Islam - "religion of peace" (we con the world) - Page 45  

Oh dear, he's got M-80's!!

Quick, someone arrest the guy and protect the Muslims!

Turns out he's a lefty.

Which means this one will die out quickly. He'll only continue to get media coverage if it damages the right.

BX, and internationalstocks, please comment on the video and teach me more about Muslims that and Islam than this man has. Not all are bad, but why the hell do people put up with people and groups like this?

Go ahead you two, the stage is yours.........

i love the choice they made for a intern rep... almost as good as this "brotherhood" label..

The former IAEA head for iran, whom said they had nothing in terms of nuclear items before

Anjum Chaudhry is a lunatic. Jihad = struggle. Struggle to live a good life. As far as violence goes that is in every holy text you can find. The stories from old days will all have violence but for him to praise terrorists that kill innocent people is beyond me. YOU CAN NOT KILL INNOCENT PEOPLE.....there are plenty of stories where during war our prophets didn't kill the enemy because either he was injured or he surrendered so how can this moron praise terrorists? I have been speaking out about dumbasses like him forever and it's tiresome.

Is there a Priest or something for Islam that interprets this stuff and tells everyone, "This is what it means." and they have the final word, like in Catholicism and the Pope?

Or is it more like the Protestant Christianity where the buck stops with the head of each individual Church?

They haven't had a Caliph in charge since 1924.



.

There are however a number of islamic councils that are
editing the Quran and will tell you to pay no attention to
the 99 'Kill Infidels' passages. They are to be ABROGATED.
Pretend they are in a different context.
They are not for non believers to fret about.



.

Jihad might = struggle, but unfortunately many in the Muslim world think that "struggle to live a good life" means that to fully embrace and accept Islam and live a good life and live it to its fullest is also killing infidels, or those who do not believe in Allah and the Islamic beliefs. It isn't just a couple of select groups, it is Islam as a whole, and there are a couple of select groups that do not believe that do not believe that Jihad means kill infidels.

Wonder how many christian churches condone the killing of nonbelievers or those that wouldn't convert? There are some psycho christian groups like the branch divitians and a few others, but even their doctrine wasn't encouraging the killing of any that would not believe.

You have the whole thing backward....Quran = events that happened during the prophet (pbuh) life and before him. When in Quran is says kill the infidels you have to realize during those times treaties were made between muslims and nonmuslims but whenever nonmuslims tried trickery and waged war even though peace treaties were in place, muslims were told to fight head on but ofcourse people on here wouldn't understand that. They think Quran actually says if you want to be a good muslim go kill an infidel when that is not the case.

Now when it comes to bible having incest and rape and all sorts of shit....people come here saying oh no bible doesnt advocate incest.

Correction: People come here saying the Bible doesn't condone incest.

It's a subtle difference, hard to comprehend.

I get your unstated argument though.

1) The Bible has bad things in it.
2) The Koran has bad things in it.
3) Conclusion: There's no difference between the two.

It's a well thought out argument. Hard to refute. Let's have fun with it.

1) The Communist Manifesto has bad things in it.
2) The Bible has bad things in it.
3) Conclusion: There's no difference between the two.

Or how about

1) Mein Kampf has bad things in it.
2) The Bible has bad things in it.
3) Conclusion: There's no difference between the two.

Fun!

If a man still prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall say to him, "You shall not live, because you have spoken a lie in the name of the Lord." When he prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall thrust him through. (Zechariah 13:3 NAB)

Should we kill false prophets?

No, why would we?

If, on the other hand, we lived in the Nation of Israel and under that rule, yes, we would.

But i'm an American citizen, living in the year 2011. That society you're quoting laws from were written eons ago and doesn't exist anymore.

dont confuse american law with your religious law.

Sometimes I think people don't pay attention when they read.

I just explained, it's not "my religious law". I'm subject to American Law.

Lol so you would actually kill someone based off something a book told you if you lived in that time? Honestly that's something I could never even consider doing. I guess that is why I choose not to follow these religions humans have created.

Just out of curiosity what are your views on homosexuality? Now that we are American citizens living in the year 2011 do you really follow laws and base opinions of this off books written eons ago from societies that don't exist?

It's easy to look back on societies today and judge them. However, every society was brutal back then compared to today.

I don't know what you mean by follow laws. I mean, I just told you I follow US Law, so not sure why you would ask that question again.

However, I do "base opinions" off of this book written eons ago from societies that don't exist.

So, here's the difference.

Homosexuality was wrong then and people were killed for it.

Homosexuality is just as wrong now but we don't kill for it anymore. Society has changed, sin has not. So, our answer to sin has changed.

As Christ told the prostitute, "Go forth and sin no more."

Prostitute, Adulterer, Homosexual, the answer is all the same. Go forth and sin no more.

Come on Baggi I know you have a better cop out than that.

Why would homosexuality be just as wrong now? Why selectively choose laws on homosexuals to be something you agree with and not laws against against eating shellfish or women wearing pants or any of these ridiculous "abominations."

Homosexuality is really only mentioned 3 times in the entire New Testament by Paul. And I hope for your sake and your wife's that you aren't still following many of his ridiculous moral ideas.

Or better yet, why wouldn't it be? Why selectively choose laws on homosexuals to not longer be wrong and not laws on adultery, prostitution or drug use?

In my worst moments I wish I could selectively choose laws, ones I agree with and ones I disagree with. Fortunately, my conscience won't allow me to do that.

Ah, so you know the answer to your question and hope to pre-empt it.

Also see:

You'll notice that many of the things of the Old Testament that were merely shadows of the coming of Christ were found to be misunderstood, or overturned when Christ came. Homosexuality, prostitution, adultery, and many others were not among them.

However, eating shelfish was.