Islam will be the dominate religion of the western nations

[Coyote]

.,lk

They burned witches too.

So, because Christians burned witches we should ignore the hatred coming from Islam. People are killed DAILY in Islam's name, just like Islam wants it.

Hatred should never be ignored, including that hatred directed against Muslims just for being Muslim.

I doubt if you will ever run out of apologies. And look at Islam, exactly what is good about it for the non-Muslim?

What is good about ANY religion for non members?

those religions that LEAVE OTHERS ALONE are good for non-members.
Historically that situation has not been absolute-----but a MORE OR LESS
situation. over time and place. Historically, Christianity had been intrusive
and even genocidal-----but has REFORMED fairly well to the point of even
being a positive force in some places. Buddhism has been almost excellent
in leaving others alone historically and presently and also a force for good
in some places. Islam has, in its somewhat shorter existence, never approached
any level of "leaving others alone" and remains intrusive and genocidal

Really?


https://www.indexoncensorship.org/2014/01/worst-countries-religious-freedom/
1. Burma

Burma’s population is 90 percent Theravada Buddhist, a faith the government embraces and promotes over Christianity, Islam and Hinduism. Minority populations that adhere to these and other faiths are denied building permits, banned from proselytizing and pressured to convert to the majority faith. Religious groups must register with the government, and Burmese citizens must list their faith on official documents. Burma’s constitution provides for limited religious freedom, but individual laws and government officials actively restrict it.

 

[Lastamender]

.,lk

So, because Christians burned witches we should ignore the hatred coming from Islam. People are killed DAILY in Islam's name, just like Islam wants it.

Hatred should never be ignored, including that hatred directed against Muslims just for being Muslim.

I doubt if you will ever run out of apologies. And look at Islam, exactly what is good about it for the non-Muslim?

What is good about ANY religion for non members?

those religions that LEAVE OTHERS ALONE are good for non-members.
Historically that situation has not been absolute-----but a MORE OR LESS
situation. over time and place. Historically, Christianity had been intrusive
and even genocidal-----but has REFORMED fairly well to the point of even
being a positive force in some places. Buddhism has been almost excellent
in leaving others alone historically and presently and also a force for good
in some places. Islam has, in its somewhat shorter existence, never approached
any level of "leaving others alone" and remains intrusive and genocidal

Really?


https://www.indexoncensorship.org/2014/01/worst-countries-religious-freedom/
1. Burma

Burma’s population is 90 percent Theravada Buddhist, a faith the government embraces and promotes over Christianity, Islam and Hinduism. Minority populations that adhere to these and other faiths are denied building permits, banned from proselytizing and pressured to convert to the majority faith. Religious groups must register with the government, and Burmese citizens must list their faith on official documents. Burma’s constitution provides for limited religious freedom, but individual laws and government officials actively restrict it.

They know what Islam does. They have decided to prevent that from happening.

 

[Coyote]

.,lk

Hatred should never be ignored, including that hatred directed against Muslims just for being Muslim.

I doubt if you will ever run out of apologies. And look at Islam, exactly what is good about it for the non-Muslim?

What is good about ANY religion for non members?

those religions that LEAVE OTHERS ALONE are good for non-members.
Historically that situation has not been absolute-----but a MORE OR LESS
situation. over time and place. Historically, Christianity had been intrusive
and even genocidal-----but has REFORMED fairly well to the point of even
being a positive force in some places. Buddhism has been almost excellent
in leaving others alone historically and presently and also a force for good
in some places. Islam has, in its somewhat shorter existence, never approached
any level of "leaving others alone" and remains intrusive and genocidal

Really?


https://www.indexoncensorship.org/2014/01/worst-countries-religious-freedom/
1. Burma

Burma’s population is 90 percent Theravada Buddhist, a faith the government embraces and promotes over Christianity, Islam and Hinduism. Minority populations that adhere to these and other faiths are denied building permits, banned from proselytizing and pressured to convert to the majority faith. Religious groups must register with the government, and Burmese citizens must list their faith on official documents. Burma’s constitution provides for limited religious freedom, but individual laws and government officials actively restrict it.

They know what Islam does. They have decided to prevent that from happening.

Preventive genocide?

 

[irosie91]

.,lk

So, because Christians burned witches we should ignore the hatred coming from Islam. People are killed DAILY in Islam's name, just like Islam wants it.

Hatred should never be ignored, including that hatred directed against Muslims just for being Muslim.

I doubt if you will ever run out of apologies. And look at Islam, exactly what is good about it for the non-Muslim?

What is good about ANY religion for non members?

those religions that LEAVE OTHERS ALONE are good for non-members.
Historically that situation has not been absolute-----but a MORE OR LESS
situation. over time and place. Historically, Christianity had been intrusive
and even genocidal-----but has REFORMED fairly well to the point of even
being a positive force in some places. Buddhism has been almost excellent
in leaving others alone historically and presently and also a force for good
in some places. Islam has, in its somewhat shorter existence, never approached
any level of "leaving others alone" and remains intrusive and genocidal

Really?


https://www.indexoncensorship.org/2014/01/worst-countries-religious-freedom/
1. Burma

Burma’s population is 90 percent Theravada Buddhist, a faith the government embraces and promotes over Christianity, Islam and Hinduism. Minority populations that adhere to these and other faiths are denied building permits, banned from proselytizing and pressured to convert to the majority faith. Religious groups must register with the government, and Burmese citizens must list their faith on official documents. Burma’s constitution provides for limited religious freedom, but individual laws and government officials actively restrict it.

Brian Pellot LIKES to find minority oppression. -----it is his BREAD AND BUTTER. NOT IMPRESSED. Is 'banned from proselytizing' OPPRESSION? "religious groups must register with government"---is that
OPPRESSION? In Indonesia, YOU, YOURSELF have called it religious
freedom. "denied building permits" ---well, that one is a matter of
SENSE OF VICTIMIZATION. I have been denied permits right here
in the USA------there are no churches or mosques or even HOUSES for
Christians or Muslims? As to "banned from proselytizing"----true for all
non-muslims in every muslim majority country. Seems like ---a case of
"and back at you..." to me. Do you have a source that is not so
INVESTED in finding "oppression" ? My sense is that Brian Pellot's
sources have been restricted to muslims. Muslims complain about
being denied rights to build mosques right here in the USA

 

[irosie91]

.,lk

I doubt if you will ever run out of apologies. And look at Islam, exactly what is good about it for the non-Muslim?

What is good about ANY religion for non members?

those religions that LEAVE OTHERS ALONE are good for non-members.
Historically that situation has not been absolute-----but a MORE OR LESS
situation. over time and place. Historically, Christianity had been intrusive
and even genocidal-----but has REFORMED fairly well to the point of even
being a positive force in some places. Buddhism has been almost excellent
in leaving others alone historically and presently and also a force for good
in some places. Islam has, in its somewhat shorter existence, never approached
any level of "leaving others alone" and remains intrusive and genocidal

Really?


https://www.indexoncensorship.org/2014/01/worst-countries-religious-freedom/
1. Burma

Burma’s population is 90 percent Theravada Buddhist, a faith the government embraces and promotes over Christianity, Islam and Hinduism. Minority populations that adhere to these and other faiths are denied building permits, banned from proselytizing and pressured to convert to the majority faith. Religious groups must register with the government, and Burmese citizens must list their faith on official documents. Burma’s constitution provides for limited religious freedom, but individual laws and government officials actively restrict it.

They know what Islam does. They have decided to prevent that from happening.

Preventive genocide?

to what "genocide" do you refer? -------the genocide of Shiites in sunni Bangladish or the genocide of sunnis in Shiite Iran?

 

[toobfreak]

When the citizens are so mentally deluded they can't figure out the difference between a man and a woman.

When parents can legally give hormone shots to very young children in order to change them from boys to girls and girls to boys.

When a country depends on homosexuals in their military to protect them.

When churches are performing and blessing same sex marriages, and the government is allowing them to adopt children.

When God is mocked in the media, and excluded by law from being mentioned at government functions.

That's when a country is in serious moral and cultural decay and swirlling down the toilet to oblivion.

And the only hope of survival of the west is to embrace Islam and be ruled by Sharia law.

And when all that happens and Islam takes over, you can kiss goodbye:

• Sexual ambiguity
• Trans gender kids
• Homosexuality
• Same sex marriages
• Mocking God

Except don't expect any help from me. I'll never be a Dhimmi.

 

[alang1216]

Do you mean to imply that no Christian would kill innocent people if they thought they needed to defend Christianity?

Very small chance. Christians live in the present.

Christianity has been around for 2,000 years and there have plenty of instances where Christians killed innocent people if they thought they needed to defend Christianity. So what you meant to write was:

"Happened many times throughout history but Christians ignore their past."​

 

[alang1216]

If you think that was nonsense you'll enjoy this...

Set your clock back 120 years and you could rewrite your post substituting Jew for Islam/Muslim.

B'loney.

Good point. Set your clock back 150 years and you could rewrite your post substituting Irish/Catholic for Islam/Muslim.

What were the Irish Catholics blowing up? Where is their doctrine saying they intended to dominate the world? Can you post a copy?

Questions totally irrelevant to the subject of assimilation.

Muslim Non-Assimilation

The Koran says Muslims are not supposed to assimilate. Look at Western Europe.

“I understand very well that you are against assimilation. One cannot expect you to assimilate. Assimilation is a crime against humanity.” Erdogan

Why does Erdogan call assimilation “a crime against humanity?” It is because the “humanity” he embraces includes only Islam’s believers—i.e., non-believers are unworthy of inclusion. Thus, believers in foreign lands are instructed to isolate themselves—for the sake of purity—from non-believers.

This debate has been going on from the beginning of the US and it is silly since the assimilation patterns of every new group is generally the same. The first generation tries to keep their religion, language, and culture intact. If the community is big enough they have their own theater, newspapers, businesses, etc. All in the native language. The second generation generally speaks their native language at home but uses English elsewhere. They have a foot in both worlds. The third generation is completely American and often can't even speak to their grandparents. If those 3rd generation kids are not assimilated then we should worry.

Many groups, not just Muslims, view assimilation as genocide. They will keep their children in private/religious school to prevent it. There is a saying among Jews that American assimilation will do what Hitler failed to do.

 

[alang1216]

" Abrogation Versus Literalism "

* Empirical Evidence *

Are you asking about what is written in the religion or what is or was done in the name of that religion?

Both are relevant as the history of fictional ishmaelism substantiates the tenets and edicts of creed for illegitimate aggression as written within its doctrine .

* Nomian Basics *

How would you answer regarding the OT/NT and Christianity?

The genetic religion of torahnism would not apply outside of israel .

The gospel is based upon antinomianism and it DOES NOT INCLUDE directives to kill and be killed in a fight for the cause of gawd .

Surah 9 was written 113th out of 114 in chronology and this passage is a reference to september 11 2001 .

9:111. Indeed, God has purchased from the believers their lives and their properties [in exchange] for that they will have Paradise. They fight in the cause of God, so they kill and are killed. [It is] a true promise [binding] upon Him in the Torah and the Gospel and the Qur’ān. And who is truer to his covenant than God? So rejoice in your transaction which you have contracted. And it is that which is the great attainment.

What is 'legitimate' aggression?

Matthew 10:34 quotes Jesus: Do not assume that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

.,lk

So, because Christians burned witches we should ignore the hatred coming from Islam. People are killed DAILY in Islam's name, just like Islam wants it.

Hatred should never be ignored, including that hatred directed against Muslims just for being Muslim.

I doubt if you will ever run out of apologies. And look at Islam, exactly what is good about it for the non-Muslim?

What is good about ANY religion for non members?

those religions that LEAVE OTHERS ALONE are good for non-members.
Historically that situation has not been absolute-----but a MORE OR LESS
situation. over time and place. Historically, Christianity had been intrusive
and even genocidal-----but has REFORMED fairly well to the point of even
being a positive force in some places. Buddhism has been almost excellent
in leaving others alone historically and presently and also a force for good
in some places. Islam has, in its somewhat shorter existence, never approached
any level of "leaving others alone" and remains intrusive and genocidal

Really?


https://www.indexoncensorship.org/2014/01/worst-countries-religious-freedom/
1. Burma

Burma’s population is 90 percent Theravada Buddhist, a faith the government embraces and promotes over Christianity, Islam and Hinduism. Minority populations that adhere to these and other faiths are denied building permits, banned from proselytizing and pressured to convert to the majority faith. Religious groups must register with the government, and Burmese citizens must list their faith on official documents. Burma’s constitution provides for limited religious freedom, but individual laws and government officials actively restrict it.

Burma is a Chinese puppet state. It is not a true democracy.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Conditional Optimism "

* Wish In One Hand Shit In The Other Guess Which Fills Up *

I wish the lawful Muslims would take a stronger and more assertive stand against the violent Islamists...and reform their religion. It's long overdue.

The adherents of fictional ishmaelism believe that their doctrine (qurayn ) is the literal dictation from an angel to its author , and abrogating it is vehemently opposed .

Those promoting a reformation of fictional ishmaelism i slam are the Ahmadiyya - Wikipedia who run huffington post and are considered apostates by all other adherent sects ; and , the ahmadiyya efforts are simply another ruse to establish hisbah and the final solution for fictional ishmaeliism i slam .

The adherents of fictional ishmaelism i slam do not condemned actions of violent radicals because personal sacrifice " to kill and be killed " to advance their religion is an accepted practice , though not all see it as fitting for themselves .

The founder of fictional ishmaelism i slam severely admonished those who would not fight for him ( surah 9 written 113th out of 114 in chronology ) and none of its adherents will controvert the expectation .

9:83. If God should return you to a faction of them [after the expedition] and then they ask your permission to go out [to battle], say, “You will not go out with me, ever, and you will never fight with me an enemy. Indeed, you were satisfied with sitting [at home] the first time, so sit [now] with those who stay behind.”

9:84. And do not pray [the funeral prayer, O Muhammad], over any of them who has died - ever - or stand at his grave. Indeed, they disbelieved in God and His Messenger and died while they were defiantly disobedient.
...

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Islam hates dogs. That is a non starter for many.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Understanding Context "

* Raised Sword By Who *

What is 'legitimate' aggression?
Matthew 10:34 quotes Jesus: Do not assume that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.

Is there evidence that jesus instructed any to raise a sword against non believers , rather is the interpretation not that those converted could expect to face persecution from the sword ?

How could the conversion of others be considered illegitimate aggression , when those converted are the ones subject to the sword ?

Matthew 10:16 “I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves.

10:21 “Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death. 22 You will be hated by everyone because of me, but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved.

 

[alang1216]

What is 'legitimate' aggression?
Matthew 10:34 quotes Jesus: Do not assume that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.

Is there evidence that jesus instructed any to raise a sword against non believers , rather is the interpretation not that those converted could expect to face persecution from the sword ?

How could the conversion of others be considered illegitimate aggression , when those converted are the ones subject to the sword ?

So you get to give the proper interpretation of the Bible and the Quran? Quite a lofty position you have.

Are you saying the conversion of others should be considered legitimate aggression? Does that apply to both the Muslim conquests of North Africa and the Christian conquests of North America?

 

[irosie91]

What is 'legitimate' aggression?
Matthew 10:34 quotes Jesus: Do not assume that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.

Is there evidence that jesus instructed any to raise a sword against non believers , rather is the interpretation not that those converted could expect to face persecution from the sword ?

How could the conversion of others be considered illegitimate aggression , when those converted are the ones subject to the sword ?

So you get to give the proper interpretation of the Bible and the Quran? Quite a lofty position you have.

Are you saying the conversion of others should be considered legitimate aggression? Does that apply to both the Muslim conquests of North Africa and the Christian conquests of North America?

conversion laws----For and Against----is a very interesting topic both historically and today.. Historcally and even into modern times--MOST branches of
Christianity have been aggressively CONVERT minded----even to the point of
force historically. Canon law---from the start, criminalized proselytizing for
all other, than Christians.-----lots of deaths historically----now its all ok.
Judaism --very historically had a time of proselytizing-----even by force for
a short time upon "edomites" -----edomites are supposed to be descended from
ESAU-----making them already "children of Israel (Jacob)" Zoroastrians
do NO proselytizing to their religion and do not even accept converts. ----
Then there is islam----thruout its existence---FORCED CONVERSION was
and is just as JANNAH worthy as is murdering a Jew----and that is the way
it is Today there are some countries that have some sorts of laws against
proselytizing that are more or less enforced ---kinda half heartedly. India
is a good example-as is Israel. Muslim countries are VERY VIGOROUS
about it-----to the point of handing a bible to a muslim is a BIG CRIME.
In classical Shariah law sucn an act has been justification for a pogrom.
Today, jews have become so nervous about pass experience ---that
the religious would not consider so much has handing a pamphlet about
Judaism to a gentile. ----as far as I know----one cannot convert TO
Sikh---either ??? People tend to find their own customs the most
genteel

 

[anotherlife]

When the citizens are so mentally deluded they can't figure out the difference between a man and a woman.

When parents can legally give hormone shots to very young children in order to change them from boys to girls and girls to boys.

When a country depends on homosexuals in their military to protect them.

When churches are performing and blessing same sex marriages, and the government is allowing them to adopt children.

When God is mocked in the media, and excluded by law from being mentioned at government functions.

That's when a country is in serious moral and cultural decay and swirlling down the toilet to oblivion.

And the only hope of survival of the west is to embrace Islam and be ruled by Sharia law.

So how will Islam battle Socialism? Islam can't dominate Europe, as long as the god of people is their socialist government. It is the jews that rule Europe, down to every citizen's last brain cell. Do you think islam has a chance?

 

[anotherlife]

What is 'legitimate' aggression?
Matthew 10:34 quotes Jesus: Do not assume that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.

Is there evidence that jesus instructed any to raise a sword against non believers , rather is the interpretation not that those converted could expect to face persecution from the sword ?

How could the conversion of others be considered illegitimate aggression , when those converted are the ones subject to the sword ?

So you get to give the proper interpretation of the Bible and the Quran? Quite a lofty position you have.

Are you saying the conversion of others should be considered legitimate aggression? Does that apply to both the Muslim conquests of North Africa and the Christian conquests of North America?

conversion laws----For and Against----is a very interesting topic both historically and today.. Historcally and even into modern times--MOST branches of
Christianity have been aggressively CONVERT minded----even to the point of
force historically. Canon law---from the start, criminalized proselytizing for
all other, than Christians.-----lots of deaths historically----now its all ok.
Judaism --very historically had a time of proselytizing-----even by force for
a short time upon "edomites" -----edomites are supposed to be descended from
ESAU-----making them already "children of Israel (Jacob)" Zoroastrians
do NO proselytizing to their religion and do not even accept converts. ----
Then there is islam----thruout its existence---FORCED CONVERSION was
and is just as JANNAH worthy as is murdering a Jew----and that is the way
it is Today there are some countries that have some sorts of laws against
proselytizing that are more or less enforced ---kinda half heartedly. India
is a good example-as is Israel. Muslim countries are VERY VIGOROUS
about it-----to the point of handing a bible to a muslim is a BIG CRIME.
In classical Shariah law sucn an act has been justification for a pogrom.
Today, jews have become so nervous about pass experience ---that
the religious would not consider so much has handing a pamphlet about
Judaism to a gentile. ----as far as I know----one cannot convert TO
Sikh---either ??? People tend to find their own customs the most
genteel

But don't you think that proselytizing to you is a good idea, because it saves your soul? In fact, it can even be used to make all the moozies and the joos to see the truth at last, and thereby stopping them from killing each other? On the other hand, if you don't convert to Jesus, your death may quickly become quite a frightening experience for anyone who hesitates, don't you think?

 

[irosie91]

What is 'legitimate' aggression?
Matthew 10:34 quotes Jesus: Do not assume that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.

Is there evidence that jesus instructed any to raise a sword against non believers , rather is the interpretation not that those converted could expect to face persecution from the sword ?

How could the conversion of others be considered illegitimate aggression , when those converted are the ones subject to the sword ?

So you get to give the proper interpretation of the Bible and the Quran? Quite a lofty position you have.

Are you saying the conversion of others should be considered legitimate aggression? Does that apply to both the Muslim conquests of North Africa and the Christian conquests of North America?

conversion laws----For and Against----is a very interesting topic both historically and today.. Historcally and even into modern times--MOST branches of
Christianity have been aggressively CONVERT minded----even to the point of
force historically. Canon law---from the start, criminalized proselytizing for
all other, than Christians.-----lots of deaths historically----now its all ok.
Judaism --very historically had a time of proselytizing-----even by force for
a short time upon "edomites" -----edomites are supposed to be descended from
ESAU-----making them already "children of Israel (Jacob)" Zoroastrians
do NO proselytizing to their religion and do not even accept converts. ----
Then there is islam----thruout its existence---FORCED CONVERSION was
and is just as JANNAH worthy as is murdering a Jew----and that is the way
it is Today there are some countries that have some sorts of laws against
proselytizing that are more or less enforced ---kinda half heartedly. India
is a good example-as is Israel. Muslim countries are VERY VIGOROUS
about it-----to the point of handing a bible to a muslim is a BIG CRIME.
In classical Shariah law sucn an act has been justification for a pogrom.
Today, jews have become so nervous about pass experience ---that
the religious would not consider so much has handing a pamphlet about
Judaism to a gentile. ----as far as I know----one cannot convert TO
Sikh---either ??? People tend to find their own customs the most
genteel

But don't you think that proselytizing to you is a good idea, because it saves your soul? In fact, it can even be used to make all the moozies and the joos to see the truth at last, and thereby stopping them from killing each other? On the other hand, if you don't convert to Jesus, your death may quickly become quite a frightening experience for anyone who hesitates, don't you think?

what does "proselytizing to....." me Mean? I am not sure what "saves...soul"
means. Stop people from killing each other? c'mon now.

 

[anotherlife]

What is 'legitimate' aggression?
Matthew 10:34 quotes Jesus: Do not assume that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.

Is there evidence that jesus instructed any to raise a sword against non believers , rather is the interpretation not that those converted could expect to face persecution from the sword ?

How could the conversion of others be considered illegitimate aggression , when those converted are the ones subject to the sword ?

So you get to give the proper interpretation of the Bible and the Quran? Quite a lofty position you have.

Are you saying the conversion of others should be considered legitimate aggression? Does that apply to both the Muslim conquests of North Africa and the Christian conquests of North America?

conversion laws----For and Against----is a very interesting topic both historically and today.. Historcally and even into modern times--MOST branches of
Christianity have been aggressively CONVERT minded----even to the point of
force historically. Canon law---from the start, criminalized proselytizing for
all other, than Christians.-----lots of deaths historically----now its all ok.
Judaism --very historically had a time of proselytizing-----even by force for
a short time upon "edomites" -----edomites are supposed to be descended from
ESAU-----making them already "children of Israel (Jacob)" Zoroastrians
do NO proselytizing to their religion and do not even accept converts. ----
Then there is islam----thruout its existence---FORCED CONVERSION was
and is just as JANNAH worthy as is murdering a Jew----and that is the way
it is Today there are some countries that have some sorts of laws against
proselytizing that are more or less enforced ---kinda half heartedly. India
is a good example-as is Israel. Muslim countries are VERY VIGOROUS
about it-----to the point of handing a bible to a muslim is a BIG CRIME.
In classical Shariah law sucn an act has been justification for a pogrom.
Today, jews have become so nervous about pass experience ---that
the religious would not consider so much has handing a pamphlet about
Judaism to a gentile. ----as far as I know----one cannot convert TO
Sikh---either ??? People tend to find their own customs the most
genteel

But don't you think that proselytizing to you is a good idea, because it saves your soul? In fact, it can even be used to make all the moozies and the joos to see the truth at last, and thereby stopping them from killing each other? On the other hand, if you don't convert to Jesus, your death may quickly become quite a frightening experience for anyone who hesitates, don't you think?

what does "proselytizing to....." me Mean? I am not sure what "saves...soul"
means. Stop people from killing each other? c'mon now.

I am trying to bait a little bigotry here, why are you not helping? I wanna say, that when we shoot moozies and jews, we help them, because that way we stop them from dying in sin. That is, when they repent and submit to Jesus just before the bullet hits them, they obtain a chance of going to heaven, instead of the sure trip to hell otherwise. Now am I not charitable and nice? HEHE (I am only joking.)

 

[Taz]

Islam is coming to make you eat off the floor with your hand from a communal plate. No wonder they're all insane.