Muslims represent ~20% of world's population, have 0.37% of Nobel Prizes
09-07-2010
, 05:13 AM
09-07-2010
, 05:15 AM
09-07-2010
, 05:24 AM
09-07-2010
, 05:48 AM
You think men aren't allowed to rape their wives according to Islam?
Should I ask ILOVEPOKER to bring his GF in here and see what she says?
You're saying I'm a bigot for saying adamantly that rape is wrong?
Are you a bigot for saying that murder is wrong? Are you a bigot against serial killers? Does this bigotry of serial killers you have somehow show your ignorance?
Were Americans bigots against the Nazi way of life?
Or is it just you who gets to label anyone who disagrees with you a bigot?
Should I ask ILOVEPOKER to bring his GF in here and see what she says?
You're saying I'm a bigot for saying adamantly that rape is wrong?
Are you a bigot for saying that murder is wrong? Are you a bigot against serial killers? Does this bigotry of serial killers you have somehow show your ignorance?
Were Americans bigots against the Nazi way of life?
Or is it just you who gets to label anyone who disagrees with you a bigot?
09-07-2010
, 06:35 AM
Quote:
Your ignorance couldn't be more evident.
Some people are simply beyond reasoning and understanding. You're a lost cause, rize. I'd wish you luck in whatever it is you're trying to accomplish, but I can't, in good conscience, do so when it's obvious you're preaching ignorance and intolerance.
I guess every forum needs its resident fool.
Some people are simply beyond reasoning and understanding. You're a lost cause, rize. I'd wish you luck in whatever it is you're trying to accomplish, but I can't, in good conscience, do so when it's obvious you're preaching ignorance and intolerance.
I guess every forum needs its resident fool.
Far from ignoring or condemning slavery, Islam condones the horrible institution like no other religion.
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.
Question: Does Islam command that those who insult the religion should be put to death?
Summary Answer: Under Sharia, those who insult Muhammad or Allah are to be put to death. So are those who desecrate the Qur'an, or commit other acts of blasphemy. This tradition began with Muhammad, as recorded in the Hadith and by his biographers. There is also a Qur'anic basis for it.
Question:
Does Islam proscribe death for the Muslim who converts to another religion?
Summary Answer:
Those who turn their back on Islam are to be put to death. This is confirmed by the words and deeds of Muhammad. The only freedom of belief in Islam is the freedom to become Muslim.
Question: Can Muslims force others to accept Islam?
Summary Answer: Muslims are commanded to fight unbelievers until they are either dead, converted to Islam, or in a permanent state of subjugation under Muslim domination. Allowing people of other faiths to live and worship independently of Islamic rule is not an option.
Question: Are suicide bombings justified or condemned under Islam?
Summary Answer: Suicide is against Islam. Martyrdom is not.
"Suicide bomber" is a derogatory term invented in the West to try and describe what in Islam is known as a Fedayeen or Shahid... a martyr. The point of the bomber isn't suicide. It is to kill infidels in battle. This is not just permitted by Muhammad, but encouraged with liberal promises of heavenly reward, including food and sex.
Question:
Is torture sanctioned by Islam?
Summary Answer: Yes, but only when there is a reason for it.
Question:
Does Islam require women to cover themselves?
Summary Answer: Yes. The reason is that it is supposed to curb the sexual appetites of passing men when women travel outside the home. Women are also not allowed to travel by themselves, or be alone with a man who is not a relative.
Question: Does Islam teach that a woman is worth less than a man?
Summary Answer: Absolutely. The only debatable point is by what degree.
Question: Why are rape victims punished by Islamic courts as adulterers?
Summary Answer: Under Islamic law, rape can only be proven if the rapist confesses or if there are four male witnesses. Women who allege rape, without the benefit of the act having been witnessed by four men who subsequently develop a conscience, are actually confessing to having sex. If they or the accused happens to be married, then it is considered to be adultery.
Question: Does Islam permit a man to hit his wife?
Summary Answer: Yes, but only if she doesn't do as he asks. The beating must cease if the woman complies with her husband's demands. Beating is also intended to be the last resort of coercing submission, behind verbal abuse and abandonment.
According her testimony in the Hadith, Muhammad, physically struck his favorite wife for leaving the house without his permission. It is not known how he treated his less-favored wives.
Question: Are adulterers to be put to death under Islam?
Summary Answer: Absolutely. There were several times in Muhammad's life when he proscribed that people be put to death when they had committed no crime other than "illegal" sexual intercourse.
Question: Does Islam really allow a man to take up to four wives?
Summary Answer: Yes, a Muslim man can marry as man as four women, and have sexual relations with an unspecified number of slaves as well. Muhammad had eleven wives at one time.
Question: What is Islam's position on homosexuality?
Summary Answer: Islamic law teaches that homosexuality is a vile form of fornication, punishable by death. Beneath the surface, however, there are implied references to homosexual behavior in paradise, and it has been a part of historical Arab and Muslim culture.
Question: Does the Qur'an really contain dozens of verses promoting violence?
Summary Answer: The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers. 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.
09-07-2010
, 10:28 AM
09-07-2010
, 10:34 AM
EDIT 2: is it because black people are stupid, or is it just money and politics?
Anyway, rize's last post confirms that he hates Islam and is willing to twist the facts to support his claim. Let's take the easiest one. Are women required to be covered head to toe. He says it's a clear yes. But go out and talk to Muslims themselves. You'll see that this is a debatable topic for them. Not all agree, so how can rize claim to be the one with the truth?
So if he wants to go ahead and misinterpret the Koran or ascribe beliefs and actions to Muslims that many simply do not have/do, then go ahead. But don't expect anyone to listen to you anymore. You're spouting ignorant claims that do not accurately reflect the life of a Muslim. I mean, if your goal here is just to make people angry, then you're on tract. If instead you hope to enlighten people or convince us, then you're an idiot for doing it the wrong way.
09-07-2010
, 10:43 AM
09-07-2010
, 10:55 AM
09-07-2010
, 11:44 AM
This is going to be off topic but I'm going to post an excerpt from Noam Chomsky's book "What We Say Goes" circa 2007 on how we support Islamic extremism. I think you and perhaps others may be interested in reading it:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noam Chomsky
From Washington's perspective, any democracy that emerges has to be one subordinated to U.S. interests. The United States wants Lebanon to become a commericial and financial center run for the wealthy. One of the reasons that Hezbollah became so powerful is that the Lebanese government government did essentially nothing for poorer Shiites in south Beirut and south Lebanon. Hezbollah's prestige comes not just from leading the guerrilla forces that drove Israel out of Lebanon in 2000, but from providing social services--health, education, financial aid. For many Lebanese, Hezbollah is the government. As with other Islamic fundamentalist movements, that's the basis for its enormous popular support. You don't want to have nonstate actors, especially military ones, inside a state, but unless the fundamental problems are dealt with, that's going to happen. It's almost inevitable. In fact, the United States and Israel substantially helped create Islamic fundamentalist extremism by destroying secular nationalism. If you destroy secular nationalism, people aren't going to just say, "Okay, cut my throat." They're going to turn somewhere else. And that somewhere else has been extremist religious fanaticism.
In fact, sometimes these movements are actively encouraged. Since the Second World War, the United States has been the world's strongest outside supporter of extremist Islamic fundamentalism. Washington's oldest and most valued ally in the Arab world is Saudi Arabia. Iran looks like a democratic heaven in comparison. The threat to Saudi Arabian religious extremist tyranny was secular nationalism, mainly embodied by Gamal Abdel Nasser. So Nasser became an enemy because he threatened the U.S. base of extremist religious fundamentalism, Saudi Arabia, which happens to control the oil, the underlying reason. In 1967, Israel performed a huge service to the United States, to Saudi Arabia, and the energy corporations by essentially eliminating secular Arab nationalism, which was threatening to use the resources of the region for the needs of its own population. That's intolerable. They're "our" resources, as George Kennan said a long time ago, and we have to "protect" them.
The same thing has happened time after time. Israel created Hamas by destroying the secular Palestine Liberation Organization, which was calling for negotiations and settlement. Since that was the last thing Israel and the United States wanted, they destroyed it. And then what happened? The population didn't disintegrate. They turned to something else, in this case, religious fundamentalism. The jihadi movement already existed in the 1970s--they were responsible for the assassination of Anwar Sadat in 1981--but was mainly Egyptian-based until the United States gave them a huge shot in the arm by organizing them to fight the Russians in Afghanistan. Not for the Afghans--the U.S. mobilization probably prolonged the Russian occupation--but against the Cold War enemy.
In Pakistan, which is now a major center for radical Islamism, the movement began with former president Muhammad Zia ul Haq, who was strongly supported by the Reagan administration. In fact, all though its tenure, the Reagan administration pretended that Zia wasn't developing nuclear weapons. Of course they knew that he was. But every year they would religiously certify that Pakistan was not developing nuclear weapons because they wanted to support their radical, extremist, fundamentalist friend. They knew perfectly well that Saudi Arabia was funding the extremist madrassas, the religious schools that undermined the Pakistani educational system, which had been pretty good beforehand. People like Pervez Hoodbhoy, a Pakistani nuclear physicist, now deplore that you can't get students to study the sciences because schools teach only the Koran. That wasn't true in the past. All of these developments were supported by the Reagan administration. A number of the same Reagan-era officials are in office now.
They're ecumenical. Washington will support anyone who accords with U.S. policies. Saddam Hussein happened to be a secular maniac, but they supported him, too. When he invaded Iran, the United States favored that. In fact, they pretty much won the war for him.
In fact, sometimes these movements are actively encouraged. Since the Second World War, the United States has been the world's strongest outside supporter of extremist Islamic fundamentalism. Washington's oldest and most valued ally in the Arab world is Saudi Arabia. Iran looks like a democratic heaven in comparison. The threat to Saudi Arabian religious extremist tyranny was secular nationalism, mainly embodied by Gamal Abdel Nasser. So Nasser became an enemy because he threatened the U.S. base of extremist religious fundamentalism, Saudi Arabia, which happens to control the oil, the underlying reason. In 1967, Israel performed a huge service to the United States, to Saudi Arabia, and the energy corporations by essentially eliminating secular Arab nationalism, which was threatening to use the resources of the region for the needs of its own population. That's intolerable. They're "our" resources, as George Kennan said a long time ago, and we have to "protect" them.
The same thing has happened time after time. Israel created Hamas by destroying the secular Palestine Liberation Organization, which was calling for negotiations and settlement. Since that was the last thing Israel and the United States wanted, they destroyed it. And then what happened? The population didn't disintegrate. They turned to something else, in this case, religious fundamentalism. The jihadi movement already existed in the 1970s--they were responsible for the assassination of Anwar Sadat in 1981--but was mainly Egyptian-based until the United States gave them a huge shot in the arm by organizing them to fight the Russians in Afghanistan. Not for the Afghans--the U.S. mobilization probably prolonged the Russian occupation--but against the Cold War enemy.
In Pakistan, which is now a major center for radical Islamism, the movement began with former president Muhammad Zia ul Haq, who was strongly supported by the Reagan administration. In fact, all though its tenure, the Reagan administration pretended that Zia wasn't developing nuclear weapons. Of course they knew that he was. But every year they would religiously certify that Pakistan was not developing nuclear weapons because they wanted to support their radical, extremist, fundamentalist friend. They knew perfectly well that Saudi Arabia was funding the extremist madrassas, the religious schools that undermined the Pakistani educational system, which had been pretty good beforehand. People like Pervez Hoodbhoy, a Pakistani nuclear physicist, now deplore that you can't get students to study the sciences because schools teach only the Koran. That wasn't true in the past. All of these developments were supported by the Reagan administration. A number of the same Reagan-era officials are in office now.
They're ecumenical. Washington will support anyone who accords with U.S. policies. Saddam Hussein happened to be a secular maniac, but they supported him, too. When he invaded Iran, the United States favored that. In fact, they pretty much won the war for him.
09-07-2010
, 12:26 PM
09-07-2010
, 05:20 PM