Islam = religion of hate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy

Most Muslims cannot deal with the fact that not everyone wants to follow their twisted, perverse religion.

I challenge our resident defenders of Islam to name one instance in which a significant number of Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, etc., threatened anyone with violence because their prophet/messiah was depicted in a cartoon.

In 1987, Serrano’s Piss Christ provoked death threats and violence from Christian fundamentalists and conservative
Catholics across the U.S. and Europe and caused political outrage on two continents.

In the 19th century, American Catholics were regularly targeted by Protestant mobs for “worshiping” statues
while Protestant ministers lost their positions if they placed visual depictions of the crucifixion, Mary, or the saints in their
churches.

Two hundred years before that, Oliver Cromwell and his Puritan army smashed religious artwork in English
parish churches. During the 16th century Protestant Reformation, followers of Luther and Calvin looted
cathedrals and convents carting off valuable paintings and statues to burn them in public squares. And so it
has been for most of Christian history.

Indeed, as early as 600, Bishop Serenus of Marseilles destroyed all the pictures in every church in his city
worried that “images somehow cheapened the sacred words of Scripture.”

The worst outbreak of violence against visual depictions of Jesus occurred in the 700s. In 726, Emperor Leo III
outlawed the use of icons and ordered their destruction. Upon the decree, mass rioting broke out across the
Byzantine Empire demanding the return of visual art to worship.

Ironically, John of Damascus (655-750), the great Christian defender of artistic depictions of God, lived in the
Muslim city of Damascus where he served as chief councilor to the Caliph. The Caliph, despite his own spiritual
distaste for representative art, protected John against several attempts by Christian partisans to have him murdered.

Whatever the case, western commentators–especially those who happen to be Christians–cannot claim any
theological superiority regarding art and God and should not think of this as a “Muslim thing.” A little less outrage
and a little more history might help. As Jesus once said, “Let the one without sin cast the first stone.”

Read more: http://blog.beliefnet.com/christian...th-park-muhammad-and-jesus.html#ixzz1IeTIEkhm
 
'Christians' bomb abortion clinics.
'Israelis and Palestinians harass/kill each other'

There are radicals within each religion. To pretend there are not is absurd. The majority of Muslims did not run out and riot, they did not run out and kill, they stayed home and went about their every day lives. As long as we are at war, the radical extremes will use situations like this as an excuse to create havoc, kill innocent civilians, attack our military etc.... Which is why Patreaus said what he did.

No. Islam is especially violent and intolerant, on a doctrinal basis. It's not a 'radicalized' version. It's the regular version. And judaism is racism. And christianity is a slave religion.
 
Christiefan,

<snip>

Since it is apparently your view that Islam should not be singled out "because there are radicals in every religion," it is on your shoulders to provide even one example of a predominantly Christian country where the majority believes adulterers should be whipped, apostates should be stoned, and a hungry child who steals an apple should have his hand chopped off. In most Muslim countries, it appears the majority or near-majority believes precisely that.

It's not the majority of Muslims. It's the majority in four countries, Egypt, Jordan, Nigeria and Pakistan. And their beliefs are not necessarily the reality when it comes to punishment. I've read that the majority of Americans support capital punishment but that doesn't mean that all murders and other felonies are punished by death, same for punishment in predominately Muslim countries. There's a large gap between belief and practice.

Also, "Punishing by stoning is not mentioned in the Qur'an, and is based solely upon hadith." From the Qur'an:

"Do not go near to adultery. Surely it is a shameful deed and evil, opening roads (to other evils)."[Qur'an 17:32]

"Say, 'Verily, my Lord has prohibited the shameful deeds, be it open or secret, sins and trespasses against the truth and reason."'[Qur'an 7:33]

"Women impure are for men impure, and men impure are for women impure and women of purity are for men of purity, and men of purity are for women of purity."[Qur'an 24:26]

Stoning, cutting and whipping predated Islam. They were cultural practices and not just in the middle East.

2350 BC: Urukagina's Code - This code has never been discovered but it is mentioned in other documents as a consolidation of existing "ordinances" or laws laid down by Mesopotamian kings. An administrative reform document was discovered which showed that citizens were allowed to know why certain actions were punished. It was also harsh by modern standards. Thieves and adulteresses were to be stoned to death with stones inscribed with the name of their crime. The code confirmed that the "king was appointed by the gods".

1700 BC: Hammurabi's Code - This Babylonian king came to power in 1750 BC. Under his rule, a code of laws was developed and carved on a huge rock column. The expression "an eye for an eye" has come to symbolize the principle behind Hammurabi's code. It contains 282 clauses regulating a vast array of obligations, professions and rights including commerce, slavery, marriage, theft and debts. The punishments are, by modern standards, barbaric. The punishment for theft was the cutting off of a finger or a hand. A man's lower lip was cut off if he kissed a married woman. Defamation was punished by cutting out the tongue. If a house collapses because the builder did not make it strong enough, killing the owner, the builder was put to death. If the owner's son died, then the builder's son was executed.

536 BC: The Book of Punishments - A legal book printed in China which limited the ways to punish someone where they had been convicted of a serious crime. They included tattooing, cutting off of the nose, castration, feet amputation and death.

There are historical reports of stoning from Ancient Greece.[1] Stoning is also mentioned in Ancient Greek mythology.[2]

I believe you will find it difficult to name a Christian country where even 1% of the population holds similar views.

Similar views meaning the same form of punishment? All Christian countries punished the crimes you mentioned, just in different ways. Look at this from colonial days:

"Tyrannycall Lawes written in blood." They said:

The cause of the vniust and vndeserved death of sundry . . . by starveinge, hangeinge, burneinhge, breakinge upon the wheele and shootinge to deathe, some (more than halfe famished) runninge to the Indians to gett reliefe beinge againe retorned were burnt to deth. Some for stealinge to satisfie thir hunger were hanged, and one chained to a tree till he starved to death; others attemptinge to run awaye in a barge and a shallop (all the Boates that were then in the Collonye) and therin to adventure their lives for their native countrye, beinge discovered and prevented, were shott to death, hanged and broken upon the wheele, besides continuall whippings, extraordinary punishments, workinge as slaves in irons for terme of yeares (and that for petty offenses) weare dayly executed."

http://www.history.org/foundation/journal/spring03/branks.cfm

Man's inhumanity to man is well-documented throughout history and not just limited to Muslims.
 
It's not the majority of Muslims. It's the majority in four countries, Egypt, Jordan, Nigeria and Pakistan. And their beliefs are not necessarily the reality when it comes to punishment. I've read that the majority of Americans support capital punishment but that doesn't mean that all murders and other felonies are punished by death, same for punishment in predominately Muslim countries. There's a large gap between belief and practice.

Also, "Punishing by stoning is not mentioned in the Qur'an, and is based solely upon hadith." From the Qur'an:

"Do not go near to adultery. Surely it is a shameful deed and evil, opening roads (to other evils)."[Qur'an 17:32]

"Say, 'Verily, my Lord has prohibited the shameful deeds, be it open or secret, sins and trespasses against the truth and reason."'[Qur'an 7:33]

"Women impure are for men impure, and men impure are for women impure and women of purity are for men of purity, and men of purity are for women of purity."[Qur'an 24:26]

Stoning, cutting and whipping predated Islam. They were cultural practices and not just in the middle East.

2350 BC: Urukagina's Code - This code has never been discovered but it is mentioned in other documents as a consolidation of existing "ordinances" or laws laid down by Mesopotamian kings. An administrative reform document was discovered which showed that citizens were allowed to know why certain actions were punished. It was also harsh by modern standards. Thieves and adulteresses were to be stoned to death with stones inscribed with the name of their crime. The code confirmed that the "king was appointed by the gods".

1700 BC: Hammurabi's Code - This Babylonian king came to power in 1750 BC. Under his rule, a code of laws was developed and carved on a huge rock column. The expression "an eye for an eye" has come to symbolize the principle behind Hammurabi's code. It contains 282 clauses regulating a vast array of obligations, professions and rights including commerce, slavery, marriage, theft and debts. The punishments are, by modern standards, barbaric. The punishment for theft was the cutting off of a finger or a hand. A man's lower lip was cut off if he kissed a married woman. Defamation was punished by cutting out the tongue. If a house collapses because the builder did not make it strong enough, killing the owner, the builder was put to death. If the owner's son died, then the builder's son was executed.

536 BC: The Book of Punishments - A legal book printed in China which limited the ways to punish someone where they had been convicted of a serious crime. They included tattooing, cutting off of the nose, castration, feet amputation and death.

There are historical reports of stoning from Ancient Greece.[1] Stoning is also mentioned in Ancient Greek mythology.[2]



Similar views meaning the same form of punishment? All Christian countries punished the crimes you mentioned, just in different ways. Look at this from colonial days:

"Tyrannycall Lawes written in blood." They said:

The cause of the vniust and vndeserved death of sundry . . . by starveinge, hangeinge, burneinhge, breakinge upon the wheele and shootinge to deathe, some (more than halfe famished) runninge to the Indians to gett reliefe beinge againe retorned were burnt to deth. Some for stealinge to satisfie thir hunger were hanged, and one chained to a tree till he starved to death; others attemptinge to run awaye in a barge and a shallop (all the Boates that were then in the Collonye) and therin to adventure their lives for their native countrye, beinge discovered and prevented, were shott to death, hanged and broken upon the wheele, besides continuall whippings, extraordinary punishments, workinge as slaves in irons for terme of yeares (and that for petty offenses) weare dayly executed."

http://www.history.org/foundation/journal/spring03/branks.cfm

Man's inhumanity to man is well-documented throughout history and not just limited to Muslims.


Hadiths are considered very authoritative. Labelling something as "only a hadith" does not mean it is insignificant in islam.
 
Hadiths are considered very authoritative. Labelling something as "only a hadith" does not mean it is insignificant in islam.

Authoritative, yes. But interpretation still varies.

"...traditionalists versus rationalists; scholars who chose only a handful of ahadith as religiously binding, versus those who considered nearly all ahadith as so; those who interpreted the Quran with literalism and those who saw its broad fundamentals as eternal; those who believed in imitating the practice of Islam during the Prophet's lifetime versus those whose application of Islam took into consideration the different social and political climates; those who claimed the "doors" of ijtihad (independent judgment) were to be closed, and those who believed they should remain open to prevent stagnation of thought."

http://www.mwlusa.org/topics/sources/sources.html
 
Authoritative, yes. But interpretation still varies.

"...traditionalists versus rationalists; scholars who chose only a handful of ahadith as religiously binding, versus those who considered nearly all ahadith as so; those who interpreted the Quran with literalism and those who saw its broad fundamentals as eternal; those who believed in imitating the practice of Islam during the Prophet's lifetime versus those whose application of Islam took into consideration the different social and political climates; those who claimed the "doors" of ijtihad (independent judgment) were to be closed, and those who believed they should remain open to prevent stagnation of thought."

http://www.mwlusa.org/topics/sources/sources.html

interpretation always varies. And it's obvious which school of interpretation is dominant...
 
The alleged "islamic reformation" is just a phantom, designed to fool stupid infidels into putting down their guard against a theocratic hate faith.
 
Oh really? Ehhh wrong again Dixie. For example, the greatest case of genocide in the history of man kind occurred after the Spanish conquest of central Mexico. The Catholic Church absolved the Spanish Government for their crimes in murdering 20 to 50 million native Mexicans as long as they converted them first. Compared to Christianities history, Islams history of extremism and violence appears to be rather paltry.

That's a bald-faced lie.
 
Rwanda Massacres
In 1994 in the small African country of Rwanda in just a few months several hundred thousand civilians were butchered, apparently a conflict of the Hutu and Tutsi ethnic groups.
For quite some time I heard only rumors about Catholic clergy actively involved in the 1994 Rwanda massacres. Odd denials of involvement were printed in Catholic church journals, before even anybody had openly accused members of the church.
Then, 10/10/96, in the newscast of S2 Aktuell, Germany - a station not at all critical to Christianity - the following was stated:



"Anglican as well as Catholic priests and nuns are suspect of having actively participated in murders. Especially the conduct of a certain Catholic priest has been occupying the public mind in Rwanda's capital Kigali for months. He was minister of the church of the Holy Family and allegedly murdered Tutsis in the most brutal manner. He is reported to have accompanied marauding Hutu militia with a gun in his cowl. In fact there has been a bloody slaughter of Tutsis seeking shelter in his parish. Even two years after the massacres many Catholics refuse to set foot on the threshold of their church, because to them the participation of a certain part of the clergy in the slaughter is well established. There is almost no church in Rwanda that has not seen refugees - women, children, old - being brutally butchered facing the crucifix.
According to eyewitnesses clergymen gave away hiding Tutsis and turned them over to the machetes of the Hutu militia.
In connection with these events again and again two Benedictine nuns are mentioned, both of whom have fled into a Belgian monastery in the meantime to avoid prosecution. According to survivors one of them called the
Hutu killers and led them to several thousand people who had sought shelter in her monastery. By force the doomed were driven out of the churchyard and were murdered in the presence of the nun right in front of the gate. The other one is also reported to have directly cooperated with the murderers of the Hutu militia. In her case again witnesses report that she watched the slaughtering of people in cold blood and without showing response. She is even accused of having procured some petrol used by the killers to set on
fire and burn their victims alive..." [S2]



More recently the BBC aired:




Priests get death sentence for Rwandan genocide
BBC NEWS April 19, 1998


A court in Rwanda has sentenced two Roman Catholic priests to death for their role in the genocide of 1994, in which up to a million Tutsis and moderate Hutus were killed. Pope John Paul said the priests must be made to account for their actions. Different sections of the Rwandan church have been widely accused of playing an active role in the genocide of 1994...






As can be seen from these events, to Christianity the Dark Ages never come to an end.







--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If today Christians talk to me about morality, this is why they make me sick.

More lies.
 
Here's a question for Mott, Topspin, Christie, and others who believe Christianity is more violent than Islam: would you feel safer living in a predominantly Christian country such as Switzerland, Italy, or the United States, or an Islamic country such as Iran, Egypt, or Pakistan? If Christianity is more violent than Islam, it it sensible that you would prefer living in an Islamic republic. Yet, for some reason I doubt that is the case.

Oh, FYI, I am not interested in 1) isolated incidents, since there are fruitcakes in every religion, including Christianity. No shit! 2) events that occurred 500 - 700 years ago. Again, please name a Christian country where even 1% of the population believes non-Christians should be killed. Thank you.
 
That's a bald-faced lie.
Like hell it is. Go read the Papal Bull of Pope Leon X for King Juan Carlos V of Spain. It sanctioned the encomondero system by which Spanish over lords enslaved and worked to death millions of natives. The Church sanctioned such barbarity as long as the Spaniards converted the natives before they killed them. The end result was the greatest act of genocide in human history.
 
Like hell it is. Go read the Papal Bull of Pope Leon X for King Juan Carlos V of Spain. It sanctioned the encomondero system by which Spanish over lords enslaved and worked to death millions of natives. The Church sanctioned such barbarity as long as the Spaniards converted the natives before they killed them. The end result was the greatest act of genocide in human history.

Most Catholics, myself included at one time, are painfully unaware of their churches history!
 
Like hell it is. Go read the Papal Bull of Pope Leon X for King Juan Carlos V of Spain. It sanctioned the encomondero system by which Spanish over lords enslaved and worked to death millions of natives. The Church sanctioned such barbarity as long as the Spaniards converted the natives before they killed them. The end result was the greatest act of genocide in human history.
Link.
 
Here's a question for Mott, Topspin, Christie, and others who believe Christianity is more violent than Islam: would you feel safer living in a predominantly Christian country such as Switzerland, Italy, or the United States, or an Islamic country such as Iran, Egypt, or Pakistan? If Christianity is more violent than Islam, it it sensible that you would prefer living in an Islamic republic. Yet, for some reason I doubt that is the case.

Oh, FYI, I am not interested in 1) isolated incidents, since there are fruitcakes in every religion, including Christianity. No shit! 2) events that occurred 500 - 700 years ago. Again, please name a Christian country where even 1% of the population believes non-Christians should be killed. Thank you.

Oh, so I see. Western societies sordid past doesn't count? Look, I don't know where you got your GED but there's an old saying "Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw rocks.". At worst your stereotyping a billion human beings about a religion, which if pressed about, I'm reasonbly sure you don't know jack shit about (I got a sneaky hunch you don't know much about the Christian relgion either.) and at worst your a hypocritical bigot.
 
Last edited:
Oh, so I see. Western societies sordid past doesn't count? Look, I don't know where you got your GED but theirs an old saying "Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw rocks.". At worst your stereotyping a billion human beings about a religion, which if pressed about, I'm reasonbly sure you don't know jack shit about (I got a sneaky hunch you don't know much about the Christian relgion either.) and at worst your a hypocritical bigot.

LOL @ Moot for using throwing the bigot bomb. :)

You fucking pussy.
 
Oh, so I see. Western societies sordid past doesn't count?

We are in the 21st century. Christian countries have adapted; most Muslim countries have not. Are you planning to answer my question as to which type of country you'd prefer to live in?

Look, I don't know where you got your GED but theirs an old saying "Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw rocks."

Hmm, that's nice. But before you parrot your butt-buddy Topspin regarding education, I recommend learning the difference between their, there, and they're.
 
Regarding the past, let's not forget that Islam struck first in 632, and by 732 it had swallowed up the Mideast, North Africa, Spain, and had finally been halted at Southern France. It then launched invasions accross the Mediterranian, making constant raids along the coast of France and Italy. It took until 1095 at Clermont before Christianity finally organized the first serious plan of counter-attack, which everyone knows well about.

http://www.firstprinciplesjournal.com/articles.aspx?article=1483
 
But before you parrot your butt-buddy Topspin regarding education, I recommend learning the difference between their, there, and they're.

grammar_nazi_Lost_Killer_Puppy-s369x540-63121-535.jpg
 
Back
Top