The Truth Behind Islam

[Wolfeye]

It seems the desert just warps people. The whole place, if at an extreme level, makes things backwards (ex: a baby isn't usually dangerous, but in such horribly barren places, it's dangerous because it's another mouth to feed which will eventually eat as much as an adult- thus the baby, the woman they come from, and the drives as well as the actions that produce one all have negative strings attached).

People can't get enough to survive & survive reasonably well, the landscape provides constant irritation & life-threatening antagonism (ex: sand, dryness, sun blazing down, severely cold nights, lots of things are hard to interface with (ex: finding something comfortable to lay in to go to sleep, lots of spikey things & overall abrasiveness, plenty to land on & have a problem). The land (which people frequently see as a mother) is always trying to kill them!

To make matters worse, pretty much anything someone does to help themselves along makes things worse. They can't get resources because they're not around, then they can't go around to find any because of the bullshit weather, taking what they can get with them anywhere wears them down (as well as these resources they managed to get because of that), then they're either stuck where they are with possibly nothing but what they had with them of use (which makes them dwindle faster, since there's more reliance on them)- so don't mg anything to survive has a negative impact on it. Not sure I'd have the same road as far as reactions go (ex: perversion, arrogance, nit-picking/hostile/expansive religious tendencies). Maybe just flip out on the land occasionally? Stabbing the ground & throwing rocks at the sun sound like good of ideas (not that everything from these philosophies is terrible).

[Misko_Varesanovic]

I am an atheist, I don't care about religion, but this does not mean that I am in any way supportive to any religion which tries to erase any other religion with restrictions and using threats.

If you are a Muslim, I am OK with that, but why do you want me also to be a Muslim and calling me an infidel?

Blasphemy laws, which are threatening any person of other faith who is critical about Islam, are totally unacceptable in any advanced society.

Apostasy laws - to threaten anybody who left the Islamic faith for another religion or atheism - are totally unacceptable too.

Firstly, you're using the term 'infidel' inaccurately. The Koran defines Christians and Jews as 'People of the Book', and says that their places of worship are to be protected.

As Adama correctly said, 'All you have to do is look at what they do' -

Muslims refer to Christians and Jews as 'infidels' (KAFIR in Arabic)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kafir

KAFIR - It is used as a derogatory term

Kafir, and its plural kafirun, is used directly 134 times in Quran, its verbal noun "kufr" is used 37 times, and the verbal cognates of kafir are used about 250 times
.....
Another group that was "distinguished from the mass of kafirun" were the murtad, or apostate ex-Muslims, which were considered renegades and traitors, the concept of freedom of religion not being accepted. Their traditional punishment was death, even, according to some scholars, if they recanted their abandonment of Islam.

Pagans are treated even worse - Hindus, Buddhists... called Mushrik

https://www.politicalislam.com/kafir/

Normative Islam is based on the juridical decisions of Shari’a law which contains two separate laws: one for the Moslem and one for the Kafir. We would say that Islam has a double ethical standard. “Do as we say, not as we do.”

There is a further dualism, that of types of kafirs, broadly divided into People of the Book and the various “polytheists” such as Hindus, who have in inferior status.

For instance, in Saudi Arabia, the “blood money” paid for the unintentional death of Moslem man is 100,000 riyals, 50,000 riyals if a Muslim woman, 50,000 riyals if a Christian man, 25,000 riyals if a Christian woman, 6,666 riyals if a Hindu man, 3,333 riyals if a Hindu woman.

A Moslem man is worth 33 times more than a Hindu woman.

Anyway, whatever, any religion which is supportive to apostasy and blasphemy laws is for me outdated, a part of the past.

I noticed you avoid to talk about apostasy and blasphemy laws, you cannot deny that they exist.

Firstly, I addressed the matter of apostasy head-on. There is no punishment for apostasy in the Koran, whereas there are abundant punishments in both the Bible and the Torah.

Secondly, Muslims certainly do not view Christians or Jews as 'infidels'. That is simply a ludicrous claim, and not just theologically: if you go to the old town of practically any large city in the Islamic world - even today, at a time of tremendous spiritual degeneration - you will still find churches and synagogues galore. Most of these are many centuries old and their upkeep has been paid for, in part, by taxpaying Muslims.

Cairo: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_C ... o_and_Giza

Istanbul: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category: ... n_Istanbul

Amman: https://www.google.co.uk/search?biw=192 ... :1,lf_ui:1

Need I go on?

[Misko_Varesanovic]

And if Islam puts the Bible in doubt, then Islam must therefore go out with it. Because Islam borrows from Christianity for credibility, using the names of Moses, Christ and Mary to help establish itself as a religion.

This is a very good argument, the Quran contains a lot which could be considered as nothing but a copy/paste from the Thora and Bible.

However Muslims are quarrelling among themselves, too. They are divided in various groups, often against each other more hateful than against the infidels and pagans.

Misko_Varesanovic
it is definitely not the case that other religions always face restrictions of the kind that you might imagine. For example, in Iran, religious minorities are guaranteed seats in parliament...

This is really an interesting comment -

IRAN = SHIA - this is a fairly large group of Islam, rejected by the huge majority of other followers of Islam (Sunni, Wahabi etc.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shia_Islam

Rejected are also the followers of Ahmadiyya.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmadiyya

....and always when Misko_Varesanovic is running out of arguments, he brings up these two 'model' groups - away from the huge majority of Islam followers - to show how open-minded Islam is towards other religions.

For example
as a political system in an Islamic Republic:

Ahmadiyya in Pakistan is not recognized as 'Islam'.
Shia in Iran is not supportive to the Afghanistan Taliban and not a best-friend of the Saudis.

purely out of religious reason:
A Sunni Muslim man can marry a Jewish woman, and she needs not to convert.
A Sunni Muslim man can marry a Hindu woman, and she MUST convert. (Why she and not he?)
A Hindu man can marry a Wahabi Muslim woman, but he MUST convert. (Why he and not she? Women have no soul in Islam)
but
A Sunni Muslim man or woman CANNOT marry any Shia MUSLIM man or woman, as 'irreconcilable difference'

All these teachings are based on strange double standards, one Muslim group is of less value than the other, one non-Muslim religion is of less value than the other, one gender is of less value than the other, and often in Islam poor is by far of less value than rich. - Rich people pay a small fine, while poor people facing the sharia will be beaten and even killed.

Sorry, but this does not make any sense to me...

This is totally emblematic of your posts on this topic. You're taking a position which was historically held by a great many Christians - who really did believe that women did not have a soul, or were otherwise severely spiritually deficient - and falsely ascribing it to Muslims, for whom this perspective is simply ridiculous: indeed, Islamic mysticism posits that women are if anything spiritually superior to men, not the reverse. In fact, there is a notable book by the late German Islamicist Annemarie Schimmel which elaborates on this point. Its title? My Soul is a Woman.

https://www.bloomsbury.com/us/my-soul-i ... 826414441/

And regarding Islamic marriage laws, you're writing as if other religions don't have any restrictions on whom their members may or may not marry. But they do. For example, traditional Judaism completely prohibits inter-faith marriage. Catholics cannot marry non-Catholics in church without strict conditions being met, including relating to the baptism of any future children into the Catholic faith. In Myanmar, marriages between Buddhist women and Muslim men can be vetoed by the state if it has any 'objections' (https://jezebel.com/myanmar-passes-bill ... 1716609771).

Of course, if you still insist on being fixated on Islam and Muslims, then that's your prerogative, but it can't be rationally defended.

[MrPeabody]

Here is a priceless piece of art that was vandalized by Christian thugs. The nose was chopped off and notice the cross etched into the forehead. This figure is in Turkey and has been cared for by Muslims for over a thousand years. Notice there are no Muslim marks on the statue.

[Yohan]

Here is a priceless piece of art that was vandalized by Christian thugs. The nose was chopped off and notice the cross etched into the forehead. This figure is in Turkey and has been cared for by Muslims for over a thousand years. Notice there are no Muslim marks on the statue.

Something is wrong here.
Muslims don't care about statues anyway and promote all the time to destroy them.
I do not know about any statue showing a face which is cared by Muslims...

This is one of the Bamiyan Buddhas near Kabul, Afghanistan was a Buddhist country and these Buddhas were the center of a very special Holy Place for all Buddhists in this world. In 2001 Muslims - under the support of the Taliban government - destroyed them using dynamite and artillery barrage.

Before completely destroyed, the face was badly damaged by a Muslim king a while ago.

[Yohan]

And if Islam puts the Bible in doubt, then Islam must therefore go out with it. Because Islam borrows from Christianity for credibility, using the names of Moses, Christ and Mary to help establish itself as a religion.

This is a very good argument, the Quran contains a lot which could be considered as nothing but a copy/paste from the Thora and Bible.

However Muslims are quarrelling among themselves, too. They are divided in various groups, often against each other more hateful than against the infidels and pagans.

I am missing any comment from Misko_Varesanovic about Adama's posting.
I am also missing any comment about apostasy and blasphemy laws in Islam.

.....
And regarding Islamic marriage laws, you're writing as if other religions don't have any restrictions on whom their members may or may not marry.
.....
In Myanmar, marriages between Buddhist women and Muslim men can be vetoed by the state if it has any 'objections'

It is a BIG difference if a 'religion' wants you to marry a person of the same faith - or if laws of an entire Muslim-friendly country are forcing you to do so or facing beatings or even execution.

Myanmar does not have any blasphemy and apostasy laws.

In Myanmar, it is about illegal male Muslim immigrants and legal Buddhist Myanmar female citizens.
It is also about gender equality. Muslim men want Buddhist women, but reject Buddhist men who want Muslim women.
It is the same situation everywhere worldwide - Muslim men want 'infidel' women, who they consider as 'slave-girls' - but reject infidel men to do the same with Muslim women.

Sorry, but if Islam wants to be 'respected' by other religions, it cannot be 'one way'. It can be only by the rule of reciprocity.

You - the infidel - have to do what we - the Muslims want you to do....
Such 'respect' cannot be accepted, especially not if you are lining up as an illegal immigrant and expect the infidel to care about you.

[MrPeabody]

Christians even attacked and destroyed groves and trees all over Europe. Even the Taliban don't attack trees.


"Everywhere the Church took hold, it made a point of either adopting local gods as saints or denouncing them as satanic. Sacred trees, groves and other sites were desecrated everywhere. St Martin had felled holy trees in Gaul in the fourth century. John of Ephesus felled them in Asia Minor in the sixth century. Other zealous Christians committed arboreal genocide all around the Mediterranean. In the holy wood at Eresburg, also sacred to the Saxons, was taken in battle by Charlemagne. The victorious Christian forces destroyed the holy Irminsul, a tall pillar in the wood representing the world-tree Yggdrasil. Surviving Saxon boys were carried off to be indoctrinated and trained as missionaries."

http://www.badnewsaboutchristianity.com ... dalism.htm

[Yohan]

https://www.voanews.com/a/pakistan-pers ... 64728.html

Ahmadiyyas in Pakistan face a peculiar dilemma. They insist they are Muslims, but the country's constitution declares them non-Muslims. Officials say Ahmadiyyas are welcome to all the rights afforded to other minorities in the country as long as they do not call themselves followers of the Islamic faith. Ahmadiyyas, on the other hand, insist that doing so would go against their religious beliefs.

This is really funny, some Muslims do not know even any more if they are Muslims or not. They insist they are, but other Muslim brothers tell them they are not...

[Yohan]

Christians even attacked and destroyed groves and trees all over Europe. Even the Taliban don't attack trees.

This is correct, Muslims nowadays do not attack trees. Instead of trees they attack airplanes, department stores, hotels and subway stations.
Some Muslims prefer to be pirates and attack commercial ships near Somalia and take hostages.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_I ... st_attacks
List of Islamist terrorist attacks

[MrPeabody]

Most of those attacks are political, and many of them target Muslims themselves. People aren't calling the Las Vegas Bomber a Christian terrorist. The violence is generated by political instability, most of that instability caused by Western powers. Afghanistan was a modern nation and all the women dressed western. But then the US purposely supported radical Islam in Afghanistan and gave them weapons to fight the Soviet Union. The Taliban visited the White House when Reagan was president. They were treated as heros by the American media when they were fighting Soviets. When the US bombs the houses of civilians, Christian civilization isn't blamed because they don't allow cameras to show the damage. You seem to have an irrational hatred or fear of Islam and you aren't willing to look at the big picture.

[Yohan]

People aren't calling the Las Vegas Bomber a Christian terrorist.

Why should they?
Why should somebody call the Las Vegas shooter a Christian, while even ISIS is claiming he was a Muslim?

BTW, He was not a bomber, but a shooter, the result is however similar.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 86161.html

Isis has repeated its claim of responsibility for the Las Vegas attack while alleging that Stephen Paddock converted to Islam six months ago.
....
In a new issue of its Arabic propaganda newspaper, Isis celebrated the worst mass shooting in modern American history with a graphic showing the Mandalay Bay hotel and casino stained blood red.

It boasted of the 58 people killed and 500 others injured, as well as of causing “panic and confusion among security services in America and a number of European countries”.
----
Isis glossed over the fact Paddock shot himself – an action inconsistent with jihadi doctrine – and claimed he “rose as a martyr” while praising the man it calls Abu Abd al-Bar al-Amriki.

Abu Abd al-Bar al-Amriki is not a Christian name...

[Adama]

I can't believe anyone makes those arguments which these two apologists for Islam make.

[MrPeabody]

People aren't calling the Las Vegas Bomber a Christian terrorist.

Why should they?
Why should somebody call the Las Vegas shooter a Christian, while even ISIS is claiming he was a Muslim?

BTW, He was not a bomber, but a shooter, the result is however similar.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 86161.html

Isis has repeated its claim of responsibility for the Las Vegas attack while alleging that Stephen Paddock converted to Islam six months ago.
....
In a new issue of its Arabic propaganda newspaper, Isis celebrated the worst mass shooting in modern American history with a graphic showing the Mandalay Bay hotel and casino stained blood red.

It boasted of the 58 people killed and 500 others injured, as well as of causing “panic and confusion among security services in America and a number of European countries”.
----
Isis glossed over the fact Paddock shot himself – an action inconsistent with jihadi doctrine – and claimed he “rose as a martyr” while praising the man it calls Abu Abd al-Bar al-Amriki.

Abu Abd al-Bar al-Amriki is not a Christian name...

Do you realize that you are quoting fake news? Even the FBI has rejected the ISIS claim. Right, he was a shooter. And he shouldn't be called a "Christian shooter" just because he grew up in a Christian country. But similarly, a shooter shouldn't be called a Muslim just because he grew up in a Muslim country. That is my whole point.

[Yohan]

I can't believe anyone makes those arguments which these two apologists for Islam make.

Apologists?

For apologists they are remarkably silent, for example my questions about apostasy and blasphemy laws remain unanswered.

Complaining about a tree cut down in medieval times, but ignoring the destruction of the 53 yard high Buddha of Bamiyan and other religious objects not even 2 decades ago with anti-tank mines and artillery fire.

interesting also the claim that 1 Muslim man is 33 more valuable than 1 Hindu woman. Funny to allow a Muslim man to marry 4 infidel girls, but being totally against any infidel man who wants to marry 1 (only one!) Muslim woman in return.

The point is they have no explanation for that, so they respond solely with BS-comments. For example claiming religious freedom in Islam in Iran - which Shia religion they reject, or claiming easy communication between infidels and a small group of these Ahmadiyya Islamists, who are not allowed in Islamic countries to call themselves Muslims - despite they are using the Quran as their religious source. Hypocrites.

Religious freedom with one certain religion above (=Islam) and all other religions (including atheism) under it, is simply said not religious freedom. And not to talk about blasphemy laws and apostasy laws to remove quickly such people who do not agree with such childish arguments.

[Yohan]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... laves.html

'If she had breasts, she was OK to rape':
Yazidi women and girls tell of life as ISIS sex slaves who 'had to be sexually abused to become Muslims'
.....
Yazidi survivors have told of their horrific lives as ISIS sex slaves after they were caught and held as prisoners by the terror group.

One woman revealed how women would be pushed up against a wall as jihadis would make their way down the line groping their chests.

If they had breasts, they were sent to be raped, but if they did not they were thrown aside for three months before suffering the same ordeal again.

.....

a 27-page document which sets out the rules for ISIS fighters and how to treat their sex slaves.

The instructions shine a light on the barbaric way the group live their lives.

It says, 'slaves can be beaten for disciplinary purposes but not for gratification or torture'.

Shockingly, it also states, 'slaves are property so they can be bought, sold, or given as a gift. It is permitted to have intercourse with a slave who has not reached puberty if she is fit for it. If not, she can be enjoyed without intercourse'.