Swedish govt in “panic” after ISIS letters give 3 days to convert to Islam or be deca

[D-MiZe]

Yes, I read it and have made myself familiar with the transformation that Islam has taken to a more radical form.

My point is that if you look at the history of Christianity for example, it has gotten less and less radical. The teachings of Christianity are not as radical as Islam in terms of it's political leanings, and what Jesus meant for that religion, but it was reformed nonetheless.

The opposite has happened in Islam and the scary thing is, the youth in the Islamic world is heading in the opposite direction. I have read piece after piece and seen interviews with older Imams that are saying the very same thing.

We should look at issues from a historical point of view, but we also need to be honest and deal with the issues at hand. You and I both know that both a religious and political ideology can take flight and become very dangerous. I believe Islam is on that precipice. I admire moderates like Majeed Nawaz, but he's a tiny percentage in the Muslim world who himself is threatened with death almost every day for what he is saying.

We need to acknowledge the threat that is radical Islam, and find a way to lift up the moderates to defeat it. This PC bull**** though isn't helping anyone and when men like Sam Harris and Bill Maher are called racist, it isn't opening up dialog, it's shutting it down.

I agree with you I just think at times we're tackling the same beast but one of us has got it around the neck and the other has it's legs, tis a complicated issue.

I do agree that certain schools of Islamic thought are stuck in the past by about 500 years (about the time Christians were burning witches) and it's an issue that can only be resolved by Muslims. It's important to emphasize that it's not Islam itself but an interpretation of Islam that is misguided and wrong.

It's quite the balancing act, first you need to employ an intelligent person to convey their ideas on the matter in a clever way. Unfortunately, inflammatory news anchors are what attract the audiences so we won't so that change. There is a risk of us radicalising Muslims just through our sheer hate and ignorance at times.

We need the non-radical Muslims on our side to help defeat the radical ones.

[BKM-]

Honestly, I'd expect as much - it's not like the deaths in either of those examples was that great. I believe Spanish Inq. is at top with 2k losses.

With regards to Roman Catholics and Hitler;

I'm sure you're aware of the Third Reich, well the First Reich was the Roman Empire. Long story short, it split in two and the Holy Roman Empire settled in Eastern Europe.

Hitler believed it was the German people's destiny to establish the Third Reich and rule over Europe as the Romans had down a millennia ago. Many in the church supported this and endorsed Hitler's views, apparently celebrating the Nazi leaders birthday until the 1960s. Soldiers went in to battle with bibles and the cross of Jesus.

Of course the West is going to downplay an atrocity which involved their religion.

It shows true desperation when you have to try and pin WW2 on Christianity when faced with the truth about the barbaric religion that has caused more death and destruction in modern times than any other religion.

No historian would ever agree with those lies. WW2 was not in the name of Christ(the third reich even tried to oppress the church). Read history. You would have a better shot at claiming it about WW1 since it started with the assasination of a religious figure but that wasn't about christianity either. I bet you also think the invasion of Iraq is attributed to it too. It doesn't end with muslims and their desperation to blame others.

Muhammad(pigs pee upon him) followers hold the records and no other religion comes close.

Here's the Weekly Jihad Report
Dec 05 - Dec 11
Jihad Attacks:
29
Allah Akbars*:
10
Dead Bodies:
295
Critically Injured:
333

And also last month:
November, 2015
Jihad Attacks:
169
Countries:
30
Allah Akbars:
34
Dead Bodies:
1455
Critically Injured:
1706

Those are actually pretty low numbers compared to usual but I think they will rise up again for December considering it's filled with holidays.

[BKM-]

It's important to emphasize that it's not Islam itself but an interpretation of Islam that is misguided and wrong.

The interpretation of the radical muslims is the most accurate representation of your religion.

Unfortunately, inflammatory news anchors are what attract the audiences so we won't so that change. There is a risk of us radicalising Muslims just through our sheer hate and ignorance at times.

More blaming of others to justify Islamic jihad.

This fake justification is a strategy of muslims to make it easier to spread their religion with the sword. Saying "we do this because you oppress us" will make the west less eager to destroy them, than flat out admitting "we are doing this for not other reason than to obey our religion".

Check out this verse from the queeran below:
"Do not take the unbeliever for friends... UNLESS IT BE BUT TO GUARD YOURSELVES AGAINST THEM, TAKING SECURITY."
Surah 3:28

In other words do anything to overcome the unbelievers, even pretending to be their friends so you can later pounce on them when they do not expect it.

[Cuauhtémoc1520]

I agree with you I just think at times we're tackling the same beast but one of us has got it around the neck and the other has it's legs, tis a complicated issue.

I do agree that certain schools of Islamic thought are stuck in the past by about 500 years (about the time Christians were burning witches) and it's an issue that can only be resolved by Muslims. It's important to emphasize that it's not Islam itself but an interpretation of Islam that is misguided and wrong.

This is where we disagree. When people say it's a misinterpretation of Islam, for me that is a major cop out. So for example, read the Quran, see what it says clearly about non believers, Jews and Christians. It's call to violence in the name of Islam, which has an end game that will be a world wide caliphate.

We can say that a religions fundamentals are wrong, but the fundamentals are the pillars from which that religion stands. The fundamentals of Christianity involve giving to the poor, feeding the hungry, being humble and meek, and being non violent at all costs even in the face of violence.

Can you say this about Islam and the teachings in the Quran? To ignore those points, as seen as radical or not, is ignoring the base from which this religion is built. As long as you have this base, these foundations, you will have people who will follow them. Most people don't adhere to 100% of a religions tenants, but a small percentage will. Even a small percentage of 1.6 billion people, is a ****load of people my friend.....a ****LOAD and that's frightening.

It's quite the balancing act, first you need to employ an intelligent person to convey their ideas on the matter in a clever way. Unfortunately, inflammatory news anchors are what attract the audiences so we won't so that change. There is a risk of us radicalising Muslims just through our sheer hate and ignorance at times.

We need the non-radical Muslims on our side to help defeat the radical ones.

Yes but it will be significantly more difficult in Islam than let's say Christianity. Christianity has a hierarchy. The Pope spoke for Christianity for centuries, so what he said was law. He could change the Christian world with a word. Even in the evangelical church, scripture is law and since the teachings of Jesus are non violent, you don't see Christians murdering, killing and beheading the way you do in Islam.

Even if you do, you cannot honestly draw a connection to the teachings of Jesus in the New Testament to those violent acts. There's a huge difference there that I think you are still failing to address.

There is no hierarchy in Islam, there is no Mosque that is an authority. Anyone can call for a fatwa, anyone can claim correct interpretation of Islam. This is a much more difficult issue and I believe we are headed for a clash of cultures that you better know what side you are on.

[D-MiZe]

It shows true desperation when you have to try and pin WW2 on Christianity when faced with the truth about the barbaric religion that has caused more death and destruction in modern times than any other religion.

No historian would ever agree with those lies. WW2 was not in the name of Christ(the third reich even tried to oppress the church). Read history. You would have a better shot at claiming it about WW1 since it started with the assasination of a religious figure but that wasn't about christianity either. I bet you also think the invasion of Iraq is attributed to it too. It doesn't end with muslims and their desperation to blame others.

Muhammad(pigs pee upon him) followers hold the records and no other religion comes close.

No it wasn't a war in the name of Christ but it used religion to gather support from the public. I've said this a million times before but religion is power, it unites people and makes them do crazy things. The Church didn't speak out about the slaughter of Jews either.

"From the crucifixion of Christ to the present day, the Jews have fought Christianity or misused and falsified it in order to reach their own selfish goals. By Christian baptism nothing is altered in regard to a Jew's racial separateness, his national being, and his biological nature. A German Evangelical church has to care for and further the religious life of German fellow countrymen; racial Jewish Christians have no place or rights in it." [Helmreich, Ernst Christian, The German Churches under Hitler: Background, Struggle, and Epilogue, Wayne State University Press, Detroit, 1979 Helmreich, p. 329]

[D-MiZe]

This fake justification is a strategy of muslims to make it easier to spread their religion with the sword. Saying "we do this because you oppress us" will make the west less eager to destroy them, than flat out admitting "we are doing this for not other reason than to obey our religion".

Check out this verse from the queeran below:
"Do not take the unbeliever for friends... UNLESS IT BE BUT TO GUARD YOURSELVES AGAINST THEM, TAKING SECURITY."
Surah 3:28

In other words do anything to overcome the unbelievers, even pretending to be their friends so you can later pounce on them when they do not expect it.

Do you believe that 1/4 of the world's population are a collective hive mind that all ascribe to one belief?

My logic is that they're human first and human motivations cause us to pursue things like religion that offer answers and comfort. Thus, I cannot categorize every Muslim as a potential terrorist.

If Islam really was the religion of terror and the Qu'ran really incited such hatred amongst fellow men then we'd see a lot more fighting and ISIS would have about 250x the members it does now.

1.7 billion people are muslims, 10% of that is 170 million, 1% is 17 million. Shall I keep going? I mean, how many ISIS members are we talking here? Tens of thousands? .1% is 1.7 million. Can you see how minuscule the percentage of Muslims that are terrorists is?

[Amazinger]

Muhammad fled Mecca as he was facing persecution, it was the Meccans who cast the first stone. When Muhammad returned he brought with him an army 10k strong and seized Mecca without bloodshed (there was smaller battles/skirmishes between this).

Also, Jihad before Wahabbism was considered to be about an internal struggle of one's self. Wahabi externalised Jihdad and made it a struggle against non-Muslims.

You are LYING to your teeth like all of muslim does...

After Abu Sufyan ibn Harb's departure, Muhammad immediately assembled a large army. The objective of the operation was kept secret and even Muhammad's close friends and commanders did not know his plans. Muhammad intended to assemble and attack the Quraysh using the element of surprise. For further secrecy, Muhammad sent Abu Qatadah towards "Batan Izm" to give the impression that he wanted to go there.[3]

The Muslim army set out for Mecca on Wednesday, 29 November 629 (6 Ramadan, 8 hijra.[4]) Volunteers and contingents from allied tribes joined the Muslim army on the way swelling its size to about 10,000 strong. This was the largest Muslim force ever assembled as of that time. The army stayed at Marr-uz-Zahran, located ten miles northwest of Mecca. Muhammad ordered every man to light a fire so as to make the Meccans overestimate the size of the army.[

Meanwhile, Abu Sufyan ibn Harb travelled back and forth between Muhammad and Mecca, still trying to reach a settlement in order to avoid conquest. According to the sources, he found assistance in Muhammad's uncle Al-Abbas, though some scholars[who?] consider that historians writing under the rule of Abbas' descendants, the Abbasid Dynasty, had exaggerated Abbas' role and downplayed the role of Abu Sufyan, who was the ancestor of the Abbaside's enemies.[6]

Mecca lies in the Valley of Ibrahim, surrounded by black rugged hills reaching heights of 1,000 ft (300 m) at some places. There were four entry routes through passes in the hills. These were from the north-west, the south-west, the south, and the north-east. Muhammad divided the Muslim army into four columns: one to advance through each pass. The main column in which Muhammad was present was commanded by Abu Ubaidah ibn al-Jarrah. It was tasked to enter Mecca through the main Madina route, from the north-west near Azakhir. Muhammad's cousin Az Zubayr commanded the second column and it would enter Mecca from the south-west, through a pass west of Kuda hill. The column entering from the south through Kudai was under the leadership of Muhammad's cousin Ali. The last column under Khalid ibn al-Walid was tasked to enter from the north-east, through Khandama and Lait.

Their tactic was to advance simultaneously from all sides targeting a single central objective. This would lead to the dispersion of enemy forces and prevent their concentration on any one front. Another important reason for this tactic was that even if one or two of the attacking columns faced stiff resistance and became unable to break through, then the attack could continue from other flanks. This would also prevent any of the Quresh from escaping.

Muhammad emphasized on refraining from fighting unless Quresh attacked. The Muslim army entered Mecca on Monday, 11 December 629 (18 Ramadan 8 hijrah).[4] The entry was peaceful and bloodless entry on three sectors except for that of Khalid's column. The hardened anti-Muslims like Ikrimah and Sufwan gathered a band of Quresh fighters and faced Khalid's column. The Quresh attacked the Muslims with swords and bows, and the Muslims charged the Quresh's positions. After a short skirmish the Quresh gave ground after losing twelve men. Muslim losses were two warriors.[5]

Without blood indeed....

[Cuauhtémoc1520]

Do you believe that 1/4 of the world's population are a collective hive mind that all ascribe to one belief?

My logic is that they're human first and human motivations cause us to pursue things like religion that offer answers and comfort. Thus, I cannot categorize every Muslim as a potential terrorist.

If Islam really was the religion of terror and the Qu'ran really incited such hatred amongst fellow men then we'd see a lot more fighting and ISIS would have about 250x the members it does now.

1.7 billion people are muslims, 10% of that is 170 million, 1% is 17 million. Shall I keep going? I mean, how many ISIS members are we talking here? Tens of thousands? .1% is 1.7 million. Can you see how minuscule the percentage of Muslims that are terrorists is?

Another false argument. We agree that most Muslims are not violent, and most don't adhere to these teachings. That is NOT the discussion we need to have. We all agree on that, and it's been beaten to death.

Our point is that there are violent teachings in the Quran and Hadiths. We see groups like ISIS, Boko Haram etc adhere to these teachings and carry them out.

Also, the so called "moderates" in Islam are the problem as well. Because they may not want to kill people, they may not want to stone people to death, but they agree with it. In shocking numbers might I add. So we are not attacking the people, we are criticizing the religion and that's a very important distinction.

You are Muslim correct? So let me ask you this, do you think that ****sexuality is a correct way to live your life and if not, what do you think the punishment for ****sexuality should be?

[D-MiZe]

This is where we disagree. When people say it's a misinterpretation of Islam, for me that is a major cop out. So for example, read the Quran, see what it says clearly about non believers, Jews and Christians. It's call to violence in the name of Islam, which has an end game that will be a world wide caliphate.

We can say that a religions fundamentals are wrong, but the fundamentals are the pillars from which that religion stands. The fundamentals of Christianity involve giving to the poor, feeding the hungry, being humble and meek, and being non violent at all costs even in the face of violence.

Can you say this about Islam and the teachings in the Quran? To ignore those points, as seen as radical or not, is ignoring the base from which this religion is built. As long as you have this base, these foundations, you will have people who will follow them. Most people don't adhere to 100% of a religions tenants, but a small percentage will. Even a small percentage of 1.6 billion people, is a ****load of people my friend.....a ****LOAD and that's frightening.



Yes but it will be significantly more difficult in Islam than let's say Christianity. Christianity has a hierarchy. The Pope spoke for Christianity for centuries, so what he said was law. He could change the Christian world with a word. Even in the evangelical church, scripture is law and since the teachings of Jesus are non violent, you don't see Christians murdering, killing and beheading the way you do in Islam.

Even if you do, you cannot honestly draw a connection to the teachings of Jesus in the New Testament to those violent acts. There's a huge difference there that I think you are still failing to address.

There is no hierarchy in Islam, there is no Mosque that is an authority. Anyone can call for a fatwa, anyone can claim correct interpretation of Islam. This is a much more difficult issue and I believe we are headed for a clash of cultures that you better know what side you are on.

The thing with the teachings in the Qu'ran is the only ****s who take it literal are the Wahabi followers. I'm sure I could find a quote or two in the Qu'ran about bunny rabbits and candy floss.

Zakat is a sort of tax/contribution collected by the Muslims and then the proceeds are used to feed the poor, pay off people's debts, buy out slave contracts and fund Jihad etc. Ramadam is a time when followers are meant to work on becoming a better Muslim.

Your last paragraph really summed it up though. Any **** can make a fatwa or hadith and proclaim it to be the truth, this is what Wahabi did and this is why we're in this mess. Although the Ottoman Empire had an opportunity to beat these ****s hundreds of years ago. Another problem with Islam is that it considers itself as the final version, the one true religion.

[Amazinger]

The thing with the teachings in the Qu'ran is the only ****s who take it literal are the Wahabi followers. I'm sure I could find a quote or two in the Qu'ran about bunny rabbits and candy floss.

Zakat is a sort of tax/contribution collected by the Muslims and then the proceeds are used to feed the poor, pay off people's debts, buy out slave contracts and fund Jihad etc. Ramadam is a time when followers are meant to work on becoming a better Muslim.

Your last paragraph really summed it up though. Any **** can make a fatwa or hadith and proclaim it to be the truth, this is what Wahabi did and this is why we're in this mess. Although the Ottoman Empire had an opportunity to beat these ****s hundreds of years ago. Another problem with Islam is that it considers itself as the final version, the one true religion.

LULZ....
http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/orig...-suspend.html#

Iran suspends Saudi pilgrimages over youth assault allegations

Iran has suspended flights for pilgrims to Saudi Arabia over accusations that two Iranian youths were assaulted at the airport in Jeddah by Saudi security officers. The alleged incident has exasperated tensions between the two regional rivals that are at odds over a number of regional wars.
Summary⎙ Print After assault accusations of Iranian pilgrims in Saudi Arabia, Iran has suspended umrah pilgrimages.
Author Arash Karami Posted April 13, 2015

Iranian Minister of Culture Ali Jannati said on April 13 that the decision was made to suspend the flights for umrah pilgrimage over the incident in which “the nation’s public honor has been tainted.” Umrah pilgrimages are not mandatory in Islam and can be made at any time.

Jannati said that the Saudi authorities have arrested the two accused, and “they even said that the offenders will be executed.” Saudi media have not covered the case, and the Saudi Embassy in Washington told Al-Monitor on April 10 that all they have heard of the accusations was from the Iranian press.

On April 6, after days of rumors in the Iranian media, Deputy Foreign Minister Hassan Ghashghavi told reporters that in the second week of the Nowruz holidays (March 28-April 2), while “returning from umrah pilgrimage, authorities took two teenagers from their caravan and conducted a body search.” What allegedly happened afterward was described by Ghashghavi as being “similar to rape.”

Read more: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/orig...#ixzz3uayYjd6J

If the Saudi authorities are indeed pursuing the case it is not clear what has prompted Iran's decision to suspend the flights. However, on April 9, Saudi Arabia denied an Iranian airplane carrying 260 pilgrims from landing. There has also been pressure on the Iranian government from various political figures to suspend umrah pilgrimage until the accused are punished. On April 8, 70 members of Iran’s parliament signed an emergency bill demanding that Iran suspend umrah pilgrimages until the safety of Iranians can be guaranteed.

On April 11, protests took place outside the Saudi Embassy in Tehran, which saw a diverse crowd and did not appear to be sponsored by any of the Student Basij organizations that often organize these types of protests.

The suspension of umrah pilgrimages cannot be taken lightly. The last time Iranian planes with pilgrims were prevented from landing in Saudi Arabia was in 1987, when during the hajj pilgrimage hundreds of Iranian pilgrims and dozens of Saudi police were killed during protests.

In his statement, Jannati also addressed a long-held complaint by Iranian *****e pilgrims visiting the Sunni country. He said that grand ayatollahs had “expressed concern [over the alleged incident], especially since in the past there has been harassment of pilgrims and clerics.” On April 8, in response to the accusations, Grand Ayatollah Naser Makarem Shirazi said, “I don’t want to boycott umrah pilgrimage but I want to state this: Should we continue at any price? They insult our clerics at the prophet’s mosque and insult us at the airports, we should not be humiliated like this.”

Iranian media have given the incident extensive coverage. On April 8, conservative Vatan-e Ermrooz interviewed the fathers of the victims, who both said they are unhappy with the way the Iranian officials have handled the case. “I think this crime was not a crime against one person or a family, it was the crime of one government against another government,” one of the fathers said. He added, “Our children were violated as Iranian Muslims, now what are our officials going to do about this?”

Read more: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/orig...#ixzz3uaygH7Xp


What is this thing that make Muslim men want to have sex with underage kids?.....Are they trying to emulate a like Catholic priest or like Muhammad?.