Idiots protesting mosque near Ground Zero attack two Christians

[ConHog]

I could very well show you the more violent portions in the Bible. You'll love the bits about stoning women. And genocide. And incest. And lots of other family-fun things. Take a link and a look:

Violent passages in the Koran and the Bible - The Boston Globe

Which part of we don't live under Mosaic law do you not understand?

We aren't...thank goodness...because if we were living under Mosaic law, we'd be in the same boat as living under Sharia law. Thank you for continuing being on our side on this issue with your posts.

If by on your side you mean keeping religion out of of our government, including our courtrooms, you bet I'm on your side. So are most Christians.

 

[Woyzeck]

Which part of we don't live under Mosaic law do you not understand?

Fitnah said Muslim scripture and not Christian scripture allowed terrorists the moral high ground.

I proved him wrong.

That's a matter of interpretation. I happen to agree with you that the correct interpretation of the Koran does not allow for violence. I happen to disagree with you that the majority of Muslims don't interpret the Koran incorrectly.

How are the majority of Muslims (Islam has 1.5 billion adherents, give or take) are interpreting their own scripture wrong? Are you saying that 1.5 billion adherents advocate and sanction terrorism?

 

[ConHog]

SO what? We live under American laws. That doesn't stop the xtian terrorists from claiming the Bible supports their terrorism.

And those that do are wrong, now can you admit that the ratio of Muslim terrorists to Christian terrorists is at least 50000:1? You have ZERO integrity if you can't.

At this time... you are correct. In the past that was not the case. Who knows what it will be in the future.

No it's ALWAYS been true, probably always will be.

Terrorism has just simply always been predominantly a Muslim weapon as opposed to a Christian weapon, and the reasons are pretty obvious. Christians through history haven't had to resort to terrorism, because they could take on pretty much any enemy in a straight up fight. Don't mistake acts of brutality during a war with terrorism. They aren't the same thing.

 

[sangha]

That's funny, you think Richard I was a Christian? He was a homicidal homosexual.

But yes , of course Christians committed atrocities, in a WAR fought during the middle ages BAHAHAHHAHAHa, are you suggesting that we Westerners deserve the terrorists acts based on a war that occurred 900 years ago that MUSLIMS started?

No, the modern oppression of muslims is why the terrorists are attacking westerners

OBL was quite clear in his statement about why he attacked the US (ie our support for the Saudi regime, the stationing of troops in SA, etc)

So here you are finally admitting your true self. You feel the Muslims are justified...

Fucking Muslim sympathizer, but at least you finally admitted it.

You obviously don't understand what you read, and your emotional state has rendered yo incapable of how I just destroyed the argument that Islamic terrorism is motivated by the Koran.

OBL did not cite the Koran in stating the reasons for why he attacked us. OBL used the Koran to show that it was OK to kill infidels (much like Pope Urbam said it was OK to kill Muslims), but he didn't say he attacked us because of what it says in the Koran

Oh, and of the 3,000 Americans, some of whom were Muslims, killed on 9/11 approximately how many every oppressed a Muslim do you think?

Your question is so grammatically incorrect that I don't understand what you're asking. Could you rephrase it in proper english?

By the way , do you know that in 1991 we stationed troops in SA at the request of the King, who was obviously afraid that that other crazy Muslim, you remember Saadam don't you, would come after HIS oil? So if your old buddy OBL was pissed at anyone about that, he should have been over blowing up shit in Mecca.

I already mentioned that OBL opposes the Saudi royal family. He sees them as american puppets. Again, the point isn't whether or not he is right. It is about whether he was motivated by religion or politics.

OBL was obviously motivated by politics

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Well ,I can point to the verses in the Quran and in the traditions to show the "terrorist" have the high moral ground in Islam, The orders to fight and until non exist but muslims are repeated many times and are very clear .

I cant do that with the Christians scripture.

I could very well show you the more violent portions in the Bible. You'll love the bits about stoning women. And genocide. And incest. And lots of other family-fun things. Take a link and a look:

Violent passages in the Koran and the Bible - The Boston Globe

The Bible contains far more verses praising or urging bloodshed than does the Koran, and biblical violence is often far more extreme, and marked by more indiscriminate savagery. The Koran often urges believers to fight, yet it also commands that enemies be shown mercy when they surrender. Some frightful portions of the Bible, by contrast, go much further in ordering the total extermination of enemies, of whole families and races - of men, women, and children, and even their livestock, with no quarter granted.

This statement is the basis for the distortion of the opinion piece
The commandment to kill where limited to a time and place and specific persons they are not open ended as the writer tries to suggest.
It the Quran and traditions the order are to fight and kill until


2:193.
And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allâh) and (all and every kind of) worship is for Allâh (Alone).[] But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zâlimûn (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)
The Noble Quran : Surat 2

let there be no transgression except against Az-Zâlimûn
let there be no transgression except against Az-Zâlimûn
let there be no transgression except against Az-Zâlimûn
let there be no transgression except against Az-Zâlimûn

8:39

And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allâh) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allâh Alone [in the whole of the world[]]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allâh), then certainly, Allâh is All-Seer of what they do
2:193.
And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allâh) and (all and every kind of) worship is for Allâh (Alone).[] But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zâlimûn (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc193

http://www.ummah.com/what-is-islam/quran/noble/

Tafsir.com Tafsir Ibn Kathir

Tafsir.com Tafsir Ibn Kathir

Tafsir.com Tafsir Ibn Kathir


There is no reciprocal in any other "religion".

 

[sangha]

Which part of we don't live under Mosaic law do you not understand?

SO what? We live under American laws. That doesn't stop the xtian terrorists from claiming the Bible supports their terrorism.

And those that do are wrong, now can you admit that the ratio of Muslim terrorists to Christian terrorists is at least 50000:1? .

Let's see your proof

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Fitnah said Muslim scripture and not Christian scripture allowed terrorists the moral high ground.

I proved him wrong.

That's a matter of interpretation. I happen to agree with you that the correct interpretation of the Koran does not allow for violence. I happen to disagree with you that the majority of Muslims don't interpret the Koran incorrectly.

How are the majority of Muslims (Islam has 1.5 billion adherents, give or take) are interpreting their own scripture wrong? Are you saying that 1.5 billion adherents advocate and sanction terrorism?

What do the actions of a billion people have to do with what is in the Koran and the Hadiths?

Do all Buddhists reach nirvana as is taught by their faith?

Do all Christians become saints?

The shaheed (martyr) is the highest of high in Islam in the eyes of Allah. Just because not all Muslims are mujahedeen does not change the fact that jihad is an intrinsic part of the religion.

 

[sangha]

Which part of we don't live under Mosaic law do you not understand?

Fitnah said Muslim scripture and not Christian scripture allowed terrorists the moral high ground.

I proved him wrong.

That's a matter of interpretation. I happen to agree with you that the correct interpretation of the Koran does not allow for violence. I happen to disagree with you that the majority of Muslims don't interpret the Koran incorrectly.

Do you have any thing that supports your claim, or is this something you pulled out of your ass?

 

[ConHog]

Fitnah said Muslim scripture and not Christian scripture allowed terrorists the moral high ground.

I proved him wrong.

That's a matter of interpretation. I happen to agree with you that the correct interpretation of the Koran does not allow for violence. I happen to disagree with you that the majority of Muslims don't interpret the Koran incorrectly.

How are the majority of Muslims (Islam has 1.5 billion adherents, give or take) are interpreting their own scripture wrong? Are you saying that 1.5 billion adherents advocate and sanction terrorism?

Okay, YAY for you - You're finally arguing the right argument. Took you long enough seeing as how I gave you the evidence 4 pages ago. How many Muslims are terrorists has NOTHING to do with Christianity , nothing at all.

Read the article I linked to earlier in the thread, for real. It makes a pretty good case that only 15% of Muslims should be considered POTENTIAL terrorists, based on stereotyping though so we better be careful there............ But let me ask you, do you HONESTLY feel that 15% of the Christians in the world are potential terrorists?

 

[Woyzeck]

Well ,I can point to the verses in the Quran and in the traditions to show the "terrorist" have the high moral ground in Islam, The orders to fight and until non exist but muslims are repeated many times and are very clear .

I cant do that with the Christians scripture.

I could very well show you the more violent portions in the Bible. You'll love the bits about stoning women. And genocide. And incest. And lots of other family-fun things. Take a link and a look:

Violent passages in the Koran and the Bible - The Boston Globe

The Bible contains far more verses praising or urging bloodshed than does the Koran, and biblical violence is often far more extreme, and marked by more indiscriminate savagery. The Koran often urges believers to fight, yet it also commands that enemies be shown mercy when they surrender. Some frightful portions of the Bible, by contrast, go much further in ordering the total extermination of enemies, of whole families and races - of men, women, and children, and even their livestock, with no quarter granted.

This statement is the basis for the distortion of the opinion piece
The commandment to kill where limited to a time and place and specific persons they are not open ended as the writer tries to suggest.
It the Quran and traditions the order are to fight and kill until


2:193.
And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allâh) and (all and every kind of) worship is for Allâh (Alone).[] But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zâlimûn (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)
The Noble Quran : Surat 2

let there be no transgression except against Az-Zâlimûn
let there be no transgression except against Az-Zâlimûn
let there be no transgression except against Az-Zâlimûn
let there be no transgression except against Az-Zâlimûn

8:39

And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allâh) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allâh Alone [in the whole of the world[]]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allâh), then certainly, Allâh is All-Seer of what they do
2:193.
And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allâh) and (all and every kind of) worship is for Allâh (Alone).[] But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zâlimûn (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc193

http://www.ummah.com/what-is-islam/quran/noble/

Tafsir.com Tafsir Ibn Kathir

Tafsir.com Tafsir Ibn Kathir

Tafsir.com Tafsir Ibn Kathir


There is no reciprocal in any other "religion".

How about examining the actual quotes they took from the Bible instead of the articles language?

And what about the first born sons of Egypt?

 

[Woyzeck]

That's a matter of interpretation. I happen to agree with you that the correct interpretation of the Koran does not allow for violence. I happen to disagree with you that the majority of Muslims don't interpret the Koran incorrectly.

How are the majority of Muslims (Islam has 1.5 billion adherents, give or take) are interpreting their own scripture wrong? Are you saying that 1.5 billion adherents advocate and sanction terrorism?

Okay, YAY for you - You're finally arguing the right argument. Took you long enough seeing as how I gave you the evidence 4 pages ago. How many Muslims are terrorists has NOTHING to do with Christianity , nothing at all.

You're arguing that Muslims are more prone to terrorism and violence. I proved you wrong quite awhile ago with my examples of Christianity's historical report card, and its own terrorism. You never got back to me about the historical events I listed. Or the terrorists or hate groups I listed.

I'm not arguing that Muslims are better, I'm arguing that both sides have idiotic terrorists who give the rest of the religion a bad name.

Read the article I linked to earlier in the thread, for real. It makes a pretty good case that only 15% of Muslims should be considered POTENTIAL terrorists, based on stereotyping though so we better be careful there............ But let me ask you, do you HONESTLY feel that 15% of the Christians in the world are potential terrorists?

Stereotyping? So its based off because someone thinks he might be a terrorist and not off actual concrete evidence? Dude, you don't base any evidence off a stereotype, stereotypes don't hold water with anyone. They're not based off facts, they're based off inaccurate perceptions people have of a group of people. You don't get objective facts and information about anything through stereotypes.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

I could very well show you the more violent portions in the Bible. You'll love the bits about stoning women. And genocide. And incest. And lots of other family-fun things. Take a link and a look:

Violent passages in the Koran and the Bible - The Boston Globe

The Bible contains far more verses praising or urging bloodshed than does the Koran, and biblical violence is often far more extreme, and marked by more indiscriminate savagery. The Koran often urges believers to fight, yet it also commands that enemies be shown mercy when they surrender. Some frightful portions of the Bible, by contrast, go much further in ordering the total extermination of enemies, of whole families and races - of men, women, and children, and even their livestock, with no quarter granted.

This statement is the basis for the distortion of the opinion piece
The commandment to kill where limited to a time and place and specific persons they are not open ended as the writer tries to suggest.
It the Quran and traditions the order are to fight and kill until


2:193.
And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allâh) and (all and every kind of) worship is for Allâh (Alone).[] But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zâlimûn (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)
The Noble Quran : Surat 2

let there be no transgression except against Az-Zâlimûn
let there be no transgression except against Az-Zâlimûn
let there be no transgression except against Az-Zâlimûn
let there be no transgression except against Az-Zâlimûn

8:39

And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allâh) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allâh Alone [in the whole of the world[]]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allâh), then certainly, Allâh is All-Seer of what they do
2:193.
And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allâh) and (all and every kind of) worship is for Allâh (Alone).[] But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zâlimûn (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc193

http://www.ummah.com/what-is-islam/quran/noble/

Tafsir.com Tafsir Ibn Kathir

Tafsir.com Tafsir Ibn Kathir

Tafsir.com Tafsir Ibn Kathir


There is no reciprocal in any other "religion".

How about examining the actual quotes they took from the Bible instead of the articles language?

And what about the first born sons of Egypt?

Is that a standing order or an element of history?

 

[bodecea]

And those that do are wrong, now can you admit that the ratio of Muslim terrorists to Christian terrorists is at least 50000:1? You have ZERO integrity if you can't.

At this time... you are correct. In the past that was not the case. Who knows what it will be in the future.

No it's ALWAYS been true, probably always will be.

Terrorism has just simply always been predominantly a Muslim weapon as opposed to a Christian weapon, and the reasons are pretty obvious. Christians through history haven't had to resort to terrorism, because they could take on pretty much any enemy in a straight up fight. Don't mistake acts of brutality during a war with terrorism. They aren't the same thing.

Not true at all. Christians have done their share of terrorizing over the centuries. Why do you think our Founders wanted this country to be non-secular?

 

[sangha]

That's a matter of interpretation. I happen to agree with you that the correct interpretation of the Koran does not allow for violence. I happen to disagree with you that the majority of Muslims don't interpret the Koran incorrectly.

How are the majority of Muslims (Islam has 1.5 billion adherents, give or take) are interpreting their own scripture wrong? Are you saying that 1.5 billion adherents advocate and sanction terrorism?

Okay, YAY for you - You're finally arguing the right argument. Took you long enough seeing as how I gave you the evidence 4 pages ago. How many Muslims are terrorists has NOTHING to do with Christianity , nothing at all.

Read the article I linked to earlier in the thread, for real. It makes a pretty good case that only 15% of Muslims should be considered POTENTIAL terrorists, based on stereotyping though so we better be careful there............ But let me ask you, do you HONESTLY feel that 15% of the Christians in the world are potential terrorists?

A large majority of Muslims oppose suicide bombings

A large majority of Muslims believe that Islamic extremism is a threat

And, a majority of Muslims do not support terrorism

source
http://pewglobal.org/2005/07/14/islamic-extremism-common-concern-for-muslim-and-western-publics/

 

[Woyzeck]

The Bible contains far more verses praising or urging bloodshed than does the Koran, and biblical violence is often far more extreme, and marked by more indiscriminate savagery. The Koran often urges believers to fight, yet it also commands that enemies be shown mercy when they surrender. Some frightful portions of the Bible, by contrast, go much further in ordering the total extermination of enemies, of whole families and races - of men, women, and children, and even their livestock, with no quarter granted.

This statement is the basis for the distortion of the opinion piece
The commandment to kill where limited to a time and place and specific persons they are not open ended as the writer tries to suggest.
It the Quran and traditions the order are to fight and kill until


2:193.
And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allâh) and (all and every kind of) worship is for Allâh (Alone).[] But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zâlimûn (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)
The Noble Quran : Surat 2

let there be no transgression except against Az-Zâlimûn
let there be no transgression except against Az-Zâlimûn
let there be no transgression except against Az-Zâlimûn
let there be no transgression except against Az-Zâlimûn

8:39

And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allâh) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allâh Alone [in the whole of the world[]]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allâh), then certainly, Allâh is All-Seer of what they do
2:193.
And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allâh) and (all and every kind of) worship is for Allâh (Alone).[] But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zâlimûn (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc193

http://www.ummah.com/what-is-islam/quran/noble/

Tafsir.com Tafsir Ibn Kathir

Tafsir.com Tafsir Ibn Kathir

Tafsir.com Tafsir Ibn Kathir


There is no reciprocal in any other "religion".

How about examining the actual quotes they took from the Bible instead of the articles language?

And what about the first born sons of Egypt?

Is that a standing order or an element of history?

History, but that doesn't make it any less okay. It just means that killing the first born son of every family in a country is okay so long as God says it is.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

You're arguing that Muslims are more prone to terrorism and violence. I proved you wrong quite awhile ago with my examples of Christianity's historical report card, and its own terrorism. You never got back to me about the historical events I listed. Or the terrorists or hate groups I listed.

I'm not arguing that Muslims are better, I'm arguing that both sides have idiotic terrorists who give the rest of the religion a bad name.

Im pretty sure he put you concerns to bed , as have I there is nothing in the Christian doctrine to sanctify the genocide done in the name of Christ.

Get back to me when you can match the body count of Islam by Christians follow in the footsteps of Christ.

The magnitude of Muslim attrocities in India is so great that I grossly understimate their scope simply by attempting to describe them. By the sword of Islam, an entire civilization was destroyed and the number of dead easily number in the millions over several decades.

The value of the booty--'jewels and unbored pearls and rubies, shining like sparks or like wine congealed with ice, and emeralds like fresh sprigs of myrtle, and diamonds in size and weight like pomegranates' [Smith Oxford History of India p207]--can never be measured. As a result of [this] fanaticism, thousands of temples which had represented the art of India through a millennium were laid in ruins.

We can never know, from looking at India today, what grandeur and beauty she once possessed. [Will Durant] This rich cultural heritage, like the foundations and materials of Hindu temples used to erect Muslim mosques, were highjacked by Islam. Indian mathemeticians conceived algebra and the number zero, which were translated to the Muslim world through its conquests, and then brought to the West through conquest; Islamic civilization now mistakenly recieves credit for these innovations. India before Islam was one of the most advanced civilizations of all time.
According to Prof. K.S. Lal, the author of the Growth of Muslim population in India, the Hindu population decreased by about 80 million between 1000 AD, the year Mahmud Ghazni invaded India and 1525 AD, a year before the battle of Panipat.

One can safely add another 20 million Hindus to this list to account for the number that were killed during the Mughal rule or the rule of the Muslim rulers in the Deccan plateau. By all known accounts of world history, as pointed out by Koenard Elst in his book the Negationism in India, destruction of about 100 million hindus is perhaps the biggest holocaust in the whole world history.
http://www.hinduwebsite.com/history/holocaust.asp

 

[ConHog]

At this time... you are correct. In the past that was not the case. Who knows what it will be in the future.

No it's ALWAYS been true, probably always will be.

Terrorism has just simply always been predominantly a Muslim weapon as opposed to a Christian weapon, and the reasons are pretty obvious. Christians through history haven't had to resort to terrorism, because they could take on pretty much any enemy in a straight up fight. Don't mistake acts of brutality during a war with terrorism. They aren't the same thing.

Not true at all. Christians have done their share of terrorizing over the centuries. Why do you think our Founders wanted this country to be non-secular?

First you're wrong about our fathers wanting this country to be non secular. What they actually wanted was for no SINGLE religion to run the government, but that's another debate for another time.

Second, there were SOME acts of terrorism all around. I mean let's face it the Boston Tea Party was terrorism, flat out. BUT I'm talking about predominantly, not exclusively.

 

[sangha]

You're arguing that Muslims are more prone to terrorism and violence. I proved you wrong quite awhile ago with my examples of Christianity's historical report card, and its own terrorism. You never got back to me about the historical events I listed. Or the terrorists or hate groups I listed.

Woyzeck, meet conjob.

Stereotyping? So its based off because someone thinks he might be a terrorist and not off actual concrete evidence? Dude, you don't base any evidence off a stereotype,

You're wrong. Maybe you don't base evidence off of a stereotype, but conjob does. In fact, he just did

stereotypes don't hold water with anyone.

They hold water with conjob

They're not based off facts, they're based off inaccurate perceptions people have of a group of people. You don't get objective facts and information about anything through stereotypes.

conjob has no need for facts. That's why he won't back up his claims that a majority of Muslims think the Koran supports terrorism

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

How about examining the actual quotes they took from the Bible instead of the articles language?

And what about the first born sons of Egypt?

Is that a standing order or an element of history?

History, but that doesn't make it any less okay. It just means that killing the first born son of every family in a country is okay so long as God says it is.

That being said , please stop using elements of history to obscure the standing orders current today from the Quran.

 

[sangha]

You're arguing that Muslims are more prone to terrorism and violence. I proved you wrong quite awhile ago with my examples of Christianity's historical report card, and its own terrorism. You never got back to me about the historical events I listed. Or the terrorists or hate groups I listed.

I'm not arguing that Muslims are better, I'm arguing that both sides have idiotic terrorists who give the rest of the religion a bad name.

Im pretty sure he put you concerns to bed , as have I there is nothing in the Christian doctrine to sanctify the genocide done in the name of Christ.

There's plenty in the Bible which sanctifies genocide done in the name of God.