quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

Oh my Peon! Your lists are BIGGER than Bosco's lists! (swoons)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

Oh my Peon! Your lists are BIGGER than Bosco's lists! (swoons)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

pretty close
and kicked the "muslims dont oppose terrorism" (paraphrased) dickwaddery in the gut.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

trying to widen goalposts is not gonna work.
there are plenty out there , you are just too dishonest to acknowledge it,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

yeah, yawns im not talking simply this thread but your history of muslim fapping
im not tonguing islams ass. im calling you on your dishonesty time after time after time after time.
Im calling you out
yes
YOU
thats it...sorry
your ramblings are about as interesting as your grunts.

quote:


Individual acts of terror is one thing. Let's hear from some Muslims who publicly deny Muhammad and the Koran's calls to terrorize, slaughter, maim or enslave those who resist forced conversion into the cult

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

For all his waffle (and heaven knows there's no shortage of that!) he has never been able to answer the simple questions:
If, as Bosco claims, Muslims are under a religious obligation to spread terror. why is the fight against IS being led, fought and won by Muslims armies? Why are those Muslim armies in coaltion with apostates fighting fellow-Muslims? Why are those armies fighting IS drawn from multiple Muslim countries representing much of the Muslim world? Why did those armies seek to and succeed in destroying IS's pseudo-caliphate?

If Bosco's hysterical claims had any validity, then most of the Muslim world must be both openly defying the Koran's injunctions and apostate. Indeed if those claims had the slightest validity then the fight against IS simply wouldn't have happened. If his claims are accurate, then all those Muslim armies, instead of fighting and destroying IS, would have joined them in the 'jihad'. If we are to believe Bosco then almost the entire Muslim world as we know it isn't Muslim ...!!!

A person's or religion's actions tell us much more about them than anything they say. It is a simple and well known fact that Muslims have led the fight against IS in Syria and Iraq and contributed most of the fighters and incurred most of the casualties. Victory over IS might never have happened without their lead and contribution. Yet Bosco would have us believe that these efforts are meaningless window dressing and that a few scattered quotes from often dubious sources are far more significant ...

I've no doubt most people will be able to decide whether to believe Bosco's hysterical claims or to believe the evidence of their own eyes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX


From the same link I quoted above:

Notes
While the rest of the world generally believes that if God wanted people dead over their religious beliefs then he would do the job himself, apostasy is taken so seriously by Muslims that it spawned the first of many serious internal wars.

Immediately after Muhammad's death, several tribes wanted to leave Islam and return to their preferred religion. In a conflict known as the Riddah (apostasy) Wars, they were slaughtered in such places recalled as "Garden of Death" and "Gulley of Blood" during the first caliph Abu Bakr's aggressive and violent campaign to force submission (and keep the tribute payments flowing back to Mecca, of course). Within months, a great many people were dead, including Muslims who had memorized the Quran by heart.

As Abu Bakr, Muhammad's closest companion, explained in a letter at the time, his prophet "struck whoever turned his back to Him until he came to Islam, willingly or grudgingly." Thus did Abu Bakr promise to "burn them with fire, slaughter them by any means, and take women and children captive" any who left Islam. (al-Tabari v10 p.55-57)

Ali, the fourth "Rightly Guided Caliph" was Muhammad's son-in-law and one of the first converts to Islam. He also had people burned alive for wanting to follow their conscience. An old man named Rumahis b. Mansur, who regretted leaving Christianity and vowed not to remain a Muslim, was quickly beheaded by Ali. (al-Tabari v.17 p.191).

In 1400 years, there has never been a system of Islamic law that did not prescribe the death penalty for Muslims choosing to leave Islam. Even in modern, ostensibly secular Islamic countries with constitutions "guaranteeing" freedom of religion, there is de facto enforcement of this law with intimidation and the vigilante murder of apostates.

A sound philosophy never requires violence or threats to retain believers. Contemporary Muslim apologists sometimes find it embarrassing that their religion - and theirs alone - endorses killing someone over a mere change in opinion (as critic Geert Wilders puts it, "Any religion that invites you in but then will not let you out is no longer a religion"). As such there are various tricks played to deny or explain away this weak and draconian which is so well-ensconced in Islamic tradition.

Such defenders usually quote verse 2:256 to Western audiences. The verse states "Let there be no compulsion in religion, for truth stands out from error." They may also include a fragment of verse 10:99-100, "Wouldst thou (Muhammad) compel men until they are believers?" What they don't mention is that Muslim scholars agree that both verses were spoken by Muhammad during an earlier time in his teachings, when he did not have the power to compel others. They are abrogated by later verses, such as verse 9:29, which clearly orders Muslims to fight unbelievers until they relent and either convert to Islam or accept a state of humiliation under Islamic rule (an obvious illustration of compulsion).

These apologists also ignore the actions of Muhammad at Mecca and those of his companions following his death, particularly the bloody Ridda Wars. How could those closest to him have felt that there should be "no compulsion in religion" if they were instructed to kill anyone who wanted to leave Islam?

Muhammad referred to the Companions as the 'best generation of Muslims' (Sahih Bukhari 6429), yet they wound up in battles against one another over disagreements of faith and charges of apostasy.

The "Religion of Peace" expanded across the globe by conquering people of other religions and then making life miserable for those who didn't "embrace" Islam. Once spoken, a person was locked into the faith. Any sign of false witness - such as raising their children in another faith - was punished with death. Thus did Islam gradually supplant other religions.

One of the world's most respected Sunni scholars, Yusuf al-Qaradawi, admitted in 2012 that if Muslims had "gotten rid of the apostasy punishment, Islam wouldn't exist today". (Astonishingly enough, he was not apologizing for the beheading, torture, burning and murder of millions but, rather, trying to rationalize it).

And, while some apologists bend the truth in order to distance Islam from one of its most draconian rules, the world's most popular Muslim apologist recently affirmed that the death penalty should be applied to those who leave Islam and share their faith with others. (Ironically Zakir Naik made his comments on a British television channel called Peace TV).

In 2016, the Islamic State beheaded a 14-year-old boy in front of his parents for missing prayers. This was consistent with Muhammad's order to burn those who would not pray (along with their houses), which he issued near the end of his life. When this happened, there was barely a peep of protest from the Muslim world.

At the end of the day, even Muslims who insist that the mandate to kill apostates from Islam isn't a part of the "true" religion never appear all that bothered when it does happen - much less champion the right of other religions to evangelize in Muslim countries; in fact, they discourage it. They know as well as anyone that Islam cannot compete within the arena of free ideas and must rely on brute force at some level to retain believers.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marini

quote:

ORIGINAL: Awareness

Of course they did. Because the Palestinian catspaws' agenda has always been the total annihilation of Israel.

There is no Palestinian people. There never has been. These people are Arabs. Muslims. And therefore anti-semetic haters of the Jews.

The idea that the Middle East has been held hostage by the abhorrent, vile death cult that is Islam is simply too horrific for rational sane observers to stomach. I don't think recognising the capital is necessarily a good idea, but the "Palestinians" don't want peace anyway. And it's about time the rest of the world realised that.

We agree, that there was need to "recognize" Jerusalem, at this time.
Just no need.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

For all his waffle (and heaven knows there's no shortage of that!) he has never been able to answer the simple questions:
If, as Bosco claims, Muslims are under a religious obligation to spread terror. why is the fight against IS being led, fought and won by Muslims armies? Why are those Muslim armies in coaltion with apostates fighting fellow-Muslims? Why are those armies fighting IS drawn from multiple Muslim countries representing much of the Muslim world? Why did those armies seek to and succeed in destroying IS's pseudo-caliphate?

If Bosco's hysterical claims had any validity, then most of the Muslim world must be both openly defying the Koran's injunctions and apostate. Indeed if those claims had the slightest validity then the fight against IS simply wouldn't have happened. If his claims are accurate, then all those Muslim armies, instead of fighting and destroying IS, would have joined them in the 'jihad'. If we are to believe Bosco then almost the entire Muslim world as we know it isn't Muslim ...!!!

A person's or religion's actions tell us much more about them than anything they say. It is a simple and well known fact that Muslims have led the fight against IS in Syria and Iraq and contributed most of the fighters and incurred most of the casualties. Victory over IS might never have happened without their lead and contribution. Yet Bosco would have us believe that these efforts are meaningless window dressing and that a few scattered quotes from often dubious sources are far more significant ...

I've no doubt most people will be able to decide whether to believe Bosco's hysterical claims or to believe the evidence of their own eyes.

Also amusing

Amusing how you are constantly preaching that Muslims slaughtering one another is the surest sign that they are far more civilized than we are

Faithful Muslims abandoned their lives and their families and traveled from around the planet to join the Caliphate to please Allah.

Why would they do that, drop everything to join a bloodthirsty crew like that...

You know the reason. We all do. It is because ISIS was fulfilling the scripture, doing exactly as Allah demands in their blood-soaked book

The only reason other Muslims fought them is because they are the competition

ISIS threatened to swallow up every other Muslim state, especially Shiite states (who they saw as apostates). All of their mass slaughter doesn't mean what you pretend that it does, it means exactly the opposite

And we don't want them competing to please their bloodthirsty god here - keep them out.

quote:

I hope you can see how absurd and ridiculous your position is.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

For all his waffle (and heaven knows there's no shortage of that!) he has never been able to answer the simple questions:
If, as Bosco claims, Muslims are under a religious obligation to spread terror. why is the fight against IS being led, fought and won by Muslims armies? Why are those Muslim armies in coaltion with apostates fighting fellow-Muslims? Why are those armies fighting IS drawn from multiple Muslim countries representing much of the Muslim world? Why did those armies seek to and succeed in destroying IS's pseudo-caliphate?

If Bosco's hysterical claims had any validity, then most of the Muslim world must be both openly defying the Koran's injunctions and apostate. Indeed if those claims had the slightest validity then the fight against IS simply wouldn't have happened. If his claims are accurate, then all those Muslim armies, instead of fighting and destroying IS, would have joined them in the 'jihad'. If we are to believe Bosco then almost the entire Muslim world as we know it isn't Muslim ...!!!

A person's or religion's actions tell us much more about them than anything they say. It is a simple and well known fact that Muslims have led the fight against IS in Syria and Iraq and contributed most of the fighters and incurred most of the casualties. Victory over IS might never have happened without their lead and contribution. Yet Bosco would have us believe that these efforts are meaningless window dressing and that a few scattered quotes from often dubious sources are far more significant ...

I've no doubt most people will be able to decide whether to believe Bosco's hysterical claims or to believe the evidence of their own eyes.

Also amusing

Amusing how you are constantly preaching that Muslims slaughtering one another is the surest sign that they are far more civilized than we are

Faithful Muslims abandoned their lives and their families and traveled from around the planet to join the Caliphate to please Allah.

Why would they do that, drop everything to join a bloodthirsty crew like that...

You know the reason. We all do. It is because ISIS was fulfilling the scripture, doing exactly as Allah demands in their blood-soaked book

The only reason other Muslims fought them is because they are the competition

ISIS threatened to swallow up every other Muslim state, especially Shiite states (who they saw as apostates). All of their mass slaughter doesn't mean what you pretend that it does, it means exactly the opposite

And we don't want them competing to please their bloodthirsty god here - keep them out.

If, as you claim, IS are the true Muslims following Koranic injunctions, then what is the status of those Muslims who have fought and destroyed IS's caliphate, or the 'competition' as you so lamely try to dismiss them?

Obviously by your logic they cannot be Muslims. So the effect of your position is that most of the Muslim countries in the world, and most of the Muslims are not Muslims.

I hope you can see how absurd and ridiculous your position is. Just about everyone else can.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

For all his waffle (and heaven knows there's no shortage of that!) he has never been able to answer the simple questions:
If, as Bosco claims, Muslims are under a religious obligation to spread terror. why is the fight against IS being led, fought and won by Muslims armies? Why are those Muslim armies in coaltion with apostates fighting fellow-Muslims? Why are those armies fighting IS drawn from multiple Muslim countries representing much of the Muslim world? Why did those armies seek to and succeed in destroying IS's pseudo-caliphate?

If Bosco's hysterical claims had any validity, then most of the Muslim world must be both openly defying the Koran's injunctions and apostate. Indeed if those claims had the slightest validity then the fight against IS simply wouldn't have happened. If his claims are accurate, then all those Muslim armies, instead of fighting and destroying IS, would have joined them in the 'jihad'. If we are to believe Bosco then almost the entire Muslim world as we know it isn't Muslim ...!!!

A person's or religion's actions tell us much more about them than anything they say. It is a simple and well known fact that Muslims have led the fight against IS in Syria and Iraq and contributed most of the fighters and incurred most of the casualties. Victory over IS might never have happened without their lead and contribution. Yet Bosco would have us believe that these efforts are meaningless window dressing and that a few scattered quotes from often dubious sources are far more significant ...

I've no doubt most people will be able to decide whether to believe Bosco's hysterical claims or to believe the evidence of their own eyes.

Also amusing

Amusing how you are constantly preaching that Muslims slaughtering one another is the surest sign that they are far more civilized than we are

Faithful Muslims abandoned their lives and their families and traveled from around the planet to join the Caliphate to please Allah.

Why would they do that, drop everything to join a bloodthirsty crew like that...

You know the reason. We all do. It is because ISIS was fulfilling the scripture, doing exactly as Allah demands in their blood-soaked book

The only reason other Muslims fought them is because they are the competition

ISIS threatened to swallow up every other Muslim state, especially Shiite states (who they saw as apostates). All of their mass slaughter doesn't mean what you pretend that it does, it means exactly the opposite

And we don't want them competing to please their bloodthirsty god here - keep them out.

If, as you claim, IS are the true Muslims following Koranic injunctions, then what is the status of those Muslims who have fought and destroyed IS's caliphate, or the 'competition' as you so lamely try to dismiss them?

Obviously by your logic they cannot be Muslims. So the effect of your position is that most of the Muslim countries in the world, and most of the Muslims are not Muslims.

I hope you can see how absurd and ridiculous your position is. Just about everyone else can.

As opposed to your cartoonish delusions, I wrote that Muslims have been slaughtering Muslims since the beginning

I didn’t write anything like ‘only ISIS is Muslim’

Replying to your insane howling is boring

One more point, these Muslim countries fighting ISIS... Where did the previous inhabitants of those Muslim countries go, who occupied those lands before the jihadis took over

If they are so peaceful explain why practically all infidels are gone from many of those places

Where did all of the non-Muslims go

(Rhetorical question- we all know).

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

I am not sure why this debate continues...

1. Yes you are right. The Quran preaches violence to infidels, and non-believers... Not to mention it's less than stellar recognition of womens rights.
2. Not all Muslims take the Quarn literally, and rebel against a literal interpretation, and the associated violence.
3. Some muslims on the other hand, most certainly do take the Quran literally
4. My own faith: Deuteronomy lists Hebrew laws which include the sacrificing animals, staying away from menstruating women, owning of slaves, and in Leviticus says to stone homosexuals. Not all Jews take 100% of that literally