When it comes to religion... can we all agree...

[Hollie]

And yet you steadfastly refuse to address the specific actions undertaken by ISIS and their specific references to islamic ideology in the taking of sex slaves.

Ignorance is bliss when it comes to apologists for islamic savages.

And plagiarists trying to pretend they're Islamic scholars.

Ah. I see you're angry that anyone should be allowed to criticize your heroes.

As I explained to you earlier and as you have again dishonestly and negligently refused to acknowledge, the paragraph I included was appropriately in quotes.

What a shame that you can't honestly and objectively respond to comments that are critical of ISIS and their pious adherence to islamist values of striving in the way of Muhammud (swish). They have provided every indication that their actions ( taking sex slaves), are consistent with islamist principles of jihad and emulate the actions of Mo' (swish), islams inventor.

What a shame you're more interested in defending islamic savages than you are in defending the victims of islamist ideology.

Now you are just being silly and flailing around. Or maybe it's swishing.

Not at all. I've been addressing your lies and falsehoods.

I've made the defendable claim that ISIS uses classical islamist ideology, consistent with what the islamist model for humanity: muhammud (swish), as their justification for taking sex slaves.

What's with this retarded "swish" stuff? Tourettes?

ISIS claims to be Islamic in the same way LRA claims to be Christian. Perhaps they are. Religious scholars beg to differ. Feel free to call them liars. Or cut and paste some more plagiarized material.

Religious extremists who decide they want to create a state based on the codes and laws of an ancient civilization can find plenty of support in the Koran or the Bible and, often do to justify their behavior.

You have consistently avoided any attempt to address that and have instead chosen to spam the thread with irrelevancy and denial.

Pointing out your blatant plagiarism is not "spamming" no matter how you try to deflect from that.

And here again, the paragraph I quoted was within quotes.

What a shame you're so dishonest. As you're incensed that anyone would dare criticize your islamist savage heroes, you're again reduced to spamming the thread with falsehoods and irrelevancy.

Why do you think your ISIS heroes would make reference to islamist ideology and thus, striving in the way of muhammud (swish), as their justification for taking sex slaves if they were not pious Moslems?

You've tried at every instance to avoid addressing that. Be a hero and try.

Take a swing. It's a softball.

 

[8236]

For all of you squabbling about the islam-christianity good-bad debate, consider the following points I am going to make in bold.
1: The Jewish sect that emerged as Christianity was a product of it having to deal with the socio-political realities of the super-power Roman Empire of the time.
Which is why it had to play the 'meek shall inherit the Earth' and 'turn the other cheek' card. It had to grow slowly under an oppressive environment by word of mouth using an essentially socialist 'wouldn't it be good if we all treated each other nicely' message.
2: Islam succeeded because it happened to be the Judeo-Christian-Arianist sect that was flavour of the month next door to the Eastern Roman Empire and the Sassanid Empire which had just fought each other to a standstill.
That is why Islam is an aggressive religion. It flourished as a result of an opportunity, or call it a gap in the market for booty, rape and plunder. Christianity would have done exactly the same given the opportunity (as it did c. year 1500.)

Islam was initially not interested in converts. It wanted Jizya (tax). Only after the crusades started did it become desirable to forcibly convert subject populations.
Christianity, on the other hand, as soon as it became the dominant force in the Roman Empire sought to destroy all traces of other religions.

I could woffle on, but short histories on the origin of religions abound, and many of you could do with studying some substantiated history before drawing the conclusions you do about the validity, evil, greatness etc. of various religions. Eventually you may even discover that our modern ideas about constitution, liberty, pursuit of happiness etc. were (gawd forbid) humanist and nothing to do with religion at all!

 

[Hollie]

For all of you squabbling about the islam-christianity good-bad debate, consider the following points I am going to make in bold.
1: The Jewish sect that emerged as Christianity was a product of it having to deal with the socio-political realities of the super-power Roman Empire of the time.
Which is why it had to play the 'meek shall inherit the Earth' and 'turn the other cheek' card. It had to grow slowly under an oppressive environment by word of mouth using an essentially socialist 'wouldn't it be good if we all treated each other nicely' message.
2: Islam succeeded because it happened to be the Judeo-Christian-Arianist sect that was flavour of the month next door to the Eastern Roman Empire and the Sassanid Empire which had just fought each other to a standstill.
That is why Islam is an aggressive religion. It flourished as a result of an opportunity, or call it a gap in the market for booty, rape and plunder. Christianity would have done exactly the same given the opportunity (as it did c. year 1500.)

Islam was initially not interested in converts. It wanted Jizya (tax). Only after the crusades started did it become desirable to forcibly convert subject populations.
Christianity, on the other hand, as soon as it became the dominant force in the Roman Empire sought to destroy all traces of other religions.

I could woffle on, but short histories on the origin of religions abound, and many of you could do with studying some substantiated history before drawing the conclusions you do about the validity, evil, greatness etc. of various religions. Eventually you may even discover that our modern ideas about constitution, liberty, pursuit of happiness etc. were (gawd forbid) humanist and nothing to do with religion at all!

I'm in agreement with the above. Ive just run into a lot of screeching and denial from the more excitable of the religionists when suggesting that religionists acting in accord with the religion's proscriptions is not always date palms and goat's milk.

 

[Coyote]

And plagiarists trying to pretend they're Islamic scholars.

Ah. I see you're angry that anyone should be allowed to criticize your heroes.

As I explained to you earlier and as you have again dishonestly and negligently refused to acknowledge, the paragraph I included was appropriately in quotes.

What a shame that you can't honestly and objectively respond to comments that are critical of ISIS and their pious adherence to islamist values of striving in the way of Muhammud (swish). They have provided every indication that their actions ( taking sex slaves), are consistent with islamist principles of jihad and emulate the actions of Mo' (swish), islams inventor.

What a shame you're more interested in defending islamic savages than you are in defending the victims of islamist ideology.

Now you are just being silly and flailing around. Or maybe it's swishing.

Not at all. I've been addressing your lies and falsehoods.

I've made the defendable claim that ISIS uses classical islamist ideology, consistent with what the islamist model for humanity: muhammud (swish), as their justification for taking sex slaves.

What's with this retarded "swish" stuff? Tourettes?

ISIS claims to be Islamic in the same way LRA claims to be Christian. Perhaps they are. Religious scholars beg to differ. Feel free to call them liars. Or cut and paste some more plagiarized material.

Religious extremists who decide they want to create a state based on the codes and laws of an ancient civilization can find plenty of support in the Koran or the Bible and, often do to justify their behavior.

You have consistently avoided any attempt to address that and have instead chosen to spam the thread with irrelevancy and denial.

Pointing out your blatant plagiarism is not "spamming" no matter how you try to deflect from that.

And here again, the paragraph I quoted was within quotes.

What a shame you're so dishonest. As you're incensed that anyone would dare criticize your islamist savage heroes, you're again reduced to spamming the thread with falsehoods and irrelevancy.

Go back and look at your original post there. The part that is not in quotes was lifted right out of another person's blog along with that blog's quoted material. If you are going to plagiarize at least try to change the text a bit so it's not so easy to track down. You might also review the rules regarding linking to sources.

Why do you think your ISIS heroes would make reference to islamist ideology and thus, striving in the way of muhammud (swish), as their justification for taking sex slaves if they were not pious Moslems?

Sorry to disappoint you but ISIS is not my hero swishie. Anyone can make references to religious ideology as supportive to their actions. That doesn't constitute "pious". Is the LRA pious because it's basing their actions on the Ten Commandments?

You've tried at every instance to avoid addressing that. Be a hero and try.

You've tried at every instance to misrepresent people's views. Carry on. But not with the plagiarism please.

Take a swing. It's a softball.[/QUOTE]

 

[Hollie]

It's interesting that you have taken it upon yourself to be the spokesperson for ISIS and to express who is and who is not a pious Moslem.

And as per your typical pattern of behavior, you make unfounded claims to quoted material that was posted. You do so as a defense mechanism because you are incensed that anyone would dare criticize your islamist heroes.

As we have seen consistently, you cannot honestly and objectively respond to comments that are critical of ISIS and their pious adherence to islamist values of striving in the way of Muhammud (swish). They have provided every indication that their actions ( taking sex slaves), are consistent with islamist principles of jihad and emulate the actions of Mo' (swish), islams inventor.

I've provided you ample opportunity to present an honest assessment of the actions of ISIS but you are in thrall to the violence and depravity being inflicted upon a population that is under the bootheel of a 7th century death cult that has made clear examples of adherence to 7th century norms established by Muhammud (swish) in his invention of Islamism.

 

[Carla_Danger]

So far, I have only heard of one Christian zealot chopping heads in Stillwater, Oklahoma, and a Tea Party GOPer who thinks its okay to stone gay people to death, also from Oklahoma, smack dab in the Bible Belt.

However...

When pressed, Esk added: "I never said I would author legislation to put homosexuals to death, but I didn’t have a problem with it."

Tea Party Candidate Says It s OK To Stone Gays To Death

 

[Coyote]

It's interesting that you have taken it upon yourself to be the spokesperson for ISIS and to express who is and who is not a pious Moslem.

Where on earth do you get that silly idea? Maybe you should read a bit more carefully. I base my opinions on what I've read from various Islamic leaders, clerics and scholars. What do you base yours upon?

And as per your typical pattern of behavior, you make unfounded claims to quoted material that was posted. You do so as a defense mechanism because you are incensed that anyone would dare criticize your islamist heroes.

Are you done yet Ms. Plagiarest? Did you even look at your own post or are you going to keep flinging poo in hopes of obtaining a different result?

As we have seen consistently, you cannot honestly and objectively respond to comments that are critical of ISIS and their pious adherence to islamist values of striving in the way of Muhammud (swish). They have provided every indication that their actions ( taking sex slaves), are consistent with islamist principles of jihad and emulate the actions of Mo' (swish), islams inventor.

I have no issue with being critical of ISIS. They need to be destroyed. Still swishing around are you?

I've provided you ample opportunity to present an honest assessment of the actions of ISIS but you are in thrall to the violence and depravity being inflicted upon a population that is under the bootheel of a 7th century death cult that has made clear examples of adherence to 7th century norms established by Muhammud (swish) in his invention of Islamism.

Now you're being silly again.

 

[Carla_Danger]

I only complain more about Christian's because I have contact with them....they are my neighbors. If I had ISIS living next door...well, um, you probably wouldn't hear from me ever again. LOL!

 

[Hollie]

It's interesting that you have taken it upon yourself to be the spokesperson for ISIS and to express who is and who is not a pious Moslem.

Where on earth do you get that silly idea? Maybe you should read a bit more carefully. I base my opinions on what I've read from various Islamic leaders, clerics and scholars. What do you base yours upon?

And as per your typical pattern of behavior, you make unfounded claims to quoted material that was posted. You do so as a defense mechanism because you are incensed that anyone would dare criticize your islamist heroes.

Are you done yet Ms. Plagiarest? Did you even look at your own post or are you going to keep flinging poo in hopes of obtaining a different result?

As we have seen consistently, you cannot honestly and objectively respond to comments that are critical of ISIS and their pious adherence to islamist values of striving in the way of Muhammud (swish). They have provided every indication that their actions ( taking sex slaves), are consistent with islamist principles of jihad and emulate the actions of Mo' (swish), islams inventor.

I have no issue with being critical of ISIS. They need to be destroyed. Still swishing around are you?

I've provided you ample opportunity to present an honest assessment of the actions of ISIS but you are in thrall to the violence and depravity being inflicted upon a population that is under the bootheel of a 7th century death cult that has made clear examples of adherence to 7th century norms established by Muhammud (swish) in his invention of Islamism.

Now you're being silly again.

Are you done with your lies and falsehoods yet? I note with amusement that you're so desperate to protect your islamist heroes, you're reduced to spewing the same phony claims.

Its pretty clear that your familiarity with islamist history and theology is cliche-ridden and facile. The ability to articulate and manipulate cliches, even common ones, is not a substitute for a working knowledge of your religion and of it’s history.


What knowledge you have of the politico-religious ideology invented by muhammud (swish), is little more than selected versions of youtube clips, what you hear on the evening news which are the sources that you use to represent the particular version of Islamism that you would propose to be the real Islamism. Yes, I understand that is your rationalization. But is not the truth. You need to understand there is 1,400 years of islamist history with which to make judgments about the religion that Mo' (swish ) stole from the religions that preceded his invention of Islamism. What we do have is a 1,400 year historical record of war, colonialism and subjugation of the infidel and conquest byu the sword. The reasons for this behavior surviving as a part of the historical record is because the wars waged in furtherance of mohammedan ideology have been so destructive to humanity. The historical record is very clear about moslems taking no exception to the ideas of war, conquest, colonialism, subjugation of the infidel, sexual slavery, genocide and piracy as part of spreading the religion. These behaviors were not morally objectionable to moslems as the acts were (and obviously still are), in accordance with following in the way of muhammud (swish) so they were recorded in the effort of preserving the Sunnah of islam’s inventor as an example for all later Moslems.



So, lets take a look at islamist family values, shall we?



Ruling on having intercourse with a slave woman when one has a wife - islamqa.info


10382: Ruling on having intercourse with a slave woman when one has a wife



Praise be to Allaah.

Islam allows a man to have intercourse with his slave woman, whether he has a wife or wives or he is not married.

A slave woman with whom a man has intercourse is known as a sariyyah (concubine) from the word sirr, which means marriage.

This is indicated by the Qur’aan and Sunnah, and this was done by the Prophets. Ibraaheem (peace be upon him) took Haajar as a concubine and she bore him Ismaa’eel (may peace be upon them all).

Our Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) also did that, as did the Sahaabah, the righteous and the scholars. The scholars are unanimously agreed on that and it is not permissible for anyone to regard it as haraam or to forbid it. Whoever regards that as haraam is a sinner who is going against the consensus of the scholars.


Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“And if you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly with the orphan girls then marry (other) women of your choice, two or three, or four; but if you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one or (slaves) that your right hands possess. That is nearer to prevent you from doing injustice”

[al-Nisa’ 4:3]



Lovely!

These are the heroes you hope to defend.

 

[Coyote]

It's interesting that you have taken it upon yourself to be the spokesperson for ISIS and to express who is and who is not a pious Moslem.

Where on earth do you get that silly idea? Maybe you should read a bit more carefully. I base my opinions on what I've read from various Islamic leaders, clerics and scholars. What do you base yours upon?

And as per your typical pattern of behavior, you make unfounded claims to quoted material that was posted. You do so as a defense mechanism because you are incensed that anyone would dare criticize your islamist heroes.

Are you done yet Ms. Plagiarest? Did you even look at your own post or are you going to keep flinging poo in hopes of obtaining a different result?

As we have seen consistently, you cannot honestly and objectively respond to comments that are critical of ISIS and their pious adherence to islamist values of striving in the way of Muhammud (swish). They have provided every indication that their actions ( taking sex slaves), are consistent with islamist principles of jihad and emulate the actions of Mo' (swish), islams inventor.

I have no issue with being critical of ISIS. They need to be destroyed. Still swishing around are you?

I've provided you ample opportunity to present an honest assessment of the actions of ISIS but you are in thrall to the violence and depravity being inflicted upon a population that is under the bootheel of a 7th century death cult that has made clear examples of adherence to 7th century norms established by Muhammud (swish) in his invention of Islamism.

Now you're being silly again.

Are you done with your lies and falsehoods yet? I note with amusement that you're so desperate to protect your islamist heroes, you're reduced to spewing the same phony claims.

You keep repeating the same gibberish.

Its pretty clear that your familiarity with islamist history and theology is cliche-ridden and facile. The ability to articulate and manipulate cliches, even common ones, is not a substitute for a working knowledge of your religion and of it’s history.

My familiarity with the history of Islam and theology is based on what I've read and I have no issue with providing sources (which I usually do) rather than plagiarized cut'n'paste. You've displayed little working knowledge at this point though you appear to be pretending to be something of a scholar.

What knowledge you have of the politico-religious ideology invented by muhammud (swish), is little more than selected versions of youtube clips, what you hear on the evening news which are the sources that you use to represent the particular version of Islamism that you would propose to be the real Islamism. [/quote}

Islam is a religion. The term "politico-religious ideology" is a very modern (post-9/11) invention by certain groups in an attempt to de-legitimize Islam as a religion.

I have never used youtube clips for source material (other than the occassional apt Monty Python clip) nor do I waste time watching them as they are difficult to verify for accuracy and easily distorted. Perhaps you are self-describing here.

Yes, I understand that is your rationalization. But is not the truth. You need to understand there is 1,400 years of islamist history with which to make judgments about the religion that Mo' (swish ) stole from the religions that preceded his invention of Islamism.

You do realize that all today's modern religions "stole" from preceding religions when they invented theirs? I mean, you being such a scholar and all I figure you probably know this.

What we do have is a 1,400 year historical record of war, colonialism and subjugation of the infidel and conquest byu the sword.

....and that is different from other religions...like say Christianity, how? They were all a bunch of bloody butchers in those days. You also ignore the fact that it was not all spread by the sword. In many parts of the world Islam (like Christianity) offered something better to the people who chose (not necessarily forced) to convert. That's part of that there 1400 years of history also.

The reasons for this behavior surviving as a part of the historical record is because the wars waqged in furthere of mohammedan ideology have been so destructive to humanity. The historical record is very clear about moslems taking no exception to the ideas of war, conquest, colonialism, subjugation of the infidel, sexual slavery, genocide and piracy as part of spreading the religion. These behaviors were not morally objectionable to moslems as the acts were (and obviously still are), in accordance with following in the way of muhammud (swish) so they were recorded in the effort of preserving the Sunnah of islam’s inventor as an example for all later Moslems.

Those behaviors were not "morally objectionable" to anyone in those days. The historical record is full of stuff like that. So is the Bible.

So, lets take a look at islamist family values, shall we?

Ruling on having intercourse with a slave woman when one has a wife - islamqa.info


10382: Ruling on having intercourse with a slave woman when one has a wife

Muslim Family Values

Praise be to Allaah.

Islam allows a man to have intercourse with his slave woman, whether he has a wife or wives or he is not married.

A slave woman with whom a man has intercourse is known as a sariyyah (concubine) from the word sirr, which means marriage.

This is indicated by the Qur’aan and Sunnah, and this was done by the Prophets. Ibraaheem (peace be upon him) took Haajar as a concubine and she bore him Ismaa’eel (may peace be upon them all).

Our Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) also did that, as did the Sahaabah, the righteous and the scholars. The scholars are unanimously agreed on that and it is not permissible for anyone to regard it as haraam or to forbid it. Whoever regards that as haraam is a sinner who is going against the consensus of the scholars.


Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“And if you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly with the orphan girls then marry (other) women of your choice, two or three, or four; but if you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one or (slaves) that your right hands possess. That is nearer to prevent you from doing injustice”

[al-Nisa’ 4:3]



Lovely!

Indeed. One can always skillfully pick the worst of a religion, culture, ideology and use it to represent the whole. Societies in those days had slaves (and a low regard for women). Those rulings reflect the culture of the time.

These are the heroes you hope to defend.

No. I defend my neighbor, who is married with 3 children - one son still in highschool, a daughter who is starting out her career as a doctor and another daughter who is majoring in business and econonics. I don't think my neighbor is interested in intercourse with slaves.

 

[Hollie]

It's interesting that you have taken it upon yourself to be the spokesperson for ISIS and to express who is and who is not a pious Moslem.

Where on earth do you get that silly idea? Maybe you should read a bit more carefully. I base my opinions on what I've read from various Islamic leaders, clerics and scholars. What do you base yours upon?

And as per your typical pattern of behavior, you make unfounded claims to quoted material that was posted. You do so as a defense mechanism because you are incensed that anyone would dare criticize your islamist heroes.

Are you done yet Ms. Plagiarest? Did you even look at your own post or are you going to keep flinging poo in hopes of obtaining a different result?

As we have seen consistently, you cannot honestly and objectively respond to comments that are critical of ISIS and their pious adherence to islamist values of striving in the way of Muhammud (swish). They have provided every indication that their actions ( taking sex slaves), are consistent with islamist principles of jihad and emulate the actions of Mo' (swish), islams inventor.

I have no issue with being critical of ISIS. They need to be destroyed. Still swishing around are you?

I've provided you ample opportunity to present an honest assessment of the actions of ISIS but you are in thrall to the violence and depravity being inflicted upon a population that is under the bootheel of a 7th century death cult that has made clear examples of adherence to 7th century norms established by Muhammud (swish) in his invention of Islamism.

Now you're being silly again.

Are you done with your lies and falsehoods yet? I note with amusement that you're so desperate to protect your islamist heroes, you're reduced to spewing the same phony claims.

You keep repeating the same gibberish.

Its pretty clear that your familiarity with islamist history and theology is cliche-ridden and facile. The ability to articulate and manipulate cliches, even common ones, is not a substitute for a working knowledge of your religion and of it’s history.

My familiarity with the history of Islam and theology is based on what I've read and I have no issue with providing sources (which I usually do) rather than plagiarized cut'n'paste. You've displayed little working knowledge at this point though you appear to be pretending to be something of a scholar.

What knowledge you have of the politico-religious ideology invented by muhammud (swish), is little more than selected versions of youtube clips, what you hear on the evening news which are the sources that you use to represent the particular version of Islamism that you would propose to be the real Islamism. [/quote}

Islam is a religion. The term "politico-religious ideology" is a very modern (post-9/11) invention by certain groups in an attempt to de-legitimize Islam as a religion.

I have never used youtube clips for source material (other than the occassional apt Monty Python clip) nor do I waste time watching them as they are difficult to verify for accuracy and easily distorted. Perhaps you are self-describing here.

Yes, I understand that is your rationalization. But is not the truth. You need to understand there is 1,400 years of islamist history with which to make judgments about the religion that Mo' (swish ) stole from the religions that preceded his invention of Islamism.

You do realize that all today's modern religions "stole" from preceding religions when they invented theirs? I mean, you being such a scholar and all I figure you probably know this.

What we do have is a 1,400 year historical record of war, colonialism and subjugation of the infidel and conquest byu the sword.

....and that is different from other religions...like say Christianity, how? They were all a bunch of bloody butchers in those days. You also ignore the fact that it was not all spread by the sword. In many parts of the world Islam (like Christianity) offered something better to the people who chose (not necessarily forced) to convert. That's part of that there 1400 years of history also.

The reasons for this behavior surviving as a part of the historical record is because the wars waqged in furthere of mohammedan ideology have been so destructive to humanity. The historical record is very clear about moslems taking no exception to the ideas of war, conquest, colonialism, subjugation of the infidel, sexual slavery, genocide and piracy as part of spreading the religion. These behaviors were not morally objectionable to moslems as the acts were (and obviously still are), in accordance with following in the way of muhammud (swish) so they were recorded in the effort of preserving the Sunnah of islam’s inventor as an example for all later Moslems.

Those behaviors were not "morally objectionable" to anyone in those days. The historical record is full of stuff like that. So is the Bible.

So, lets take a look at islamist family values, shall we?

Ruling on having intercourse with a slave woman when one has a wife - islamqa.info


10382: Ruling on having intercourse with a slave woman when one has a wife

Muslim Family Values

Praise be to Allaah.

Islam allows a man to have intercourse with his slave woman, whether he has a wife or wives or he is not married.

A slave woman with whom a man has intercourse is known as a sariyyah (concubine) from the word sirr, which means marriage.

This is indicated by the Qur’aan and Sunnah, and this was done by the Prophets. Ibraaheem (peace be upon him) took Haajar as a concubine and she bore him Ismaa’eel (may peace be upon them all).

Our Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) also did that, as did the Sahaabah, the righteous and the scholars. The scholars are unanimously agreed on that and it is not permissible for anyone to regard it as haraam or to forbid it. Whoever regards that as haraam is a sinner who is going against the consensus of the scholars.


Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“And if you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly with the orphan girls then marry (other) women of your choice, two or three, or four; but if you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one or (slaves) that your right hands possess. That is nearer to prevent you from doing injustice”

[al-Nisa’ 4:3]



Lovely!

Indeed. One can always skillfully pick the worst of a religion, culture, ideology and use it to represent the whole. Societies in those had slaves (and a low regard for women). Those rulings reflect the culture of the time.

These are the heroes you hope to defend.

No. I defend my neighbor, who is married with 3 children - one son still in highschool, a daughter who is starting out her career as a doctor and another daughter who is majoring in business and econonics. I don't think my neighbor is interested in intercourse with slaves.

Your post is boilerplate for muhammud (swish) worshippers who will hand-wave off the results of what islamist ideology fosters. For reasons which are pretty clear, you're unwilling to objectively acknowledge the truly cultish nature of the religion Muhammud (swish) created. It's unfortunately true that many Moslems and their apologists, such as yourself, who are not concerned with the issue of critical analysis as it applies to a 7th century politico- religious ideology totally at at odds with the modern world.

Your apologetics for Islamism and your inability to resolve its negative affects on humanity has results that negatively impact the lives of others. Unfortunately, it’s not a simple matter of hand waving off the near daily atrocities committed by islamists with the mindless ignorance you hold to because the results of such mindlessly ignoring the clearly connected atrocities with the ideology has consequences. When such callous and and blatant ignorance which describes your apologetics becomes a mindset, moslems can and do convince themselves that such things as sexual slavery is valued, even holy. Let’s remember that the standards of behavior practiced by muhammud (swish), and mi skeins with a 7th century mindset are totally at odds with those of the 21st century.

You need to fully consider the effects of worshipping an Arab warlord who lived in the 7th century and accepting that mans ideological precepts as a model for all of humanity and for all time? Such precepts as ethnic cleansing, Muhammud's (swish), permission for his own rape of captured children and his allowable for his soldiers to rape war captives, the allowance for assassinations of rivals, his caravan raids and banditry, etc.

All of these acts and many worse were performed during an obviously violent and superstitious age. The results of worshipping such a nan as Muhammud (swish) results in what we see today across the islamist Middle East. These occurrences are part of Islamisms historical record.

What a shame you give tacit acceptance for such barbarism.

 

[MaryL]

Jim Jones. Kool aid. The Hale Bopp cult. Kamikazes. The Crusades. 9/11 suicide attacks. That is what religion brought us. Islam, proudly chops off heads in HD and puts it on the internet....that doesn't sound religious, that sounds political and nihilistic. Like control freaks that doubt their own religion, god, or faith.

 

[Carla_Danger]

Jim Jones. Kool aid. The Hale Bopp cult. Kamikazes. The Crusades. 9/11 suicide attacks. That is what religion brought us. Islam, proudly chops off heads in HD and puts it on the internet....that doesn't sound religious, that sounds political and nihilistic. Like control freaks that doubt their own religion, god, or faith.

We can't leave out Tim McVeigh, can we?

 

[AVG-JOE]

those extremist Christians beheading people and suicide bombing..............

Seriously?!?

I hadn't heard about that. *sigh*

I was hoping that particular ancient story sect was done with that kind of nonsense.

Where in the world is this happening?