I have issues with Islam

[mahasn ebn sawresho]

Exactly, and some see that the American assault on Iraq is wrong, whereas for others it is right.

Iraq war you don't know and not
You hearonly-
1. Americans come to Iraq through a formal invitation from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar and Egypt
2. Americans committed some errors
But they have committed war crimes in Iraq

3. during military attacks Americans were using special methods and was intended to be a human aldhiaia
And I can prove by evidence and dates also
4. most of the victims Iraqis killed after military operations
5. Why is the Iraqi armed groups
6. most of the victims Iraqis killed as a result of the conflict in Iraq between armed organizations
7. after the withdrawal of u.s. troops from Iraq, the number of victims
8. the Americans were unable to protect minorities
9. Christian minority was the victim of this war
Byexpelledpermanently fromsome cities
10. will remain in Mosul
Proof on Berber Muslims and outbreaks

 

[FearGod]

Iraq war you don't know and not
You hearonly-
1. Americans come to Iraq through a formal invitation from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar and Egypt
2. Americans committed some errors
But they have committed war crimes in Iraq

3. during military attacks Americans were using special methods and was intended to be a human aldhiaia
And I can prove by evidence and dates also
4. most of the victims Iraqis killed after military operations
5. Why is the Iraqi armed groups
6. most of the victims Iraqis killed as a result of the conflict in Iraq between armed organizations
7. after the withdrawal of u.s. troops from Iraq, the number of victims
8. the Americans were unable to protect minorities
9. Christian minority was the victim of this war
Byexpelledpermanently fromsome cities
10. will remain in Mosul
Proof on Berber Muslims and outbreaks

Thank you, but i didn't understand anything.

 

[oldbadger]

And murder for drawing a cartoon is wrong for me, whereas for others it is right!

Just about everybody agrees that murder is wrong. Just about everybody agrees that conspiracy to commit mass murder is wrong.

But a time will come, after we have mourned the deaths and searched for all and any others who were involved in these outrages, when people will begin to question what Charlie Hebdo was doing....... quite separate to the crimes of this week.

It cannot be discussed now, because anybody who suggests that Charlie Hebdo was deliberately insulting, upsetting and goading millions of Muslims would be immediately classed as supporting the recent outrages.

6 million Muslims put up with the continual media bullying and did not do any bad things this week. Only a few Muslims were bad enough to do these dreadful things.

I don't want to fight anybody today on RF, I just think that Charlie Hebdo needs to be discussed later on....

 

[mahasn ebn sawresho]

Okay-
1. why America took part in the war against Iraq??
2. from the email invitation it??
3. in the rules the Americans??
If you cananswer the questionsyou'll knowwhat I mean
4. What is the number of casualties during military operations?
5. how many aldhiaia civilians during military operations?
6. What is the number of aldhiaia after the cessation of hostilities??
7. does the US forces involved in the killings of Iraqi civilians
؟؟؟
8. American amiliat forces carried out genocide of Muslims displaced Iraqis???
9. the numbers of Iraqi civilian casualties caused by the military in Iraq
10 campaigns of displacement and ethnic cleansing are acts of Muslims
Is thisa goodillustration

 

[oldbadger]

Okay-
1. why America took part in the war against Iraq??
2. from the email invitation it??
3. in the rules the Americans??
If you cananswer the questionsyou'll knowwhat I mean
4. What is the number of casualties during military operations?
5. how many aldhiaia civilians during military operations?
6. What is the number of aldhiaia after the cessation of hostilities??
7. does the US forces involved in the killings of Iraqi civilians
؟؟؟
8. American amiliat forces carried out genocide of Muslims displaced Iraqis???
9. the numbers of Iraqi civilian casualties caused by the military in Iraq
10 campaigns of displacement and ethnic cleansing are acts of Muslims
Is thisa goodillustration

mahasn.....
Do you think your post is helping?
Even the American think that the 2001 Iraq war was a big mistake. So do the Brits.
So why don't you think of something else to say?

 

[mahasn ebn sawresho]

mahasn.....
Do you think your post is helping?
Even the American think that the 2001 Iraq war was a big mistake. So do the Brits.
So why don't you think of something else to say?

Doyou live inIraq?!?
So you knowthe details of thosewars?!?

 

[mahasn ebn sawresho]

Americabelieved thatgetting rid of Saddamwould bebetter-

 

[oldbadger]

Doyou live inIraq?!?
So you knowthe details of thosewars?!?

America now believes that it was wrong about that.
Take it, or leave it...... mahasn.
Britain now believes that it was wrong about that.
Take it, or leave it.....

Both countries were there, involved, and this is (mostly) what they say now. So think of something else...

 

[oldbadger]

Americabelieved thatgetting rid of Saddamwould bebetter-

Yes...... and now America realises that it made a big mistake...... Huge mistake.

 

[mahasn ebn sawresho]

Yes...... and now America realises that it made a big mistake...... Huge mistake.

What issinful??
It allowedtheIslamicideologyto wake upagain??
With the help of us tanks came the Islamists to rule Iraq??
And to seek to bring down the secular nationalist regimes
YestheIslamists inpower

 

[Chev Chelios]

Just about everybody agrees that murder is wrong. Just about everybody agrees that conspiracy to commit mass murder is wrong.

But a time will come, after we have mourned the deaths and searched for all and any others who were involved in these outrages, when people will begin to question what Charlie Hebdo was doing....... ...
6 million Muslims put up with the continual media bullying and did not do any bad things this week. Only a few Muslims were bad enough to do these dreadful things.

Charlie Hebdo were taking a stand for freedom expression by refusing to be intimidated into silence by oppressive aspects of a faith which deems it has the right to tell people what our society can and can't be by deciding what can and cannot be discussed. Charlie Hebdo took a stand to ensure that those that wish to curtail freedoms do not win - they stood alone to protect the rights of all of us because they knew what the stakes are if they didn't.

This had absolutely nothing to do with premeditated offence, the story was already out there and they did what journalists do - report on it - if they didn't they would be cedeing territory to these savages - they didn't want the terrorists to win. This has already been pointed out to you as it has that you support the shutting down of free speech and the sectioning off society into that which can be critiqued and those that can't.

As for media bullying - yet more lies. Did you see the pictures Charlie Ebdo published of Jesus, the pope et al? Did you see the mockery of Christianity 2 weeks ago on the front page of private eye (I am sure Christians didn't like it)? Islam gets off very lightly in view of all that so many of its followers do - if a Christian was to have done what these zealots did the shaming of Christianity would be unanimous - yet this 'bullying' media are going to great lengths to expunge Islam from any culpability in this - so for you to argue the reverse is laughable and more than a bit schizophrenic.

Another rant which you are mute to right?

 

[mahasn ebn sawresho]

Charlie Hebdo were taking a stand for freedom expression by refusing to be intimidated into silence by oppressive aspects of a faith which deems it has the right to tell people what our society can and can't be by deciding what can and cannot be discussed. Charlie Hebdo took a stand to ensure that those that wish to curtail freedoms do not win - they stood alone to protect the rights of all of us because they knew what the stakes are if they didn't.

This had absolutely nothing to do with premeditated offence, the story was already out there and they did what journalists do - report on it - if they didn't they would be cedeing territory to these savages - they didn't want the terrorists to win. This has already been pointed out to you as it has that you support the shutting down of free speech and the sectioning off society into that which can be critiqued and those that can't.

As for media bullying - yet more lies. Did you see the pictures Charlie Ebdo published of Jesus, the pope et al? Did you see the mockery of Christianity 2 weeks ago on the front page of private eye (I am sure Christians didn't like it)? Islam gets off very lightly in view of all that so many of its followers do - if a Christian was to have done what these zealots did the shaming of Christianity would be unanimous - yet this 'bullying' media are going to great lengths to expunge Islam from any culpability in this - so for you to argue the reverse is laughable and more than a bit schizophrenic.

Another rant which you are mute to right?

YesterdayI picked upWebpages
I found a strange-.-
The title is(solidarityidiot)
And he rejects the solidarity with the dead terrorist attack
Because he thinks they did it on reasonable grounds
2. Islamic thought one
3. Islamic thought does not believe in freedom
4. Islamic ideology does not accept cash
6. Islamic thought means intellectual terrorism

 

[oldbadger]

What issinful??
It allowedtheIslamicideologyto wake upagain??
With the help of us tanks came the Islamists to rule Iraq??
And to seek to bring down the secular nationalist regimes
YestheIslamists inpower

Yes! Good post!
America Britain and other countries that took part recognise thatthey made a big mistake!

 

[oldbadger]

Charlie Hebdo were taking a stand for freedom expression by refusing to be intimidated into silence by oppressive aspects of a faith which deems it has the right to tell people what our society can and can't be by deciding what can and cannot be discussed. Charlie Hebdo took a stand to ensure that those that wish to curtail freedoms do not win - they stood alone to protect the rights of all of us because they knew what the stakes are if they didn't.

The pictures that Hebdo published would be illegal in the UK.

This had absolutely nothing to do with premeditated offence, the story was already out there and they did what journalists do - report on it - if they didn't they would be cedeing territory to these savages - they didn't want the terrorists to win. This has already been pointed out to you as it has that you support the shutting down of free speech and the sectioning off society into that which can be critiqued and those that can't.

It is most unhelpful to call all Muslims savages. Actually it is worse than unhelpful...... other members might have some opther words to describe the above.

As for media bullying - yet more lies.

Yes...... inb the UK..... bullying, or severe harrassment which is the same. Their pics would be illegal here.
Thank goodness for good UK legislation.

Did you see the pictures Charlie Ebdo published of Jesus, the pope et al? Did you see the mockery of Christianity 2 weeks ago on the front page of private eye (I am sure Christians didn't like it)?

If they printed pics of Jesus as disgusting as those they drew of Muhamad then these would be illegalk in the UK

Islam gets off very lightly in view of all that so many of its followers do - if a Christian was to have done what these zealots did the shaming of Christianity would be unanimous - yet this 'bullying' media are going to great lengths to expunge Islam from any culpability in this - so for you to argue the reverse is laughable and more than a bit schizophrenic.

Totally demented and hateful paragraph.
What religion are you?
You were going to tell me what country you live in........ did you? I missed it. Plx tell me what country you live in.

Another rant which you are mute to right?

You're wrong about the above, it might be legal in France, but we have laws about this conduct where I live.

If you want to escalate the hatred and trouble, I do not.
Which country do you live in?

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

Exactly, and some see that the American assault on Iraq is wrong, whereas for others it is right.

Very true! Individual actions are individually answerable for. Yet the individual takes actions on his beliefs, right or wrong. And when these beliefs are part of a system of belief, even errantly, we must examine the connection. These things to not occur in a vacuum, they are systemic. Neither a blind eye, nor a pointing finger, will avail us.

Why do (some) americans still believe the Iraq war was justified? Why do (some) christians hate gays? Why are (some) muslims terrorists?

It does not good to equate the entire group; but it is necessary to examine the entire ideology that gives rise to the symptoms. That's what these are, symptoms. Fallacies, wrong and incorrect aspects of our (human) paradigms. Americans need fixing. Christianity (not christians) need fixing. Islam (not muslims) needs fixing. You cannot fix a thing unless it is thourogly examined.

If I have broken chair, is it acceptable say the other 3 chairs are perfectly fine so stop criticizing the dining set?

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

Just about everybody agrees that murder is wrong. Just about everybody agrees that conspiracy to commit mass murder is wrong.

But a time will come, after we have mourned the deaths and searched for all and any others who were involved in these outrages, when people will begin to question what Charlie Hebdo was doing....... quite separate to the crimes of this week.

It cannot be discussed now, because anybody who suggests that Charlie Hebdo was deliberately insulting, upsetting and goading millions of Muslims would be immediately classed as supporting the recent outrages.

6 million Muslims put up with the continual media bullying and did not do any bad things this week. Only a few Muslims were bad enough to do these dreadful things.

I don't want to fight anybody today on RF, I just think that Charlie Hebdo needs to be discussed later on....

I don't disagree with the majority of this; except in this way; I will say right now that CH may (I'm have not looked at all the cartoons) have been deliberately insulting, upsetting, and goading muslims.

How does this mean I support the so called consequences? No. Do millions of muslims that are upset at what CH has been doing support the actions? No. Do they no longer have a right to say they condemn the cartoons because some will think they support the murders? No.

I think wat CH was doing was in poor taste. I think it was hateful.

I believe that the murders have done more to legitimize the cartoons than anything else could possibly have done. I think the murders take something that was 'offensive' and squarely places it in the realm of 'get over it.'

Before the murders I could look at CH and say to myself "Why don't these guys shutup?"
Now I look at the hate of CH, and I say to myself "It's not so bad. I can live with that."

 

[Harikrish]

The magazine had been attacked before for publishing cartoons of the prophet several years ago. That should have been taken as a warning to back off. The world has to realize mocking prophets is not expressing freedom of speech. People hold on to their religions and faith sometimes above everything else, even their lives.
There is also a difference between mocking Jesus and mocking the prophet Mohammad(pbuh). Jesus was tried, convicted and put to death for blasphemy. He was rejected by his own people. He was crucified along with criminals and in public humiliation stripped, beaten and mocking asked to save himself to prove he was really God. Jesus even failed this direct request. The people wanted to believe more than just his claims of being their messiah. They wanted proof. But Jesus could not deliver that proof. So he was mocked before and will continue to be mocked because he let his people down. He was put to death as a false prophet.
Deuteronomy 18: 20 But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death."

But the prophet Mohammad does not deserve to be mocked. Muslims love their prophet and will defend him with their lives because the prophet did not lie to them. Mohammad (pbuh) did not claim he was God, he did not fool them with miracles. He spoke only of what was revealed to them. And being illiterate he had scribes write his recitations. Muslims believe his recitations were Gods revelation because he was too illiterate to make all that up. The Quran had to be the word of God

You cannot have free speech without justification. There are limits imposed on free speech and mocking the prophet should be one of them. It serves no purpose to mock the prophet when he has done nothing to deserve it. It is a direct affront to Muslims and the magazine and prophet bashers know it. To attack the prophet is to attack Islam. Intelligent people should find other ways to amuse themselves. It is a small price to pay to respect the 1.6 billion Muslims who love their prophet and not compare it with the 2 billion Christians who follow a wooden cross to symbolize their faith in a Jewish rabbi who was crucified along with criminals, who was rejected by the Jews and continue to be rejected even to this day. Jesus might be good for Christians and Hollywood and cartoonists. But he does not stir the same passion the prophet generates in the hearts of Muslims. They love their prophet....I applaud that.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

The magazine had been attacked before for publishing cartoons of the prophet several years ago. That should have been taken as a warning to back off.

So you think the actions were justified? Good for you. Personally I believe the prior attacks were a sign that the mocking of prophets should become widespread so that oversensitive irrational people would learn to live with the idea that not everyone agrees with them. Personally, I think that people laughing at the prophet for all these years should have been taken as a warning that muslims were viewed, by some, as silly. See? Laughing...silly...laughing...silly. this should have been taken as a warning that one's world view should have been examined.

The world has to realize mocking prophets is not expressing freedom of speech.

I disagree. But more to the point, critizisng prophets is necessary dialogue to bring to light the fallacies in the errant religious beliefs. The mocking is pointed more at the adherents to such illogical believe systems than towards the prophets themselves.

People hold on to their religions and faith sometimes above everything else, even their lives.

This is a perfect example of irrational beliefs that SHOULD BE QUESTIONED. Even if one disagrees,my opinion is that this is a ludicrous belief and is certainly not above criticism, and yes even mocking while not in good taste is to be expected.

There is also a difference between mocking Jesus and mocking the prophet Mohammad(pbuh). Jesus was tried, convicted and put to death for blasphemy. He was rejected by his own people. He was crucified along with criminals and in public humiliation stripped, beaten and mocking asked to save himself to prove he was really God. Jesus even failed this direct request. The people wanted to believe more than just his claims of being their messiah. They wanted proof. But Jesus could not deliver that proof. So he was mocked before and will continue to be mocked because he let his people down. He was put to death as a false prophet.
Deuteronomy 18: 20 But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death."

I'm somewhat puzzled at this. does the quern not say that jesus IS a prophet of god? And that death should be dealt to anyone who mocks a prophet of god? Are you not criticizing Jesus, a prophet of god? If jesus did not provide the proof, was it not god who ordained this? Are you not then finding fault in god? Shouldn't a REAL muslim be just as outraged at your blasphemy as they were with CH?

But the prophet Mohammad does not deserve to be mocked. Muslims love their prophet and will defend him with their lives because the prophet did not lie to them. Mohammad (pbuh) did not claim he was God, he did not fool them with miracles. He spoke only of what was revealed to them. And being illiterate he had scribes write his recitations. Muslims believe his recitations were Gods revelation because he was too illiterate to make all that up. The Quran had to be the word of God

Mohammad deserves to be mocked more than any other figure in history. After all he is directly responsible for the curren state of almost 1/4 of the worlds' population.

You cannot have free speech without justification. There are limits imposed on free speech and mocking the prophet should be one of them. It serves no purpose to mock the prophet when he has done nothing to deserve it. It is a direct affront to Muslims and the magazine and prophet bashers know it. To attack the prophet is to attack Islam. Intelligent people should find other ways to amuse themselves. It is a small price to pay to respect the 1.6 billion Muslims who love their prophet and not compare it with the 2 billion Christians who follow a wooden cross to symbolize their faith in a Jewish rabbi who was crucified along with criminals, who was rejected by the Jews and continue to be rejected even to this day. Jesus might be good for Christians and Hollywood and cartoonists. But he does not stir the same passion the prophet generates in the hearts of Muslims. They love their prophet....I applaud that.

The justification for this free speech is to bring to light the adherence to an incomprehensible ideology. If muslims could converse rationally, then rational discourse might suffice. But since mocking is the only thing that causes a muslim to question, it must be used.

 

[Harikrish]

So you think the actions were justified? Good for you. Personally I believe the prior attacks were a sign that the mocking of prophets should become widespread so that oversensitive irrational people would learn to live with the idea that not everyone agrees with them. Personally, I think that people laughing at the prophet for all these years should have been taken as a warning that muslims were viewed, by some, as silly. See? Laughing...silly...laughing...silly. this should have been taken as a warning that one's world view should have been examined.

I disagree. But more to the point, critizisng prophets is necessary dialogue to bring to light the fallacies in the errant religious beliefs. The mocking is pointed more at the adherents to such illogical believe systems than towards the prophets themselves.

This is a perfect example of irrational beliefs that SHOULD BE QUESTIONED. Even if one disagrees,my opinion is that this is a ludicrous belief and is certainly not above criticism, and yes even mocking while not in good taste is to be expected.

I'm somewhat puzzled at this. does the quern not say that jesus IS a prophet of god? And that death should be dealt to anyone who mocks a prophet of god? Are you not criticizing Jesus, a prophet of god? If jesus did not provide the proof, was it not god who ordained this? Are you not then finding fault in god? Shouldn't a REAL muslim be just as outraged at your blasphemy as they were with CH?

Mohammad deserves to be mocked more than any other figure in history. After all he is directly responsible for the curren state of almost 1/4 of the worlds' population.

The justification for this free speech is to bring to light the adherence to an incomprehensible ideology. If muslims could converse rationally, then rational discourse might suffice. But since mocking is the only thing that causes a muslim to question, it must be used.

There are some things that should be held sacred. 1.6 billion Muslims loving their prophet who did not lie or claim to be God or performed magic tricks to deceive them is worthy of our respect.
You should applaud the Muslims who do not want their prophet to be disrespected. They do not want their prophet to be represented like Jesus by a wooden cross or a cartoonish character or a victim of the Jews or an incoherent delusional Jewish carpenter who had messianic aspirations or one who even questioned God in his final hour.

Matthew 27:46 About three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?" (which means "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?").

Insulting the prophet is an attack on 1.6 billion Muslims who love their prophet. There is no justification for this type of religious intolerance, malicious indifference and insensitivity.
It was prophesied Jesus would be despised and mocked. But no such thing was said about the prophet Muhammad(pbuh). Muslims have the right to defend their prophet and for not wanting the prophet to be compared to Jesus or mocked like Jesus. The bible supports their position as does Islam.

Isaiah 53:3. He was despised and rejected by mankind, a man of suffering, and familiar with pain. Like one from whom people hide their faces he was despised, and we held him in low esteem.

 

[Chev Chelios]

The pictures that Hebdo published would be illegal in the UK.


It is most unhelpful to call all Muslims savages. Actually it is worse than unhelpful...... other members might have some opther words to describe the above.


Yes...... inb the UK..... bullying, or severe harrassment which is the same. Their pics would be illegal here.
Thank goodness for good UK legislation.


If they printed pics of Jesus as disgusting as those they drew of Muhamad then these would be illegalk in the UK


Totally demented and hateful paragraph.
What religion are you?
You were going to tell me what country you live in........ did you? I missed it. Plx tell me what country you live in.


You're wrong about the above, it might be legal in France, but we have laws about this conduct where I live.

If you want to escalate the hatred and trouble, I do not.
Which country do you live in?

1. No. You are lying. The pictures of Muhammad which Charlie Hebdo published would NOT be illegal here because we do not live under the Sharia and so do not recognise Islamic blasphemy laws - just like Charlie Hebdo didn't. So please don't lie. Lying makes an absolute mockery of this most serious of debates.

2. No. I did not call ALL Moslems savages. I clearly referred to those that killed these brave journalists in order to curtail free speech. Not once did I specifically refer to Moslems and not once did I say all Moslems. STOP LYING.

3. Wow! Charlie Hebdo have drawn absolutely astonishing pictures of Jesus - arguably far more offensive than those of Muhammad. What on Earth are you talking about? In-fact - you clearly do not know what you are talking about. As I said before - you are out of your depth on this.

4. What was hateful about that paragraph - I mean, you said it was but you didn't say what it was - just as you call me prejudice but, when asked, could't say why I was.

5. It should be obvious where I live as I have pointed it out to you enough. As for a religion - I follow none.