Man threatens to blow up plane if passengers do not accept islam

[natarajan]

Those are two different arguments. Are suicide attacks a threat or only suicide attacks by religious fundamentalists?

The LTTE perfected and inspired the use of suicide bombers worldwide. Infact, LTTE's black tigers were the most effective use of suicide bombers to date. While the IRA in Northern Ireland chose to kidnap people, strap them with bombs, and forcefully have them drive up to their target before detonating.

So you are bringing fourth two different arguments and almagating them into one. Yes, other fundamentalists, religious or not, do use suicide bombers, as history has shown, and they have used them far more effectively, and in much greater numbers than your religious extremists.

He clearly says other religious fundamentalist not just fundamentalist ,other religion wont blow themselves for the cause of religion.Ltte is based on language discrimination

 

[chase]

And then muslims make fuss about their profiling on airports.....phewwwww

 

[Tronic]

Yes, I agree I'm no expert in Islam and I prompt so called progressive people of religion of peace towards 'Dawah'......However, I believe that 'Chaps' like you with superior logical abilities and understanding of islam who are experts have been doing a great job at controlling 'Islamist fcukjobs' from not spreading 'Dawah...... yada yada....If you believe the shyt you are writing then be my guest!

Yes, doing a far better job than your rants mate.

I'm yet to face an islamist whom I've not pissed and trust me he never felt like a victor, rather behaved like a sour loser; however you may be a curious case of logical mammoth, however you need not know islam inside out, just keep asking questions and these islamists will get pissed, abuse you and run away that's the reality and your logical rants will only bolster their superiority! islam is itself illogical and the best arguments these people give are on the lines of Zakir Naik (i.e....hit your religion than explain theirs, reverse the argument and they get pissed......as in reality islam is vile and flawed)!!

Everyone eventually gets tired and walks away from trolls, so trolling doesn't count.. you don't really win...

 

[afako]

Yes, doing a far better job than your rants mate.



Everyone eventually gets tired and walks away from trolls, so trolling doesn't count.. you don't really win...

The day Sh!t hits the Fun, People will like you will be the first one to be Eliminated by the Mohammedians. It does not happen that all the doors are closed except the path to Allah.

Remember Rajputs, Mughals. Indian History has a lot to learn from!

 

[Tronic]

Well, it depends on whom you're talking with. If he/she is a liberal person to begin with then it might be successful (I've tried this out and it worked )

But all logic will fail in-front of an orthodox guy

Lurker, I guess it depends from which stance you're arguing from. I'm not arguing from a liberal point of view myself, but a Sikh point of view. You cannot argue from a liberal point of view towards orthodox people. That just doesn't work.

Towards an orthodox Muslim, it is very easy to debate as a Sikh. One example; as a Sikh, I'll agree with the Muslim that idol worship is wrong, and that is why Nanak had it right when he said no idol worship, but Muhammad had it wrong when he got the whole Muslim world bowing towards a rock in Kaaba. I can easily say that if prayers in the name of God make him happy, than Nanak had it right when he said prayers and god's name should be heartly recited all day, rather than having a forced obligation to pray. Prayers mean nothing if they don't come from the heart and are only done due to "obligations". There is nothing which an orthodox Muslim can preach a Sikh since Nanak made sure we follow the purest form of worship, whereelse Islamic worship is full of contradictions.

And if that orthodox guy believes in Jihad for conversion, than Sikhs also carry swords for a reason. Islamic "dawahs" to Sikhs fail because our "dawahs" make more sense, plainly put.

In other words, if we get down to playing the same game as them, we beat them hands down.

 

[Tronic]

The day Sh!t hits the Fun, People will like you will be the first one to be Eliminated by the Mohammedians. It does not happen that all the doors are closed except the path to Allah.

We don't have the same forefathers mate, and mines have left me a far better example to follow. Trolling begets trolling, mate. Cheers!

 

[Bangalorean]

Tronic, not everyone has the knowledge or inclination to argue the way you are suggesting. Personally I am not religious, I have a liberal POV, and my arguments will be liberal. And as you said, liberal arguments don't work with them.

I was talking about the "victimization stuff" that many of my old Muslim college-mates have begun posting on facebook. It was just an observation about the changes that have happened in them, and a worrying observation IMO. Not all of us can implement your suggestion to debate and argue them out of it. All the more so on Facebook, where many of us have people from professional life, and people of different nationalities, different religions in our friends lists.

 

[cloud_9]

The day Sh!t hits the Fun, People will like you will be the first one to be Eliminated by the Mohammedians. It does not happen that all the doors are closed except the path to Allah.

Remember Rajputs, Mughals. Indian History has a lot to learn from!

I think his forefathers have gone through the phase when the so called "Mohammedians" would blow shit all day

 

[LurkerBaba]

Lurker, I guess it depends from which stance you're arguing from. I'm not arguing from a liberal point of view myself, but a Sikh point of view. You cannot argue from a liberal point of view towards orthodox people. That just doesn't work.

I think you've misunderstood. My PoV was of an Atheist/Agnostic.

Liberal believers can be turned over to the "other side" but an orthodox guy would perceive it as an attack against Islam and activate his defence mechanisms

Towards an orthodox Muslim, it is very easy to debate as a Sikh. One example; as a Sikh, I'll agree with the Muslim that idol worship is wrong, and that is why Nanak had it right when he said no idol worship, but Muhammad had it wrong when he got the whole Muslim world bowing towards a rock in Kaaba. I can easily say that if prayers in the name of God make him happy, than Nanak had it right when he said prayers and god's name should be heartly recited all day, rather than having a forced obligation to pray. Prayers mean nothing if they don't come from the heart and are only done due to "obligations". There is nothing which an orthodox Muslim can preach a Sikh since Nanak made sure we follow the purest form of worship, whereelse Islamic worship is full of contradictions.

And if that orthodox guy believes in Jihad for conversion, than Sikhs also carry swords for a reason. Islamic "dawahs" to Sikhs fail because our "dawahs" make more sense, plainly put.

Ahh...debating with a religious POV is much harder since it requires intimate knowledge of both religions.

In other words, if we get down to playing the same game as them, we beat them hands down.

Reminds me of the Arya Samaj which initially tried to beat Islam's monotheism with their own version.

 

[Mad Indian]

Found this



For Islam.By Muslims.: Does the Quran say that all Kafirs should be killed?

With all due respect Sir, Thats the biggest Crap I have heard.

Since I have Immense respect for you, I will tone my reply down.

Here is what I read in this matter [url=http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/quran/023-violence.htm]The Quran's Verses of Violence[/URL]

And here is some more Untitled Document

OH here are some Places of Interests for my fellow right wingers


BARE NAKED ISLAM | It isn't Islamophobia when they really ARE trying to kill you
Answering Islam, A Christian-Muslim Dialog and Apologetic


Now lets be honest with ourselves atleast for a small part shall we????

 

[Mad Indian]

Oh here is another one

"164 Jihad Verses in the Koran -- Passages in the Quran about Islamic Holy War" compiled by Yoel Natan

 

[Razor]

"whosoever killed a human "¦"¦"¦"¦., it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whosoever saved the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind" [Quran 5:32]

This above is an often quoted Koranic text, I think it needs to be quoted in entirety.

The text is as below:

Sura 5
32.On that account: We ordained
For the Children of Israel
That if any one slew
A person—unless it be
For murder or for spreading
Mischief in the land—
It would be as if
He slew the whole people:
And if any one saved a life,
It would be as if he saved
The life of the whole people.
Then although there came
To them Our Apostles
With Clear Signs, yet,
Even after that, many
Of them continued to commit
Excesses in the land.

33. The punishment of those
Who wage war against God
And His Apostle, and strive
With might and main
For mischief through the land
Is: execution, or crucifixion,



Or the cutting off of hands
And feet from opposite sides,
Or exile from the land:
That is their disgrace
In this world, and
A heavy punishment is theirs
In the Hereafter;

34. Except for those who repent
Before they fall
Into your power:
In that case, know
That God is Oft-forgiving,
Most Merciful.

First, it isn't addressed to the Muslims, it is addressed (or ordered by the Muslims) to the Children of Israel.
Second, the verse after the oft quoted verse clearly says, what the punishment for the disbeliever is.

 

[Bangalorean]

I think you've misunderstood. My PoV was of an Atheist/Agnostic.

Liberal believers can be turned over to the "other side" but an orthodox guy would perceive it as an attack against Islam and activate his defence mechanisms

Ahh...debating with a religious POV is much harder since it requires intimate knowledge of both religions.

Reminds me of the Arya Samaj which initially tried to beat Islam's monotheism with their own version.

Exactly. Really, who has the time to go arguing with people about religion and stuff like that, that too after learning the intricacies of multiple religions? That too, when I am not religious myself! And frankly, in my opinion, there is nothing wrong with polytheism, idol-worship, monotheism, book-worship or anything else, as long as what you do does not affect anyone else.

This is the classic liberal argument, but try saying that to an Islamist and convincing him.

 

[pmaitra]

Exactly. Really, who has the time to go arguing with people about religion and stuff like that, that too after learning the intricacies of multiple religions? That too, when I am not religious myself! And frankly, in my opinion, there is nothing wrong with polytheism, idol-worship, monotheism, book-worship or anything else, as long as what you do does not affect anyone else.

This is the classic liberal argument, but try saying that to an Islamist and convincing him.

I did realize, rather recently, that having a physical object to worship, helps us focus our minds. This is basic human instinct. I remember, when I was young, some nurses would say, "hey look over there," and insert the syringe. It's all about attention, and focus.

While it is true that worshipping idols is hollow, but it is a practical and effective way to help the common man focus on God, or gods. Coming back to Islam, they did have an ancient tradition of worshipping blocks of stones, as that helped them focus. Evidence is in the video below:

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...ndary-routes-great-journeys-6.html#post596253

Worhipping a stone is a pre-Islamic Arab tradition.

 

[Yusuf]

With all due respect Sir, Thats the biggest Crap I have heard.

Since I have Immense respect for you, I will tone my reply down.

Here is what I read in this matter [url=http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/quran/023-violence.htm]The Quran's Verses of Violence[/URL]

And here is some more Untitled Document

OH here are some Places of Interests for my fellow right wingers


BARE NAKED ISLAM | It isn't Islamophobia when they really ARE trying to kill you
Answering Islam, A Christian-Muslim Dialog and Apologetic


Now lets be honest with ourselves atleast for a small part shall we????

I really wonder how the over 2 million may be more Indians majority of whom are Hindus peacefully make their living in gulf states without being slaughtered.

A lot of the texts have been misused and hijacked by Muslims themselves to suit their agenda so I cannot expect any less from a non Muslim particularly one who is a self confessed Muslim hater.

Most of the sayings were relevant for the times for the battles that were fought then. there is a Hadith in which the Prophet says let what I have done for the cause of Islam be a precedent for the Muslims to follow after me. What I have done was commanded by God and I have done it. In the unusual days of Islam, there was a lot of opposition and persecution of the Prophet.

Many of what is in the Quran has been twisted and concocted by many.

I am not a scholar but certainly have enough brains to read between the lines and also understand which people want to twist out of context.

Certainly if the kill te kafir thing was an absolute command of God, the world would have been at a perennial bloodbath for the last 1400 years in the name of killing Kafirs.

According to Islam, killing of an innocent human is not forgivable even if you do 100 Haj. Regardless of his religious affiliation.

 

[maomao]

Yes, doing a far better job than your rants mate.

Everyone eventually gets tired and walks away from trolls, so trolling doesn't count.. you don't really win...

Your BS is worse than rants.....and you may find my assertions as rants, however, I do not!

The BS you have written is not just funny but too secular for me to fathom!

LOL decide first, am I a troll or I won! If you think what I do is trolling by speaking the truth by exposing Islam, then be it....You can't do shyt about it with your dumb secular blabber!

Your BS can't change the basic nature of Islam nor it's blood lust. Islam was murderous and with time it is getting more than worse....things with islamics and ghettos is explosive these days you can carry on your BS -- People like me will never give a hoot!

 

[Mad Indian]

We don't have the same forefathers mate, and mines have left me a far better example to follow. Trolling begets trolling, mate. Cheers!

So what have you done far here Tronic? All that the left wingers have managed here so far is Troll about the History(how is Islam being liberal in 10th century even relevant to the present?. I am not affected by whether Islam was tolerant in 10th century but will be affected by whether it is tolerant now, which sadly it isn't) and make a pathetic equal-equal with other violent religions of the past(seriously-Past as a proof for present? and even if it is in present , it still wont absolve Islam of its barbaric nature)

Ans Pmaitra's stand? Seriously? He is a fellow who was commenting on how it was a big loss for India that USSR fell because that left India vulnerable to Islamic fundamentalism from the Central Asian Republics(Which means he acknowledged the Islamic fundamentalism as real and as a very big threat) and here he is trying to defend it..

Seriously, You left wingers are the greatest when it comes to Fallacies in Argument and changing your stances as per the thread demands.... Trolls or not, atleast we rightwingers dont change our stance as per our needs and atleast we are consistent...

 

[LurkerBaba]

First, it isn't addressed to the Muslims, it is addressed (or ordered by the Muslims) to the Children of Israel.
Second, the verse after the oft quoted verse clearly says, what the punishment for the disbeliever is.

The "out of context" trick is used by both sides

 

[LurkerBaba]

*Kaafir means an "Unbeliever" but inorder to provoke them he writes as Hindus.

There is absolutely no doubt that Hindus are Kaafirs/Unbelivers. No way the author can prove otherwise

Imagine If a innocent Hindu reads his book they will believe what he said in his book and immediately there would be a reaction then the person would start going against Islam, The problem is that selected few people for there own motives because of there writings and quote the same verse, Which is quote by the Orientalists and after quoting "verse number 5", He jumps to "verse number -7" Directly,
....
Any intelligent person can understand why he skipped one verse , "Verse number -6" has the key to reply to what he had quoted from "verse 5"
Infact if you read the Surah tawbah the first two verses talks about the Peace treaty between the Muslims and the mushriks of Makkah ,This peace Treaty was unilaterally broken by the mushriks of Makkah ,By the time, Almighty God reaches the verse number -5,He says in the battlefield "Wherever you find your enemy (Kaafir means the unbeliever, The enemy) you kill him", IT IS IN THE BATTLEFIELD
If anyone takes out of contest, It would sound absurd,

And see the next verse -6 (Which arun shoury skipped) says-"If the unbeliever, if they seek silence if they seek peace, Escort them to a place of security, So that they may hear the word of Allah"

See the beauty of the Quran, The Quran did not tell them to "go AWAY TO SOMEWHERE if they want peace" .Quran says to "ESCORT them to a PLACE OF SECURITY."

Today the most generous Army general would tell "If the enemy want peace let them go". Which army general would say "Escort them to a place of security, But this is what the Quran says!!

I just went through those exact verses. They are clearly a from the supremacist perspective. More on the lines of "kill them usually, but spare them if they accept Islam"

Let me quote verse 6 which the author claims people skip

"And if any one of the polytheists seeks your protection, then grant him protection so that he may hear the words of Allah . Then deliver him to his place of safety. That is because they are a people who do not know."
Source

In other words, "Convert those foolish misguided polytheists into the true religion". The author has cleverly removed the part about Unbelievers hearing the word of Allah.

"whosoever killed a human "¦"¦"¦"¦., it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whosoever saved the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind" [Quran 5:32]

Already de-bunked by Razor

 

[Razor]

The "out of context" trick is used by both sides

Yeah, you're right. But it is used more often along the lines of "People don't understand the Koran....", "Koran denounces violence as it says in Sura 5:32..." etc.
But you're right, it is used by both sides. I'm just trying to induce equilibrium.