and sample, sometimes majorities) support imposition of Sharia law, discrimination against Christians and Jews and gays, death for apostasy, death for blasphemy, and support various Islamic terror groups. Read it and weep.

As for Syrian refugees specifically, a survey last year by an Arabic group found that 4% have a positive view of ISIS, another 9% have a mostly positive view, and another 10% have only a mostly negative view. So if we get the 10,000 refugees Obama wants, that's 400 who support ISIS, plus 900 who mostly support ISIS, plus 1000 who don't think ISIS is entirely bad. Add to that the fact that 2nd and 3rd generation Muslim immigrants are often more radical than the original immigrants, and what could possibly go wrong?

Ah, so it's a numbers game. Please! Save your breath... Man! You sure do a great job of proving my point with your one sided bs! I do appreciate that, I guess.

YOUR link is titled "Here are 8 Christian Terrorist Organizations That Equal ISIS"

So YOU made this a numbers game trying to fall back to "B-b-b-b-ut Christians are just as bad".

Well, they're NOT. There were no murders or even riots over Piss Christ.

So I was refuting your laughable claim trying to excuse MUSLIM terrorism by claiming that Christians are just as bad - there are NO non-Muslim groups that "equal" ISIS in its barbarity.

You're a fool.

Or maybe a Muslim engaging in taqiyya .

Linking to www.thereligionofpeace.com probably makes you head explode, doesn't it?

And making your head explode is a happy ending.

BWAAA HAA HAAA!!!

Ah, so it's a numbers game. Please! Save your breath... Man! You sure do a great job of proving my point with your one sided bs! I do appreciate that, I guess.

YOUR link is titled "Here are 8 Christian Terrorist Organizations That Equal ISIS"

So YOU made this a numbers game trying to fall back to "B-b-b-b-ut Christians are just as bad".

Well, they're NOT. There were no murders or even riots over Piss Christ.

So I was refuting your laughable claim trying to excuse MUSLIM terrorism by claiming that Christians are just as bad - there are NO non-Muslim groups that "equal" ISIS in its barbarity.

You're a fool.

Or maybe a Muslim engaging in taqiyya .

Linking to www.thereligionofpeace.com probably makes you head explode, doesn't it?

And making your head explode is a happy ending.

BWAAA HAA HAAA!!!

Bla bla bla. Singling out Muslims is pure bigotry. The only difference between Christian Terrorism and Islamic terrorism is that Christian Terrorism never makes the evening news..

Bwaaa HAAA HAAAA!!!

You're downright fucking risible.

And full of BULLSHIT.

How many people have your "Christian" equivalents of ISIS murdered - in the hundreds of years some have been around? How many have the KKK murdered in 150 years? At MOST what? 3000?

3000 is just ONE good day for Islamic terror.

Or 3,000 is a mere 10 percent of just the number of CHILDREN ISIS alone has killed in Syria alone in just the past couple of years:

Current Total Death Count in Syria: 250,000+
Children: 30,000

Again - crawl up out of Mommy's Basement Intellectual Shelter, grow a MAN'S intellectual balls, and read this UN report:

UNAMI/OHCHR has received reports of serious violations of international humanitarian law and gross abuses of human rights that have been perpetrated by ISIL and associated armed groups, with an apparentv systematic and widespread character. These include attacks directly targeting civilians and civilian infrastructure, executions and other targeted killings of civilians, abductions, rape and other forms of sexual and physical violence perpetrated against women and children, forced recruitment of children, destruction or desecration of places of religious or cultural significance, wanton destruction and looting of property, and denial of fundamental freedoms.

Trump recently stated he wanted to build a database of Muslims. Just like hitter had all Jews marked so he knew who was a Jew. Once you start down that path you are just a few steps away from rounding them up and mass exterminating them.

Right now everything trump says is suspect. He wants to build a fascist country and his most die hard supporters are the gun toting red necks.

Even Hillary looks sane compared to that.

I hadn't heard of that, but assuming that it's true, it makes me support him all the more.

Comparing Muslims w/ Jews is odious. Contrary to Hitler's imagination, Jews were not committing acts of terror and violence against anyone, nor were they trying to subvert the constitutions of the countries that they were in to give themselves most favored status. That's in sharp contrast to Muslims, who since 9/11 alone, have killed tens of thousands of people worldwide. Given that there is a database of people who have done these killings, it's insane not to have a database of Muslims that are there in non-Muslim countries like the US, France and anywhere else in the world.

Your understanding of Islam is as popular as it is wrong. Islam is quite tolerant of other religions. Note, that site I just linked is maintained by Muslims who seek to share their views with the world and dialogue about them with each other...unlike this site which sounds intelligent but is made by anti-islamics who seek to make the religion look evil by offering their own reading of some of its texts (with no regard to what its teachers actually teach and practice).

Have you ever heard of the Ottoman empire? People of all faiths lived openly side-by-side, and even served in the military, in a Muslim empire.

Get your facts straight. ISIS are religious extremists who have been publicly condemned by Muslims around the world.

Data
http://www.thereligionofpeace....

science tells you how the world works. religion tells you how to live in the world

The great thing about religions is that there are so many to choose from!

For example, the bible at times recognizes, condones, and even encourages slavery.

Bible:Exodus 21:20 "Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result,
but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.

Islam neither ignores nor condemns slavery. In fact, a large part of the Sharia is dedicated to the practice (source).

Muslims are encouraged to live in the way of Muhammad, who was a slave owner and trader. He captured slaves in battle. He had sex with his slaves. And he instructed his men to do the same. The Qur'an actually devotes more verses to making sure that Muslim men know they can keep women as sex slaves than it does to telling them to pray five times a day.

For 3,000 years, the Hindu caste system has held the people of India in the grip of religious slavery.

I wonder what the Flying Spaghetti Monster has to say about slavery?

Sorry mods but this is NOT insightful as the poster does not understand how the Koran works.

The Koran is NOT the bible, it does not have any conflicting passages, why? Because Muhammad had the benefit of seeing how the other religions worked and came up with a frankly brilliant little fix for all the conflicts. Its really very simple...if a rule comes later that conflicts with a rule that comes earlier then the latter one supersedes the earlier one which takes care of conflicting passages.

Of course this also blows the whole "religion of peace" BS as the Hadiths that have come for the last 200 years have been "jihad jihad jihad" and since they came later they supersede the earlier peaceful passages and since Muslims are allowed to lie to unbelievers to help spread the reach of Sharia this works to their advantage, simply quote the old passages and never mention they were replaced centuries ago by the jihad Hadiths.

Have you not wondered why these Islam apology groups can say they "condemn terrorism " or a specific terrorist but never come out and say this terrorism has broken the laws of Islam and should treat those that commit terrorism as not a follower of Islam? Its simple, its because they can lie to unbelievers but NOT about fellow Muslims and since they know the little rule about latter superseding they would be bearing false witness against groups that was in reality doing exactly what the faith tells them to, waging jihad.

I would urge everybody who has any doubts read up a little on Wahhabism, a good place to start would be this this frontline article and then read up about the Sunni and Shia, they all do the same thing and all follow the supersedes rule which means you can really only look at the last 200 years worth of hadiths as everything else is treated as history, and what are all the new hadiths? Jihad jihad jihad.

It's not hate, techsoldaten. You should educate yourself before you defend Islam. The entire religion conflicts with and is poison to what you think of as civilization. Here's a little something to get you started.

It's not hate, techsoldaten. You should educate yourself before you defend Islam. The entire religion conflicts with and is poison to what you think of as civilization. Here's a little something to get you started.

It's not hate, techsoldaten. You should educate yourself before you defend Islam. The entire religion conflicts with and is poison to what you think of as civilization. Here's a little something to get you started.

Do you know what a Caliphate is?

I do! They were hereditary monarchies which claimed divine right, in a way that was essentially indistinguishable from the monarchies of Europe with which they coexisted. The last caliphate was abolished at the same time and in the same way that many European monarchies were abolished: in the aftermath of World War I. Like them, it was abolished by popular support of the people.

They did not "coexist" with European monarchies. The Caliphates conquered as much of the area around them as they could, and it was the European countries that had the geography and political powers to resist conquest.

The history of Islam is war with non-Islam. There have been periods of peace ... but we're exiting that, right now.

Did you have a point, or did you just want everyone to understand that Muslim people of Middle Eastern descent are no different from Christian people of European descent?

It is tragic how many people are killed each year by European Christian suicide bombers and terrorists.

Still, I think the Religion of Peace is winning in bodycount.

He didn't write the rule you idiot, their prophet did and in case you haven't bothered to read the book or even learn a damned thing other than SJW political correctness (surprise surprise) they take what Mohammed said AS LAW, so yes Virginia a rule written by the prophet DOES take precedence over whatever bullshit your PC friends are shoveling.

In case you can actually read (that is if your PC beliefs don't make anything that isn't dogma verbotten) perhaps you should try educating yourself before you open you mouth, hmm? BTW you won't hear any of the "religion of peace" pushers mention this because it is holy to lie to non Muslims as long as it furthers the political goals of Sharia and Islam.