Must Watch: By The Numbers - The Untold Story of Muslim Opinions & Demographics

Brij Ray

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2015
Messages
56
Likes
60
A follow-up of my previous post.

CAN WE BE HONEST ABOUT THE MOTIVE OF ISIS TERRORISTS?
President Obama and other politicians worldwide steadfastly maintain that ISIS has nothing to do with Islam and most liberal non-Muslims share this opinion. Several Muslims, too, express the same view. They label the terrorists ‘misguided youths’ but don’t seem to be interested who or what misguides them.

On the other hand, those who joined ISIS are clear: “We follow the true Islam”, they declare with full conviction and ridicule those who think otherwise.

Who is right?

Is it difficult to discover? Killing people who go peacefully about their daily lives clearly goes against human nature. So why do they do it? Apart from some pathological cases, the reason is that they are convinced that they do the right thing. Of course, these youths are misguided, but by whom or what?

To be fair – the Islamists are not the first to be misguided. Communists and Nazis were misguided by divisive ideologies, which made them believe that, if certain people are dead, a glorious future awaits them.

Christians were misguided by their baseless belief that heathen and heretics are an eyesore to their god and are better done away with if they refuse to join the “true faith.” Thanks to the pressure of a more enlightened civil society, they had to give up torturing and killing in the name of god a couple of centuries ago. Yet many Christians still wrongly believe that they have to convert the whole world to Christianity – if not by force, then by allurement and deceit.

Prime Minister David Cameron recently described the ISIS as “one of the biggest threats our world has faced”. So surely it is of utmost importance to understand what drives them. The German ‘SZ- Magazin’ (link below) carried an eye-opening interview with a would-be ISIS-Jihadi that gives insight into their mindset.

It is about Erhan, a handsome, almost shy youth of 22 years, of Turkish origin. Some of his friends are in Syria. He tried to join them but didn’t succeed on his first attempt. A few years ago, he became dissatisfied with the lukewarm “Euro-fake” Islam that his parents practice. His father doesn’t even pray, he rued, and his mother distorts the Quran so that it fits her interpretation. He wanted to follow the ‘real’ Islam and started to read the Quran. He grew a beard, prayed 5 times a day, went to the mosque and even wore a turban to school. His classmates asked him what happened, and he told them about the Quran. They never asked him again. “I had expected more criticism from them,” Erhan said.

He and his friends were banned from the local mosques in their Bavarian town because they kept lecturing the Muslims there that they don’t follow the Quran correctly and need to oppose democracy. However, the ban convinced them that they were on the right path, because “in the Quran is written that there will be opposition”.

Erhan is convinced that Islam is the only true religion, and he wants ISIS to create a state where “the Quran is lived as Allah wants it”. In his view, the present Islamic countries, like Turkey, are not really following what Allah wants. When the interviewer reminded him of ISIS’s brutality, he replied, “If one kills for a good cause, it is legitimate”.

One of Erhan’s friends, David, recently died fighting in Aleppo and another one, Philipp, became a suicide bomber after he was injured. “Were you sad?” he is asked. “At first a little, but I also envied them, because I know where they are”, he replied, but he strongly rebuked the notion that it is because of the virgins. “Honestly, if only women were to be gained, I would not do it. I do it for Allah.”

He comes across as a naïve young man who wanted to make his life meaningful and found guidance in the Quran. He connected with like-minded youngsters. They checked out several groups and became convinced that ISIS is the best to join because its goal is clearly in tune with the Quran: the goal to spread the Islamic State further and further till the whole world is for Allah.

“Oh believers, fight them until there is no more mischief and the Deen of Allah (way of life prescribed by Allah) is established completely” (Quran 8.39)

“Oh believers, fighting has been made obligatory for you much to your dislike. It is quite possible that what you dislike is good for you… Allah knows and you do not.” (Quran 2.216)

“Those believers who stay at home – having no physical disabilities – are not equal to those who make Jihad in the cause of Allah with their wealth and person. Allah has granted a higher rank to those who make Jihad… They have special higher ranks, forgiveness and mercy. Allah is forgiving, merciful” Quran 4.95/6

Could Erhan and his friends have any doubt what these and similar passages mean? Does it need an Islam expert to interpret them? If the experts had come to the conclusion that those passages were meant exclusively for the contemporaries of Mohammed and not for all time thereafter, they should have said this loud and clear long ago – too much blood has been shed over the last 14 centuries, much of it in India. But those experts kept quiet. Does it follow that the Quran exhorts Muslims to fight till the “Deen of Allah is established’?

The command to fight the enemy appeals to young men. Islam is far more successful than Christianity to make men stand by their religion. Christianity is seen as a religion for women and children. At least that was the impression I got in my youth. Men generally went to Sunday mass in small town Bavaria, but they made sure not to look pious. They considered it a social affair to meet friends. Only the clergy can afford to look pious. It is different in Islam.

A German police study which questioned 45,000 students between 14 and 16 years of age about their level of religiosity and their readiness to be violent, confirmed this:

Girls were more religious than boys in all religions except in Islam, where boys were more religious than girls. Further the study found that that those who considered themselves more religious were less inclined to be violent in all religions, except – again – in Islam. There the boys who considered themselves more religious were more inclined to be violent.

Even small boys like toy guns. Bigger boys want a good reason to fight. A divine command to fight those, who are evil, is the perfect reason for many youngsters. Further, there is the ‘divine promise’ that it will be a win-win situation: if one dies, one is guaranteed to enjoy paradise and if one lives, one may benefit from the wealth and the women of those killed.

There are many passages in the Quran where the unbelievers are portrayed as most despicable, for whom perdition and eternal hellfire are certain. Even the torture in hell is described in horrific detail:

“There are the two adversaries (the believers and disbelievers) who dispute with each other about their Rabb: as for the disbelievers, garments of Fire will be cut out for them, boiling water will be poured over their heads, which will not only melt their skins but also the inner parts of their bellies, and there will be maces of iron to lash them. Whenever, in their anguish, they cry to escape therefrom, they will be forced back therein, and will be told: “Taste the punishment of conflagration!” (Quran 22.19-22)

Do such passages explain the savagery of ISIS? Have the vivid images of hell over the centuries instigated the brutalities of the Christian Inquisition and of the Muslim invaders in India and elsewhere? Was there such brutality against civilians before the arrival of religions which claimed ‘eternal hellfire for unbelievers’?

If Erhan succeeds in going to Syria, he is ready to behead unbelievers and also Muslims who are not following what Allah really wants, he said. He does it for Allah, not for the virgins. Secondary incentives may exist. His friends in Syria share photos via Facebook. “They live in luxury, have computers, guns, snacks”, Erhan said.

This may sound attractive not only for young men, bored with the monotonous life in the west. For girls, too, it may be appealing to get ‘brave’ husbands and become part of a community of young people who have a genuine cause that is ordained by God himself as it were. Some German girls from a Christian background are also drawn to those intense, handsome men who are not shy to talk about Allah. “Only yesterday we converted a girl”, Erhan said.

It is difficult to see in him the ruthless terrorist. But he may turn out to become just that – a ruthless killer. He said that he would kill even his parents if they oppose the Islamic State. “In 20, 30 years the Islamic State will be in Germany and gradually will cover the whole planet”, he is sure.

Are we not responsible to stop these youngsters from destroying themselves and others? Yet is it possible as long as those passages are considered the word of Allah? Even if ISIS gets defeated in near future, new terror groups will continue to draw legitimacy from those passages, and powerbrokers can motivate youngsters for their own interests, making them believe that Allah will be pleased. Those passages have tremendous potential to mobilize youngsters for a cause that is worthwhile and just in their eyes. They don’t realize that they are used – like the US used the Taliban to fight the Russians in Afghanistan.

Erhan’s parents in Germany, his uncle in Turkey, imams of the local mosques – all tried to prevent him from turning radical. But what can they tell him? That he should not take the Quran seriously? That Allah didn’t mean what he said? Erhan considers those imams who are against ISIS as old, confused men. And logically he has a point, but it could also make him wonder why older Muslims, including imams, do not opt to become suicide bombers even if they have a serious illness. Are they not convinced that paradise is guaranteed by killing others?

“What can stop you”, the journalist asked him.

His answer: “Nobody can stop me.”

He is right. No outsider can stop him. If a Muslim tries to influence him, he will see in him a hypocrite who tests his faith in the ‘true’ Islam. And if an unbeliever tries to influence him, he is sure that he only wants him to leave the right path.

But there is one thing that can stop him: it is doubt. Once doubt springs up on its own, it is not possible to regain the former blind belief. I know this from own experience, as I also once believed in eternal hell and that God wants everyone to be Christian. If Erhan starts wondering whether the compassionate Allah really wants all this killing, he can easily come out of the grip that blind belief has on his mind.

Curiously, this option of doubting the doctrine is not considered even by western ‘unbelievers’ who are portrayed so badly in it. Why? I can only guess that there is too much at stake for the powers that be. If Islam comes under a cloud as not being the only true religion, Christianity will also come under a cloud, because both religions have a lot in common. The Abrahamic God will need to be questioned whether he can possibly be true. This will be a major earthquake.

For centuries both religions have violently enforced their version of “the only truth” and demanded unquestionable respect. How can they allow their dogmas to be questioned? They managed to hold on to them for so long. They managed to get altogether over 3 billion people into their fold. How can they admit that dogmatic religions generally do not make human beings better, but on many occasions worse? They managed to successfully demean those traditions that are closer to the truth, especially India’s tradition. How can they let all this go waste?

So what is their solution? Put the head into the sand and declare: “ISIS has nothing to do with Islam. Terror has no religion” and continue to hit out at those who are in a position to question your truth, so that they become defensive and won’t dare to challenge you for a debate.

The viciousness with which Christianity and Islam attack ‘Hindu fundamentalists’ almost seems to indicate that both consider Hindus a greater enemy than ISIS and other equally violent groups. To some extent they are right. India’s wisdom can expose the weak basis of their belief systems. This seems to be a great fear for them. The religions who claim to be the only true religions fear a genuine debate on what the truth is. The don’t want to hear that truth cannot possibly be linked to only one name and only one concept, and that truth cannot possibly be dependent on some ‘correct’ thoughts in human heads. It is the eternal, indivisible, one consciousness in all.

By Maria Wirth

Link to the interview in the magazine http://sz-magazin.sueddeutsche.de/texte/anzeigen/42259/Ich-glaub-das-steht-irgendwo-im-Koran
 

Sakal Gharelu Ustad

Detests Jholawalas
Ambassador
Joined
Apr 28, 2012
Messages
7,116
Likes
7,727
It is not an equal equal..i never said hindu terroirm and fundamentalism is equal to the islamic one..my earlier post clearly mentioned it as in " lesser magnitude and intensity ".so you are wrong in accusing me of equating it.

terrorism is a by product of radicalism(not just islamic ) and intolerance...it is true for any religion or ideology in even though islam is the much affected religion and radical islam is the and major contributor to terrorism. But that doesn't mean other religions are completely immune to terrorism or radicalism..we do have cases of hindu terrorism...and we have a good number of intolerant fundamentalist hindu org and followers of such fundamentalism...if the radical hinduism represented by the second and third layer of the chart( when applied to hinduism) is not countered in the budding then it certainly will expand and will create/ expand the first layer ( the actual terrorists), it's just a matter of time and opportunity. So
Rabid fundamentalism need backing of theology or ideology. Marxism comes close second to the number of people killed by any ideology.

Islam is a political religion and helps explicitly to justify the horrors committed by ghazis in the name of Allah. Hinduism has enough fault lines of its own and no canon to justify killing of kafirs. So, the 2nd and 3rd layer would never be sustainable. But in the short run, if Muslim threat becomes too much, I am sure there would be an increase in 2nd and 3rd layer of Hindus. But that would be justified as a case of self-defense and not for 72 virgins in heaven. And it would end, once the threat is over rather than spread it through the world.
 

Agnostic_Indian

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2010
Messages
930
Likes
243
Looks like the snake oil salesman is again playing taqqiya.

1. He says suspicion of muzzoes is racism
What race do those filthy barbarians belong too?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
Classical case strawman and oversimplified arguements.
I never said suspecting a muslim is always racism..in fact i clearly said the opposite and explained different situations where it's ok and where it's not ok.but as usual why take the trouble of reading and giving proper reply when you have the easy option like a strawman.
2. He says muzzoes are viewed with suspicion and is now btching about it while acknowledging Hindus AND Xtoans are not.
another strawman from you.
I never complained about muslims being rightly suspected, infact i have given a valid example where the muslim name/islamic identity alone(without any other triggers) can be a valid and right cause of suspecion.

There goes the argument that we are blind haters of these barbaric filth. Surely if Hindus og have problem with xtians as terrorists, it rules out the possibility that we are just blind haters of different religion? That is what logic says.

That is what common sense says. But the snake oil salesman being a closet islamist turd , is playing taqqiya equating suslision of muzzoes as being racist and islamophobic without reason. See this is another one of the instances where the closet islamists snake is out of his closet unwittingly. Pls note guys.
i could not get what you were trying to say in this part.
3. So what muzzie filth like him are viewed with suspicion
What ever fantasies makes you feel better.
. Majority of the terrorists are Muslims
true in todays world.

and majority of the Muslims follow the terrorist barbaric ideology.
Majority muslims doesn't follow the interpretation of islam which is supportive of terrorism. This sentance is what puts you into the category of third layer along with the radical intolerant muslims.


Even the snake oil salesman was defending his paedophile prophet being a mass murdering raping psychopath.
Objection on two grounds.
1) repeatedly using lies and flase accusations about me being a muslim despite the fact that there is zero posts in which i supported islamic dogma being true/ muhammad being a prophet send by god.more over i explicitly stated that i am not a believer of any god or religion. So either refute me with facts or you stand exposed as a pathetic liar.

2) second objection is that you addressed and have been addressing muhammad whom the muslim belive as their prophet to be a pedophile. I want moderator to correct it and warn you, if not explain why is it ok to use that term and whether someone belonging to a older era can be addressed as such because he has married a teen age girl.i also want to know whether it's appropriate to judge ancient practices with modern standards and use modern terminologies for many such inappropriate acts/practices done in the ancient world regardless of in which religion it's practiced.
So when majority of the barbaric filth among us want us dead, is it really wrong to suspect these filth and throw them out? And see this is what I meant, closet islamistsike him at the victim card and provide all the necessary wiggleroom for the muzzie extremists. They just play taqqiya to fool the gullible Hindus.
again a lie repeted that majority muslims wants to kill everybody else and talking nonsense.

4. Why should Hindus give a shit that there might be actual moderates among muzzoes? After all we have nothing to gain from this good muzzie vad muzzie when the barbaric filth themselves don't stand up to the islamkst pigs and are more likely to be taqqiya players like the snake oil salesmen here? If that's the case, isn't it more sensible to exile and get rid of these filth where they can sort out their problems instead of allowing these filth inside? They can safely blow themselves up andeave us in peace no? Why should we put our families, daughters in danger to accommodate these barbarians?
secular liberals are worst than islamists....let's get rid of them..
communists and socialists are blocking economic reforms...let's get rid of them....
Muslims are terrorists and extremists...lets get rid of them...
christians/abrahamics are changing the demographics, converting hindus....let's get rid of them too.....
who's next.....let's get rid of the dalits, agnostics, atheists.....yeh......
india will be purified......


Sounds like you are a fan of hitler.

5. Imagine that Islam is not treated as a religion. So , you have a bunch of people who believe in killing you all and hating civilisation and progress and want to take you back to the 7 century where things were barbaric as they want, would you really allow such fundamentalist filth to exist among you? Of course, if that is not going to be the case- you would actually get them out of their mental disease are get them out of the society. Apply the same here - you will get rid of Islam or its followers. Everything else is garbage in and garbage out.
imagine if christians and hindus haven't had a chance to reform and continuied their old practices ? What would that be ? How many perversions/atrocities/ draconian laws would have been prevailing today ? islam is just another religion which unfortunately have failed to reform....and combined with other geographical,political factors has given birth to the center layer( terrorism). Getting rid of all muslims is not the solution but supporting reforms from within islam and outside of islam is the way..hindus and christins also suffer from the second and third layer...you unfortunately is one such example of that third layer in hinduism ...i am not simply saying that like you call me a muslim...all your posts are there to support what i say where as you won't be able to find a single post where i supporting islamic dogma/islamic terrorism/ or religious hatread towards hindus or christians.

6. This islamkst has the galls to call us fundamentalists. Really?
If what you express through your posts are not hindu fundamentalism then plese explain to me what is fundamentalism ?
What book are we fundamentally following? We are not blindingly following any book or ideology blindly but rather making scientific observations based on facts and logic.
if you were following scientific evidence and observations then you would be a agnostic or a atheist. Are you one ?
If you were a scientific person then you would have cut the crap and argued logically and respectfully in civil language...so far i have seen non of that in any of your posts addressing me or anybody else in the forum.

But by comparing people like me to the fundamentalist filth , this snake oil salesman proves that either a) he is a closet islamists pretending to be a moderate or b) he is a moderate filth himself bUt that is what moderate filth are about in Islam -taqqiya players who by any other religions standard will be extremist pigs but since we are dealing with a mental disease called Islam, they are taken as moderates though in reality they are just extremist filth pretending to be moderates.
Just read the first bold part where you cliam not to be a fundamentalist and then read the second bolded part how you once again proved to be a religious fundamentalist.

8. If all these points are any indication, it is only that my point that there is no muzzie moderates in Islam is very valid. They are only taqqiya filth pretending to be moderates, while providing cover for the muzzie fundamentalist and suppressing anyway to counter these filth.
Mo moderates in muslims...? no muslims fighting islamic fundalism ? No eminent personalities in india...? In the entire world ? not even the lady who made the documentray ?

Do you have no shame left in you to make such rabid comments and then claim not to be a fundamentalist ? Are you from another planet or somenting where meaning of each word is opposite to what we use in here ?.

For instance, tame the snake oil salesman here, he has spent more time dealing with us , their critics and playing victim card than dealing with the barbaric filth in his religion.
Once again a convinent lie to attribute ism to the maker of the arguement with out which you will be punching in the air.
argue against a muslim then you must be a hindu or christain....
Argue agaisnt a hindu....you are a muslim...
Argue for animal rights......well.....you must be one..lo.....

Conclusion : there are no moderate muzzie. All of them are apostates/ex muslims now. Take this agnostic Indian as your example
The only conclusion any logical person can make is that you are proving again and again to be a religious fundamentalist.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
 

Agnostic_Indian

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2010
Messages
930
Likes
243
Rabid fundamentalism need backing of theology or ideology. Marxism comes close second to the number of people killed by any ideology.
yes fundamentalism needs backing of ideology, islam as an ideology is vulnerable to such fundamentalist interpretations but us christian books or hindu books are also vulnerable to such interpretations and have been used in the past to justify many such barbaric practices and killings.
This interpretation thing is can be looked differently from different point of views. In purly accadamic sense it may be true that certain draconian interpretations of religious books are infact is the correct interpretation of the book. You( a believer ) might not like it if i say the notorious interpretation is the correct one, or the real factual discription of the events and incidents played out in the history. It's good for only accadamic purpose and to debate amongst evolved personalities.
The actual intreprations will only do harm to the world and common believers if it's dished out as such. There for every religion try to suger coat, twist the actual hitory/interpretation, avoid the hopless parts completely to suit the modern morality and standards..that's what every religion is doing..not just islam.....in fact islam is doing the least to modernise it's interpretations when compared to other religions...its because of this rigid teachings muslims remain orthodox and fundamentalist and from this orhtodox fundamentalist section most radical of them turn to a more bad interpretation of islam, use it for political gains,economical gains, some being the victims of victim card, and turn out to be terrorists.
Islam is a political religion and helps explicitly to justify the horrors committed by ghazis in the name of Allah. Hinduism has enough fault lines of its own and no canon to justify killing of kafirs. So, the 2nd and 3rd layer would never be sustainable. But in the short run, if Muslim threat becomes too much, I am sure there would be an increase in 2nd and 3rd layer of Hindus. But that would be justified as a case of self-defense and not for 72 virgins in heaven. And it would end, once the threat is over rather than spread it through the world.
Hinduism, particularly brahimns was very like a political islam in india, they controlled everything including the king and kingdom..governed and laws and regulations of public life..but that is changed now...but political islam is still there..but political islam is not the sole representative of islam.

There is very small first layer( terrorists) and a small second layer too but third layer aka fundamentalist hindus, intolerant hindus is there in big numbers and that has been a debating point in india and naturally as a result a topic here as well. Judging by the comments here and outside i have to say that the third layer is big..perhaps not as big as islam but it certainly is big.

You are justifying existence of second and third layer of fundamentalist hindus...but let me remind you that the islamists also have the American excuse, isreal excuse, various other victim cards to say that they are just reacting to what they are experiencing...that they are just returning the favour..and many of them in their personal level will be right too since they were just random people affected by all these...this will lead to a who started it first kind of thing for which there won't be any convincing answer even if we go decades back into the history...so fundamentalist views cannot be justified even if that is born out of a genuine prsonal trauma.besides victim card/ reaction card is a favourate thing of religious fundamentalists who are and who will be religious fundamentalists regardless of anything else..if it's not this incident then it's something else...world will never be perfect and so they know they will never be out of excuses.
 

Mad Indian

Proud Bigot
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2012
Messages
12,835
Likes
7,742
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
Classical case strawman and oversimplified arguements.
I never said suspecting a muslim is always racism..in fact i clearly said the opposite and explained different situations where it's ok and where it's not ok.but as usual why take the trouble of reading and giving proper reply when you have the easy option like a strawman.
Racism is Irrelevant as I was talking about India. But then YOU brought in a useless racism angle when it is not needed. So you accept racism is not the same as seeing muslims for what they are? Barbarians of 7th century who got stuck in 21 century


another strawman from you.
I never complained about muslims being rightly suspected, infact i have given a valid example where the muslim name/islamic identity alone(without any other triggers) can be a valid and right cause of suspecion.
:lol:Just a few weeks back you were crying how Muzzies are viewed with suspision and why Intolerance is not the rise or have you forgotten that?. Again you are playing taqqiya. Atleast be consistent instead of changing your posistion as and when needed like a true taqqiya

i could not get what you were trying to say in this part.
Thaqts my fault for I did have many spelling mistakes. What I meant was, people like me(Hindu RW) cant be blind haters , when people like me dont actually hate Xtians. Surely if we are blind haters, we would hate anything Non Hindu? But No. We dont do that because as Hindus who believe in difference in the path to truth, we dont actually hate any one based on faith.

thats why you claims that we are being unfairly suspecting of Muzzies is 100% chutiyapa as we dont actually hate muzzies for their faith on Allah. Whether it is allah , Yahweh or Ram makes no difference to an average Hindu. But what we cant tolerate is the barbarians claoiming their barbaric ideology is the bestest and try to imopse that on others like us which will take us to 7 th century. And blasphemy and questioning of the customs is very integral path of Hindu path to enlightenment. deal with it.Muzzie thugs have no right to impinge on our freedom to question the barbarity

Andf of course we also hate Xtian fundamentalists who oppose abortion and gay rights , evolution and what not. We hating fundamentalist filth does not make us fundamentalists. Fundamentalists mean unaltered/unquestioned faith on a particular dogma. We dont believe in the dogma of any Hindu text when we oppose the barbaric ideology of Islam or its barbaric followers.

So when you equate us with your barbaric cousins, that is just you playing equal equal thaqqiya and apologetics for your filthy barbaric ideology and its fundamentalist cousins.
 

Mad Indian

Proud Bigot
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2012
Messages
12,835
Likes
7,742
true in todays world.
see your own taqqiya?:lol: So what I said is true but this is bad?

What ever fantasies makes you feel better.

Majority muslims doesn't follow the interpretation of islam which is supportive of terrorism. This sentance is what puts you into the category of third layer along with the radical intolerant muslims.
Nice strawman. I said majority are barbaric filth, not terrorist. More instance of you playing taqqiya. Terrorists not the same as barbaric filth. the 100000 who gathered in Indor and other indian city are all barbaric filth who dont believe in FOE. The filth which attend the funeral of OBL, are barbaric filth and not terrorists. Sure majority of muzzies dont beleive in terrorists, but that doesnt make them any less barbaric, when majority of them support Sharia, beheading of rape victims, Stoning of adulterers, imposition of jizya on infedels, give moral support to Isis and al qoeda, Who dream of subjugating kaffirs etc.

:pound: BTW, do majority muzzies follow the Quran, Hadiths, Sunnah or not? What about their views on Muhammed? Even you were playing taqqiya on why Muhammed is not a child raping mass murdering rapist psychopath! So do the majority think what Muhammed did was wrong? SO they are not barbaric even though they want to travel the same barbaric ideology of Muhammed? Am I missing something here? Take you crap to someone else.

As I already said, those muslims who are actually moderate have already left that barbaric ideology and are now ex muslims. But even then, when a athiest/agnostic wine sipping pork eating Jinnah can created TNT and Porkistan, I dont see how we can even trust the supposed "moderate" muslims


Objection on two grounds.
1) repeatedly using lies and flase accusations about me being a muslim despite the fact that there is zero posts in which i supported islamic dogma being true/ muhammad being a prophet send by god.more over i explicitly stated that i am not a believer of any god or religion. So either refute me with facts or you stand exposed as a pathetic liar.

2) second objection is that you addressed and have been addressing muhammad whom the muslim belive as their prophet to be a pedophile. I want moderator to correct it and warn you, if not explain why is it ok to use that term and whether someone belonging to a older era can be addressed as such because he has married a teen age girl.i also want to know whether it's appropriate to judge ancient practices with modern standards and use modern terminologies for many such inappropriate acts/practices done in the ancient world regardless of in which religion it's practiced.
:mad2:What a * you are! Now you want censorship of the criticism of the mass murdering psychopathic pedophile true taqqiya style. If there were any doubts on why you are just playing taqqiya, it is cleared now. And what you blatthering on 1st para? What are you doing here, other than just washing away what the pedophile did. And teen girl? Really? 6yr old is a teen now? And isnt muzzies justify what they do by saying thats what Muhammed the pedo did? So how is it irrelevant to judge what that pedo did? No one says Be like the soundral Ravana while all muzzies want their sons to be like Muhammed. So how it is not fair to call that rapist pedophile just that? Isnt it true that Muhammed is the most popular first name in the whole fucking world. And isnt it what Haj is about- following the foodsteps of Muhammed the pedophile? And isnt this why the Islamic one night marriage to minor girls is justfied in Shias? And its relevant to the discussion?

And you want to stop criticism on the pedophile? really and You claim to be agnostic and secular and for FOE and what not? Hypocritic trash are not very good at hiding your ulterior motive of pan islamism are you?

And even if I am not correct, does it say a lot that you are trying to silence me and my right to freedom toc criticise? And has anyone asked you or stopped you from commenting on Castes?


Do anyone here try to wash away the ills of castes?

But no, your pedophile must be above criticism isnt he?

YOu are 100% taqqiya playing islamist snake. Let the readers decide afor themselves whether I am right or not
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Sakal Gharelu Ustad

Detests Jholawalas
Ambassador
Joined
Apr 28, 2012
Messages
7,116
Likes
7,727
yes fundamentalism needs backing of ideology, islam as an ideology is vulnerable to such fundamentalist interpretations but us christian books or hindu books are also vulnerable to such interpretations and have been used in the past to justify many such barbaric practices and killings.
This interpretation thing is can be looked differently from different point of views. In purly accadamic sense it may be true that certain draconian interpretations of religious books are infact is the correct interpretation of the book. You( a believer ) might not like it if i say the notorious interpretation is the correct one, or the real factual discription of the events and incidents played out in the history. It's good for only accadamic purpose and to debate amongst evolved personalities.
The actual intreprations will only do harm to the world and common believers if it's dished out as such. There for every religion try to suger coat, twist the actual hitory/interpretation, avoid the hopless parts completely to suit the modern morality and standards..that's what every religion is doing..not just islam.....in fact islam is doing the least to modernise it's interpretations when compared to other religions...its because of this rigid teachings muslims remain orthodox and fundamentalist and from this orhtodox fundamentalist section most radical of them turn to a more bad interpretation of islam, use it for political gains,economical gains, some being the victims of victim card, and turn out to be terrorists.


Hinduism, particularly brahimns was very like a political islam in india, they controlled everything including the king and kingdom..governed and laws and regulations of public life..but that is changed now...but political islam is still there..but political islam is not the sole representative of islam.

There is very small first layer( terrorists) and a small second layer too but third layer aka fundamentalist hindus, intolerant hindus is there in big numbers and that has been a debating point in india and naturally as a result a topic here as well. Judging by the comments here and outside i have to say that the third layer is big..perhaps not as big as islam but it certainly is big.

You are justifying existence of second and third layer of fundamentalist hindus...but let me remind you that the islamists also have the American excuse, isreal excuse, various other victim cards to say that they are just reacting to what they are experiencing...that they are just returning the favour..and many of them in their personal level will be right too since they were just random people affected by all these...this will lead to a who started it first kind of thing for which there won't be any convincing answer even if we go decades back into the history...so fundamentalist views cannot be justified even if that is born out of a genuine prsonal trauma.besides victim card/ reaction card is a favourate thing of religious fundamentalists who are and who will be religious fundamentalists regardless of anything else..if it's not this incident then it's something else...world will never be perfect and so they know they will never be out of excuses.
Islam and Chritianity leave little room for interpretation in their books. Islam has taken it to completely another level.

1) Dar-ul-Islam and Dar-ul-harb- nothing to interpret there
2) Play taqiya when among non-muslims
3) Jihad against non-belivers

Now what is there to interpret when everything is spelled out in crystal clear way. Some people may call it as internal Jihad, but with the concept of Dar-ul-Islam and Dar-ul-Harb to guide, there is little scope of interpretation. They follow from one another logically.

Now Gita is violent as well and tell you to fight war. But there are no commandments against whom. And so individuals are free to interpret Gita but with Koran and Hadith, at least Jihad against kafirs is plain simple fact. No interpretation is needed there.
 
Last edited:

Mad Indian

Proud Bigot
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2012
Messages
12,835
Likes
7,742
@Sakal Gharelu Ustad @sob So people like me who criticise the ills and stupidity of the Hindus including Castes and want reform are fundamentalists but closet islamists like @Agnostic_Indian are Moderates? really?

You want to shut down critcisim of religion, then shut down criticism of everything including castes, sati, babas, conversions, reconversions and everything. :mad2:
 

Mad Indian

Proud Bigot
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2012
Messages
12,835
Likes
7,742
Mo moderates in muslims...? no muslims fighting islamic fundalism ? No eminent personalities in india...? In the entire world ? not even the lady who made the documentray ?
Strawman argument Taqqiyawallah. I said moderates in Islam are actually extremists by any other religion's standards. take you gfor instacne you are a moderate who doesnt want to criticise muhammed the pedophile and so are the thousands who claim to be moderates. In Hindus, people who want to stop criticism of castes for instance are all hindu extremists who cant claim to be moderates. There you go, comparison side by side. Amir Khan, Sharuk etc are all the same.

And the lady who made the documentary is the kind who I said are ex-muslims or apostates. Truly moderate muzzies have already left that barbaric ideology. the ones left are the ones who play taqqiya like you


If what you express through your posts are not hindu fundamentalism then plese explain to me what is fundamentalism ?
What an idiot. Fundamentalism by defn or meaning refers to fundamentalist/unalterable/inalienable/unreasonable belif in a set of dogmas. Xtians have Biblical dogma and if they take it too seriously they are Xtian fundamentalists. So are the Muzzie.

You called me a Hindu fundamentalists. Now substantiate why? Which Book am I following dogmatically without reason or logic. go right ahead

This is again one of the most favorite tactic of Islamist - saying their critics are also equally fundamentalists. No moron. Get it into your head - Me killing the dogs which try to kill me doesnt make me a murderer. I am just acting in self defence. My motivation to get rid of Islam and Muslims is because they are barbaric fundamentalists who are not compatable with modern nations/science/civilisation. Not because of my innate hatred. By labelling me just that, you are proving that you are just a closet islamist.

Just read the first bold part where you cliam not to be a fundamentalist and then read the second bolded part how you once again proved to be a religious fundamentalist.
Again the same point which p[roves why people like you are as dangerous as the outright islamic filth. Atleast they can be spotted as real enemies quickly but not you. People like you give the necessary shiled for them to operate by shutting critics like us.

So, people who call islam for what it is are fundamentalists now? So , lets take the label of Islam. Lets see their beliefs and see it from a medical point of view- here are a bunch of people, who bielieve a 7th centruy code of laws is absolute and unchangeable, who think marrying adn raping a 9 yr old girlr is worthy of a messiah/prophet, who think everyone else, even those who dont follow that purest form of barbarity deserve to be subjugated and killed. What are they? In a medical view/noraml view, it is barbaric and mental disease. Not religion. And thus Islam is a mental religion. But me saying it out makes me a fundamentalist right? Of course it does, because you are closet islamist yourself playing taqqiyya

Once again a convinent lie to attribute ism to the maker of the arguement with out which you will be punching in the air.
argue against a muslim then you must be a hindu or christain....
Argue agaisnt a hindu....you are a muslim...
Argue for animal rights......well.....you must be one..lo.....
You are the one playing strawman. I said you spend more time against us defending this barbaric religion than talking against this barbaric religion. No matter how hard you try to deny it,it is apparant to anyone
 
Last edited by a moderator:

asingh10

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2015
Messages
1,785
Likes
3,449
@Agnostic_Indian trying to shut up @Mad Indian from talking about Islam by begging mods is really just a milder, more sophisticated version of Mullahs all over the country baying for Kamlesh's blood. Shut all criticism and obfuscate the truth.

Both Leftists and the so called 'Moderate Muslim' are like the vanguards of the Jihadis. First line of defense. Saw the same apologia pouring out on SM during charlie hebdo and paris attacks.
 

Agnostic_Indian

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2010
Messages
930
Likes
243
Racism is Irrelevant as I was talking about India. But then YOU brought in a useless racism angle when it is not needed.
you were commenting about muslims indian as well as in general. Even if you were specifically commenting about indian muslims what difference does it make ? You were essentially saying all muslims are fundamentalists if not terrorists and there is no moderate muslims out there...not even a single one..you were saying we should get rid of muslims...all of them.....so if that's not racism and religious intolerance then i don't know what is.

Secondly you haven't addressed why you tried to use a strawman and distorted my arguements.

So you accept racism is not the same as seeing muslims for what they are? Barbarians of 7th century who got stuck in 21 century
Another vailed oversimplified lie to distorted the arguement.by using " seeing muslims for what they are " you are implying that muslims...all of them are fundamentalists and terrorists which is not true and this kind of arguement exactly is qualified as racism.


In todays world tag of islam/muslim do raise suspecion...this suspecion because of this tag alone is all right in certain situations and not allright in another situations.and i have already expalined it with examples and situations.same thing can be a racism at a place and a necessary and logial precution at another place..it all vary according to situations and various other factors.

:lol:Just a few weeks back you were crying how Muzzies are viewed with suspision and why Intolerance is not the rise or have you forgotten that?. Again you are playing taqqiya. Atleast be consistent instead of changing your posistion as and when needed like a true taqqiya
show me the specific quote and i can defend what i said, if not i can update or change my stand as any logial/scientific honest person will do. You are of the false impression that consistency is always good, but it's not...its better to make a intelligent change of opinion if and when you realise a mistake than consistintly being awfully wrong.

Thaqts my fault for I did have many spelling mistakes. What I meant was, people like me(Hindu RW) cant be blind haters , when people like me dont actually hate Xtians. Surely if we are blind haters, we would hate anything Non Hindu? But No. We dont do that because as Hindus who believe in difference in the path to truth, we dont actually hate any one based on faith.
Nobody hate others without a reson, the reason may or may not be logical but everybody has a reason.And you prioritise your No.enemy and when that is eliminated you go on to hate the next one in the list.as i remember secularists were your No.1 enemy, then the muslims, if and when both are eliminated you go for the no 3 in hate list which is christians or communists...and it will continue...

The irony is that you are using the so called "tolerant hindu past " to justify your current " intolerance ". If you were living in that so called tolerant era then i am sorry to say but you definitely would have find a 'x ' resson or ' y ' reason to hate other groups, promote your ideology through the state mechinary and so on.

thats why you claims that we are being unfairly suspecting of Muzzies is 100% chutiyapa as we dont actually hate muzzies for their faith on Allah. Whether it is allah , Yahweh or Ram makes no difference to an average Hindu
is that somthing extra ordinary to not to hate sombody for what they believe ? For most the folks including muslims it is not.
. But what we cant tolerate is the barbarians claoiming their barbaric ideology is the bestest and try to imopse that on others like us which will take us to 7 th century. And blasphemy and questioning of the customs is very integral path of Hindu path to enlightenment. deal with it.Muzzie thugs have no right to impinge on our freedom to question the barbarity
look at the oversimplification and broad brushing again to imply that all the muslims are intolerant barbarians and so it's right to hate them and have fundamentalist views against them.

Then look at you justifying unreasonable and malicious words used to portry sombodys prophet. If your intent was a accadamic debate then you would not have chosen the words you used , you would have argued in respectful words and would have listen to logic and reasoning which was pointed to you in the previous debate itself.selection of words tells so much about the intentions.




Andf of course we also hate Xtian fundamentalists who oppose abortion and gay rights , evolution and what not.
i don't quite understand what you meant by hate. I know the litral meaning but i thing hate is a strong word..is it necessary to hate them for not believing in evolution and not supporting gay rights and abortion etc..at most you may may say " i dont like them ".
If you do hate them for what they are then is it ok for a libral christian who does suplort all of it to hate the hindus who doesn't support all of this ?

We hating fundamentalist filth does not make us fundamentalists.
Again a simpilton argument. As i said hate is a pretty strong word and it some times do make you a fundament. I can understand you hating a muslim who justify a terror attack or a christian justifying somthing like gujarath earth quacks as god given punishment for what ever hindus have done to theor missionaries in north india. But hating sombody for unscientific beliefs is too much. By that standards you must hate all the hindus and all the people who belive in god since that's also with out scientific backing.

secondly your hate list is never ending...you hate almost everything except your ideology.
Thirdly all the muslims are not fundamentalists but you do do classify all of them as fundamentalists and you want to expell them crom society so that makes you a fundamentalist.

You in your past debates strongly argued for a hindu nation and opposed secularim so that also makes you a religious fundamentalist.

Fundamentalists mean unaltered/unquestioned faith on a particular dogma. We dont believe in the dogma of any Hindu text when we oppose the barbaric ideology of Islam or its barbaric followers.

So when you equate us with your barbaric cousins, that is just you playing equal equal thaqqiya and apologetics for your filthy barbaric ideology and its fundamentalist cousins.
Depending upon the context, Fundamentalism can be used as a pejorative rather than neutralcharacterization, similar to the ways in which referencing political perspectives as "right-wing" or "left-wing" can, for some, have negative connotations.

To be clear i used the word fundamentalism to denote not only strict unquestioned faith in particular dogma but also to point out the rss, vhp ideology of intolerance and pushing of Hinduism as a state religion and there by rejecting secularism and equality. It also represents those all those hate speech people, and so on.

BTW hinduism also is adogma even though it's flexible from within.

In the second paragraph you once again tried to give wrong "tags to me " so that you can then attack that tag. Next time if i argue for gay rights you might call me gay, if i argue for animal rights then i am an animal..you are such a simpleton.
 

asingh10

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2015
Messages
1,785
Likes
3,449
Another vailed oversimplified lie to distorted the arguement.by using " seeing muslims for what they are " you are implying that muslims...all of them are fundamentalists and terrorists which is not true and this kind of arguement exactly is qualified as racism.
Islam is not a race. It's a set of beliefs.

You are using oversimplified lies yourself.
 

Agnostic_Indian

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2010
Messages
930
Likes
243
see your own taqqiya?:lol: So what I said is true but this is bad?
What you said is half the truth but the next part of it was just broadbrushing and wrong..so i agreed with the first part and disagreed with the second part.


Nice strawman.
seriously ? Let's see what you said.

I said majority are barbaric filth, not terrorist. More instance of you playing taqqiya.
You said -
" and majority of the Muslims follow the terrorist barbaric ideology.

Terrorists not the same as barbaric filth. the 100000 who gathered in Indor and other indian city are all barbaric filth who dont believe in FOE. The filth which attend the funeral of OBL, are barbaric filth and not terrorists. Sure majority of muzzies dont beleive in terrorists, but that doesnt make them any less barbaric, when majority of them support Sharia, beheading of rape victims, Stoning of adulterers, imposition of jizya on infedels, give moral support to Isis and al qoeda, Who dream of subjugating kaffirs etc.
An attempt to mix things and confuse and then broadbrush them.
Majority muslims might be belivers of sharia law. But majority do not support terrorisom or attend the funeral of terrorists in support..noe do they support behedding of rape victims.jizia tax is a thing in the past and is abolished.
:pound: BTW, do majority muzzies follow the Quran, Hadiths, Sunnah or not?
as i understand different sects follow all of it, some of it, or just koran..it varies from sects to sect.

What about their views on Muhammed? Even you were playing taqqiya on why Muhammed is not a child raping mass murdering rapist psychopath! So do the majority think what Muhammed did was wrong?
What Muhammed did was a child marriage and at that time perid there was no moral standards which treats hild marriages to be a bad thing. I think it was the same in india as well. Like i said earlier you selection of words and twisted logics alone is enough to detect your real intentions. As for what muslims think, obviously their opinion vary depending upon what kind of ideology are they following..A orthodox muslim might be believing that it there was nothing wrong in marrying a teenage girl then or now.while a liberal will belive that that was a necessity of the time and he did it for so and so reasons...etc.. and doing it today would be wrong since situations have changed.

SO they are not barbaric even though they want to travel the same barbaric ideology of Muhammed? Am I missing something here? Take you crap to someone else.
Another attempt distorte and paint muslims as barbarians.
It can be done with any religion or people.
Lets say..cast system is barberic, discrimination againt women is barberic, since hindus follow cast system and dis discriminate women in the name of impurity they are barberic..you might say not all of them are following it...but i say there is nothing like a modeate hindu..arguement sounds familiar..isnt it..:D. see how easy it is to attach tags or broad brush everything.

Though i am tempted to reply to your crap comment in a befitting manner i am just curbing my urge for sanity.


As I already said, those muslims who are actually moderate have already left that barbaric ideology and are now ex muslims.
Then what will that lady in that video will be ? Who will be addul kalam, and various eminent muslims ? and lakhs of not so famous moderate good muslims ? Are they all atheists now ? What are you smoking
But even then, when a athiest/agnostic wine sipping pork eating Jinnah can created TNT and Porkistan, I dont see how we can even trust the supposed "moderate" muslims
As far as i know Jinnah was a muslim..quite modern and liberal in the beginning but later turned into a rigid one and a hindu hater..but he was not a atheist or agnostic.


:mad2:What a * you are! Now you want censorship of the criticism of the mass murdering psychopathic pedophile true taqqiya style. If there were any doubts on why you are just playing taqqiya, it is cleared now. And what you blatthering on 1st para? What are you doing here, other than just washing away what the pedophile did. And teen girl? Really? 6yr old is a teen now? And isnt muzzies justify what they do by saying thats what Muhammed the pedo did? So how is it irrelevant to judge what that pedo did? No one says Be like the soundral Ravana while all muzzies want their sons to be like Muhammed. So how it is not fair to call that rapist pedophile just that? Isnt it true that Muhammed is the most popular first name in the whole fucking world. And isnt it what Haj is about- following the foodsteps of Muhammed the pedophile? And isnt this why the Islamic one night marriage to minor girls is justfied in Shias? And its relevant to the discussion?

And you want to stop criticism on the pedophile? really and You claim to be agnostic and secular and for FOE and what not? Hypocritic trash are not very good at hiding your ulterior motive of pan islamism are you?

And even if I am not correct, does it say a lot that you are trying to silence me and my right to freedom toc criticise? And has anyone asked you or stopped you from commenting on Castes?


Do anyone here try to wash away the ills of castes?

But no, your pedophile must be above criticism isnt he?

YOu are 100% taqqiya playing islamist snake. Let the readers decide afor themselves whether I am right or not

I WILL definitly reply you if the moderator feels that the language and words you used is all right and your intentions are good.


@Sakal Gharelu Ustad
 

Agnostic_Indian

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2010
Messages
930
Likes
243
Strawman argument Taqqiyawallah. I said moderates in Islam are actually extremists by any other religion's standards.
Lets see what you said.

1) As I already said, those muslims who are actually moderate have already left that barbaric ideology and are now ex muslims.

This what i orginally responded and asked is there not any moderate muslims left in islam ?

What you made is a fale statement and there is lakhs of moderate muslims if judged by other religious standards a moderate muslim is as good as a christian, hindu, jew or any other.


Then somwhere else is your another statement which you mentioned earlier.look at the filthy language you are using there.

2) he is a moderate filth himself bUt that is what moderate filth are about in Islam -taqqiya players who by any other religions standard will be extremist pigs but since we are dealing with a mental disease called Islam, they are taken as moderates though in reality they are just extremist filth pretending to be moderates.

Here you are calling me a filth
Calling moderate muslims as filth and extremist pigs.
Calling islam as a mental disease.
take you gfor instacne you are a moderate who doesnt want to criticise muhammed the pedophile and so are the thousands who claim to be moderates.

In Hindus, people who want to stop criticism of castes for instance are all hindu extremists who cant claim to be moderates. There you go, comparison side by side. Amir Khan, Sharuk etc are all the same.
1) you are blatantly repeating your abusive language as if you are challenging the moderators( unless the mods are ok with this language).
2) you wouldn't know the difference between criticising responsibily and in mature language and manner. Imagine a debate about hindu scriptures, tales and stories and opposition attributing various filthy names to the gods, godesses and other charectors as per the actions and practices described in the books.
And the lady who made the documentary is the kind who I said are ex-muslims or apostates. Truly moderate muzzies have already left that barbaric ideology. the ones left are the ones who play taqqiya like you
but she is not a ex muslim but a muslim.

What an idiot. Fundamentalism by defn or meaning refers to fundamentalist/unalterable/inalienable/unreasonable belif in a set of dogmas. Xtians have Biblical dogma and if they take it too seriously they are Xtian fundamentalists. So are the Muzzie.
That is not the only meaning of fundamentalim as we used today.

This is from wikipedia

Depending upon the context, Fundamentalism can be used as a pejorative rather than neutralcharacterization, similar to the ways in which referencing political perspectives as "right-wing" or "left-wing" can, for some, have negative connotations.[7][8]
Scholars identify several politically active Hindu movements (including the RSS,BJP and VHP) as part of the "Hindu fundamentalist family."[21]

A recent[when?] phenomenon in India has been the rise of Hindu fundamentalism, which has led to political mobilization against Muslims.[21][22][23]

You called me a Hindu fundamentalists. Now substantiate why? Which Book am I following dogmatically without reason or logic. go right ahead
Unless you are a atheist you are a follower of a dogma sine every hindu religious scripture is a dogma.
I also called you a religious fundamentalist because as i have experienced you have a been suppoting right wing ajenda, rejected secularim and suplotted hinduism to be promoted by by the state.
This is again one of the most favorite tactic of Islamist - saying their critics are also equally fundamentalists. No moron. Get it into your head -
critic is a aboad term and genuine critics use healthy language and temperament unlike you who is been using foul language under the pretext of criticising.

Secondly You are rightly saying that islamic fundamentalists accuse their critics as equally fundamental. But then you are falsily implying that islamic fundamentalists tatically accuse their critics as fundamentalists there for it can never be true..that's not the case ...other religious fundamentalists also criticise islamic fundamentalism while turning a blind eye towards there own fundamentalism and intolerance..you are one one them..and you are more of a abuser than a critic.

Me killing the dogs which try to kill me doesnt make me a murderer. I am just acting in self defence. My motivation to get rid of Islam and Muslims is because they are barbaric fundamentalists who are not compatable with modern nations/science/civilisation. Not because of my innate hatred. By labelling me just that, you are proving that you are just a closet islamist.
Once again logial fallacy. What you are saying is some of the muslims indulge in terrorism using a certain interpretation of koran and so there for all muslims are religious fundamentalists and terrorism supporters or terrorists..there is nothing called moderate muslim...or you don't care even if there is any..you want to get rid of them all....this is what i have called as religious fundamentalism, racism, extremism etc. My labels won't stick unless you validate and prove it with your posts..but unfortunately you have been providing more than enough sick posts to prove my point.

Again the same point which p[roves why people like you are as dangerous as the outright islamic filth. Atleast they can be spotted as real enemies quickly but not you. People like you give the necessary shiled for them to operate by shutting critics like us.


So, people who call islam for what it is are fundamentalists now? So , lets take the label of Islam. Lets see their beliefs and see it from a medical point of view- here are a bunch of people, who bielieve a 7th centruy code of laws is absolute and unchangeable, who think marrying adn raping a 9 yr old girlr is worthy of a messiah/prophet, who think everyone else, even those who dont follow that purest form of barbarity deserve to be subjugated and killed. What are they? In a medical view/noraml view, it is barbaric and mental disease. Not religion. And thus Islam is a mental religion . But me saying it out makes me a fundamentalist right? Of course it does, because you are closet islamist yourself playing taqqiyya


You are the one playing strawman. I said you spend more time against us defending this barbaric religion than talking against this barbaric religion. No matter how hard you try to deny it,it is apparant to anyone
We have had this debate and i have tried to explain it logically to you but all has gone above your head.
http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/threads/paris-terror-attack-13-11.73898/page-26#post-1102584
You are the one playing strawman all along.

Here also you are just making false statemets like
1) muhammad raped a 9 year girl,
2) some of the muslims belive that deviant believers of islam should be killed then you are falsely broadbrushing all muslims as a follower of such belief.

People can see though all of this smoke screen and crap you are posting.
 

Agnostic_Indian

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2010
Messages
930
Likes
243
Islam is not a race. It's a set of beliefs.

You are using oversimplified lies yourself.
This reminds me of the arguement sombody made that dictionary meaning of secularism is not seperation of religion and state but seperation of church and state.
 

maomao

Veteran Hunter of Maleecha
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2010
Messages
5,029
Likes
8,259
Country flag
All arguments are welcome!

However I have a question - what would be the race of an African Muslims and a white Albanian muslim. Islam?? NO - African and Caucasian respectively!! If dealt otherwise, then there are no races and races will be nothing but another form of Religion i.e a Black Christian will be of Christian Race and a Black Muslims will belong to Islamic race?? That's absolutely DUMB as an argument!!!

If the logic coined by devious Edward Said / Syed that anything against islam is racist, so that no White in the west can ever criticize islam and it's medieval subhuman practices is one of the biggest Sham propagated by the allies the islamists i.e. the leftists, to allow islamists to rule the roost and allow islamic expansion in the west!! However this sham of a tag-team between islamists and their left liberal allies has no takers now!!

Enough damage has been done already by propagating this BS that islam is a race - it's not - simply put it's arab imperialism MINUS grey matter!!
 
Last edited:

asingh10

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2015
Messages
1,785
Likes
3,449
2) you wouldn't know the difference between criticising responsibily and in mature language and manner. Imagine a debate about hindu scriptures, tales and stories and opposition attributing various filthy names to the gods, godesses and other charectors as per the actions and practices described in the books.
Here's Charvaka's criticism of Vedic Dharma in 600 BCE :-

"The three authors of the Vedas were buffoons, knaves, and demons. All the well-known formulae of the pandits, jarphari, turphari, etc. and all the obscene rites for the queen commanded in Aswamedha, these were invented by buffoons, and so all the various kinds of presents to the priests, while the eating of flesh was similarly commanded by night-prowling demons."

"There is no heaven, no final liberation, nor any soul in another
world, Nor do the actions of the four castes, orders, etc., produce any real
effect. The Agnihotra, the three Vedas, the ascetic s three staves, and smear
ing one s self with ashes, were made by Nature as the livelihood of those destitute of knowledge and manliness."

"While life remains let a man live happily, let him feed on ghee even though he runs in debt ;
When once the body becomes ashes, how can it ever return again ?
If he who departs from the body goes to another world,
How is it that he comes not back again, restless for love of his kindred ?
Hence it is only as a means of livelihood that Brahmans have established here
All these ceremonies for the dead, there is no other fruit any where."


And yet Madhavacharya included his vicious and pointed criticisms it in Sarvadarshan Samgraha.

https://archive.org/stream/thesarvadarsanas00madhuoft#page/n37/mode/2up

There is a long list of people who have criticized Hinduism, bashed Brahmins like anything and yet were able to spread their doctrines in India, infact many Brahmins themselves took up those doctrines. Indic tradition allows for criticism and debate. This is central to the Indic tradition. Plenty of Buddhist, Jain, Sikh polemics mocking Hindus for their stupidity. & vice versa from Hindu side to these traditions, see Dayananda Saraswati's Satyarth Prakash.

Are there any parallels like this in Islam ? Amir Khan made a mockery of Hinduism and Lord Shiva , yet he made 500 crores in that movie When he talked about intolerance, Hindus responded by boycotting snapdeal. Do Muslims take to the criticism of their religion lightly ? Remember the rioting and burning across the world over cartoons and the innocence movie ? In BD right now, critics of Islam are being hacked in broad day light. Happened in Charlie Hebdo. Something called as "blasphemy law" in Pakistan which is used to harass and convert minorities by putting false accusations on them. Look up Asiya bibi case or Salman Taseer who was killed for opposition to blasphemy law.

There is a strong theological basis in Islam for stopping all criticism. Look up the story of Asma Bint Marwan. There in lies your problem.
 

asingh10

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2015
Messages
1,785
Likes
3,449
All arguments are welcome!

However I have a question - what would be the race of an African Muslims and a white Albanian muslim. Islam?? NO - African and Caucasian respectively!! If dealt otherwise, then there are no races and races will be nothing but another form of Religion i.e a Black Christian will be of Christian Race and a Black Muslims will belong to Islamic race?? That's absolutely DUMB as an argument!!!

If the logic coined by devious Edward Said / Syed that anything against islam is racist, so that no White in the west can ever criticize islam and it's medieval subhuman practices is one of the biggest Sham propagated by the allies the islamists i.e. the leftists, to allow islamists to rule the roost and allow islamic expansion in the west!! However this sham of a tag-team between islamists and their left liberal allies has no takers now!!

Enough damage has been done already by propagating this BS that islam is a race - it's not - simply put it's arab imperialism MINUS grey matter!!
Imagine if people had said the same thing about Nazism. Criticizing Nazism is racism, moderate Nazi vs extreme Nazi, Nazism has salient points etc. Truth is these kind of bottom feeding, lying liberals do the most disservice to Muslims because biggest victims of Islamism and it's violence are Muslims themselves. Like Huntington said, " Islam is bloody within & bloody without ".

https://books.google.com/books?id=Iq75qmi3Og8C&pg=PA258&dq="Islam+has+bloody+borders."+The+Clash+of+Civilizations"&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjS8M2lntXJAhWEuYMKHSoNDDsQ6AEINTAE#v=onepage&q="Islam has bloody borders." &f=false

Blaming Wahabis etc is also either ignorance or typical apologist hoax. Pakistan is mostly Sufi even now. Over 70% barelvi. Shias and Ahmadiyyas both helped the Pakistan cause. Chechen Jihad is sufi. Aurangzeb was sufi. Sirhindi was sufi. Plenty of other e.g. There is a certain Sheikh Imran Hosein whose video was posted on DFI. This Sheikh from Trinidad claims to be a Sufi, criticizes Wahabis all the time for "literal interpretation" and yet believes in all kinds of crap conspiracies. Often cites the hadith where Jews will hide behind stones/trees and the stones will tell Muslims to come and kill the Jew. What secret conspiracy was there by West to fund Wahabism existed during violent jihads against India and other parts of the world since Islam's inception ? Invasions and conquest were the order of the day they say, but how many of these invasions were done by citing religious reason and with repeated propensity ? Countless pagan cultures have been destroyed by Islam in Africa and Asia. Is that Wahabi petro dollar funded ? Caliphates existed before ISIS too, starting with the Rashidun Caliphate in 632 AD all the way up to Ottoman which ended in 1922. No petrodollars in those days. Even the end time prophecies of Islam talk of conquests of Rome, Constantinople, Jerusalem, India. These hadiths are a matter of fact and not a concoction of Westerners/Jews.

By obfuscating these uncomfortable truths and blocking any chance of real reform, liberals actually give a free hand to Trumps ,Yogi Adityanaths and other far right lumpen elements. Then they wonder why "intolerance" is rising, well only if you were a bit honest about Islamism and didn't have double standards. Instead they come with crap like this to push Muslims back in 7th century :-

 
Last edited:

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top