Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez kills four Marines in Tennessee

[mongrel]

But all those millions of pages of texts, websites, sermons about killing infidels - if any infidels die - Islam is never to blame. No sir.
.

I don't think you are fit to comment on such, as you follow and promote another ideology, the counter-jihad movement, which is known to inspire terrorist attacks and other serious offences.

[PointOfViewGun]

No, but we can show that his motivation was Islam, mostly because that's exactly what they say it is. But our society is in denial, dangerous denial and refuse to face reality. We call Islamic terror, workplace violence, say the person was mentally ill. When there are millions of pages of text, websites, sermons, books, all saying very clearly, a good muslim must kill the infidels and bring sharia law to the whole world, and any who resist must be met with extreme violence. In addition, anyone who is killed in this extreme violence, goes to heaven and gets 72 virgins. But all those millions of pages of texts, websites, sermons about killing infidels - if any infidels die - Islam is never to blame. No sir.

Against this very real threat we have sophistry and childish word games about 'not all muslims' and you are a 'racist' for noticing the very motives Islamic terrorists give themselves. Any society or movement only has a very few doing the fighting, the movement is no less real because of the 'but not all' word game.

Well, in English, you don't blame inanimate things. So, before you get your head around what Islam really is and away from all the made up stuff you claim about Islam, there is that fundamental obstacle for you.

[Simon Cashmere]

So, before you get your head around what Islam really is and away from all the made up stuff you claim about Islam, there is that fundamental obstacle for you

I just quote what muslims themselves say about Islam, their own books. But that is racist too apparently. Or it's taken out of context, poor translation... the evidence is legion. But some people just do not want to know. Others want Islam to succeed in destroying or being part of destroying western society, so they do PR for Islam non-stop. Leftists are one such group, the globalists and bankers and international agencies are others. I mostly don't bother that much anymore, I'm more these days going to pull up a deckchair and some popcorn and watch it all collapse. Because, I'm always going to be just fine. But being a bit old fashioned, a bit of an idealist, I do support the national interest, the west, believer in things like freedom of expression, the rule of law , western law, determinng policy using empirical evidence. But that has all been corrupted now with post-modernism and political correctness. We have a doctrine of stupid writ large that is pronounced as if it is the 'truth'. Im not sure where we will end up, but I dont like where we are going.

So I can quote huge slabs of texts and sermons from muslims themselves about what they Islam is, authoratative texts. Loads of them. And what they say is really bad for the West. But most people don't want to know. I've come to the conclusion though, that eventually the psyops to say how great Islam is will not work anymore, as there are more islamic jihad attacks, more gang rapes, more coverups, more sharia law demands - eventually, the Western governments will not have enough paid forum shills to delete threads on reddit and shout down anyone who dares criticise Islam - the opposition will be overwhelming.

[snuggans]

it's not an exercise of saying how great Islam is, but an exercise of saying how great religious liberty and religious tolerance are. it's not unilateral though, we don't simply accept, there is a push and pull involved from all sides. everybody that comes here is also changed, even the most hardcore cultural conservationist is gradually changed in the smallest ways (of course it can work both ways, for the natural born too).

if the politicians of a supposedly egalitarian country allow something like full shariah law to supersede law or allow it to be anything more than a light family law with very little superseding ability which keeps gender equality intact, then it's really the politician's fault for being so inept.

if according to you muslim immigrants want shariah law now and for heads to start rolling, then why do we see more and more modernized muslims and more former muslims leaving the religion entirely? actually some of them get popular by giving discourse on the inequalities of shariah law and politics of their home countries, especially political theism. by doing what it is that you're doing, you would be closing the gates or giving a mean look to not only potential hard workers and entrepreneurs, but potential intellectuals, especially one type of intellectual that you should be quoting (because they'd actually help your argument) instead of offering to quote what the fundamentalists are saying.

there are plenty of muslims already more 'western' than that attitude of yours is

[PointOfViewGun]

I just quote what muslims themselves say about Islam, their own books. But that is racist too apparently. Or it's taken out of context, poor translation... the evidence is legion. But some people just do not want to know. Others want Islam to succeed in destroying or being part of destroying western society, so they do PR for Islam non-stop. Leftists are one such group, the globalists and bankers and international agencies are others. I mostly don't bother that much anymore, I'm more these days going to pull up a deckchair and some popcorn and watch it all collapse. Because, I'm always going to be just fine. But being a bit old fashioned, a bit of an idealist, I do support the national interest, the west, believer in things like freedom of expression, the rule of law , western law, determinng policy using empirical evidence. But that has all been corrupted now with post-modernism and political correctness. We have a doctrine of stupid writ large that is pronounced as if it is the 'truth'. Im not sure where we will end up, but I dont like where we are going.

So I can quote huge slabs of texts and sermons from muslims themselves about what they Islam is, authoratative texts. Loads of them. And what they say is really bad for the West. But most people don't want to know. I've come to the conclusion though, that eventually the psyops to say how great Islam is will not work anymore, as there are more islamic jihad attacks, more gang rapes, more coverups, more sharia law demands - eventually, the Western governments will not have enough paid forum shills to delete threads on reddit and shout down anyone who dares criticise Islam - the opposition will be overwhelming.

The evidence of foul play in showing what Quran says is legion, yes. So, people create conspiracy theories and bogeymen to compensate for various reasons. Islam just became a popular option. You're not even being subtle about that. You're gonna claim all about how a lot of evidence you have but with each Quranic text you'll fail when people who don't twist it point out the obvious flaws in your interpretation. But, of course, it's a free country, don't let facts get in the way of your opinions.

[mongrel]

So I can quote huge slabs of texts and sermons from muslims themselves about what they Islam is, authoratative texts.

And I can quote news reports, texts, blogs and videos to show how violent the political movement you support is. Loads of them. And what they say is really bad for the West. You only have to read the summary of the counter-jihad movement contained in Breivik's manifesto. Counter-jihadis not only pollute political discourse but continue to assault and kill people. So no, I wouldn't think it right for counter -jihadists like yourself , or anyone else with extreme views, to own a gun.


As was said "there are plenty of muslims already more 'western' than that attitude of yours is "........

[Heathen Hammer]

Saying that religious extremism has nothing to do with religion itself is like saying being fat has nothing to do with eating junk food. If one reads any prominent abrahamic "holy books" one can see how they all promote violence and hatred towards "heathens" one way or the other. ISIS is a true manifestation of Islam, much like Holy Inquisition and Templar Order were true manifestations of Christianity, while Irgun was a true manifestation of Judaism.

[mongrel]

. ISIS is a true manifestation of Islam, much like Holy Inquisition and Templar Order were true manifestations of Christianity, while Irgun was a true manifestation of Judaism.

You sound like you have been brainwashed by ISIS publicity as well, or are your views taken from a different dodgy source? Irgun isn't even a religious organisation ffs.

[Holger Danske]

How many people die in the ME on daily basis because of America?
Oh look Muslims fight back. The horror.

Yes it is clearly America/The Wests fault that muslims decides the best way to "fight back" is to blow up their own people at a daily basis. It clearly has nothing to do with them being FUBAR.

[Heathen Hammer]

You sound like you have been brainwashed by ISIS publicity as well, or are your views taken from a different dodgy source? Irgun isn't even a religious organisation ffs.

Again, how was Muhammad different from ISIS? He wasn't. Quran pretty much endorses violence against "infidels". ISIS is an organization that is entirely based on ideas from Quran. Irgun was de-jure "secular", but it's goals were identical to that of religious zionist groups. Also religious zionists seem to support Likud party, which is basically Israel's blend of NSDAP and ISIS.

Yes it is clearly America/The Wests fault that muslims decides the best way to "fight back" is to blow up their own people at a daily basis. It clearly has nothing to do with them being FUBAR.

It has clearly has something to do with US invading countries, destroying their political structure without establishing a new one and being close buddies with states which support wahabi ideology, making it a perfect breeding ground for islamist organizations. The funny thing is that US doesn't even oppose radical islam, in fact in the last couple of conflicts they sided with Islamists against secular factions, in both Syria and Libya.

[PointOfViewGun]

Again, how was Muhammad different from ISIS? He wasn't. Quran pretty much endorses violence against "infidels". ISIS is an organization that is entirely based on ideas from Quran. Irgun was de-jure "secular", but it's goals were identical to that of religious zionist groups. Also religious zionists seem to support Likud party, which is basically Israel's blend of NSDAP and ISIS.

You keep repeated such views before in this thread but when people raised issues with it your response was nowhere to be found. How is what ISIL does anywhere near what Muhammad did? Quran endorses self-defense, not violence. ISIL is an organization that defies Quran.

[sumskilz]

Again, how was Muhammad different from ISIS?

He didn't have Muslims killed en masse.

Irgun was de-jure "secular", but it's goals were identical to that of religious zionist groups. Also religious zionists seem to support Likud party, which is basically Israel's blend of NSDAP and ISIS.

Irgun was a secular anti-socialist ethno-nationalist paramilitary organization. Ze'ev Jabotinsky, the ideological founder the Revisionist Zionism of Irgun, thought that the continued practice of Judaism was damaging to the Zionist cause. Religious Zionists have their own parties separate from Likud, one of which was banned in Israel for racism.

[Napoleonic Bonapartism]

ISIS is a true manifestation of Islam, much like Holy Inquisition and Templar Order were true manifestations of Christianity, while Irgun was a true manifestation of Judaism.

One cannot make the claim that there exists a true Islam without asserting that Islam is objective; however, for Islam to be objective there must be a true, objective, interpretation - the only way for there to be a true interpretation is either to know every facet of thought of the writer(s) - but even this would not suffice, for religion is as much the implementation as the original text - or for there to be a God who confirms, by the creation of it, one interpretations validity. So unless you hold Islam to be correct there cannot be a true Islam.

[mongrel]

Again, how was Muhammad different from ISIS? He wasn't. Quran pretty much endorses violence against "infidels". ISIS is an organization that is entirely based on ideas from Quran. Irgun was de-jure "secular", but it's goals were identical to that of religious zionist groups. Also religious zionists seem to support Likud party, which is basically Israel's blend of NSDAP and ISIS..

Mohammed never left Arab territory, nor waged war on his own followers, historical fact.As you now agree, Irgun is a zionist entity, not a religious one. The US Republican party is supportive of Likud, so I presume Donald Trump must be a Chief Rabbi or something.

It has clearly has something to do with US invading countries, destroying their political structure without establishing a new one and being close buddies with states which support wahabi ideology, making it a perfect breeding ground for islamist organizations. The funny thing is that US doesn't even oppose radical islam, in fact in the last couple of conflicts they sided with Islamists against secular factions, in both Syria and Libya.

That's more like it.

[Basil II the B.S]

Though isn't zionism religious?

[sumskilz]

Though isn't zionism religious?

The founder of Zionism was an atheist as were almost all the early Zionists. Religious Zionism was almost non-existent until the 1970s. Abraham Isaac Kook was the father of religious Zionism, although most of his ideas weren't published until after his death in 1935. He was mostly ignored by Orthodox types until after the 1967 and 1973 wars both turned out to be victories when the general population believed they were facing a second holocaust, which was seen as the result of divine intervention by some religious Jews convincing them that Kook had been right in that the secular Zionists were unknowingly serving God's will. Religious Orthodox Jews had traditionally been hostile to Zionism believing that it was forbidden for Jews to rebuild their "kingdom" without an explicit sign from God because the exile was a punishment. Liberal religious Jews prior to the rise of the Nazis were against Zionism because they were mostly pro-assimilation.

[Yayattasa]

Again, how was Muhammad different from ISIS? He wasn't. Quran pretty much endorses violence against "infidels". ISIS is an organization that is entirely based on ideas from Quran.

Are you really sure you are not talking about some hadiths? I'm not sure about the Sunnah, but most violent passages I always see cited are from radical hadiths.

"Allah does not forbid you from those who do not fight you because of religion and do not expel you from your homes - from being righteous toward them and acting justly toward them. Indeed, Allah loves those who act justly." Al-Mumtahina 60:8.

People of the Book, that is, Christianity, Judaism, Samaritanism, Karaism and Sabianism are dhimmi, that is, they are to be protected by their muslim lords in case of war.

Though it's also clear Islam was against pagans and idol worshippers from the get-go, mostly thanks to the persecution by the Meccans. The rest are to pay jizya.

[Roma_Victrix]

Abraham Isaac Kook was the father of religious Zionism, although most of his ideas weren't published until after his death in 1935. He was mostly ignored by Orthodox types until after the 1967 and 1973 wars both turned out to be victories when the general population believed they were facing a second holocaust, which was seen as the result of divine intervention by some religious Jews convincing them that Kook had been right in that the secular Zionists were unknowingly serving God's will.

Funny how this sort of belief has been carried into very modern times. Winning a war as evidence of God favoring your side was a common belief before the modern era. Victories in war against France were used as the same sort of "proofs" for divine will and God's favor granted to the English claim to the French throne, as cited by various chroniclers during the reign of Henry V of England. It was even considered an important selling point for including the English at the negotiating table at the Council of Constance that installed the new pope Martin IV in 1417 after decades of ecclesiastic schism throughout Christendom.

These "proofs" are a common theme in medieval and early modern Christianity; I wasn't aware that the Jews had similar beliefs. Thanks for sharing.

[Basil II the B.S]

The founder of Zionism was an atheist as were almost all the early Zionists. Religious Zionism was almost non-existent until the 1970s. Abraham Isaac Kook was the father of religious Zionism, although most of his ideas weren't published until after his death in 1935. He was mostly ignored by Orthodox types until after the 1967 and 1973 wars both turned out to be victories when the general population believed they were facing a second holocaust, which was seen as the result of divine intervention by some religious Jews convincing them that Kook had been right in that the secular Zionists were unknowingly serving God's will. Religious Orthodox Jews had traditionally been hostile to Zionism believing that it was forbidden for Jews to rebuild their "kingdom" without an explicit sign from God because the exile was a punishment. Liberal religious Jews prior to the rise of the Nazis were against Zionism because they were mostly pro-assimilation.

Alright. Good answer.

[sumskilz]

These "proofs" are a common theme in medieval and early modern Christianity; I wasn't aware that the Jews had similar beliefs. Thanks for sharing.

It is certainly similar, but I accidentally made it sound a bit more similar than it is, partly because terms in the English language imply Christian type conceptions. It wouldn't be "intervention" so much as indication of approval, because Orthodox theology is panentheist - all the natural world is part of God even though the unknowable aspect of God exceeds the universe. It was also less the martial victory than the saving from destruction, since such a victory isn't supposed to be celebrated, like in the telling of the Exodus story at Passover when the Egyptian army is drowning and God asks "How can you celebrate while my creations are dying?"

Bringing it back closer to the topic, there are Jewish fundamentalist movements that have parallels to violent Islamism, such as Kahanism which was banned in Israel. This is the ideology that lead to the Cave of the Patriarchs massacre. Like Islamism, it's anti-modernist, and while it's heavily rooted in literalist interpretation of texts, it emphasizes political motivations that are rooted in the Twentieth Century while imagining it is a return to an idealized past that never actually existed. If you look at the Hebrew Bible, violent aggression can be justified which seems at odds with the "How can you celebrate while my creations are dying?" perspective that developed in Rabbinic Judaism. In fact, these are two different forms of Judaism that differed because the religion changed over time. Meir Kahane and his type selectively choose from the Judaism of different time periods and emphasize particular texts in order to fit their political agenda, which they then try to establish as a new unalterable orthodoxy which is claimed to be a return to the original orthodoxy. I think ISIS is basically doing the same.