A man exercises his right to free speech in UK park, Jews drink Christian blood.

Scroll to see replies

http://www.geopolitics.us/is-islam-a-religion-of-peace/

read this

How do you expect me to believe a western source and a US source for that matter? Especially considering the lies and government controlled media. It is not legitimate.

Reply 141

chemting

Original post by Oliver_94

I said of the likes of. Islam also peacefully colonised by spreading the word of God and stayed within the confines of the Middle East and North Africa

But it didn't... the Ottoman Empire wasn't "peacefully colonising" anything. They had non-Muslims as slaves... you could say the same about the Roman Empire

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_slave_trade

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 142

Reformed

Original post by Oliver_94

I said of the likes of. Islam also peacefully colonised by spreading the word of God and stayed within the confines of the Middle East and North Africa

how did it get into south asia and east africa? even in its progress over the middle east, it had to go to war with the natives, ie persians, syrians, berber civilisations all had to be conquered with the sword before the caliph could control all their lands

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 143

Oliver_94

Original post by Reformed

how did it get into south asia and east africa? even in its progress over the middle eat, it had to go toward with the natives, ie persians, syrians, berbers all had to be conquered with the sword before the caliph could control all their lands

I haven't got time to address your hateful opinions. I am actually in the process of creating TSR Islamophobic list...here is the notice:

"I am just writing to let you know you have been added to the TSR Islamophobic list for inciting hatred and insult to Islam and Muslims. A full copy of the list will be released on Friday and a copy will be sent to the moderators"

Reply 144

Reformed

Original post by Oliver_94

referring to the history of islamic conquest doesnt qualify as islamaphobia. i suppose it simply demonstrates your ignorance of history.

Reply 145

JamesN88

Original post by Oliver_94

I said of the likes of. Islam also peacefully colonised by spreading the word of God and stayed within the confines of the Middle East and North Africa

Peacefully colonised? Remained within the Middle-East and North Africa?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab%E2%80%93Byzantine_wars

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umayyad_conquest_of_Hispania

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tours

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine%E2%80%93Ottoman_Wars

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Vienna

About as peaceful as every other Empire in history including the recently(in relation to) disbanded British Empire.

I suggest you learn a bit of history.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 146

thunder_chunky

Original post by Oliver_94

I said of the likes of. Islam also peacefully colonised by spreading the word of God and stayed within the confines of the Middle East and North Africa

I realise you're a troll and probably someone's sock account, but there's no such thing as peaceful colonisation.

Reply 147

Frank Underwood

Original post by thunder_chunky

I realise you're a troll and probably someone's sock account, but there's no such thing as peaceful colonisation.

I suppose everyone who disagrees is a 'troll' or an 'apologist'.

Grow up, reality doesn't go away or change itself to your liking just because you can't see it.

Reply 148

thunder_chunky

Original post by Frank Underwood

I suppose everyone who disagrees is a 'troll' or an 'apologist'.

Grow up, reality doesn't go away or change itself to your liking just because you can't see it.

No, the way he acts and posts suggests that he's a troll, which exists to stir up. I've learnt to recognise those types over the years. You may too learn that trick when your a little older.

If you disagree with what I've said, feel free to disprove it.

Reply 149

Frank Underwood

Original post by thunder_chunky

This roughly translates to "yes I made an assumption based on my experience fighting internet trolls and trolling myself"

Reply 150

thunder_chunky

Original post by Frank Underwood

This roughly translates to "yes I made an assumption based on my experience fighting internet trolls and trolling myself"

To spot a troll one must become a troll. Come back when you have something useful to say junior.

Reply 151

Frank Underwood

Original post by thunder_chunky

To spot a troll one must become a troll. Come back when you have something useful to say junior.

And you class useful as relentlessly hating on a 1.5 millennia old religion? You're poking a dead jellyfish.

Reply 152

thunder_chunky

Original post by Frank Underwood

And you class useful as relentlessly hating on a 1.5 millennia old religion? You're poking a dead jellyfish.

A religion which exists today and which people use as a platform to justify violence. Now have you actually got anything constrictive to add?

Reply 153

Frank Underwood

Original post by thunder_chunky

A religion which exists today and which people use as a platform to justify violence. Now have you actually got anything constrictive to add?

A religion which consists of the vast majority as peaceful people who will never commit any violent actions, and a tiny fraction who commit violence in its name - who themselves contradict other sections of the Quran. You're criticising a religion because of the violent minority who follow it on a different wavelength to the majority of its followers, you should separate the active extremists from the rest of the community.

Reply 154

MrsSheldonCooper

Original post by Oliver_94

Islam does not have the blood on its hands of the likes of Christianity and Hinduism during their colonial eras?

You are honestly such a sad troll. I can't even get over it :laugh:

Reply 155

thunder_chunky

Original post by Frank Underwood

You seem to be having a hard time differentiating between criticising the scriptures of a religion and criticisms of the people who follow it. I do sometimes find fault with people who follow the religion because they buy into the BS, however it's safe to say my main gripe is with the religion itself. Namely, the written words.
You seem to be under the impression that a religion should not be criticised if the majority are peaceful. Well whether the majority are peaceful or not is a matter of opinion, but that still shouldn't stop valid criticism of the religion and it's teachings. Especially when the teachings are outdated and when many of them do involve segregation, violence and hostility.

I don't give a **** about this absurd victim complex you seem to be having on behalf of this religion. It's nonsense. Furthermore, it seems to be your tactic rather than facing up to any genuine criticism myself or anyone else seems to have.

Reply 156

Frank Underwood

Original post by thunder_chunky

I have no problem discriminating between the religion and its followers. You're hating on Islam, which is 1.5 millennia old. So there must be some kind of modern, 21st-century factor which is causing you to criticise such an old religion. That factor is terrorists and extremists. They claim to be the true supporters of Islam, and you're letting them brainwash you into criticising the religion - ISIS do not represent it, they might have 'Islamic' in their name, but any skim-read of the Quran would show you that they violate many of its teachings. They represent a warped version of Islam, to which 1.5 billion people do NOT subscribe to, but you attack all of Islam as if its the same thing. There are different interpretations even within Islam itself, and you criticise it as if its one singular thing - there are different interpretations, so attack the people promoting the violent, extremist interpretations and not the people who acknowledge the violence but ignore it for the sake of democracy and peace.

And the simple fact that the teachings are outdated mean that you should be careful criticising Islam. If you look back at what the world was like in the Middle East 1500 years ago, some of its things make more sense. Islam was a core ideology to the governments which existed back then, so fighting against apostates was fighting for society and everything you knew to be true. The Middle East has always been a desert, poor development, lack of connection with the rest of the world and prominent extremists have caused extreme measures by the religion of Islam and therefore by the government to tackle those who oppose Islam and therefore implicitly oppose the governments of the Middle East around 600 AD.

Don't get me wrong, I don't like religion. I think the world would be a better place tomorrow if all religions disappeared - but since that's not going to happen anytime soon, hating on a religion with so many followers is a waste of time. You're attacking Islam and therefore also annoying / aggravating its peaceful followers, when the extremists are the ones who need to be attacked. You can hate Islam all you want but it is never going to motivate Muslims to denounce extremists, because their anti-western rhetoric is fuelled by hatred for Islam, among other things.

Reply 157

cosmicstarbeast

The guy who was ranting got played so hard that it's not even funny. He was basically playing the role of a restricted animal jumping about for other people's amusement.

Reply 158

CUT THE BULL

Original post by cosmicstarbeast

The guy who was ranting got played so hard that it's not even funny. He was basically playing the role of a restricted animal jumping about for other people's amusement.

Exactly! Very well put! And it does not reflect well on the baiters.

Reply 159

thunder_chunky

Original post by Frank Underwood

QFA

I'll answer one specific paragraph which really stood out to me. The part at the end where you say:

"You're attacking Islam and therefore also annoying / aggravating its peaceful followers, when the extremists are the ones who need to be attacked. You can hate Islam all you want but it is never going to motivate Muslims to denounce extremists, because their anti-western rhetoric is fuelled by hatred for Islam, among other things."

There is a lot wrong with this paragraph.

Firstly, the fact that it may not change any time soon does not mean it shouldn't be criticised. Quite the opposite in fact. The fact that it isn't changing is precisely why it ought to be called out. Furthermore, if the text in the holy book hasn't changed in over 1.500 years, then it definitely ought to be called out. Any scriptures that is used as a justification or teaching, any scriptures that is used as a law, which is abided by, and which could be construed as outdated, deserves critique.

Secondly, if criticism of it annoys and aggravates them, then that's just too bad. If criticism of their religion causes them anger, then I think that's very telling about them and their beliefs. If criticism of it causes anger or aggravation of their moderate members, imagine how their less moderate followers react. I think you'll find they look for any excuse to justify their actions.
This is why I call you an an apologist. Because things like religions deserve criticism. And if/when a response to criticism is anger or aggravation, you blame the critics rather than those who defend said beliefs, then that is telling. You are trying to shame the critic, and silence the through shame, which is essentially also a form of appeasement.

You may not like criticism of their religion, but it is irrelevant whether the followers like it or not be they moderate or not. That should not make any difference whatsoever. Free speech is the right to say what you want without being stopped or limited, that applies to criticising religion too. Any religion.

If you are worried that criticism of Islam might make them angry or aggravated, then that says everything about them, because they would rather people don't criticise their religion whatsoever. They would prefer people stayed silent, and that simply won't do. That isn't how it works, that isn't how it ought to work.

If moderate Muslims want to denounce radical Islam, then it should be for a whole host of reasons. But if they are held back or reserved from doing so because someone dares to criticise their religion, they are idiots. Because they are letting their pathetic insecurities and attachments towards their religion get in the way of fighting radical Islam through which many people die every day or almost every day.
Criticism of the religion of Islam is valid, and if someone won't attack the radicals in their own religion because of a few criticisms, then they are pathetic idiots and they don't deserve a second thought. There are zero excuses for an attitude of that nature.
To think that such a belief is fair is entirely naive and counter productive, because you are blaming, shaming, and scapegoating the people who have legitimate issues with a religion, and blaming them for a religion which isn't progressing, rather than the religion itself and it's followers.